economic value of riparian zones in differing channel...
TRANSCRIPT
ECONOMIC VALUE OF RIPARIAN ZONES IN DIFFERING CHANNEL CONDITIONS IN WYOMING
S. Lowry, Q.D. Skinner, J.J. Jacobs
Symposium Proceedings 1989
WWRC -89 - 25
In
Multiple Users Multiple Products 42nd Annual Meeting of the Society
for Range Management Symposium Proceedings
s. Lowry Wyoming State Engineer's Office
Cheyenne, Wyoming
Q.D. Skinner Department of Range Management
University of Wyoming Laramie, Wyoming
J.J. Jacobs Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Wyoming Laramie, Wyoming
M ULTIPLE U S E R S
MULTIPLE PRODUCTS
PROCEEDINGS OF A SYMPOSIUM SPONSORED BY THE
WESTERN REGIONAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE ON RANGE ECONOMICS
WRCC-55
AT THE
42ND ANNUAL MEETING OF THE
SOCIETY FOR RANGE MANAGEMENT
Economic Value of Riparian Zones
in Differing Channel Conditions
in Wyoming
Sue Lowry Wyoming State Engineer's Office
Quentin D. Skinner University of Wyoming Range Management Dept.
James J. Jacobs University of Wyoming
Agricultural Economics Dept.
187
Economic Value of Riparian Zones
in Differing Channel Conditions
in Wyoming
Riparian habitat in the western United States represents a small
percentage of the land area, yet the
type are numerous
dependent upon and influenced by riparian habitat, such as:
wildlife habitat, livestock grazing, recreation, and water quality
(King, et al, 1978).
benefits provided by this habitat
(Thomas, et al, 1979 and Meyer, 1985). Many uses are
fisheries,
Public land managers are aware that these areas
are important and justify more intensive management. However, it is
difficult for managers to prioritize these areas when dollar values for
the benefits resulting from special management practices have not been
quawif ied.
Because economic values for riparian areas are strikingly absent
from the literature, there exits a need to study riparian areas to:
1) determine and elucidate the economic benefits of riparian areas
in semi-arid western rangeland.
2) determine how economic values may change with differing
riparian zone conditions.
3 ) determine the economic viability of managing riparian areas for
increased vegetation production, improved water quality, or changes in
the timing of the flow regime.
4 ) develop a method for applying dollar values to the measurable
physical, chemical, and biological parameters associated with riparian
188.
areas.
A logical approach in addressing these needs was to conduct a
review of the literature regarding dollar values reported from previous
water research studies that could be applied to specific uses of
riparian zones. The dollar values could then be applied to the
parameters measuring the various uses of riparian areas in the western
United States.
paper and presentation:
The following study objectives are addressed by this
1) Determine the economic benefits of riparian areas located in
cold desert shrub zones characteristic of the central Rocky Mountain
Region using values published in previous water research studies.
2)- Determine if economic benefits vary with stream channel
conditions and their associated riparian zones by applying appropriate
per unit values to vegetation, water quality and ground water storage
measurements.
3 ) Determine the cost effectiveness of using instream structures
as a method to change stream channel conditions and' their associated
riparian zones.
PERTINENT LITERATURE
A literature search was conducted to locate published economic
values that may be applied to the uses associated with riparian areas.
The Selected Water Resources Abstracts from 1975 to August 1987 were
reviewed using the following subject catagories: l'Costs'l,
189
"Cost-Benefit" , "Economics", "Riparian", "Value" , "Water Resources
Development", and "Watershed". As appropriate journal and technical
articles were located, their respective bibliographies were reviewed
for additional pertinent literature. The table o f contents of selected
journals and several symposia proceedings were reviewed.
Database Search of 9 database indices was also conducted.
A Bibliography
Economic values were summarized into tables showing the pertinent
dollar values that were located in the literature. There was little or
no continuity in how water values are reported.
p a i d , residual values or willingness to pay.
They appeared as prices
In order for the values to
be as comparable as possible, all were converted to a net, annual value
when adequate information was presented.
Vegetation Values fo r Livestock and W i l d l i f e : The most straight
forward value to estimate was the value of increased production of
forage for livestock. Markets f o r forage for livestock do exist,
commonly sold on an Animal Unit per Month (AUM) basis.
study of livestock forage markets in the West was conducted through a
joint effort of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
(USDA-F.S. 6 USDI-BLM). Table I ref lects the private lease r a t e and the
fair market value for Area 3 which included portions of Wyoming,
Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, Idaho and North Dakota.
A comprehensive
Quantifying the value of increased vegetation production f o r
wildlife was more difficult. Values of game species can be estimated by
determining expenditures made by hunters while pursuing these species or
190
. .
T A B L E I. L I V E S T O C K P R I V A T E L E A S E RATE., F A I R M A R K E T V A L U E , A N D FEDI .RAL L E A S E R A T +
A U l HOR F A I R M A R K E T V A L U E F E D E R A L Y E A R P R I L A T E L € P S E R A T E Y E A R L I N G S M A T U R E C A T T L E I E A R L I N G S M A T U R E C A T T L E L E A S E $ / h e a d $ / p a i r $ / h e a d $ / r e i r R A T L
$ D U N
U S D A - F C t R E S T S E R V I C E & U Z O I - E ; L M 1985 $ 6 . 2 5 $ 6 . GO $5.90 $7.60 $ 1 . 3 5
' C o m b i n e d e f f c r t o f t h e t w o a g e n c i e s t o documer! t f a i r m z r k e t a n d F r i v a t e l e a s e r n t . e s t h r o u g h o u t t h e w e s t e r n U. S .
by estimating the willingness to pay (WTP) of the hunters.
expenditures per day and per license were obtained f o r residents and
non-residents from Wyoming and Colorado and are included in Table 11.
Hunter
The Wyoming Game and Fish Department estimated hunter expenditures
per license for residents.
to $1,188.00 for Bighorn Sheep.
/license were $145.54 and $429.51, respectively. Non-resident
expenditures/license for the same species were:
The values varied from $83.99 for black bear
Antelope and moose hunter expenditures
Black Bear-$126.20;
Bighorn Sheep-$2,933.44; Antelope-$445.89; and, Moose-$898.17 (Wyoming
Game and Fish, 1985).
A similar survey of hunters in Colorado was conducted by McKean and
Nobe (1983), who reported fixed and variable costs/license for resident
and non-resident hunters. Resident variable costs ranged from $101 for
antelope to $140 for deer.
to $473 for antelope and deer, respectively.
Non-resident expenditures varied from $101
Sorg and Loomis (1984) determined expenditures/day for resident and
nonresident hunters combined for deer, waterfowl and small game.
expenditures varied from $131.80 in Colorado to $47.05 in Arizona.
Waterfowl expenditure/day was highest in Wisconsin at $84.73/day, and
lowest in the Intermountain region at $32.34/day.
Deer
Loomis, et a1 (1985) determined net willingness to pay (WTP) f o r
big game species i n Idaho.
f o r Mountain Goat. N e t WTP is a more accurate measure of what the
wildlife is worth than are expenditure methods.
rspresent the gross amount spent on the hunt.
Values ranged from $73 for antelope to $360
The expenditures values
It is likely t h a t some of
19 2
T A B L E 1 1 . E X P E N O I l U R E 5 F I R D A Y A N D E X P E N D I T U R E S P E R L I C E N 5 L F O R R E S I D E N T A N D N O N - R E S I D E N T H U N T E R S CF V A R I O U S W I L D L I F E S P E C I E S
AUTHORS C Cl MB I N E D Y E A R R E S I D E N T NON -R E S I D t N 1 P E R D A Y E X P E N O I l l R E F E R DP Y t Y P E N D I TUR€ PE E C T T T X P E M ~ ~ T U R E E X F E K C I - P E R L I C E N S E E X P E N D I - PER L I C E N S E E X P E K D I - P E R L I C E N S E T U R E H O L L E R T U R E H O L D E R T U R E HC L Of G
$/license $ / d a y $/license $ / d a y $ / l i c e n s e ' w a y
W Y O F i l N G C ISME 8 FISH D E P A R T M E H T 1 9 8 5
5 1 5 5 . 8 6 $ 4 4 5 . 8 9 $1 5 0 . 6 7 $ 2 8 8 . 7 2 A n t e l o p e t 5 1 . 6 6 $ 1 4 5 . 5 4
D e e r w . 9 4 l S F , . I C 1 2 6 . S8 502.80 7 4 . 8 6 2 9 8 . 4 5
329,€!6 2 2 0 . 0 7 1 , 1 7 8 . 8 3 9 0 . 3 4 4 4 1 . 2 5 E l k 6 8 . 5 4
4 2 9 . 5 1 1 9 9 . 6 9 898.17 l * ! C . C * 7 5 2 3 . 1 6 Mocse 8 9 . 1 i
3 6 0 . 7 3 2 . 9 3 3 . 4 4 1 5 2 . 0 4 1 , € 2 4 . 4 4
w B l a c k B e a r 5 . 6 4 6 3 . 9 9 22.30 1 2 6 . 2 0 8 . 9 6 1 0 0 . 1 0
e i g h o r n Sheep 1 0 3 . 0 0 1 . 1 8 8 . 1 0 cr CD
l ip 1 a n d B i r ri / Wc t e r f o u 1 30. OG 1 7 7 . 7 2 4 0 . 8 5 2 5 2 . 3 7 3 1 . 2 4 185.E2
T u r k e y 6 2 . 3 4 1 3 0 . 0 4 14O.t?9 3 8 9 . 9 4 7 7 . 9 2 1 7 0 . 8 9
S m a l l Game
SCk6 R L O G M I S
8 8 . 4 5 3 5 9 . 7 0 6 9 , C 2 2 E . I . 3 8
1984
8 7 . 4 8 3 5 6 . 2 2
1 3 1 . 8 0 Deer ( C o l o r a d o )
Decr ( A r i 2 o r . a ) 4 7 . 0 5
DEer ( P c n n s q l v a n i a )
Waterfowl ( h ' i c c o r . s i n )
W a t e r f c w l ( P a c i f i c F l y w a y )
k ' a t e r f o w l ( I n t e r m o u n t a i n )
S i n a l l Game ( I d a h o )
S m a l l Game ( I n t e r m o u n t a i n )
1 2 8 . 5 5
8 4 . 7 3
6 1 . 1 1
3 2 . 3 4
4 2 . 5 8
2 2 . 4 2
TABLE I 1 ( c o n ' t ) .
