My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP02878
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP02878
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:47:25 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:24:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.101.09B
Description
Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powell
State
AZ
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
10/1/1996
Author
US General Accountin
Title
An Assessment of the Environmental Impact Statement on the Operations of the Glen Canyon Dam - Executive Summary
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
EIS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Executtve Summary <br /> <br />Principal Findings <br /> <br />Impact Determinations Are <br />Usable for <br />Decision-Making <br /> <br />In preparing the environmental impact statement, Reclamation used a <br />variety of methodologies and data sources to study the impact of the <br />various dam flow alternatives on hydropower, non-use values and other <br />resources located below the dam, Generally, GAD found the methodologies <br />used to be reasonable and appropriate, For example, the power analysis <br />was conducted by a committee of specialists representing the federal <br />government, the utility industry, private contractors, and the <br />environmental community, This committee used utility-specific data and <br />state-of-the-art simulation models to estimate the economic impact of the <br />alternative dam flows on large regional utilities. <br /> <br />In assessing Reclamation's implementation of the various methodologies, <br />GAD did note several shortcomings and controversy over the methodology <br />used to estimate non-use values, For example, in the hydropower analysis, <br />Reclamation's assumptions do not explicitly include the mitigating effect <br />of higher electricity prices on electricity demand (price elasticity). GAD <br />also found that Reclamation's assumptions about future natural gas prices <br />were relatively high and that two computational errors were made during <br />the third phase of the power analysis. These limitations suggest that the <br />estimated economic impacts for power are subject to uncertainty, <br />However, Reclamation and many experts associated with the process do <br />not believe that these limitations make the results of the analysis unusable, <br />For example, an association that represents the affected power utilities, <br />which has maintained throughout the power studies process that the <br />impact statement understates the costs to the power system, does not <br />believe that Reclamation's cost estimate is understated by a large <br />magnitude, To quantify the impact of various dam flow alternatives on <br />recreation and non-use value, Reclamation used a methodology called <br />contingent valuation, The use of contingent valuation studies, which rely <br />on surveys to elicit information from consumers to estimate how much <br />they would be willing to pay for something is controversial. Although <br />contingent valuation is currently the only known approach for estimating <br />non-use values, some prominent economists question whether this <br />methodology can accurately elicit the value consumers place on non-use <br />goods, However, many economists and survey researchers working in the <br />natural resource and environmental areas have developed and used this <br />methodology. Although these shortcomings affect the estimates for the <br /> <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />GAOIRCED-97-12 Glen Canyon Dam's Environmentallmpact Statement <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.