Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

W-3133 Business Meeting The Coeur dAlene Resort, Coeur dAlene, Idaho Thursday, February 28, 2013 Present: Amy Ando, Kathleen Bell, John Braden, Gerald Fletcher, LeRoy Hansen, Robert Hearne, Steven Hodges, Matthew Interis, Paul Jakus, John Loomis, Frank Lupi, Don McLeod, Klaus Moeltner, Daniel Petrolia, Richard Ready, Randy Rosenberger, Don Snyder, Brent Sohngen, Emi Uchida, Roger Von Haefen, and Matt Winden. Officers: Kathleen Bell (President), Bob Hearne (Vice-President), Dan Petrolia (Secretary) 1. Don Snyder a. Don requested that all friends of W-3133 fill out an Appendix E form to establish a formal record of participation, indicating that this would be looked up very favorably. i. Jerry Fletcher suggested the use of three tiers of participants (members, friends, and acquaintences). ii. It was then determined that even those participants from non-land-grant institutions can still be considered members (but cannot be elected officers). I.e., any participant can fill out an Appendix E to be a member. Thus, the two tiers of members and friends is sufficient at this time. iii. These participants need to be send easy-to-follow instructions to encourage them to fill out the Appendix E form. iv. Roger Von Haefen indicated having difficulties determining membership status. Don indicated that he will check on membership status and Jerry indicated that he will email members as to their status. b. Don notified the group that the previous 90-day post-meeting period for report submission has been shortened to 60 days. i. Don indicated that the objectives being worked on is already established on the agenda published by Kathleen for the meeting. ii. Publications over the past year need to be determined and included. iii. The Vice-President (Bob Hearne) is responsible for submitting the report. 1. Bob will send out a request for publications and abstracts of meeting presentations. iv. Don needs to know the groups Impacts/Effects, and will send out information as to what this means. He indicated that much of the needed information is the same as that reported on individual members CRIS reports. c. Don congratulated Kathleen on having a low-cost meeting this year (relative to past years). d. Don indicated that three years from now (2016) is when re-chartering work should begin. e. Dan will input the minutes into the NIMSS system. 2. Kathleen a. Is done! b. Congratulations to Kathleen on planning and executing a great meeting. 3. Bob Hearn (incoming President) a. Nominations for new secretary: Amy Ando nominated and accepted. Winner by acclamation. i. Amy will be responsible for re-chartering when she assumes the presidency. b. Next years meeting: i. Bob is considering sites on the Gulf Coast. ii. Bob also contacted Dillmans survey group who meets in February in Tucson. Meeting adjourned at 4:35pm (Pacific Time).

W-3133: Benefits and Costs of Natural Resources Policies Affecting Public and Private Lands City, county, state and federal governments and agencies as well as non-profit conservation organizations need information on the economic benefits and costs of resource trade-offs they are responsible for managing. In order to assist their decision making, the W-3133 project will address three primary objectives, each of which has associated tasks. These are: Objective 1: Land and Water Resource Management in a Changing Environment, Task 1-1: Economic Analysis of Ag, Forest and Rangeland Resources, Open Space, and WUI Zones, Task 1-2: Economic Analysis of Natural Hazards (fire, invasive species, climate change); Objective 2: Economic Valuation Methods, Task 2-1: Advances in Stated/Revealed Preference Methods, Task 2-2: Advances in Benefit Transfer Methods, Task 2-3: Advances in Spatial/Environmental Nexus; and Objective 3: Integrated Ecosystem Services Valuation and Management, Task 3-1: Economic Analysis of Ecosystem Services Flows, Task 3-2: Economic Analysis of Recreation Services, Task 3-3: Economic Analysis of Water Quality. ACTIVITIES, OUTPUTS, AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS Under Objective 1 (Land and Water Resource Management in a Changing Environment), the following activities, outputs, and accomplishments can be reported. 1) Researchers at Oregon State U and the USDA Forest Service developed a model of commercialization of tourism activities. The model was disseminated through conference presentations and publication. 2) Researchers at Colorado State U and the USDA Forest Service to estimated how much a person would pay to avoid respiratory symptoms from forest fire smoke associated with wildfires on National Forests in southern California. In cooperation with the City of Fort Collins, Researchers at Colorado State U. completed a study requested on maintaining instream flows of the Poudre River through Fort Collins. 3) Researchers at the University of Wyoming: estimated the contribution of environmental amenities to agricultural land values; used experimental economics to assess how subsidy incidence impacts factor markets such as land rental markets; and analyzed the use of conservation easements and their impacts on open space preservation. All of these research activities resulted in publications. 4) Researchers at the University of Georgia studied the effects of natural amenities on rural area population migration. Previous studies suggest that significant relationships exist between rural area population growth and the presence of natural amenities. Thus, understanding and predicting domestic migration trends as a function of changes in natural amenities is important for effective regional growth and development policies and strategies. It is especially important to understand and predict the effects of weather related natural amenity variables which may undergo major variations in the future due to global climate change. In the study, the researchers first estimated an econometric model which showed the effects of natural amenities, such as landscape and weather, on rural population migration patterns in the U.S. between 1990 and 2007. This model was estimated for 2,014 rural counties in the continental U.S. using U.S. Census, USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, USDA National Resources Inventory, Bailey's Ecoregion, and other USDA compiled data sets. This model was then used to predict the effects of changes in these variables on rural county net migration and population growth to 2060 under alternative future climate and land use cover projections. Results suggest that people prefer rural areas with mild winters and cooler summers; thus we can expect a direct impact of climate change on population migration when areas associated with these conditions change. For example, we may observe a shift in population migration patterns from the warm and sunny southern U.S. to originally cold northern U.S. regions as temperatures in these regions become warmer (especially in the winter months). 