INCLUDES TWG COMMENTS: 1/3/2011 

Table 1. Socioeconomic Projects identified in the February 26, 2010 “Final Report of the GCMRC Socioeconomic Research Review P

Proposed Study/Activity Questions 

Addressed 

Proposed Use by AMP (Expert Panel Perspective) TW

Socioeconomic research overall and its application to GCDAMP decisionmaking. Cost: TBD 

J, F How will the market, non-market use and nonuse values be integrated 

into policy analysis? The Panel recommended that the DOI Office of Policy Analysis and/or DOE and/or WAPA develop a policy position paper 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. Resolving these questions of how market, non-market use and nonuse values should be integrated into Grand Canyon policy formulation would address questions J and F raised at the December Socioeconomics workshop. 

CREDA: At question is rresults of all used in the Gmaking procthat this shoufirst questionmust not waanswers befoeconomic imdecisions. 

FY2010 

Staffing. Cost: TBD 

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 will 

also be needed to help interpret study results and to outline the implications of these results for agency policy. Additional resource economics staff will 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. 

Norm: incluexpert panel 

1 
Proposed Study/Activity Questions 

Addressed 

Proposed Use by AMP (Expert Panel Perspective) TW

Define GCD operational base case and change cases. Cost: TBD 

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. Base case 

needs to define monthly volumes, hourly (or even within hourly) outputs, amount of peak and off-peak power production, etc. The panel also recommended studies related to the financial effects of changes to GCD operation and distributive effects. 

CREDA: Threcommendethey acknowCREDA recconditions bpost-ROD wgap, with the Jerry: Selectscenario wilgreat variatiowithin the Mseems to be compared to maf. 

Solicit firms for WECC analysis and conduct initial power modeling using currently available models. Cost: TBD WECC = Western Electrical Coordinating Council (i.e., western grid). 

The expert panel recommended that GCMRC analyze how different types of CRSP operations may or may not “spill over” into the WECC. They viewed the analysis of potential “spill- over effects” between the CRSP and WECC, using an appropriate model, as a necessary first step to properly evaluate power value and potential replacement costs associated with future changes in GCD operations. The Panel recommend that WAPA’s existing power flow models be used to analyze the expected effects of changes in generation at Glen Canyon Dam, including effects on (a) generation (federal or non-federal) within the WAPA system, (b) loadings on transmission lines, (c) ability to meet reliability criteria, and (d) spot market prices at the Palo Verde Hub. These effects should be estimated for a near-term year (e.g., 2012) and a long-term year (e.g., 2020), because in the long-run more changes can 

typically be made via investments that could mitigate any short-term effects. 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 will be required, to check for changes in the above four indicators (generation, transmission, 

CREDA: Shcapacity impgenerating crelevant met“system” meThe marginathe WECC imeasure to dfor operationthere is no “wide. Generregional, contransmission as a whole is Capacity canPV hub, and “always avareflect the coinappropriatof GCD powto the WECC 

2 
Proposed Study/Activity Questions 

Addressed 

Proposed Use by AMP (Expert Panel Perspective) TW

reliability, and hub prices) throughout the WECC. 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 additional expertise to develop the RFQs for the power modeling work. 

operationally market. Jerry: worksthe GT Max 10.R2.11-12 suitability of purpose 

FY2011 

Non Use Values 101 educational workshop. Cost: $15,000 

C, G, N, Q, T 

The panel recommended that GCMRC host a Non Use Values 101 class to help TWG & AMWG understand the relevance and value of this type of study for informing future AMP decision making. This workshop would provide AMP stakeholders with a basic introduction to the concepts and rationales underlying non-use value studies, clarify terminology, and provide an overview of how this analysis is conducted and how the resulting data could be to interpreted and applied to inform 

AMP decisions. 

CREDA strorecommendaad hoc group training. ( seCapron) Jerry: A moroutlines diffmarket ,and needed. Addwebinars /coadded as nee

Power Modeling: initiate base case analysis. Cost: TBD 

I, W, S This task would define the parameters of an MLFF base case scenario 

and then analyze its economic implications. The base case will provide the foundation against which economic projections of alternative GCD operations would be compared in the future. Determine what “changes” to this base case will be analyzed. 1) Model WAPA’s system with changes in GCD ops, 2) Check flow gates between WAPA and rest of WECC under different operational scenarios, 3) Establish framework for economic and financial analyses. 

CREDA: Seselection of the base case

3 
Proposed Study/Activity Questions 

Addressed 

Proposed Use by AMP (Expert Panel Perspective) TW

Recreation: initiate recreation surveys of Glen Canyon anglers and dayuse rafters. Cost: =$50,000 - $100,000 

B, W, A, O, L, G, C,R 

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. The panel maintained that it is the benefits to recreational value in a broad sense, rather than just regional income (as reflected in a typical market analysis) that are important for the AMP to measure. They proposed that the first study focus on angling and rafting use of the Glen Canyon reach. 

