Present: Wally Alexander, Mette Brogden, Tom Chilton, Mac Donaldson, Dan Robinett, George Ruyle, Nathan Sayre, Tom Sheridan, Micaela McGibbon,, and Linda Mayro.

1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by T. Sheridan at 3:07PM.

2. Review of Minutes from 12/14/99 meeting: A motion to accept the minutes was made by Mac Donaldson. The motion was seconded by Wally Alexander and approved.

3. Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan Update: Maeveen Behan was scheduled to report on the item; however, she was unable to attend. L. Mayro gave a brief update. L. Mayro gave a summary of SDCP meetings scheduled for the Spring for the entire Steering Committee. While this was still being worked out, there will be a number of sessions to be held at the ASDM that give summary information in a series of presentations by staff and others to the Steering Committee about each of the valley subareas.

In addition, there will be numerous reports generated by county staff, the technical teams, and the biological consultants, which will provide the basis for the July 2000 preliminary Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. This July report will define the conservation elements in each valley and in the region. This document will be both descriptive and evaluative, and will provide the information to help determine where growth can/should occur and where conservation goals are best served. L. Mayro reiterated that our job as a Technical Committee is to identify the critical land-based characteristics pertaining to sustainable ranching that characterize each of valleys.

This update was followed by a lengthy discussion about the establishment of new national monuments by President Clinton, the guest editorial against ranching published in the Arizona Daily Star, and the use of the term "pests" by the Science Technical Advisory Team. Various members of the Ranch Technical Advisory Team expressed concern that the establishment of national monuments would probably result in the prohibition of grazing, which would effectively end the affected ranchers' ability to earn a livelihood in those areas and further degrade the industry statewide. Other members felt the guest editorial was significantly flawed and incorrect in concluding that no development would occur in rural areas on State lands if grazing were to be stopped, given the mandate of the State Land Department to earn the maximum revenue from their lands. The team noted the efforts by both the ASLD and BLM to "transition" lands from their agencies for trade or possible commercial development. These "disposal lands" comprise significant acreage in southern Arizona. The committee further concluded that applying the term "pests" to domesticated animals including cattle and horses was objectionable and offensive to ranchers, and it undermined the objectivity of the Science team's work. Tom Chilton distributed a letter from SACPA to Supervisor Bronson regarding this issue. It was asked whether it was the role of the committees, including the Ranch committee, to be advocates for their element or to provide objective technical information and guidance. L. Mayro reiterated that all the technical committees are charged in the same way; ie., to provide the best objective and technical information that is possible to characterize and understand each element and to serve as the basis for conservation planning.

4. Additional GIS "Covers" and Data for Ranch Conservation: L. Mayro referred to the updated handout on "Ranch Conservation and Relevant GIS Data Covers. For each valley, these are the consistent observations that we will be able to make. M. McGibbon has been doing the basic research in putting this information in the GIS system.

Specific GIS data pertaining to ranching will not be mapped to show specific locations of ranching features, such as houses, corrals, etc; however, these data will be used to show general representations of information. The Ranch element presentations to each of the Sub-Area groups and the Steering Committee will quantify aggregated data for that watershed, NOT for individual ranches.

5. Subarea Valley Reports: An outline was discussed, and it was noted that these reports will be relatively brief unlike the first regional report on Ranching in Pima County. These reports will be geared to presenting a summary of information for each valley at sessions of the Steering Committee. These presentations including maps and statistical summaries will focus on: 1) the distribution of environmental characteristics; 2) the land base, jurisdictions, numbers of ranches, and current land uses including ranching; 3) ranch land stewardship, improvements, grazing and fire management, and capacity; 4) development pressure, committed lands, public lands for disposal, fragmentation, proximity of ranchlands to urban boundary. Other possible data include real estate land values and land value of ranches that have been sold.

6. Next Meeting & Agenda: The next meeting was scheduled for February 14, 2000. Various team members asked for a presentation from the Science Technical Advisory Team to provide the Ranch team members with an understanding of their activities and their objectives for conservation. L. Mayro indicated she would arrange for Dr. Shaw chair of the Science team and Julia Fonseca, county staff, to attend next meeting. L. Mayro also stated she would notify all Ranch team members of next Science team meeting in case anyone wanted to attend. She further noted that the minutes from the Science team were on the Website for the SDCP.

Mac Donaldson and other team members also asked for a presentation (perhaps to the entire Steering Committee, technical teams, and public) on what tools for conservation of ranchlands were being considered, and more specifically conservation of ranches through purchase of development rights. Team members thought this would be a critical factor in allowing compensation for conservation.

Discussion followed on purchase of development rights, leasing of development rights, allowing compatible, clustered development while retaining the balance in ranching use. Team members concluded that these had to be "willing seller ‹ willing buyer" situations. T. Chilton noted there was likely to be a wide range of responses to PDR programs and that educating the public now is critical to its eventual success and implementation. T. Chilton raised the issues of how lands are selected for PDR programs and how a Pima County PDR program would be paid for, and requested future sessions on these issues. M. Brogden will research the criteria developed in the East in P.D.R. that pertain to how lands are evaluated and prioritized.

7. Announcements:

None.

8. Adjournment:

The meeting adjourned at 5:10 P.M.