Our results support past research that underscores the potential of two important tools for alleviating the financial burden of land ownership and inheritance: (1) conservation easements and (2) the Williamson Act. Ranchers in our study had favorable attitudes toward conservation easements, particularly as a tool for reducing the cost of inheritance. Easements have been found to be effective for reducing estate taxes, conserving land when heirs are not interested or available to inherit land, and preventing development of the land in perpetuity (Merenlender et al., 2004; Newburn et al., 2005). The same ranching family who spoke of development as a function of resource availability was confounded by the fact that they could not simply pass their land title on to their children without significant cost. For them, an easement was the only logical solution for passing on a remaining 400 hectares of land to their children without also passing on the immense cost of estate taxes. However, the story of one rancher whose property has been turned down by potential easement holders is evidence that these agreements are not a comprehensive solution for slowing the overall trend of conversion.
The importance of the Williamson Act in preventing the sale of working lands has been emphasized in the literature, and our research provides further support for the idea that the Williamson Act is a fundamental policy for preventing development and maintaining the viability of agricultural land ownership in the county (Cameron et al., 2014; Wetzel et al., 2012). While we did not explicitly ask ranchers or rangeland managers about the Act during our study, it quickly became clear during initial surveys that ranchers viewed it as essential to profitable ranching in the county. Similarly to conservation easements, the Williamson Act works to protect ranchers from the significant tax liability associated with owning high value land that is not used at the “highest and best use” while preventing development of that land during the contract period (Wetzel et al., 2012). However, the degree to which the
Williamson Act can influence conversion or outcomes for ecosystem services on rangelands may be limited. Some research has indicated that tax-based incentives for protecting land are not a robust tool for long-term land conservation (Daniels, 1991; Merenlender et al., 2004). While conservation easements and the Williamson Act are viewed as important for rangeland conservation in San Luis Obispo, our findings suggest that future research is required to
determine the type of conservation program most suitable for the maintenance of private rangelands in the county.
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
The results of this study demonstrate significant changes in San Luis Obispo County’s rangeland landscape during the last thirty years. These changes have led to
perceived changes in multiple ecosystem services. The relationship between conversion and perceived changes in the provision of cultural services from rangelands merits further inquiry, as does the link between conversion and increased demand on water resources. However, an understanding of the perceptions of ecosystem services held by land managers only takes this research so far. The next step in examining rangeland conversion and
ecosystem services in the county is measuring the provision of those services from the land. This research provides a starting point by determining that water quantity and multiple cultural services are of high importance to ranchers in the county. Future research can focus on the measurement of these and other rangeland ecosystem services to provide a more comprehensive understanding of rangeland ecosystem services in the county and the relationship between ranchers’ perceptions and the measured provision of ecosystem services.
Our findings also highlight the importance of private lands for both site-specific and broader conservation goals. Rangelands in San Luis Obispo are largely under private
ownership. Therefore, the provision of multiple ecosystem service in the county is dependent on the management and maintenance of these private lands. Management tools and policies that address the ecosystem services that ranchers are concerned with, such as cultural services, may provide synergies with additional ecosystem services by incentivizing land management practices that maintain rangeland landscapes. The maintenance of rangelands by individual ranchers and families in the county hinges on available solutions to the significant financial challenges associated with maintaining or passing on land. Inheritance and estate taxes pose a significant threat to rangelands in the San Luis Obispo County. Agricultural
policies intended to prevent development of working lands should focus on the cost of land ownership for future generations. Such policies may be essential in maintaining the provision of multiple rangeland ecosystem services in counties with extensive private land ownership.
REFERENCES
Alagona, P. S. (2008). Homes on the range: Cooperative conservation and environmental change on California’s privately owned hardwood rangelands. Environmental History,
13(2), 325–349.
Allen-Diaz, B., Jackson, R., Bartolome, J., & Oates, L. (2004). Long-term grazing study in spring-fed wetlands reveals management tradeoffs. California Agriculture, 58(3), 144– 148.
Asah, S. T., Blahna, D. J., & Ryan, C. M. (2012). Involving Forest Communities in
Identifying and Constructing Ecosystem Services: Millennium Assessment and Place Specificity. Journal of Forestry, 110(3), 149–156.
Asah, S. T., Guerry, A. D., Blahna, D. J., & Lawler, J. J. (2014). Perception, acquisition and use of ecosystem services: Human behavior, and ecosystem management and policy implications. Ecosystem Services, 10, 180–186.
Booker, K., Huntsinger, L., Bartolome, J. W., Sayre, N. F., & Stewart, W. (2013). What can ecological science tell us about opportunities for carbon sequestration on arid
rangelands in the United States? Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 240–251. Bordonaro, T. J. (2014). Land Conservation Act Properties (Williamson Act). San Luis
Obispo County Assessor. Retrieved from
http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/ASR/Assessor+Pamphlets/Facts+about+Land+Co nservation+Act+Properties.pdf.pdf
Brown, D. G., Johnson, K. M., Loveland, T. R., & Theobald, D. M. (2005). Rural Land-Use Trends in the Conterminous United States, 1950-2000. Ecological Applications, 15(6), 1851–1863.
