Skip to comments.Klamath Falls Research Thread (Thread 4)
Posted on 09/09/2001 4:00:13 AM PDT by Yellow Rose of Texas
Please continue with the research, the last link was getting to long for those with slower computers.
*Martin Litton, travel editor at Sunset magazine...
It sure is a small world.
Another interesting fact about a few of the above. A few of them are photographers for National Geographic, and guess where most of the ecological information for child consumption is printed???? NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, and who are two of their main supporters??? The Ford Foundation, and the Sierra Club.
I think it is time for all farmers to buy Chevy trucks! De fund the left!
Boycott the United Way!!
amom, I will get back to work later today, great work you have done.
Can this help?
Oh! I almost forgot..1000 friends of Oregon is looking for a new enviro terrorist for their new office in the Bend area! Pay is good! LOL!! Look out Bend, here they come!(Just north of Klamath Basin!)
Judge Aiken's husb:
"I have never had this level of conversation or experience in the four years I have been here."
Klonoski, who's been teaching at the University since 1961, brings a strong political background to the course. A former state Democratic Party chairman, Klonoski also worked on Hubert Humphrey's 1960 presidential primary campaign.
After retiring from the University in 1995, Klonoski spent three and a half years helping his wife get appointed as a federal district court judge. Last year, he volunteered to come back and teach the course he created.
"It keeps me stimulated," said Klonoski, who teaches for free. "Looking for cases, following up on them, it keeps me alive."
Part of the enjoyment of the class is watching the students' decisions reflect the changing nature of the court itself, Klonoski said.
American Land Conservancy offers plan for Klamath Basin
By Jeff Barnard
Associated Press Writer
GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) -- The American Land Conservancy offered a plan Thursday for buying up land and water rights in the Klamath Basin that includes a major new site for storing water to balance the needs of farming against fish and wildlife.
Reducing demand for irrigation water, increasing storage and improving overall water quality would assure future water supplies for farming as well as fish and wildlife, even in drought years, said Rich McIntyre, the owner of a Klamath Basin fishing lodge working for the conservancy.
A key part of the proposal is buying lands around Swan Lake outside Klamath Falls to store up to 100,000 acre feet of water, which amounts to nearly a quarter of the annual needs of the Klamath Project federal irrigation system. Wells could supply 60 percent in dry years, McIntyre said.
The proposal comes as farmers, Indian tribes, fish and wildlife advocates, federal agencies and others are working through a mediation process seeking long-term solutions to the basin's water problems and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., is working on a legislative package.
Wyden believes that a lot can be accomplished if all parties in the basin come together, said Wyden chief of staff Josh Kardon.
"But if agriculture, fishing interests, environmentalists and the tribes are unable to come to agreement, the chances of delivering the types of sums that many envision are not good," Kardon said.
Due to drought conditions and new demands for threatened and endangered fish, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation this year had to shut off most irrigation deliveries to the 220,000 acres of farmland served by the Klamath Project. The project serves about half the basin's farmlands.
The action taken under the Endangered Species Act marked the first time since the project began offering irrigation water in 1907 that the interests of coastal salmon fishermen and Indian tribes have won out over those of farmers.
The water was held back to maintain elevated levels in Upper Klamath Lake for endangered shortnosed suckers and Lost River suckers, a sacred and traditional food of the Klamath Tribes, and to boost flows in the Klamath River for threatened coho salmon. The Yurok Tribe has depended on declining runs of Klamath River salmon, as have commercial fishermen in Northern California and southern Oregon.
The plan got no immediate response from the Klamath Water Users Association, made up of farmers fighting to overcome Endangered Species Act restrictions on irrigation supplies.
Wendell Wood of the Oregon Natural Resource Council, a conservation group, said cleaning up water laden with agricultural residues was just as important as storing more water.
American Land Conservancy has options to buy 8,000 acres of the 12,000 acres being used to grow hay and pasture around Swan Lake outside Klamath Falls. A few miles of canal and pumping would be required to send the water into the Klamath Project.
Fred Fahner, a Tulelake, Calif., farmer working with the conservancy on the plan, said projects such as this one are need to keep farming alive in the face of changing demands for a limited supply of water.
