Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

A. J. Douglas

Publications and source records attributed to A. J. Douglas.

8 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2009

Riverine based eco-tourism: Trinity River non-market benefits estimates

California's Central Valley Project (CVP) was approved by voters in a statewide referendum in 1933. CVP referendum approval initiated funding for construction of important water development projects that had far reaching effects on regional water supplies. The construction of Trinity Dam in 1963 and the subsequent transbasin diversion of Trinity River flow was one of several CVP projects that had noteworthy adverse environmental and regional economic impacts. The Trinity River is the largest tributary of the Klamath River, and has its headwaters in the Trinity Alps of north-central California. After the construction of Trinity Dam in 1963, 90% of the Trinity River flow at Lewiston was moved to the Sacramento River via the Clear Creek Tunnel. Before 1963, the Trinity River was a major recreation resource of Northern California. The loss of stream flow has had a marked adverse impact on Trinity River-related recreation activities and the size and robustness of Trinity River salmon, steelhead, shad, and sturgeon runs. Trinity River water produces hydropower during its transit via Bureau of Reclamation canals and pumps to the northern San Joaquin Valley, where it is used for irrigated agriculture. The benefits provided by Trinity River instream flow-related environmental amenities were estimated with the travel cost method (TCM). Trinity River non-market benefits are about $406 million per annum, while the social cost of sending water down the Trinity River ranges from $17 to $42 million per annum, depending on the exact flow. We also discuss the relative magnitude of Trinity River survey data contingent value method (CVM) benefits estimates.

International Journal of Sustainable Development a↗
USGS2009

Social, political, and institutional setting: Water management problems of the Rio Grande

This paper discusses various water management issues facing federal, state, and local agencies charged with managing the water resources of the Rio Grande River Basin and its major tributaries. The Rio Grande - 3,058 km (=1,900 mi) long - is the fourth longest river in the United States. The river's basin is 870,236 km 2 (=336,000 mi 2 ) and for roughly two-thirds of its length it forms the United States-Mexican border. It is a major recreational resource providing world class trout fishing near its headwaters in Colorado's San Juan Mountains and shoreline, angling, and boating opportunities near the Colorado-New Mexico border. The Rio Grande is the principal tourist attraction of Big Bend National Park and flows through downtown Albuquerque and El Paso. Many reaches are wide and broad, but almost all are relatively shallow and not navigable by commercial ships. Nevertheless, it is one of the most important renewable water resources of the southwestern United States and North America. The issue of the "manageability" of the river in the face of social forces and disparate administrative jurisdictions that adversely impact Rio Grande flows is a thread linking various sections of the paper together. The length of the river; the fact that major reaches lie in Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas; and its unique role as an international boundary pose complex management problems. The allocation status quo formed by the complex nexus of existing river laws make it difficult to reshape Rio Grande management. ?? 2009 ASCE.

Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management↗
USGS2004

Lake Powell management alternatives and values: CVM estimates of recreation benefits

This paper presents data analyses based on information gathered from a recreation survey distributed during the spring of 1997 at Lake Powell. Recreation-linked management issues are the foci of the survey and this discussion. Survey responses to contingent valuation method (CVM) queries included in the questionnaire quantify visitor recreation values. The CVM estimates of the benefits provided by potential resource improvements are compared with the costs of the improvements in a benefit-cost analysis. The CVM questions covered three resources management issues including water quality improvement, sport fish harvest enhancement, and archeological site protection and restoration. The estimated benefits are remarkably high relative to the costs and range from $6 to $60 million per year. The dichotomous choice format was used in each of three resource CVM question scenarios. There were two levels of enhancement for each resource. There are, therefore, several consistency requirements—some of them unique to the dichotomous choice format—that the data and benefit estimates must satisfy. These consistency tests are presented in detail in the ensuing analysis.

