Duration: 10/01/2006 to 09/30/2012

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

Roughly half of the West is public land. And that means the other half is private. At this scale, outside of the big cities, it is nearly impossible to distinguish which is which, though you can make some informed guesses: The private lands are the valley bottoms, along rivers and streams, where water is plentiful, not too high up in the mountains, and not too low down in the deserts. In short, a lot of the best, most productive land in the West. And if suddenly the private lands were, say, highlighted in red, a lot of your hunches would be dramatically confirmed. The private lands would look something like the veins and arteries in the living body of the West, largely following the branching structure of watersheds. (Christenson 2004)

The management of public and private rangelands deeply divides rural communities affected by land management policies. Changing land management to accommodate new information means changing the allocation of economic resources regionally and locally and the alteration of the social and cultural importance of these lands to local communities. The redirection of resources away from traditional uses has stimulated significant controversy. Often labeled as wicked problems (Allen and Gould 1986; Patterson and Williams 1998), these types of controversies arise from complex conflicts between multiple stakeholders for which no easy or simple solutions emerge. Thus, the questions of direct and indirect economic and social impacts to resource users, households, employment and earnings in rural communities, and revenues and costs for state and local governments are of key concern, especially to the citizens of rural communities in public land states.

The interaction of public and private lands is of vital importance in understanding the functioning and sustainability of Western rural communities. Social values and the very human fabric of Western communities are changing as the direction of land management changes and as private lands continue to experience increasing rates of subdivision that affect greater portions of the western landscape. This transformation is augmented by rapid growth in many areas of the Intermountain West, Pacific Northwest, Southwest, and Great Basin regions, however, the rates of growth and subsequent effects remain unevenly distributed (Drabenstott 2001). Questions of direct and indirect social impacts to resource users, households, employers, local governments, and others remain of key concern to local, state, and national policy makers.

The goal of this project is to evaluate the effects of an emerging trend, land ownership fragmentation, on rangeland economic, social, and ecological sustainability at the firm, community, and landscape scales. Information about the amount and types of rangeland ownership fragmentation will be gathered and coordinated for the western United States. In order to better understand the process of land fragmentation, the motives and practices of new types and patterns of rangeland purchasers will be identified and assessed. The legal framework and contexts for mitigating rangeland fragmentation impacts to ecosystems and communities will be explored. As the project proceeds, we will evaluate the impact of land fragmentation on specific ecological, economic, and social factors, and create a conceptual model of the linkages among these factors. Alternate scenarios for examining the outcome of differing policies and socioeconomic influences on long term rangeland sustainability will be developed and used to inform decision-makers and for policy recommendations.

Failure to address these issues could decrease the sustainability of many agricultural operations and rural communities in the West. It could also reduce the management capabilities of public land management agencies as a result of conversion and fragmentation of surrounding private lands. Also, it could potentially result in the loss of highly valued ecosystems in many part of the West. Overall, these issues could have serious implications for the quality of life in the region.

Related, Current and Previous Work

Western Regional Research Project W192 has been productive over the course of the past 5 years. Researchers involved in the project have cooperated in the development of a livestock budget generation program and the development of multi-period linear programming models for use in the estimation of ranch-level impacts of policy changes. These models have been used in projects in Idaho, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming (Aldrich et al. 2005; Foulke 2004; Foulke et al. 2006; Rimbey et al. 2001; Rowe and Bartlett 1991; Taylor et al. 2004; Torell et al. 2001b; Torell et al. 2002). Development of ranch livestock budgets is an on-going process. Through the budget development and ranch-level modeling process, information has also been gathered to construct the agricultural sectors of regional Input-Output models. Livestock budget information, secondary data sources and local interviews have formed the basis for the modifications needed in IMPLAN models to fit local situations (Darden et al. 2001; Foulke 2004; Foulke et al. 2006; Taylor et al. 2004). Regional models have been developed and used by policy makers in Idaho and Nevada (Rimbey et al. 2001; Seung et al. 2000) to deal with local and regional land use policy issues. Two social assessments have been completed in Idaho (Harp et al. 1991; Wulfhorst et al. 2003).

These efforts were enhanced by the ability to share personnel and other resources across state lines. For example Idaho, Oregon and New Mexico have used the expertise of Nevada and Wyoming researchers to assist in the development of regional models. Researchers from Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon, Colorado and Utah have led the development of the ranch models that will be applied in other states. Resources needed to assess the sociological situation in the respective counties are being provided by Idaho, Wyoming and Colorado. Social assessments in Idaho were cooperatively undertaken by Idaho and Wyoming researchers. None of the cooperating states has the personnel to address the different facets of this project to the full and integrated extent in their respective states and sharing expertise is thus imperative.

The sharing of resources could not have been undertaken in the initial stages of W192 without the financial resources provided through a Fund for Rural America grant, administered by New Mexico State University. This grant allowed for the development of the Windows-based livestock budget generator (Rimbey et al. 1999), a survey to determine the goals and objectives of public land grazing permittees (Gentner and Tanaka 2002), the use of scenario analysis with a panel of experts to narrow the focus of future public land policy alternatives (Van Tassell et al. 1991), along with resources to start the case studies in each of the participating states. Multi-state collaboration has also taken place on projects dealing with public land grazing fees (Torell et al. 2001a), charging fair market value for public land use (Godfrey 1991), managing sage grouse (Torell et al. 2002; Wambolt et al. 2002), and ranch and rangeland values (Torell et al. 2005). This level of cooperative projects would not have been possible without the participation in a regional research project (W192) and a regional research coordinating committee (WERA55).

A major procedural objective of the original W192 project involved the establishment of a Center that could address public land policy issues in the western states. This objective was achieved in 2000 with the establishment of the Policy Analysis Center for Western Public Lands (PACWPL), through funding provided by western deans and directors. The funding provided a mechanism for the Center to operate for a trial period of three years. A governing board had been recruited and several meetings were held. The initial project of the Center involved assessing the potential ecological, economic and social impacts of using piñon pine and juniper as a fuel source in generating energy with a subsequent one on sage grouse. While the Center was successful in combining resources to address widespread public land issues, funding was not continued and the Center was closed after the trial period and W192 continued under a different structure.

Review of the CRIS database shows 8 current Agricultural Experiment Station research projects that are tied to the original W192 project. Current project research areas include the economics and profitability of rangeland use and policy analysis (Bartlett et al., Colorado COLO0209; Torell, New Mexico NM-1-5-27193; Rimbey, Idaho IDA01299; Wulfhorst, Idaho IDA01224; Godfrey, Utah UTA00007; Tanaka and Obermiller, Oregon ORE00942) and the social and economic impacts of natural resource use to rural communities (Bartlett et al., Colorado COLO0209; Harris, Nevada NEV05162; Holland, Washington WNP00227; Taylor and Thompson, Wyoming WYO-349-00). These projects deal with specific objectives of the original W192 project. The case studies undertaken as part of the Fund for Rural America grant were attempts in these western states to use common methodologies and modeling approaches at the firm and regional levels and to develop socioeconomic assessments of public land policy alternatives.