Brown, J. H., & McDonald, W. (1995). Livestock grazing and conservation on southwestern rangelands. Conservation Biology, 1644–1647.
Brunson, M. W., & Huntsinger, L. (2008). Ranching as a conservation strategy: can old ranchers save the new west? Rangeland Ecology & Management, 61(2), 137–147. Byers, E., & Ponte, K. M. (2005). The conservation easement handbook. Washington, D.C.;
San Francisco: Land Trust Alliance ; Trust for Public Land.
California Department of Conservation. (2015). The California Land Conservation Act 2014
Status Report. Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Water Resources. (2015). California’s Most Significant Droughts:
Cameron, D. R., Marty, J., & Holland, R. F. (2014). Whither the Rangeland?: Protection and Conversion in California’s Rangeland Ecosystems. PLoS ONE, 9(8), e103468.
CASGEM. (2015). California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program. California Department of Water Resources. Sacramento, CA.
Chan, K. M. A., Shaw, M. R., Cameron, D. R., Underwood, E. C., & Daily, G. C. (2006). Conservation Planning for Ecosystem Services. PLoS Biology, 4(11), e379.
Cheatum, M., Casey, F., Alvarez, P., & Parkhurst, B. (2011). Payments for ecosystem services: a California rancher perspective. Retrieved from
http://defenders.jacksonriverdev.com/sites/default/files/publications/payments_for_ecos ystem_services_a_california_rancher_perspective.pdf
Costanza, R., d’ Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Paruelo, J. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature,
387(6630), 253–260.
Dahlgren, R. A., Singer, M. J., & Huang, X. (1997). Oak Tree and Grazing Impacts on Soil Properties and Nutrients in a California Oak Woodland. Biogeochemistry, 39(1), 45–64. Daniels, T. L. (1991). The Purchase of Development Rights: Preserving Agricultural Land
and Open Space. Journal of the American Planning Association, 57(4), 421–431. Fleischner, T. L. (1994). Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America.
Conservation Biology, 8(3), 629–644.
FMMP. (2010). Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. California Department of Conservation. Sacramento, CA.
FRAP. (2013). Fire and Resource Assessment Program. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Sacramento, CA.
Freilich, J. E., Emlen, J. M., Duda, J. J., Freeman, D. C., & Cafaro, P. J. (2003). Ecological effects of ranching: a six-point critique. BioScience, 53(8), 759–765.
GIN. (2014). California Protected Areas Database. San Francisco, CA: GreenInfo Network. Goldstein, J. H., Presnall, C. K., López-Hoffman, L., Nabhan, G. P., Knight, R. L., Ruyle, G.
B., & Toombs, T. P. (2011). Beef and Beyond: Paying for Ecosystem Services on Western US Rangelands. Rangelands, 33(5), 4–12.
Grismer, M., & Asato, C. (2012). Converting oak woodland or savanna to vineyards may stress groundwater supply in summer. California Agriculture, 66(4), 144–152.
Havstad, K. M., Peters, D. P. C., Skaggs, R., Brown, J., Bestelmeyer, B., Fredrickson, E., … Wright, J. (2007). Ecological services to and from rangelands of the United States.
Ecological Economics, 64(2), 261–268.
Hayes, G. F., & Holl, K. D. (2003). Cattle Grazing Impacts on Annual Forbs and Vegetation Composition of Mesic Grasslands in California. Conservation Biology, 17(6), 1694– 1702.
Heaton, E., & Merenlender, Adina M. (2000). Modeling vineyard expansion, potential habitat fragmentation. California Agriculture, 54(3), 12–19.
Hoekstra, J. M., Boucher, T. M., Ricketts, T. H., & Roberts, C. (2004). Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection: Confronting a biome crisis.
Ecology Letters, 8(1), 23–29.
Holechek, J. L., Baker, T. T., & Boren, J. C. (2004). Impacts of controlled grazing versus
grazing exclusion: what we have learned (No. 57). Las Cruces: New Mexico State
University.
Huntsinger, L., Johnson, M., Stafford, M., & Fried, J. (2010). Hardwood rangeland landowners in California from 1985 to 2004: production, ecosystem services, and permanence. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 63(3), 324–334.
Johnston, V. R. (1994). California forests and woodlands : a natural history. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Knight, R. L., Wallace, G. N., & Riebsame, W. E. (1995). Ranching the View: Subdivisions versus Agriculture. Conservation Biology, 9(2), 459–461.
Kumar, M., & Kumar, P. (2008). Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective. Ecological Economics, 64(4), 808–819.
Knight, R. L., W. C. Gilgert, and E. Marston, eds. 2002. Ranching West of the 100th Meridian. Chap. 7. Island Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 147-160.
Larsen, R. E., Krueger, W. C., George, M. R., Barrington, M. R., Buckhouse, J. C., & Johnson, D. E. (1998). Viewpoint: Livestock influences on riparian zones and fish habitat: Literature classification. Journal of Range Management, 661–664.
Liffmann, R. H., Huntsinger, L., & Forero, L. C. (2000). To Ranch or Not to Ranch: Home on the Urban Range? Journal of Range Management, 53(4), 362.