A U T t' OR $
M C K L P N 8 N O B E
Y E A R RESIDENT NON-RESIDENl WE 11 ANC E C O M B I t l E O NET UTPU FE R V P R I A L L E F I X F D V P R I P e L E f IXED C O N T R I B U T I O N R E S I D E N T 6
COSTS C O S T S COST s COSTS $ / s c r e / y e a r NONTRESIOENT L I C E N S E $11 i c e n s e I / 1 i c c n s e $ / l i c e n s e PER D A Y
EXPENDITURES 1583 $ / d a y
C o l c r a d c ( 1 9 8 1 d c . l l a r s ) . .
A n t e l o p e $ 1 0 1 $E70 I101 NIA
105 210 1 cs 152 B e L r
Dee i
E 1 k
f i r k i n g
S m a l l Came
1 4 C so 7 47 3 90 5
137 585 4 59 853
300 E l S 482 7 7 4
215 780 2 1 5 150
Jtr.WORSKI & RAPHAEL 19711 )--. W P
( V i c b - g a n )
S F o r t F i s h i n g
N c n c o n s u m p t i v e R e c r e a t i o n
k'atrr foul
T r a p p i n g f u r b e a r e r s
LOOMIZ, E T A L
( I d a t l o )
E i g h o r n Cheep
Y o c n t t i n G o a t
MC*OSZ
Ant e l o p e
i
S O R C AND N E L $ C h 1 S 8 6
E l k
Net Uil1ir:oezs t c P a y p t r p e r m i t o s 4 r . s t t q T r a v e l C o z t Y c t h o d
$286.00
1 3 E . 2 4
3 1 . 2 3
3 0 . 4 4
I 28 .00
90. O C
19.00
3E. 50
2 2 . 5 7
$ 2 39.00
360. CO
1 1 3.00
73.00
I
the money would have been spent elsewhere in the economy.
rsflects the net amount directly attributable to the wildlife hunting
1 icense.
Net WTP
Jacobs, et a1 (1987) determined the average trespass fee charged by
Wyoming land owners to be $17.44 per day.
and antelope was four days long.
The average hunt for deer
Water Quantity Values: The value of water will vary greatly with
the use and location of the water.
from the payments made by various users for an acre foot of water, o r
The value of water can be determined
can be based on the cost of developing water storage.
values of water to various users in different areas.
(1982) found the value of water to irrigators to be between $2.21/acre
foot in Utah t o $26.75 in Oregon.
values from $7/acre foot in the Imperial Valley o f California to
$45/acre foot for ground water from the Ogallala aquifer.
Table 111 shows
Wilson and Ayer
Young (1983) found irrigation water
Young also surveyed industrial users and found them paying up to
$600/acre foot for use in cooling towers. A proposed coal slurry
operation from Colorado to Texas was willing to pay up to $1,60O/acre
foot.
annualized to be comparable to other reported values.
values range from $30.30/acre foot to $142.12/acre foot for industrial
users.
foot/year for lawn watering to $250/acre foot/year for in-house use.
Kater for these municipal uses would be of a higher quality since it
would have been through municipal treatment.
Values reflecting purchases of perpetual water rights need to be
Annualized
The value of water for municipal uses varied from $150/acre
These values a t - t h e - t a ~
19 5
T A B L E 1 1 1 . VALUf. CIf W A l C R U S E D FOR IRRIGATION. I N D U S T R I A L , W N I C I P A L , D I L U T I O N AND HSC.ROPOkE6 PURPOSES. A K N U I i L U A 1 V f Z
P l t t i O P \ E P R I KP. I G A T I CH INDUSTRIAL HOU'E HGl DS 0 I LUT I ON HYDfiOPCcJE R $ / a c r e f o o t $ / a c r e f o o t ! / a c r e f o c t $ / a c r e f o c t $ / a c r e f o o t $ / a c r e f o o t
a t 62 f c r 40 y e a r s )
( c s r e p c r t e d ) ( a n n u a l i z e d
Y c UhC 1983
'( 1982 d c l l a r s )
U p p e r C c . l c r a d o a n d Snake R i v E r s flC-15
S o u t h w e s t and c e c t r a l C a l i f o r n i a 2C1-25
Groundwc te r -Cc ,a ] l a la t g c ' f e r 40 -4 5
P l r t t c R i v e r B t r i r . 25
C a l i f o r n i a Cen t rca i V a l ' l v y I m p c r i a l V r l l e y
Coo 1 i n g t c t t e r s
C c a l S l u r r y ( C o l o r a d o t o T e x a s )
Hceureho lcs L s b n w a t e r i n g
I n - h o u s e u s e
C o l o r a d o
l r r i g r t i c n
C c a l m i n i n g
E l e c t r o n r c s
YOUNG I E K A Y
W e s t o r n C t e t t s
C o l u n . L i a R i v e r B a s i n
1S85
O r r y o n
Lower K i z s o ~ r i R i v e r B a s i n
Lower C c l o r c l d o R i v e r B a s i n
2 3 - 2 5 7
$ 600
1.6CO
$ 30
142
$150
2 50
f 3.30-1G.00
3 0 . 00
t 1 .30
3 . 2 5
1 5 . 0 0
T A B L E I 1 1 ( c o n ’ t ) ,
A U f l l C R YtPF i I R R I G A T I O N $ / a c r e f o o t
\ I O U N G 8 G R A ’ 1 1 9 7 2
S e v i e r B a s i n , U t a h S h o r t R u n R e n t a l ( 1 9 5 9 do1 l c r s )
S o L t h F l c t t e , C o l c r a d o E a r l y s e a s c p r c n t a l L b L e s c z s c n r e n t a l
So u t b e a s t tl y on. i ng ( 1 9 7 0 d o l l a r s ) S h o r t r u n n a r g i n z l v a l u e
1 s t c c r c f c c t a p r l i e d 2nd a c r e f o o t a p p l i e d
Mo u r. i. a i n me c do w s
S o u t I- we s t C t a h ( 1 9 6 6 d o l l a r : ) M a r g i n a l v a l u e : 1 s t a c r e f o o t
5 t h a c r e f c l o t
l o n g R u n A n a l y s i s S a l i n a s V a l l e y ( 1 9 7 0 d o l l a r s ) S c , u t h c e n t r r l t i e b r a s k a I
( 1 9 6 6 d c l l a r s ) tJc. D a k c t a ( l f 6 8 d c . ’ ; a r s )
N a r y l i , n d ( W E 6 b c l l a r s )
C a l i f o r n i a ( 1 5 7 0 d o l l a r s )
A r i z o n a ( 1 9 6 3 d o l l t r s )
V e r i o u s ( 1 9 6 3 d o l l a r s )
G r e a t P l a i n s
9 . 6 0
3.50 4 . 8 5
1 7 . 6 0 1 2 . 5 C
2 . c: 0
2 2 . 0 0 8.00
I N D U Z 1 R I AL $ / L c r e f o o t
1 1 . 6 0 - 1 6 . 4 0
7 .00 - )2 .0 ( i 1 8 . 3 8
S t e e l $ 1 3 . 0 3
C t e e l 4 . 6 9
M i n e r o l s 3 . 2 6 - 6 . 5 2
P a p e r 2 6 . 0 6
SUgEr Peet P r o c e s s i n g 3 7 . 1 5
b k x i c o C h e m i c n l s 2 2 . 8 1
would not be comparable to the other values given due to the improved
qua1 i ty .
Young and Gray ( 1 9 8 5 ) reported values from $1.30/acre foot in
Oregon to $15/acre foot in the lower Colorado River basin f o r dilution
of salinity and other pollutants. Water used for hydropower ranged in
value from $3.30 to $lO.OO/acre foot/year in the western states to
$30.00/acre foot/year in the Columbia River basin.
The cost of developing water for later use or for a more constant
supply can be expressed two different ways.
annualized construction cost ( 4 0
opportunity costs) of the facility by the number of acre feet it will
hold.
Army Corps of Engineers (1986) in their draft Environmental Impact
Statement ( E I S ) f o r proposed water development along Colorado's Front
Range, $/acre foot of capacity can range from $22.51/acre foot/year for
the Two Forks proposal to $83.11/acre foot/year for the Estabrook dam
and reservoir.
One is to divide the
year planning horizon at 4% and 8%
This calculation is shown in Table IV. As reported by the U.S.
- Not all the water in a facility can be used because of prior
appropriations, variability in annual supply, and reservoir dead space.
The amount actually available for use by the entity constructing the
facility is the firm yield.
the firm yield is also shown in Table IV for several facilities. The
cost/firm yield for projects under consideration by the Wyoming Water
Development Commission ( 1 9 8 4 ) range from $29.64/acre foot f o r the
proposed Fish Creek Dam to $344.19/acre foot for the proposed Upper
The annualized construction cost divided by
198
T P B L E 1 v . F I R M Y ~ ~ L D , S T O R A C E C A P A C I ! Y , C O N S T h U C T I O h C O S T , A N N U A L I Z E D C O S T I F l R Y Y I E L D , 8 A R N U P I . T Z f G C O S T / C A P A C I T \ F O R VSlilOUS kC.1ER O E V E L O F M E N T P R O J E C T S A T 4 P N E e l O P P O R T U K I T Y C O S T O V E R 40 Y L P E S .
P. U T t10 R YfP .R F J E M STORACiC: C O N S f F U C T l O h A N N U A L I Z E D P N N I I A L I Z E D b N N U A L I Z E D PNNUAL I Z E D Y I E L D C A F A L I T Y
a c . f t . a c . f t .