Related studies are currently being conducted in seven states in the West: Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. These states were selected based on the interest and potential contributions that could be made by AES researchers and Extension specialists and the importance of public and private rangelands to these states. These efforts include case studies of selected communities in each state, social assessments and the construction of economic models for these communities, states and selected regions.

In this project revision, we are proposing to refocus W-192 from a public lands perspective and their relationship to rural communities to taking a more holistic approach and looking at all rangelands, public and private, with an emphasis to understand the inter-relationships among social, economic, and ecological aspects.

New Focus for W192

Changing demographics in the West are leading to changes in land tenure, ownership patterns, and changes in perspectives from the new owners (Gosnell and Travis 2005; Sengupta and Osgood 2003). This could have significant ramifications for rangeland health and grazing sustainability as the willingness to invest in these programs may or may not be compromised by the mix of new and longer term owners with more varied motivations toward rangeland use(s). Additionally, traditional grazing has been curtailed on some public lands as activities, such as recreation, have come to prominence in some locales. In particular, new owners may have a different view of the benefits versus the costs of conservation programs and may be more or less willing to invest in conservation measures on their lands. Additionally, changing demographics have, in some areas, resulted in land fragmentation and the development of small rural residential holdings. Some of these holdings are still classified as a farm for Census of Agriculture purposes.

On the other end of the spectrum, the largest operations appear to be getting larger. Foulke et al. (2005) found that agricultural operations of over 5,000 acres in size, in Wyoming, gained an average of over 1,300 acres between 1997 and 2002. Even while the number of such operations slightly declined. Some of these newer owners of large operations appear to have strong financial portfolios and may be more willing or able to invest in rangeland conservation programs.

Data on land tenure has been collected primarily through surveys, such as the USDA Census of Agriculture, and the NASS-ARMS. But there is currently a dearth of published material concerning how recent demographic changes are affecting the emerging patterns of land tenure, and how this may affect rangeland health. Soule et al. (2000) analyzed how land tenure affects the willingness to engage in conservation practices with corn producers. Others have done similar studies, mainly along the eastern seaboard and in the Midwest. There are several USDA programs for land use conservation such as the Farmland Protection Program (FPP) that is designed to protect farmland through the purchase of development rights.

In many areas ranch operations are based on a mix of public and private rangelands. Many ranchers use publicly held lands managed by more than one agency, and records for these lands are scattered among several offices (Sheridan 2001). In addition, the shared history of management conflicts between ranchers and public agencies has led to considerable distrust (Van Kooten et al. 2005). Reduction in the allowed numbers of animals and the duration of grazing allowed on public lands has been a characteristic of public land management since the mid-nineteenth century. One study of Nevada ranges found that government forage access had been reduced by 32.7% between 1981 and 2002 (Van Kooten et al. 2005).

Under nineteenth century land disposition policies, more productive and well-watered rangelands were claimed by private landowners, along with critical wildlife habitat. Much evidence exists that under extensive rangeland livestock production; these lands have been stewarded reasonably well. Researchers have found that biodiversity levels are higher on private ranch lands than they are on public lands (Maestas et al. 2002; Scott et al. 2001) (Maestas et al. 2002; Scott et al. 2001). Some habitat for 95% of all federally threatened and endangered flora and fauna is on private land, and 262 or 19% of these species survive only on private parcels (Wilcove et al. 1996). Thus, biodiversity conservation efforts must include private ranch land (Oldfield et al. 2003). However, the reality of many livestock grazing operations with regard to scale, location of lands, and allowing for the versatility to rotate livestock indicates that private and public lands remain intertwined to a large degree. By one estimate, more than 40 million hectares of high value, private rangelands are linked to federal grazing permits (Roosevelt 2005). It is likely that if federal forage resources are lost, or if land values become high enough, ranchers will sell their private parcels (Sulak and Huntsinger 2002). Further, if neighboring ranches are sold for development, and ranchers experience a loss in local infrastructure and community, they also will be more likely to sell their ranches for development (Liffmann et al. 2000). There are indications from across the West that more and more rangelands are being transferred from extensive modes of agricultural production to ex-urban and suburban development (Theobald 2001), yet we lack a coordinated body of information available to assess the extent or potential impact of this change, especially given the rate of growth in some concentrated areas.

According to a past-president of the Ecological Society of America far more habitat has been destroyed to provide water for cities, subdivisions, and irrigated agriculture than by even the heaviest grazing pressure. The most serious challenge facing the West is keeping ranches intact (Clifford 1998). Further, water use per person in a development tends to be about ten times that of a cow-calf unit (Sheridan 2001). Even aside from the loss of high value ecosystems (Theobald et al. 1997) and a western subculture, there are other consequences if private rangelands and ranches are fragmented. For example there is evidence that livestock grazing can be used as a tool to reduce invasive plants and manipulate vegetation in a now-changed ecosystem that cannot return to its original state (Marty 2005; Pyke and Marty 2005). Another is that in the course of 200 years of livestock grazing, some wildlife species, even some endangered ones, have adapted to and may to some extent be dependent on the landscape characteristics and management practices of livestock producers, for example in the construction and maintenance of stock ponds (Nickles 2004).

Frequently cited reasons for agricultural decline and ranch sales are concepts like the impermanence syndrome (Heimlich and Anderson 1987) and maintaining a critical mass (Berry and Plaut 1978; Conklin and Lesher 1977; Heimlich and Anderson 1987; Huntsinger and Hopkinson 1996). Impermanence syndrome refers to the sentiment that can become commonplace as development pressures mount in a community. Agriculturalists begin to feel that their businesses will not have a future in the area due to competition with urbanization. This is the situation when vandalism and trespass become common and conflicts with urban neighbors become serious difficulties for livestock operators. A critical mass of agriculturalists is usually required to keep communities agriculturally friendly and to stop the impermanence syndrome from setting in. Such communities tend to have agriculture-promoting ordinances and agricultural practices are not seen as nuisances. When the critical mass is lost, agriculturalists have fewer industry services to use, less help from neighbors, and have fewer local clients. The comparison of urban and rural ranches in California showed that ranchers in the more urban areas, where they are less likely to have a critical mass and more likely be affected by impermanence syndrome, were more threatened by land use change and less concerned about the future use of their ranch if it was sold (Liffmann et al. 2000). A post-productivist stage in Australias central rangelands has been posited, driven by agricultural overcapacity, the emergence of amenity-oriented uses, and changing societal values (Holmes 2002). However, in Australia this is characterized by declining population: in the western United States, populations are growing and residential development is expanding into new areas at a rapid rate (Theobald 2001).

Natural resource lands within fragmented landscapes are also harder to manage from logistical as well as legal standpoints (Sheridan 2001). Prescribed burning and some forms of invasive species control are more difficult when small, unmanaged lands are intermixed with extensive rangelands. In addition, catastrophic wildfires that damage homes and take lives are linked to increased fragmentation and the urban-wildland interface. Public land conflicts also increase with more people using the lands more frequently. Dog predation, vandalism, and trespass tend to increase and insurance and liability costs skyrocket. In addition to the physical fact of smaller parcels reducing the scope and opportunities for natural resource management, there are conflicts in values, attitudes, knowledge, and goals among the mix of new and old residents, rural and urban residents, and wealthy and poor residents that arise as ownership changes sweep rangeland areas. As a result of these concerns, the Chief of the Forest Service has declared the loss of open space on adjacent private lands as one of the four greatest threats to the health of the nations forests and grasslands due to: 1) habitat fragmentation, 2) ownership fragmentation, and 3) land use fragmentation (USDA Forest Service 2005). However, few studies have attempted to incorporate perspectives from non-traditional residents. A better understanding of the range of owners correlating to a more fragmented landscape will likely also assist in development of opportunities to reduce conflicts.

