VALUAnON OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN TRINITY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
by
KATHERIJ\TE DANA MACFARLAND
A THESIS
Presented to the Department of Planning,
Public Policy and Management
and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Community and Regional Planning
September 2010
"Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Trinity County, California," a thesis prepared by
Katherine Dana MacFarland in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of
11
Community and Regional Planning degree in the Department ofPlanning, Public Policy,
and Management. This thesis has been approved and accepted by:
Cassandra Moseley, Chair of
Date
Committee in Charge:
Accepted by:
Cassandra Moseley, Chair
John Bliss
Trudy Cameron
Dean of the Graduate School
© 2010 Katherine Dana MacFarland
III
IV
An Abstract of the Thesis of
Katherine Dana MacFarland for the degree of
Master of Community and Regional Planning
in the Department of Planning, Public Policy, and Management
to be taken September 2010
Title: VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN TRINITY COUNTY,
CALIFORl\TIA
This study considers the role of the forest ecosystem in Trinity County,
California's economy. I seek to better understand the natural resource-based economy of
a national forest-proximate community by creating a framework that describes the
resource flows into and out of Trinity County and guides ecosystem services valuation
within the County. Thus, this study examines the monetary benefits that ecosystem
functions create through delivery of goods such as water, energy, and timber and also
estimates the value of services, such as recreation, carbon sequestration, and amenity
value. Finally, this study examines how money is spent to maintain the ecosystem
functions that create these goods and services, such as who pays to maintain water
collection and filtration capacity or habitat. Ultimately, this study offers insight into
opportunities and limitations for ecosystem services valuation at the county level, and
considerations for future attempts to value ecosystem services.
v
ClJRRICULUM VITAE
NAlVIE OF AUTHOR: Katherine MacFarland
GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
DEGREES AWARDED:
Master of Community and Regional Planning, 2010, University of Oregon
Bachelor of Science, Natural Resources, 2003, Cornell University
AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST:
Natural resources planning
Economic development
Ecosystem services
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Graduate Research Fellow, Community Planning Workshop, University of
Oregon,2009-2010
Graduate Teaching Fellow, Department of Community and Regional Planning
University of Oregon, Spring 209
GRANTS, AWARDS AND HONORS:
John and Karen Baldwin Family Scholarship in Environmental Planning, 2009
Vi
Vll
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank Cassandra Moseley, John Bliss, and Trudy Cameron for their
assistance in the preparation of this manuscript. In addition, special thanks are due to Lynn
Jungwirth, Nick Goulette, and others at the Watershed Resource and Training Center in
Trinity County, California. I also wish to thank everyone who provided me with
information and guidance.
Vlll
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose of the Research......................................................................................... 3
Research Questions................................................................................................ 5
Trinity County........................................................................................................ 5
II. LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................ 8
Definition of Ecosystem Services.......................................................................... 8
The Importance of Ecosystem Services Valuation 9
Ecosystem Services Types 13
Valuing Particular Goods and Services................................................................. 14
Valuing and Pricing............................................................................................... 18
Valuing Ecosystem Services Comprehensively: Approaches and Scales 20
Economic Impact Versus Social Benefit............................................................... 23
Other Inputs to the Model...................................................................................... 24
Other Valuations of Ecosystem Services.... 26
Inherent Limitations of Ecosystem Services Valuation......................................... 29
Limitations to the Application of Ecosystem Services Valuation 34
Specific Limitations to the Trinity County Model................................................. 36
III. METHODS 38
Introduction............................................................................................................ 38
Services and Functions 40
Chapter
Model for Trinity County .
Spatial Scope , .
Temporal Scope .
Data Limitations .
Selecting and Defining Services .
Structures Included in this Study .
Functions Included in this Study .
Disturbances Included in this Study ..
Overview of Valuation Methods for Chosen Goods and Services ..
Methods of Valuation of Disturbances ..
Sources and Calculations for the Valued Services .
Overview .
Water Quantity .
Hydroelectricity .
Fish
Timber .
Marijuana , '" .
Recreation .
Hunted Wildlife .
Non-Timber Forest Products ..
IX
Page
43
46
49
52
52
53
54
55
55
58
59
59
60
61
62
63
63
64
65
66
Chapter
IV. RESULTS .
Framework .
Disturbance Results .
Restoration .
Hazardous Fuels Reduction .
Timber Harvest .
Flood
Fire
Goods and Services Valued in the Direct Market.. .
Water Quantity .
Diagram
Structures and Functions .
Goods and Services .
Limitations '" .
Hydroelectricity .
Diagram
Structures and Functions .
Goods and Services ..
Limitations .
Fish
Diagram
x
Page
68
68
68
71
72
73
74
75
76
76
81
83
84
85
86
86
86
88
88
89
89
Chapter
Structures and Functions .
Goods and Services .
Timber .
Diagram
Structures and Functions .
Goods and Services .
Marijuana .
Diagram
Structures and Functions .
Goods and Services .
Recreation .
Diagram
Xl
Page
89
91
92
94
94
96
96
97
97
99
99
100
Structures and Functions............................................................................ 102
Goods and Services.................................................................................... 102
Summary 106
Hunted Wildlife............................................................................................... 106
Diagram 106
Structures and Functions............................................................................ 108
Goods and Services.................................................................................... 108
Non-Timber Forest Products 108
Diagram 109
Chapter
XlI
Page
Structures and Functions............................................................................ 109
Goods and Services.................................................................................... 111
Goods and Services Not Valued in the Direct Market.. 111
Energy from Biomass...................................................................................... 111
Diagram 111
Structures and Functions 111
Goods and Services.................................................................................... 113
Water Quality................................................................................................... 113
Diagram 114
Structures and Functions 114
Goods and Services 114
Non-Hunted Wildlife 116
Diagram 116
Structures and Functions............................................................................ 116
Goods and Services.................................................................................... 118
Climate Regulation.......................................................................................... 118
Diagram 119
Structures and Functions 119
Goods and Services.................................................................................... 119
A1nenityValue 121
Diagram 121
Chapter
X111
Page
Structures and Functions 121
Goods and Services 121
V. DISCUSSION 124
VI. CONCLUSIONS 129
Methodology 129
Prices 130
From Practices to Results....................................................................................... 131
Disturbances........................................................................................................... 132
Approach 132
REFERENCES 134
XIV
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Classification of Ecosystem Goods and Services 14
2. Four-Layer Model. 44
3. Framework for Valuation of Ecosystem Goods and Services
in Trinity County.................................................................................................... 48
4. Direct and Indirect Use Indicators 57
5. Valuation of Ecosystem Goods and Services in Trinity County........................... 69
6. Provision of Water Quantity 82
7. Provision ofHydroelectricity............................................................. 87
8. Provision of Fish 90
9. Provision of Timber 95
10. Provision ofMarijuana 98
11. Provision of Recreation.......................................................................................... 101
12. Provision ofHunted Wildlife 107
13. Provision of Non-Timber Forest Products 110
14. Provision ofBiomass 112
15. Provision of Water Quality 115
16. Provision of Non-Hunted Wildlife......................................................................... 117
17. Provision of Climate Regulation.... 120
18. Provision of Amenity Value 123
xv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Examples ofFunctions, Goods, Services, and Valuation Methods 58
2. Revenues from Hydroelectricity for 2009 62
3. Trinity County Fishing Licenses 2005........ 63
4. Estimated Deer Tag Revenue 2009........................................................................ 66
5. Forest Service Permit Revenue from Non-Timber Forest Products 2009............. 67
6. Restoration Budgets 73
7. Instream Release Volumes..................................................................................... 80
8. Recreation Summary 106
9. Value of Ecosystem Goods and Services 124
XVI
LIST OF GRAPHS
Graph Page
1. Net Board Feet Harvested from all Trinity County Lands.. 92
2. Dollars per Thousand Board Feet in Trinity County............................................. 93
3. Percent of Timber Harvest on Public Land............................................................ 94
XVll
LIST OF EQUATIONS
Equation Page
1. Social Value of Flows.................................................................................. 19
2. Deer Tags in Trinity County. 66
1CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This project seeks to broaden understanding of the forest ecosystem's role in the
economy of Trinity County, California by valuing the services this ecosystem provides.
Many rural communities across the United States face pressures to transition away from
economies based on natural resource extraction. Researchers, government officials, and
environmental and community advocates have suggested that payments for ecosystem
services could help form a new economic base. Ecosystem services valuation attempts to
put prices on benefits provided by the ecosystem that are often undervalued, or valued at
zero, in the marketplace. Determining an economic value for forest ecosystem services
will provide necessary information and rationale for protecting and managing the forest
in Trinity County and ecosystems in counties across the United States. This analysis has
particular relevance for communities like Trinity County that are dominated by public
land. The conclusions of this study could inform pricing, cost sharing, and land use
policies in Trinity County and could help to change the balance between who pays and
who benefits.
Creating mechanisms to pay for ecosystem services requires an understanding of
the ecological and economic flows into and out of the community. Currently, those who
benefit from the ecosystem services provided by the forest ecosystem in Trinity County
generally do not pay for the upkeep of the services. Changing the relationships between
2these groups is balance could be an opportunity for the economic development
of Trinity County and could help address long-term equity issues necessary for
sustainable development. This project uses innovative techniques within natural resource
planning to address issues of community economic sustainability. By combining
approaches from economics, regional and land use planning, and natural resource
management, this project will help inform the understanding and development of markets
for ecosystem services.
Trinity County, located in northern California, both contains and is surrounded by
a significant portion of Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Trinity County has an area of
3,200 square miles and a population of approximately 13,000. Until recently, Trinity
County's economy relied largely on the timber industry. In the past twenty years, the
economy has shifted towards tourism and depends more heavily on other natural
resources besides timber, particularly water for both hydropower and to export for
consumption in central California. Although its economic focus has changed, the county
still relies on its natural resource base for most of its economic activity.
To better understand the dynamics ofa National Forest-proximate community
with a natural resource-based economy, this project creates a framework that describes
the resource flows into and out ofTrinity County. The goal is to better understand the
monetary benefit that ecosystem functions currently create through delivery of water,
energy (through hydropower), timber, and fish. It also investigates services with other
types of value that currently have a price on the market: recreation, carbon sequestration,
and amenity value. Simultaneously, the project seeks to better understand how money is
3spent to maintain ecosystem functions that create these services: who pays to
maintain water collection and filtration capacity, habitat, stand structure, and other
important ecosystem functions. Finally, the project investigates characteristics of
mechanisms that link those who benefit from ecosystem services with the maintenance of
ecosystem function.
I am working on this project in conjunction with the Watershed Research and
Training Center in Trinity County, which promotes land stewardship and economic
development in part through jobs based on restoration. This project will allow the
Watershed Center to make better-informed policy decisions in the future and better
understand the economic flows upon which its communities depend by recognizing the
economic, social, and environmental facets of sustainability.
Purpose of the Research
This proj ect represents a model for valuing ecosystem services in local
communities, particularly those dominated by federally managed land. Because it relies
upon publicly available data, other communities could replicate the project's framework
and approach. Other valuations of ecosystem services occur at much larger geographic
scales or focus on single services, despite the fact that indicators for other types of social,
health, and economic services are often valued at the county level. Many budgetary
decisions and much spending to maintain ecosystem functions are carried out at a county
level. This study values ecosystem services at the county level, where many land use
decisions are made. It thus puts ecosystem indicators on a similar footing with other
services and gives them practical applications for existing institutional frameworks.
4Through its scope, approach, and framework, this project promotes the
development of sustainable communities.
The purpose of this project is not simply to calculate the economic production
based on natural resources in Trinity County. Instead, the purpose of this project is to
investigate how these values fit into the ecosystem. In addition, the goal is to understand
how much of the value can, already is, and could be expressed in economic terms. The
purpose of this project is to provide context for these values and map out who pays and
who benefits.
Worldwide, payments for ecosystem services are seen as an opportunity for
economic development, particularly in rural- and natural resource-based communities
(Pagiola et al. 2005; Tallis et al. 2008; Swallow et al. 2009). Ecosystem services
valuation is a first step towards creating markets that could provide those payments, and
in understanding the economic and environmental systems within which these payments
would operate.
In addition, researchers have called for work to make the concepts of ecosystem
services and the indicators used to assess them more standardized (Layke 2009). The
hope is that this work would aid policy makers in using ecosystem services in their
decision making. This project both helps decision makers within Trinity County
understand what data and indicators are available locally because it assesses ecosystem
services at a countywide level. This project also provides a model for ecosystem services
valuation elsewhere.
5Research Questions
• What is the ecological and economic framework within which ecosystem goods
and services exist in Trinity County?
• What are the values of ecosystem goods and services in Trinity County?
• Who pays to ensure ecosystem functions in Trinity County?
Trinity County
This project examines ecosystem services in Trinity County because of its
historically natural resources-based economy, the composition of institutions in Trinity
County that provide data relevant to valuation, and the interest of local organizations and
residents in ecosystem services valuation.
Three-fourths of Trinity County's 2,052,980 acres are federally owned: 71 % are
managed by the Forest Service, 4% by the Bureau of Land Management, and 1% by the
Bureau of Reclamation (The Sierra Institute 2002: 3). This composition should allow
more access to information about the outputs of this ecosystem compared with counties
that are dominated by private landownership. Data are collected about water, forest
cover, and other aspects of the ecosystem by public entities and these data are publicly
available.
In addition to being publicly managed, the resources and institutions in Trinity
County together fonn an instructive set for ecosystem services valuation. Trinity County
has federal agencies, community based organizations, and county government all
interacting to manage its natural resource base. The county also has a wide variety of the
ecosystem goods and services types that are often discussed in the ecosystem services
6valuation literature, such as cultural, provisioning, supporting, and regulating
services (Layke 2009). This broad scope of services and availability of data make Trinity
County a practical place to study ecosystem services valuation.
The county's economy is also largely based on its natural resources, especially
natural resources extracted on public land. Since the 1950s, Trinity County's largest legal
cash crop has been timber (The Sierra Institute 2002: 3). Both the amount of timber
harvested and the value of that timber have decreased significantly due to the restrictions
of the Northwest Forest Plan, mechanization and consolidation of mills, global
competition, and a degraded land base (The Sierra Institute 2002: 3). Some ofthe
economic base has shifted to recreation and tourism. In addition, local wood processing
and valued-added wood products are seen as increasingly important sectors of the local
economy. However, because of the drops in timber harvest and prices, residents of the
county are looking to other sources to diversify their economy. Markets for ecosystem
services could provide an opportunity to diversify the county's economic base while
maintaining its natural resources. Local organizations and residents are interested in
learning more about these markets.
Understanding the value of the ecosystem services in the county also provides
residents and organizations with a more complete picture of the economic flows in and
out of the county. The benefits the ecosystem provides do not go to only one entity and
identifying these benefits comprehensively is not straightforward. In addition, numerous
public, private, and non-profit organizations work to restore, improve, and protect
ecosystem functions. These inputs are also not comprehensively understood or described.
Valuing ecosystem services in the county provides another large-scale
perspective on a fundamental but little-understood aspect of the local economy_
7
8CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Definition of Ecosystem Services
The literature contains extensive discussion as to the definition of ecosystem
services and functions. Often they are described as "naturally occurring goods and
services" (Brown et al. 2007: 334), which some researchers understand to mean services
produced with no human input (Brown et al. 2007: 337), or "those that exist without
human action" (Brown et al. 2007: 334). This definition excludes agriculture, which is
included in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessments (Capistrano 2005). In addition, this
definition takes a rather simplistic view of ecosystems, which are maintained through
labor inputs including management, restoration, and protection through regulation.
Human input cannot be a characteristic that excludes a service from the category of
ecosystem services because it would exclude nearly all goods and services. Other
definitions, such as that of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, suggest that goods
and services without human benefit should be included (Millelmium Ecosystem
Assessment 2003: 53). Other definitions limit ecosystem goods and services to those that
are renewable; as a result, forests are considered an ecosystem good only if they are
managed sustainably (de Groot et al. 2002: 397). Ecosystem services are different from
other natural resource goods because they have both economic impact and social benefit.
9The Importance of Ecosystem Services Valuation
Determining the economic value of ecosystem services provides additional
information and rationales for protection and management of ecosystems. Ecosystem
services valuation recognizes that these ecosystems have value even though the price of
these goods and services has often been unvalued, or valued at zero. Enumerating this
value is useful to both public and private landowners. While it would be easy to dismiss
this value as infinite because all goods ultimately come from ecosystems, society relates
to many systems through their economic values and so capturing the economic value of
the ecosystem is important. In addition, while total value of an ecosystem can be very
large, the marginal value, which detennines how participants are paid, can be small.
Understanding the relationship between total value and marginal value is an important
aspect of ecosystem services valuation.
Ecosystem services valuations are carried out for several reasons. Some
valuations are done "to show that natural systems are indisputably linked to human
welfare, even when they are priced at zero" (Pritchard et al. 2000: 36). In these valuations
"the focus is not on a single number that describes the worth of an ecosystem but on the
myriad ways in which human systems and natural systems influence and undergird one
another" (Pritchard et al. 2000: 36). This ensures that nature is represented in decision
making processes and notes "that its role in the economy is not merely aesthetic"
(Pritchard et al. 2000: 36). Other valuations try to prioritize land use and ecosystem types
(Pritchard et al. 2000: 36). This information is used as additional support for ecological
reasons to protect particular land use and ecosystem types. Finally, some valuations are
10
used "to justify or critique a particular decision in a particular place" (Pritchard
et al. 2000: 37). While this type of rationale for ecosystem services valuation can be
problematic due to measurement issues, it can also be used conjunction with other
decision-making tools to target and prioritize natural resource management.
There is a government role for ecosystem services valuation. To avoid the
underproduction of these ecosystem services, often considered public goods,
"governments generally take on the responsibility for producing public goods on behalf
of society with public financing through taxation" (Kline 2007: 4). Valuing ecosystem
services enumerates the extent ofpublic goods, which can help avoiding the tragedy of
the commons (Hardin 1968). These economic justifications are often called for by
policYmakers: "With limited budgets and demands for fiscal accountability, policy
makers and managers often must describe economic rationales for their decisions to
justify public expenditures and programs, weigh public preferences and support, and
compare the benefits of different policy and management alternatives" (Kline 2007: 1).
Ecosystem services valuation is one approach to articulating these economic rationales.
There are other conceivable roles for government in ecosystem services valuation
as well. Through policies and incentives encouraging ecosystem services provision on
private lands, government can work to encourage both the concept and the services
themselves (Kline 2007: 4). Increasingly, ecosystem services are being looked to by the
Forest Service and other federal agencies as a useful approach for management (Collins
and Larry 2007: 9)
11
In addition, as natural resource dependent communities (especially
those dominated by federal land) seek economic activities not dependent on extraction,
markets for ecosystem services may provide a non-extractive economic base. Currently,
those who benefit from the ecosystem services provided by the forest ecosystem in
Trinity County do not pay for their upkeep. Changing this balance could be an
opportunity for the economic development of Trinity County and could help address
long-term equity issues necessary for sustainable local development.
Also, monitoring these services and functions could provide jobs that employ
some or all of the skills of the local workforce, who are knowledgeable about the
ecology, management, and functions of the forest ecosystem (Gutman 2007). Each
market for ecosystem services will have particular rules for valuing these services (such
as methods to determine baseline conditions and additionality standards). This study
cannot provide an exact analysis of how much money could be made through these
potential markets. This study also does not employ the methodologies these potential
markets may employ, both because many of these markets do not exist yet and because
these methodologies for evaluating these services have not been established. However,
determining the magnitude of ecosystem services and comparing this magnitude to values
in proposed and existing ecosystem services markets could inform the potential viability
of ecosystem services markets as a engine for economic development.
In addition, some have suggested that ecosystem services markets could provide
both income for residents of natural resource dependent communities and a revenue
source for rural governments. Historically, the federal government has provided
12
payments to counties in compensation for non-taxable federal lands. These
payments were tied to commodity production, such as timber, on federal land. As timber
sales decreased, these payments decreased, and increasingly counties looked to other
types of contracting and other sources for county income. The payments were separated
from commodity production through the Secure Rural Schools Act and the Payments in
Lieu of Taxes program. The topic of whether and how federal land should participate in
markets for ecosystem services is controversial. However, if federal land participated in
markets for ecosystem services, there could be opportunities to create new systems of
payments to counties. These systems could be based on the valuation or the provision of
ecosystem services.