HYCIMING UAlER C E L E L O F M E M T COMMISZIGN 1984
U p p e r $ a v e r y Cam 5 , 600 40 , Mi0
P o t t ! c c l D a m 31 .200 61 , CPO
C - i t n d s t c n e Cam 2 5 , 7G0 52.000
T h r e e f o r k : Dan , 7 3, oc4 1 OQ, 000
F i s h C r e e k D a m 4 5 , E G O 6C , CiOO
u . S . C [ : R f S OF E N E I N E E K S 19k6
C O l C r d d C
T k o f c r k s ( 1 . 1 m i l . A F ) 98,600 1,100,000
T h O F c r k s (4cici,cc0 ! F ) 6 2 , COCl 400, @DO
E s t a t r c u k (40C,C.C0 A F ) 58 , COO 4 00 , CiOO
E s t a b r c c L ( 2 C 4 , C C D f . F ) 4 c , O O C ~ 200 I oco
C heesrnt n 68,000 743.000
cc. ST $ l , G O O
f € 5 , 4 0 0
26,300
61 , 300
73,900
2 E , 4C.O
4 S c 1 , O O O
310,000
4 E.1. 000
329.000
680 , OC10
CONSTRUCTIOIJ C O N 5 T R l J C T I C i N C O N C T R U C T I O N C O N S T R U C T I O N C O S T / C A P P . C I T Y C O S T / C A P A C I T Y C O S T / F I R M Y I L L 0 COSTJFIRM Y I E L D
AT 4 7 P T 82 frT 4 % A 1 E X $ / a c r e f o c t $ / a c r e f o c t $ / a c r e f c c t $ / a c r e f o o t
$€.i . €. 1 $137.11 $344.19 $571.30
21.57 35,. 38 42.59 €9.85
120.51 200.02 55.56
37. P 61.97 51.15 €14. 09
2i.25 36.90 29.64 49.2C:
98. f:€
22.51 37.36 256.62
2 5 Z . 62 39.16 6 4 . 9 9
5E. 97 94.55 3S2.66
83.11 137.95 361.35
46.24 76.75 505.23
419.30
419.30 ,'
65.2.06
595.78
836.60
Savery Dam, at a 4% discount rate.
?opulation increases in cities in the West and Southwest have
created a need for these cities to expand their water supplies.
et a1 (1987) reviewed the costs of water development to several cities.
The water purchases were shares of water stock, land purchases for the
accompanying surface appropriations, or groundwater rights. Values
ranged from $3.50/acre foot for the West Coast Basin of California to
$202.00/acre f o o t in the Gila Basin of New Mexico at 4% opportunity
cost, as shown in Table V.
municipalities, there may be significant costs associated with
transporting the water from the well locations to
treatment and use that are not reflected in the above values.
Saliba,
If groundwater rights are developed by
the city f o r
Recreation Values Associated with Riparian Habitat: Riparian
zones provide numerous recreational opportunities such as fishing,
kayaking, picnicing, and camping. Quantifying the value of these
opportunites is similar to the approach described for game hunting.
Participants are asked to estimate what the opportunity is worth to
them or to estimate their willingness to pay (WTP).
reflected on a per day or per acre foot basis, as shown in Table VI.
Their WTP can be
Daubert (1979) interviewed fishermen at the Poudre River in
Colorado to determine their WTP/day/acre foot at various flow levels.
Fishermen had the highest WTP during low flows at $13.30/day/acre foot
at flows of 50 cubic feet per second (cfs). At flows greater than 500
cfs, fishermen reported negative WTP's because high flows hinder the
fishing experience.
200
T A t l F V . C C S T Of PllF(tASIRC; P D D I l I O N A L WATfF. R IGHT5 B Y M U N I C I P A L I T I E S , PLNl1PL:ZED P P S E C U K 40 YEP.C Fi \vhENT f f PIOC P.1 4% AN@ e x .
ANNUALIZED RtlNUAl TZED .ORIG[ f l Of AUTHOR Y E P R COST T O W A 1 E R
S I t c r e f o c t $ / a c r t f c c t $ / a c r e f o o t R I G H T M U N I C I P A L I T I E S C O S T A T 4 X C O S T A 1 8%
SALIPF, CT AL 1 9 8 7
( 1 5 8 6 d c l l a r s )
T u s c c n , P Z
K e s a . P Z
F h o e n i r . A 2
S c c t t s d a l f : : . , A Z
C r' 1 i f o r , n i a
C e r t r i i B a s i n
h 'est C o r a t B a s l F
N c r t h r t n F r o r @ t R a n g e , C c l o r a d c
P u r o r i . CO
C o l o r a d o S p r i r , g s , CC
F a 1 I c n . t l e v e d a
S e v i e r R i v e r G i r s i n , l i t a h
$ 6 5 C - 8 f C
1 , cco 1 * 500
1 . 3 C O
184
70
1 , 0 0 0
3 , 6 7 5
1 , 6 0 0
2 , 5 c , c
3CO
1 , 5G0
. 7 . G O O
2 , 000--4, OClO
2 . 3 6 0
3 5 0 - 7 0 0
t 3: 8 6 - 4 2 . 9 4 $ 5 4 . 5 1 - 7 1 . 2 8 LP.ND PUECHAEE
5 0 . 5 2 8 3 . 8 6 I 1 II
7 5 . 7 9 1 2 5 . 7 9
€ 5 . 6 8 101'. 02
11 II
I. I*
9 . 2 6 1 5 . 4 3
3.56 5.67
8 3 . U6
1 3 5 . 1 5 2 2 3 . 3 3
6C. 84 I C . 4 . l e
1 2 6 . 3 1 2 C 9 . 6 5
1E. . 1 6 . 2 5 . 1 6
7 5 . 7 5 1 2 5 . 7 9
3 5 3 . 6 6 5 e 7 . 0 2
5 0 . 5 2
101. (15-20;'. 0 9 1 6 7 . 7 2 - 3 3 5 . 4 4
1 1 6 . 2 0 1 9 2 . 6 5
1 7 . 6 8 - 1 5 . 3 7 2 s . 3 5 - 5 0 . 7 0
S H A R E S OF GiAlEk S T O C K
I 1 1; 11
I I II II
B O U G H T F R C M A U P O K A , C O ,
GROUK CfiblIp.1 E Pr R I G I i T 5
LAND FURCHASE
GEOUNDh'f, l E R R I G H T 5
L P h D PURCHASE
G F 0 l-1 N D W C. 1 E R h I C t! T E
f'URCI:A?E OF 1;XTER STGCK
TAl3LE V I . R E C R E A T I O N VALUES A S S O C I A T E D WITH R I P A R I A N H P . E I f A T
A U l H O R Y E A R V A L U E W T P / D A Y / $ / A C T I V1 T'I A C R E FOOT D A Y
WALSI! 1480
( t o 1 o r a l o )
WTP a t 3 5 1 o f rnaxfmtrrn f l o w
F i s h i ng
K a y a l r i n g
R q f t i n g
DACIBEKT
(Colcrado)
F i s h i n s
c f s
50
100
2 00
30@
400
500
G 0 (1
O O N N E L L Y , F T A t
Steelhcad f i s h i n g
C t b G K , E T A 1
( 1 9 7 8 do1 l n r s )
Cold k a t c r f ' s h i n g
W e r m wr.ter f i a h i n q
C a t f i s h / R o u g h f i I h
I979
$ 1 3.30
1 1 . 7 0
E . 54
5.37
2 . 1 9
- . 9 8
- 4 . 1.5
1 9 8 5
3 1 . 4 5
1 9 8 5
1 0 . 9 6 - 2 4 . @ 9
9 . 6 5 - 2 1 . 4 3
7 . 0 0 - 1 6.03
WTP b i A R G I N A L BE NI F ITS/ A C R E FI?CT/ D A Y
$ 1 3.08
3.60
2 . 3 5
L
202
Sorg and Loomis (1984) combined several previous studies of
recreation WTP per activity day. Values for cold water fishing ranged
from a WT? of $8.58 per fishing day in Kentucky to $37.75/day in
IJashington.
values from $22.70/day in Georgia to $26.35/day inFlorida.
day for camping range from $6.70/day in Idaho to $26.18/day in Arizona.
Warm water fishing reflected a much narrower range of
Values per
Water Qualitv Values: The value of water is also dependent upon
the quality of the water and its suitability for a particular use
(Sutherland, 1982, Walsh, 1978, and Kleinman, 1974). Much o f the arid
West has erodible soils that contain highly alkaline or salty
coniponents (Howe and Orr, 1974). The water reaching the lower Colorado
River basin contains a high percentage of salts (Miller, et al, 1981).
Table VII shows that the costs associated with salinity can be very high
in this region. Estimates of annual total damages were $447,700 for each
mg/l increase in salinity and municipal damages were $291,00o/mg/l
increase/year (Evans, 1981). Costs in the upper Colorado River basin are
much lower at $30-82/ton of salt removed (Howe andOrr, 1974, and
Jackson, et al, 1985).
I
The effects o f water quality on recreation has also been examined
and some results are shown in Table VIII. Sutherland (1982) contacted
recreation planners in the Pacific Northwest and asked them to estimate
the number of recreation facilities that could be constructed if water
quality were improved.
imried from $2,325/mile/year f o r Washing ton to $3,098/mile/year for
Idaho.
The estimated value/mile of river improved
!J'alsh (1978) estimated VTP of Front Range residents in Colorado
203
T A B L E V 1 1 . C O S T S A S S O C X A T E C IJITH INCREASED S A L I N I T Y
A U T H O R S A L IG I T f
Y E A k' ! / mg / 1 / Y E A;- A C E C / r g / 1 / Y t AR LOST / kC A E / Y C P P Y E A R
$ /TCtN OF S A L T /
E V A N S 1981
S o i 1 Consc . i . va t i c n S e r v i c e l c w c r C o l c l r a d o R i v e r hi! i c 1 p a 1 d a m t s L:S $ 2 9 1 , COO
A q i - i c u l t u r a l d a r a g e s 12'4, 8(1O
l m p e r i c l C a m - t o t a l danac jes 447,700 USD1-Watcr t Pct;cr R e s c c r c e s S e r v l c s
F R A N K L I N . E l AL 1985
6 i g Sandy P r c j e c t . Wyomiog
C o s t i n Wycmir.c, N 0 P Chi,r<c t c - H y o m l r g f o r increbsed s d l i n i t y
a t l s p e r i e l V a l l e y
K L t I N M A N , E T AL 1974
D i r e c t S a l i n i t y Impact.:. t o A g r i c u l t u r e 66 . 900
T o t c l l l r t e c t t o A g r i r L l t u r e i o a , 400 i
S c u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a 45,600
L o w e r H a i n S t e m - C o l c r a d o R i v e r 13, ooc- Gila R i v e r b r c a e , 3c.o
P c r h o u r e h c l d t n n u r l c o s t . C 5 1 4 - . 1 7 4 7
I n d u s t r-i a 1 i m p a c t s 1, E O O
T o t a l i m p a c t s f o r l c l r e r b a s i n 63. eoC;-zes, oclo
J A C K S O h . E l A L 1985
LGrer h'olt' C r e e k - c o r t k - w e s t e r n c o l o .
fO.G621
O.lUG7
. C.0649
O . O S S 6
0.0533
$ 2 0 . 7 7
19 .04
1 7 . 0 9
$ 30.00
1 3 3 . 9 4
82.35
T A B L E V I (con't).
