Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br /> <br />May 2003 <br /> <br />\) ~ ~/~ <br /> <br />Summary of Results from GCDAMP TWG <br />Multi-Attribute Evaluation Workshop <br /> <br />Phoenix (May 28, 2003) <br /> <br />Lee Failing <br />Josh Korman <br />Carl Walters <br /> <br />1.0 Background and Purpose <br /> <br />This project was initiated as a result of a desire by the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management <br />Program (GCDAMP) to develop quantitative targets for key resources against which the success <br />of management actions and experiments could be evaluated. After preliminary scoping, the <br />project team' concluded that the existence of trade-offs among key resource endpoints meant <br />that a single-attribute approach to target setting would be inappropriate. The project team <br />proposed that GCDAMP develop instead a multi-attribute trade-off analysis (MATA) that would <br />serve as a framework for evaluating management options. In February 2003, the Technical <br />Working Group (TWG) of the GCDAMP agreed to participate in a workshop to develop and test a <br />multi-attribute evaluation framework. The objectives of the workshop were: <br /> <br />Gain an understanding of interactions among key resource endpoints <br />~ Expose key trade-offs and uncertainties <br />Gain experience with some structured methods for exposing values and preferences <br />Identify refinements to endpoints, attributes, options and modeling/estimation methods <br />Identify preliminary .area). of agreement and disagreement <br />.s -/0 /e.:/,.. w.~;e. po-- <br /> <br />In preparation for the workshop, the project team developed a draft evaluation framework, <br />consisting of a small set of endpoints (resource outcomes of concern) and attributes <br />(quantitative metrics for assessing the impact of the management options on the endpoints). A <br />preliminary set of management options was defined. A consequence table summarizing the <br />expected impact of the options on the endpoints was prepared using existing information, <br />models and expert judgment. <br /> <br />2.0 Endpoints and Attributes <br /> <br />The draft endpoints and attributes were refined with input from participating TWG members <br />(Table 1), Additions or changes included: <br />combining sand deposition for camping beaches and archaeological sites into a single <br />attribute (previously separated) <br />addition of long term beach sustainability as an attribute <br />removal of attribute for rainbow trout below Lees Ferry <br />addition of boating safety and accessibility (as affected by water level fluctuations) <br />modification of the calculation of the power/financial attribute so that power impacts <br />include both revenue implications and the cost of purchasing capacity. <br /> <br />Due to time limitations, the latter two changes were not incorporated into the pilot, but are <br />noted for future analysis. <br /> <br />I The project team is headed by Ecometric Research from Vancouver, British Columbia. Team members <br />include Josh Korman of Ecometric, Or. Carl WaLters of University of British CoLumbia, and Lee Failing of <br />Compass Resource Management. <br /> <br />GCDAMP MATA Pilot: <br />May 2003 Workshop Report <br />