1

DRAFT 

RECOMMENDED INFORMATION NEEDS AND PROGRAM ELEMENTS FOR A PROPOSED 

AMP SOCIOECONOMIC PROGRAM 

SOCIOECONOMIC AD HOC GROUP 

JANUARY 23, 2012 

AMWG Charge to TWG (August 2010) 

The AMWG supports implementation of studies to further our understanding of the socioeconomics 

of adaptive management decisions within the GCDAMP; this includes and is not limited to market, 

non-market, and non-use studies. Thus, the AMWG directs TWG to further develop an economics 

implementation plan to be provided to AMWG at its next meeting for possible implementation 

starting in FY 2012. That implementation plan will 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 economics panel report. 

RECCOMENDATION 

The following Tables 1 and 2 contain the information needs and associated program elements developed 

by the SEAHG for consideration by the Technical Work Group which are responsive to the AMWG 

motion (above). The proposal does not incorporate any prioritization or specific application to managers 

or policymaker’s needs regarding how this information would be used to make recommendations. These 

recommendations could be addressed by GCMRC and the SEAHG during the next phase if the AMP and 

the Secretary would like to proceed with developing either part or all of this proposed program. Although 

this program would add considerable value to the AMP it would also come at a substantial cost and has 

implications to the needs of the LTEMP EIS being developed. There are numerous policy level issues 

which need to be addressed before the SEAHG can work with GCMRC to develop a socioeconomics 

program from this plan. 

A description of comments on the economics panel report and a crosswalk between the panel 

recommendations and direction taken in this implementation plan will be provided in a separate document 

in order to fulfill part (d) in the AMWG motion.

BACKGROUND 

 Economic values related to hydropower production under differing flow regimes have been 

developed by the Western Area Power Administration on a continued basis since development of the 

Adaptive Management Program (AMP). However, economic values related to other resources, although 

addressed in the 1995 GCD EIS process have since received minimal program attention. Although a 

broader socioeconomic science and management program emphasis has been discussed by the AMP and 
2

its operating entities (AMWG, GCMRC, TWG, Science Advisors), a formal program has not been 

developed and approved by the AMWG to date. 

In spring 2009, GCMRC proposed in their annual work plan to host a workshop to clarify 

socioeconomic interests of the GCDAMP. This effort involved prospectus development by the GCMRC, 

stakeholders, and SAs during the summer of 2009 and resulted in a two-day workshop in December, 2009 

that reviewed previous socioeconomic studies and their results and identified a suite of stakeholder 

questions: subsequently, a report was developed by a group of independent economists that included a 

list of recommendations to address the interests and issues identified by stakeholders during the 

December 2009 workshop (Hamilton and others, 2010). In August 2010, AMWG heard an oral report 

from the independent panel of economists and then charged the TWG to review the written report and 

develop their own socioeconomic program proposal that could be reviewed and evaluated by AMWG at 

their next meeting. This task was accomplished by forming a Socioeconomic Ad Hoc Group (SEAHG). 

An outline of elements of a Proposed Socioeconomic Plan, including draft information needs and 

program activities was developed by the SEAHG in January, 2011 as a “Table 3”. Information needs in 

that “Table 3” also drew upon earlier work of the Science Planning Group (SPG 2006) as well as 

development efforts by the GCMRC and TWG on the Core Monitoring Plan (GCMRC 2009). 

 At the February, 2011 AMWG meeting, AMWG members received a briefing from Shane Capron, 

the TWG chair about “Table 3”. At the same time, it was pointed out to AMWG that NPS was initiating 

a comprehensive study on the economic value of recreation on the Colorado River that would address 

several of the components identified in “Table 3”, potentially rendering some elements of the SEAHG’s 

plan redundant. Therefore, a new Survey Instrument Ad Hoc Group (SIAHG) was formed and charged to 

review the two survey instruments proposed for use by the National Park Service to evaluate economic 

values for recreation in the CRE. It was felt that the NPS ongoing recreation science and management 

surveys and assessments represented similar efforts, at least in part, to those being proposed in the AMP, 

and both programs might benefit from the interaction. The SIAHG provided recommendations to the 

NPS on several economic values being developed in the two surveys, including market, non-market and 

non-use values. The recommendations were proposed for consideration by the NPS and were also 

considered as potential information needs for the AMP. 

At the August, 2011 AMWG meeting, the TWG was charged by AMWG to continue refining “Table 

3” (see below as Table 2). The SEAHG approached this task by reviewing the existing socioeconomic 

information needs and determined if additional needs should be proposed in this area. The review did 

identify potential additional information needs to be considered by the AMP. 

In the fall of 2011 the SEAHG continued to review its past efforts and worked on developing a 

revised set of information needs and program elements for consideration by the TWG at its January, 2012 

meeting. 

The first task of the SEAHG was specification of a revised set of succinct socioeconomic information 

needs. This revised set of information then became the primary basis for establishing a required set of 

science and management activities, i.e. program elements to respond to these needs. The effort involved 

development of a progression of revised and improved Information Needs (INs) and program element 

revisions captured in power points from meetings on 11/2/11, 11/14/11 and 12/8/11. 
3

DEVELOPING RECOMMENDED SOCIOECONOMIC INS AND PROGRAM ELEMENTS 

 A SEAHG review of developed socioeconomic information needs by the SEAHG and SIAHG 

determined that significant duplication existed, and many information needs lacked clarity. In addition, 

there was a need to winnow extraneous information that addressed questions, protocol, process, methods, 

costs etc. The SEAHG proposes that this information is more adequately addressed once the TWG agrees 

to a set of information needs to pursue and specifies the program elements for addressing these needs. 