AUTHCR
SOFG 8. L . O @ M I S
C o l d W a t e r F i s h i n g
C o i o r a d c
b r i zona
I n t e r m o u n t a i n
I d a h o
Washington
K e r t c c k y
Mi s sou r i
NEW Y o r k
Warm Wat.Er F i s h i n g
A r i 20na
Lou i c + ana
G e o r g i a
F l o r i d a
Camp i ng
Cc 1 cr a d o
A r i z cr:u
N e w M e x i c o
I d a h o
We s h i rig t on
tie* Y o r k
F i c n i c i n g
Cc l c r a d o
A r i z o n a
New M e x i c o
California
Nonmotori z e d b c a t i F g
C o l o r a d o
ICako
U t a h
\;a s h i r l y t o n -C, r e gon
Y E A R
1984
W!P 'JALUL $ / a c t i v i t y d a y
$11.99
25.75
1 5 . 5 s
11.57
37.75
0. 58
19.43
37.28
23.41
2 5 . €9
22.76
26.35
12.41
26.18
15.00
C. 70
11.40
18. €0
-
6.57
28. 54
10.2€
7 . 7 5
1 4 . 6 5
76.85
3 3 . 2 2
6.38
205
T A B L F V I I ( c o n ' t ) .
N 0 m
AUTHClR Y E A R $/mg/I /YEAR
U S 0 1 - B U k E A U OF LFtNCl RANAGEMENT 1 9 7 7
E nv i r e n n i e n t a : F rot e c t i or: A g e v c ) A v e r a g e a n n u e l a s r i c u l t . u r . a l dcmtQe
A v e r a g e annuir l a g r i c u l t . u r a l d e m a g e K 1 e i n r a n
when sa 1 i rri t y 1306-1 4(3@mg/1
Va 1 e n t i rte ( 1 9 7 4 d o 1 l a r s ) M u n i c i p a l darnacjt:s
A n d e r s o n & Klei n s r n K 11 n i c i p 2 1 d am a s L! s
E PP I n d u s t r i a 1 d a m t g e s
i
45,900
76,865
1 2 4 , 3 C @
240. 5CdO
1 , 1 4 8
L ' S [ I P - - M E D I C IkE BOW NIOTICNLI F G I i E S T 1981
Cost a t I w p e r i a l Darn c f i n c r c z s i n g s a l i n i t y i n Hyclqic-tc, 4 4 0 , 0 0 0
hOWE 8* C'RR 1 9 7 4
U p p e r Colol-cdo R i v e r ( C o l o r a d o )
T A B L E V I I I . R E C E E A l ION V A L U E S A Z S O C I A T E D N I T H I M P R O V E D W A T E R Q U A L I T Y
A I J T ti0R Y F. !, R P.RNUAL TjfLEsToF G E N E R A L Q U A L I T Y ------I-- I f l P R O V E M E N T 5
VF,LUE I N W T P / U T P / R E C R E A T I O N D E G R A D E 0 $ / B I L E O F H C U S L t I G L P MILE'OF V O L U E F I V E R R I V E R / Y E A F S T R E 1 . h ( 1 9 7 9 DOLLARS)
SU TtI L R L A N U 1912
Ar .ncn l R e c r c t t i c n Ben€ f ' 1 . s
b i a s k i n g t o n
Oregon N
U 0 I d a h o
) 5 , 1 G 7 , 6 5 6
6,435.952
7 , 2 6 4 , 8 0 5
WAL S t i , I T A L 1 9 7 8
S o u t h P l a t t e R i v e r B t i s i r , Colorado
Arnual b e n e f i t s f r c m i m p r o v e d w a t e r q u a l i t y
Recreat i c .n U s e Value
Opt. i on V a l u e
E x i s t e n c c Value
B t q l r e s t V a l u e
2 , 1 9 7
2 , 6 1 4
2 , 3 4 5
$ 2 , 3 1 5
2 , 4 6 2
3,048
$ 4 5 . 8 0 $3,206
1 8 . 2 2 1 I 275
2 4 . g e 1 , 7 4 9
17.00 1 , 1 9 0
using a bidding game. They were asked how much they were willing to pay
based on increased sales tax to remove heavy metals that.remained in the
river from old mining opera tions.
recreation use was $3,206.
The WTP per mile of stream for
The costs resulting from sedimentation can be expressed in
cost/acre foot of lost storage or in $/ton of sediment (Table IX).
Crowder ( 1 9 8 7 ) estimated the annual cost/acre f o o t of storage lost in
the Mountain states and Northern Plains reservoirs to be $500/acre
foot. The BLM (USDI-BLM, 1977) estimated the cost/ton of sediment at
$0.58/ton for loss in capacity at Lake Powell.
RIPARIAN CASE STUDY AND VALUE DETERMINATION
The following values discussed in the Pertinent Literature above
were applied to measured changes at a study area in Wyoming.
FSflSDI-BM (1985) findings of $1.35 for the Federal lease rate and
$8.00 for the private lease rate were used for domestic livestock.
values were utilized for increased wildlife produciion:
trespass fees charged by Wyoming land owners (Jacobs, et al, 1987) and
the WTP value for antelope presented by Loomis, et a1 ( 1 9 8 5 ) .
The USDA-
,
Two
average
Stored groundwater used for irrigation was valued at $12.50 per
acre foot, an average of the upper Colorado River basin and Snake River
area presented by Young ( 1 9 8 2 ) . A range of $30 to $142 per acre foot
was used to value groundwater for industrial uses, also from Young. An
average of the annualized values from Saliba, et a1 (1987) represented
208
T A B L E I X , COSTS OF S E D I M L N T A T I U N IN R E S E R V O I R S
AU1 HOR
C hOWDE R
N N o r t h e r n P l a i n s
M o u n t.a i n S t.a t c c 0 a
@ I cclg i n g
YEAR $TORAGE S E D I t 4 E N T A T I O N
COS? PE-AR ClF C C S l / A C R E FOOT D R E D G I N G $ / 1 0 N O F C A P A C l T Y S E D I M E N l A T I O N DUE C F S E D I M E N T A T I O N
LOST ANNUAL1.Y TO L O S T C A P A C I T Y $ / A C E € F O O T (1.000 AC. F 1 ) ( N I L L I O K S Of $ )
1 9 6 7
1 P C . E
3C*2. 5
C L A R K , € T A L 198%
P i c h i g a n i
b 5 D I - B I j R E A U OF LANL MANACEtjENT 1 9 7 7
$ 92.:
1 5 1 . 3
SEC I M E N T I iECUCED
$500
5 Q ci $2,5( :O/acrr . f c c t
ZO. 58
conditions and the associated riparian zone.
A management strategy utilizing instream, wire faced dams has been
implemented within the RSR study area.
of woven wire, steel posts, synthetic erosion mat fabric, and used,
discarded tires.
by digging trenches into the bank and attaching the woven wire to fence
posts placed in the trenches as well as in the stream itself.
approximately 36 centimeters high, trap sediment which raises the
channel bottom.
of high flow. Increased vegetation production, sediment deposition on
banks, and increased groundwater recharge and storage may then r e s u l t .
These structures are constructed
They are anchored in straight sections of the stream
The dams,
This increase causes overbank flooding during periods
Case Studv Dollar Values: The data available from the Muddy Creek
study area allows f o r the estimation of economic values associated with
riparian areas.
multiplied by the dol la r values determined from the presented pertinent
literature.
Actual parameter measurements from Muddy Creek were
The comparison of values from the DSR and the RSR of Muddy Creek -
will show if there is a difference based on riparian area channel type.
Comparison of data collected on the RSR prior to instream structure
installation or on control areas downstream, with data collected after
the structures are in place w i l l allow for a determination o f the
economic desirability of the instream strucures. A planning horizon of
30 years and discount rates of 4 % , the interest rate charged by the
Wyoming Water Development Commission, and 8% will be used to determine
the long term benefits of riparian reclamation.
2 10
Summaries of expected benefits from riparian areas in differing
channel conditions and from riparian reclamation will be presented from
three points of view. The first will show the direct benefits to a
private land owner.
of view and will include benefits realized by socity as a whole.
third will include the possibility of use of stored groundwater by
agriculture, industry or municipalitites. The total benefits for each
of the 3 scenarios will be divided by the total hectares of riparian
habitat
will also be shown on a per kilometer of stream basis.
The second will be from a Federal agency’s point
The
in the DSR and the RSR to obtain a value/area. Total benefits
Vegetation: Benefits from increased vegetation production can be
quantified by determining the additional livestock or wildlife the
increased forage will sustain. For livestock, markets do exist based
on Animal Unit Months (AUM). To quantify wildlife values, the increase
in hunter access fees o r the WTP values of additional licenses will be
estimated.
T o t a l above ground biomass at Muddy Creek was sampled annually from
1984 through 1987 on 19 cross sections on the straight sections in the
RSR. Sampling was also done on 3 meanders in both the DSR and the RSR in
1986 and 1987. On each of the 19 sites in the RSR, 5 cross sections
were identified on both the right and left bank. Each bank was further
divided into lower bank, middle of the fl-aodplain, and the upper
floodplain. At each of the three locations per cross-section, one
permanent half meter circular plot was established and vegetation i n s i d e
“as weight estimated. A second plot was located in the interspace
211
the range, $85-143 per acre foot, of values to municipalities.
Values for sediment s torage were derived f rom Crowder (1987) who
reported $.27 per ton of sediment, and the BLM Salinity Status Report
(USDI-BLM, 1 9 7 7 ) , at $.58/ton. A range of $30 to $82 per ton of salt
was used to value salt storage. These values were published by
Franklin, et a1 (1983) and Jackson, et a1 (1985), respectively.
Study Area DescriDtion: Muddy Creek is a perennial stream typical
of those draining cold desert shrub foothills in the semi-arid western
United States, and is a tributary of the Green-Colorado River system.
The study area is located approximately 40 kilometers north of Baggs,
Wyoming in the south central part of the state. Historic use of the
Muddy Creek drainage basin includes
recreation, and oil and gas production. The study area includes 12
kilometers of Muddy Creek which has been divided into 2 sections based
on stream channel morphological characteristics. The first section is 5
kilometers long and is downstream from active head cutting. Floodplains
are developing within the new channel. This reach provides an
opportunity to study degraded channel conditions and associated riparian
zones.
livestock and wildlife grazing,
The second is 7 kilometers long and is the location of stream
channel restoration (RSR -restoring stream reach).
kilometers downstream from the DSR (degraded stream reach). It contains
a channel with mature floodplains and is located immediately below Muddy
Creek's confluence with an ephemeral stream that carries large sediment
loads.