The conservancy also proposed flooding leased farmlands once covered by Tule Lake on the Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge to store 65,000 acre feet of water for the refuges. Farmers leasing those lands would be able to farm on other private lands bought through the conservancy.
Due to strong local opposition to increasing federal lands in the basin, 22,000 acres of farmland that would be bought outright around Tulelake, Calif., would be held in trust, perhaps by the Tulelake Irrigation District, for private sale in 10 years.
American Land Conservancy also proposed buying water easements on 20,000 acres on the Klamath Project, which could be used for dry land farming or irrigated with well water.
The land and water right purchases would reduce demand on the Klamath Project by about 67,000 acre feet, or about 17 percent. The extra storage would increase supplies by about 41 percent.
The conservancy also proposed the federal government spend $50 million on restoring riparian zones along rivers in the upper basin and marshes around Upper Klamath Lake to improve overall water quality in the basin and increase fish and wildlife habitat.
American Land Conservancy (ALC) was awarded a $200,000 challenge grant by The David and Lucile Packard Foundation</font color> to assist the California Tahoe Conservancy acquire 189.55 acres of the Upper Truckee River Watershed in South Lake Tahoe, California. Acquisition of this property, known as the Sunset Stables, will prevent development and allow watershed restoration and passive recreation opportunities, minimizing pressures on Lake Tahoe. The total budget for this project is $3 million.
American Land Conservancy received an additional grant from The David and Lucile Packard Foundation</font color> to launch ALC's movement towards organizational effectiveness. The $49,000 grant will support the establishment of a strategic plan, fundraising feasibility study, and capital campaign plan.
-------------------------------- From the same URL:
ALC WELCOMES TWO TO ITS BOARD OF COUNCILLORS
ALC is delighted to welcome Colburn S. Wilbur and Dr. Edward J. Blakely as its newest Councillors.
Colburn S. Wilbur
Mr. Wilbur received both his undergraduate and MBA degrees from Stanford University. He is a trustee as well as former president and longtime CEO of The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.</font color> Prior to that, he served as executive director and CEO of The Sierra Club Foundation and worked in international banking and for a computer service bureau. Cole Wilburn currently also serves on the boards of Philanthropic Ventures Foundation, The Sierra Club Foundation Advisory Board, and The Stanford Theatre Foundation. His past board affiliations include The Council on Foundations, The Foundation Center, Big Brothers of San Francisco and the Peninsula, Northern California Grantmakers, Peninsula Grantmakers, Global Fund for Women, Peninsula Conservation Center, Dominican College International Graduate Studies Program, and University of San Francisco Institute for Nonprofit Management.
This is a great idea. I know hobbb mentioned knowing who and names. Maybe he has email addies he can send you and you can show them how to post at FR? Or something...
Nonuse Values and the Environment: Economic and Ethical Motivations
Environmental Values 6(1997): 143-167
Nonuse values are a potentially very important, but controversial, aspect of the economic valuation of the environment. Since no use is envisaged by the individual, a degree of altruism appears to be the driving force behind nonuse values. Whilst much of the controversy has focused upon measurement issues associated with the contingent valuation method, this paper concentrates on the underlying motivations, whether ethical or economic, that form the basis for such values. Some fundamental aspects of defining and quantifying economic nonuse values are considered, and possible motives for attributing value to the environment are analysed, making a clear distinction between 'selfish' altruism and 'selfless' altruism. The difference has crucial implications for economic valuation and for assessing individuals' willingness to pay for environmental quality. The concept of Safe Minimum Standards is introduced as a means of supplementing purely economic methodology to incorporate ethical concerns into decision making.
This article is available online (HTML format) from Bioline (server at Base de Dados Tropical).
Reprints of this article can be ordered from the British Library Document Supply Service or the Uncover Company
Contact the publishers for subscriptions and back numbers of Environmental Values. Email us for further information, or use our online order form to subscribe - but don't forget to include your own email and postal addresses!