5) University of Tennessee researchers analyzed the economic effectiveness of land use policy on private and public lands. Neighborhood spillover effects between rezoning of vacant parcels and housing price were assessed. The findings indicate that the probability of rezoning vacant land is expected to increase as housing price in a neighboring location increases. The rise in the housing price in a neighboring location implies increasing pressure on housing demand. This increased pressure on housing demand likely contributes to greater demands for residential development and commercial development that complements residential use. The finding from this project suggests that different degrees of rezoning pressure are influenced differently by rising housing prices can be used to help update guidelines for rezoning decisions. 6) University of Tennessee researchers prepared a case study using cost-benefit analysis to identify priority areas for forest landscape restoration to protect the ridgelines and hillsides in a single county of the southern Appalachian region, which may be applicable to other communities with similar issues. Private and public benefits per dollar spent are estimated for 15 target restoration sites. The results of this study show the potential for increased benefits to the community from reforestation projects, but those benefits can vary greatly depending on a number of factors, including the area of the target reforestation site, the number of houses surrounding the target site, property values, and the proximity of houses to the site. The estimated private, public, and total returns per dollar spent from the second project suggest different levels of effectiveness among the target sites in terms of private, public, and total benefits generated by reforestation. Much of the private benefits fall on those who live close to the site being reforested while public benefits are mainly generated by indirect use values associated with the cleansing of air and water pollutants. Assuming the explicit cost of reforestation is paid by local governments, the sites that generate the highest public return per dollar may be highly prioritized for reforestation for equity purposes. Alternatively, the sites with the highest private return per dollar spent may receive high priority if the payment system allows direct payment for reforestation on private land. In the latter case, if the private return per dollar spent is greater than $1.00, those who potentially gain from reforestation would have economic incentive to gather funds and pay the landowner to plant trees on the ridgeline and/or hillside and not develop the land. This kind of payment system may be possible through a conservation easement program that permits private donations to support the program and restricts the use of the property while ownership remains with the private landowner. 7) Utah State University researchers examined how Utah ranchers perceive constraints on their use of future grazing allotments, results were presented to Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF) personnel. 8) Virginia Tech researchers assessed a causal link between wildfire smoke and hospital visits / treatment costs using detailed fire data for the California Sierras and inpatient data for the Reno-Nevada area. Of specific interest is the marginal impact of an additional acre burned by fuel type and distance from the impact area. This will inform fire managing agencies of the benefits of wildfire prevention for areas that have heavy fuel and are located upwind from large population zones. Findings from this research were presented at the 2012 annual meetings of this W2133 Project, and at he 2011 annual meetings of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association. Findings were also shared with the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountains and Southern Research Stations, and the Western Institute for Study of the Environment (W.I.S.E.), a non-profit educational and research facility in Lebanon, Oregon. Under, Objective 2 (Economic Valuation Methods), the following activities, outputs, and accomplishments can be reported. 1) Virginia Tech researchers examined the potential for inter-activity Benefit Transfer (BT). That is, can knowledge of the benefits (willingness-to-pay, WTP) for time spent on a given recreational activity inform WTP for another, related activity? Understanding and exploiting such links would greatly enhance the efficiency with which aggregate recreation data can be used to predict activity-specific outcomes. The concept of cross-activity BT is completely novel, but holds much promise. Findings from this research were presented at the 2011 annual meetings of this W2133 Project, at the 2012 Annual Meetings of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, and at the Department of Statistics at Virginia Tech. 2) At the request of USGS, a pilot economic study was conducted by Colorado State University researchers on the economic values of Landsat imagery to federal, state, county, non-profits and private companies was completed. This study demonstrated that the contingent valuation method of non-market valuation could be applied to value this publicly provided product. This study received such a high level of policy relevance that the go ahead for the full study was given to provide generalizable results. USGS and CSU has made a briefing to USGS officials in charge of the Landsat program. A briefing for U.S. Department of Interior officials is planned. The preliminary results of the full survey were presented at a workshop in Colorado. 