This reach is 31.7
This reach provides an opportunity to study restoring channel
212
';czween cross sections at each bank level where production was estimated
and then clipped. For each instream structure site, 60 plots were
xeasured each year.
For the 3 meanders in each study area, vegetation was sampled in
June, July and August at three bank locations; stream side, middle of
the floodplain and upper floodplain. A similar weight estimation and
clipped sampling scheme was used for meander sampling.
To determine potential livestock benefits, total above ground
biomass was determined for both study areas by multiplying the sample
data by the area, which was determined from aerial photos using an
electronic planimeter. Surface areas in square meters for the two
Muddy Creek study areas are as follows:
DSR
RSR
Area (m2)
Meanders
11,125
27,809
Straights
2,509
10,097
Total vegetation production was converted to AUMs, at a conversion
rate of 3 6 3 . 6 kg equalling one AUM.
assumed. Values per AUM of $1.35, the current Federal lease rate, and
$8.00 the average private lease rate,were used to estimate a range of
values of forage production to domestic livestock.
production level is assumed to stay constant over the 30 year planning
horizon to compare production with the structures to production without
A utilization rate of 65% was
The 1984 vegetation
213
the structures being installed.
Indirect methods of valuing vegetation production for wildlife must
be used since no markets exist f o r forage f o r wildlife production.
s tudy by Severson, et al, (1980) in the Red Desert of Wyoming showed
that antelope diets in that area consisted of 98% shrub species.
assumption was made that since the only shrub species located in the
riparian area is willow (Salix SDD.), its production would be the best
estimate of critical forage required by mule deer and antelope in the
area.
meanders estimated willow separately from the other species present so
an estimation of willow production can be made.
A
The
The vegetation sampling conducted on both the straights and
To determine the number of deer or antelope that could survive on
the t w o study areas, total willow production was determined from t h s
vegetation sampling results and the areas from aerial photos. A 40%
utilization rate and a daily intake rate of 0.82 kg/animal/day
(Severson, et
could be sustained by the willow production. The Wyoming Game and Fish
Department (personal communication with Walter Gasson, Planning
Coordinator) estimate the number of licenses s o l d equals 35% of the
population on average.
WTP value from Table I1 for estimating the value from the federal
agency's point of view. To determine the value of wildlife to the
private land owner, the average access fee per day charged by Wyoming
land owners as reported by Jacobs, et al, 1987 was multiplied by t h e
average number of days spent hunting. The 1984 production level w a s
al, 1980) was used to find the number of animal days that
-
The number of licenses w a s mulitiplied by the
2 14
zissurned to remain constant to compare production with the structures to
production without the structures being installed.
Ciatsr Quantity: A grounawater monitoring well network exists
directly above and below the DSR and RSR study areas.
conitored biweekly in 1986 and 1987 from April to November.
p e r study area was equipped with a Stevens recorder to obtain continuous
water level changes.
radiation.
potential aquifer strata along Muddy Creek. This information was used
to estimate potential groundwater storage.
groundwacer-surface water interactions at Muddy Creek has just begun,
with data available on all wells for 1987 only. The total acre feet of
water estimated to have been stored on the two study reaches is an
approximation only, and will be refined by additional years o f data
collection.
This network was
One well
All wells were logged using gamma and gamma-gamma
These logs were utilized to obtain the bulk density of
The quantification of
The estimated storage in acre feet for each study area was
multiplied by the dollar values o f water used for irrigation, municipal
and industrial uses, shown in Table 111. No baseline data were
collected on groundwater-surface water interactions, making predictions
of ground water responses to the installation of the structures
impractical.
Recreation: Recreational benefits associated with riparian areas
vary from kayaking and rafting to camping and picnicing to fishing. The
w h e of the riparian resource f o r these activities can be deternined by
215
estimating the recreationalist's WTP. The Travel Cos t Method or a
Contingent Value Method such as bidding games are used to estimate WTP.
The Travel Cost Method surveys the user to determine what expenses he
incurred getting to the recreational site. Demand curves for the
recreational experience can be developed using the amount spent on
travel as a substitute for price. Bidding games ask the recreationalist
to place a dollar value on dif fering levels of resource or opportunity.
For example, photographs of a river with varying flows would be shown
to a fisherman and he would place a dollar value on each condition.
Determination of the recreational use at Muddy Creek was beyond the
scope of this research.
Sediment: Crossections at 16 instream structure sites in the RSR
on Muddy Creek have been surveyed annually from 1984 to 1987.
addition, 3 cross sections below the structures and 5 cross sections in
the DSR have been surveyed. The increase or decrease in bank and channel
due to deposition or scouring can be determined from the survey data.
Four inch square plates of 0 . 6 4 centimeter metal flashing were buried on
the meanders in both study areas in June of 1986. Four plates were
placed at each June vegetation sampling location for a total of 108 in
the RSR and 72 in the DSR.
June, 1987, to estimate the depth of deposition on the meanders.
In
,
Sixty five of these plates were relocated in
Average depth of sediment was determined f rom the survey data and
buried plates.
mulitplied by the area from the aerial photos.
Total deposition was estimated using these depths
Bulk densities of the
216
I
':;ark material of 1.231 g/cm3 for the DSR and 1.139 g/cm3 for the RSR
;;?re k m s m from a previous study, allowing for t he calculation of weight
d f seaizent deposited. Dollar values were reported in dollars/ton. One
citation was in acre feet o f sediment in reservoirs, so it was assumed
t h a t sediment weighed 85 pounds per cubic foot (USDI-BLM, 1977) to
convert Crowder's (1987) value of $SOO/acre foot to $0.27/ton. Actual
conversion using bulk densities from Muddy Creek equals 73.8 pounds/ft3
or $0.3l/ton.
This method o f valuing sediment deposition makes the assumption
t h a t for every t o n of sediment stored on Muddy Creek there is a
corrzsponding decrease of one ton of sediment at a downstream reservoir.
This may not be completely accurate since the water that has dropped its
sediment load may be l'hungry" and will regain some o f its sediment load
downstream.
To estimate what deposition may have been without the structures,
the average deposition on the con t ro l s below the instream structures for
1984-87 was found and multiplied by the area of the RSR.
for the area where the structures are installed for 1 9 8 4 - 8 7 was a lso
mulitiplied by the entire area.
since no data were collected prior to 1986 on the meanders.
average for the straights should be a conservative value since when data
xere collected in 1986-87, the amount of deposition on the meanders
esceeded the amount on the straights.
without the structures was discounted at 4% and 8% over a 30 yea r
planning horizon.
The average
No estimation was made for the meanders
Using the
The values f o r depositon with and
217
S a l f n i t v : Bank s o i l s and bed material samples were collected
during June, July, and August of 1986 on the meander sites in both
reaches.
Soils Laboratory for Magnesium, Potassium, Sodium and Calcium. The 1973
USGS Water Resources Data for Wyoming was used to estimate f o r Muddy
Creek the anions that would accompany these cations to form salts,
reported in mg salt/kg of soil.
These samples were ana lyzed by the University of Wyoming
Since the tons of sediment deposited was calculated, the total
amount of salt was estimated using the tons of sediment deposited on
channel banks and bottoms.
remain "stored" with the sediments.
concentration of the streamflow will not be decreased at down stream
locations.
through salty and alkaline soils, decreasing the dollar value of storing
salts in the upper watershed. Dollar values f o r salinity were given in
dollars per ton, and tons of salt associated with the sediment could be
determined since mg of salt per kg of soil was known.
The assumption w a s made that this s a l t would
It is possible that the sa l t
Additional salts may be dissolved as the stream continues
To compare salt storage with and without the structures, the
amounts of salt included in the sediments found in the control areas
below the dam sites and in the RSR were discounted at 4% and 8% over a
30 year planning horizon.
Instream Structures: The number of structures needed and
the number of years for installation in a given stream section will
change with the channel conditions of the area. The cost of an
218
IF.:ciividual structure was determined us ing the new cost of construction
, - 4 - :&,-er ia ls . The individual cost was then multiplisd by the number
;-squired on Muddy Creek each year. All costs were discounted back to
1964 which was the first year that structures were installed. There may
be additional maintenance costs associated with keeping the structures
anchored after the final installation year.
costs was made.
No estimation of these
RIPARIAN CASE STUDY VALUES
Yepetation: Data from the vegetation sampling and the number o f
AUM's f o r livestock are shown in Table X. The
Froduction for livestock use averaged over 1 9 8 6 and 1 9 8 7 was greater in
t h e RSR
DSR.
value of vegetation for livestock use, the area with the structures
shows a net present value (NPV) of $574-3,400 when discounted at 8% over
30 years.
would be $420-2,490 over the same 30 year period.
manders i n the RSR has continued to increase each year.
value o f vegetation
with a range of $51- 302 per year compared to $ 7 - 4 0 for the
When comparing the influence of the instream structures on the
The estimated production of the areas without the structures
The production on the
Using the
1986-87 average over the 30 year planning period may be a conservative
spproach.
Salis production for the two study areas f o r 1986 and 1987 and for
Conversions to anirnals/year and =he RSR in 1984 are shown in Table XI.
bollar/study area are also shown. Wildlife values to t h e private land
2 19
T A P L E X . V E G f T A l l C N PROOUCTION IN A N I M P L U N I T M O N T H S ( A U M S ) F O R E A C H Z T R E P M R E A C H
DEGFACiLr S T R € A M R E A C H ( D S R )
1984 1985 1986 1987 A U M S
S T R A I E El 5
M E A h D E R S
- .75 .72
4.37 4.24
A V E R A G E 19E6-67
S T R A I G H T S
1984.
5.6
5 . 0 4
RESTORING S T F E P M F C P C h ( R S R )
1 9 e s 1986 1987
6.77 8.26 8.00
M E I! N C € E E 22.05 25.16 27.70 31.50
A V E R A G E 1966-87 37.75
2 V E G E T A T I O N F R O D U C T I O N IN G/M-
S T R A I G H T S - ( RSR)
1984 1 9 e 5 1986 1487
T O T A L B I G M A S S 310.16l 374. a9 457.66 442.92 1
P R O C U GTI ON 1 8 7 . 6 5 2 3 5 . 1 2 265.56 2 78. 4a1 1 E A L I X
- MEANDERS
0 2
T O T A L B I O M A S S
S A l I X F RODUCT I GN
. RX T O l A L BIOMASS
S A L I X P R O D U C T I G N
219.74 213.36
123.38 1 2 3 . 9 3
5 5 7 . 6 5 533.29
265 . . !?E 378.51
1 P r o c u c t i o n l e v e l s in 1584 & 1987 a r e s i s n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t tire .05 l e v e l .