Currently, many payments for ecosystems are payments for practices that protect
function, rather than for changes in environmental quality as measured by environmental
goods or services. Landowners are paid for land that is not farmed and is put into riparian
or other land uses through the Conservation Reserve Program. The federal government
gives money to create fish habitat, rather than for the increase in fish population.
Payments for ecosystem services, rather than payments for ecosystem structure or
function, are a fundamentally different approach to conservation (Palmer and Filoso
2009). Payments for ecosystem services focus on outcomes not means, which is why it so
important that many ecosystem goods and services are examined (and maintained)
simultaneously through bundled payments, best practices requirements, or payments for
one good dependent on maintenance of other goods and services. These approaches
would allow ecological functions to be maintained.
13
Finally, ecosystem services valuation is not simply a method for
creating new ways of paying for ecosystem maintenance. Valuing ecosystem services can
also map who is currently maintaining ecosystems and who is benefiting from that
maintenance. Ecosystems services valuation can act as a large-scale benefit cost analysis
for agencies and other organizations that are working to maintain and improve ecosystem
structures and functions.
Ecosystem Services Types
Early discussions of ecosystem services examined the concept quite broadly, and
discussed ecosystem services and functions as one idea (Daily 1997: 3). Increasingly
other researchers have examined ecosystem goods and services separately from
ecosystem structure and functions (Brown et al. 2007). Ecosystem functions describe the
capacity of an ecosystem (Ansink et al. 2008: 490). Ecosystem services are the benefits
that the capacity produces (Ansink et al. 2008: 490). One way to understand the services
and functions of ecosystems is to think of ecosystem function as the stock of natural
capital, while ecosystem services are the flows produced by that stock (Ansink et al.
2008: 495).
The literature often categorizes ecosystem services and functions into different
types. One system discussed in a variety of research (Capistrano et al. 2005; Chan et al.
2006; Brown et al. 2007; Layke 2009) classifies goods and services as provisioning,
regulating, cultural, or supporting. Provisioning goods and services are obtained directly
from ecosystems, such as fish or timber. Regulating services are benefits obtained from
an ecosystem's control of natural processes, such as air quality and pollination. Cultural
14
services are nonmaterial benefits obtained from ecosystems, such as recreation
and spiritual value. Supporting services are the natural processes that maintain other
services, such as nutrient cycling and primary production (Layke 2009: 1, 6-7). Thus far,
society has generally put more value on provisioning services than other types of
services. In the context of the goods and functions classification, provisioning and
cultural services are generally considered goods, while supporting and regulating services
are generally considered functions.
Figure 1: Classification ofEcosystem Goods and Services
STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION
!
Provisioning Regulating Supporting Cultural
fish air quality regulation nutrient cycling recreation
timber climate regulation water cycling ethical values
freshwater water purification primary production
biomass pollination
!
GOODS AND SERVICES
Source: Layke 2009
Valuing Particular Goods and Services
Some goods and services have observable values because they are traded directly
or indirectly in markets. For example, timber (measured in board feet) has a price in the
market, though this price does not necessarily also reflect the values of erosion control,
carbon sequestration, and habitat that many be lost when trees are removed from the
15
ecosystem due to timber harvest. The price of timber may not account for the
services that are lost due to logging.
Due to undefined property rights or property rights attributed to the public at
large, many valuable services are not traded directly or indirectly through markets
(Brander et al. 2006: 227). There are several methods of valuation frequently used to
determine the indirect use and passive use values of ecosystem services. These include
household revealed preference methods (including travel cost and hedonic pricing
methods), stated preference methods (like contingent valuation), production function
methods, and replacement cost methods (Brown et al. 2007: 346). These other valuation
methods try to correct for the problems inherent in how we value ecosystems. They
recognize the externalities ignored in the current market, overestimating producer surplus
because other costs are ignored (Brander et al. 2006: 229).
• Travel cost methods estimate demand (through willingness to pay) using the
travel costs required to visit a site (Brander et al. 2006: 228). This method is
can be used to indicate the value of recreation.
• The contingent valuation method uses hypothetical questions to obtain actors'
willingness to pay (Brander et al. 2006: 228). This method is can be used to
indicate the value of biodiversity and water quality improvements.
• Hedonic pricing estimates willingness to pay using price differentials and
characteristics of related products (Brander et al. 2006: 228). This method can
be used to indicate the amenity value of an area.
• Replacement costs estimate how much it would cost to substitute a service,
16
often using mamnade structures instead (Heal 2000: 27). For
example, this method can be used to indicate the value of the function of
water purification by estimating the cost of building a water filtration plant to
replace the ecosystem function that purifies the water.
There are difficulties associated with each valuation method. Replacement cost,
opportunity cost, and market prices "do not have a sound basis in welfare theory and may
be expected to over- or underestimate values" (Brander et al. 2006: 229). The travel cost
method has limited abilities to deal with marginal prices; the good or service exists or it
does not, otherwise someone would not travel there (Heal 2000: 28). However, hedonic
cost methods are able to address marginal values. Contingent valuation is not actually
based on transactions, unlike other methods. Instead, contingent valuation is a survey
methodology (Heal 2000: 28). This method often requires participants to imagine what
they would payor spend, which can be inaccurate. About travel cost and contingent
valuation methods, Kline points out that "these methods can be expensive and require
specialized expertise to implement. Such demands often place benefits valuation beyond
the reach of public agencies for routine policy and management decisions." (Kline 2007:
13). Using methods that do not require extensive research may be a useful goal for
ecosystem services valuation methodologies. Values of ecosystem services also change
over time. Monitoring these changes requires extensive research to avoid inaccurate
valuation (Kline 2007: 13).
Replacement cost methods often only measure the replacement of one of the
ecosystem services provided by the ecosystem, not all of them (Heal 2000: 27). Brander
17
points out that the replacement cost"approach is based on the assumption that
if individuals incur costs to replace ecosystem functions, then the lost services must be
worth at least what people are willing to pay to replace them" (Brander et al. 2006: 230).
Brander suggests this method is flawed because "replacement costs are not based on
social preferences for ecosystem services, or individuals' behavior in the absence of those
services, and are unlikely to approximate consumer and producer surpluses." (Brander et
al. 2006: 230).
While most valuations of ecosystem services that employ these methods have
been performed since the late 1990s, the origins of these methods stem from methods
developed much earlier in economics and environmental economics. Hote1ling's work
valuing parks using the travel cost method is frequently used as part of recent valuations
of ecosystem services (1949). Krutilla did work on willingness to pay for existence value
of natural wonders, which he suggested advocated good government stewardship of land
(1967). Methods that value goods that are not in the market were proposed (Costanza et
al. 2006: 63): travel cost (Hotelling 1949), contingent valuation (Davis 1963), and
hedonic pricing (Ridker and Henning 1967). The management motivations for ecosystem
services valuation also have origins in multi-use management, which historically has
been an important approach to managing public forest lands (Bowes and Krutilla 1989).
The value of ecosystem services is determined by using data-based indicators.
Layke (2009) extensively reviews the indicators available for ecosystem services and
points out that "up to now most indicators used for ecosystem services have been adopted
from narrower environmental fields such as biodiversity, ecology, and climatology, and
18
from economic sectors such as agriculture, forestry, and fisheries" (Layke
2009: 4). While these existing indicators are a "necessary starting point," they "should be
seen as an interim strategy" because they often measure other things besides the service
itself (Layke 2009: 4). This characterization accurately describes the indicators used in
this study to value ecosystem services in Trinity County as well; the data were collected
for other purposes and the units and measurements were chosen to achieve those ends. In
time, more appropriate indicators need to be developed and data should be collected to
describe ecosystem functions and services in particular. Layke also points out that
particularly for sub-global ecosystem services valuations, "the topics covered appeared to
be shaped by the data available to the authors from national statistic accounts and other
locally accessible data compilations" (Layke 2009: 3). This focus is understandable, since
most current day valuations, including this one, work from existing data.
Valuing and Pricing
According to economists, natural ecosystems are assets that produce a flow of
goods and services over time, like any other asset in an economy (Barbier 2006: 4).
Barbier points out that whether or not a market exists for ecosystem goods and services,
their social value equals the discounted net present value of the flow of goods and
services (Barbier 2006: 4). IfB t is the social benefits from ecosystem services in any time
period t, then the social value of these flows is shown in Equation 1, where r is the social
rate of discount.
19
Equation 1: Social Value ofFlows
T Bt
Va = I _------,-_
o (l +r/
Barbier suggests that Bt can be measured by the aggregate willingness to pay by
the individuals who benefit in each period (Barbier 2006: 5). These individuals are
usually ignorant ofthe costs of maintaining what they are paying for, or unaware of the
origin of that good or service. Additionally, because sometimes there are no substitutes
for that environmental good or service, aggregate willingness to pay can be a problematic
measure of value. Barbier points out that "the benefits arising from the regulatory and
habitat functions of natural ecosystems generally are not [marketed]. If the aggregate
willingness to pay for these benefits, Bt , is not revealed through market outcomes, then
efficient management of such ecosystem services requires explicit methods to measure
this social value" (Barbier 2006: 5). Additionally, Barbier points out that many ecosystem
assets and services are nonrenewable resources with renewable service flows. This means
that if managed, the flows can be used at a sustainable rate. However, while the asset can
decrease (through land degradation, land use conversion, etc.) it cannot increase.
Heal points out that while valuation of ecosystem services through development
of market prices or deriving price from other market transactions would be ideal, "there
are relatively few cases in which this can be done" (2000: 28). When this is possible,
these prices may "not reflect the social importance of the services or the extent of the
losses that we would suffer if these services were removed" (Heal 2000: 28).
20
That valuation exists should not suggest that it is always an accurate
reporting of societal need. Services are valued more when they are rare. Distribution of
income also affects demand and prices for goods and services (Heal 2000: 25). The
market price of a good reflects the value of having slightly more or less of a good, not
losing the good entirely (Heal 2000: 25). However, many decisions made about
environmental goods and services do not have small impacts on a good or service, they
have large impacts. Market prices do not reflect this risk very well. Still, market prices
for ecosystem goods and services "provide an obvious basis for valuing them" (Heal
2000: 25).
Similarly, decisions that are made that effectively protect or improve ecosystem services
can have a negative effect on prices. Because value and scarcity are inversely related, when these
principles are applied to conservation, "species recovery and relative abundance can
paradoxically result in reduced support for conservation" (Vira and Adams 2009: 160).
Valuing Ecosystem Services Comprehensively: Approaches and Scales
Decision-making about framing ecosystem services valuations has important
outcomes for the valuations. Choices about what goods and services to include affect the
total value of the ecosystem. These choices are made based on data availability and
accuracy, but are also based on what is relevant to that ecosystem, economy, and society.
There are two key dimensions to different types of ecosystem services valuation:
scale and method. The value of ecosystem services is can be calculated for ecosystem
types at the parcel level (Kaufman and Dayton 1997), or they can be calculated at a larger
ecological or geographic scales (Wilcox and Harte 1997; Capistrano 2005; Costanza et al.
21
2006). The scale at which valuations are done affects the outcomes of those
valuations due to data availability, data accuracy, and other factors. Because of the
measurement difficulties inherent at working at a larger scale, large-scale studies often
are enumerations of services rather than quantitative valuations. There are practical
difficulties with valuation of ecosystem services at a broad scale (Costanza et al. 1997).
For example, when ecosystem services are valued at a very large scale, changes in land
use are often not accounted for (Nelson et al. 2009: 4). But more local assessments,
which tend to examine one service in a small area, limit comprehensive understanding of
resource flows in a region. "Although these [small scale] methods are superior to the
habitat assessment benefits transfer approach, these studies lack both the scope (number
of services) and the scale (geographic and temporal) to be relevant for most policy
questions" (Nelson et al. 2009: 4).
To create valuations that are useful for policy questions, it is helpful to examine
ecosystem services at a more comprehensive scope and scale than a single parcel.
Examining ecosystem services at a larger scale allows better understanding of the inputs
into and flows out from an area. This information improves knowledge of the area's
regional economics. Understanding who pays what prices for the outputs of a region's
ecosystem and who pays money to protect the sources of those outputs reveals a more
thorough understanding of those outputs. "Site-specific case studies ... can be used to
translate the abstract information embodied in more general studies of ecosystem services
into tangible and convincing terms that show how ecosystem services affect human
economies" (Wilcox and Harte 1997: 311). While site-specific case studies demonstrating
22
the effects of ecosystem services on human economies have been identified as
useful, few have been done quantitatively. This analysis of Trinity County seeks to fill
this hole in the literature. In analyzing ecosystem goods and services at the county level,
this analysis seeks to match data availability and spending and decision making power.
The methods that are used to combine valuations ofparticular goods, services,
and functions are also important. Benefit or value transfer is the method of adapting other
ecosystem service valuation studies to areas that have limited or no data on ecosystem
services valuation. These studies have been conducted on similar goods and services in
similar locations. This method can be problematic because these studies were often not
designed for application to other locations. Often these studies are simply illustrative new
methods, and rarely are results verified through repetition. However, benefits transfer is
often seen as the only option available because primary research would be too time
consuming or costly (Costanza et al. 2006: 74). To improve the ability to compare and
compile value transfer studies, the Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory was
developed by Environment Canada, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
others (McComb et al. 2006). This inventory aggregates many studies of ecosystem
services for use in value transfer.
One approach to ecosystem services valuation is to understand the social benefit
by applying a value to land type and then estimating the amount of that land type in the
study area, often using GIS. Usually, a value of ecosystem goods and services is
associated with a land use type on a per acre basis. The acreage of land in each land use
type is determined using GIS, and the value of ecosystem goods and services on that land
23
is calculated. GIS analyses also rely on benefit transfer, but are able to address
issues related to scale with more facility. GIS analysis allows researchers to examine
services at a variety of scales relevant to policy- and decision-making. This land use
analysis is not the approach this study takes. This study looks at the known impact that
the ecosystem has on the economy of Trinity County. This impact serves as a lower
bound to the value of ecosystem services in Trinity County.
Other examinations of ecosystem goods and services focus on assessing these
ecosystems rather than valuing them. One example of this approach is the subglobal
assessments in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which focuses on the state of the
global ecosystem rather than its value. This allows a more qualitative analysis, and also
allows more focus on describing ecosystems rather than assigning economic values
(Capistrano 2005).
Some ecosystem services valuations also examine an ecosystem in terms of its
capacity to supply services now and in the future. These flows are valued, which reflects
"the value of the ecosystem based on current and expected future flows of services"
(Ansink et al. 2008: 495). This study's valuation focuses on current values for these
flows, not future markets or future flows.
Economic Impact Versus Social Benefit
Activities can have both local economic impact and broader social benefit. While
economists tend to maximize social benefit, local communities care more about the
economic impact to that community. Phrased differently, economists seek to maximize
overall consumer surplus, while local communities seek to maximize the consumer
24
surplus within a community. Economic models recognize the equivalency of
substitutes of environmental goods, while local communities see economic benefit not
from a broad societal perspective that sees all benefits to individuals as equal, but instead
sees economic benefit as place-based. This fundamental difference suggests the need to
evaluate local economic impact separately from social benefit. Researchers should
choose which valuation to focus on depending on the goal of the analysis. Social benefits
of environmental goods benefit many more people than local economic impacts.
Understanding the broader social benefits of environmental goods is important to
understanding their value to society. Spending on ecosystem function maintenance and
restoration is usually local and place based, while the social benefits of that restoration
benefit a broader, sometimes global community. Assessing the social benefit of both
sides of this equation would overlook questions about the balance of who is paying for
these improvements to ecological function.
Other Inputs to the Model
Ecosystem functions are not the only elements that create ecosystem goods and
services. Many other factors, such as societal demand and societal choices external to the
ecosystems are also important. Communities choose to maintain particular ecosystem
functions because they provide products for society (ecosystem services). In fact,
ecosystem services can be described as ecosystem functions that have societal demand
(Chan et al. 2006; Ansink et al. 2008). However, communities also take many actions that
impact the landscape for other reasons, such as to ensure societal function, but do not
necessarily improve ecological function.
25
In addition, spending money on ecosystem function does not create
particular ecosystem services. There are many other non-ecological inputs to maintain
some of these services. To attribute too much of the value of these services to the money
spent on ensuring ecological function that provides those services is incorrect. To
continue to use Ansink et al. 's description of ecosystem structure and function as natural
capital, other kinds of capital like human capital also contribute to creating ecosystem
services (2008). Some researchers minimize this contribution, asserting that "production
of ecosystem goods and services requires no inputs of built capital, except in the sense
that in today's complex world ecosystem processes are often damaged by human
endeavors and are left to do their work relatively unimpeded by human enterprise only
through conscious decisions to protect the ecosystem" (Brown et al. 2007: 337).
However, this definition minimizes the human capital of various types such as such as
environmental restoration, laws, and enforcement along with regular management.
For example, water catchment yields from forests depend on a wide variety of
ecological factors such as rainfall amount, stand structure, and rainfall seasonality. In
addition to these factors, the value of the water caught by forests is not only determined
by their ecological function (Vira and Adams 2009: 159). As Vira and Adams describe,
"if any change in these factors (e.g., pollution, dam construction, channelization) affects
the value of water to downstream users, the conservation case for forest preservation is
undermined, without any change in the characteristics of the forest itself. The provision
of water services from an upstream forested catchment might support the case for
26
conservation of the natural capital in the biodiversity of the forest, but only if
these services are actually delivered to the downstream end user" (2009: 159).
While assessing the full value of these human capital inputs to ensure ecosystem
function would be difficult, some of this value can be assessed through examining the
budgets of governmental and non-governmental organizations. While it is impossible to
directly connect the actions of these entities to improve ecosystem function with the
services created, their goal is the creation of ecosystem services. Similarly to determining
the value of a place based on how much someone would pay to travel there (travel cost
method), the value of a function can at least partially determined by the amount someone
will pay to preserve or restore that function.
In addition, work to enhance ecosystem function often has long-term benefits.
The current amount of a good or service results not just from disturbances to the system,
such as restoration, but historical work as well. For this reason, the value of the
ecosystem services enhanced by these efforts to improve ecosystem function should be
examined over the course of many years. Along with long-term benefits, efforts to
improve one area of ecosystem function often have effects on many different services.
These effects emphasize the importance of an integrated ecosystem services approach.
Other Valuations of Ecosystem Services
In addition to reviewing the literature that addresses methods and types of
ecosystem services valuation, this chapter also reviews the literature of other valuations
themselves.
27
The tenn ecosystem services, first used by Ehrlich and Ehrlich in
(1981), was "an attempt to build a common language for discussing linked ecological and
economic systems" (Costanza et al. 2006: 68). The tenn is useful for synthesizing
economic and ecological concepts and for evaluating tradeoffs in landscape and
conservation policy decision-making (Costanza et al. 2006: 68).
An early valuation, which both legitimized the concept of valuing nature and
created the largest scale estimate of the value of ecosystem services, was Robert
Costanaza's valuation of global ecosystem services (Costanza et al. 1997). That study
found the value of global ecosystem services (marketed and non-marketed) to be $33
trillion, using a meta-analysis approach. The average total value of 17 services in 16
biomes was examined, and then the world's land cover of that biome was multiplied by
that average value. This value was twice the value of the world's gross domestic product
at that time.
Nature's Services was the first book written on ecosystem services and it
examined their characteristics and implications (Daily 1997). Although most chapters
focused on characteristics of the concept, one chapter in this book examined the
ecosystem services in Gunnison County, Colorado. While this study did not carry out a
cost-benefit analysis of environmental protection versus development, it described the
importance of ecosystem services to the local public lands-dominated economy (Wilcox
and Harte 1997).
Between 2001 and 2005, 1,360 researchers carried out the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, which was called for by the United Nations. It examined the state of both the
28
global ecosystem and sub-global ecosystems using studies that had already
been carried out (a meta-analytic approach). While this study did not value these
ecosystems, it enumerated their services and assessed their state of health (Capistrano
2005). The degradation of these services was determined to be a barrier to achieving the
Millennium Development Goals. The study also found that there are significant,
problematic gaps in knowledge about ecosystem services at the local and national scale.