 As noted above, the December 2009 workshop first identified information needs in the form of a 

series of questions. The SEAHG subsequently translated those questions into a set of information needs. 

Significant duplication was reduced in earlier work on information needs. Without succinct statements on 

information needs, development of program elements to accomplish the individual needs becomes 

problematic. 

 In general, this effort of the SEAHG has resulted in a significant expansion of socioeconomic 

information needs recommended for consideration by the TWG. Several general areas of socioeconomic 

information needs were considered important to the stakeholder group, i.e. recreation, cultural, water, and 

power resources. In addition, a general information need category was also identified. For each area, 

three or more types of socioeconomic values are specified for development, including market, non-market 

and non-use values. The effort also became more focused on delineating clear distinctions among 

differing social and economic values being proposed for evaluation, a direction encouraged in the October 

TWG meeting. 

 The area of information needs that received greatest attention by the SEAHG was recreation. 

The area was the focus of an earlier effort by the SIAHG and was expanded by this SEAHG effort. 

Market, non-market, non-use, etc. evaluations of alternative management actions on recreation are now 

proposed for development. The diversity of recreation resources in both Glen Canyon and the Grand 

Canyon are proposed for evaluation, i.e. angling, boating, camping, hiking, wilderness values, etc. 

 Intra-regional market efficiency impacts of alternative dam operations have traditionally been the 

AMP focus in hydropower. This direction is modified in the SEAHG proposal with the new direction 

incorporating inter-regional impacts and assessments of total economic implications that incorporate 

market, non-market, non-use etc. values. 

 Evaluating implications of alternative GCD operation scenarios on associated values of water 

resources has not been an element of the AMP. The SEAHG is proposing that assessments be developed 

related to market, non-market, non-use and other values. 

 Determination of alternative dam operation impacts on various values of cultural resources is 

recommended by the SEAHG. Because cultural resources per se often do not enter the arena of market 

exchange, much of the need lies in determination of non-market, non-use, existence value etc. of impacts 

associated with operations changes. 

 The SEAHG also determined that a category of general information needs was important to 

capture both needs and program elements that are important to effective implementation of the proposed 

socioeconomic program. The general area could expand but currently incorporates an IN that addresses 

valuation needs in resource areas currently not defined by SEAHG. It also addresses the need of the AMP 
4

to continue to educate members on the meanings, benefits and costs, and utility of information from 

market, non-market, non-use, etc. evaluations being proposed for the program. It addresses as well the 

need for a workshop for specification of how information proposed for development might best be 

utilized by the AMP, in core monitoring and other areas. 

MORE COMPLETE EVALUATIONS OF RESOURCE ECONOMIC VALUES 

 In its deliberations, the SEAHG decided to propose that more complete economic values be 

evaluated for the identified resources of concern. This relates primarily to the fact that both market and 

non-market resource values of the CRE that may be impacted by alternative dam operations are not being 

completely accounted for in current AMP evaluations. Therefore, more comprehensive market and nonmarket economic resource values of concern to the AMP, including cultural values and sites, recreation, 

water quantity and quality, and hydropower are proposed for development in the socioeconomic program. 

The following brief overview highlights general characteristics of more complete economic evaluations. 

More specific definition of needed valuations to be pursued in individual resource areas would be 

developed in a general science and management plan proposed for 2012. 

 Market exchanges of goods and services of economic value has persisted for thousands of years 

as has societal methods and requirements for creating uniform economic basis for these exchanges. This 

has resulted in monetary systems and theories of the economy of these exchanges being applied globally 

in the last century. The most common existing theories of market exchange relates to scarcity and the 

free or quasi-free interaction of supply of goods and services by producers and demand for these supplies 

by consumers. The agreed upon price for the exchanges is determined to reflect the market value of the 

good or service. The theoretical and practical performance of this system in existing societies uses 

different forms of money as the uniform basis to define the actual market value. 

 Market values of exchange of goods and services, although they reflect individual consumption 

measures, may not reflect the total economic value of the good or service to society. Goods and services 

not normally exchanged in the market and even those which are exchanged and do have established 

market values may also have non-market values. Included are many natural resources that society values 

and provides to the public. Examples include goods and services provided by governments as public 

goods. These are desired, accessed and benefited by the public, and often with minimal or no market 

exchanges. They are generally provided through taxation or minimal fee structures established exogenous 

to the market system. Examples in the CRE are rafting and recreational fishing, camping and hiking, 

tours of archeological sites. 

 Although market exchanges (fees) occur for some public goods and services, the prices paid are 

not established by the free market mechanism and often are assumed to be less than the true economic 

value of the resource. That is, even though some market exchange occurs, additional non-market value in 

the form of consumer surplus would normally exist at higher prices consumers would be willing to pay. 

Even exchange fees established for water and power resources in the CRE may not express the true 

economic value of these resources. Additional non-market value may also exist in the form of consumer 

surplus. 

 Current proposed assessments of varied flow and non-flow management alternatives for Glen 

Canyon Dam and the CRE and the resulting marginal changes to market and non-market values of 
5

recreation, cultural, hydropower, water and other resource values, presents a classic example of the need 

for complete economic valuation of this large social investment. In many assessments of this type 

evaluation of impacts utilize cost/benefit or other economic analyses which attempt to express change in 

total economic value of goods and services in monetary terms. 