Throughout the western United States, particularly in areas with good climate, scenery, and proximity to cultural or economic centers as well as access to popular recreational areas, ranch lands are now sought for housing developments, making the market value of land much higher than its agricultural value. In addition, Trophy Ranches are becoming part of the real estate portfolios of the very wealthy, whether a hunting and fishing retreat in the Rockies, a traditional ranch in the Intermountain West, or a scenic home in the mild climate of California. Ranchers themselves also place a high value on the lifestyle and amenity values of ranching (Bartlett et al. 1989; Gentner and Tanaka 2002; Huntsinger et al. 1997; Torell et al. 2001b) and often subsidize their ranches with off-ranch income. Most ranches remain family owned and operated, but have household members working off site to support the ranch  a factor documented as early as 1969 (Smith and Martin 1972). Various land conservation groups efforts target these ranch owners, hoping with incentives and regulations to either prevent development and/or influence management practices. We do not know enough about what kinds of tenure and legal institutions might emerge in order to increase the sustainability of rangeland ecosystems through mitigation of fragmentation effects.

The fiscal impacts of land fragmentation can be estimated using two broad types of methodologies: average cost and marginal cost analyses (Burchnell and Listokin 1978). Average cost approaches involve the use of ratios or multipliers per unit of service extended (American Farmland Trust 2002). This approach assumes future costs are approximately the same as current costs. They do not account for deficient or excess service capacity (American Farmland Trust 2002). Marginal cost approaches typically involve calculating specific impacts through a case study or the use of statistical models (Smith et al. 1991). Marginal cost approaches are felt to have stronger ties to concepts derived from economic theory. Recently, Coupal et al. (2005) used a stochastic frontier analysis to estimate the fiscal impact of rural residential development in Colorado.

The American Farmland Trust (2005) has identified 25.1 million acres of prime ranchlands (those with low development densities, located near public lands, year-round water availability, mixed grass and tree cover, hand high variety of vegetation classes) in the West that are threatened by conversion to residential development. They suggested that this conversion could have significant fiscal impacts on local governments in the West.

Inter-industry Input-Output (I-O) models have been used to estimate of impacts throughout the economy from changes in public land management policies and/or land fragmentation. However impact estimation is greatly enhanced through the use of Social Accounting Matrix Models (SAM). Unlike an I-O model, the SAM focuses on households as the relevant unit of analysis and provides a comprehensive set of accounts that track the generation and expenditure of household income (Vargas et al. 1999). Applying a SAM within a Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model greatly enhances the distributional impact estimation as compared to a fixed price I-O or SAM-alone model. CGE models allow for price flexibility and factor substitution in production and product substitution in consumption. Although fixed price models are easy to complete, they tend to overestimate impacts when compared to CGE models.

CGE models have had numerous national applications for international trade and development and alternative federal tax and fiscal policies (Ballard et al. 1985; Ballard and Goulder 1985; Bourguignon et al. 1983; Powell and Lawson 1986; Shoven and Whalley. 1984). CGE models also have been used for analysis of resource allocation, pollution abatement, and environmental policies (Buckley 1988; Coupal and Holland 2002; Davis and Rattso 1996; Despotakis and Fisher 1987; Waters et al. 1995).

The application of CGE modeling below the national level has been somewhat limited. A primary problem in development of state or regional CGE is the lack of data. Building a national model with consistent data is difficult at best, but that the problem escalates for state and regional models (Dervis et al. 1982). With development of IMPLAN software and databases by the U.S. Forest Service (Alward et al. 1989) and contributions by (Rose et al. 1988), the difficulty in building state and regional CGE models has been reduced. Also, following procedures by (Robinson et al. 1993) dynamic CGE models can be developed.

Previous CGE models have modeled households by size distribution of income where households are grouped into low, medium, and high income groups. However with alternative public land management policies and/or land fragmentation, impacts by household function may be more relevant. Following procedures outlined by (Yusuf 2000), distribution of households by function can be derived. Functional distribution of household incomes allows a link to household endowments of human and physical capital. Thus a CGE model developed around household function could estimate impacts from alternative public land management policies and/or land fragmentation by Farm Households and therefore could focus impacts of alternative public land management policies and/or land fragmentation by household groups in a given economy.

In a similar fashion, measurement of land-owner attitudes and behavior has become more challenging given: 1) the increased diversity of target sub-populations; 2) the proliferation of stakeholder groups and organizations who claim an interest in rangeland health and may or may not be local to the sites in question; and 3) the mobility of members in society in general with regard to capital, employment, technology, and community attachment. Solutions to these challenges must be met via more complex and integrated mixed-method approaches that maximize a variety of social science data collection techniques.