In 2006 researchers estimated the value of ecosystem services of the state ofNew
Jersey (Liu et al. 2010). They used a spatially explicit benefit transfer approach,
evaluating twelve ecosystem services types across eleven land use/land cover categories
by using other studies that determined the value of the ecosystem services. The study
found that the value of ecosystem services in New Jersey was somewhere between $11.6
and $19.6 billion per year.
The studies that value ecosystem services across a spatial scale all rely on benefits
transfer. These studies do not rely on primary research. Most of these studies that they are
transferring from are usually investigating one service at a time. These studies tend to
discuss the social benefits, the benefits to broader society, of ecosystem goods and
services. While social benefit is important, these studies often do not address the
economic impact to the local community.
There are also examples of very research that examine the value of ecosystem
services related to a particular species, not a place or ecosystem. Martin and Blossey
refuted research that the high value of habitat provision that the aquatic invasive plant
Phragmites' provides was sufficient to avoid management for eradication (2008). Martin
29
and Blossey suggest that any ecosystem service must be considered within the
broader framework of other ecosystem services. While their point that the high value of
an individual ecosystem service does not matter if other ecosystem services are so low as
to render the ecosystem dysfunctional is very relevant to the current emphasis on carbon
markets, this single species scale differs significantly from this study.
Ecosystem services valuation has also been used by the government through cost
benefit analysis and, more narrowly, in Natural Resource Benefit Analysis after
hazardous substance or oil releases (Costanza et al. 2006: 72). These processes have
relied on many methods and concepts also used in academic ecosystem services
valuations, such as contingent valuation and passive use value.
Inherent Limitations of Ecosystem Services Valuation
Researchers recognize numerous limitations to ecosystem services valuations and
these valuations are often couched with significant caveats. As Brown et al. suggest, "a
focus on ecosystem services may turn out, through hubris or ignorance, to have been
shortsighted, but, on the other hand, this focus is a vast improvement over business as
usual and provides an opening for an even greater consideration of ecosystem processes
as our understanding of the natural world improves" (Brown et al. 2007: 332).
Many criticize ecosystem services valuation for being immoral, because it seeks
to quantify something invaluable, and inaccurate (Heal 2000). However, many people
including Costanza (1997) argue that valuation is inevitable:
30
"Although ecosystem valuation is certainly difficult and fraught
with uncertainties, one choice we do not have is whether or not to do it.
Rather, the decisions we make as a society about ecosystems imply
valuations (although not necessarily expressed in monetary terms). We can
choose to make these valuations explicit or not; we can do them with an
explicit acknowledgement of the huge uncertainties involved or not; but as
long as we are forced to make choices, we are going through the process
ofvaluation" (Costanza et al. 1997: 255).
Services can be undervalued because valuations disregard social importance,
oversimplify, are based on inaccurate data, or they give undue weight to one decision-
making mechanism. These criticisms are important to keep in mind when undertaking
valuation projects. In theory, services can also be overvalued. This overvaluation can
happen in two ways. The first is that the information the price is based on could be
inaccurate, or for some other information-based reason could be inflated. The second
reason is more abstract. Estimates of social benefit are not overvaluations, but sometimes
these value estimates do not have practical utility in the local market. For example, while
the climate regulation service that forests provides has value through carbon credits, there
are geographic, knowledge-based, legal, and other barriers to entry into the markets that
provide payments for this service. Examining non-local values for carbon credits might
suggest that the value of that service in Trinity County is quite high, Trinity County
might not be able to participate because it is not local to the market organization, Trinity
County's public land cannot currently participate, or people in Trinity County have used
different methodologies to evaluate the amount of climate regulation taking place on the
land.
While economic markets value ecosystem services inaccurately or not at all, there
are also problems with the accuracy of ecosystem services valuation. When ecosystem
31
services are not valued, most of the time they will be undervalued or their
values will be set at zero, but the valuation could also simply be uneven. Some services
are valued, while others are not. Often, which services are valued reflects the priorities of
either the local or more often the broader national or global society. Non-uniform
valuation is also a problem, where different methods unintentionally give different
weights to different services, suggesting that some services are more valuable than others.
Uneven and non-uniform values are fair criticisms of valuations of ecosystem services,
and this study (which does not value many ecosystem services, and uses different
methods to value each service) definitely leaves out many services.
Most assessments of ecosystem services have simplifying assumptions. Some
assessments recognize these assumptions as limitations. Still, some researchers believe
that these assumptions are too substantial for the assessments to be functional. Pritchard
et al. (2000) identified the myth of obj ectivity, the belief in commensurability, and a
normative premise as the most difficult assumptions inherent in valuations of ecosystem
services. The myth of objectivity suggests that a set of correct values exists that should be
used to make decisions (Pritchard et al. 2000: 37). This assumption takes different forms
for ecologists and economists, but both make this assumption. Economists think that
people have measurable, unexpressed preferences between different states of nature.
Ecologists assume that nature can be judged using scientific measures of ecosystem
function, which are somehow intrinsic. Both economists and ecologists also believe in
commensurability; they believe that things can be valued using either money or energy.
Finally they also have a normative premise that ecosystem services should be valued in a
32
prescribed way (either by individuals in a market or by an expert on behalf of
the system)(Pritchard et al. 2000: 37).
This project recognizes that objectivity cannot be achieved, but instead tries to use
values most relevant to Trinity County. These include both valuing economic impact and
indirect methods of valuation. This project emphasizes that while resources are not
exchangeable, decisions still need to be made about how to use scare resources to
maintain ecosystem function. Valuation provides some way to compare carbon storage in
forests to the forests' recreational value to their board foot value as timber. Monetary
value provides a single measuring stick.
Along with simplifying assumptions, each measurement in an ecosystem services
valuation has a degree of inaccuracy. These arise both because valuing methods have
flaws and because valuing methods are inaccurate. Some researchers find these
inaccuracies too problematic to give the valuation any merit (Ludwig 2000). However,
some researchers believe while recognition of these flaws is important, it is still
worthwhile to undertake ecosystem services valuation. Brown et al. point out that
"monetary estimates of the values of ecosystem goods or services, even if inexact, may
be far better than a complete lack of such estimates, especially if the direction of the error
in estimation- whether the value estimate is taken to be a lower bound or an upper bound
of the actual value, for example- is known" (Brown et al. 2007: 344). Most important is
that these valuations are transparent and their methods, even when problematic, are
subject to examination.
33
Just as human systems are not static, some researchers claim that
ecosystem services valuations do not recognize the complex and dynamic nature of
natural systems. This study tries to place these values within an ecological context;
however, this criticism is still relevant. Ecology is the study of connectedness, so
suggesting that there are simple mechanisms that can describe trade-offs between goods
makes no sense (Pritchard et al. 2000). Flexible systems frameworks, such as the one
used in this study, allow new relationships, functions, goods, and services to be added to
the model. Other types of ecosystem services valuations may suggest that some dollar
value can substitute for these systems, by using concepts like willingness to pay and
tradeoffs at the margins: "currently used modes of valuing ecosystem services do not take
into account the inherent complexities and resulting uncertainties associated with
dynamics of these coupled systems of people and nature" (Pritchard et al. 2000: 36).
However, understanding these tradeoffs at the margins, and putting them into economic
terms, can help make the valuation more accurate. Doing so acknowledges an important
point made by Pritchard et al.: "in a world of human dominance, complex systems, and
true uncertainty, it becomes increasingly difficult to assume that there will be only
negligible feedbacks of marginal change" (Pritchard et al. 2000: 38). Recognizing this
complexity and these feedbacks is difficult. As a field, ecological economics has sought
to recognize that substitutability of natural systems is imperfect. Ecosystem services
valuation seeks to make models of this feedback that are more dynamic and reflective of
complex realities. While ecosystem services valuation is not perfect, it is a useful tool.
34
Others point out that ecosystem services valuation is difficult because
unlike other goods that participate in markets, many ecosystem goods and services are
not excludable. One person's use of a good does not limit another person's use of the
good. In addition, many ecosystem goods and services do not have clear property rights
associated with them (Fisher et al. 2008).
Limitations to the Application of Ecosystem Services Valuation
Another objection to ecosystem services valuations concerns how they are used.
Some of this fear is broad: "the danger is that hasty and uncritical adopters of new
paradigms overload them with hope, leading to disillusionment and premature
abandonment" (Vira and Adams 2009: 158). Other aspects of this fear are more specific
and pointed; researchers believe ecosystem services valuation can be misused to promote
certain uses by inflating their value. This criticism can be directed at non-quantitative
approaches to valuation as well.
Similarly to the objection that ecosystem services valuation puts too much
emphasis on economic bases for decision making over ethical, ecological, or other bases,
some researchers suggest that ecosystem services valuation views preferences too
narrowly. They point out that economic preferences arise in the context of other
institutions. These institutions create context within which "the commodification of
nature, and of political space, are not found to be as inevitable as previously thought by
economists" (Pritchard et al. 2000: 39). These institutions are also constantly evolving,
thus changing preferences and values (Pritchard et al. 2000: 39). Valuations are a
snapshot in time. To suggest that human preferences are static, or even to suggest that the
35
bases of human decision-making are static (or centered around economics) is
inaccurate. That said, ecosystem services valuation attempts to provide pragmatic
opportunities for policymaking while still pushing the traditional boundaries and
conceptions of valuation and economics.
Ecosystem services valuation is criticized because it puts emphasis on economic
value. Ludwig (2000) argues that personal and social values matter more than economic
values in decision making. While many of the same types of appeals to values and
authority are made at the national scale as at the individual level, some argue that the
economic costs and benefits of ecosystems have not yet been included in decision making
because they have not been valued. Kline points out that valuation of ecosystem services
can result in poor decision making: "it is easy for benefits information to be misused in
ways that undermine public support for natural resource decisions" (2007: 2). Again,
however, all types of information can be misused.
While social and personal values have not always been translated into institutional
values that are relevant to policy, ecosystem services valuation is an attempt to make
personal and social values related to ecosystems applicable in an institutional setting.
Currently, making them applicable in an institutional setting means assigning them an
economic value. These economic valuations also make explicit the economic tradeoffs
inherent in decisions. One limitation of non-economic value based decision-making is
that it sometimes lacks a context for compromise. While participants may disagree with
the economic values assigned to different services, they at least provide a starting point
for comparison and discussions. Tradeoffs are necessary in most natural resource
36
decision making, so beginning those discussions is important.
All of these limitations to the use of valuation of ecosystem services show that
economic valuation of ecosystem services cannot be the only basis for management
decisions. Most broadly, decision-making should also consider equity, sustainability, and
other factors. In addition, the limits, thresholds, and other characteristics of these natural
systems must be well understood if their value or their management is going to be subject
to their value in a market. Once ecosystem function had degraded to a particular level, it
cannot recover, no matter how high the demand for it. Pritchard et al. point out, "the
presence of threshold effects and irreversiblilities in life-support systems is a warning
against relying solely on consumer preferences as the basis for value" (2000: 38).
However, economic valuation adds an important additional basis for decision-making.
Specific Limitations to the Trinity County Model
This analysis is not intended as a suggestion for management of particular good or
service over another. Nor does this study suggest that inputs and outputs should be equal,
or inputs to the system should be completely paid for by those who benefit. Particular
benefit cost ratios are not inherently better than others, nor should ecosystem services
values be the only motivator in management decisions. This model is intended to reveal
in a comprehensive way where value is being put into the system, what benefits come
from the system, and who is accruing the value of those benefits.
37
"Linking those metrics to forest policy and management actions,
disturbances (for example, fire, forest-land development), and other
factors whose effects forest policy makers and managers would like
researchers to examine, is another challenge altogether. In evaluating
forest benefits, economists generally have focused on estimating values
for specific benefits. They largely have sought information from ecologists
and other biophysical scientists that describes ecosystem attributes and
how they change over time in response to forest policy and management
actions- what many economics sometimes call ecosystem "production
functions." Although both types of information are useful in evaluating
ecosystem services, those production relationships are absolutely critical
but all too frequently lacking or missing altogether" (Kline 2007: 10).
These results are not a quantitative examination of future possibilities for
participation in ecosystem services markets. However, it describes the framework within
which participation in these markets would take place. It is important to be aware of the
broader ecological and economic framework within which any individual ecological good
or service has value. This study takes a different approach from many other valuations of
ecosystem services, due to its focus on economic impact. But it is this economic impact
that has the most obvious effects on local development. Prioritizing the values of
different ecosystem services reflect the implications for local communities rather than
simply scalar understandings of value. Economic impact, along with social benefit, is
important to this analysis.
38
CHAPTER III
METHODS
This analysis examines the current prices received for ecosystem goods and
services and the amount of money being spent to ensure some level of ecosystem
function that allows these services to be created. The goal of this analysis is not to
examine the value that ecosystem services or ecosystem functions should have if the total
social benefit were included. This model attempts to examine current value, not future
value, theoretical value, or willingness to pay. Heal points out that valuations based on
market prices are likely to be incomplete: "there are usually services provided by natural
ecosystems for which there are no markets and so no market prices. These therefore will
be omitted from the calculations. At best therefore we will compute lower bounds for the
values of these natural systems. However, even these lower bounds can be strikingly
high, high enough to generate action for conservation" (Heal 2000: 26). This valuation of
Trinity County analyzes current economic activity, and thus is probably also a lower
bound.
Introduction
To develop this framework and evaluate ecosystem services, this project draws on
information from the ecological and economics literature, the Watershed Center, public
agencies, and other organizations. Because Trinity County is largely public land, using
publicly available data about public land allows us to create a general framework and a
39
rough estimate of the value of the services flowing from the county. Each
ecosystem function and service has different measures and indicators for its value. As a
result, each service will be evaluated differently. To determine measures and indicators to
use for each function and service, I examined the literature to see what methods other
valuations have used. I compared these methods to the data that are available in Trinity
County to determine what method to use for this valuation. When data are available, the
value of ecosystem services is examined over time.
This project differentiates between the local economic impact of the ecosystem
good or service and the broader social value ofthat good or service. The local economic
impact is important because it influences the local economy of Trinity County. However,
it is the social impact that measures the value of that good or service to society as a
whole. If the forest ecosystem in Trinity County is degraded and that degradation
decreases the local economic impact through a decrease in recreation income or other
effects, this will be detrimental to the local economy of Trinity County but could often be
substituted by a supply of this good or service elsewhere, transferring the local economic
impact outside of the county. However, the value of this economic impact to the local
community cannot be replaced.
Many manmade disturbances to the system that maintain or improve ecosystem
function have the goal of improving ecosystem services. However, these efforts usually
have the goal of maintaining or increasing the social value of these goods and services,
not necessarily the local economic impacts of the goods and services. The Forest Service
budget is not always seeking to increase or maintain local economic impact, it is seeking
40
to increase social value. Measuring this social value can be difficult. The Forest
Service's use of their budget is evaluated based on certain perfOlmance measures, but
these performance measures are not always tied to the local economy. In addition, these
measures may not identify the benefits that are accrued to private parties due to their
maintenance of ecosystem function. Understanding these connections between
maintenance and restoration of ecosystem function and distribution of benefits of
ecosystem goods and services is also complicated because budgets for maintenance and
restoration come from multiple sources, both governmental and non-governmental.
Services and Functions
To understand the value ofthe Trinity County ecosystem, I created a model that
included both the functions of the ecosystem and the services produced by these
functions. Although there is debate within the literature about whether to value ecosystem
services or ecosystem functions (Ansink et al. 2008), I believe it is important to examine
both functions and services and to understand the system as a whole. Although valuing
ecosystem services is what creates economic impact and social benefit, if their
relationships with ecosystem functions are ignored, the production of these goods and
services cannot be maintained. Fitting ecosystem goods and services into their ecological
context is essential for their maintenance. Unlike other types of goods and services, the
origin of ecosystem goods and services was not developed by society and so less well
understood. Just as it seems intuitive that because a manmade product comes from an
assembly line at a factory, the factory must exist for the product to exist, understanding
41
and maintaining ecosystem functions is needed to ensure the production of
ecosystem services.
Much of the literature supports this approach: "successful application requires a
precise differentiation between the descriptive realm of ecosystem functions and the
evaluative realm of ecosystem services" (Barkmann et al. 2008: 48) Barkmann goes on to
explain in more detail:
"Because ecosystem services relevant to local respondents are valued
rather than scientifically described ecosystem functions, typical 'basic
science' models that represent ecosystem functioning cannot be used for
the analysis of valuation scenarios with direct policy relevance.
Engineering-type models that embody technical and, in our case study,
agronomic knowledge are necessary to bridge the gap between ecosystem
functioning and their practical implications. A lack of this kind of
information also hinders a meaningful application of alternative valuation
approaches." (Barkmann et al. 2008: 48)
Both differentiating what these functions and services are and being careful about
the language we use to describe them are important: "the shorthand labels we attach to
processes and services must not be allowed to blur the distinction between process and
the services they perform" (Brown et al. 2007: 332)The model of ecosystem services and
functions I use emulates other input and output models of forests. As Kline suggests, "the
only real difference between the ecosystem services concept and economists' traditional
conceptualization of multiple forest benefits is the emphasis on ecosystems as an
organizing structure ofbenefits" (2007: 2). This allows policymakers and managers to
examine many parts of the ecosystem simultaneously. Increasingly, the ecological basis
of the inputs is being included in models.
42
This model examines the services produced by the system. In this
model, we only examine services that currently have prices. This model also examines
the inputs into the system to maintain the function of the ecosystem. Ansink et al. suggest
that "valuation of ecosystem functions gives a better estimate of the total economic value
of the ecosystem under consideration" (2008: 494). A more complete understanding of
the total value of the system could be examined through understanding the ecosystem
structures' replacement values.
More generally, this model uses the production function approach, also referred to
as valuing the environment as input (Barbier 2006: 1). Barbier points out that this
approach requires both understanding of "the ecological processes, components, and
functions that generate useful services" and the way in which these services create
economic benefit (Barbier 2006: 1). Ecological and economic relationships must be well
understood. The understanding of these ecological relationships is facilitated by
intensively studied and managed public lands, such as those in Trinity County. The
economic relationships implied by those ecological relationships are less well understood
and must be extrapolated from both publicly available data on sales from public lands and
newly emerging markets for ecosystem services such as carbon markets. Connecting
functions and services is a challenge; as mentioned by the National Academy of Science,
"the fundamental challenge of valuing ecosystem services lies in providing an explicit
description and adequate assessment of the links between the structure and functions of
natural systems, the benefits (i.e., goods and services) derived by humanity, and their
subsequent values" (Heal et al. 2006: 2). However, understanding these relationships is
43
important for understanding the changes in value of services caused by changes
in function. Using an analogy Smail and Lewis describe that degradation of ecosystem
function "reduces both the product coming off the assembly line, and the assembly line
itself' (2009: 8).
Model for Trinity County
This project's model describes a framework for what sorts of data should be
collected to understand both the inputs and outputs of the system for key ecosystem
functions and services in Trinity County, California. The goal of this framework is to
assess the major components of this ecological and economic system. Although the
particular units of this model could not be used to understand the economy and ecology
of a different county, the model itself is intended to be transferable.
The model used to describe ecosystem functions and services in Trinity is
modeled on the framework described in Ansink et al. (2008: 497). Layke also describes a
model that includes both functions, which he calls processes, and services, which he
refers to as benefits (2009). "In this framework, benefits primarily consist of
provisioning, and cultural and aesthetic services, while beneficial ecosystem processes
primarily consist of regulating services"(Layke 2009: 19). Barbier includes a table of
ecosystem functions, ecosystem processes and components, and ecosystem services
(benefits), which relate to the ecosystem functions, structure, and goods and services
discussed here (2006: 4). Even early valuations of ecosystem services discuss input-
output models as a basis for valuating ecosystems (Wilcox and Harte 1997: 323).
44
The framework developed by this project uses a four-layer model,
illustrating the key components of the Trinity County ecosystem (Figure 2). This model
suggests that many ofthese ecological components have economic values that can be
estimated, an assertion based on the theoretical reasoning for valuing ecosystem services.
More importantly, this model suggests that, as in the ecological system, there are
economic effects of changes in one layer of the diagram on other layers.
Figure 2: Four-Layer Model
DISTURBANCE
The structure of an ecosystem generates the functions of that ecosystem. In tum,
those functions generate goods and services. For example, one function that forests, an
ecosystem structure, generate is filtering air. This air filtration creates an ecosystem
service: air quality. Valuing the economic impact and social use values ofthese goods
and services created by ecosystem functions addresses difficulties with double counting.