 Several different forms of economic non-market values have been defined for assessment 

purposes as are methodologies for deriving these values. Generally in science, management and legal 

applications two general types of non-market values have had significant application, revealed preference 

and stated preference approaches. 

 The first approach, revealed preference, studies actual revealed behavior on closely related 

markets to define the non-market value of a good or service. Two widely used methods for determining 

revealed preference are the hedonic pricing and travel cost methods. The revealed preference approach 

has a strong attribute in that it utilizes actual choices and market transactions to derive non-market values. 

A weakness is its use of only current and past levels of the non-market values. It also cannot be used to 

evaluate passive or non-use values such as existence values. 

 A second approach, stated preference, has received greater use in the past thirty years because it 

can be used to develop willingness to pay values over a range of conditions, including expected or 

proposed future conditions. It also can be used to develop non-use values including existence, altruistic 

and bequest values. The approach utilizes surveys to define individuals stated behavior under 

hypothetical conditions and settings. Development of actual willingness to pay values has involved 

several methodologies including conjoint analysis, contingent valuation, and choice experiments. 

Contingent valuation methods have had greatest application. 

 Greater specification of where and how market, non-market, non-use evaluations may be applied 

in the socioeconomic program will depend upon what information needs and program elements proposed 

by SEAHG are recommended by the TWG for further assessment. Once proposed information needs and 

program elements are recommended for evaluation, a Socioeconomic Program Plan can be developed. 

 Important to all proposed market and non-market economic assessments is the context in which 

these assessments will be eventually applied. The direction of the AMP in pursuit of goals outlined in the 

GCPA is to evaluate impacts of alternative dam operations and other management actions proposed on 

resources of the CRE (e.g., water, recreation, cultural, power). Before one can effectively ascertain the 

impacts of these alternative actions on the economic value of the resources, it may be necessary 

(depending on the methods of economic evaluation that are eventually employed) to first determine with 

some measure of certainty the biological, social or physical impact of the actions. The AMP is expending 

resources to improve the certainty of these impacts to varied resources, but significant uncertainty still 

exists. Without knowing these impacts with reasonable certainty, the additional step of defining marginal 

economic impacts is difficult. 

DEFINING PROPOSED SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION NEEDS AND PROGRAM 

ELEMENTS 

The following Table 1 contains the information needs and associated program elements 

developed by the SEAHG for consideration by the Technical Work Group. 
6

Table 1: Proposed Information Needs and Program Elements 

PROPOSED SEAHG INS PROPOSED PROGRAM ELEMENTS 

Recreation Information Needs 

RIN 1.What are the total market, non-market, and 

non-use values for the following recreational uses of 

the Colorado River Ecosystem downstream from Glen 

Canyon Dam, including pre-rod and post-rod demand 

and economic assessments 

 Glen Canyon boating and walk-in trout fishery 

and related components 

 Glen Canyon recreational boating industry 

 CRE day hiking and overnight camping 

 Grand Canyon Private and commercial rafting 

operations including Native American 

enterprises 

Conduct recreation expenditure analysis of 

Lees Ferry anglers and boaters, and Grand 

Canyon boaters. 

(Note: Some of this may be covered by the 

NPS economic study being carried out by 

University of Montana in 2012) 

Initiate and conduct recreation non-market and 

non-use assessments 

(Note: Some aspects of this program element 

may be covered by the NPS economic study.) 

RIN2. Define and value key attributes and key 

benefits that affect the Grand Canyon wilderness and 

Glen Canyon recreation experiences 

 How do they affect market values for these 

different CRE recreation activities? 

 How do they affect non-market for these 

different CRE recreation activities? 

 How do they differ under alternative flow 

regimes and events such as HFEs, low steady 

flows and other experiments? 

 How do they differ under alternative 

management actions? 

Conduct focus groups and pilot non-market 

surveys 

Conduct full non-market value surveys 

Tribal Information Needs 

CRIN1. What are the market, non-market and non-use 

values for CRE resources valued by tribes as affected 

by dam operations? 

 

Scoping; identify tribes for specific surveys. 

Determine if separate tribal studies are 

needed. 

Conduct tribal market, non market, non-use 

scoping and value assessments 
7

Hydropower Information Needs 

HIN1. What are the impacts to federal hydropower 

customers from implementation of Record of Decision 

dam operations and various other flow regimes and 

segregate those effects from other causes such as 

changes in the power market. 

HIN2. What would be the market impacts on 

marketable capacity and energy of: 

 Increasing the daily fluctuation limit 

 Increasing up-ramp and down-ramp limits 

 Raising maximum power plant flow limit 

above 25,000 cfs 

 Lowering the minimum flow limit below 

5,000 cfs 

HIN3. What are the total market, non-market and nonuse impacts on upper and lower basin water users 

from proposed alternative dam operations? 

HIN4. What are the socioeconomic impacts of Glen 

Canyon Dam operations and experiments to tribal 

communities, including market, non-market and nonuse? 

HIN5.What are the market, non-market and non-use 

values associated with Glen Canyon electrical power, 

and determine these values. 

HIN6. What are the market, non-market and non-use 

values associated with water released through Glen 

Canyon Dam, and determine these values. 

 

Define GCD operational base cases and change 

cases. Base cases proposed: MLFF and preROD. 

 

WAPA will conduct base case analysis with 

GT Max and analyze spillover effect with 

WECC. 