Loeser, M. R. R., Sisk, T. D., & Crews, T. E. (2007). Impact of Grazing Intensity during Drought in an Arizona Grassland. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 87–97.
Lubell, M. N., Cutts, B. B., Roche, L. M., Hamilton, M., Derner, J. D., Kachergis, E., & Tate, K. W. (2013). Conservation Program Participation and Adaptive Rangeland Decision- Making. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 66(6), 609–620.
Maestas, J. D., Knight, R. L., & Gilgert, W. C. (2001). Biodiversity and land-use change in the American mountain west. Geographical Review, 91(3), 509–524.
Maestas, J. D., Knight, R. L., & Gilgert, W. C. (2003). Biodiversity across a rural land-use gradient. Conservation Biology, 17(5), 1425–1434.
Marty, J. T. (2005). Effects of Cattle Grazing on Diversity in Ephemeral Wetlands.
Conservation Biology, 19(5), 1626–1632.
Ma, Z., & Coppock, D. L. (2012). Perceptions of Utah ranchers toward carbon sequestration: Policy implications for US rangelands. Journal of Environmental Management, 111, 78–86.
Merenlender, A. M., Huntsinger, L., Guthey, G., & Fairfax, S. K. (2004). Land Trusts and Conservation Easements: Who Is Conserving What for Whom? Conservation Biology,
MEA, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-
being: general synthesis : a report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Mitchell, J. E., Knight, R. L., & Camp, R. J. (2002). Landscape attributes of subdivided ranches. Rangelands Archives, 24(1), 3–9.
Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, Dr., … Shaw, Mr. (2009). Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 7(1), 4–11.
Newburn, D., Reed, S., Berck, P., & Merenlender, A. (2005). Economics and Land-Use Change in Prioritizing Private Land Conservation. Conservation Biology, 19(5), 1411– 1420.
Noss, R. F. (1994). Editorial: cows and conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 8(3). Oates, L. G., Jackson, R. D., & Allen-Diaz, B. (2008). Grazing removal decreases the
magnitude of methane and the variability of nitrous oxide emissions from spring-fed wetlands of a California oak savanna. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 16(5), 395– 404.
Ordinance No. 3246. (n.d.).
Papanastasis, V. P. (2009). Restoration of Degraded Grazing Lands through Grazing Management: Can It Work? Restoration Ecology, 17(4), 441–445.
Polasky, S., Nelson, E., Pennington, D., & Johnson, K. A. (2011). The Impact of Land-Use Change on Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity and Returns to Landowners: A Case Study in the State of Minnesota. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48(2), 219– 242.
Rissman, A. R., Reiner, R., & Merenlender, A. M. (2007). Monitoring Natural Resources on Rangeland Conservation Easements: Who’s minding the easement? Rangelands, 29(3), 21–26.
San Luis Obispo County. Board of Supervisors. (2013). Ordinance No. 3246.
San Luis Obispo County Department of Agriculture, W. and M. (n.d.). Annual Crop Report. Retrieved from http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/agcomm/Crop_Reports.htm
Sayre, N. F. (2004). Viewpoint: The Need for Qualitative Research to Understand Ranch Management. Journal of Range Management, 57(6), 668–674.
Sheridan, T. E. (2007). Embattled Ranchers, Endangered Species, and Urban Sprawl: The Political Ecology of the New American West. Annual Review of Anthropology, 36, 121–138.
Silver, W. L., Ryals, R., & Eviner, V. (2010). Soil Carbon Pools in California’s Annual Grassland Ecosystems. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 63, 128–136.
Sleeter, B. M., Wilson, T. S., Soulard, C. E., & Liu, J. (2011). Estimation of late twentieth century land-cover change in California. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,
173(1-4), 251–266.
Smith, H. F., & Sullivan, C. A. (2014). Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes— Farmers’ perceptions. Ecological Economics, 98, 72–80.
Sorice, M. G., Conner, J. R., Kreuter, U. P., & Wilkins, R. N. (2012). Centrality of the Ranching Lifestyle and Attitudes Toward a Voluntary Incentive Program to Protect Endangered Species. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 65(2), 144–152.
Stromberg, M. R., & Griffin, J. R. (1996). Long-Term Patterns in Coastal California in Relation to Cultivation, Gophers, and Grazing. Ecological Applications, 6(4), 1189– 1211.
Theobald, D. M. (2005). Landscape Patterns of Exurban Growth in the USA from 1980 to.
Ecology and Society, 10(1), 32.
WallisDeVries, M. F., & Raemakers, I. (2001). Does Extensive Grazing Benefit Butterflies in Coastal Dunes? Restoration Ecology, 9(2), 179–188.
Wetzel, W. C., Lacher, I. L., Swezey, D. S., Moffitt, S. E., & Manning, D. T. (2012).
Analysis reveals potential rangeland impacts if Williamson Act eliminated. California
Agriculture, 66(4), 131–136.
Wuerthner, G. (1994). Subdivisions versus Agriculture. Conservation Biology, 8(3), 905– 908.