Often, ecosystems are described based on their structures, such as forests, wetlands,
streams, or lakes. As a result, ecosystems are often valued this way. This approach can
45
result in double counting because particular structures produce multiple
ecosystem goods and services (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007). To avoid this problem, this
model examines the structures that make up the ecosystem, the ecological functions of
those structures, and the goods and services that are created from those functions. These
goods and services are quantified, not the structures or functions themselves.
Disturbance, both natural and manmade, affects ecosystem structure. It is an input
to the ecosystem. Disturbance can destroy or improve ecosystem structures. This
disturbance itself generally has both social values and economic impact, in addition to its
effects on ecosystem goods and services. For example, forest fires have economic
impacts (the cost of fighting the fire) and social values (the damage done to the fire and
the side effects ofthe fire). Similarly, stream restoration has both economic impacts (the
cost ofthe labor to do the work) and social value (the side effects ofthat restoration on
other ecosystem structures).
Studies of ecosystem functions do not tend to acknowledge a minimum level of
structure needed to deliver services (Fisher et al. 2008: 2062-3). This can be problematic
for both valuation and on a more practical level for policymakers. Acknowledging some
minimum level of structure using both economics and the regulatory standards that exist
for some functions could provide a useful baseline from which ecosystem services
valuation becomes applicable.
Figure 3 illustrates the relationships between ecosystem structure and functions
and the ecosystem goods and services these structures and functions produce. The
diagram only shows the ecosystem structure, functions, goods and services discussed in
46
this project. This framework integrates many different ecosystem services. In
doing so, it encourages integrated valuations rather than valuations of single ecosystem
services. This approach avoids the common problem of valuing only on one good or
service, which can have negative environmental consequences. In ecosystems,
components are integrated and their valuations should acknowledge this integration,
rather than fostering the management of one service over all others. For example, if only
climate regulation is valued and forests are managed to maximize carbon sequestration,
this management can have negative effects on other ecosystem services such as
biodiversity or water quality. This approach is dangerous, because it could suggest that·
other ecosystem functions do not need to be maintained because the future value of
carbon sequestration may be high.
Spatial Scope
Ideally, data presented in this project should represent the entire county. However,
such data were not always available. Often, data were only available for within the
Shasta-Trinity National Forest. The scope of the data is designated for each service or
function. The indicators for each good or service were available from a different source,
which correlated with a variety of spatial scales. Coordinating spatial scales is an
important barrier to ecosystem services valuation.
Ansink et al. point out that "both [services and function assessment] approaches
fail if they are applied to value functions or services at the global scale- as the
precondition ofmarginality no longer applies, and meaningful prices for functions or
services cannot be established at this scale" (2008: 494). This argument supports
47
performing ecosystem services valuations at a smaller scale, such as the county
level. While the methodology used to assess ecosystem services at a county level could
be applied to other counties, the actual values used for this assessment should not be
applied to other areas.
Attempting to examine all of these services and functions at the county level can
seem arbitrary and also necessitates certain inaccuracies. There are numerous formal and
informal jurisdictions all at work in the region, including cities, watersheds, National
Forests, and ecosystem types. Valuing ecosystem services at the scale of some of these
other jurisdictions might be easier due to available data. For example, only looking at
ecosystem services within the National Forests might result in increased accuracy.
However, this level of valuation would be less relevant to the residents of Trinity County
because the National Forests as a whole do not necessarily directly connect to their
homes and livelihoods.
Figure 3: Framework for Valuation ofEcosystem Goods and Services in Trinity County
DISTURBANCE
STRUCTURES
FUNCTIONS
GOODS AND
SERVICES
NATURAL
amenity value
[:J8 MANMADE hazardousfuelsreduction
non-hunted
wildlife
restorati on ~"~"'I
climate
regulation biomass
.j:::..
00
49
Another criticism of examining ecosystem services at the county scale
is that that it is not ecologically relevant. Ecosystems functions and services do not stop
at county boundaries. However, examining ecosystem services and functions at the scale
of the county is a compromise between practicality, accuracy, and utility. Many other
types of valuations and indicators are assessed at the local level (particularly the county
level), such as those that examine social services, economics, and health. In addition, the
county does not simply set spatial boundaries. It also has institutional components that
can create change.
This project examines the ecosystem services and functions at a county level.
While ecosystem functions are attached to a particular place, the goods, services, and
money created by those functions sometimes extend beyond the county level (or any
boundary). Economic flows and some services are transportable. Examining the reach of
these flows is important to understand the ecological and economic dynamics of Trinity
County.
Temporal Scope
Any measurement of environmental quality, including the value of ecosystem
services, varies over time. Environmental quality varies daily, seasonally, and over other
time scales and in addition is affected by disturbance of various types. Often, averages
are used (Freeman 2003: 36). However, as Freeman points out "inevitably, summarizing
involves a loss of information" (Freeman 2003: 36). The problematic aspects of all
measurements of environmental quality are something that valuation of ecosystem
services must confront.
50
Assessing ecosystem services value over time is more useful than
assessing ecosystem services value at one point in time. It is the changes in the value of
ecosystem services that are most important in assessing their marginal value: "both actual
and potential future supplies of services should be included in their [ecosystem services']
valuation" (Ansink et aI. 2008: 492). Heal suggests valuing market prices over time.
When measured using a snapshot approach, these indicators underestimate the economic
value lost by ecosystem destruction because "the price of a good or service rises as it
becomes scarcer. This is particularly true of goods and services that are essential to
human welfare, such as food, water, and clean air" (Heal 2000: 28). According to Fisher
et aI., most assessments focus on current services delivery or total economic value (2008:
2062). Not only do assessments over time allow for assessment of marginality, they also
may allow assessment across various land uses as these uses change. Assessments
performed over time may also include predictive judgments like the assumed future value
of biodiversity conservation or rebuilding a wildlife population. While this approach is
more useful, it is difficult to get the needed data to carry out, and it this approach difficult
apply to policy.
Other research emphasizes the importance of future discounting: "We could
likewise value a forest as the present discounted value of its carbon sequestration and
biodiversity support services and its recreational services." (Heal 2000: 26). This
assessment does not examine discounting in any quantitative sense. However, it is
important to consider how discounting is changed by the long temporal scales often
relevant to ecosystems. In addition, an assessment over time rather than a snapshot
51
assessment allows understanding of the seasonality and the annual cycle of
value that some services have. A framework for valuation that allows the value of a
service to change is important. This type of framework could reflect changes in
management decisions and societal preferences, and even allow for futures planning
based on different management scenarios.
Despite the advantages of modeling data over time, this valuation primarily takes
the snapshot approach. I tried to understand whether these data were atypical, following a
trend, or had been consistent over several years. When possible, I tried to examine data
over a period of several years. Major events in natural resource history in Trinity County
tended to affect the data significantly, such as the implementation of the Northwest Forest
Plan. These events shift the values of ecosystem goods and services over time. One major
difficulty in ecosystem services valuation is uncertainty about the usefulness of historical
data in predicting future values. However, the framework of the model should allow
future data to be substituted into it. This would allow the approximate calculation of
values of ecosystem services and functions in the future, though would not be reliably
predictive.
Ideally, ecosystem services valuation examines a range of data rather than a
snapshot of the current time period because of the variability inherent in natural systems.
Some years are atypical, not only because ofthe economic climate but because of the
ecological conditions. In addition, some policies that control the distribution of
ecosystem services and ecosystem function are not effective on an annual basis. For
example, the current distribution of water from the Trinity River is a "long term average"
52
of 50% to the river and 50% to the Central Valley. This distribution may not be
accurate on an annual basis. Taking this longer term or average perspective may overlook
economic losses or gains that arise through short-term shortages in the services that
ecosystems provide.
Data Limitations
Like most valuations of ecosystem services, this analysis was considerably
limited by data availability. In addition, these data that are available are not centralized.
Both the data, and the understanding of the meaning and usefulness of the data, rested
with different agencies and organizations. Often, these agencies do not know how their
data could relate to data other agencies held. The units and timeframes differed
significantly. Data often exist only in paper fonn. Agencies do not share databases, when
databases exist at all.
Selecting and Defining Services
In this project, the services being valued have values in the market. Use-values
are employed in this evaluation. However, many other services could be valued if more
. non-use values were used. For example, this valuation does not include bequest value, the
value people place on the existence of a resource (Ansink et al. 2008: 492). More
comprehensive values for these services could be determined if indirect use and passive
use methods were used.
Services chosen for valuation in Trinity County were chosen for a variety of
reasons. Landowners, regulators, and other organizations working in the community also
identified these functions and services as important. Also, these functions and services
53
were ones examined in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment that also had
relevant, available, and measurable data in Trinity County (Layke 2009: 6).
Some goods and services that may exist in Trinity County were not included in
this study. These include biodiversity (outside of the discussion of non-hunted wildlife),
grazing, and natural hazard mitigation. Other services, such as those that wetlands
provide, were also not included in the study because the structure, wetlands, does not
exist in significant amounts in Trinity County.
Structures Included in this Study
As indicated in Figure 3, this project examines the following structures: streams,
dams, soil, and forests. These structures were selected because they create the ecosystem
functions that produce ecosystem goods and services in Trinity County.
Streams, soil, and forests intuitively seem important for inclusion in a valuation of
the Trinity County ecosystem. Including dams is not intuitive. Although human created,
dams are an important feature of the landscape in Trinity County and produce significant
ecosystem services. Their alteration of the landscape is so significant that to leave them
out would result in a mischaracterization of many goods and services. However, many
would disagree with their inclusion because they are not a feature of the unaltered
ecosystem.
This division is an important consideration for ecosystem services valuation. The
line between human and natural structures is not firm, and human structures frequently
affect natural or ecosystem goods and services. While this valuation examines the
relevance of structures, functions, and services to Trinity County on a case-by-case basis,
54
these questions about what to include are an important argument for a
comprehensive approach to modeling the ecosystem.
A more complex valuation could be carried out that values each layer of the four
layer diagram (Figure 2) using different methods. Ecosystem structures can be valued by
determining their replacement costs. This model values the cost ofthese structures in a
more limited way, by examining the cost of maintaining the structures. These costs show
up in this diagram as disturbances to the system. However, examining replacement cost
would be a way to measure the stocks of the ecosystem in addition to its flows. While the
replacement cost of the dams would be fairly straightforward to calculate, calculating the
replacement cost of a forest or stream would be difficult. Often, values of structures rely
on some measure of the services provided by that structure. This is where the problem of
double counting arises. Other valuations of structures sometimes rely on measures of
existence or bequest value. This valuation does not address these issues, but calculating
these structures' values could increase society's understanding of the value of the Trinity
County ecosystem. However, few mechanisms exist to pay people for the existence value
of ecosystems. More mechanisms rely on paying people for the flows from the system,
such as ecosystem services.
Functions Included in this Study
The study traces the following ecosystem functions: providing scenery,
transporting water, collecting water, filtering water, cooling stream, providing habitat,
sequestering carbon, resisting fire, filtering air, and regulating nutrients. Although the
structures discussed in this study have other functions, because these functions do not
55
relate directly to the ecosystem goods and services in this study, they were not
included or examined.
Disturbances Included in this Study
Disturbances in this study are inputs into the ecosystem. Ways to measure these
inputs could include money spent on developing regulatory mechanisms, enforcement,
implementation activities, science, and other research. However, this information is
difficult to get at. This study examines both manmade and natural disturbance. It
examines flood, fire, hazardous fuels reduction, restoration, and timber harvest.
Overview of Valuation Methods for Chosen Goods and Services
The study values the following goods and services that result from the forest's
structure and functions: water quantity, hydroelectricity, fish, timber, recreation, and non-
timber forest products, marijuana (typically illegal, but significant), and hunted wildlife.
It examines the following goods and services that do not have easily accessible values:
biomass energy, amenity value, water quality, non-hunted wildlife, climate regulation,
and air quality. This valuation focuses on provisioning services, rather than regulating or
cultural services. Both generally and in Trinity County, these services tend to have the
greatest local economic impact in addition to their social benefits. They are also easier to
measure. As a result, more data are available for these services, reflecting the perspective
that "you manage what you measure and you measure what you care about" (Layke 2009:
18). This focus is also logical because as Layke described, "indicators for most regulating
and cultural services are weak, lagging behind those for most provisioning services"
(Layke 2009: 18).
56
While this project uses a variety of indicators to understand the value of
various ecosystem services, these other values are translated into monetary value. Some
valuations use indicators other than monetary value, such as employment, energy, or
other measures specific to the goal of the valuation. For example, to understand the
dietary dependence of a community on its natural resources, a valuation might use the
indicator of fish products as a percent of total animal protein in peoples' diets (Layke
2009: 14). By using monetary value as an absolute indicator of ecosystem value, this
valuation examines the financial dependence of the economy on the ecosystem function
and services on Trinity County. By using monetary value as a required absolute indicator,
some services get left out.
shows some goods and services that are valued in this analysis. They are
arranged from those that can be measured using direct use indicators to those that require
indirect use indicators. These services can be seen as existing along a continuum, with
indicators closer to the indirect use side requiring progressively more abstract techniques,
less based on local economic impact, to understand their value. As the placement of a
good or service progresses towards the indirect use side, that good or service becomes
less well indicated by current market values.
57
Figure 4: Direct and Indirect Use Indicators
DIRECT USE
timber
:fish
water
Table 1, modeled after the table in Brander et aI., shows some ecosystem
functions and services discussed in this valuation project (2006: 226). The value type of
the measures used to indicate the value of the service is indicated, as are possible
valuation methods. Details related to how each ecosystem good or service was valued in
this study are in the results section of this thesis.
58
Table I: Examples ofFunctions, Goods, Services, and Valuation Methods
Ecological Economic goods Value type Possible Valuation
function and services Methods
collecting water water quantity direct use market prices
hydroelectricity direct use market prices
recreation direct use travel cost method
filtering water fish direct use permit prices
resisting fire timber direct use market prices
climate regulation direct use market prices
indirect use replacement cost
providing habitat fish direct use permit prices
biodiversity non-use contingent valuation
sequestering carbon timber direct use market prices
climate regulation direct use market prices
indirect use replacement cost
providing scenery recreation direct use travel cost method
direct use contingent valuation
amenity value indirect use hedonic pricing[Orling water hydroelectricity direct use market prices
water quantity direct use market prices
fish direct use permit prices
marijuana direct use market prices
Modeled after Brander et al. 2006: 226
Methods of Valuation of Disturbances
Because the people who are paying for the protection of the source of the outputs
are not typically the same people as who benefit, assessing ecosystem services on a
countywide scale also provides a big picture view of those functions and services as they
flow from inside to outside the system. Understanding who pays and who benefits is
useful "to help modify systems of national accounting to better reflect the value of
ecosystem services and natural capital" and "for project appraisal, where ecosystem
59
services lost must be weighed against the benefits of a specific project"
(Costanza et al. 1997: 259). Often, discussions surrounding payments for ecosystem
services look to the future, setting up new mechanisms for paying to protect ecosystem
function. However, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that many agencies,
organizations, and individuals are already paying to maintain, improve, and restore
ecosystem function. Often, these payments are overlooked and thus underestimated. This
study tries to identify the payments currently being made.
Sources and Calculations for the Valued Services
Overview
An important aspect of examining each of the goods and services in this study is
putting them within the broader context of Trinity County. This context is ecological,
historical, and social. To understand this context, I talked with people from Trinity
County, including the Watershed Resource and Training Center and the various
government agencies in Trinity County. I also examined the literature to understand the
connections between disturbance, ecological structures, ecological functions, and
ecological goods and services. The literature also provided information about the
community and history of Trinity County.
For the goods and services without a direct market examined in this study, this
type ofcontextual analysis describes my methodology for obtaining my results. For the
goods and services with a direct market, described below, obtaining prices associated
with these values required a more extensive methodology.
60
Water Quantity
To calculate the value of water quantity, I examined the supply of water to the
Westlands Water District from the Central Valley Project (CVP). For 2009, this totaled
195,716 acre-feet (Westlands Water District 2010). In 2009, Trinity County provided
about 11 % of the water to the CVP, so about 21,529 acre-feet (Dietz 2010). I examined
four values for this water: the amount paid to the Bureau of Reclamation, the amount
generated for the Trinity County Public Utility District (Trinity PUD), the amount of
money charged by the Westlands Water District, and the amount of money generated for
the restoration fund, as required by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. To
summarize the benefits from Trinity County water, I used the amount of money charged
by the Westlands Water District to avoid double counting and to understand the total
value produced by the water. The amount of money charged by the Westlands Water
District includes the payments by the Westlands Water District to the Trinity PUD, the
Bureau of Reclamation, and the restoration fund.
The water volume from Trinity County was multiplied by the cost of service that
is paid to the Bureau of Reclamation, $28.69 per acre-foot (Westlands Water District
2010). In addition, for every acre-foot of water sold to the Westlands Water District from
the CVP $0.11 is assessed for the Trinity County Public Utility District (Westlands Water
District 2010). The Westlands Water District sells this water for $108.94 per acre foot to
agricultural users (Westlands Water District 2010). Because most users are agricultural,
this rate was used. Domestic and municipal rates are even higher, so the amount
61
generated is a low estimate. The amount of money generated for the restoration
fund, $9.11 per acre foot, was also calculated (Westlands Water District 2010).
Hydroelectricity
The Bureau of Reclamation manages the dams that create hydroelectricity in
Trinity County. This electricity is managed by the Western Area Power Administration
(WAPA), which then distributes the electricity to public utility districts all over the west,
including the Trinity PUD.
WAPA has not valued electricity using a price per kilowatt hour since 2005. As a
result, to calculate the value ofthe electricity generated by Trinity County, I examined
the ratio of Trinity electricity generation to total generation from the entire Central Valley
Project for 2009. Then I multiplied that ratio by the Western Area Power
Administration's revenue to get the approximate revenue generated by Trinity County.
These calculations are shown Table 2. WAPA's revenue goes into the U.S. Treasury. In
addition, some money is from electricity generation goes directly from WAPA to the
Bureau of Reclamation for restoration activities under the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act.
62
Table 2: Revenues from Hydroelectricity for 2009
Annual
Trinity Powerplant Generation (MWH) 247,234
Central Valley Project Generation (MWH) 3,398,064
Trinity Generation as a percentage of CVP
Generation 7%
WAPA Power Revenue $76,016,728
Revenues Associated with Trinity Generation
Based on ratio of Trinity generation to total CVP
generation $4,927,810
Source: Dietz 2010
Fish
To calculate the value of fish in Tlinity County, two methods were used. The first
was the revenues from fishing licenses. This information came from the California
Department ofFish and Game (California Department ofFish and Game 2009). This
money is paid to the state, not to Trinity County. The number of each type of permit
issued for Trinity County was multiplied by the price of the permit issued for Trinity
County. This data was available for 2005.
The second method used for estimating the value of fish in Trinity County was the
travel cost method, which was used by the Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration
Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al. 2000). This study
estimated that estimated the net economic benefit of recreational fishing to be $65 per
day for fishing salmon and steelhead. Based on estimates from salmon and steelhead
punch cards, the average number oftrips to Trinity County for salmon and steelhead
fishing between 2003 and 2005 were 5,437 (Jackson 2007: 44). This suggests that the
63
annual of recreational fishing is at least $353,405 in 2000 dollars. In 2009
dollars, this is $442,363.
Table 3: Trinity County Fishing Licenses 2005
Number Revenue
Annual resident 3630 $115,252.50
Annual non-resident 14 $1,193.50
One day 678 $6,949.50
Two day 1017 $16,272
Ten day 205 $6,508.75
Abalone stamp 18 $274.50
Bay Delta enhancement program 62 $310.00
Second rod stamp 206 $2,008.50
Salmon punch card 2463 $3,694.50
Steelhead report card 2324 $11,620
Total $164,083.75
~-
Source: California Department ofFish and Game 2009
Timber
To calculate the value of timber, I used 2009 data from the California Board of
Equalization, which collects information about volume, price, and origin oftimber
harvested in counties in California. I used 2009 data to maintain consistency with data on
other services, even though both the volume and price of timber from Trinity County was
much lower in 2009 than in previous years.
