Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

Thursday, October 6, 2005 Meeting began at 9:00 a.m. Julie Lurman opened the meeting on behalf of the University of Alaska -- Fairbanks with a brief welcome to Alaska. Tex Taylor asked for introductions. Tanaka moved to accept W192 minutes, Rimbey seconded. The group unanimously approved the 2004 minutes. State Reports Rimbey, Huntsinger, Torell, Teegerstrom, Harris (T.), Child, Lurman, Fox, Tanaka, and Foulk/Taylor presented reports for their respective states. Selected notes from these reports are included below and full reports are attached as appendices. Idaho State report  Rimbey reported on the variety of projects ongoing or related to Idaho: 1) Continued work on ranch values work in New Mexico and Idaho, and is now moving to work with Trent Teegerstrom in AZ -- Ranch values have little to do w/ the cows. 2) Incorporating the GAMS models into the Fire Surrogate project, and others. California State report  Huntsinger reported that two of the three range faculty have stepped down from administrative positions at Berkeley and returned to research and teaching--good news for the program. There is now an endowed chair for the range program  the Russell Rustici Endowed Chair in Rangeland Management, which went to Barbara Allen-Diaz. She discussed several of her ongoing projects and the growing research group focused on land conservation. New Mexico State report  Torell added several points about the ranch values study and differences between some of the results in New Mexico and Idaho. He reported on several other ongoing projects and activities. Arizona State report  Teegerstrom reported on collaborative projects with others in the group. One of these projects is how different ranches have dealt with drought in Arizona and these will probably be published in Choices. Another project looks at Risk Analysis and management and this will be posted to rightrisk.org. Nevada State report  Tom Harris reported on several ongoing projects  one focuses on the impact of the cattle sector in White Pine and Eureka. Another study is assessing the water values in one of the districts where Las Vegas is buying the water rights and exporting them. He also reported on a project related to the wild horses in the Great Basin and wild horse/burro interpretive center. He also noted the Joint Fire Science program will be doing more coordinating among the different subcomponents. Colorado State report  Child reported last week the college was named to the Warner College of Natural Resources as a result of Ed Warners recent $30M gift. CSU also is facing quite a few retirements within the range science department in the next few years. There are two positions coming open, but the range faculty numbers are down somewhat. Alaska State report  Lurman reported on projects related to NEPA and Alaska National Lands Conservation Act and how this affects wolf control on federal lands. Other areas being pursued pertain to wildlife law, and the Intensive Management statute in Alaska re: predator control. Texas State report  Fox reported that several hires there in the Range Dept. and interests of those faculty to partner with collaborators from other states for ongoing rangelands projects. Oregon State report  Tanaka reported on ongoing projects: Beef Cattle management; Cheatgrass control; Grazing effects on Birds/Mammals on the Zumwalt Prairie with TNC; and the Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable. He also reported on and OSU initiative called Sustainable Rural Communities, headed by Bruce Weber. Wyoming State report  Foulk reported on several projects ongoing in Wyoming, one using the GAMS model W-192 developed in the Park County economy. One aspect of this is looking at private land and wildlife, i.e., the importance of winter habitat on private land and the value/s of this. A report on the Bighorn National Forest Plan Revision is completed. A series of annual fact sheets re: PILT have been completed. With the ORV study, they are trying to find how people are using their off-road vehicles in the state. The latest Trends in Agriculture report is also now available. Regional Fire Science Project Update on the Joint Fire Science Program from Harris (T.), Tanaka, and Rimbey. ID, OR, NV, UT. Brunson/Shindler are doing the sociological aspects of the project. Rimbey/Tanaka are conducting the economics components. A team at Nevada is conducting the non-market measures parts of the project. Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable Tanaka, Child, and Fox reported generally on this. At the same time W192 discussions were happening re: future focus, the Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable began evaluating some of its framework about university involvement and not duplicating activities among similar efforts. SRR got its beginning in 2001 with Tom Bartlett to develop a series of criteria and indicators for sustainability of rangelands. 