Objectives

1. Determine the level, trends, and effects of land fragmentation at the state level
   
2. Determine the relationship of level of land fragmentation with ecological factors
   
3. Determine the relationship of level of land fragmentation with economic factors
   
4. Determine the relationship of level of land fragmentation with social factors
   
5. To integrate an analysis of the social, economic, and ecological issues related to land fragmentation
   

Methods

Each objective will have a series of testable hypotheses associated with it. It is our intention that teams from different states will work on each hypothesis over the course of the project. Grant proposals will be submitted to appropriate funding sources. Objective 1 (Participants: Lurman, Rimbey, Torell, Tanaka, Seidl, Godfrey, and Foulke) H1: Do the levels of land fragmentation differ among and within states by land ownership. The researchers intend to take a two pronged approach to the problem. Since data already exists at the state level, the researchers intend to access this through the Census of Agriculture and ARMS to try and build an initial baseline picture of how change in tenure and fragmentation is affecting land use in the Western States compared to the past. Additionally, a template will be created to see how these patterns differ by state so data can be analyzed across state boundaries. Further investigation would deal with more localized affects by looking at changes in land tenure in selected areas identified in the first phase as having undergone significant levels of turnover in recent years. Analysis in this phase would come from a focus group panel or small-scale survey of county officials, realtors, appraisers and other knowledgeable sources dealing with land sales. H2: Rangeland buyers can be categorized as to the reason they purchase rangeland. Evaluate new rangeland sales and purposes/reasons for purchase  categorize the buyers. Recent rangeland sales data in selected states will be collected. These data will be analyzed to estimate the contributing factors that lead to land values. Expert panels will be used to identify the reasons that buyers are purchasing rangeland. These data will be combined using a cluster analysis based on the types of buyers and their reasons for buying. Hedonic models will be developed and refined in selected participating states to determine the factors that in influence rangeland values. H3: What types of legal and policy conflicts arise due to the fragmentation of land ownership and what strategies are available to resolve these problems? Fragmentation of the landscape has led to significant legal and policy conflicts. Private property rights versus wildlife protections and incentives for land disposal and economic growth versus fire management are just two examples of this phenomenon. These conflicts will be identified through a review of the current literature, pertinent statutes and regulations, and relevant case law. Potential solutions will be identified and analyzed by examining models in place around the country, with particular emphasis on the practical impacts they have had, their legal implications, and the resulting consequences. A paper summarizing these efforts will be prepared and presented to the larger group and other interested parties. Objective 2 (Participants: Child and Tanaka) H1: the presence of invasive species is not affected by the level of land fragmentation The increasing change in landscapes due to human activity (Hansson and Angelstam 1991; Houghton 1994) has increased plant communities susceptibility to invasion by non-native plant species (Benefield et al. 1999; Bugg et al. 1997; Myers et al. 2001). Invasion pressure could be influenced by habitat characteristics such as natural dispersal agents, degree of fragmentation and favorability for human activity (Alpert et al. 2000). There is a great need to understand how landscape modification and fragmentation affect the ecology of a system (Hunter 2002). From this perspective we will evaluate the use of ecological indicators and their potential use for understanding the interrelationships between landscape fragmentation and biological invasions. Efforts will aid in developing further understanding as to data requirements for population of indicators and determine the efficacy within the Sustainable Rangeland Roundtables conceptual framework for integrating these two landscape processes. H2: the severity of wildfire is not affected by the level of land fragmentation In many landscapes, recent synergistic combinations of disturbance, both natural and human induced, have caused significant change in the intensity and frequency of disturbance (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992; Schlesinger et al. 1990). In Idaho, both fires and agriculture have resulted in loss of shrub habitats. However, fires left the landscape in a more fragmented state than agriculture (Knick and Rotenberry 1997). Similar results have been documented in South Africa (Kemper et al. 1999) and Australia (Gill et al. 1996). We will endeavor to use indicators and the developing conceptual framework of the Sustainable Rangeland Roundtable to identify data needs and develop an understanding of the interrelationships and integrated responses between wildfire and land fragmentation. These efforts will result in a capability to evaluate ecosystem sustainability. Objective 3 (Participants: Tyalor, Harris, Godfrey, and Seidl) H1: Measuring the fiscal impacts on local governments and school districts in the Western United State from land fragmentation resulting from conversion of ranchland to rural residential development. The analysis would use econometric models of local government revenue, local government expenditures, school district revenue, and school district expenditures to measure the net fiscal impact of land fragmentation resulting from conversion of ranchland to rural residential development. Additional qualitative data would be added to this analysis in order to contextualize analytical explanations through local examples from community leaders and representatives coping with the changes in high- and low-growth areas. The overall modeling approach would look at marginal, as well as average costs, and could also make projections about costs and revenue of future development. The modeling framework would be used to analyze specific development scenarios at several different sites in the Western United States. Previous work by Coupal et al. (2002) would serve as a starting point for the analysis. In addition, an effort would be made to expand the stochastic frontier analysis approach used by Coupal et al. (2005) in Colorado to other locations. H2: Are the distributional impacts of alternative public land management policies and land fragmentation similar for all entities in a regional economy? To develop a a social accounting matrix which incorporates household function: Procedures outlined by Macoulier et al. (1993) and Yusuf (2000) will be employed. Procedures outlined by Macoullier et al. (1993) allow estimation by factors for value added. Therefore the relationship of public land grazing to land, labor, and capital factors will be derived and followed through the model. Procedures used by Yusuf (2000) allow the estimation of household income by function. In order to measure the effect of various public land management policies and/or land fragmentation, households need to be classified according to their participation in factor markets that make payments to households or to the type of transfer payments that they receive if they do not participate in factor markets. Also households can be disaggregated by occupation. Therefore using procedures outlined by Yusuf (2000), impacts from alternative public land management policies and/or fragmentation could be estimated for Farm Households and other household groups. To derive a dynamic CGE model: A hybrid SAM model will be developed and used in the construction of the CGE model. The structure of the dynamic CGE model will follow that described by Adelman et al. (1979). For this proposal there will be two types of adjustments. First, in the goods market, the adjustment of prices and quantities occur in a short period or a year reducing excess demand to zero (Walrasian equilibrium). Second the factor adjustments will be under three scenarios. First labor and capital will be assumed, as in most dynamic CGE models, to be mobile between sectors but not mobile out of the study area. Second, capital will be assumed mobile out of the area but labor will be mobile between sectors but remain in the study area. Finally labor and capital will be assumed to be perfectly mobile between regions. This procedure will allow investigation of the impacts of alternative factor mobility assumptions on public land management impact analysis. Also alternative production function forms (Cobb-Douglas and Constant Elasticity of Substitution) will be modeled to determine if production function form impacts dynamic CGE results. To derive the welfare impacts of land fragmentation: Several federal land policy and land fragmentation scenarios can be developed and analyzed through a dynamic CGE model. A dynamic CGE model will be developed following procedures outlined by Seung et al. (2000). For this analysis it will be assumed that policy makers are interested in maximizing per capita income of all residents, including original residents who remain in the study area as well as immigrants. This welfare change value will be updated to measure welfare changes in each time period in the dynamic analysis. Welfare can be derived when aggregate representative consumer is assumed to have a CES utility function. Equivalent variation will be used to measure welfare changes where in each time period; welfare is measured as the change in per capita real