Marijuana
Data related to marijuana production are less available than data related to other
ecosystem goods and services. According to the Forest Service Region 5 spokesman John
Hei!, 40,000 acres of public land in the US contain marijuana (Driscoll 2010). I assumed
that the proportion of public land in Trinity County that contains marijuana is the same as
64
the proportion of public land in the United States that is estimated to contain
marijuana gardens, 0.02 percent. This estimate is very conservative. Using this number,
Trinity County probably has about 323 acres of marijuana growing on its public land.
Assuming production of 1742 pounds per acre, Trinity County's public land produces
approximately 563,312 pounds of marijuana (Caulkins 2010: 15). I assumed a price of
$3,000 per pound, the wholesale price in Sacramento in 2008 (U.S. Department of Justice
2008: 22).
Recreation
To understand the value of recreation, I used both measures of economic impact
and non-use methods. To recreate on National Forest lands, users must pay a recreation
fee. I used this data to understand a lower bound on willingness to pay. In 2005, the
Shasta-Trinity National Forest collected $1,180,219 in revenue from 2,443,000 visitors
through this recreation fee (U.S. Forest Service 2006).
To understand the value of hiking, I examined surveys that used the travel cost
method. Steven Hackett uses the zonal travel cost method to estimate the economic value
from wilderness visits in the Trinity Alps (2000). I took his results and converted them to
2009 dollars. Data was not available local to Trinity County to calculate the local
economic impacts of off-highway vehicle.
Lake activities create significant economic impacts for Trinity County through a
variety of revenue streams. These include a portion of the fees from concessionaires and
the economic impact from those traveling to the lake. The Trinity River Mainstem
Fishery Restoration Environmental Impact Statement estimated that the number of
65
recreational visitor days to the Trinity Reservoir was 265,800 in 1991. This
statement estimated the economic impact of a visitor day to the area reservoirs to be $11
per day. This suggests that there is an estimated $2,900,000 impact (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service et al. 2000: D-25). These data were converted to 2009 dollars.
The Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration Environmental Impact Statement
estimated the number of recreational visitor days to the Trinity River at 214,000 in 1995.
A user survey conducted in 1993 and 1994 by the Biological Resources Division of the
US Geological Survey identified the economic benefit of recreation for different
activities. It was estimated to be $36 per day for boating, $26 per day for swimming, and
$65 per day for fishing for salmon and steelhead, and $33 per day for off-river activities
such as hiking. This statement used these average per-day values to estimate the total
benefits of recreation along the Trinity River to be $9,900,000 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service et al. 2000: D-2). Because this value includes fishing, accounted for elsewhere in
the model, the estimate of fishing was subtracted from this number.
Hunted Wildlife
The Shasta-Trinity National Forest is a California B2 hunting zone, which means
55,000 licenses are issued each year (California Department ofFish and Game 1999;
California Department ofFish and Game 2009). However, not all deer tags are issued. In
Trinity County, 994 deer were killed in 2008 (Mohr and Heminway 2009). Because
county data are not available for how many deer tags were issued, I assume that the ratio
of deer killed to deer tags issued is approximately the same for both Trinity County and
66
California as a whole (Equation 2). This suggests that approximately 11,141
deer tags were issued in Trinity County, as indicated in Table 4.
Equation 2: Deer Tags in Trinity County
Killed in California = 16941
Issued in California 189983
Killed in Trinity County = 994
Issued in Trinity County x
x=(994* 189883)/16941
x= 11141
Source: California Department ofFish and Game 2009; Mohr and Heminway 2009
Table 4: Estimated Deer Tag Revenue 2009
All California
Percentage by Estimated Cost of Revenue fromNumber Number in
Issued Type Trinity County license Trinity County
Resident 1 deer 142833 75(% 8376 $22.25 $186,367
Non resident I deer 869 0% 51 $227.25 $11.581
Resident 2 deer 43108 23%, 2528 $28.75 $72,678
Non resident 2 deer 67 0'% 4 $227.25 $893
Lifetime 2036 10 / 119 $17.25 $2,060/0
Duplicate tag 1070 )(X, 63 $8.75 $549
Total 189983 100%, 11141 $274,127
Source: California Department ofFish and Game 2009
Non-Timber Forest Products
To estimate the value of non-timber forest products in Trinity County, I use
information from the Forest Service's Timber Information Manager. This database has
information about permits granted by the Shasta-Trinity National Forest to people
collecting from districts within Trinity County in 2009. These permits were issued for a
variety of products, including fuelwood, mushrooms, conifer boughs, and other
products. Their values are described in Table 5. This estimate does not include non-
timber forest products that were not collected from Shasta-Trinity National Forest,
particularly those on private lands.
Table 5: Forest Service Permit Revenue from Non-Timber Forest Products 2009
Commercial Christmas trees $246
Commercial fuelwood $533
Commercial matsutake mushrooms $330
Commercial non-matsuke mushrooms $2,875
Conifer boughs $40
Driftwood $20
Fuelwood $22,475
Personal matutake mushrooms $500
Personal non-masutake mushrooms $1,020
Personal Christmas trees $8,330
Personal plants $80
Poles $290
Scientific and educational plant collections $170
TOTAL $36,909
67
68
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Framework
Figure 5 describes the economic and ecological framework for Trinity County. It
describes the ecosystem structures, goods, and services in Trinity County as well as and
the relationships between them formed by both ecosystem functions and ecological,
social, and legal constraints. It also describes the prices found for the goods and services
in 2009 dollars.
Disturbance Results
While valuation of ecosystem services is a rapidly expanding area of study, few of
these valuations include significant discussion of how those services are created or
maintained. Some studies examine related topics, such as replacement cost, which
identifies what it would cost to replace the particular structure or service being valued.
This approach values ecosystem structure rather than inputs to the system, and often
overlooks the idea that ecological function can be a matter of degree. Replacement cost
suggests that ecosystems either exist or do not exist, rather than acknowledging that they
are maintained. In general, because these inputs to the system that maintain the
ecosystem are not calculated, the value of these disturbances is underestimated.
Figure 5: Valuation of Ecosystem Goods and Services in Trinity County
DISTURBANCE
STRUCTURES
FUNCTIONS
GOODS AND
SERVICES
NATURAL
amenity value
Gr-:l MANMADE hazardousfuelsreduction
non-hunted
wildlife
restoration timber harvest
climate
regulation
0'1
'"
70
The structures and functions that create ecosystem goods and services
can be maintained and improved through ecological restoration and other management
activities. These costs are both capital costs (building structures and often replacing or
completely restoring an ecological structure that previously existed) and operational costs
(maintaining structures and functions that exist). Overlooking the actions, positive and
negative, that society can have on ecosystem structures, goods, and functions, isolates
ecosystems from society. This isolation can lead to thinking that ecosystem goods and
services are infinitely valuable, or not valuable at all, rather than promoting the
understanding of their economics-based value to society. Ecosystem services valuation is
often used to suggest why maintenance of ecosystem services is important, but often does
not recognize the value of the maintenance currently occurring. Understanding this
maintenance both explains the economic impact created through restoration and other
natural resource management jobs, and also provides information about who pays to
maintain ecosystem function. Often in ecosystem services valuation and payments for
ecosystem services, the focus is often on future willingness to pay, which is important,
but can overlook the costs currently being paid by someone to maintain those functions.
This study recognizes both natural and man-made inputs to the system. These
inputs are called disturbance because they change the structure, functions, and goods and
services of the ecosystem in various ways. They often work on all of these levels at once.
Though it is important, valuing disturbance is particularly difficult. Disturbances
are often costs people pay, so could be subtracted from the total benefits created by the
system. However, these disturbances also have economic impact independent of their
71
effects on ecosystem goods and services. Disturbances create jobs and
economic activity. These characteristics seem to indicate that work done to maintain
ecosystem function contributes to the economic impact of the Trinity County ecosystem.
Additionally, some disturbances affect ecosystem structures and functions
negatively. They reduce ecological function. These types of disturbances can be valued
economically in two ways: reduction in value of ecosystem goods and services and costs
to suppress the disturbance. While the latter is significant and often has detrimental
impacts on other efforts to maintain or improve ecosystem function, suppression
activities can have significant economic impacts onjobs and other indicators.
Restoration
Many agencies and organizations work to maintain and restore ecosystem
functions in Trinity County. The maintenance of these functions appears in the diagram
of Trinity County as a manmade disturbance. Restoration seeks to improve ecosystem
function. One way to value this work is to examine the budgets of these organizations. In
keeping with the scope of this study, this section examines those budgets at an abstract
level. A thorough analysis of the restoration economy of Trinity County is not undertaken
in this study.
UnpUblished research on the restoration economy of Trinity County found that
between $3.4 million and $3.9 million was spent annually on restoration work in Trinity
County between 2000 and 2002 (Baker 2004: 2). The 2002 data, with the same data in
2009 dollars, is presented in Table 6. This report points out that the Trinity River is the
primary driver of the restoration economy in Trinity County.
72
Like ecosystem goods and services, restoration and other disturbances
have both economic impact and social benefit. Restoration requires labor and other types
of inputs that mayor may not come from Trinity County. The location where the
economic impact of restoration is directed cannot be determined by simply examining the
size of the restoration budgets of these organizations.
Understanding restoration budgets is also complicated by the fact that the money
for this work often comes from multiple sources. While the restoration budgets of these
organizations are summarized in Table 6, the origins of this money could be grant
funding, mandated charges or funds from ecosystem services, or other mechanisms.
Tracing this money is very complicated. Understanding how the money is distributed
between projects is also difficult.
Hazardous Fuels Reduction
Hazardous fuels reduction changes the structure of forests with the goal of
improving ecological function, particularly resistance to fire. Significant amounts of
money are spent on reducing hazardous fuels to prevent fire, even though these
expenditures come with tremendous opportunity costs to other parts of government
agency budgets. Although preventing fire maintains the ecosystem functions that produce
environmental goods and services that benefit many, hazardous fuels reduction is
primarily paid for by the federal government.
73
Table 6: Restoration Budgets
2002 In 2009 Dollars
BLM $94,218 $111,613
US Forest Service $235,800 $279,334
US Fish and Wildlife $0 $0
US Bureau of Reclamation $350,000 $414,618
CA Department of Forestry $16,091 $19,062
Department of Fish and Game $848,320 $1,004,940
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation $94,200 $111,592
State Water Resources Control Board $520,000 $616,004
Trinity County Department of Natural Resources $72,850 $86,300
Sacramento Regional Foundation $175,000 $207,309
NRCS $56,391 $66,802
Resource Advisory Committee $903,944 $1,070,833
Miscellaneous $215,039 $254,740
CA Department of Transportation $331,900 $393,177
TOTAL $3,913,753 $4,636,325
Source: Baker 2004: 30
Understanding the amount of money spent on hazardous fuels reduction is
complicated, because it is often completed under the auspices of timber harvesting or the
use of biomass for energy. Researchers should be careful to avoid double counting when
examining hazardous fuels reduction as a disturbance to the system.
Timber Harvest
Though timber is an ecosystem good, timber harvest is also a disturbance. It
affects ecosystem structures and functions through changes in runoff, sedimentation, and
other factors. Mitigating these effects to reduce their impact on ecosystem structures and
functions has significant costs. For example, in 1993 the BLM (funded by the Trinity
River Task Force) purchased 60% ofthe Grass Valley Creek watershed, which had been
heavily logged by its previous owners, for $9.1 million in order to reduce sedimentation
74
to improve fish habitat (Baldwin 2002). In the 1998 fiscal year, more than half
of Trinity restoration expenditures (about $50 million of$90.8 million) were spent on
building and maintaining sedimentation reduction facilities (such as dams and pools),
purchase of the Grass Valley Creek watershed, and rehabilitation of the watershed
(Friends of Trinity River 2010). Maintenance of the watershed involves both removal of
fine sediment upstream (such as near the Grass Valley Creek watershed) and the
introduction of coarse sediment to improve fish habitat downstream.
Flood
Flooding can change ecosystem structures and functions significantly. Though not
common in Trinity County, it is an important periodic disturbance to the system to
acknowledge. It affects both the ecosystem structures and their operations. This can have
substantial effects on ecosystem goods and services. Streams, dams, soil, and forests'
abilities to transport, collect, and filter water is altered substantially. This can have
significant effects on revenues from water quantity and hydroelectricity. Because prices
depend not just on the amount ofwater, but also its timing, there are significant
timeframe implications that make it difficult to quantify the effects of flooding. Along
with direct detrimental impacts to structures, such as damage to dams or loss of forests
and soils, the economic value of floods can be understood by examining potential
revenues lost to flooding, such as poorly timed hydroelectricity production or reductions
in recreational revenues due to water table fluctuations. Like with other disturbances,
understanding whether these values should be included as positive or negative values is
difficult.
75
Fire
Fire is unique in this model because it affects all four layers ofthe ecosystem, as
described by the model used in this study (Figure 2). Within the disturbances level of the
model, fire both appears as a natural disturbance, due to its effects on ecosystem
structure, and through its manmade prevention, hazardous fuels reduction. As a natural
disturbance, it has both local economic impact and more broad social impacts. Fire's
impacts also reveal the problematic nature of valuing disturbances in the system. While
the economic impact is in part positive- suppressing fires can create local jobs- it also
comes at considerable detriment to the local community broader society, as indicated by
air quality and other factors. Accounting for these positive and negative effects in a
valuation of ecosystem services is difficult. In addition, it has significant impact on other
ecosystem functions including providing habitat, cooling streams, filtering water,
providing scenery, sequestering carbon, and regulating nutrients. These effects are
difficult to quantify. The scarcity created by significant fires does not always show up in
changes in the price of water or hydroelectricity, even though the long term viability of
those flows is affected by the negative impacts of fires on ecosystem function.
The economic inputs to the ecosystem caused by fire include both the cost of
suppressing the fires and the cost of the damage to ecological, physical, and human
capital. Suppression costs have varied. Suppression of the Big Bar fire of 1999, which
burned 125,000 acres, cost $110 million, although this figure includes suppression costs
for Humboldt County (Trinity County Resource Conservation District and Watershed
Research and Training Center 2005: 1). In 2008, suppressing the fires in Shasta-Trinity
76
National Forest that burned 208,460 acres cost $160 million (Morris 2009).
Figuring out how these suppression costs should enter into a valuation is challenging.
Estimating the effects of fire in ecosystem services valuations is difficult, because
the occurrence of fires is not predictable and society generally seeks to prevent fires,
despite recognizing them as an important characteristic of the ecosystem. Still, these
disturbance events are important characteristics of the ecosystem and economic system
and have significant impacts on ecosystem function, goods, and services. As a result,
ecosystem services valuation should find ways to incorporate fire into the discussion of
the value of the ecosystem.
Goods and Services Valued in the Direct Market
Although the ecosystem of Trinity County creates a number of goods and
services, not all of these goods and services currently have direct markets, where buyers
pay for that particular goods or services. The value of the goods that have a direct market,
such as water quantity, timber, and recreation, are described below. Both those who are
willing to pay for these goods and services and those who make the rules of the market,
such as regulators and entrepreneurs, determine which goods and services have direct
markets.
Water Quantity
Water plays a major role in many ecosystem functions that create ecosystem
goods and services within Trinity County. Water's role is particularly important to
examine because ecosystem goods related to water- water quantity and water quality- are
77
also sold outside of the county and have economic impacts beyond county
boundaries that are particularly significant.
Like many decisions about water all over the world, the decision of how to
allocate water quantity has been contentious in Trinity County. While out-of-county,
downstream users pay to use the water delivered by Trinity County, there are other uses
for this water that the community, National Forest, the Hoopa, and others deem
significant. For example, maintaining water quantity in the Trinity River creates fish
habitat for salmon both within Trinity County and downstream.
Two events important to the water allocation decision-making process, which
have always been intertwined with regulations related to salmon catch, were the
development ofthe State Water Plan in 1931 and the Central Valley Project (CVP) in
1933 (Durham 2005: 12). The Central Valley Project diverted water from the Trinity
River for both irrigation and hydropower. Construction of infTastructure to carry out this
project did not begin until 1938, with the construction ofthe Shasta Darn, meaning that
"the waters ofthe Trinity continued to flow to the sea, while the state's control of the
CVP flowed to the federal government" (Durham 2005: 13).
Many of the conditions of agreement that protected the needs ofTrinity County
endorsed by the Trinity County Board of Supervisors in 1952 were not included in the
bill (Durham 2005: 18). Many also questioned the methodology of collection of flow
data, particularly as it related to requirements for fish (Durham 2005: 24). In addition, in
the negotiations about the use ofthe Trinity River water, no one discussed the
government's obligations to protect tribal fishing and water rights (Durham 2005: 33).
78
In April 1963, water was first diverted out of the Trinity River (Durham
2005: 44). The Trinity Dam, completed in fall of 1963, controls the releases from Trinity
Lake, which are used by a 105,000-kilowatt power plant and is regulated in Lewiston
Reservoir, seven miles downstream. Lewiston Dam, which has a 350-kilowatt power
plant, regulates the flows to the fish hatchery and the downstream fishery. From Lewiston
Lake, water flows through Clear Creek Tunnel (10.8 miles) to a 141,000 kilowatt
powerhouse, then into Whiskeytown Lake behind Whiskeytown Dam on Clear Creek.
From Whiskeytown Lake water flows through Spring Creek Tunnel (2.4 miles) to a
150,000 kilowatt powerplant and then into Keswick Reservoir on the Sacramento River
(Durham 2005: 44).
Between 1963 and 1977, the US Bureau of Reclamation diverted an average of
1.249 million acre-feet per year, about 92% of the average annual flow (inflow into Clair
Engle reservoir) during this period, and 100% of the average annual average flow at
Lewiston since 1912. This amount was nearly double the annual diversion approved by
Congress (Durham 2005: 52).
The Trinity River Stream Rectification Act (P.L. 960335) of 1980 provided
money for the construction of a sediment collection dam and sediment collecting ponds
to capture sediment from the logged, fragile Grass Valley Creek watershed. Later the
entire 17,000 acre Grass Valley Creek watershed was purchased from Champion
National. Construction and restoration cost about $50 million, more than half ofthe total
Trinity expenditures through 1998's fiscal year ($90.8 million)(Friends of Trinity River
2010)
79
In October 1992, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act was
passed, which directed the Secretary to operate the CVP to meet requirements to restore
fish and wildlife under state and federal law (Durham 2005: 52). It required instream
releases in the Trinity of at least 340,000 acre-feet per year for 1992-1996 and required
the flow study to be completed by September 30, 1996 and submitted to Congress by
December 31, 1996 (Durham 2005: 63). The 12-year Flow Study, intended to inform the
effect of various water flows on Trinity's fisheries and wildlife, began in 1984. It was
released to the public on May 20, 1999, well after the required release date (Friends of
Trinity River 2010). In 1996, the Westlands Water District, the largest water district in
the nation, tried to repeal the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Durham 2005:
64). Between July and November 1998, Trinity County testified before the State Water
Resources Control Board in the Bay-Delta Water Rights Hearing, demonstrating that
water diverted from the Trinity River was used in soils high in salinity, selenium and
other harmful trace elements in the Westlands Water District in the San Joaquin Valley.
Because Trinity County offered proof that the diversions had resulted in environmental
catastrophes in both river basins, Trinity argued that delivery of water to the
contaminated soils in the Westlands Water District, constituted a wasteful and
unreasonable use of water in violation of state and federal law (Durham 2005: 65).
A combination EIS and EIR was released in 1994 describing impacts from
changes in water allocation that supports Secretarial decisions on water flows into Trinity
River, dam operating criteria and evaluation of habitat restoration projects. Unlike the
80
Flow Study, the EIS/EIR evaluated other impacts and alternatives (for example,
raising the height ofthe dam or getting rid of it).
On December 19,2000 (four years after the Congressionally mandated deadline),
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt issued a Record ofDecision (ROD), returning some of
the water to the Trinity River. This ROD had the concurrence of the Hoopa Valley Tribe.
It had a permanent flow volume schedule and new operating criteria for the two dams.
This decision was challenged by the Westlands Water District (Friends ofTrinity River
2010) .
The Record ofDecision sets the release volumes for in-stream release depending
on the climate that year. In all years, these releases are timed to improve ecological
function (move sediment, transport seeds, improve fish habitat, etc.)(US Fish and
Wildlife Service and Hoopa Valley Tribe 1999: xxx)
Table 7: Instream Release Volumes
Extremely Wet 815,200 acre feet
Wet 701,000 acre feet
Normal 646,900 acre-feet
Dry 453,600 acre feet
Critically Dry 368,600 acre-feet
Average (weighted by water-year probability) 594,500 acre feet
Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service and Hoopa Valley Tribe 1999: xxxi
The balance between the amount of water that is sent to the Central Valley and
the amount of water that continues downstream in the Trinity River changes year by year.