63 indicators were developed originally w/ emphases on social and economic aspects. These were boiled down to 27 core indicators. Ted Heinz (Council for Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C.) has helped facilitate an agreement among the NRCS, USFS, and BLM (as well as USGS) have made some agreements to begin monitoring four of the indicators (all ecological). Fox indicated how the development of a model to blend the three different legs of the indicators. This included biophysical condition, human well-being, and socio-economic capital factors, and then a variety of factors are included and then entered rangelands issues into the model. Rimbey noted that putting some of the indicators into a policy arena (i.e., Farm Bill language) is putting the cart before the horse when we havent had time to analyze the indicators via research. Child noted the agencies have increased their financial support of SRR. Fox indicated SRR is still at a stage of evaluating the indicators and many question marks remain within the group. Torell asked what SRR sees as a link with W192. Child indicated the idea would be to have a collaborative group from universities begin to organize a proposal or series of proposals in order to move the indicators forward. Most of the group is interested in exploring the opportunities of participation in W192, including ways to work together to apply for research funds. One option mentioned is to develop a project related to the SRR--there are hundreds of individuals and as many as 75 organizations involved and funding opportunities should be good if the project contributes to the effort to understand and develop sustainability indicators. This might be something that could be presented at International Rangeland Congress in Inner Mongolia in 2008. The group briefly discussed ways of developing a researchable question. Some noted recreation is becoming more and more of an issue and questioned whether ought to be researching the total cost of recreation vs. the returns (just the money coming in). Snyder explained that in the western region a research project like W-192 has specific objectives, developed like a proposal for funding, methods, literature review, etc. like a grant proposal. Regional project is supposed to be more elaborate in terms of project description, have to be at least two states, and ideally more. The expectation for a research committee is that they will cooperatively do research, not do individual research and report on it, but that they will work together. Reporting requirements are more onerous and require a more extensive executive write-up, including documentation of the projects impacts, etc. W192, had common things that went across state lines but did not have expertise in each state, needed to work with regional, local, state people, it was jointly getting together and doing these things. The ultimate purpose is to share expertise across state boundaries. JD: if we wrote something to renew W192 if we focused on takings issues, are there economics issues in there. Don: yes. Bill: I heard a very focused desire to approach invasive species, from our indicators model, we ended up with a total of 64 indicators of which 35-40 are on invasive species. Indicators themselves--may be some research, but outcome would be what are the kinds of policy and management implications that get implemented on the ground and rollover to next time that there is a measurement of the indicators. JD: I raised this topic because of what we talked about at lunch of common interest in takings issues. We might have a counter position, law interpretations, and what people think the law ought to be. This might feed into the indicators. Tom: indicators feed back into what is sustainable range, what would be the range and regional economy. John: what we have done is used W192 to get together to develop our models. Allowed us to move forward on things. Don: John and others have gotten together together and write up objectives for the project. Neil: New forms of ownership are emerging, We have an NGO buying lands, trying to understand waterflow and retention, public agency private lands how do we even begin to value that. Public and private lands are interconnected. And climate change&..in terms of valuation should we be looking into carbon sequestration. What can rangelands contribute to carbon sequestration? Friday, 10/7/05 Meeting began at 9:00 a.m. Snyder explained the Regional Research Project structure and expectations. They are more extensive in the write-up (lit review, milestones, impacts, educational plan, methods) more is expected out of a research project (compared to a WERA project), i.e., expectation to go after additional funding. Fox asked whether a formal structure within a multi-state research project would be helpful and an advantage for a highly competitive research project. Taylor then asked whether the group would discuss renewal ideas for the W192 project. Rimbey indicated time would be best spent for the group to discuss topic ideas today. Child expressed the advantage for a broad umbrella topic that would allow for more specific objectives under that and could allow for a variety of