3) With funding provided by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State University researchers developed and evaluated the performance of a visitor use estimating model. This model used data from the USDA Forest Service. The study became the basis for a student's Master's Thesis and a report provided to BLM. The BLM intends to use this model to reduce the amount of on-site visitor data collection required each year. University of Rhode Island researchers conducted a literature review on ways to measure demand for ES to assess public values and priorities. The research team met with USDA/NRCS and Providence Water to discuss potential issue regarding water quality in northern Rhode Island as study area for market experiments. We held focus groups with livestock owners and residents of northern Rhode Island to understand manure management and peoples preferences for water quality. Under Objective 3 (Integrated Ecosystem Services Valuation and Management), the following activities, outputs, and accomplishments can be reported. 1) Oregon State U and USDA Forest Service researchers developed and synthesized of valuation information on economic effects of forest pests. Outputs were disseminated through workshops and publication. 2) Research at Michigan State University included analysis of stated choice data for ecosystem mitigation; water pricing for water conservation and the protection of ecosystem services; implementation of a survey of the public's willingness to pay to supply enhanced ecosystem services from agricultural lands through the adoption of low-input practices; evaluation of private financial liabilities from the development of energy resources; the development of hedonic models for the valuation of timber resources within a ecological-economic model of ecosystem service provision from Michigan forests; the development of travel cost valuation models for valuing beaches, beach access, the damages from beach closures on the Great Lakes; the development and analysis of state preference surveys for recycling and energy options at MSU; implementation of a meta-analysis of willingness to pay elasticities for residential water supply; and research on valuing public access to hunting areas for species such as deer and small game. Presentations were given on these topics at the annual meeting of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association. The researchers completed technical and non-technical reports on the feasibility of region-to-region benefit transfers for national policies 3) At the request of, and with funding from, the State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality, researchers from Colorado State University, Utah State University and University of Wyoming, completed a study on the economic benefits of improving water quality in Utah to visitors and the general public. This information will be used by the State of Utah to prioritize which water bodies to clean up and the degree of clean up to meet USEPA nutrient reduction targets. Data analysis is complete. 4) Economic benefits of fish stocking at several Colorado State Parks, other public and private lands in Colorado and California were quantified by researchers at Colorado State U. Reports for each State Park were sent to the respective managers, and to Division of Wildlife. Two journal articles were published. 5) University of Rhode Island researchers quantified hydrological ecosystem services in Rhode Island: As part of a USDA-funded project, we modeled the Regulating Watershed in RI using the SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) model. The model was calibrated using historical stream flow data from USGS gages and to the tails of distribution to the observed data. The outputs from the SWAT model (e.g., water flow, phosphorus loading) were then converted to indicators of ecosystem services such as indicators for environmental flow, flood risk, and trophic state index. Researchers then developed several land use change scenarios and simulated changes in ecosystem services and tradeoffs among them. 6) University of Rhode Island researchers conducted a literature review to address implementing climate change model outputs with SWAT; compiled a database of GCM runs from the CGCM+CCSM regional climate change model and output from the CGCM 3.1 T.47 downscaled climate model; assessed climate-model output against observed time series using interpolated NCEP data. We developed seven alternative scenarios based the changes in land use, land management and climate change; simulated the impacts of these scenarios for the Beaver River watershed. 7) University of Rhode Island researchers examined the tradeoffs across ecosystem services in the Beaver River watershed at the subbasin level by capitalizing on the heterogeneity in producing ES. Cross-scenario tradeoffs were investigated using scatter plots of pair wise comparison of provisional ES (biomass yield) vs. hydrological ES. Spatial tradeoffs were examined using a mapping approach to visualize heterogeneity across space in provision of ES within watershed. 8) University of Rhode Island researchers conducted a literature review on optimization algorithms and their applications; constructed conceptual framework and flow chart for the optimization; attended Matlab training. The team cataloged farm management practices pertinent to protecting water quality, the costs of each practice, and associated changes in nutrient emissions at the farm level. 9) University of Rhode Island researchers initiated a new research to model land use change in Rhode Island, focusing on the conversion of farmland and forestland to residential and commercial use. Conducted extensive literature review and data compilation. 10) North Dakota State University researchers developed a spatial optimized transportation mode l to assess the feasibility of treatment and recycling of fracking flowback water in the Bakken area of western North Dakota.