expenditures of study area residents. This value is updated through time in the dynamic analysis. Policy impacts from alternative public lands management policies will be estimated using procedures outlined by Ballard et al. (1985); that is, the policy impact for a given variable is the percentage deviation from the continuous benchmark and the counterfactual or land management policy change result. H3: Are emerging institutional arrangements for conserving working landscapes reasonable forms of public investment and how are they affected by fragmented landownership and diverse public and private values? Enumerate and assess the public and private values of private rangelands. Intact private rangelands are becoming scarcer and more broadly valued by the public. Ranches contain valuable wildlife habitat and watershed; the ranching landscape is a contributor to landscape value at the urban-rural interface; and ranching can buffer crop and urban areas from fire, and natural areas from the externalities of urbanization (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection - Forest and Resource Assessment Program (CDF-FRAP) 2003; Fried and Huntsinger 1998; Huntsinger and Hopkinson 1996; Maestas et al. 2002; Marty 2005; Pyke and Marty 2005). There is considerable evidence that ranchers value their ranches for non-traditional goods and services, including environmental and lifestyle benefits, and that these values underlie their decisions about the fate of the ranch enterprise (Bartlett et al. 1989; Huntsinger et al. 1997; Liffmann et al. 2000; Martin and Jefferies 1966; Rowe and Bartlett 1991; Smith and Martin 1972; Sulak and Huntsinger 2002; Torell et al. 2001b; Van Kooten et al. 2005). Yet a lack of information on the value of ranches to society places invaluable natural resource and agricultural lands at risk. Increasing public investment in ranch lands, through government and non-governmental agencies and organizations, has stimulated questions about the value of such public investment absent a way to measure the returns to society. Improved information quality and quantity about these values can help with decisions about land use and land use change, and about public investment in ranch lands. It is also important to understand how factors including urbanization, markets, public policy, neighborhood change, and family dynamics influence landowner investment in non-market values like natural beauty, wildlife, legacy values, cultural significance, and lifestyle. Identification and quantification the public benefits of the natural resource and aesthetic externalities and internalities of ranch properties are needed. Emerging institutional arrangements for sustaining private rangelands and counter-acting rangeland fragmentation must cope with the inter-linkages between private and public values, and private and public lands. Relationships among rancher goals and demographics, public values, markets, property characteristics, new residents, and the characteristics of the institutions that promote conservation need further study in order to understand what will facilitate or constrain efforts to sustain rangelands and rangeland landscapes. In the last decade, there has been rapid growth in the use of emerging institutional arrangements like conservation easements, and an increased role for non-governmental organizations, in rangeland conservation and management. The concept of working landscapes has gained widespread currency among conservationists (Sayre 2005). This reflects a recognition on the part of the public of the beneficial externalities of private rangelands, and at the same time can be seen as the legitimization of a public claim to these externalities. Yet the ecological, social, and economic implications and constraints of emerging rangeland conservation efforts have been little studied (Huntsinger et al. 2004; Merenlender et al. 2004). In particular, the interconnection between conserving private rangelands and the management of public rangelands needs to be better delineated: linking easements to public land decisions, such has been done by the Malapai Borderlands Group, is one effort to cope with the linkage, but it is poorly understood and highly controversial. There is also concern over the equity implications of publicly funded private conservation efforts. In large scale ecosystem management and new models like Habitat Conservation Plans and market-based conservation efforts, public and private values and relationships with the land converge but also may come into conflict, and over time, these differences will need to be incorporated into management processes, as will mechanisms to cope with ecosystem change. Our understanding of how ecosystems change has evolved over time, changing our ideas about the potential of management (Folke et al. 1996; Hastings et al. 1993; Huntsinger 1997; Huntsinger and Bartolome 2004; Pearson et al. 1998; Roe et al. 1998), with a shift toward state and transition models and adaptive management. The impacts of efforts to contain fragmentation and to manage diverse claims to rangelands, on rangeland sustainability and management will be analyzed. Objective 4 (Participants: Huntsinger and Wulfhorst) H1: Social cohesion, community identity, and perceptions of well-being become increasingly threatened at individual and community levels as a function of landscape fragmentation, land-ownership diversification, and instability in the agricultural sectors. Although many communities often have high levels of resilience to change from external factors in economic and political institutions, many rural communities in the rural West have begun to experience an intersection of related and unprecedented pressures. Raw population growth in the western U.S. has remained significant for over a decade (Drabenstott 2001) and compounded increased intensity from special interest groups seeking alternative and/or multiple uses for rangelands (Kareiva et al. 2006), or in some cases, just the cessation of traditional livestock grazing uses. Social structural aspects of these demographic changes also affect social cohesion, degrees of collective identity and morale found at the community level, as well as perceptions of well-being and attachment among local residents (Brehm et al. 2004). Dynamic changes to the social fabric of communities that provide the basis for relationships, trust, and informal networks can place many traditional patterns at risk. These changes usually relate to local estimations of fair compensation for direct and indirect effects of landscape change (Costanza et al. 1997; James et al. 1999). H2: Bases for decision-making may often rest on social, cultural, and sets of related factors that reveal complex choices about economic and ecological tradeoffs. As traditional agricultural producers and ranchers grapple with the changing values of their land, changing prices for commodities, and the graying of their generation as cohort, some feel increased pressure to succumb to the only retirement option they may have left via selling rangelands, or portions of their operations, for development. However, many individuals who feel the stress and anxiety of the pressures to sell, not only resist those options, but take additional and/or different operational or life risks in order to seek pathways to sustaining their operations, passing on their land tenure to a future generation, and maintaining the stewardship they families have shepherded for generations (Wulfhorst et al. 2006). Because these choices are rarely easy or simple, their explanation in an analytical framework requires allowance of linked reasoning across simple disciplinary explanations and must explore the contexts that overlap these factors (Weeks 2002). Objective 5 (Participants: Tanaka, Torell, and Godfrey) H1: Social, economic, and ecological aspects of land fragmentation can be combined into an assessment of rangeland sustainability. Sustainable development (SD) concepts consist of multiple complex systems. A systems approach is the most appropriate way to investigate SD phenomena in general and its complex systems in particular (Malkina-Pykh 2002). The challenges facing the development of sustainable systems, including ecological, economic and social aspects, must first focus on determining the relationships between these distinct yet interrelated disciplines. The use of a conceptual framework can provide the basis for determining the processes within and between the systems while also acting to reveal the relationships across processes and systems. Most studies focusing on sustainable development have been focused within disciplines, ecological, economic, social, etc. Though there have been efforts, as of yet there has been little success at integrating these disciplinary focused studies into a fully functional system assessing across disciplines (De Graaf et al. 1996). The call continues for the need of a more robust approach, expanding existing or developing new tools, to assist decision-makers to create progressive policy for continued movement towards sustainable systems (Malkina-Pykh 2002). Building upon the above research (Objectives 1-4), the program will work to develop methodologies to integrate within and between ecological, economic and social processes to provide insight into the use of disparate information in developing a systematic approach to assessing states and trends of sustainability for rangeland systems. The focus on initial research will be in the area of land fragmentation and the impacts it has on ecological, economic and social systems. Projects will be established and develop within GIS systems providing the ability to assess sustainability combining ecological, economic and social data. Efforts to reveal a systems capability to maintain itself within the constraints of current political and social contexts will be addressed.