WAPA: The recreation exwell as the nrecreation. Tincluded sevto avoid an imarket analyWhile the paeconomics ogathering recmarket and nsame time, tdecision. We that market dand can be aGarrett calls analysis the the other hanconsumer surequire a proadditional ingroups. We expenditure analyzed whinstrument is Jerry: -- reviews by PEP, and the have been crunderstandinto user value--previous stRichards(19

4 
Proposed Study/Activity Questions 

Addressed 

Proposed Use by AMP (Expert Panel Perspective) TW

Review 1994 Non Use Value Survey and update the questionnaire. Cost: $0 

T, Q, G, C, N 

The panel maintained that 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 ops. The focus would on values that are important to tribes and the American public that are not dependent on human use or consumption for their value. Preparing for this study will take considerable time; therefore the panel recommended that GCMRC and TWG start planning now 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. 

CREDA: Resurveys, how who are not fishing/raftinRegarding nby the Hualaworkshop, hto-pay surveeliminate all respondent (spiritual, etcvalue for non electric gene

Identify tribes for specific surveys of preferences and attitudes. Cost: $5,000 

O, L, R, B The expert panel heard from the Tribes that there is a need to integrate 

tribal values in AMP decision making. Tribal surveys should start to address this need by more clearly defining what those values are and by determining how best to measure them and how changes in GCD operations may affect tribal values. The panel recommended that GCMRC start to plan for future tribal surveys in Phase I and implement them in Phase II. 

WAPA: Whrecommendeinformation American athow this fits analyzing of and how it mmakers regaoperation of separate the from the ecoconsider the recommendagathering daattitudes and program. 

FY2012

5 
Proposed Study/Activity Questions 

Addressed 

Proposed Use by AMP (Expert Panel Perspective) TW

Conduct power flow studies that show the financial and economic consequences of GCD management alternatives on WAPA, WAPA customers and the Upper Basin Fund. Cost: TBD 

I, W, S 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. 

Recreation surveys continue, now covering white water users including Diamond Creek to Mead rafters. Cost: $100-150,000 

B, W, A, O, L, G, C, R 

Same rationale as for Glen Canyon recreational analysis, except that the focus of this study would be on the recreational uses downstream of Lees Ferry. Like the previous study, the proposed analyses would address both market and non-market values, so that the costs or benefits to recreation could be fully evaluated. 

CREDA: Horeaches deteDFC procesJerry: --reviews by PEP, and the critical of thby the progrvalues --there is a neffects of diftrip attributethat effect thexperiences --non river ris not unders

Prepare surveys of tribal preferences and attitudes. Cost: $40,000 

O, L, R, B A socioeconomic research program for GCMRC needs to recognize not 

only the economic impacts but also the social impacts on the Tribes that result from changes in dam operations. The Tribal social impacts may 

suggest both opportunities and constraints that should be considered as changes in river operations are contemplated. Information to be covered in this survey should include attitudinal questions and impacts of flow regimes. Tribal representatives should be invited to participate in the development and testing of the survey. 

6 
Proposed Study/Activity Questions 

Addressed 

Proposed Use by AMP (Expert Panel Perspective) TW

Conduct focus groups and piloting of Non-Use Value survey, and initiate OMB clearance. Cost: $200,000 

T, Q, G, C, N 

The panel recommended that GCMRC start to plan for a future non-use value study during Phase I, to be ready for actual implementation in Phase II. These FY12 tasks would be part of the preparatory phase 

preceding implementation of the actual survey. 

FY2013

If needed: expand power flow studies to include the financial and economic consequences of Glen Canyon management alternatives for the entire WECC. Cost: TBD 

M, U, V, W The panel believed there was a need to more fully analyze how proposed 

changes in GCD opertations 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. 

CREDA: Se“the market”most likely wWECC. 

Conduct tribal surveys. Cost: $60,000 

O, L, R, B A socioeconomic research program for GCMRC needs to recognize not 

only the economic impacts but also the social impacts on the Tribes that result from changes in dam operations. 

Conduct full non-use value survey. Cost: $500,000 

T, Q, G, C, N 

It is now almost 15 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. 

Recreation surveys continue, repeating the coverage of Glen Canyon and day-use. Cost: $150,000 

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. 

CREDA: Hosynthesize dwill results favailable pristarted? 

FY2014

7 
8 

Proposed Study/Activity Questions 

Addressed 

Proposed Use by AMP (Expert Panel Perspective) TW

Develop "real-time decision-making spreadsheet." Cost: $50,000 - $100,000 

To the extent that repeated analyses of power market impacts are required as part of the future decision-making it may well be possible to ease the calculations by developing a simplified response-surface model, 

embodied in a spreadsheet, linking changes within the CRSP service area to impacts on prices and capacity requirements within WECC. 

Recreation surveys continue, repeating coverage of white water users. Cost: $150,000 

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. 
Table 2. Polling results from a TWG December 2009 Socioeconomics workshop. Workshop participants 

developed the following list of questions that they felt needed to be resolved in order to inform AMP decision 

making in the future. These questions were subsequently evaluated by the TWG members in terms of their 

perceived importance and the most appropriate time frame for addressing them (Phase 1 or Phase 2). The results 

of this exercise informed the expert panel’s recommended list of socioeconomic activities to be pursued by the 

AMP over the next few years. 

9 
 

Scatter Diagram 

Importance and Timing of Socioeconomic Questions 

Official TWG Members – December 2, 2009 

Critical

Important

Somewhat

Not very

10 

Phase 1 

(Next 5 years)

Not at all

Phase 2 

(After next 5 years)