PUBLICATIONS Adanu, K., and J.P. Hoehn, 2012, Voter Decisions on Eminent Domain and Police Power Reforms, Journal of Housing Economics, 21 (2) 1987-194. Cropper, E. D., D. M. McLeod, C. T. Bastian, C. M. Keske, D. L. Hoag, and J. E. Cross. Factors Affecting Land Trust Agents Preferences for Conservation Easements, Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy. 42,2(2012): 88-103. Lead Article. Special issue on market-based environmental management. Chadourne, M.H., S. Cho, and R.K. Roberts. 2012. Identifying Priority Areas for Forest Landscape Restoration to Protect Ridgelines and Hillsides: A Cost-Benefit Analysis. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 60: 275-294. Chen, X., Lupi, F., An, L., Sheely, R., Vina, A., and Liu, J. 2012. Agent-based Modeling of the Effects of Social Norms on Enrollment in Payments for Ecosystem Services. Ecological Modelling 229 16-24. Cho, S., J. Kim, R.K. Roberts, and S.G. Kim. 2012. Neighborhood spillover effects between rezoning and housing price Annals of Regional Science 48:301-319. Deisenroth, D., C. Bond and J. Loomis. 2012. The Economic Contribution of the Private Recreation-Based Aquaculture Industry in the Western United States. Aquaculture Economics and Management 16:1-21. 2012. Ham, C., P. Champ, J. Loomis and R. Reich. 2012. Accounting for Heterogeneity of Public Lands in Hedonic Property Models. Land Economics 88(3): 444-456. Kaplowitz, M., Lupi, F., and Arrello, O. 2012. Local Markets for Payments for Environmental Services: Can Small Rural Communities Self-Finance Watershed Protection? Water Resources Management 26 (13) 3689-3704. Kaplowitz, M., and Lupi, F. 2012. Stakeholder Preferences for Best Management Practices for Non-Point Source Pollution and Stormwater Control. Landscape and Urban Planning 104 364-372. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.11.013. Kaplowitz, M., Lupi, F., Couper, M., and Thorp, L. 2012. The Effect of Invitation Design on Web Survey Response Rates. Social Science Computer Review 30(3) 339-349. doi: doi:10.1177/0894439311419084. Kasberg, K. 2012. An Econometric Model of Determinants of Visitor Use on Western National Forests. MS Thesis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University. Keeler, B., S. Polasky, K. Brauman, K. Johnson, J. Finlay, A. ONeill, K. Kovacs, B. Dalzell. 2012. Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(45): 18619-18624. Keeler, B., S. Polasky, K. Brauman, K. Johnson, J. Finlay, A. ONeill, K. Kovacs, B. Dalzell. 2012. Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(45): 18619-18624. Knoche, S., and Lupi, F. 2012. April, 2011 The Economic Value of Publicly Accessible Deer Hunting Land. Journal of Wildlife Management 76(3) 462-470. doi: DOl: 10.1002~wmg.302. Kochi, I., P. Champ, J. Loomis, and G. Donovan. 2012.Valuing Mortality Impacts of Smoke Exposure from Major Southern California Wildfires. Journal of Forest Economics 18: 61-75. Kobayashi, M., K. Moeltner, K. Rollins, (2012). Latent Thresholds Analysis of Choice Data under Value Uncertainty. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 94(1), p. 189-208 Kovacs, K. 2012. Integrating Property Value and Local Recreation Models to Value Ecosystem Services from Regional Parks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 108(2), 79-90. Lieske, S. D. McLeod, R. Coupal and S. Srivastava. 2012. Determining the relationship between urban form and the costs of public services. Environment and Planning B 39:155-73. Loomis, J. 2012. Ways to Make Stated Preference Methods more Valuable to Public Land Managers. Western Economic Forum 9 (1): 22-29. Loomis, J. and K. Ng. 2012. Comparing Economic Values of Trout Anglers and Nontrout Anglers in Colorado's Stocked Public Reservoirs. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 32: 202-210. Loomis, J., 2012. Comparing Household's Total Economic Values and Recreation Value of Instream Flow in an Urban River. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 1(1): 5-17. 2012. Loomis, J. and C. Keske. 