Arizona, Utah↗
USGS1999

Resource management and nonmarket valuation research

Survey based nonmarket valuation research is often regarded as economics research. However, resource economists need to be aware of and acknowledge the manifold information sources that they employ in order to enhance the policy credibility of their studies. Communication between resource economists and practitioners of allied disciplines including chemistry, civil engineering, sociology, and anthropology are often neglected. Recent resource allocation policy debates have given rise to an extensive discussion of methodological issues that narrow the scope of the subject. The present paper provides a format for the presentation of nonmarket valuation research results that emphasizes the manifold links between economics studies that employ different methodologies to estimate nonmarket resource values. A more robust emphasis on the interlocking features of the different approaches for estimating nonmarket benefits should foster appreciation of the transdisciplinary aspects of the subject.

International Journal of Environmental Studies↗
USGS1999

The economic value of Trinity River water

The Trinity River, largest tributary of the Klamath River, has its head-waters in the Trinity Alps of north-central California. After the construction of Trinity Dam in 1963, 90% of the Trinity River flow at Lewiston was moved to the Sacramento River via the Clear Creek Tunnel, a manmade conduit. Hydropower is produced at four installations along the route of Trinity River water that is diverted to the Sacramento River, and power production at three of these installations would diminish if no Trinity River water were diverted to the Sacramento River. After Trinity River water reaches the Sacramento River, it flows toward the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay. Trinity River water is pumped via Bureau of Reclamation canals and pumps to the northern San Joaquin Valley, where it is used for irrigated agriculture. The social cost of putting more water down the Trinity River is the sum of the value of the foregone consumer surplus from hydropower production as well as the value of the foregone irrigation water. Sharply diminished instream flows have also severely affected the size and robustness of Trinity River salmon, steelhead, shad and sturgeon runs. Survey data were used to estimate the non-market benefits of augmenting Trinity River instream flows by letting more water flow down the Trinity and moving less water to the Sacramento River. Preservation benefits for Trinity River instream flows and fish runs are $803 million per annum for the scenario that returns the most water down the Trinity River, a value that greatly exceeds the social cost estimate.The Trinity River, largest tributary of the Klamath River, has its headwaters in the Trinity Alps of north-central California. After the construction of Trinity Dam in 1963, 90% of the Trinity River flow at Lewiston was moved to the Sacramento River via the Clear Creek Tunnel, a manmade conduit. Hydropower is produced at four installations along the route of Trinity River water that is diverted to the Sacramento River, and power production at three of these installations would diminish if no Trinity River water were diverted to the Sacramento River. After Trinity River water reaches the Sacramento River, it flows toward the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay. Trinity River water is pumped via Bureau of Reclamation canals and pumps to the northern San Joaquin Valley, where it is used for irrigated agriculture. The social cost of putting more water down the Trinity River is the sum of the value of the foregone consumer surplus from hydropower production as well as the value of the foregone irrigation water. Sharply diminished instream flows have also severely affected the size and robustness of Trinity River salmon, steelhead, shad and sturgeon runs. Survey data were used to estimate the non-market benefits of augmenting Trinity River instream flows by letting more water flow down the Trinity and moving less water to the Sacramento River. Preservation benefits for Trinity River instream flows and fish runs are $803 million per annum for the scenario that returns the most water down the Trinity River, a value that greatly exceeds the social cost estimate.

International Journal of Water Resources Developme↗
USGS1999

Diversifying natural resources value measurements: The Trinity River study

An interdisciplinary team set out to establish the economic and social values of the Trinity River in northern California . This information was intended to support the Secretary of the Interior's decision on allocation of Trinity River flows . This team set out to measure the values of Trinity River flows , fishery resources , and rec reation amenities in several different ways . A survey was mailed to users of the Trinity River . This single instrument included economic measures ( willingness - to pay and costs incurred in visiting ) and social - psychological measures ( importance , satisfaction , and water allocation preferences ). A closely related survey measured several of these same values among west coast regional households . The results of these surveys were compiled , and the measured economic and social values were compared . We found that integrating economic and social value information pro vides a greater depth of understanding of the resource's value . In addition , this integration provides a more in - depth understanding through the quantitative and qualitative results that emerge.

Society and Natural Resources↗