THE WHITE HORSE PRESS
10 High Street, Knapwell
CAMBRIDGE CB3 8NR, UK
Tel: +44 1954 267527
Recreation and Nonuse Values THE ROLE OF ECONOMIC VALUES IN GOES AND THE EIS Much of the research under the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GOES) was physical and biological. Economic research also became an integral component of the research program. Economic research had three foci. First, economic tools were used to quantify, in monetary terms, the effects of dam operations on the quality of river recreation. Second, econ- omic tools were used in analyzing the effects of dam operations on values held by those who do not directly use resources affected by dam operations (i.e., nonuse values). Third, economic analysis was used in quantifying the linkage between operating criteria and value of the electricity generated atthe dam. It is important to keep in mind that the economic studies focus on valuing the effects of alternative dam operations, not on the river as a whole. This chapter acldresses the use of economic methods to document changes in the value of recreational opportunities associated with changes in dam op- erations. It also explains the concept of nonuse values, their relevance to dam operations, and the results of nonuse value studies. Chapter 9 sum- marizes and evaluates GCES work on the economics of power generation at Glen Canyon Dam. Use and Nonuse Values Defined Recreation and power values are use values because they stem from the direct use of river resources to produce electrical and recreational benefits. 118
OCR for page 119
Recreation and Nonuse Values 119 Policymakers, economists, and the public question whether the economic values of environmental resources should be limited to use values (HBRS, 1991, Harpman et al., 1995~. For example, those who have not visited the Grancl Canyon may place an economic value on the preservation of its resources for future generations or their own option to use the canyon in the future. Such values are often called nonuse values. They are motivated by value attached to the continued existence or preservation of a resource or the resource's for future generations (Chapter 3~. Nonuse values are not held only by "nonusers." Visitors to the river corridor below the clam may hold nonuse value in addition to use value. Environmental economists have developed a theory of total value, which consists of use and nonuse values (HBRS, 1991, Harpman et al., 1995~. Questions about the effects of dam operations on the total value of the resources downstream from Glen Canyon Dam are appropriate because federal law requires, as part of the environmental impact statement (EIS) process, consideration of the economic implications of alternatives. The economic theory and empirical measurement techniques relevant to nonuse values in resource valuation studies have evolved rapidly during the past decade (HBRS, 1991, Harpman et al, 1995~. As a result, nonuse values have been included in a variety of policy analyses for which changes in the quality or availability of natural resources are an issue. Perhaps the most important example is the rules for assessing damages to natural resources from spills of oil and toxins under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Clean Water Act (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1991~. A U.S. Court of Appeals decision in 1989 strengthened the role of nonuse values in such cases, and nonuse values were important in arriving at a negotiated settlement on liability for the Ewon Valdez oil spill. More recently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration convened a blue-ribbon panel that evaluated the validity of methods for measuring nonuse values and developed guidelines for mea- suring nonuse values in natural resource damage assessment (NOM, 1993~. In addition, several federal agencies are writing administrative rules for the measurement and application of nonuse values to public policy processes. Measurement of Nonuse Values While the validity of nonuse values is well established in theory, such values cannot influence policy decisions unless they can be measured
OCR for page 120
120 River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon accurately. Measurement of nonuse val ues relies on the contingent valuation method (CVM), which quantifies willingness to pay. There has been sub- stantial debate among economists and other social scientists over the quantification of willingness to pay. Although contingent valuation continues to be controversial, there is a growing body of evidence that supports its practical usefulness (Harpman et al., 1995~. Contingent valuation is routinely applied with confidence to estimates of use values, and earlywork on nonuse values is encouraging. Whether nonuse values can be measured with sufficient accuracy to meet high scientific standards is a question still widely discussed among policy analysts and economists. There is, however, a theoretical economic frame- work sufficient to form a foundation for their use in the GCES. The literature on CVM indicates that accuracy is sufficient to make quantification of nonuse value useful in understanding the balance of values at stake in managing Glen