The current agreement is that over a long term average 50% of the water goes to the river,
50% goes to the Central Valley. There is some debate about whether long term average is
81
measured daily, monthly, or annual intervals. Recently, this division has been
met on an annual basis.
The allocation of water from the Trinity River provokes a lot of discussion and
disagreement concerning what freshwater ecosystems need in terms of quantity, quality,
and timing of water flow. These discussions involve both values and changing scientific
understanding about watershed health. But determining this information is a crucial step
(Baron et al. 2002: 1248-9). "The American public, when given information about the
management alternatives, supports ecologically based management approaches,
particularly toward freshwaters (CEQ 1996)" (Baron et al. 2002: 1249). In addition,
forest water catchment yields depend on non-physical factors. The economic value of
water is not only determined by its ecological function (Vira and Adams 2009: 159). "If
any change in these factors (e.g., pollution, dam construction, channelization) affects the
value of water to downstream users, the conservation case for forest preservation is
undetermined, without any change in the characteristics of the forest itself. The provision
of water services from an upstream forested catchment might support the case for
conservation of the natural capital in the biodiversity of the forest, but only if these
services are actually delivered to the downstream end user" (Vira and Adams 2009: 159).
Diagram
Figure 6 describes the disturbances, structures, and functions that affect water quantity.
Figure 6: Provision ofWater Quantity
DISTURBANCE
NATURAL I~[J MANMADE hazardousfuelsreduction re"O'MiO~ timber harvest
STRUCTURES
FUNCTIONS
GOODS AND
SERVICES
water quantity
00
N
83
Structures and Functions
Streams, dams, soil, and forests all create the functions that affect water quantity.
In Trinity County, the Trinity River and its artificially channeled diversions (Clear Creek
Tunnel and Spring Creek Tunnel) serve as these streams that transport and filter water.
While the aim of stream restoration work required by the Trinity County Stream
Rectification Act (1980) and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act was primarily
to protect other ecosystem goods and services (particularly fish), this restoration also
protects water quantity.
Rarely is the protection of forests and streams discussed in terms of their effects
on water quantity, even though ensuring that water quantity and the distribution of that
water is highly contentious.
Usually, dams and other catchment structures like lakes and reservoirs are
understood to be the primary structures that ensure water quantity. In the Trinity County
system, there are several dams and reservoirs that are used to hold to maintain, manage,
and distribute water quantity over time. Most ofthese dams are associated with
hydroelectric powerplants, another ecosystem service. Trinity Dam stores 2,448 thousand
acre-feet (TAP) in Trinity Lake. Below Trinity Lake, Lewiston Lake stores 14.66 TAP.
From Lewiston Dam, some water flows into the Trinity River for the fish hatchery and
the downstream fishery more generally. The 2000 Record of Decision designates the
amount of water that flows into the Trinity River (U.S. Department of the Interior 2000).
The rest of the water flows through Clear Creek Tunnel to Whiskeytown Lake, which
stores 241 TAP. From Whiskeytown Lake, water flows through Spring Creek Tunnel into
84
Keswick Reservoir and then into the Sacramento River and to the Central
Valley. These structures ensure water quantity.
In addition to dams, however, there are other ecosystem structures that control
water quantity. Soil also holds and slowly releases water, ensuring water quantity. Due to
disturbances such as forest fires, this soil structure can be degraded and regulation of
water quantity changes.
Goods and Services
The amount of water going to the Westlands Water District via the Central Valley
Project (CVP) includes water from Trinity County. For 2010, the amount of water going
to Trinity County is estimated to be 335,212 acre-feet, though between 1988 and 2010
this allocation has varied from 195,716 acre feet in 2009 to 1,150,00 acre feet (the legal
limit). In 2009, about 11 % of CVP water came from Trinity County. At a rate of $28.69
per acre-foot, the Bureau of Restoration was paid $617,660 for the portion of the water
coming from Trinity County. The Trinity Public Utility District also is paid $0.11 per
acre foot for this water, bringing an estimated $2,368 to the county in 2009. In addition,
the Westlands Water District's rate includes money for restoration, $9.11 per acre-foot.
This money is used for environmental mitigation of the Central Valley Project, as
required by the Central Valley Proj ect Improvement Act. About $196,127 was generated
for these restoration efforts. Agricultural users were charged $108.94 per acre foot for
this water, creating $2,345,343 for the Westlands Water District. This price difference
includes fees and operations and management costs for both the San Luis Delta Mendota
Water Authority and the Westlands Water District. This final figure was used in the
85
summary of the value of ecosystem services in Trinity County to avoid double
counting, but understanding revenues generated to these other participants is important
too.
Examining the magnitude of the difference between how much money is paid to
the Trinity PUD, how much money is paid to the Trinity Bureau ofReclamation, and
how much money in paid to the Westlands Water District is revealing. While each of
these purveyors of water have different infrastructure and operational costs, they were
paid significantly different amounts for the same water. The amount of money that went
the Westlands Water District was almost one thousand times as much as went to the
Trinity PUD.
Limitations
There are limitations to this method for calculating the value of water quantity.
This calculation ignores the other users ofTrinity County water who are within Trinity
County. This data could be gathered by examining information about water districts that
are registered with the California Department of Water Resources and examining rates
charged to those districts. Because some users are not registered with the California
Department ofWater Resources, additional analysis would be needed. Using the
information about water districts from the California Department of Water Resources, a
per capita estimate of water use could be applied to the number of Trinity County
households that are not part of water districts to estimate the total volume of water used
in Trinity County. Some unit value could be applied to this volume, though users who are
86
not part of water districts are not paying for this water. This analysis was not
carried out for this project.
Hydroelectricity
The electricity produced by hydroelectric dams from the Trinity River supplies
the Trinity Public Utility District and the Redding Public Electric District. This energy is
integrated into the Central Valley Project, which supplies the Sierra Nevada Region of
the Western Area Power Administration. When this electricity is produced, how much
water is required to produce that electricity, and the change in amount and price ofthis
electricity at different water levels are all important components of understanding the
economic impact of hydroelectricity from the dams on the economy of Trinity County.
However, data are not collected on all of these components.
Diagram
Figure 7 describes the disturbances, structures, and functions that affect hydroelectricity.
Structures and Functions
Hydroelectricity is dependent primarily on dams. The dams in the Trinity River
system create significant amounts of electricity. The Trinity Dam contains a 105,000
kilowatt powerplant and the Lewiston Dam contains a much smaller 350 kilowatt
powerplant. Streams and soil are also important structures for hydropower.
Figure 7: Provision of Hydroelectricity
DISTURBANCE
NATURAL 8c:l MANMADE hazardousfuelsreduction restoration tbcrhN1
STRUCTURES
FUNCTIONS
GOODS AND
SERVICES
hydro-
electricity
00
--.)
88
Goods and Services
The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) collects detailed data on power
generation in Trinity County. This detail of these data in particular would allow
connections between who pays and who benefits to be developed, because data about the
benefits are collected in a disaggregated form and accessible to the public. (WAPA is a
public agency.) In 2005 WAPA stopped paying and charging on a kilowatt-hour basis.
Instead, WAPA pays charges based on percentage use or contribution to total electricity
generation.
In 2009, the total revenues associated with Trinity County generation totaled
$4,927,810 for 247,234 megawatt hours, about seven percent of the Central Valley
Project's generation in 2009. The price of water varied significantly by season, prices in
April through September being about a third ofprices from October through March in
2009. Management ofboth the reservoirs and the ecosystems as a whole ensures that
Trinity County has water in the summer months to fetch those high prices.
Limitations
There are limitations to the way hydroelectricity values were calculated. This total
is for the year, but the revenues, the amount of water, and the proportion ofwater
fluctuate a lot throughout the seasons, and the way the forests are managed changes how
and when the water flows through the system. This calculation adds the revenues for the
quarters together, but there are other approaches to calculating this value. Trinity Dam is
also a peaking power p1ant- it only operates when there is high demand for power and
prices are high, even though there are no separate Trinity prices to differentiate this.
89
Theoretically, the value of the Trinity power could be much higher if they were
not paid as a percentage of total generation but instead were paid based on the value
when they generated the power.
Fish
Along with recreational fishing, commercial and tribal fishing activity also occurs
in Trinity County. The values of these fisheries were not estimated in this report because
I did not find data about these fisheries.
Diagram
Figure 8 describes the disturbances, structures, and functions that affect fish.
Structures and Functions
To create an ecosystem in which fish can survive, streams, dams, soil, and forests
are all important components. Streams and the reservoirs collected water to provide the
environment in which the fish live. The soil serves to transport and filter the water needed
for the fish. Forests and other vegetation cool the streams that allow fish, especially
salmon and steelhead, to survive. Significant maintenance and restoration work is
devoted to improving fish habitat, and much ofthe debate concerning water allocation is
about maintaining functional fisheries.
Figure 8: Provision ofFish
NATURAL
DISTURBANCE Gc:J MANMADE hazardousfuelsreduction restoration timber harvest
STRUCTURES
FUNCTIONS
GOODS AND
SERVICES
1.0
o
91
Government agencies spend significant amounts of money addressing
the results of degraded soil structure which influence fish habitat; sedimentation is a
major problem for many ofthe dams in Trinity County and the Bureau of Rec1amation
has spent both operational costs (dredging) and capital costs (new sedimentation dams)
on addressing issues related to soil structure. The Trinity River Stream Rectification Act
(P.L. 96-335) of 1980 provided money to construct sediment collection dams and pools
and to maintain and dredge these pools (Friends of Trinity River 2010) .
Goods and Services
This study examines two methods of estimating the value of recreational fishing
in Trinity County, payment for fishing licenses and travel cost method estimates of the
economic impact of fishing visits.
Revenues from fishing licenses do not directly impact communities because much
of the money goes to the state rather than Trinity County itself. In 2005, $164,083.75 was
collected from licenses in Trinity County. In 2009 dollars, this equals $180,500.
Using travel cost calculations, the Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration
Environmental Impact Statement estimated the net economic benefit of recreational
fishing to be $65 per day for fishing salmon and steelhead (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service et al. 2000: D-2). Based on estimates from salmon and steelhead punch cards, the
average number of trips to Trinity County for salmon and steelhead fishing between 2003
and 2005 were 5,437 (Jackson 2007: 44). This suggests that the value of recreational
fishing is at least $353,405. In 2009 dollars, this equals $442,363.
92
Timber
Like other goods, the amount of value that can be gained from timber is
constrained by laws and regulations that limit timber harvest. With the implementation of
the Northwest Forest Plan and other social and legal factors, the amount of timber harvest
in Trinity County has decreased substantially since 1994, as described in Graph 1.
Graph 1: Net Board Feet Harvested from all Trinity County Lands
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000 ~~~~~~-
o ---~--~---------~----- ----- ~ ~---~----~--~ --~---;-~--- -----,----
Source: California Board of Equalization 2009
The price per unit of timber has also decreased, as described in Graph 2. The proportion
of timber harvested from public lands (versus private lands) in Trinity County has
fluctuated between 1994 and 2008, but has always remained below 50%, as described in
Graph 3. Additionally, in California overall, the price of timber harvested on public land
has consistently been much lower than timber harvested on private land (California Board
of Equalization 2009). This difference has gotten more extreme in recent years. In
California, between 1978 and 1993 the unit price of timber from public land was between
23% and 64% of the price of timber from private land. Between 1994 and 2009,
the unit price of timber from public land ranges between 4% and 18% of the price of
timber from private land, with the trend being consistently downward.
Between 1994 and 2009 the value of the timber harvest in Trinity County
decreased from $44.5 million dollars to $3.1 million dollars. The amount of timber
harvested in Trinity County and the value of that timber has varied tremendously in
recent years.
Graph 2: Dollars per Thousand Board Feet in Trinity County
$600
$500 ----------------------------------------------------
$400
$300
$200
$100
$0
Source: California Board of Equalization 2009
93
Graph 3: Percent of Timber Harvest on Public Land
50% ,------------------------~ -----------------------
45% --- -- - --- -------.---------
40% ,-------------------------------
35% --,--- - ---------------------------
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% --
p,~ ?J~ p,'c p,t\ p,% p,C) RI\:.) RI' Rlry RI'? s..f' RI~ RI'c Rlt\ RI% RIC),~ ,~ ~ ,~ ~ ,~ ~ ry"5 ry"5 ry"5 ry"5 ry"5 ry"5 ry"5 ry"5 ry"5
--- --------
Source: California Board ofEqualization 2009
Diagram
Figure 9 describes the disturbances, structures, and functions that affect timber.
Structures and Functions
The ecosystem good timber comes from the ecosystem structure of forests. Timber
production also relies on soil to sequester carbon and regulate nutrients. Forests both
sequester carbon and resist fire to create timber.
94
Figure 9: Provision of Timber
DISTURBANCE
NATURAL GI~ MANMADE hazardousfuelsreduction restoration timber harvest
STRUCTURES
FUNCTIONS
GOODS AND
SERVICES
timber
ID
VI
96
Goods and Services
As discussed elsewhere in this study, taking a snapshot approach to valuing
ecosystem services is problematic because of ecological and other types of variation. This
seems particularly true of timber, which has decreased in value in Trinity County. This
low value was particularly true in 2009, the year included in the summary analysis. Not
only was less timber harvested than even the year before, the price of that timber was less
than half of what it was in 2008. To match the other services valued in this study, 2009
data were used for timber. However, using data from another year would suggest that the
value of timber harvest, as an ecosystem service, was much higher. In 2009, fully 48,154
MBF were harvested in Trinity County. This harvest was worth $3,125,180.
Approximately twelve percent of this harvest was from public lands.
Ideally, researchers could establish a rate of sustained yield of harvest from
Trinity County. This rate, and the prices implied by this rate, would be a useful indicator
of the ecosystem good of sustainably harvested timber. However, timber could only be
harvested at this rate if political, economic, and social institutions allowed this rate of
harvest.
Marijuana
Marijuana demonstrates that societal norms can contradict an ecosystem good's
value in the market. Although timber is frequently referred to as the largest legal cash
crop, the assumption is that the cash crop with the highest value in Trinity County is
actually marijuana (The Sierra Institute 2002: 3). Significant amounts of marijuana are
grown on public lands, particularly in California.
97
The disturbances to the system caused by marijuana production are also
significant and complex. The manmade inputs to the system are for the destruction ofthis
ecosystem good, rather than its maintenance or production. Some estimate that it would
cost more than $300 million to remove the estimated 28,000 acres of marijuana on
national forest land in California, at the rate of $11 ,000 per acre to remove marijuana
plants, clear irrigation systems, and replant native vegetation (Darling 2007).
Diagram
Figure 10 describes the disturbances, structures, and functions that affect marijuana.
Structures and Functions
The forest structure provides an environment within which marijuana can be
grown. This environment provides both the ecological structure and the societal structure
(or lack thereof) that allow successful production of marijuana. The forest, soils, and
streams provide the ecosystem within which marijuana is grown. Growing marijuana on
public lands, which have limited resources for oversight, allows marijuana production to
occur as well. Aside from its illegality, marijuana's relationships to ecosystem structures
and functions are similar to other non-timber forest products. Marijuana production
depends on ecosystem structures to transport water, provide habitat, and regulate
nutrients.
Figure 10: Provision ofMarijuana
DISTURBANCE
NATURAL 88 MANMADE hazardousfuelsreduction restoration timber harvest
STRUCTURES
FUNCTIONS
GOODS AND
SERVICES
mar~iuana
'0
00
99
Goods and Services
Data related to marijuana production are less available than data related to other
ecosystem goods and services. Conservatively estimating that the proportion of public
land in Trinity County that contains marijuana gardens is the same as the proportion of
public land in the US that is estimated to contain marijuana gardens, Trinity County
probably has about 323 acres of marijuana. Assuming production of 1742 pounds per
acre, Trinity County's public land produces approximately 563,312 pounds ofmarijuana
(Caulkins 2010: 15). Assuming a price of$3,000 per pound (U.S. Department of Justice
2008: 22), this creates $1,689,936,548 of economic out put, some of which is in Trinity
County. In 2009 dollars, this equals $1,683,780,131.
Recreation
Maintenance ofthe social benefits (including economic impact) created by
recreation requires recognizing the framework that creates these benefits, which is
important for multiple reasons. First, the maintenance of the structure and functions that
generate recreational benefits creates economic impact. Also, without recognizing the
genesis of enviromnental benefit managers and policymakers will not always make
decisions that maximize and sustain these benefits and could inadvertently destroy these
benefits.
Like many other services, recreation is often undervalued because it is in part a
public good. Postel and Carpenter note, "in countries such as the United States, where
enjoyment ofthe outdoors is on the rise, a large group of people benefit from these
recreational services, but the total value of their enjoyment is difficult to measure" (Postel
100
and Carpenter 1997: 202). Like other services, understanding the value of
recreation requires examining more than just collected fees.
To measure the economic impact of recreation, researchers can examine the value
of goods and services purchased on a local area due to recreation. This may include fees
of any type. These sorts of purchases can be linked to economic benefits in a local
community.
However, this approach underestimates the full economic value of recreation.
Hotelling proposed that understanding the cost of visiting a national park should include
knowing the cost of getting to the park (Hotelling 1949). This proposal spurred the
development of the travel cost method of estimating the value of an environmental
resource. While this method does not include existence values, it does use real rather than
hypothetical expenditures. Travel cost methods estimate demand (through willingness to
pay) using the travel costs required to visit a site (Brander et al. 2006: 228).
The contingent valuation method uses hypothetical questions to obtain actors'
willingness to pay (Brander et al. 2006: 228). This method can be used to indicate the
value of biodiversity and water quality improvements. Contingent valuation is not
actually based on transactions, unlike other methods. Instead, contingent valuation is a
survey methodology (Heal 2000: 28).
Diagram
Figure 11 describes the disturbances, structures, and functions that affect recreation.
Figure 11: Provision of Recreation
DISTURBANCE
NATURAL Bc:J MANMADE hazardousfuelsreduction restoration timber harvest
STRUCTURES
FUNCTIONS
GOODS AND
SERVICES
recreation
..-.
o
>-'
102
Structures and Functions
Recreation is dependent on both the provision of scenery and the collection of
water. Scenery is provided by forests, dams, and streams. Water is collected by dams and
soil.
Goods and Services
To recreate on National Forest lands, users must pay a recreation fee, which
implies a lower bound on willingness to pay. In 2005, the Shasta-Trinity National Forest
collected $1,180,219 in revenue from 2,443,000 visitors. Its expenditures were $951,579
(U.S. Forest Service 2006). Through their participation in the Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program, the Shasta-Trinity National Forest is allowed to keep 80 percent
of the fees collected to use locally (U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department
of Agriculture 2000). In addition, the Shasta-Trinity National Forest is one of two forests
testing special-use fee retention. As a result, the local economic impact of all of the
Shasta-Trinity National Forest fees is much higher than the impact in other forests.
However, the economic impacts and social benefits of recreation in Trinity County
extend beyond these fees.
As discussed earlier, one method to estimate the social benefits of an
environmental resource is the contingent valuation method. This approach uses surveys to
determine how much the respondent would be willing to pay for an environmental
benefit, such as recreational use. It measures both active use values from recreation and
passive existence values. Contingent valuation methods can be less accurate when users
simply assume more is better without completely understanding what is implied by more
103
of the environmental resource and what budget constraints are faced when it
comes to maintenance of that environmental resource (Diamond and Hausman 1994).
Another method of identifying the social benefits of an environmental resource,
particularly its recreational value, is by using the travel cost method. This technique has
been used to estimate the value of the Trinity Alps Wilderness, an area of Trinity County
primarily used for hiking recreation.
Steven Hackett uses the zonal travel cost method to estimate that the economic
value from wilderness visits in the Trinity Alps was $219,028 in net benefits in 1999
(Hackett 2000). This equals $283,777 in 2009 dollars. While this study did not examine
recreational visitation values throughout the entire Trinity Alps Wilderness, its
boundaries suggest the estimate of the value of this wilderness for the hiking portion of
recreation is a low estimate, rather than a high one. Its boundaries are the North Fork of
the Trinity River, the Salmon River drainage, and the wilderness boundary on the south
and east, and the Pacific Crest Trail to the north. This eastern section of the Trinity Alps
Wilderness has more visitors and covers most of the visits to the area (about 75 percent).