Measurement of Progress and Results

Outputs

• A tested set of standardized social, economic, and ecological impact assessment tools for evaluating the impacts of rangeland fragmentation on rural communities in the West. These tools will be standardized to account for differences across states, and can provide a blueprint for further expansion of study areas. In addition, these tools will allow impact assessments to be carried out from the regional level down to the local level.
• The success of this regional project will be evaluated by the capability of the models developed to assist public officials and policy makers in evaluating the social, economic, and ecological impacts of proposed rangeland management alternatives on communities, states, and the region.
• Various publications will be developed concerning the legal and policy constraints mandated under existing and proposed public land legislation and policy.
• Symposia, proceedings, professional presentations, public presentations, and a variety of publications are expected to be produced through this project.

Outcomes or Projected Impacts

• We expect that this project will lead to economic, social, and ecological impact analysis that will be useful to local, regional, and national policy makers. Local, state, and regional decision-makers will be able to use the information as they contemplate various policies to address rangeland fragmentation and its interaction with issues such as wildland fire, invasive species management, and wildlife habitat. As policies are designed to address those issues, alternatives that fit with the different types of landowners in a fragmented landscape will be critical. The information derived from this project will aid in the development of viable alternatives.

Milestones

(2008): We expect to submit proposals to relevant funding agencies within one year of approval of this project (2007-2008). Should those be successful, additional milestones will be identified within the grant application.

(2008): Participate in development of indicators within the Sustainable Rangeland Roundtable and the federal pilot program for data collection in central Oregon by 2008.

(2008): We expect to develop symposia at professional meetings, write peer reviewed and popular press articles by 2008.

