Present: Members: Tom Sheridan, Mette Brogden (late), Tom Chilton, Mac Donaldson, Dan Robinett, Nathan Sayre. Staff: Maeveen Behan, Linda Mayro Micaela McGibbon

1. CALL TO ORDER & INTRODUCTIONS
T. Sheridan called the meeting to order at 3:15 p.m. The aforementioned members and attendees introduced themselves.

2. REVIEW OF MINUTES FROM 2/14/00 MEETING
T. Sheridan noted there was not a quorum. The Minutes were tabled until the next meeting and the agenda suspended, except for the update.

3. SONORAN DESERT CONSERVATION PLAN: Update
Maeveen Behan gave an update on planning efforts and was available to answer questions from the team members. The issue of the proposed Ironwood Preserve was raised, and a lengthy discussion followed concerning whether it would become a National Monument or a National Conservation Area. M. Donaldson stressed there was a need to develop consensus from within the subject area from property owners and the public lands lease holders, as was done in the Empire-Cienega valley.

M. Behan indicated there was a range of options for each valley, and that each valley has its own characteristics, values, and constraints. Furthermore, the SDCP has to be economically affordable, and it has to meet ESA requirements to be successful. For example, the Desert Museum study indicates that the ironwood forest in the NW Avra valley may be more valuable than in the Tortolita area. The cost factor between these areas to save the ironwood forest is significant, and what is achievable is important.

Economic value of the County is tied to what is allowed to happen in the urban area. Outlying valleys are valuable to allow growth in areas that can support growth. Question is how to guide growth to certain areas under a Section 10 permit, without ESA liabilities.

N. Sayre stated that conservation mechanisms can be defined by this team as options for landowners. M. Behan agreed the Ranch team should generate suggestions for conservation, and added that Implementation team will deal with how to implement conservation mechanisms.

Discussion followed concerning how ranch team and ranchers need to make a proactive statement of needs rather than a reactive statement; ie., make the case that conservation has a value in relationship to a demonstrated need elsewhere ‹ make conservation a solution to the problem. It is better to keep land open and used in ranching than "wild-catted" or abandoned. Long-term state leases are critical, and legislature is likely to continue to support ranchers.

Some "needs" identified in discussion:
1. Certainty of tenure on public lands - Long-term leases to run with Section 10 permit.
2. Certainty of continued grazing/ranching use of public lands.
3. Purchase-of-development-rights (or lease) program for private ranch lands.
4. Estate tax relief.
5. Assistance with enhancements to land, eg. erosion control, seeding, fire, water, etc.

M. Donaldson added it would be good to bring these issues up with land-base committees being formed for each watershed.

4. NEXT MEETING & AGENDA
There would be a presentation by Tom Sheridan and other Ranch Technical Advisory Team members to the Science Technical Advisory Team on 3/23/00. Next meeting of the Ranch team was tentatively set for April 13, 2000 at the Arizona State Museum.

5. ADJOURN
Meeting adjourned at 5:30 PM.