Develop market, non-market and non-use 

values for power and water resources 

General Information Needs 

GIN1. What are merits of market non-market, nonuse, and existence values being proposed for 

development ( i.e., reliability of information gained, 

costs, area of proposed use in program, etc). 

IN 2. Define how socioeconomic research information 

should be used by AMP 

GIN3. Determine methods to assist more real-time 

assessments of resource impacts of alternative 

management activities. 

GIN4. Evaluate, as needed, market, non-market, and 

non-use values for other resources also found to have 

Develop workshop to inform TWG/AMWG 

of various socioeconomic information types 

and their utility. 

(Note: some of this work completed during 

previous workshops) 

Conduct workshop on appropriate 

socioeconomic research information use. 

Develop real time model capability to 

evaluate biophysical and socioeconomic 

resource impacts and tradeoffs under 
8

impacts from dam operations and deemed important to 

the AMP 

differing flow and non-flow alternatives. 

Develop general program capability to 

evaluate market, non-market and non-use 

values for resource impacts not yet defined 

by the AMP 
9

PROPOSED SOCIOECONOMIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

The following Table 2 contains the implementation plan requested by AMWG. It is a further refinement of the previou

presented to TWG and AMWG at numerous meetings. 

Table 2. Proposed Socioeconomic Plan for FY2012-2016, as recommended by the TWG Socioeconomic Ad Hoc Group (SEAHG). 

ROW 

# 

Proposed Study/Activity Information Needs Description of Activity 

FY 2013

1 Conduct workshop to inform 

TWG/AMWG of various socioeconomic information types and their utility. Make a recommendation on appropriate socioeconomic research information use within the AMP. Cost: TBD Time: FY 2012 

GIN 1. What are merits of market nonmarket, non-use and existence. values being proposed for development, i.e., reliability of information gained, costs, area of proposed use in program.. GIN 2. Define how socioeconomic research information should be used by AMP 

The socioeconomics panel recommended that GValues 101 workshop to help TWG & AMWG uand value of this type of study for informing futu2011, TWG and GCMRC held a basic introductirationales underlying socioeconomic studies in gterminology, and to provide an overview of how analyses (market, non-market, non-use studies) athe resulting data could be interpreted. This proptier off that effort and delve more deeply into hoapplied to AMP decisions. One result of the worecommendation on how the AMWG, DOI, and the recommended socioeconomic data in the diffprocesses such as NEPA analysis, adaptive manabenefit-cost analysis. 

2 Define GCD operational base 

cases and change cases. Base cases proposed: MLFF and pre-ROD Cost: TBD Time: FY 2012 

HIN 1. What are the impacts to federal hydropower customers from implementation of Record of Decision (ROD) dam operations and various other flow regimes and segregate those effects from other causes such as changes in the power market.

This task addresses the fundamental need to defi“standard”) against which proposed changes in Gevaluated in the future. The panel recommended operational scenario that reflects current (MLFFcase needs to define monthly volumes, hourly (ooutputs, amount of peak and off-peak power prodisagreement of what the base case should reflecMLFF. We recommend developing two base cascurrent MLFF operations and pre-ROD. 

3 Power modeling: conduct the 

base case analysis and initial 

HIN 1. What are the impacts to federal hydropower customers from 

Implement the report recommendation to complefor hydroelectric operations in FY 2012. The det
10

ROW 

# 

Proposed Study/Activity Information Needs Description of Activity 

power modeling using currently available models and test “spill over” effects with the WECC. Workplan: HYD 12.R2.12Cost: TBD Time: FY 2012 WECC = Western Electrical Coordinating Council (i.e., western grid). 

implementation of Record of Decision dam operations and various other flow regimes and segregate those effects from other causes such as changes in the power market.

HIN 2. What would be the market impacts on marketable capacity and energy of: 

 Increasing the daily fluctuation 

limit Increasing up-ramp and down-ramp limits 

 Raising maximum power plant 

flow limit above 25,000 cfs 

 Lowering the minimum flow limit 

below 5,000 cfs

base case study will be prepared by GCMRC, wand any additional specifications by the TWG/Astudy will also include an analysis of "spill overbase case and spill over analysis will be completreport prepared at no cost to the AMP. The reporWAPA to GCMRC for peer review. GCMRC wreview process and use the Science Advisors as incorporate changes into the report based on compeer review process. If WAPA’s power flow models demonstrate chaborder of WAPA’s system, or at interconnection systems, then a more extensive modeling effort mfor changes in four indicators throughout the WEtransmission, reliability, and hub prices). 

FY 2013 

4 Non-use values workshop to 

incorporate review of the 1994 Non-Use Value Survey and update the questionnaire. Cost: $0 Time: FY 2013 

HIN 3. What are the total market, nonmarket and non-use impacts on upper and lower basin water users from proposed alternative dam operations? HIN 4. What are the socioeconomic impacts of Glen Canyon Dam operations and experiments to tribal communities, including market, non-market and nonuse? HIN 5. What are the market, non-market and non-use values associated with Glen 

Canyon electrical power, and determine these values. 