(2010): Make information available on the web by 2010, though the extent to which this will be done is again dependent upon funding received.

(0):unding is obtained it is not possible to lay out additional specific milestones, since such milestones will have to be tailored to the specific funding source. However, regardless of the funding source, the overall objective will remain to evaluate the effects of land ownership fragmentation on rangeland economics, social, and ecological sustainability at the firm, community, and landscape scales.

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Outreach Plan

Popular publications and teaching aids will be developed for public use. These materials will include a description of the importance of public and private rangelands to social change, economic growth, economic and social diversity, and economic dependency for each state. The focus of this initial stage will be a series of papers and presentations that outline the implications of rangeland fragmentation on the social, economic, and ecological factors. Internet-based delivery systems and applications will also be pursued through existing departmental and other websites.

Organization/Governance

The objectives of the research project can be broadly classified as 1) social impact assessment, 2) economic impact assessment, 3) ecological impact assessment and 4) legal constraints. Four subcommittees will be formed based on each broad objective. These subcommittees will develop work assignments, focus the research efforts and pursue external funding. Subcommittees will also recruit additional participation in their areas of expertise.

The overall committee governance will initially elect a Chair, Chair-Elect, and Secretary. Following years we will only elect a new Secretary with each incumbent moving up one position.

Literature Cited

Adelman, I., S. Robinson, G. Rodgers, and R. Wery. 1979. A comparison of two models for income distribution planning. Journal of Policy Modeling 1:37-82.
Aldrich, G. A., J. A. Tanaka, R. M. Adams, and J. C. Buckhouse. 2005. Economics of western juniper control in central Oregon. Rangeland Ecology and Management 58:542-552.
Allen, G. M., and E. M. Gould, Jr. 1986. Complexity, wickedness, and public forests. Journal of Forestry 84:20-23.
Alpert, P., E. Bone, and C. Holzapfel. 2000. Invasives, invisibility and the role of environmental stress in the spread of non-native plants. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 3:52-66.
Alward, G., E. Sivertz, D. Olsen, J. Wagner, D. Serf, and S. Lindall. 1989. Micro IMPLAN software manual. University of Minnesota Press.
American Farmland Trust. 2002. Cost of community services studies: Making the case for conservation. 78 p.
American Farmland Trust. 2005. Strategic ranchland in the Rocky Mountain West. Online at: http://www.farmland.org/rocky_mountain/strategic_ranchlands1.htm.
Ballard, C., D. Fullerton, J. Shoven, and J. Whalley. 1985. A general equilibrium model for tax policy evaluation. Chicago, Illinois, USA: University of Chicago Press.
Ballard, C., and L. Goulder. 1985. Consumption taxes, foresight and welfare: A computable general equilibrium analysis. In: J. Piggot and J. Whaley (eds.). New developments in applied general equilibrium analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
Bartlett, E. T., R. G. Taylor, J. R. Mckean, and J. G. Hof. 1989. Motivation of Colorado ranchers with federal grazing allotments. Journal of Range Management 42:454-457.
Benefield, C. B., J. M. DiTamaso, G. B. Kyser, S. B. Orloff, K. R. Churches, D. B. Marcum, and G. A. Nader. 1999. Success of mowing to control yellow starthistle depends on timing and plants branching form. California Agriculture 53:17-21.
Berry, D., and T. Plaut. 1978. Retaining agricultural activities under urban pressure: A review of land use conflicts and policies. Policy Science 9:153-178.
Bourguignon, F., G. Michel, and D. Miqueu. 1983. Short-run ridgities and long-run adjustments in computable general equilibrium model of income distribution and development. Journal of Development Economics 13:21-43.
Brehm, J. M., B. W. Eisenhauer, and R. S. Krannich. 2004. Dimensions of community attachment and their relationship to well-being in the amenity-rich rural west. Rural Sociology 69:405-429.
Buckley, P. 1988. An interregional computable general equilibrium model for the United States with illustrations of regional impacts of acid rain pollution control costs. [Dissertation], Boston, MA: Boston University.
Bugg, R. L., C. S. Brown, and J. H. Anderson. 1997. Restoring native perennial grasses to rural roadsides in the Sacramento Valley of California: Establishment and evaluation. Restoration Ecology 5:214-228.
Burchnell, and Listokin. 1978. The fiscal impact handbook. New Burnswick, NJ, USA: Center for Urban Policy Research.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection - Forest and Resource Assessment Program (CDF-FRAP). 2003. The changing California: Forage and range assessment. Online at: http:// frap.cdf.ca.gov/assessment2003/index.html.
Christenson, J. 2004. Who will take over the ranch? High Country News. March 29. http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=14648.
Clifford, F. 1998. Home on the eco-range. Los Angeles Times Sunday Report. Aug. 2. A1, A32-33.
Conklin, H. E., and W. G. Lesher. 1977. Farm-value assessment as a means or reducing premature and excessive agricultural disinvestment in urban fringes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 59:755-759.
Costanza, R., R. dArge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. V. ONeill, J. Paruelo, R. G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997. The value of the worlds ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253-260.
Coupal, R., and D. Holland. 2002. Economic impact of electric power industry deregulation on the state of Washington: A general equilibrium analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 27:244-261.
Coupal, R., D. McLeod, and A. Seidl. 2005. Fiscal impact of rural residential development in Colorado: A stochastic frontier analysis of local government. San Francisco, CA, USA.
Coupal, R. H., D. M. McLeod, and D. T. Taylor. 2002. The fiscal impacts of rural residential development: An econometric analysis of the cost of community services. Planning and Markets 5:1-17.
D'Antonio, C. M., and P. M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23:63-87.
Darden, T. D., N. R. Rimbey, A. J. Harp, and T. R. Harris. 2001. Regional-level economic impacts of grazing policy changes: A case study from Owyhee County, Idaho. In: L. A. Torell, E. T. Bartlett and R. Larrañaga (eds.). Annual meeting of the Society for Range Management. 2001 February 17-23; Kailua-Kona, Hawaii: p. 83-92.
Davis, R., and J. Rattso. 1996. Growth, distribution, and environment: Macroeconomic issues in Zimbabwe. World Development 24:395-405.
De Graaf, H. J., C. J. M. Musters, and W. J. ter Keurs. 1996. Sustainable development: Looking for new strategies. Ecological Economics 16:205-216.
Dervis, K., J. Melo, and S. Robinson. 1982. General equilibrium models for development policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Despotakis, K., and A. Fisher. 1987. Energy in a regional economy: A computable general equilibrium model for California. Berkeley, CA: Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California.
Drabenstott, M. 2001. New policies for a new rural America. International Regional Science Review 24:3-15.
Folke, C., C. S. Holling, and C. Peerings. 1996. Biological diversity, ecosystems, and the human scale. Ecological Applications 6:1018-1024.
Foulke, T. 2004. The potential economic impact on the economy of southeastern Wyoming from the designation of critical habitat for the prebles meadow jumping mouse. Maui, Hawaii.
Foulke, T., R. H. Coupal, and D. T. Taylor. 2005. Trends in Wyoming agriculture. University of Wyoming Cooperative Extension Service, Laramie. Extension Service Bulletin B-1164.
Foulke, T., R. H. Coupal, and D. T. Taylor. 2006. Implications for the regional economy from changes in federal grazing policy: Park County, Wyoming. The Western Regional Science Association, Forty-Fifth Annual Meeting. February 2006; Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Fried, J. S., and L. Huntsinger. 1998. Managing for naturalness at mt. Diablo state park. Society and Natural Resources 11:505-516.
Gentner, B. J., and J. A. Tanaka. 2002. Classifying public land grazing permittees. Journal of Range Management 55:2-11.
Gill, A. M., P. H. R. Moore, and R. J. Williams. 1996. Fire weather in the wet-dry tropics of the World Heritage Kakadu National Park, Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology 21:302-308.
Godfrey, E. B. 1991. Charging fair market value for using federal lands: Some implications of an ignored policy. In: L. A. Torell, E. T. Bartlett and R. Larrañaga (eds.). Annual meeting of the Society for Range Management. 2001 February 17-23; Kailua-Kona, Hawaii: p. 111-125.
Gosnell, H., and W. R. Travis. 2005. Ranchland ownership dynamics in the Rocky Mountain West. Rangeland Ecology and Management 58:191-198.
Hansson, L., and P. Angelstam. 1991. Landscape ecology as a theoretical basis for nature conservation. Landscape Ecology 5:191-201.
Harp, A. J., N. R. Rimbey, and T. D. Darden. 1991. Cohesion, integration, and attachment in Owyhee County communities. In: L. A. Torell, E. T. Bartlett and R. Larrañaga (eds.). Annual meeting of the Society for Range Management. 2001 February 17-23; Kailua-Kona, Hawaii: p. 93-100.
Hastings, A., C. L. Hom, S. Ellner, P. Turchin, and C. H. Godfray. 1993. Chaos in ecology: Is mother nature a strange attractor? Annual Review of Ecological Systematics 24:1-33.
Heimlich, R. E., and W. D. Anderson. 1987. Dynamics of land use change in urbanizing areas: Experience in the economic research service. In: W. Lockeretz. Sustaining agriculture near cities. Washington D.C., USA: Soil and Water Conservation Service. p. 135-154.
Holmes, J. 2002. Diversity and change in australia's rangelands: A post-productivist transition with a difference? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 27:362-384.
Houghton, R. A. 1994. The worldwide extent of land-use change. Bioscience 44:305-313.
Hunter, M. D. 2002. Landscape structure, habitat fragmentation, and the ecology of insects. Agriculture and Forest Entomology 4:159-166.
Huntsinger, L. 1997. Managing nature: Stories of dynamic equilibrium. In: Sixth Biennial Watershed Management Conference. October 23-25; Lake Tahoe, CA/NV: W. M. Council. p. 3-8.
Huntsinger, L., and J. W. Bartolome. 2004. Succession. In: S. K. III, J. R. McNeill and C. Merchant (eds.). Encyclopedia of world environmental history. New York, NY, USA: Routledge Press. p. 1068-1069 .