220 L
T A U L E X I . C O N V E R S I U P J O F S C L I X P R O C U C l I l i N T O V A L U E OF I N C R E A S E D A C C E Z E FEES OR N E T W I L L l N G N € S S T O FAY F O R A D D I T I O N A L L I C E N S E S
1986 1987 1984 D S R F 5 f ; DSR R S R RSF!
S a l i x p r o d u c t i o n i n k g / S t u d y A r e a
H e a rl d e r s 1,372.7 7,507.6 1,378.8 10,536.9 7,100.2
Strnights 254.3 2,681.5 266. 7 2 , 8 1 1 . 5 1 , 8 9 4 . 8
T o t a l 1,627.(! lO.lC9.3 1,645.5 1 3 , 3 4 8 . E E , 5 $ 5 . 6 1 1
4 G X utilizctien 650.8 4,055.7 658.2 5,339.5 3,597.9
D a y s zt . 8 2 k9/ dr.imal/day 793.7 4,970.4 &,02. 7 6.51 1.6 4,387.8
C.ninlaIs/year 2.17 13.62 2 . 2 0 li.80 ‘ 7 .02
Licenses i s s u e d a t 35% c f h e r c , size . 76 4.8 .77 6.2 4.2
\ / a h 4 license a t n e t W T P cf 1 7 3 5 5 . 48 3 5 0 . 4 0 5 € . 2 1 452.60 3 0 6 . 60
V a l u e o f a c c e s c f e E s a t $ 1 7 . 4 4 / d a y x 4 d a j s x # licenses 5 3 . 0 2 334.85 53.72 4 3 2 . 5 1 2 9 2 . 9 9
1 P r o d u c t i o n l e v e l s i n 1984 & 1987 a r e significantly different a t t h e .C?5 level.
owner vary from $53 on the DSR to $384 on the RSR. These values were
calculated based on an average trespass fee charged by Wyoming land
owners of $17.44.
society ranges from $56 on the DSR to $402 on the RSR.
planning horizon at 8% discount rate, the area where structures are
installed will yield $4,520 compared to $3,450 without structures.
An average hunt of 4 days was assumed. The value to
Over a 30 year
Water Quantity: Table XI1 shows the acre feet of ground water
This water storage at Muddy Creek during the 1986 and 1987 seasons.
could have a large differential in value depending upon its availability
and use. The value of the average amount of water stored in the DSR in
1986 and 1987 would vary from $2,250 if used for irrigation purposes at
$12,50/acre foot, to $25,560 if used by industry.
uses could be worth $15,300-25,740 at $85-143/acre foot.
Water for municipal
Sediment: At Muddy Creek, the DSR accumulated 1,625 tons of
sediment over the 1986-87 period.
tons of sediment deposited over the RSR.
a value range of $.27/ton to $.58/ton resulting in annual values o f
$439-943 for the DSR and $2,339-5,025 f o r the RSR.
During this same time period, 8 , 6 6 4
Storage of this deposition has
The use of instream structures is estimated to increase the
accumulation over the RSR from 1,356.2 tons/year to
Over a 30 year period at 8% discount rate, the area with structures
would yield a NPV of
structures.
2,856.7 tons/year.
$8,683-18,653 compared to $4,122-8,855 without the
222
T A B L E X I I . C O M P U T A T I O N O f VALUL O F S T O R E D W A T E R A 1 K13DDV C R E E k hHEN USED FOR I P R I G A T I O N , M U N I C I P A L OR I N D U S T R l A L FURFCiSES
f i E A C P P.VE P A G E P E L C E N T A R E A S T O R A C E V A L U E T O V A L U E T C V A L M rcI W A T E R 1 POROSIlY D l l R I WG 1 R R 1 G hT I ON I h D U S T R Y W l i N I C I P A L I T I E S L F V E L SEAS(;I\: AT $ 1 2 . 5 o / c \ F AT $ 3 0 - 1 4 2 j P . F A T $ 8 5 - 1 4 3 j A F ( f e e t ) ( L c r e s ) ( P . c . Ft.) ( 2 . ) 0 ) ( S )
D € CR A 0 E 0 S T R E A M R E P C H
? 5: E. 6 0 . 9 7
1 9 8 7 1 . 3 9
A V E R A G E 1 9 8 6 - 8 7
2 4 . 5 61 5
2 4 . 5 E l 5
I
1 5 c
i l C
1 E . O
$ 1 . 5 7 5
2,625
2 , 2 5 0
$ 4 , 50@-21,300
6,3OO-Z9,820
$l2,75@-21,450
1 7 , 850-30, 03C
1 5 , 3 0 0 - 2 5 - 7 4 0
k E S T C R I N G S T R E A M R C r i C H
1 9 8 6 1 . 2 3 20 .3 1 , 5 9 0 400 5,000 f \ 2 , 0 0 0 - 5 6 , 8 0 0 $34,000-.57,200
1 9 8 7 1.89 20.3 1 , 5 9 0 G OC. 7, 500 l € . , oc:c-F.s, 200 51,@00-85,8CiO
A V E R A G E 15E6-87 500 6 , 2 5 0 15,0C0-.71 , COO 4 2 , 5OO-7lt50O
1 E -verage c h z n g ~ i n w a t e r l e v e l f r o m h i g h e s t t o l o k e s t p o i n t . d u r i n g t h e m e a s u r i n g s E a s G n , Cpril-Novumter .
Sal in i ty : Tons of salt stored with the sediment dep-osited ranged
from 1 . 8 4 7 tons on the DSR to 3.641 tons on the RSR. The annual values
o f storing these sal ts ranges from $55.41-152.17 for the DSR to
$109.23-299.98 for the RSR at values of $30 to $82.38/ton.
$133.94/ton was reported by Franklin, et a1 (1983) as the value to water
users in the Imperial Valley of California if the salt were retained i n
Wyoming.
A value of
The installation of instream structures increases the amount of
salt stored on the RSR from . 5696 tons/year without the structures to
1.1998 tons/year with the structures using 1 9 8 4 - 8 7 averages.
year per iod with an 8% discount rate, the area with structures would
have a NPV of $405-1,113 in comparison to $192-528 for the area without
structures.
Cver a 30
Dollar values associated with salt storage on riparian zones could
be large because of the large cost associated with increased salinity
levels in the lower Colorado River system. As can be seen from Table
VIL, the $/mg of salt/l of water range from $76,865 for agricultural
damage to $240,500 for municipal damages to $ 4 4 7 , 7 0 0 estimated annual
total damage for each mg/l increase of total salts in the lower
Colorado River basin.
-
Tnstream Structures: Table XIXI shows the materials and their
costs required for the construction of a s i n g l e structure.
estiinated that 104 structures will be needed at Muddy Creek.
It is
Table XIV
L
224
N N vl
T A B L € X I I I . C O N S T R U C T I O N C O S T S F O R A S I N G L E I N S T R E A M S T R U C T I J R E
4 hours l a b o r x 4 Fectple a t $ 5 r n 0 0 / h ~ ~ r *
6 s h e 1 F o s t s a t $2 .60 each
30 f e e t ween w i r e a t $ . 2 5 / f o o t
10 y a r d s e r o s i c n m a t f a b r i c a t $ . 6 9 / q a r d
T O T A L C O S T
$ 80. 00
15.60
7-50
6 . 9 0
$1 lorn00
N N cn
T A B L E X I V . C O N S T R U C T I O N C O S T S FOR I f l S T A L L I N G I N S T R E A M S T R U C l U H E S A T MUDDY C R E L K
Y E A R
1 4 e 4
1 9 8 5
19E6
1 9 8 7
1 W8
1 5 8 9
7 9 9 0
1 9 9 1
T O T A L
N U M E E R OF COL L E U ClHS
32
1 6
1 6
8
a 8
8
8
T O T A L C O S T
( $ 1 $ 3 , 5 2 0
1 , 7 6 0
1 , 7 6 0
880
810
880
880
880
N P V A T 89,
( $ 1 $3,520
1 , 630
‘1, 506
6 9 9
6 4 7
595
5 5 4
E, 1 :;
$ 9 , 6 6 8
hFV A T 4%
( $ 1 $ 3 , 5 2 0
1 , 6 9 3
1 , 628
782
7 5 2
7 2 3
6 9 5
6 6 9
$ 1 0 , 4 6 2
..:o:Js t h e t i m i n g of the installation of the structures and the
r2 lscountzd NPV at 4% and 8%.
F r o j e c t e d to be $9,668 at 8% and $10,462 at 4%.
The NTV of the total instaflation is
Combined Benefits: The benefits that a private land owner could
expect if an area similar to Muddy Creek were restored are shown in
Table XV. The private land owner would receive benefits from vegetation
as AUM's f o r domestic livestock. Increased trespass fees from
additional hunters pursuing the increased wild game the vegetation could
support would also be generated. If the land owner's riparian habitat
could support a fishery, there may be additional income generated from
fishing access fees or access fees charged for nonconsumptive uses such
as photography, birdwatching, camping, o r picnicing.
From the land owner's point of view, benefits from the DSR are $93.
The instream structures would not pay for themselves if new materials
were used in their construction. However, the materials can be found on
most ranches and can be constructed by ranch labor.
rate, the net benefit is negative at $-1,945.
$5,789 would be realized without the structures being installed. Total
benefits per area and per km of stream are shown since the DSR and the
RSR are not of equal size.
$113/hectare compared to $32/hectare for the DSR.