A new non-use value study is needed to properly associated with Grand Canyon, and potential impfrom dam operations. The focus would be on valtribes and the broader American public that are nuse or consumption for their value. Data on tribaas part of this study depending on the outcome oinvestigations. Preparing for this study will take therefore the panel recommended that GCMRC early for a future non-use value study, taking inthave occurred in the canyon and to dam operatioStep #1 – discussion and review of old questionnno additional cost to the AMP. However, TWG ithis be accomplished in a workshop format to inreview of non-use economics. 
11

ROW 

# 

Proposed Study/Activity Information Needs Description of Activity 

HIN 6. What are the market, non-market and non-use values associated with water released through Glen Canyon Dam, and determine these values. RIN 1. What are the total market, nonmarket, and non-use values for the following recreational uses of the Colorado River Ecosystem downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, including pre-ROD and post-ROD demand and economic assessments: 

 Glen Canyon boating and walk-in 

trout fishery and related components 

 Glen Canyon recreational boating 

industry 

 CRE day hiking and overnight 

camping 

 Grand Canyon private and 

commercial rafting operations including Native American enterprises 

RIN 2. Define and value key attributes and key benefits that affect the Grand Canyon wilderness and Glen Canyon recreation experiences: 

 How do they affect market values 

for these different CRE recreation activities 

 How do they affect non-market 

and non-use values for these different CRE recreation activities 

 How do they differ under 
12

ROW 

# 

Proposed Study/Activity Information Needs Description of Activity 

alternative flow regimes and events such as HFEs, low steadyfFlows and other experiments 

 How do they differ under 

alternative management actions

5 Scoping activity: identify 

tribes for specific surveys of preferences and attitudes and determine if separate tribal studies are needed. Cost: $5,000 Time: FY 2013 

CRIN 1. What are the market, non-market and non-use values for CRE resources valued by tribes as affected by dam operations?

There is a need to better integrate tribal values in This task is intended as a scoping activity to deteshould be assessed and then integrated into AMP Future activities per the panel’s recommendationthey are placeholders if scoping finds that a sepaspecifically address tribal preferences and valuesshould fully include the tribes and any similar prinvolved in (such as the surveys currently being Tribe as part of their monitoring project). 

6 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 (Non-Market): initiate development of survey instrument for recreation nonmarket use analysis and obtain OMB clearances. Cost: $150,000 - $200,000 

RIN 1. What are the total market, nonmarket, and non-use values for the following recreational uses of the Colorado River Ecosystem downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, including pre-ROD and post-ROD demand and economic assessments: 

 Glen Canyon boating and walk-in 

trout fishery and related components 

 Glen Canyon recreational boating 

industry 

 CRE day hiking and overnight 

camping 

 Grand Canyon private and 

commercial rafting operations including Native American enterprises 

The panel proposed that GCMRC undertake socfocused on recreational values that include both use values for specific river reaches. While the peconomics of scale could be had by gathering remarket and non market aspects at the same time, decision. Market data are easier to gather and caData on recreational consumer surplus (preferensurvey design and additional input from stakehoexpenditure data could be gathered and analyzed survey instrument is being developed The regional economic effects of GCD experimeactions will be analyzed. This analysis would be the regional economy as a result of changes in exfrom these actions. The groups of interest for this study would be Grafters and anglers and Grand Canyon Whitewatand private boaters) from Lees Ferry to Diamond and the Hualapai white water recreational enterpDiamond Creek to Lake Mead. This expenditure IMPLAN regional input-output model to estimat
13

ROW 

# 

Proposed Study/Activity Information Needs Description of Activity 

Time: FY 2013-2014 impacts to the surrounding counties and Indian R

direct and indirect personal income and employmeffects would capture the multiplier effects from spending in the surrounding region. Separate intand the tribes will be needed to obtain their expethe guiding, access fees, food, and other costs. Weconomic impact analysis use two impact areas. past research, it would be appropriate to use the Grand Canyon. However, since many outfitters hoperation in Nevada or Salt Lake City, it would results using a broader multi-state economic imp16) (Note: Some aspects of this program element m

NPS economic study.) 

7 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 2013 

HIN 1. What are the impacts to federal hydropower customers from implementation of Record of Decision dam operations and various other flow regimes and segregate those effects from other causes such as changes in the power market.HIN 2. What would be the market impacts on marketable capacity and energy of: 

 Increasing the daily fluctuation 

limit Increasing up-ramp and down-ramp limits 

 Raising maximum power plant 

flow limit above 25,000 cfs 

 Lowering the minimum flow limit 

below 5,000 cfs 

This task would evaluate economic outcomes frooperations in relation to the base case. TWG/AMdefine what “change cases” they want to analyze initiated (see task above). Determine if this will LTEMP process or external to that process. 
14

ROW 

# 

Proposed Study/Activity Information Needs Description of Activity 

8 [Contingent upon power 

modeling in FY 2012] 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 2012. Cost: TBD Time: FY 2013 WECC = Western Electrical Coordinating Council (i.e., western grid). 

HIN 1. What are the impacts to federal hydropower customers from implementation of Record of Decision dam operations and various other flow regimes and segregate those effects from other causes such as changes in the power market.HIN 2. What would be the market impacts on marketable capacity and energy of: 

 Increasing the daily fluctuation 

limit Increasing up-ramp and down-ramp limits 

 Raising maximum power plant 

flow limit above 25,000 cfs 

 Lowering the minimum flow limit 

below 5,000 cfs 

This project will be informed by power modelin20121 to determine “spill over” effects to the WThe panel believed there was a need to more fullchanges in GCD operations may affect the larger thus influencing power market values. The need on the WECC would be assessed in step 1 under 2012 and 2013. During FY2012, information genmodeling effort would be used to develop budgebeyond, once a determination is made about the scope of economic effects and whether the expananalysis is deemed necessary to influence GCDAIf determined that WAPA’s models are not suffiover” effects, GCMRC should solicit outside conWECC analyses using models that are appropriathese tasks are needed, GCMRC should enlist addevelop the RFQs for the power modeling work 