Canyon Dam. This is particularly true given all that can be learned in the nonuse valuation process regarding public views of the resource issues being addressed under GCES. To neglect total values in favor of more narrowly defined use values would be to leave a major gap in the economic studies under GCES and in the Glen Canyon Dam EIS. This would be unjustifiable given that nonuse values can be estimated. OVERVIEW OF RECREATIONAL USES Recreation is an important use of the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam. Each year over 20,000 anglers, 33,000 day-trip rafters, and 15,000 to 20,000 white-water boaters use this section of the river. The GCES examined recreational use patterns and values in considerable detail and focused on those types of recreation most likely to be affected by changes in the dam's operations. The 15-mile segment of the Colorado River immediately below Glen Canyon Dam is located in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. It is used by a variety of recreationists, including fishermen, boaters, day rafters, campers, bird watchers, and hikers. Below the Glen Canyon reach the Colorado River flows through Marble and Grand canyons for 277 miles, including over 160 recognized rapids. Some of the world's most challenging and exciting white waters occur here. Below the Grand Canyon, Hoover Dam holds back the Colorado River to form Lake Mead, which is one of the largest reservoirs in the western United States. The dam's operation affects the
OCR for page 121
Recreation and Nonuse Values 121 experience of recreationists using the Colorado River in Glen Canyon and the Grand Canyon. In 1987 a study of river-based recreation between Lakes Powell and Mead was completed by Bishop et al. The goals of the study were to document the quantity and pattern of river-based recreational use, to identify factors having a significant effect on the net economic value of recreational use, and to estimate the net economic value of river-based recreation. The authors identified four major categories of river-based recreational use: (1) day (scenic) rafting in Glen Canyon, (2) angling in Glen Canyon, (3) commercial white-water boating in Grand Canyon, and (4) private white-water boating in -Grand Canyon. Bishop et al.'s early survey work (Bishop et al., 1987) involving anglers and boaters determined that the value of angling and white-water boating is affected by river stage and daily fluctuations but that day rafters are not particularly sensitive to these aspects of dam operations. Consequently, the economic effects of operational alternatives on day rafters are negligible; Fishing in Glen Canyon The Glen Canyon trout fishery is a by-product of Glen Canyon Dam. Discharge from the dam is colder, carries less silt, and is more stable on an annual basis than prior to construction of the dam. This altered environment supports a good trout fishery. The Arizona Department of Game and Fish (ADGF) stocks up to 100,000 rainbow trout in some years; in more recent years, brook trout and cutthroat trout also have been stocked. Surveys of Arizona anglers conducted by ADGF indicate that trout are the most desired sport fish in the state, but preferences among trout species and between native and stocked trout have not been well documented, as pointed out in 1987 by the NRC committee (NRC, 1987~. The introduced trout have created an important fisherythat is considered to be of high quality. Glen Canyon is one of only two blue-ribbon stream fisheries in Arizona. Each year more than 19,000 anglers fish for rainbow trout in the 1 5-mile reach below the dam. Bishop et al.'s (1987) study also revealed that the attributes most strongly affecting the Glen Canyon fishing experience are the site and number of fish the respondent expected to catch. Fishing success is believed to be related to flow in two ways. Rising water may improve fishing as fish begin to feed on invertebrates that are dislodged in this way. In addition, flows of 10,000
OCR for page 133
Recreation and Nonuse Values 133
OCR for page 134
134 River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon TABLE 7.3 Annual Values Associated with Alternative Dam Operations ($ millions) Nonuse Values Marketing Power Recreation National Area Moderate fluctuating flow 36.7 to 54.0 +0.4 +2,286.4 +62.2 Low fluctuating flow 15.1 to 44.2 +3.7 +3,375.2 +60.5 Seasonally adjusted -88.3 to -123.5 +4.8 +3,442.2 +81.4 steady flow SOURCE: Adapted from Tables 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3 in Welsh et al., 1995; and as corrected in Table 7-1 in Welsh, 1995. marketing area. The national nonuse values, however, are about 30 times larger than the foregone power revenues for seasonally adjusted steady flows. SUMMARY Studies of recreation economics were designed and conducted using state-of-the-art economic methodologies that are appropriate for the task of measuring the economic impacts of EIS alternatives on recreationists. The CVM was applied in a manner that maximizes the reliability of the recreational value results. Surveys were extensively tested prior to being administered, sample sizes were adequate, and statistical results were robust and consistent with economic theory (Chestnut et al., 1991~. It is important to keep in mind several issues when interpreting the economic analysis of recreation. The analyses focused on the relationship between recreational benefits and the immediate effect of river flows on the quality of recreational experiences. For both the white-water rafters and anglers, other long-term factors are related to the various alternatives and to the quality of the recreational experience. For anglers the implications of alternatives are very uncertain over the long term. Factors such as the availability of camping beaches play a role in the quality, and thus the net benefits, of rafting trips. The economic analyses, however, focused on benefits associated with trips in which the number and