In addition, Hackett had access to the data only for this area. His data were based on
wilderness permits, which about 80 percent of users complete. As a result, his data
probably represent about 60 percent ofvisitors to the area.
The local economic impacts of off-highway vehicle (OHV) use are difficult to
determine. OHV users in Trinity County must have permits, issued by the State of
California. A study in 1994 found that expenditures by OHV users for equipment,
activities, and events in California generated about $1.2 billion in economic activity in
104
1992. The average household participating in OHV use spent $3,431.41, not
including the cost of vehicle purchase in 1994 (Off Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation
Division 1994). This report specified that collectively, visitors to Trinity County traveled
30,367 miles off of highways in their most recent trips (Off Highway Motor Vehicle
Recreation Division 1994). A study in 2005 found 17.4 percent of Californians
participated in OHV activities, more than in the 1994 study (Cordell et al. 2005). This
suggests that economic impacts of OHV use may have increased since the 1994 study.
Local economic impacts on Trinity County from OHV recreation seem to be
substantial, but are difficult to measure because OHV permitting is done at the state level
(and is not attributable to county) and passes to engage in OHV use on National Forest
land are covered by more general wilderness passes, which also allow for other types of
recreation. In addition, there are local economic impacts on nearby communities through
repair shops, guide services, and businesses based on OHV use. These values were not
estimated in this study.
Lake activities create significant economic impacts for Trinity County through a
variety of revenue streams. A portion of the fees (based on gross receipts) from
concessionaires in the lake recreation areas goes to the Forest Service. While this
percentage is not public, through the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program a majority
of this money stays in Trinity County. Data concerning number of visitor days to the
lakes are limited because the Forest Service collects visitor day information at a larger
scale.
105
In Trinity County, reservoir levels are not primarily managed for
recreational use. Water levels are primarily determined by the need for hydroelectric
power and water use downstream. The levels are determined by the Bureau of
Reclamation. Many have discussed the important effect that water level has on recreation
(Cameron et al. 1996). Bowker et al. (1994) identify these effects for the Shasta-Trinity
National Forest recreation sites in particular. They calculated total annual visitation as a
function of water level, draw down, and year. In general the higher the water level, the
higher the visitation, suggesting that within the study years, water levels did not exceed
optimal levels (Platt 2001: 4). Smaller seasonal drawdowns resulted in greater total
visitation.
The Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration Environmental Impact Statement
estimated the number of recreational visitor days to the Trinity Reservoir was 265,800 in
1991. This statement estimated the economic impact of a visitor day to the area reservoirs
to be $11 per day. This suggests that there is an estimated $2,900,000 impact (US. Fish
and Wildlife Service et al. 2000: D-25). In 2009 dollars, this is $4,621,413.
The Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration Environmental Impact Statement
estimated the number of recreational visitor days to the Trinity River at 214,000 in 1995.
A user survey conducted in 1993 and 1994 by the Biological Resources Division of the
US Geological Survey identified the economic benefit of recreation for different
activities. It was estimated to be $36 per day for boating, $26 per day for swimming, and
$65 per day for fishing for salmon and steelhead, and $33 per day for off-river activities
such as hiking. This statement used these average per-day values to estimate the total
106
benefits of recreation along the Trinity River to be $9,900,000 (US. Fish and
Wildlife Service et al. 2000: D-2). Because this value includes fishing, accounted for
elsewhere in the model, the estimate of recreation without fishing is used in this section.
This value is $9,546,595. In 2009 dollars, this is $13,625,538.
Summary
Table 8: Recreation Summary
Recreation Value in
Component Amount Year Method 2009 Dollars
Economic
Recreation fee $1,180,219 2005 Impact $1,298,300
Travel Cost
Hiking $219,058 1999 Method $283,777
Lake activities $2,900,000 1991 User survey $4,621,413
River activities $9,546,595 1995 User survey $13,625,538
TOTAL $13,845,872 $19,829,028
A low estimate of the economic benefits of recreation is $19,829,028, in 2009
dollars. As with other ecosystem services, some of this money goes to Trinity County,
while other portions go to the federal government and other beneficiaries. It is
particularly difficult to separate out economic impact and social benefit from recreation
data because the value of recreation is estimated using so many indirect methods.
Hunted Wildlife
Diagram
Figure 12 describes the disturbances, structures, and functions that affect hunted wildlife.
Figure 12: Provision of Hunted Wildlife
-~---- ~----
DISTURBANCE
STRUCTURES
FUNCTIONS
GOODS AND
SERVICES
NATURAL Bc:J
streams
MANMADE hazardous
fuels
reduction
forests
providing
habitat
hunted
wildife
restoration timber harvest
,......
o
--.l
108
Structures and Functions
Hunted wildlife is mostly dependent on the ability of the ecosystem to supply
habitat for the animals being hunted. However, the ecosystem structures of streams, soil,
and forests all provide habitat for hunted wildlife.
Goods and Services
Approximately 11,141 deer tags were issued in Trinity County. The approximate
revenue from these deer tags was $274,127. While not all of the revenue from these tags
benefits Trinity County, some of this revenue is spent on local habitat maintenance and
restoration.
There are a variety of ways to value hunting beyond simply calculating the
possible economic impact of deer licenses. Bennett and Whitten used the travel cost
method to estimate duck hunters' willingness to pay to hunt and better estimate the
economic impacts of this hunting (2003). Buschena (2001), Boxall (1995), and Bilgic
(2009) discuss lotteries as a way of better matching the supply oflicenses with the
demand for those licenses. This method could also increase revenues, increasing local
economic impact.
Non-Timber Forest Products
Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) are "items gathered from the forest that have
spiritual, subsistence, or market value" (Everett 2001: 337). In Trinity County, the NTFPs
of particular value are products from plants, fungi, and lichens (Everett 2001: 337).
Demand for NTFPs is growing, particularly for medicinal herbs. Communities previously
dependent on timber revenues are looking to NTFPs as an alternative economic basis,
109
though it is unclear whether local communities benefit from large scale NFTP
harvesting (Everett 2001: 338). Harvesters are often from outside of Trinity County and
the profits go to exporters (Everett 2001: 338). In particular, when NTFPs are harvested
from public land, "their revenues do not cover the cost of their management," especially
as new NTFPs are discovered to be marketable and desirable (Everett 2001: 339).
Collection of non-timber forest products is a permitted activity on national forest land.
Managing non-timber forest products has been an increasingly important role for the
Forest Service, particularly as legal constraints on the harvesting of timber forest
products have increased (Everett 1997: 1).
Diagram
Figure 13 describes the disturbances, structures, and functions that affect non-timber
forest products.
Structures and Functions
While the primary structure for non-timber forest products is the forest itself, the
soils and streams of the ecosystem also support ecosystem functions important to non-
timber forest products in Trinity County. Non-timber forest products depend on
ecosystem structures to transport water, provide habitat, and regulate nutrients.
Figure 13: Provision of Non-Timber Forest Products
DISTURBANCE
NATURAL 88 MANMADE hazardousfuelsreduction restoration timber harvest
STRUCTURES
FUNCTIONS
GOODS AND
SERVICES
.....
.....
o
111
Goods and Services
To estimate the value of non-timber forest products in Trinity County, I use
information from the Forest Services permits granted by the Shasta-Trinity National
Forest to people collecting from districts within Trinity County in 2009. These permits
were issued for. This estimate does not include non-timber forest products that were not
collected from Shasta-Trinity National Forest, particularly those on private lands. The
total value for these non-timber forest products is $36,909.
Goods and Services not Valued in the Direct Market
Energy from Biomass
Diagram
Figure 14 describes the disturbances, structures, and functions that affect biomass.
Structures and Functions
The production ofbiomass for energy relies on structures and functions similar to
timber production, but the quality ofthese structures (particularly the forest) can differ.
Materials for biomass generation can come from forest thinning. Forests sequester carbon
to produce biomass fuels to use for biomass generation. Through thinning, forests are
rendered more resistant to fire.
Figure 14: Provision of Biomass
DISTURBANCE
STRUCTURES
FUNCTIONS
GOODS AND
SERVICES
NATURAL 88 IANMADE hazardousfuelsreduction restoration timber harvest
biomass
......
......
N
113
Goods and Services
Although there currently is not the needed infrastructure to generate energy from
biomass in Trinity County, there is extensive local and statewide interest in developing
this infrastructure (Martin et al. 2006). If this infrastructure were developed, Trinity
County's forest ecosystem could create energy from biomass, an ecosystem good. The
Pacific Southwest Research Station prepared a report for the California Energy
Commission examining forest management for wildfire reduction and energy production
using biomass generation (USDA Forest Service 2009: 3).
This report's model used forest thinnings to generate electricity. This model
suggested $1.58 billion could be generated from thinning on 2.7 million acres of
contiguous forest (USDA Forest Service 2009: 3). Trinity County's public land totals
approximately 1.6 million acres. In addition to generating money from electricity, this
report found that 22% fewer acres would be burned by wildfires in a model forest that
was thinned for energy production using biomass. This reduction in wildfire would result
in $246 million in avoided wildfire damages and $18 million in avoided fire suppression
costs (USDA Forest Service 2009: 3).
Water Quality
Like other goods and services, there are numerous measures of water quality,
some of which affect human uses of water and others which do not (Layke 2009). As
Freeman points out "even providing a descriptive characterization" of water quality is "a
formidable task. Water quality cannot be represented by a single number on some scale,
but rather is an n-dimensional vector of the relevant parameters. Which subsets of these
114
parameters are most important in influencing the uses of a body ofwater
(commercial fishing, boating, or swimming, for example) is still a major question for
research" (Freeman 2003: 35). In particular, Freeman points out that predictive models
for these parameters are difficult to develop. For example, although many water quality
models examine dissolved oxygen, dissolved oxygen levels are not directly related to the
water quality required for fish habitat or recreational use (Freeman 2003: 35).
Diagram
Figure 15 describes the disturbances, structures, and functions that affect water quality.
Structures and Functions
Water quality depends on all of the structures and many functions described in the
Trinity County system. Streams and dams collect and then transport water; this collection
and dilution of pollutants affects water quality. Streams and soil also filter water,
removing pollutants. Soil regulates nutrients flowing into the streams. Forests play an
important role in cooling streams, which is important to some aspects of water quality.
Goods and Services
Currently in Trinity County, payments by water users for water quality do not
exist. However, water that flows from Trinity County must meet certain water quality
requirements. Water quality from Trinity County is carefully monitored, both that which
flows into the Trinity River and that which is diverted for the Central Valley Project.
Maintaining good water quality is something water users may be willing to pay for.
Maintenance of that water quality depends on maintenance of the Trinity County
ecosystem.
Figure 15: Provision of Water Quality
DISTURBANCE
NATURAL Bc:J MANMADE hazardousfuelsreduction restoration timber harvest
STRUCTURES
FUNCTIONS
GOODS AND
SERVICES
......
......
Vl
116
Water quality markets may be some of the first markets for ecosystem
services to develop. These markets may relate to nutrient levels, water temperature, or
other types of water pollution. Trinity County has a resilient structure to maintain good
water quality.
Non-Hunted Wildlife
Markets do not currently exist for non-hunted wildlife. In addition, there is
significant debate in the literature about whether biodiversity, another classification of
non-hunted wildlife, can be valued and thus whether it is an ecosystem good or service.
That said, significant amounts of money are being paid using public budgets for the
protection of biodiversity. Society is paying for biodiversity, whether or not it can be
quantified or increased.
Diagram
Figure 16 describes the disturbances, structures, and functions that affect non-hunted
wildlife.
Structures and Function
Streams, forests, and soil structures all create the habitat in which all wildlife,
including non-hunted wildlife, live. Significant resources are invested in maintaining
these ecosystem structures so that they adequately provide habitat for non-hunted
wildlife, particularly those that are listed as threatened or endangered.
Figure 16: Provision of Non-Hunted Wildlife
DISTURBANCE
NATURAL Bc:J MANMADE hazardousfuelsreduction restoration timber harvest
STRUCTURES
FUNCTIONS
GOODS AND
SERVICES
streams
providing
habitat
non-hunted
wildlife
.....
........
-....l
118
Goods and Services
Although non-hunted wildlife and biodiversity do not have a direct market,
significant resources are spent on ensuring adequate numbers of non-hunted wildlife.
Non-hunted wildlife, particularly that which is threatened or endangered, is an interesting
example of goods whose production is carefully monitored and maintained despite not
having a market. This monitoring is of course due to legislative requirements. There has
been significant discussion about creating markets for biodiversity, but others question
whether biodiversity is an ecosystem service at all because it does not have substitutes.
Once a species is extinct, it cannot be substituted. While people could pay to improve
habitat for threatened species, or maintain all ecosystem functions to ensure a broader
functional ecosystem that is more likely to allow a diversity of species to thrive, markets
that allow buyers to pay for the existence value of a particular species are difficult. Thus
far, markets have not addressed existence value very well.
Climate Regulation
Sierra Pacific, which owns some of the private land in Trinity County, has
decided to sell carbon credits from its holdings (Bailey 2009). While the current market
for carbon credits is weak, climate regulation could be a significant service that the
ecosystem of Trinity County offers.
There is significant discussion around whether or not public lands should
participate in carbon markets, as they become available. While they could enter the
market slowly and be used to muffle disruptions in the emerging market, there are also
concerns that they could flood the market.
119
Diagram
Figure 17 describes the disturbances, structures, and functions that affect climate
regulation.
Structures and Functions
Climate regulation depends on having a forested landscape. This forested
landscape sequesters carbon and resists fire, producing climate regulation. Like biomass,
the structures and functions that create the service of climate regulation are similar to
timber, but the way a forest is managed for carbon may differ.
Goods and Services
The primary good that climate regulation creates is currently carbon credits. While a
direct market exists for carbon credits, and Sierra Pacific plans on participating in that market
using carbon sequestered in Trinity County, the value of carbon credits in Trinity County was not
estimated in this study. This value could be estimated with information from Sierra Pacific about
the forests in Trinity County that they plan to involve in a carbon market.
Carbon accounting is a complex field. Different carbon markets follow different
methodologies for measuring carbon sequestration, and carrying out this valuation
requires significant labor and collection of baseline information. More generally,
managing for carbon sequestration is particularly contentious and difficult. The role of
forest fires, controlled and otherwise, in management for carbon sequestration is debated
in the literature. Maximizing climate regulation also creates tradeoffs in the production of
other ecosystem goods and services such as timber harvesting and possibly biodiversity.
Figure 17: Provision of Climate Regulation
DISTURBANCE
NATURAL G c:::J MANMADE hazardousfuelsreduetion restoration timber harvest
STRUCTURES
FUNCTIONS
GOODS AND
SERVICES
resisting fire
climate
regulation
sequestering
carbon
.......
tv
o
--------_.-
121
Amenity Value
Amenity value plays a subtle role in Trinity County. It can be observed in the
price a resident is willing to pay for a house with certain characteristics in Trinity County,
such as a view. Amenity value also affects decisions about where to harvest timber and
how to design public and private land. Studies to understand amenity value have been
carried out many locations. Their methods and possibly their values could be applied to
Trinity County to understand the importance of amenity value to the economy.
Diagram
Figure 18 describes the disturbances, structures, and functions that affect amenity value.
Structures and Functions
Streams, dams, and forests all provide scenery. It is this scenery that creates
amenity value, the value gained from an asset, such as land, being in the location where it
is. Usually this value comes from beauty, accessibility to desirable locations, or other
characteristics.
Goods and Services
Amenity value is usually measured using hedonic pricing models. One way to
carry out this type of valuation in Trinity County would be to examine the difference in
prices between housing in Trinity County and other locations with similar housing but
less beauty or access to desired amenities.
Another way to examine amenity value is to look at the amount that Sierra Pacific
spends to create visual buffers from the land that is logged, or the Forest Service spends
-----------------_ .. -
on landscape architecture and other aesthetic features. These techniques would
measure inputs to the system, however, and not the amenity value of Trinity County.
122
Figure 22: Provision of Amenity Value
DISTURBANCE
STRUCTURES
FUNCTIONS
GOODS AND
SERVICES
NATURAL
providing
scenery
amenity value
Bc:J MANMADE hazardousfuelsreduction restoration timber harvest
....-
tv
W
124
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
Table 9 summarizes the values of ecosystem goods and services discussed in
Chapter IV, Results.
Table 9: Value of Ecosystem Goods and Services Summary
Value Year Value in 2009 Dollars
Water quantity $2,345,343 2009 $2,368
Hydroelectricity $4,927,810 2009 $4,927,810
Fish $353,405 2005 $442,363
Timber $3,125,180 2009 $3,125,180
Marijuana $1,689,936,548 2008 $1,683,780,131
Recreation $19,829,028 mixed $19,829,028
Hunted wildlife $274,127 2009 $274,127
Non-Timber Forest
Products $36,909 2009 $36,909
The value of ecosystem goods and services in Trinity County is at least
$1,712,417,916. Leaving out marijuana, because its production on public lands is illegal,
the value of ecosystem goods and services in Trinity County is at least $28,637,785. In
2002, $3,913,753 was spent on restoring ecosystem function. Significant other inputs
went into fire suppression, hazardous fuels reduction, and sedimentation reduction.
This analysis confirms that while economic activity in Trinity County has shifted
away from timber, it is still based on natural resources. Maintaining this basis is
important to those who benefit from Trinity County's ecosystem, which includes Trinity
County residents but is not limited to them. Understanding who benefits from those
125
ecosystem goods and services is also important. While some goods and
services have economic impact within the county, the benefits of some others, like
hydroelectricity and water quantity, accrue outside the county.
In addition to shifting who pays and who benefits, there are opportunities to value
new services, or value services at a higher rate. This study's estimate of the total value of
ecosystem services of Trinity County of $29 million can be calculated to equal about $18
per acre of public land. (This estimate assumes that public land provides most of these
services.) Although this study does not examine benefits transfer in great detail,
comparing the number I calculated for the value of goods and services in Trinity County
with the number other studies of ecosystem services would suggest using benefits transfer
is an interesting exercise that contrasts economic impact and social benefit.
I found studies valued temperate forest ecosystem services at different rates:
between $122 per acre from Costanza's 1997 report to a 2008 study specific to federal
lands that valued forest land at $845 per acre (Costanza et al. 1997; Ingraham and Foster
2008). These studies each include different services and have different methodologies.
However, the implications of the difference between $29 million in economic impact,
found in this study, and $191 million or $1.3 trillion in societal benefit implied by these
other studies, are significant. The scale of the difference between what exists now and
what could exist suggests significant opportunities for shifting the societal benefits of
ecosystem services and creating mechanisms that tum this societal impact into local
economic benefit.
126
Using the estimate of $29 million as the value of ecosystem services in
Trinity County, about $2,200 per capita created in Trinity County. Of course, little or
none of this money is going back to the 13,000 people who live in Trinity County. Nor is
this money going directly to the maintenance of this public land. Instead, this money is in
general accruing to others, or to the federal government. The money that goes to the
federal government pays for the maintenance of the ecosystem structures in Trinity
County, but very indirectly. Even within the federal government, there are not
connections between money earned from services, like water quantity, and money paid to
maintain those services.
These results are inaccurate. Data was unavailable and was collected for other
purposes, not specific to ecosystem services valuation. Because there is no set
methodology for ecosystem services valuation, the methodology used to estimate the
value of ecosystem services in Trinity County could be criticized for its inconsistent
methods, timeframe, and accuracy. At best, this estimate represents a lower bound for the
value of ecosystem services in Trinity County. Costanza et al. discuss the need for
accuracy in ecosystem services valuation (2006: 80). Valuations with low accuracy are
useful for increasing public awareness, those with medium accuracy are useful for
establishing priorities and making policy decisions, and those with high accuracy are
useful for decisions that involve irreversibility, such as species extinction (2006: 80).
This valuation is intended to promote an understanding of the flows into and out of
Trinity County. While future participation in ecosystem services markets would require
more accurate valuation ofparticular goods and services (since, at this point, coordinated
127
ecosystem services paYments and markets are rare), this valuation gives a big
picture view of the role of ecosystem services in the economy and ecology of Trinity
County.