FY2014

9 Recreation Use Analysis 

Continues: Part B (Non-Market): 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 2014-2015 

RIN 1. What are the total market, nonmarket, and non-use values for the following recreational uses of the Colorado River Ecosystem downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, including pre-ROD and post-ROD demand and economic assessments: 

 Glen Canyon boating and walk-in 

trout fishery and related components 

 Glen Canyon recreational boating 

industry 

 CRE day hiking and overnight 

GCMRC should undertake socioeconomic studierecreational values that include both market and 

for specific river reaches. In FY 2013, work wouphase of this project implementing the non-markThis recommendation combines areas from Glen in order to maximize efficiency in developing suThe intent of the non-market use work is to deterof the resource to recreation users beyond the simanalysis under the market use analysis (above). T“willingness to pay” for changes in resource conAMP in determining economic consequences of overall changes in benefits. For example, changeincrease the value of power but might have a negthe overall benefits to recreational visitors or othanalysis would put dollar amounts on those chan
15

ROW 

# 

Proposed Study/Activity Information Needs Description of Activity 

camping 

 Grand Canyon private and 

commercial rafting operations including Native American enterprises 

RIN 2. Define and value key attributes and key benefits that affect the Grand Canyon wilderness and Glen Canyon recreation experiences: 

 How do they affect market values 

for these different CRE recreation activities? 

 How do they affect non-market 

and non-use values for these different CRE recreation activities? 

 How do they differ under 

differing flow regimes and events such as HFEs, Low Steady Flows and other experiments? 

 How do they differ under 

differing management actions? 

an economic analysis to be performed on GCDA(Note: Some aspects of this program element m

NPS economic study.) 

10 [Contingent on scoping results 

FY 2013]

Prepare surveys of tribal preferences and social values. The analysis could include consideration of both use and non-use values and include sociology and socioeconomics. 

CRIN 1. What are the market, non-market and non-use values for CRE resources valued by tribes as affected by dam operations?

This activity is dependent on the outcome of the 2013. Although it is important to consider tribal making it is unclear whether these values require whether these values could be adequately considnon-use tasks described elsewhere in this plan. Iresearch program incorporates tribal values so thincorporate those values in a meaningful way. A program needs to recognize not only the economsocial impacts on the tribes that result from chanSocioeconomic impacts to Tribes may suggest b
16

ROW 

# 

Proposed Study/Activity Information Needs Description of Activity 

Cost: $40,000 Time: FY 2014 

constraints that should be considered as changes contemplated. Information to be covered in this attitudinal questions about preferences and impaTribal representatives would be invited to particiand testing of the survey. 

11 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 Time: FY 2014 

RIN 1. What are the total market, nonmarket, and non-use values for the following recreational uses of the Colorado River Ecosystem downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, including pre-ROD and post-ROD demand and economic assessments: 

 Glen Canyon boating and walk-in 

trout fishery and related components 

 Glen Canyon recreational boating 

industry 

 CRE day hiking and overnight 

camping 

 Grand Canyon private and 

commercial rafting operations including Native American enterprises 

HIN 3. What are the total market, nonmarket and non-use impacts on upper and lower basin water users from proposed alternative dam operations? HIN 4. What are the socioeconomic impacts of Glen Canyon Dam operations and experiments to tribal communities, including market, non-market and nonuse? 
17

ROW 

# 

Proposed Study/Activity Information Needs Description of Activity 

HIN 5. What are the market, non-market and non-use values associated with Glen Canyon electrical power, and determine these values. HIN 6. What is the market, non-market and non-use values associated with water released through Glen Canyon Dam, and determine these values. RIN 2. Define and value key attributes and key benefits that affect the Grand Canyon wilderness and Glen Canyon recreation experiences: 

 How do they affect market values 

for these different CRE recreation activities 

 How do they affect non-market 

and non-use values for these different CRE recreation activities 

 How do they differ under 

differing flow regimes and events such as HFEs, low steady flows and other experiments 

 How do they differ under 

differing management actions 

FY2015

12 [Contingent on scoping results 

FY 2013] Conduct tribal market, nonmarket, non-use scoping and value assessments. 

CRIN 1. What are the market, non-market and non-use values for CRE resources valued by tribes as affected by dam operations? 

A socioeconomic research program for GCMRC only the socioeconomic impacts but also the socthat result from changes in dam operations. Condpreferences and social values potentially affected 
18

ROW 

# 

Proposed Study/Activity Information Needs Description of Activity 

Cost: $100,000 Time: FY 2015-2016 

13 Conduct focus groups and 

piloting of Non-Use Value survey, and initiate OMB clearance for full survey implementation. Cost: $200,000 Time: FY 2015 

HIN 3. What are the total market, nonmarket and non-use impacts on upper and lower basin water users from proposed alternative dam operations? HIN 4. What are the socioeconomic impacts of Glen Canyon Dam operations and experiments to tribal communities, including market, non-market and nonuse? HIN 5. What are the market, non-market and non-use values associated with Glen 

Canyon electrical power, and determine these values. HIN 6. What is the market, non-market and non-use values associated with water released through Glen Canyon Dam, and determine these values. RIN 2. Define and value key attributes and key benefits that affect the Grand Canyon wilderness and Glen Canyon recreation experiences: 

 How do they affect market values 

for these different CRE recreation activities? 