OCR for page 135
Recreation and Nonuse Values 135 sizes of beaches were fixed, and so the recreational benefits underestimate the long-term benefits associated with alternatives that would maintain larger numbers or sizes of beaches (Chapter 5~. The GCES nonuse value studies are one of the-most comprehensive efforts to date to measure nonuse values and apply the results to policy decisions. The studies were subject to extensive scrutiny by the interests (agencies, advocacy groups) participating in GCES and also to intensive review by a panel of professional economists with no stake in the outcome of the studies. While the CVM was applied in a manner consistent with current professional practice for measuring nonuse values, there is no objective standard of benefits against which the CVM results can be compared. If there were, the CVM exercise would not have been necessary. While not com- pleted in time to be reported in the final EIS, the nonuse value results are an important contribution of GCES and deserve full attention as decisions are made regarding dam operations. REFERENCES Bishop, R. C., et al. 1987. Glen Canyon Dam Releases and Downstream Recreation. GCES Technical Report, Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City. Brown, C.A. and M.G. Hahn. 1987. Effect of flows in the Colorado River on reported and observed boating accidents in Grand Canyon, Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Technical Report. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake C ty, Utah. Bureau of Reclamation. 1994. Operation of Glen Canyon Dam. Draft Environmentallmpact Statement, U.S.Departmentofthelnterior,Wash- ington, D.C. Bureau of Reclamation. 1995. Operation of Glen Canyon Dam. Final Environmental ImpactStatement, March, U.S. Departmentofthe Interior, Washington, D.C. Chestnut, L., R. Raucher, and R. Rowe. 1991. A Review of the Economic Studies Conducted in Phase I of the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies. Prepared for the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies by RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc. Harpman, D.A., M.P. Welsh, and R.C. Bishop. Nonuse Economic Value: Emerging Policy Analysis Tool." Rivers 4 No. 4 (March 1995~:280-291.
OCR for page 136
136 River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon HBRS, Inc. 1991. Assessing the Potential for a Total Valuation Study of Colorado River Resources. Final Report, prepared for the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies by HBRS, Inc., Madison, Wisc. HBRS, Inc. 1993. Analysis of the Impact of GCDEIS Alternatives on Rec- reational Benefits Downstream from Glen Canyon Draft Report. Prepared for the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies by HBRS, Inc., Madison, wise. Kearsley, L.H., and K. Warren. 1992. (1993 in EISJ River Campsites in Grand Canyon National Park: Inventories and Effects of Discharge on Campsite Size and Availability. Final report. Grand Canyon National Park Division of Resource Management, National Park Service. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOM). 1993. Report of NOM Panel on Contingent Valuation. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington D.C. National Research Council. 1987. River and Dam Management: A Review of the Bureau of Reclamation's Glen Canyon Environmental Studies. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Power Resource Committee. 1993. Power Systems Impacts of Potential Changes in Glen Canyon Power Plant Operations. Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Technical Report, Stone and Webster Man- agement Consultants, Inc., Englewood, CO. Taylor, C., S. Winter, G. Alward, and E. Siverts. 1992. Micro IMPlAN User's Guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Land Man- agement Planning Systems Group, Fort Collins, Colorado. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1991. Notice of proposed rulemaking: Natural resource damage assessment. Federal Register 56~82J : 19752- 1 9773. Welsh, M. 1995. Memorandum on corrections to the GCES Non-use Values Study Draft Final Report, July 28. Prepared by Hagler Bailly Consulting, Madison, Wisc. Welsh, M.P., R.C. Bishop, M.L. Phillips, R.M. Baumgartner. 1995. GCES Nonuse Value Study. Draft final report, prepared by RCG/Hagler Bailly, Inc., Madison, Wisc. July 12.
Authors' Instructions | Volume Indexes | Guest Book
Copyright© 1999. S.E.L. & Associates. All Rights Reserved.
I'll do it, hang loose... :-) ~~b~~