interests. The group brainstormed ideas related to these topical areas. One idea was a model that illustrates ecological and social consequences of land fragmentation. The group also discussed the conceptual glue that holds all this together  i.e., sustainability, system change, or resilience. Torell asked whether others thought some ecologists would have enough interest in a renewed W192 with this topic. Child indicated yes. Taylor asked whether this type of project would be successful in seeking funding. Child and Fox indicated yes, and that other organizations (i.e., Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative, GLCI) would be supportive. The group discussed decision-making models and non-market values/benefits as project ideas. Foulk suggested we consider sustainability of rangelands and try to account for changing size of operation b/c in some places consolidation and growth of size, reduction of number of farms/ranches is the trend&.and the question related to this asking whether increasing size affects sustainability in a positive or negative way. Torell asked whether the ideas being discussed would be adding up to the database structures needed for SRR to implement as indicator assessments. Some of the discussion revolved around possible measures existing in the Census and NAAS. Rimbey noted the discussion began emphasizing a larger level of analysis more than a case-study analysis. Amidst discussion of the potential project objectives, the group also discussed how Alaska fits into the emerging project. Options Lurman sees relate to questions about growth limits in Alaska, and how these relate to planning, fire management, etc. This type of topic would also be adaptable, but Lurman noted how taking on this level of work for ALL of the states would be a concern. Another issue has to do with private/public land swaps and the legal ramifications of this re: development and precedent setting. Another issue is public ownership of wildlife  especially as land ownership patterns change. Possible states discussed for collaboration with Lurmans work included: Wyoming, Idaho, and Texas. Huntsinger emphasized that we could build a concentration on transbounday resources (water, wildlife) as an angle for the multi-state project/s. The group discussed how the role of water would fit into the project  and another regional project focuses on water already  but it was acknowledged that water plays such an important ecological role. Proposed titles: Sustainable Rangelands and Rural Communities; Emerging Ecological, Economic, and Social Issues Affecting Sustainability of Communities Assignments: Intro  Huntsinger/Wulfhorst (also ck w/ John Mitchell), 1-2 pgs Obj 1  Tanaka (w/ Foulk) Obj 2  Torell (w/ Rimbey, Taylor) Obj 3  Lurman Obj 4  Wulfhorst (also include Theodori, Swanson, and AZ rep) Obj 5  Fox Timeline for development of the renewal project would need to have a draft of this out to everyone by November 30, 2005, with return comments to section authors by 12/10/05, then submitted to Tanaka by 12/17/05. The final deadline is January 1, 2006, but the group intends to submit final to Snyder before Christmas. Next Meeting Dennis Child will take the lead to organize a combined WERA55/W192 meeting near Steamboat Springs around late Sept or early October 2006. The meeting adjourned at 2:15pm.

The New Mexico component of the ranch value study underway in several states has been submitted to JARE (in for 2nd review). Arizona is planning on conducting a ranch values study also similar to those done in New Mexico and Idaho. A number of regionally funded projects (through the Fire Science Program involving USDA and USDI) are underway. The existing GAMS ranch-level model is being enhanced for this additional work. The A to Z Retained Ownership program has now been operating for 13 years in Idaho. This program has benefitted ranchers who have participated by garnering additional profits. Economic impact analyses related to federal livestock grazing have been completed for Park County, Wyoming. The Bighorn National Forest plan was revised with the help of Taylor (Wyoming). Analyses of economic impact of livestock grazing, oil and natural gas development and production, and recreation on the economy of the surrounding region were completed for two Resource Management Areas in Wyoming (Casper and Kemmerer). PILT (Payment in Leu of Taxes) fact sheets were developed for each county in Wyoming. In Oregon, work has begun on beef cattle management to improve riparian areas and ranch economics. Additional work has been completed regarding the evaluation of social and economic impacts of public land policy. An evaluation of the control of Cheatgrass in the sagebrush biome has also been initiated. Work in the area of risk management ("www.rightrisk.org) has been understaken in Arizona. Finally, the relationship between recent state predator control efforts on federal lands and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and National Environmental Policy Act has been examined. Several procedural oversights have been identified.