"
At an 8% discount -
A positive benefit of
The benefits from the RSR range are
Because a Federal agency is responsible to the society as a whole,
additional benefits can be included in the economic analysis. The value
of the stored sediments and accompanying salts can be included in the
227
T P E L F X Y . V A L U f OF R L N E F I T S FROP R I P A R J P I l A R E A 5 IN O I F T E R E N T C H A t N L L ( . O N D I T I O N S , P V E P A G E OF 1 9 8 6 - 8 7 ,
4% AND 82 DISCOUNl K A T E S C t C l P T I : € P F I V P T E L A K O GWNEH'S _ P O l t J T O F V I E W . AND N € 1 F P C 5 E h ' T L P L U E C*f C F ( 1 A M k T I O N 1 5 . 1 h C 1NCTF:EAM I ; l R U C I U R € C O V E F ! A 30 Y L C R PERIOD AT
7 O T A L BF NEFll S / T O T A L 8 E N E f T T S / C H A N N E L L 1 V E S T O C K W I 1 LL I F E R E C R E A T ION2 T O l A l C O N D I T 10N P R O O U C T I O K PROOUCl I O N ANtlUAI B t N E F I l S H E C T A R E K I L O M E T E R
( $ 1 ( $ 1 ( $ 1 0) ( $ 1 C N N U A L f ; f N E F I T S
O E G R A C E D S T R E A M 5 4 6 $ 5 3 R E f C t i ( D S R )
T:ESTC;I; I NG
L E A C H ( R 5 . R ) S T KEAH 302 304
$ s3 $ 32 s 2 7
6 8 6 1 1 3 138
F R E C E N T b A L U E O f C O S T S ANG C E N E F I 1 5 . NFV B E N E f ' i l S
No S T K U C T U K E S N
N A T 42 3 . e 2 5 5 , 0 6 6 I 8.891 (x,
A T 8X 2 . 4 9 0 3 , 2 9 9 5 , 7 8 9
I hl S T AL L E D
W I T H S T R U C T U f i L S INSTALLED e l 4 1 5,222 6 . 6 4 0 1 ? , 8 6 2
4,3if-27,717 ? . 7 2 3 - 3 1 , 1 1 7 AT 8% E., 400
C O S T OF S1 L U C l U R t S
AT 4 1
AT 8%
tdET E E N E F I l (C0:T ) OF I N S T A L L l E l E S T R U C t U R I S
A T 4 X
A T bZ
1 0 , 4 6 2
9 , 6 € e
1 ,400
( ! . 9 b 5 )
1
2 D c r i b r d f r c m a c c e s s f e e s c b s r y e d b r k'bon:ins l a n d owners ( J a c c b s ,
No r e c r c r t ' o n v a l u r s d c c u m e r r t c t f c r t h e s t u d y t r e e C c t c c - u l d i n c l u d e a t c e s s f e e s
e t a l . 1987) .
f o r f i s h i n g , p t - .o tccraphy . c a m p i n g or o t h c r c o n - c c r l s u n i p t , i v r u s e s c.f t h e r i p n r i a n r r e e .
- r = c z l benefits (Table X V I ) . These benefits occur when the private land
I ;‘.;nzr completes improved riparian area management as well. However, the
i m d owner is not receiving any dollars directly from sediment or salt
.;:orage. There may be areas where the control of salts and sediment is
important f r o m society’s point of view and cost snare programs could be
entered into by the land owner and the federal government.
The average value of benefits from 1986-87 are $557-1,191 for the
DSR to $2,01-6,029 for the RSR, from the Federal agency’s point of view.
After including the additonal benefits of sediment and salt storage, the
instream structure installation is economically v i a b l e if the upper
values can be applied. At an 8% discount rate, the structures show a
net benefit of $4,514-18,018 compared to $8,186-15,325 without the
structures. Benefits per area vary from $193-414/hectare f o r the DSR to
$477-992/hectare for the RSR.
If industry, a municipality or irrigators were to pump the
groundwater for use off-site, the value of water at Muddy Creek could be
quite high, up to $77,529 over the 30 year planning period (Table XVII).
The hydrological interactions are not well enough documented to estimate
what effect differing pumping levels at various times during the season
will have on other parameters such as vegetation production or return
flows.
instream structure installation, so no estimation of the structures
impact on groundwater storage can be made.
No baseline data were taken on groundwater levels prior to
229
T A B L € Y V I . V A L U E OF B E N E F I T : FROM R I P A R I A N A R E P S lh' GIffEREh'l CHANAEL CONOITIONS, A V E P A G E CF 19E6-87, AND N E T P R t 5 E N l V C l l I E OF R F C C A k h r l G h U S I N G I l l t i T K E A M STRUCTURLS (!\rER 30 YEARS AT 4 Z AE;[a 8X OISCOUHT RLTES fRCaM A F E D E R A L A G E E I C I ' 5 F O I I J T [IF V I E W ,
C HAh NE I i I V E S T U C K w i o L i r E R E C R E A T I O N ' SEOIMENT SAL 1 tj 1 TY TOTAL I 0 1 AL ' T O T A L C.0 N D I P I 0 F; PRODUCT IOK f 'RODUC.7rON BEN L F I T 5 b 1. N € F I 1 $ / 6 E N € F I T 5 /
H E C T A R E KI 1 ObIETER ( $ 1 ( $ 1 ( $ 1 ( $ ) ( $ 1 ( $ 1 ( S )
A t : Y U A l B E N E F I T S
- I , E G R t . G E C S T R E A M R C A C H ( D S R ) 7-40 56
h E STClR 1 N G 5 TR €fiM R L P C H ( K S R ) 51 -302 4c2
P E L S E N T V I L l j E CIF COSTC AND B E N E F l l S
NO S1 RUCl UR E S I N S T A L L E D A T 4 x 6 5 4 - 3 , e25 !.* 3C2
AT 6:; 420-2,490 3 , 4 5 2
W I M S T E U C T V R E S 1Nl; fAL L E E
N m 0
P T 42 8 C Z - 5 , 2 2 2 6,943
(.T 8 2 574. 3.400 4, 52c
P T 4z
P.1 8%
N E T B E N C F I T OF 1h'STAI.L I N G CTRUC'TURES
A T 4%
F T 8%
h39-943 5 5 - 1 52 5 5 7 - 1 , I91 $1 93-414 $ 1 € 1 - 3 4 3
2,339-5,025 lC9-3CC 2,901 -6,029 471-992 563-1 , 2 1 1
N P V E,CNtf I TS
6 , 3 3 2 - ! 3 , 6 0 1 297- 812 12,585-23.S40
4 . 1 2 2 - 8 , 6 5 5 1SZ-528 8,186-15,325
13,337-28,651 622-1 ,70 21,78A-42,525
E , 6 8 3 - 1 8 , 6 5 3 405-1,113 14,182-27.686
i
1 C , 4 6 2
9 , 6 6 8
I
i' V a l u r b a s e d cr W I l l i n g n r s s to P a y v c l u e f r o n Loomis, et 6 1 , 1985.
No r c c r a h t i o n vz . lues w e r e docb.ncr+t.cd f c r t h e s t u d y i ~ r ~ e b u t c c u l d include a c c e s s f E e s f o r f t a h i r l g , p h o t o g r c p b y , carnp ' rg o r o t h e r r : c . r - . c o r r s u s p t i v € t i s e s c.f t h e r i p z r i a r l n r e c .
T A B L F X V I I . VALUE OF hEN€F 115 F R O P E 1 P A R I P . M A R E A S I N D I F F E R E N T CHANNFL C O h ) I T I O N S , P V E R A G E O F 1 9 e 6 - 8 7 . -__ F R O M -- A --- F E D E R A L - -_ - A G E N C Y ' S F O I U I OF VlEk U I l H GROUNDk/ATEF PUP.CWAS€S BY I R R l G A T O R S , M U N I c I P A L I T I ES,R IF;DUSTRY.
I NOUS1 R I A L C HA tlFI E 1 L I V E S T O C K W T L D L I F E R E C R E A l I O N SEDIMENT SALIt4ITY I R k l G A T I O N MUNlCTPPL COhDITION P C O D U C T I O t 4 PRODUCT I O N
( 1 ) , ( $ 1 ( $ 1 ( $ ) ( $ 1 ( $ 1 ( 5 )
D E G R A D E D 5TFEAM $ 7- 40 S 56 R E A C H (DSR 1
R L ST OR I NG
RE CCH 5TF:EAtI 51 -302 4 0 2
( R C . R ) N w c--r
T O T A L B E N E F 1 1 5 FOR E A C t i GI4[:UNC~I\'ATER USEH
I R R I G A T I O N M U M 1 C I P A 1 Ih 'DUS1 R I A L
D S R $ 2 , 8 G 7 - 2 , 4 4 1 $ 1 5 , 8 5 7 - 2 6 , 9 3 1 $ 5 , 9 5 7 - 2 6 , 7 5 1
l O l A L B E h E F I T 5 / t I E C I P R E 9 7 5 - 1 , 1 9 5 , 5 , !I 0 k - 9 , 3 5 1 2 , 0 6 e - g , 2 8 9
TOTAL E t b € F S T S / k f i O f S T R F P H 80s.. 542 4 , 5 7 0 - ' / , 7 6 1 I , 7 1 707 ,709
R S R 9 , ? 5 1 - 1 2 , 2 7 9 4 5 , 4 0 1 - i 7 , 5 2 9 1 7 , 9 0 1 - 7 7 , C 2 9
W T A L B E N E f ' ; T 5 / H E C1 PI;€ 1 , 5 0 5 - 2 , 0 2 0 ?, 4 6 7 - 1 2 , 7 5 1 2 , 9 4 4 - 1 2 . 6 6 9
T O T A L B E t i E F I1S/ k M OF 5 T R E A N 1 . 8 3 8 - 2 . 4 6 6 9 , 1 1 7 - 1 5 , 5 6 8 3,595-1 5 , 4 6 8
The sediment data used for this document was collected using stream
cross section and buried plate techniques. Since 1987, suspended
sediment in streamflow has been collected above and below the DSR and
RSR using the standard U.S.G.S., USDH 48 and 49 samplers and the Equal
Transect Rate method biweekly from March through October.
of deposited sediment using this technique, along with data collected
from the stream gaging stations, is a more accurate measurement o f
sediment transport and deposition along the channel of Muddy Creek.
addition, sediment transport is being measured below the DSR and above
the RSR, above and below a 7 krn improved riparian zone.
1987 will modify the benefits presented in the following manner.
The estimate
In
These data from
The conservative estimate o f sediment for the RSR presented in this
paper is 8,664 tons, whereas using the 1987 data the estimate is 450,000
tons. These estimates equate to 3.64 and 189 tons of deposited salt
respectively. The difference in annual dollar values are $ 2339 and
$121,500 for 1987 for sediments at the low end of the range presented in
Table IX. The difference in salts is $ 109 and $ 5,673 at the low end
of the range [Table VII].
The 1987 data reflected a contribution of 2 .5 million tons of
sediment being transported out of the DSR.
transported from the stream reach equate to losses of $675,000 for the
value of the sediment and $85,245 of potential damage of the salts
downstream, using values of $0.27/ton for the sediments and $30/ton for
the salts. However, these sediments are deposited in the improved reach
which l i e s between the DSR and the RSR.