This project faced challenges related to lack of data, uncertainty about how to deal
with illegal activities, and goods and services that compete and affect each other's values.
Although I converted data to 2009 dollars, measuring all ecosystem services on an annual
basis may not reflect that service's value accurately, because the value could be much
higher or lower at different points in the year. While this variability is characteristic of
some other non-environmental goods and services, because ecosystem services are
dependent on the same ecosystem structures and functions, it is useful to coordinate the
timeframes of these measurements.
Because it is illegal to grow marijuana, knowing how to discuss its value is
difficult. In addition to its estimated value, information about the cost of marijuana
eradication is available. This work creates jobs, but it reduces the economic impact of
marijuana. Its value could be completely discarded because it competes with other
ecosystem services preferred by society, such as recreation. But marijuana production
also creates economic impacts, positive and negative. Like the various economic impacts
related to fire in Trinity County, it is difficult to know whether economic values related to
marijuana production should be added to or subtracted from the value of ecosystem
services in Trinity County. This computation is only made more difficult by trying to
include social preferences and laws in economic valuations of ecosystems.
128
Finally, maximizing the production of one good or service can reduce
the production of another good or service. Using diagrams to understand the relationships
between different goods, services, functions, and structures illustrates these connections.
However, the ecological complexity of these relationships and the effects that the
production of various goods and services have on each other are difficult to understand.
129
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS
Methodology
There is no single methodology for ecosystem services valuation. There is not a
consistent methodology for framing these ecosystem goods and services (determining
which ones are relevant and how they relate). There is also not a consistent methodology
for evaluating particular goods and services. Methodologies are being developed to make
these valuations more comparable and more accurate. However, these methodologies
should also be evaluated based on what data are currently available. In addition, valuing
and monitoring ecosystem services could provide opportunities for job creation. The
methodology used in this project relied on data currently being collected in Trinity
County.
Getting information about all of the services was hard, but recreation data were
particularly hard to get. This is unfortunate because recreation seems to play such a large
part in the economy, and tourism is traditionally promoted as a primary means of
economic development for natural resource-based communities. The difficulties faced in
collecting recreational data from a variety of government agencies and organizations at a
variety of timeframes are symptomatic of a larger problem. Even when significant
resources exist that are cUlTently collecting data, such as the government agency presence
in Trinity County, these data are not being collected in a comprehensive way. Managing
130
ecosystems for ecosystem services will be very difficult if data are not
centralized and not comparable.
Prices
Like all goods, prices for ecosystem services vary. This makes management based
on the value of the ecosystem services risky, particularly because land managers do not
have much experience managing ecosystems based on prices rather than functions. If the
market value of the ecosystem goods and services declines, maintenance of those goods
and services can be decreased. Sometimes this decrease in function is not recoverable
when the demand rebounds. Some ecosystem structures and functions have minimum
levels that must be maintained to avoid the collapse of these systems. One way to
partially address this problem is through localization of payments for ecosystem services.
Because ecosystem services are so time dependent, understanding their value
based only on these prices can also be problematic for these reasons. These prices
fluctuate, and so using a snapshot approach is ineffective. That said, a more continuous
value of the economic impact of an ecosystem service is less accurate. Addressing these
timeframe issues is difficult. This study tries to create a middle ground through the
development of an admittedly complicated framework. The framework tries to allow for
a whole-system, long-term perspective but that also creates a methodology for a short-
term or snapshot understanding of ecosystem value as it is needed for policy decision-
making. However, more work must be carried out to address the fact that we manage for
both the short and long term.
131
From Practices to Results
Ecosystem services valuation shifts the method of achieving ecological goals
from best practices to measurable results. There are many practices that create jobs and
have social benefits that become less valued if focus shifts to results rather than practices.
Additional reasons to continue these practices would be needed and validated if these
practices were to be maintained within a framework of management for ecosystem
servIces.
In addition, basing evaluation of ecological goals on results can be problematic.
Sometimes good practices that are improving or maintaining ecosystem functions result
in no change in the value of ecosystem goods and services. This makes their effectiveness
hard to measure and hard to endorse or continue, unless for when these practices are not
carried out and ecosystem functions degrade, in tum degrading ecosystem goods and
services. Because ecosystem goods and services are often not valued, even this indicator
sometimes does not identify useful practices. Diagrams showing the interrelationships of
functions, goods, and services are important to try to recognize the relationships between
functions and services, even when these relationships do not result in change in economic
value. At a broader scale, practices include both disturbances (physical action) and
policies (institutional actions). Some practices maintain function, others degrade
function, and others change functions entirely. Social values dictate which functions
society considers necessary to maintain.
132
Disturbances
Understanding the amount currently being spent on maintaining ecosystem
function is important. Currently these inputs to the system are underestimated and
misunderstood. Going forward, improving payments for ecosystem services does not
simply involve increasing payments for ecosystem services. It also involves examining
who pays and who benefits, and possibly creating mechanisms to connect these two
groups.
Approach
Legislative structures have redirected activities on the forest so that they create
different goods, such as endangered species habitat and recreational land, which benefit
broader society. But these goods do not create local economic impact and jobs in the way
that timber did. Ifwe recognize that people are an intrinsic part of the maintenance of
natural resources, we must recognize a dual purpose for public lands. Along with valuing
these public lands for the outputs that they create, for their social benefit, we must create
mechanisms that allow people to do this work, and pay them for the work they are
already doing. The legislative actions that shifted value to particular social benefits did
not create corresponding economic mechanisms that create jobs to maintain those
benefits.
In a discussion of the ecosystem services (ESV) literature, Costanza et al. (2006)
said "truly transdisciplinary approaches are required for ESV in which practitioners
accept that disciplinary boundaries are academic constructs largely irrelevant outside of
the university, and allow the problem being studied to determine the appropriate set of
tools, rather than vice versa" (Costanza et al. 2006: 63). These conclusions try
to focus on the problem being studied and forming the groundwork to develop the
appropriate"tools. Ecosystem services valuation must examine what data is actually
available. It also must examine the relationship that valuation has with payments for
ecosystem services, job creation, and the economies of the communities being valued.
133
134
REFERENCES
Ansink:, E., L. Hein and K. P. Hasund (2008). "To Value Functions or Services? An
Analysis of Ecosystem Valuation Approaches." Environmental Values 17(4): 489-
503.
Bailey, E. (2009). California timber firm to market its forests as weapon against global
warming. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, California.
Baker, M. (2004). The Organization of Natural Resources Restoration Work in Trinity
County: An Overview. Forest Community Research.
Baldwin, K. C. (2002). Grass Valley Creek Watershed Fire Management Plan. Trinity
Resource Conservation District. Douglas City, CA.
Barbier, E. B. (2006). Valuing Ecosystem Services as Productive Inputs. 43rd Panel
Meeting of Economic Policy, 21-22 April 2006, Vienna.
Barkmann, J., K. Glenk, A. Keil, C. Leemhuis, N. Dietrich, G. Gerold and R. Marggraf
(2008). "Confronting unfamiliarity with ecosystem functions: The case for an
exosystem service approach to environn1ental valuation with stated preferece
methods." Ecological Economics 65: 48-62.
Bennett, J. and S. Whitten (2003). "Duck hunting and wetland conservation: Compromise
or synergy?" Canadian Journal ofAgricultural Economics-Revue Canadienne D
Agroeconomie 51(2): 161-173.
Bilgic, A. and W. J. Florkowski (2009). "The impact oflicense regulation on the number
of recreation trips: is it worth considering?" Journal ofRegulatory Economics
35(1): 45-69.
Bowes, M. D. and J. V. Krutilla (1989). Multiple-Use Management: The Economics of
Public Forestlands. Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future.
Boxall, P. C. (1995). "The economic value oflottery-rationed recreational hunting."
Canadian Journal ofAgricultural Economics-Revue Canadienne D Economie
Rurale 43(1): 119-131.
135
Boyd, J. and S. Banzhaf (2007). "What are ecosystem services? The need for
standardized environmental accounting units." Ecological Economics 63: 616-
626.
Brander, L. M., R. Florax and J. E. Vermaat (2006). "The empirics of wetland valuation:
A comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the literature." Environmental
& Resource Economics 33(2): 223-250.
Brown, T. C., J. C. Bergstrom and J. B. Loomis (2007). "Defining, valuing, and
providing ecosystem goods and services." Natural Resources Journal 47: 331-
376.
Buschena, D. E., T. L. Anderson and J. L. Leonard (2001). "Valuing non-marketed
goods: The case of elk permit lotteries." Journal ofEnvironmental Economics and
Management 41(1): 33-43.
California Board of Equalization (2009). California Timber Harvest by County.
California Board of Equalization.
California Board of Equalization (2009). California Timber Harvest Statistics. California
Board ofEqualization.
California Department ofFish and Game (1999). Deer Hunt Zone B2.
California Department ofFish and Game (2009). Approved 2009 Deer Hunt Seasons by
Zone.
California Department ofFish and Game. (2009). "Department ofFish and Game
Statistics." from
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/1icensing/statistics/statistics.htm1#Hunting%20Licenses.
Cameron, T. A., W. D. Shaw, S. E. Ragland, J. MacCallaway and S. Keefe (1996).
"Using actual and contingent behavior data with differing levels of time
aggregation to model recreation demand." Journal ofAgricultural and Resource
Economics 21(1): 130-149.
Capistrano, D. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: multiscale assessments:
findings ofthe Sub-global Assessments Working Group ofthe Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, Island Press.
Capistrano, D., C. K. Samper, M. J. Lee and C. Raudsepp-Hearne (2005). Summary:
Integrated Assessments and Multiple Scales. Ecosystems and Human Well Being:
Multiscale Assessments. D. Capistrano, C. K. Samper, M. J. Lee and C.
Raudsepp-Hearne. Washington, D.C. , Island Press. 4.
136
Caulkins, J. P. (2010). Working Paper: Estimated Cost ofProudction for
Legalized Cannabis, Rand Drug Policy Research Center.
Chan, K. M. A., M. R. Shaw, D. R. Cameron, E. C. Underwood and G. C. Daily (2006).
"Conservation planning for ecosystem services." Plos Biology 4(11): 2138-2152.
Collins, S. and E. Larry (2007). Caring for Our Natural Assets: An Ecosystem Services
Perspective. Pacific Northwest Research Station, United States Department of
Agriculture: Forest Service. Portland, OR
Cordell, H. K., C. J. Betz, G. Green and M. Owens (2005). Off-Highway Vehicle
Recreation in the United States, Regions and States: A National Report from the
National Survey on Recreation and the Environment. Southern Research Station,
United States Dpartment of Agriculture: Forest Service.
Costanza, R, R dArge, R deGroot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S.
Naeem, R V. Oneill, J. Paruelo, R G. Raskin, P. Sutton and M. VandenBelt
(1997). "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital." Nature
387(6630): 253-260.
Costanza, R, M. Wilson, A. Troy, A. Voinov, S. Liu and J. D'Agostino (2006). The
Value ofNew Jersey's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Burlington, VT,
Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, Rubenstein School of Environment and
Natural Resources.
Daily, G. C. (1997). Introduction: What are Ecosystem Services? Nature's Services. G. C.
Daily. Washington, D.C., Island Press.
Daily, G. C. (1997). Nature's Services. Washington, D.C., Island Press.
Darling, D. (2007). Drug czar gives warning: Federal official calls marijuana growers
dangerous terrorists. The Record Searchlight. Reading, California: July 13, 2007.
Davis, R. K. (1963). "Recreation planning as an economic problem." Natural Resources
Journal 3(239-249).
de Groot, R S., M. A. Wilson and R M. J. Boumans (2002). "A typology for the
classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods, and
services." Ecological Economics 41: 393-408.
Diamond, P. A. and J. A. Hausman (1994). "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number
Better than No Number?" Journal ofEconomic Perspectives 8(4): 45-64.
137
Dietz, D. (2010). Western Area Power Adminsitration: Trinity Powerplant
Data Request. K. MacFarland.
Driscoll, J. (2010). Gardens in the forest: Trinity County bust shows pot alive and well on
federal lands. Times-Standard. Eureka, CA.
Durham, D. J. (2005). How the Trinity Lost Its Water, Friends of Trinity River.
Ehrlich, P. and A. Ehrlich (1981). Extinction: the causes and consequences o/the
disappearces o/species. New York, Random House.
Everett, Y. (1997). A Guide to Selected Non-Timber Forest Products of the Hayfork
Adaptive Management Area, Shasta-Trinity and Six Rivers National Forests,
California. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, United States
Department of Agriculture. Albany, CA: 64.
Everett, Y. (2001). "Participatory Research for Adaptive Ecosystem Management."
Journal o/Sustainable Forestry 13(1): 335-357.
Fisher, B., K. Turner, M. Zylstra, R. Brouwer, R. de Groot, S. Farber, P. Ferraro, R.
Green, D. Hadley, J. Harlow, P. Jefferiss, C. Kirkby, P. Morling, S. Mowatt, R.
Naidoo, J. Paavola, B. Strassburg, D. Yu and A. Balmford (2008). "Ecosystem
services and economic theory: Integration for policy-relevant research."
Ecological Applications 18(8): 2050-2067.
Freeman, A. M. (2003). Measuring values, benefits, and costs. The Measurement 0/
Environmental and Resource Values. A. M. Freeman. Washington D.C. ,
Resources for the Future.
Friends of Trinity River. (2010). "Trinity Division History." from
http://www.fotr.org/tdhistory.html.
Gutman, P. (2007). "Ecosystem services: Foundations for a new rural-urban compact."
Ecological Economics 62: 383-387.
Hackett, S. C. (2000). The Recreatonal Economic Value of the Eastern Trinity Alps
Wilderness. Arcata, CA, School ofBusiness and Economics, Humboldt State
University.
Hardin, G. (1968). "The Tragedy of the Commons." Science 162(3859): 1243-1248.
Heal, G. (2000). "Valuing ecosystem services." Ecosystems 3(1): 24-30.
138
Rotelling, H. (1949). An Economic Study of the Monetary Valuation of
Recreation in the National Parks. National Park Service and Recreational
Planning Division, U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C.
Ingraham, M. W. and S. G. Foster (2008). "The value of ecosystem services provided by
the U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System in the contiguous U.S." Ecological
Economics 67(4): 608-618.
Jackson, T. A. (2007). California Steelhead Fishing Report-Restoration Card: A Report to
the Legislature. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California.
Kaufman, L. and P. Dayton (1997). Impacts of marine resource extraction on ecosystem
services and sustainability. Nature's Services. G. C. Daily. Washington, D.C.,
Island Press: 275-293.
Kline, J. D. (2007). Defining an economics research program to describe and evaluate
ecosystem services. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-700. F. S. US Department of
Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR: 46.
Krutilla, J. V. (1967). "Conservation reconsidered." American Economic Review 57: 777-
789.
Layke, C. (2009). Measuring Nature's Benefits: A Preliminary Roadmap for Improving
Ecosystem Service Indicators. Washington, D.C., World Resources Institute.
Liu, S., R. Costanza, A. Troy, J. D'Agostino and W. Mates (2010). "Valuing New Jersey's
Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital: A Spatially Explicit Benefit Transfer
Approach." Environmental Management 45: 1271-1285.
Ludwig, D. (2000). "Limitations of economic valuation of ecosystems." Ecosystems 3(1):
31-35.
Martin, L. J. and B. Blossey (2008). "A framework for ecosystem services valuation."
Conservation Biology 23(2): 494-496.
Martin, N., S. Brown, S. Petrova, T. R. R. Pearson, A. Dushku and J. Kadyszewski
(2006). Pilot Project Opportunities for Carbon Sequestration in Shasta County,
California. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy Related Environmental
Research. CEC 5002006072.
McComb, G., V. Lantz, K. Nash and R. Rittmaster (2006). "International valuation
databases: Overview, methods, and operational issues." Ecological Economics
60(2): 461-472.
139
Mohr, R. C. and S. Heminway (2009). 2008 California Deer Kill Report.
California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.
Morris, S. (2009). Seeking better fire prevention. The Trinity Journal. Weaverville, CA.
Nelson, E., G. Mendoza, J. Regetz, S. Polasky, H. Tallis, D. R. Cameron, K. M. A. Chan,
G. C. Daily, J. Goldstein, P. M. Kareiva, E. Lonsdorf, R. Naidoo, T. H. Ricketts
and M. R. Shaw (2009). "Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity
conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales." Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment 7(1): 4-11.
Off Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division, C. D. o. S. P. a. R. (1994). Off
highway vehicle (OHV) recreation's $3 billion economic impact in California and
a provile of OHV users: a family affair. California Department of State Parks and
Recreation. Sacramento, CA.
Pagiola, S., A. Arcenas and G. Piatais (2005). "Can Payments for Environmental Services
Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date
from Latin America." World Development 33(2): 237-253.
Palmer, M. A. and S. Filoso (2009). "Restoration of ecosystem services for
environmental markets." Science 325: 575-577.
Postel, S. and S. Carpenter (1997). Freshwater Ecosystem Services. Nature's Services. G.
C. Daily. Washington, D.C., Island Press.
Pritchard, L., C. Folke and L. Gunderson (2000). "Valuation of ecosystem services in
institutional context." Ecosystems 3(1): 36-40.
Ridker, R. G. and J. A. Henning (1967). "The Determinants of Residential Property
Values with Special Reference to Air Pollution." The Review ofEconomics and
Statistics 49(246-257).
Smail, R. A. and D. J. Lewis (2009). Forest Land Consersion, Ecosystem Services, and
Economic Issues for Policy: A Review. Pacific Northwest Research Station,
United States Department of Agriculture: Forest Service. Portland, Oregon.
Swallow, B. M., M. F. Kallesoe, U. A. Iftikhar, M. van Noordwijk, C. Bracer, S. J.
Scherr, K. V. Raju, S. V. Poats, A. K. Duraiappah, B. O. Ochieng, H. Mallee and
R. Rumley (2009). "Compensation and Rewards for Environmental Services in
the Developing World: Framing Pan-Tropical Analysis and Comparison."
Ecology and Society 14(2): 26.
140
Tallis, H., P. Kareiva, M. Marvier and A. Chang (2008). "An ecosystem
services framework to support both practical conservation and economic
development." Proceedings ofthe National Academy ofSciences ofthe United
States ofAmerica 105(28): 9457-9464.
The Sierra Institute (2002). Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative Assessment:
Hayfork, CA Case Study.
Trinity County Resource Conservation District and Watershed Research and Training
Center (2005). Trinity County COlmnunity Wildfire Protection Plan with
Recommendations on Trinity County Values at Risk from Fire and Pre-Fire Fuels
Treatment Opportunities.
u.s. Department of Justice (2008). National Illicit Drug Prices. U.S. Department of
Justice. Johnstown, PA.
U.S. Department of the Interior (2000). Record of Decision Trinity River Mainstem
Fishery Restoration: Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental
Impact Report. U.S. Department of the Interior.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Land Management, and Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture
(2000). Recreational fee demonstration program. National Park Service. U.S.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land
Management and Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Buereau ofReclamation, Hoopa Valley Tribe and
Trinity County (2000). Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration:
Environmental Impact Statement/Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Buereau of Reclamation, Hoopa Valley Tribe and Trinity County.
U.S. Forest Service. (2006). "FY 2005 Forest Service Revenue, Expenses, and Cost of
Collections." from http://www.fs.fed.us/passespermits/docs/accomps/wo-rpt-
congress/fyO5-financial-data.pdf.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, and Hoopa Valley Tribe
(1999). Trinity River Flow Evaluation Final Report. Secretary of the Interior.
Washington D.C.
USDA Forest Service (2009). Biomass to Energy: Forest Management for Wildfire
Reduction, Energy Production, and Other Benefits. Public Interest Energy
Research Group. California Energy Commission. CEC-500-2009-080.
141
Vira, B. and W. M. Adams (2009). "Ecosystem services and conservation
strategy: beware the silver bullet." Conservation Letters 2: 158-162.
WestIands Water District (2010). WestIands Water District Water Supply: 1988 through
2010.
WestIands Water District. (2010). "Westlands Water District: Water Rates and Charges."
from https:llcs.westIandswater.org/district_web_info/wwd/rates/waterrates.pdf.
Wilcox, A. and J. Harte (1997). Ecosystem services in a modem economy: Gunnison
County, Colorado. Nature's Services. G. C. Daily. Washington, D.C., Island
Press: 311-328.