 How do they affect non-market 

and non-use values for these 

The panel recommended that GCMRC start to pvalue study to be ready for actual implementatioare part of the preparatory phase preceding implesurvey. 
19

ROW 

# 

Proposed Study/Activity Information Needs Description of Activity 

different CRE recreation activities? 

 How do they differ under 

differing flow regimes and events such as HFEs, Low Steady Flows and other experiments? 

 How do they differ under 

differing management actions? 

14 Develop "real-time decisionmaking spreadsheet" for 

power impacts and benefits. Cost: $50,000 - $100,000 Time: FY 2014- 

GIN 3. Determine methods to assist more real time assessments of resource impacts of alternative management activities. GIN 4. Evaluate, as needed, market, nonmarket, and non-use values for other resources also found to have impacts from dam operations and deemed important to the AMP 

To the extent that repeated analyses of power marequired as part of the future decision-making it ease the calculations by developing a simplified embodied in a spreadsheet, linking changes withto impacts on prices and capacity requirements wGTMax Lite model may be applicable to develoadequate testing is done in tasks above. Develop general program capability to evaluate non-use values for resource impacts not yet defin

FY2016

15 Conduct full non-use value 

survey. Cost: $500,000 Time: FY 2015-2016 

HIN 3. What are the total market, nonmarket and non-use impacts on upper and lower basin water users from proposed alternative dam operations? HIN 4. What are the socioeconomic impacts of Glen Canyon Dam operations and experiments to tribal communities, including market, non-market and nonuse? HIN 5. What are the market, non-market and non-use values associated with Glen 

Canyon electrical power, and determine these values. 

By 2015, it will have been 20 years since the Wewas conducted. Much has changed including the in the Grand Canyon and the demographics of thespecially in the Four Corners Region. As recomResearch Council in its report “Downstream”, thquite important to understanding the public benemanagement strategies in the Grand Canyon. By changes to the environment to the non-use value or marginal nonuse values can be estimated that evaluating potential management actions in the G
20

ROW 

# 

Proposed Study/Activity Information Needs Description of Activity 

HIN 6. What is the market, non-market and non-use values associated with water released through Glen Canyon Dam, and determine these values. RIN 2. Define and value key attributes and key benefits that affect the Grand Canyon wilderness and Glen Canyon recreation experiences: 

 How do they affect market values 

for these different CRE recreation activities? 

 How do they affect non-market 

and non-use values for these different CRE recreation activities? 

 How do they differ under 

differing flow regimes and events such as HFEs, Low Steady Flows and other experiments? 

 How do they differ under 

differing management actions? 

16 Implement Core Monitoring 

Plan for Socioeconomics. Cost: TBD 

Develop Core Monitoring Information Needs (CMINs) 

The panel recommends that socioeconomic survyears as a monitoring tool to assess how changes affect recreational values. This should be integraMonitoring Plan. A placeholder for socioeconominitial General Core Monitoring Plan. 
SEAHG MEETING TO DEVELOP AM

SOCIOECONOMIC PROGRAM

1

FINAL SEAHG DRAFT SE INFORMATION 

AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TW

TECHNICAL WORK GROUP MEETIN

FEBRUARY 2, 2012

PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Charge to SEAHG

 Complete 1st draft of socioeconomic INs by 9/15

i d f ih i b

2

 Review draft INs with TWG in October, 2011 Prepare final draft list of SE INs by 10/31/2011; (11/2/2011 SEAHG mtg.) Prepare draft list of SE INs and program elemen

11/31/2011 (11/14/2011 SEAHG mtg.) 

 12/2/2011 SEAHG final review of draft SE progr

elements related to INs (12/8/2011 SEAHG mtg

 1/23/2012 SEAHG release of draft SE INs and 

implementation plan to TWG

 2/2/2012: SEAHG discussion of proposed draft 

program elements, costs, methods, etc., with TWreview and approval
SEAHG Members

 Cliff Barrett Shane Capron Jerry Lee Co

x

 Helen Fairley Leslie James Don Ostle

r

 Clayton Palmer David Slick Jason Thiriot Dave Garrett; Co-Chair David Harpman; Co-Chair Jan Balsom McClain Peterson Nik li o

a

Ramse

y

 Jerry Myers Ted Kowalski John Jordan
 SEAHG development of Table 3 ( Draft INs an

program elements, 1/31/10)

 SIAHG development of New Recreational IN

(7/31/11)

 SEAHG development of New Hydropower INs (9/30/11) Multiple draft SEAHG PPTs/reports on INs and 

Elements for TWG and SEAHG mtgs. held 10/211/2/11, 11/14/11, 2/8/11,1/20/12
 SE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION F

AMWG

 CONDUCT NON-MARKET/NON-USE 

VALUATION WORKSHOP FOR AMP

 EVALUATING SE INFORMATION 

EFFECTIVENESS AND AREAS OF USE BY 

 EVALUATING PRIORITIES FOR INFORMA

DEVELOPMENT BASED ON SPECIFIC CRITERIA, I.E. TIMING OF NEEDS, COSTUTILITY TO AMP ETC UTILITY TO AMP, ETC.
 Row: 1

 Activity: Workshops on assessing 

proposed socioeconomic informatmerits and use in AMP Decisions

 Cost: TBD IN: GIN 1&2. Evaluate merits of 

proposed SE Info and areas of use AMP
 Row 2

 Activity: Define parameters and proc

for operational Base Case and ChanCase Analyses for Hydropower; PropoBase Cases, MLFF and pre-ROD 

 Cost: TBD IN: HIN 1: Define potential hydropow

customer impacts of ROD and other operations, segregating out other imsuch as changes in the power marke
 R 3 ow

 Activity: Develop modeling and analysis 

app 

roaches to conduct Base Case and 

over analyses

 Cost: TBD IN: HIN 1 & 2: Develop modeling and An

approaches to determine power customimpacts of proposed flow operations. Approach to Specify impacts to marketcapacity and energy of increasing daily fluctuations and up and down ramp limraising maximum flow limit above 25,000 minimum below 5,000
 Row 4

 Activity: Non-use workshop with up

to 1994 Non-use survey and questionnaire.