Rimbey, N.R., C.W. Gray, R.L. Smathers and G.E. Shewmaker. 2005. Leasing arrangements and other considerations. Chapter 18. in: Shewmaker, G.E., ed. Idaho Forage Handbook Third Edition. Idaho Ag. Exp. Sta. Bulletin 547. Moscow, ID. Smathers, R.L., P.E. Patterson, N.R. Rimbey and C.W. Gray. 2005. Production costs and budgeting. Chapter 19. in: Shewmaker, G.E., ed. Idaho Forage Handbook Third Edition. Idaho Ag. Exp. Sta. Bulletin 547. Moscow, ID. Wulfhorst, J.D., N. Rimbey, and T. Darden. 2005. Sharing the Rangelands  Competing for Sense of Place. American Behavioral Scientist 48(16)xxxx-xxxx. Taylor, D., R. Coupal, T. Foulke, 2005, The Economic Impact of Federal Grazing on the Economy of Park County Wyoming, Project Report, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, College of Agriculture, University of Wyoming, August 2005. Foulke, T., R. Coupal, D. Taylor, 2005, 2004 Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) to Wyoming Counties (23 fact sheets), University of Wyoming, Cooperative Extension Service, B-1163AL  B-1163WE, March 2005. Taylor, D., T. Foulke, R. Coupal, 2005, Whats it Worth to You: Prebles II, Reflections, College of Agriculture, University of Wyoming. Fouke, T., R. Coupal, D. Taylor, 2005, Trends in Wyoming Agriculture, University of Wyoming, Cooperative Extension Service, B-1164, August 2005. Aldrich, G.A., J.A. Tanaka, R.M. Adams, and J.C. Buckhouse. Economics of Western Juniper Control in Central Oregon. Rangeland Ecology and Management 58(2005):542-552. Tanaka, J.A., L.A. Torell, and N.R. Rimbey. Rangeland Economics, Ecology, and Sustainability: Implications for Policy and Economic Research. Western Economics Forum 4(2005):1-6. McCollum, D., L. Swanson, and J. Tanaka. Integrate social and economic indicators with ecological indicators for rangeland inventory, assessment, and monitoring: Why would you ever do that? Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting, Society for Range Management, Fort Worth, Texas. 2005. Tanaka, J. Ranch-level economic impacts of off-stream water developments, animal attributes, and fencing. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting, Society for Range Management, Fort Worth, Texas. 2005. Tanaka, J., A. Torell, and N. Rimbey. Rangeland policy and economics research: integrating science and people. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting, Society for Range Management, Fort Worth, Texas. 2005. Tronstad, Russell, Trent Teegerstrom, and Daniel Osgood. The Role of Electronic Technologies for Reaching Underserved Audiences. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 86(3), August 2004:767-771. Tronstad, R., and Teegerstrom, T. Economic Trade-Offs Between Sale Weight, Herd Size, Supplementation and Seasonal Factors, The Journal of Range Management, Vol 56, pg 425-431, Sept. 2003 Harris, Thomas R. and Joan Wright. Estimated Economic Impacts of Cattle Ranching and Farming Sector on the White Pine County Economy, October 2004, UCED 2004/05-15. Fadali, Elizabeth, William W. Riggs, and Thomas R. Harris. Updated Economic Linkages in the Economy of Eureka County, UCED 2005/06-05, June 2005. Torell, L.A., O.A. Ramirez, Neil R. Rimbey, and Daniel W. McCollum. 2005. Income Earning Potential versus Consumptive Amenities in Determining Ranchland Values. J. Agr. Resource Econ. Accepted for Publication. Torell, L.A. 2005. Factors Affecting the Market Value of New Mexico Ranches. pp. G1-G14. In: C.D. Goodloe (Director), Proceedings, Continuing Legal Education, Conservations Easements Conference, Albuquerque, NM. CLE International, Denver, CO. Torell, L.A. and N.R. Rimbey. 2005. Factors Affecting the Market Value of New Mexico Ranches. pp. 55-69. In: M. Peterson (ed.), Proceedings, Corona Range and Livestock Research Center Field Day. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM.