Page 1 of 6

Information Needs and Program Elements for the AMP 

Socioeconomic Program 

April 21, 2015 

Introduction 

The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive management Work Group (AMWG) at their August 2010 meeting directed the 

TWG to further develop an economics implementation plan that includes the following elements: 

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 

d) A more thorough review of the economics panel report 

The Socioeconomic Ad Hoc Group (SEAHG) reviewed existing socioeconomic information needs and identified 

potential additional information needs for the GCDAMP. A revised set of specified succinct socioeconomic 

information needs have now been identified as the program elements; the primary basis for establishing a required 

set of science and management activities. This document specifies whether market or non-market (both direct and 

passive use) evaluations are applied to these information needs and identifies current status of the information 

need and the responsible party. 

Background and History 

2009 December – GCMRC hosts a workshop and independent review of the GCDAMP socioeconomics program. 

An independent panel after hearing TWG members discuss their needs for economic information, formulates a 

plan for addressing these information needs over the next 5-10 years resulting in two documents. A summary of 

the facilitated discussion about GCDAMP socioeconomic needs and a report from the independent panel with 

recommendations on how to address the needs over a 5 and a 10 year timeframe. 

2010 February – AMWG requests that TWG review the report and bring recommendations back to AMWG at 

their next meeting. Socioeconomic Ad Hoc Group (SEAHG) is formed. 

2010 August – AMWG directs the TWG to further develop an economics implementation plan that includes the 

following elements: 

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 

d) A more thorough review of the economics panel report 

2010 Fall – 2011 (winter spring) – After several meetings and much deliberation, SEAHG proposes to take a 

more linear approach starting with an evaluation of market based recreation and hydropower use values and then 

preceding to non-market use and non-use studies at a future date. 

2011 March – GCMRC hosts the “Economics 101” workshop. SEAHG presents a socioeconomic plan to the 

TWG which includes activities such as staffing GCMRC with resource economics expertise, Economics 101 
Information Needs and Program Elements for the AMP Socioeconomic Program

  

Page 2 of 6

workshop, power modeling, non-use studies, and recreation use analysis studies among others. NPS announces 

plans to conduct comprehensive economic studies related to visitor use ab on-use values for all NOS units along 

the Colorado River. 

2011 May – AMWG recommends formation of the SIAHG (Survey Instrument Ad Hoc Group) to specifically 

examine the NPS study plan and determine how it could be modified to address information needs of the 

GCDAMP. 

2011 (Summer) – 2011 (Winter/Spring) - SEAHG continues to refine a plan for a socioeconomics program. 

February 2012 – AMWG passes a motion requesting the Secretary’s designee to transmit the revised SEAHG 

report to the Secretary and requests the Secretary to advise the AMWG regarding elements of the proposed 

socioeconomic implementation plan. The following motion was passed: “AMWG recommends the SEAHG report 

to the Secretary of the Interior for consideration. “After consideration by the Secretary and guidance from him 

regarding the role of the program in implementing socioeconomics studies, the AMWG directs the TWG to work 

with GCMRC to develop a work plan for this program.” AMWG further directs TWG to, through the SEAHG, 

continue to provide, develop, and recommend information to the TWG regarding implementation of the 

socioeconomic program, including costs and timing of the program elements; and work with AMP stakeholders 

who will be conducting socioeconomic analyses in other forms to enhance collaboration to fulfill Information 

Needs.. 

April 30, 2012 – Directive from Secretary Ken Salazar asking the interagency team to communicate to the 

AMWG, the specific studies and activities that are being prioritized for utilization as a part of the LTEMP, and 

directs the TWG to identify information needs and research priorities not addressed through the LTEMP process 

so that GCMRC can refine and develop a work plan. 

August 15, 2012 – LTEMP co-leads identify socioeconomic studies that are a part of the LTEMP EIS effort. 

In an August 2012 letter to the TWG Chair, the Glen Canyon Dam Long Term Experimental and Management 

Plan (LTEMP) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) team responded to a directional memo dated April 30, 

2012 from the Secretary of Interior to reply to SEAHG regarding its proposed list of socioeconomic studies 

(Table 2) from its February 2012 recommendation to the Secretary. The letter clarified activities that were being 

undertaken as a part of the LTEMP EIS and those that remained to be pursued by the AMWG or GCMRC. 

TWG ACTIVITIES 

Through 2013 and 2014, four aspects of economic analysis have moved forward through the LTEMP EIS process: 

(a) a regional economic impact analysis under Argonne National Laboratories (ANL), (b) an economic analysis 

that looks at the net value of recreation lead by Dr. David Harpman, Bureau of Reclamation, (c) an economic 

analysis of hydropower analysis at ANL, and (d) a non-use value survey lead by Dr. Bruce Peacock, National 

Park Service. A socioeconomics program that includes recreation, tribal and decision analysis, led by Mr. Lucas 

Bair, GCMRC has been included into the FY 2015-17 Triennial Work Plan (TWP). At its October 2014 meeting, 

the TWG reinitiated the SEAHG and recognized Leslie James as the new Chair. The SEAHG is currently 

evaluating and updating the current activities and status of Table 1 & 2. 

 
Information Needs and Program Elements 

SEAHG INS PROGRAM ELEMENTS ONGOING RE

(added by GCMRC 12/1

Recreation Information NeedsRIN 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 

*It is assumed that ‘total market’ refers to regional expenditures by recreationist in the Colorado River Ecosystem (CRE) – GCRMC 12/16/2014.

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 nonmarket and non-use assessments (Note: Some aspects of this program element may be covered by the NPS economic study.) 

GCMRC is leading Projecwhich will update estimat(‘total market’) and non-mvalues of recreational angand whitewater floating in the research by Bishop et Project 13.1 will not updaexpenditures (‘total markeeconomic values for commwhitewater floating below launching at Diamond CrEcosystem (CRE) day hikThe LTEMP EIS recreatioindexed Bishop et al. (198of alternatives in the EIS economic values. The LTanalysis will not update thresults. The Bureau of Reanalysis. The LTEMP EIS regional indexed per capita expend

to estimate impacts of alterecreational expenditureseconomic analysis will noliterature. Argonne Nationanalysis. The NPS is leading a “Toestimate non-market econAmerican public for Gran(OMB Control Number 1estimate passive use (non
Information Needs and Program Elements for the AMP Socioeconomic Program

  

riparian resource (e.g., befish). While “total use valvalue, the emphasis is to eeconomic values only. Thbe used in the LTEMP EI

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 nonmarket surveys Conduct full non-market value surveys 

GCMRC is leading Projecwhich will identify how acrowding, and safety) affeGCD and whitewater floa

of the research by Bishop allow for inference to be mand non-market direct use Project 13.1 will not inclucommercial or private GCbelow GCD, whitewater fCreek, or CRE day hiking 

Tribal Information NeedsCRIN1. What are the market*, non-market and non-use values for CRE resources valued by tribes as affected by dam operations? * It is assumed that ‘market’ refers to regional expenditures from ‘activities’ in the CRE. – added by GCRMC 12/1/2014.

Scoping; identify tribes for specific surveys. Determine if separate tribal studies are needed. Conduct tribal market, non-market, non-use scoping and value assessments 

GCMRC is leading Projecwith planned implementa13.2 will, through survey preferences for and non-muse, economic values of Coperations. Tribal non-market direct uin GCNRA below GCD aGCNP will be included in TWP. No Tribal specific regionarecreation expenditure) re

Hydropower Information NeedsHIN1. 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 

Define GCD operational base cases and change cases. Base cases proposed: MLFF and pre-ROD. 

HIN1: The LTEMP EIS weconomic impact and impalternatives in the EIS. Arleading this effort. 
Information Needs and Program Elements for the AMP Socioeconomic Program

  

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 non-use 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 non-use? HIN5.What are the market, non-market and nonuse values associated with Glen Canyon electrical power, and determine these values. HIN6. What are the market, non-market and nonuse values associated with water released through Glen Canyon Dam, and determine these values. 

WAPA will conduct base case analysis with GT Max and analyze spillover effect with WECC. Develop market, non-market and nonuse values for power and water resources 

Peer reviewed analysis (Aand report has been compthe ROD (post ROD final 

planned. HIN2: As part of the LTELaboratory will conduct a economic impact analysis Changes in energy prices each EIS alternative will baddress operational changincluded in the LTEMP Eanalysis is planned. HIN4: GCMRC is leading TWP, with planned impleProject 13.2 may, through non-market direct use and of CRE resources affected hydropower. No research is proposed oeconomic impacts from chto Glen Canyon Dam opeHIN5: The LTEMP EIS wregional economic impact economic impacts from aNational Laboratory is leaHIN3/HIN6: The Universresearch to estimate the nhydropower generated at market and non –market vA literature search and theindicating that not only mexist, has been prepared a
Information Needs and Program Elements for the AMP Socioeconomic Program

  

complete. 

General Information NeedsGIN1. 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.). GIN 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 impacts from dam operations and deemed important to the AMP 

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 differing flow and non-flow alternatives. Develop general program capability to evaluate market, non-market and nonuse values for resource impacts not yet defined by the AMP 

GIN1: A discussion of the studies will be part of the GIN2: GCMRC, in coordidentify opportunities to ppractical application of someetings and other venueGIN3: GCMRC is leading TWP which will develop evaluate biophysical and economic impacts and tranon-flow alternatives. GIN4: GCRMC will pursAMP, additional economiimpacts from dam operati
1

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group (T

April 21-22, 2015 

SOCIOECONOMIC AD HOC 

GROUP (SEAHG) UPDATE
Background and Recent SEAHG Act

 Info Needs/Program Elements Approved by AMWG February 23,  Secretary Salazar Approval and Direction to SEAHG to Identify IN

Research Priorities Not Addressed in LTEMP – April 30, 2012

 SEAHG Reactivated at October 2014 TWG Meeting Conference Call – November 13, 2014 – R&C Table 1 Conference Call – December 16, 2014 – NPS Presentation on Tota

Values for the LTEMP EIS

 Table 1 Draft Distributed January 9, 2015 and February 6, 2015  Update at AMWG Meeting (Table 1 Distributed) – February 26, 20 Table 1 Redistributed to SEAHG - March 31, 2015/Conf Call April 

2
RECREATION INFORMATION NE

3

 Project 13.1 – Recreational Expenditures and 

Market Direct Use Values and Tribal Non-MDirect Use Values (Recreational Angling /Whitewater Floating in GLCA and GCNP) –GCMRC

 LTEMP EIS Recreational Economics (Non-M

Direct Use) – Reclamation

 LTEMP EIS Regional Economics – Argonne Total Use Value Survey Value (Beaches, Nati

Native Fish) – NPS
TRIBAL INFORMATION NEED

4

 Project 13.2 (Tribal Preferences Through Sur
HYDROPOWER INFORMATION NE

5

 LTEMP EIS Power System and Rate Payer Im

Argonne

 Post-ROD Analysis – Argonne (COMPLETE Project 13.2 (Tribal Non-Use Values Associa

Hydropower) – GCMRC

 Market and Non-Market Value of Hydropow

Water – University of Oklahoma
GENERAL INFORMATION NEE

6

 Discussion of Reliability of Non-Use Studies 

(Part of Total Use Value Study)

 Opportunities to Present Socioeconomic Info

– SEAHG/GCMRC

 Project 13.3 – Modeling Capabilities to Evalu

Impacts and Tradeoffs/Decision Support ToGCMRC

 AMWG-Directed Additional Economic Evalu

Dam Operations - GCMRC 
CONCLUSION

7

 The TWG has reviewed the Information Nee

Program Elements of the AMP socioeconomprogram as updated 2/6/15 and presented to on 2/26/15. The TWG recommends that the and GCMRC a) continue to provide, develop recommend information to the TWG on implementation of the AMP socioeconomic pincluding status, costs and timing of the progelements, b) work with AMP stakeholders anmay be conducting socioeconomic analyses iforums, to enhance collaboration on AMP socioeconomic program information.
SEAHG MEMBERS

8

 Bill Stewart <bstewart@azgfd.gov>; Bruce Peacock <bruce_peacock@nps.gov>;  Capron, Shane (Capron@WAPA.GOV);  Chris Hughes <chris_hughes@nps.gov>;  Cliff Barrett <cibarre@q.com>;  Dave Slick <dave.slick@srpnet.com>;  Don Ostler <dostler@ucrcommission.com>;  Helen Fairley <hfairley@usgs.gov>;  Jan Balsom <jan_balsom@nps.gov>;  Jason Thiriot (jasthiriot@crc.nv.gov);  Jenika Raub <Jenika.Raub@srpnet.com>;  Jerry Cox <jerryleecox@durango.net>;
SEAHG MEMBERS

9

 Jerry Myers <GMyers12@msn.com>; John Jordan (jcjordan1@cox.net);  Kevin Dahl <kdahl@npca.org>;  Leslie James <creda@creda.cc>;  Lucas Bair <lbair@usgs.gov>;  Martha Hahn <martha_hahn@nps.gov>;  Palmer, Clayton (CSPALMER@WAPA.GOV); Scott Vanderkooi <svanderkooi@usgs.gov>;  Ted Kowalski (ted.kowalski@state.co.us) Vineetha Kartha (vkartha@azwater.gov)