 Cost: $0 IN: GIN 1 & 2. Conduct for the AM

non-market/non-use values workshIncorporate guidance to approacCRIN 1, HIN 3-6 and RIN 1-2. 
 Row 5

 Activity: Scoping only: Identify tribes 

study needs for specific preference aattitude surveys; evaluate focus grou

 Cost: $5,000 IN: CRIN 1. Initial scoping to define 

preferences/social values to address market/non-market values for resourcvalued by tribes and affected by dam operations
 R 6 ow

 Activity: Complete analysis of recreation 

expenditures in CRE and the Diamond Creek Mead reach (Part A Market) and initiate recMead reach (Part A, Market), and initiate recsurvey instrument development for non-markassessments (Part B, Non-Market). Initiate watpower non-market surve

y p instrument develo

p

 Cost: $150-$200 K IN: RIN 1; HIN 3-6. Develop market, non-mar

non-use recreational values for CRE and reacLake Mead including all boating, fishing, hikincamping and related tourism components. Dmarket, non-market, non-use values for watepower.
 R 7 ow

 Activity: Conduct pre-defined economic mo

and analysis procedures with specified paramdetermine hydropower impacts of specified 

case and change case flow operations

 Cost: TBD IN: HIN1& 2 Define hydropower customer im

IN: HIN1& 2. Define hydropower customer imROD and other flow operations. Specify impamarketable capacity and energy of increasinfluctuations and u

pp

 and down ram

p limits an

maximum flow limit above 25,000 CFS and mbelow 5,000 CFS.
 R 8 ow

 Activity: Upon completion of power ana

() y FY 2012/2013) conduct WECC anal

ysis a

other needed economic analysis to evainter-regional customer hydropower imp

 Cos : t TBD IN: HIN 1&2. Define hydropower custom

impacts of ROD and other specified flow operations Specify impacts to marketaoperations. Specify impacts to marketacapacity and energy of increasing fluctuations and up and down ramp limraising maximum flow limit above 25,000 and minimum below 5,ooo CFS. 
 R 9 ow

 Activity: Complete non-market survey assessments fo

evaluating specified recreational non-market values frto Lake Mead (Part B, Non-Market Studies). Complete wat d ter and power non-mark t l t k

et value assessmen

ts.

 Cost: $150-$200K IN: RIN 1& 2 and HIN 3-6: Assumes initiation and partial 

com

p 

letion of market value assessments of RIN 1 in 201

initiation and partial completion of HIN 1 & 2. Conducmarket /non-use and value assessments of recreation wilderness resources in CRE and to Lake Mead. Define key attributes and benefits affecting Grand Canyon wand Gl C ti i i h d 

d Glen Canyon recreation experiences, i.e. how d

o 

affect market, non-market, and non-use values for diffactivities and how do they differ under differing flow reand events and differing management actions. Condmarket and non

-use valuations for hydropower and wa

resources as related to specified AMP goals and progr
 Row 10

 Activity: Develop OMB clearance an

survey instruments that assess tribal vaffected under differing dam operatAssumes comp p gp j letion of scoping projewith tribes on preferences and social 

 Cost: $40,000 IN: CRIN 1: Define market, non-mark

non-use values for CRE tribal resourceaffected by dam operations 
 Row 11

 Activity: Complete OMB clearanc

pil to non-use h d l f f survey schedules for fgroup use in recreation, water and hydropower non-use value assessm

 Cost: $20,000 IN: RIN 1& 2; HIN 3 4 5 &6 Develop IN: RIN 1& 2; HIN 3,4,5 &6. Develop 

market, non-market, non-use valuerecreation, water and hy p dro ower resources.
 Row 12

 Activity: Conduct market, non-ma

non-use value assessments of resouvalued by tribes

 Cost: $100,000 IN: CRIN 1: Define market, non-ma

non-use values for CRE resources vby tribes as affected by dam oper
 Row 13

 Activity: Pilot recreation, water an

hydropower non-use surveys with fgroups, revise and initiate OMB clearance for survey implementati

 Cost: $200,000 IN: RIN 1&2, HIN 3-6. Define recrea

water and hydropower non-use vafor CRE affected by dam operatio
 R 14 ow

 Develop real time decision support 

spreadsheet for all defined resource impacts from alternative managemeactions

 Cost: $50-$100K IN: GIN 3 & 4. Determine methods to 

more real time assessments of resourcimpacts of alternative management activities and evaluate as needed otmarket, non-market and non-use resoimpacts as defined in the future. 
 Row 15

 Activity: Conduct full non-use valu

surveys for recreation, water and hydropower

 Cost: $500,000 IN: RIN 1&2 and HIN 3-6. Define no

market/non-use values impacted bdam operations for recreation, waand hydropower resources. 
 Row 16

 Activity: Implement Core Monitorin

Plan for Socioeconomics

 Cost: TBD IN: Develop Core Monitoring Inform

Needs ( ) CMINS