2012. Did the Great Recession Reduce Visitor Spending and Willingness to Pay for Nature-Based Recreation: Evidence from 2006 and 2009. Contemporary Economic Policy. 30(2):238-246. McKenzie, Emily and Amy Rosenthal, Joey Bernhardt, Evan Girvetz, Kent Kovacs, Nasser Olwero, Jodie Toft. Developing scenarios to assess ecosystem service tradeoffs: Guidance and experiences using InVEST, with Prepared for the Natural Capital Project, 2012. Ma, S., Swinton, S., Lupi, F., and Jolejole-Foreman, C. 2012. Farmers' Willingness to Participate in Payment-for Environmental-Services Programs. Journal of Agricultural Economics 63 (3) 604-626. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2012.00358.x. McGaffin, Graham H., Donald M. McLeod, Christopher T. Bastian, Catherine M. Keske, Dana L. Hoag. Wyoming Landowners Characteristics and Preferences Regarding Conservation Easements: Results from a Survey, Bulletin B-1241. Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Wyoming, Laramie. March, 2013. pp: 1-19. McGaffin, G., D. McLeod, C. Bastian, C. Keske, and D. Hoag. 2012. Landowner Preferences or Conservation Easements: A Comparison of Responses from two Intermountain States. Journal of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers June 13, 2012. http://www.asfmra.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/370_McLeod.pdf Nagler, A. M., D. J. Menkhaus, C. T. Bastian, M. Ehmke, and K. T. Coatney. Subsidy Incidence in Factor Markets: An Experimental Approach, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 45,1(February 2013): 17-33. Polasky, S., K. Johnson, B. Keeler, K. Kovacs, E. Nelson, D. Pennington, A. Plantinga, J. Withey. 2012. Are investments to promote biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services aligned? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 28(1): 139-163. Richardson, L., P. Champ and J. Loomis. 2012. The Hidden Costs of Wildfires: Economic Valuation of Health Effects of Wildfire Smoke Exposure in Southern California. Journal of Forest Economics, 18: 14-35. Rideout, D., J. Loomis, P. Ziesler and Y. Wei. Comparing Fire Protection and Improvement Values at Four Major US National Parks and Assessing Potential for Generalized Value Categories. 2012. International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering 2(1): 1-12. Ritten, J. P., C. T. Bastian, and B. S. Rashford. Profitability of Carbon Sequestration in Western Rangelands of the United States, Rangeland Ecology and Management. 65,4 (2012): 340-350. Rosenberger, R.S., Needham, M.D., Morzillo, A.T., Moehrke, C. 2012. Attitudes, willingness to pay, and stated values for recreation use fees at an urban proximate forest. Journal of Forest Economics 18:271-281. Rosenberger, R.S., L.A. Bell, P.A. Champ and E.L. Smith. 2012. Nonmarket Economic Values of Forest Insect Pests: An Updated Literature Review. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-275. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 46p. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Future of America's Forests and Rangelands. General Technical Report WO-87, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Washington, D.C., August 2012. Contribution by U of Georgia researchers Wasson, J., D. M. McLeod, C. T. Bastian and B. S. Rashford. The Effects of Environmental Amenities on Agricultural Land Values, Land Economics. (Currently in press). Yoder, Jonathan & Krista Gebert. 2012. An Econometric Model for ex ante prediction of wildfire suppression costs. Journal of Forest Economics 18(1):76-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2011.10.003. Yoder, Jonathan. 2012. Fuel for the fire: Liability and the economics of wildfire risk. Chapter 3 in Wildfire: Economics, Law & Policy, Dean Lueck & Karen M. Bradshaw, Eds. RFF Press. Taylor & Francis. http://routledge-ny.com/books/details/9781933115955/. Zegre, S.J., Needham, M.D., Kruger, L E., & Rosenberger, R.S. 2012. McDonaldization and commercial outdoor recreation and tourism in Alaska. Managing Leisure 17(4):333-348.