Huntsinger, L., L. Buttolph, and P. Hopkinson. 1997. Ownership and management changes on California hardwood rangelands: 1985 to 1992. Journal of Range Management 50:423-429.
Huntsinger, L., and P. Hopkinson. 1996. Viewpoint: Sustaining rangeland landscapes: A social and ecological process. Journal of Range Management 49:167-173.
Huntsinger, L., A. Sulak, L. Gwin, and T. Plieninger. 2004. Oak woodland ranchers in California and spain: Conservation and diversification In: S. Schnabel and A. Ferreira (eds.). Sustainability of agrosilvopastoral systems: Dehesas, montados, chapter 6. Advances in geoecology. No. 37. p. 309-326.
James, A. N., K. J. Gaston, and A. Balmford. 1999. Balancing the earths accounts. Nature 401:323-324.
Kareiva, P., T. H. Tear, S. Solie, M. L. Brown, L. Sotomayor, and C. Yuan-Farrell. 2006. Nongovernmental organizations. In: D. G. Goble, J. M. Scott and F. W. Davis (eds.). The endangered species act at thirty: Renewing the conservation promise, vol. I. Washington, DC: Island Press. p. 176-191.
Kemper, J., R. M. Cowling, and D. M. Richardson. 1999. Fragmentation of south african renosterveld shrublands: Effects on plant community structure and conservation implications. Biological Conservation 90:103-111.
Knick, S. T., and J. T. Rotenberry. 1997. Landscape characteristics of disturbed shurbsteppe habitats in southwestern Idaho. Landscape Ecology 12:287-297.
Liffmann, R. H., L. Huntsinger, and L. C. Forero. 2000. To ranch or not to ranch: Home on the urban range? Journal of Range Management 53:362-370.
Maestas, J. D., R. L. Knight, and W. C. Gilgert. 2002. Biodiversity across a rural land-use gradient. Conservation Biology 17:1425-1434.
Malkina-Pykh, I. G. 2002. Integrated assessment models and response function models: Pros and cons for sustainable development indices design. Ecological Indicators 2:93-108.
Marcouiller, D., D. Schreiner, and D. Lewis. 1993. Constructing a social accounting matrix to address distributive economic impacts of forest management. Regional Science Perspectives 23:60-90.
Martin, W. E., and G. L. Jefferies. 1966. Relating ranch prices and grazing permit values to ranch productivity. Journal of Farm Economics 48:233-242.
Marty, J. T. 2005. Effects of cattle grazing on diversity in ephemeral wetlands. Conservation Biology 19:1626-1632.
Merenlender, A. M., L. Huntsinger, G. Guthey, and S. K. Fairfax. 2004. Land trusts and conservation easements: Who is conserving what for whom? Conservation Biology 18:65-76.
Myers, J. H., D. Simberloff, A. M. Kuris, and J. R. Carey. 2001. Eradication revisited: Dealing with exotic species. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15:316-320.
Nickles, J. 2004. Central population of California tiger salamander listed as threatened: Service seeks to work with cattle ranchers to conserve species.
Oldfield, T. E. E., R. J. Smith, S. R. Harrop, and N. Leader-Williams. 2003. Field sports and conservation in the united kingdom. Nature 423:531-533.
Patterson, M. E., and D. R. Williams. 1998. Paradigms and problems: The practice of social science in natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources 11:279-295.
Pearson, G., C. R. Allen, and C. S. Holling. 1998. Ecological resilience, biodiversity, and scale. Ecosystems 1:6-18.
Powell, A., and T. Lawson. 1986. A decade of applied general equilibrium modeling for policy work. University of Melbourne. General paper no. G-69.
Pyke, C. R., and J. T. Marty. 2005. Cattle grazing mediates climate change impacts on ephemeral wetlands. Conservation Biology 19:1619-1625.
Rimbey, N., L. Stodick, T. Darden, C. Gibson, R. Smathers, and C. W. Gray. 1999. Range livestock cost and return estimates: A tool for assessing the economic impacts of policy changes. In: E. T. Bartlett and L. W. V. Tassell (eds.). Joint Annual Meeting of the Society for Range Management and the American Forage and Grassland Council. February 22, 1999; Omaha, NE: W. C. C. o. R. E. WCC-55.
Rimbey, N. R., A. J. Harp, and T. D. Darden. 2001. Ranch-level economic impacts of grazing policy changes: A case study from Owyhee County, Idaho. In: L. A. Torell, E. T. Bartlett and R. Larrañaga (eds.). Annual meeting of the Society for Range Management. 2001 February 17-23; Kailua-Kona, Hawaii: p. 75-82.
Robinson, S., S. Subramanian, and J. Geoghegan. 1993. A regional environmental, computable general equilibrium model of the los angeles basin. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics Working Paper No. 646. Berkeley: University of California. p.
Roe, E., L. Huntsinger, and K. Labnow. 1998. High reliability versus risk averse pastoralism. Journal of Environment and Development Dec:387-399.
Roosevelt, T. I. 2005. Why is rural America at loggerheads with the environmental movement. Online at: http://www.patagonia.com/enviro/reports/2005/loggerheads.shtml?seepromo=yes.
Rose, A., B. Stevens, and G. Davis. 1988. Natural resource policy and income distribution. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
Rowe, H. I., and E. T. Bartlett. 1991. Development and federal grazing policy impacts on two Colorado counties: A comparative study. In: L. A. Torell, E. T. Bartlett and R. Larrañaga (eds.). Annual meeting of the Society for Range Management. 2001 February 17-23; Kailua-Kona, Hawaii: p. 59-74.
Sayre, N. 2005. Working wilderness: The Malapai Borderlands Group and the future of the western range. New Mexico: Rio Nuevo Publishers.
Schlesinger, W. H., J. F. Reynolds, G. L. Cunningham, L. F. Huenneke, W. M. Jarrell, R. A. Virginia, and W. G. Whitford. 1990. Biological feedbacks in global desertification. Science 247:1043-1048.
Scott, J. M., F. W. Davis, R. G. McGhie, R. G. Wright, C. Groves, and J. Estes. 2001. Nature reserves: Do they capture the full range of Americas biological diversity? Ecological Applications 11:999-1007.
Sengupta, S., and D. E. Osgood. 2003. The value of remoteness: A hedonic estimation of ranchette prices. Ecological Economics 44:91-103.
Seung, C. K., T. R. Harris, J. E. Englin, and N. R. Netusil. 2000. Impacts of water reallocation: A combined computable general equilibrium and recreational demand model approach. The Annals of Regional Science 34:473-487.
Sheridan, T. E. 2001. Cows vs. Condos on the contested commons: The political ecology of ranching on the Arizona-Sonora borderlands. Human Organization 60:141-152.
Shoven, J., and J. Whalley. 1984. Applied general equilibrium models, taxation, and international trade: An introduction and survey. Journal of Economic Literature 22:1007-1051.
Smith, A. H., and W. E. Martin. 1972. Socioeconomic behavior of cattle ranchers, with implications for rural community development in the west. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 54:217-225.
Smith, R., L. Probst, and W. Abberger. 1991. Local land acquisition for conservation: Trends and facts to consider. Washington, D.C.: World Wildlife Fund.
Soule, M. J., A. Tegene, and K. D. Wiebe. 2000. Land tenure and the adoption of conservation practices. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82:993-1005.
Sulak, A., and L. Huntsinger. 2002. Sierra Nevada grazing in transition: The role of forest service grazing in the foothill ranches of California. Sierra Nevada Alliance. Online at: http://www.sierranevadaalliance.org/publications/.
Taylor, D. T., R. H. Coupal, T. Foulke, and J. G. Thompson. 2004. The economic importance of livestock grazing on BLM land in Fremont County, Wyoming. Laramie: Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming.
Theobald, D. M. 2001. Land-use dynamics beyond the american urban fringe. Geographical Review 91:544-564.
Theobald, D. M., J. R. Miller, and N. T. Hobbs. 1997. Estimating the cumulative effects of development on wildlife habitat. Landscape and Urban Planning 39:25-37.
Torell, L. A., N. R. Rimbey, E. T. Bartlett, L. W. Van Tassell, and J. A. Tanaka. 2001a. An evaluation of the PRIA grazing fee formula. In: L. A. Torell, E. T. Bartlett, and R. Larrañaga (ed.). Current Issues in Rangeland Resource Economics. February 2001; Kona, Hawaii: P. o. a. S. S. b. W. C. C. a. t. A. M. o. t. S. f. R. Management. p. 101-110.
Torell, L. A., N. R. Rimbey, O. A. Ramirez, and D. W. McCollum. 2005. Income earning potential versus consumptive amenities in determining ranchland values. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 30:537-560.
Torell, L. A., N. R. Rimbey, J. A. Tanaka, and S. Bailey. 2001b. The lack of profit motive for ranching: Implications for policy analysis. In: L. A. Torell, E. T. Bartlett and R. Larrañaga (eds.). Annual meeting of the Society for Range Management. 2001 February 17-23; Kailua-Kona, Hawaii: p. 47-58.
Torell, L. A., J. A. Tanaka, N. Rimbey, T. Darden, L. V. Tassell, and A. Harp. 2002. Ranch-level impacts of changing grazing policies on BLM land to protect the greater sage-grouse: Evidence from Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon. Policy Analysis Center for Western Public Lands. PACWPL Policy Paper SG-01-02.
USDA Forest Service. 2005. Four threats. Online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/.
Van Kooten, G. C., R. Thomsen, T. G. Hobby, and A. J. Eagle. 2005. Social dilemmas and public range management in Nevada. Ecological Economics in press.
Van Tassell, L. W., L. A. Torell, and N. R. Rimbey. 1991. Grazing on public lands in the 21st century. In: L. A. Torell, E. T. Bartlett and R. Larrañaga (eds.). Annual meeting of the Society for Range Management. 2001 February 17-23; Kailua-Kona, Hawaii: p. 23-34
Vargas, E. D., G. T. Schreiner, and D. Marcouiller. 1999. Computable general equilibrium modeling for regional analysis. The web book of regional science. Morgantown, West Virginia: West Virginia University.
Wambolt, C. L., A. J. Harp, B. L. Welch, N. Shaw, J. W. Connelly, K. P. Reese, C. E. Braun, D. A. Klebenow, E. D. McArthur, J. G. Thompson, L. A. Torell, and J. A. Tanaka. 2002. Conservation of greater sage-grouse on public lands in the western U.S.: Implications of recovery and management policies. Policy Analysis Center for Western Public Lands. PACWPL Policy Paper SG-02-02.
Waters, E., D. Holland, and R. Haynes. 1995. The economic impacts of public resource supply constraints in northeast Oregon. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report GTR-398. 23 p.
Weeks, W. W. 2002. Cloudy sky over the range: Whose home and why it matters. In: R. L. Knight, W. C. Gilgert and E. Marston (eds.). Ranching west of the 100th meridian: Culture, ecology, and economics. Washington: Island Press. p. 219-231.
Wilcove, D., M. Bean, R. Bonnie, and M. McMillan. 1996. Rebuilding the ark: Toward a more effective endangered species act for private land. Washington, D.C., USA: Environmental Defense Fund.

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

CA, MO, NM, NV, UT, WY

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

University of Idaho