Using Multi-criteria Decision Analysis to Explore Management Options in the Grand Canyon

Transcription

1 Using Multi-criteria Decision Analysis to Explore Management Options in the Grand Canyon Michael C. Runge, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Kirk E. LaGory, Argonne National Laboratory Kendra Russell, Bureau of Reclamation Janet R. Balsom, National Park Service Robert P. Billerbeck, National Park Service Glen W. Knowles, Bureau of Reclamation NCER 2016, Coral Springs, FL 20 April 2016, Session 20 Decision Analysis in Support of Ecosystem Restoration Projects

2 Photo credit: M.C. Runge, Used with permission

3 Glen Canyon Dam Glen Canyon Dam and Bridge by Adbar. Licensed under CC BY-SA

4 Dam Operations Long-term Experimental & Management Plan (LTEMP) A 20-year plan for operations of Glen Canyon Dam, and related activities Will replace the 1996 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision Draft EIS published in January 2016 Developed jointly by Bureau of Reclamation and National Park Service With input from a large number of Cooperating Agencies, Tribes, and other stakeholders

5 LCR Map credit: Thomas Gushue, U.S. Geological Survey. Public domain.

6 Humpback Chub Photo credit: Amy S. Martin Photography. Used with permission. 6

7 Permissions: Humpback chub, George Andrejko, public domain; Glen Canyon Dam, Bureau of Reclamation, public domain; Fly fishing rods, troutster.com, CC BY 3.0; Dark Sky, Bob Wick, BLM, CC BY 2.0; Grand Canyon Rafting, M.J. Thomas, CC0; Grand Canyon 10, Antoine Taveneaux, CC BY-SA 3.0.

8 MCDA Process Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis steps to frame and analyze a decision Elicit objectives from decision-makers and stakeholders Develop a set of creative alternatives Evaluate the alternatives (on ecological, economic, social, and spiritual scales) Elicit values-based tradeoffs among the objectives Evaluate uncertainty, using expected value of information Central to this approach is recognition that the decision has to discern and integrate social values and scientific understanding 8

9 Objectives Humpback chub Native fish Trout fishery Archaeological properties Hydropower generation and capacity Recreation Native vegetation Sediment deposition Water delivery Tribal goals Health of the ecosystem Respect for life Sacred integrity

10 Alternatives Seven alternatives developed for analysis Status quo ( No Action ) Two from stakeholder agencies One from the joint-lead agencies Two from concepts discussed in the past One (a hybrid ) developed after analysis of the first six Each alternative is a complex portfolio Monthly, daily, hourly flow volumes Various special flow operations Non-flow actions (trout removal, vegetation management) Experimental procedures for untested operations

11 Sample Hydrograph

12 Modeling Framework 12

13 Consequence Table Best performing alternative for this metric Alternative performs better than No Action Alternative performs worse than No Action Worst performing alternative for this metric Performance Metric Alternative Temp Trout Qual. GC GC Wetland HBC Suit CPE Emig. Trout WTSI flow TOR Power Cap. CAI FI raft Veg SLI MR TMF High High High Low High High Low High High High High High Low High High High Low Low A , B , B , C , C , C , C , D , D , D , D , E , E , E , E , E , E , F , G ,

14 Swing Weighting PCA 3 B. Score plot NGO Second component Utility Utility Utility State Joint Lead average Tribe NGO NGO -2 State Tribe Tribe -3 Federal First component

15 Joint Lead Weighted MCDA Weighted performance A B1 B2 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 F G A B1 B2 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 F G

16 MCDA by Agency Alternative Stakeholder Agency Joint Lead Federal State State Utility Utility Utility Tribe Tribe Tribe NGO NGO NGO A B B C C C C D D D D E E E E E E F G Best performing alternative for this metric Alternative performs better than No Action Alternative performs worse than No Action Worst performing alternative for this metric

17 Sensitivity Analysis Used Expected Value of Information to evaluate the effect of uncertainty on the ranking of alternatives Effect of hydrology, sediment input (1.5%) Effects of various hypotheses regarding the response of trout and chub to actions (0.0%)

18 Outcomes Formal methods of decision analysis helped to structure the analysis, articulate objectives, and develop alternatives The ranking of alternatives Was affected by the values placed on objectives by stakeholders But was not strongly affected by any of the uncertainties articulated Comprehensive decision analysis (incl., MCDA, EVPI) included in the Environmental Impact Statement