These sediments being
This improved section stored
232
i
3.2 million tons of sediernnt in 1987.
sediment storage and $109,115 in storage of salts, using the low range
This equates to $864,00O/year in
cf T;.a?ues.
These differences based on a more accurate measurement of sediemnt
transport and deposition illustrate potential value of riparian zones
for control of non-point source pollution. Although private landowners
w i l l not receive direct benefit from the storage of these sediments and
salts, these benefits do provide justification for the public land
agencies to evaluate management strategies.
SUMMARY
i
I
I
1
The major strength o f this research lies in the data that have been
collected at the two study sites. The dollar values for the various
benefits are based on actual physical changes recorded and the economic
information gathered from other studies.
starting point for the refinement of riparian area values as additional
information is gathered,
vith justification to proceed in riparian area management and
reclamation. Two main weaknesses are present in this research. The
first Is applying economic values that were determined under a different
set of circumstances to riparian uses.
data available on rip-arain areas and the interactions between the
differing uses. The relationships have not been quantified, making it
difficult to determine whether the uses of a riparian area are
This paper provides a
It also provides the public resource manager
The second concerns the limited
233
complementary or competitive. For example, if groundwater were pumped
for use off-site, how would the vegetation production and sediment
storage be affected? Additional research is needed to document these
inter realtionships.
Further riparian research is required before more definitive
statements of economic worth can be made. Documentation of the physical
responses that will occur is needed before management practices can be
judged on their economic merit.
to have the necessary information available such that the point of
A goal of riparian management should be
greatest net marginal benefits for alternative management strategies can
be determined.
Although the results from this research have many caveats attached,
it is a first attempt at quantifying the benefits associated with
riparian areas in the West. The important point of this paper is not
the absolute dollar values, but the process presented. As additional
information is obtained, the tables presented can be refined so that the
information is based on riparian research rather than associated water
research. This paper provides few concrete answers, but presents a -
starting point for land managers that must make decisions today, and
can’t wait for an all inclusive understanding of riparian zones and
their ecological functions, when subjected to user pressure.
Based on the information obtained through the pertinent literature
and the case study, the following conclusions can be made:
1) There are values associated with the production of riparian
areas in the cold desert shrub areas of the West as shown by the values
2 34
Zssnd in the literature review that may be applied to benefits from
:i?arian areas.
2) A difference in values between a riparian area in an improving
2nd one in a degraded condition does exist, as shown by Tables XV, X V I ,
‘ind’ X V I I .
3) The use of instream structures to slow stream flow velocity and
raise the channel bottom with deposited sediments may be economically
-:iable depending upon the user’s point of view.
?
1
235
LITERATURE CITED
Clark, Edwin H. 11, Jennifer A Haverkamp, and William Chapman, 1985b. Eroding Soils: The Off-farm Impacts. The Conservation Foundation. 252 pp.
Crowder, Bradley M., 1387. "Economic Costs of Reservoir Sedimentation: A Regional Approach to Estimating Cropland Erosion Damages". J. of Soil and Water Conservation 42(3)194-97. May-June, 1987.
Daubert, John T., Robert A . Young, and S. Lee Gray, 1979. Economic Benefits from Instream Flow in a Colorado Mountain Stream. Colorado Water Resources Research Institute, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO Completion Report No. 91.
Donnelly, Dennis M., John B. Loomis, Cindy F. Sorg, and Louis J. Nelson, Net Economic Value of Recreational Steelhead Fishing in Idaho. 1985.
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, CO Resource Bulletin EM-9.
Evans, Robert G., 1981. Optimizing Salinity Control Strategies for the Upper Colorado River Basin. PhD dissertation, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO.
Franklin, Douglas R., James J. Jacobs and Paul J. Farris, 1983. Water Resource Development Impacts in the Green River Drainage of Wyoming. University of Woming Agricultural Experiment Station. Journal #l89. August 1983.
Research
Howe, Charles W., and Douglas V. Orr, 1974. "Effects of Agricultural Acreage Reduction on Water Availability and Salinity in the Upper Colorado River Basin". October, 1974.
Water Resources Research 10(5)893-97.
Jackson, William L., Eric B. Janes, Bruce P. Van Havern, 1985. "Managing Headwater Areas for Control of Sediment and Salt Production from Western Rangelands". In: Salinity: A Nonpoint Source Problem-Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution.
Jacobs, James J., David T. Taylor, Alan C. Schroder, and Edward B.
Department of Agricultural Bradley, 1987. Managing Wyoming's Agricultural Resources to Increase Income from Tourism and Recreation. Economics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.
Jaworski, Eugene, and C. Nicholas Raphael, 1978. Fish, Wildlife, and Recreational Values of Michigan's Coastal Wetlands. Division o f Land Resource Programs, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources.
Prepared for
c i
r
L
i
236
I
., . * - . ..:ng,, ' talliarn, Xichael Zay, and John Charbonneau, 1978. Valuation of Xiparian Habitat. Presented at the National Symposium on Strategies f o r 2rotection and Management of Floodplain Wetlands and Other X p a r L a n Ecosystems, Callaway Gardens, Georgia, Dec. 11-13, 1978. p . i 6 i - 6 5 .
*I :\leiman, Alan P., Glade J. Barney, and Sigurd G. Titmus, 1974. Economic Impacts of Changes in Salinity Levels of the Colorado River. Bureau of Reclamation, Dept. of the Interior, Denver, CO.
Loomis, John B . , Dennis M. Donnelly, Cindy F. Sorg, and Lloyd Oldenburg, 1985. Net Economic Value of Hunting Unique Species in Idaho: Bighorn Sheep, Mountain Goat, Moose and Antelope. Rocky Yountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, CO Resource Bulletin 2M-10.
kKean, John R. and Kenneth Nobe, 1983. "Sportsmen Expenditures for Hunting and Fishing in Colorado-1981. Research Institute. Ft. Collins, CO. Technical Report #39. January, 1983.
Colorado Water Resources
Meyer, Philip, A . Public Values for Riparian Ecosystems: Experimental Results in the West and Implications for the Grand Canyon. at the First North American Riparian Conference, Tucson, AZ April
Presented
16-18, 1985. p. 4 1 7 - 2 0 .
Mller, Jerry B., David L. Wegner, and Donald R. Bruemmer, 1981. "Salinity and Phosphorus Routing Through the Colorado River/Reservoir System". In: Aquatic Resources Management of the Colorado River Ecosystem. p . 1 9 - 4 1 .
Saliba, Bonnie Colby, David R. Bush, and William E. Martin, 1987. Water Marketing in the Southwest-Can Market Prices be Used to Evaluate Water Supply Augmentation Projects? Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, CO. General Technical Report EM- 144. September, 1 9 8 7 .
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Severson, Keith, Morton May, and William Hepworth, 1980. "Food Preferences, Carrying Capacities and Forage Competition Between Antelope and Domestic Sheep in Wyoming's Red Desert." Experiment Station, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY SM10, November, 1980.
Agricultural
Sorg, Cindy F. and John B. Loomis, 1984. Empirical Estimates of Anenity Forest Values: A Comparative Review, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, CO, General Technical Report RM- 107.
Sorg, Cindy F., and Louis J. Nelson, 1986. The Net Economic Value of Elk Hunting in Idaho. Station, Ft, Collins, CO Resource Bulletin EM-12.
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
237
Sutherland, Ronald J., 1982. "A Regional Approach to Estimating Recreation Benefits of Improved Water Quality". J. of Environrnentai Economics and Management 9(3)229-47. September, 1982.
Thomas, Jack Ward, Chris Maser, and Jon E. Rodiek, 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Rangelands: The Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon--Riparian Zones. Experiment Station, La Grande, OR General Technical Report PW-80.
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1986. Metropolitan Denver Water Supply-Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Corps of Engineers, Omaha District. December, 1986.
U.S.
USDA-United States Forest Service, Medicine Bow National Forest, 1981. Cheyenne Stage I1 Water Diversion Proposal, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Medicine Bow National Forest, Laramie, WY.
USDA-United States Forest Service and USDI-Bureau of Land Management, 1985. 1985 Grazing Fee Review and Evaluation-Draft Report.
USDI-Bureau of Land Management, 1977. The Effects of Surface Disturbance on the Salinity of Public Lands in the Upper Colorado River Basin. 1977 Status Report.
USDI-U.S. Geological Survey, 1973. 1973 Water Resources Data for Wyoming-Part2. Water Quality Records. USGS, Water Resources Division, Cheyenne, WY. 233 pp.
Walsh, Richard G., Douglas A. Greenley, Robert A. Young, John R. McKean,
A Case Study of the and Anthony A. Prato, 1978. Option Values, Preservation Values and Recreational Benefits of Improved Water Quality: South Platte River Basin, Colorado. Dept. of Economics, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO EPA-600/5-78-001.
Walsh, Richard G., Ray K. Ericson, Daniel J. Arosteguy, and Michael P. Hansen, 1980. Recreation Value of Instream Flow. Institute, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO
An Empirical Application of a Model for Estimating the Colorado Water Resources Research
OWRT Project NO. A-036-COLO.
Wilson, David L., and Harry W. Ayer, 1982. The Cost of Water in Western Agriculture. Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. ERS Staff Report No. AGES820706.
Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 1985. Estimates of Expenditures in Wyoming by Hunters and Fisherman. unpublished. Obtained through personal interview with Walter Gasson, Planning Coordinator.
Wyoming Water Development Commission, 1984. Little Snake River Water Management Project Technical Summary Report. Webster Engineering Corp., Denver, CO.
Prepared by Stone d
2 38
, ; : F T , 7.oSert A . , 1983. Economic Impacts o f Transferring Water f r o m ..?rFccLture t o Al te rna t ive Uses i n Colorado. Colorado..Water ' . ' sso i i rces Research I n s t i t u t e , F t . Co l l in s , C O . Completion Report :;uxoer 1 2 2 .
--:n:x;, ??'\obert A . , and S. Lee Gray, 1 9 7 2 . Economic Value o f Water: 17sncepts and Empirical Estimates. Department o f Economics, Colorado t : za te University, F t . Co l l in s , CO. NWC-SBS-72-047.
,. :-+:ng, Zobert A . , and S . Lee Gray, 1985. "Input/Output Models, Economic Surplus and the Evaluation o f S t a t e o r Regional Water Plans". Xesources Research 21(12)1819-23. December, 1985.
Water
,
239