Voluntary Private conservation
Across the West, vibrant communities of landowners with a strong land stewardship ethic are essential to safeguarding the West’s varied ecosystems and open spaces. Voluntary actions by these landowners can be central to the ongoing effort to protect 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. States can build on community-led efforts and support rural communities by investing in programs that promote voluntary conservation.
What is private conservation?
The primary form of long-term private land conservation is conservation easements, which are incredibly popular across the West. Conservation easements are voluntary, permanent agreements by a landowner to give up or limit further development rights on a property, preserving their right and access to the land while protecting the property’s conservation value. Owners are typically paid for placing their land under easement, or receive other incentives such as tax credits.
To create conservation easements, landowners contract with either a government agency or a nonprofit organization called a land trust. The agency or land trust acquires and holds the easement, meaning that they assume responsibility for ensuring that the easement terms are upheld and for stewarding the land.
Easement programs have been incredibly successful at conserving land while supporting landowners and providing them financial flexibility. Other non-permanent forms of private conservation focus on habitat restoration, providing ecosystem services, and promoting landscape connectivity, all of which also benefit biodiversity.
Why private conservation?
Private lands will play a key role in ensuring that the 30x30 effort results in protected landscapes with functional ecosystems. Currently, only 3% of protected areas are on privately owned land, resulting in the development of private lands at a disproportionately high rate. The loss of private lands is particularly alarming due to the fact that natural private lands often contain key habitat: the things that make them good habitat—such as water, soil, and topography—also make them attractive for development or agricultural use. Such habitat is key to the survival of many species, and will be essential to protecting ecologically functional landscapes.
Private conservation is also a way to center the 30x30 effort toward benefiting local communities and locally-led conservation efforts and priorities. In addition to saving places and species, conservation easements ensure that agricultural lifestyles and culture remain vibrant, tying conservation into the existing fabric of local communities. Indeed, the ability to place land under easement is in many ways the ultimate expression of private land rights and family decision-making. By prioritizing voluntary private conservation, states can direct capital to local communities, increase financial flexibility for struggling landowners, and support agricultural economies while also achieving conservation goals.
Hear how a conservation easement helped an Idaho family protect their land and legacy.
What are states doing?
Easement funding
States can support long-term land protections by providing funding for conservation easements. Most conservation-minded landowners are driven by their stewardship ethic and desire to avoid having land fenced, developed, and stripped of water rights. However, families also need to be compensated for development rights in order to make voluntary private conservation a reality, usually through payment from a land trust or government agency for the value of the conservation easement. Easement incentives and payments also provide financial flexibility for struggling landowners, infusing communities with funds without sacrificing their agricultural character.
Many high-impact easement funding programs are federal, such as the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). Federal programs are incredibly popular, and are often unable to meet landowner demand, pointing to the need for increased federal investment. Most of these programs also require matching funds—state funding is often used as a match to leverage federal dollars. Without dedicated funding to match easement grants, states will lose out on resources that could help revitalize their economies.
Economists have determined that conservation easements have extensive economic benefits for states and communities. In Colorado, state investments in over 2.5 million acres of conservation easements have driven a $4-$12 return for taxpayers, while researchers established that leveraged funds in Wyoming also more than quadrupled their investment value over a ten-year timeframe.
Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, and Utah have strong sources of funding for easements. Colorado has significant funding in the form of the Great Outdoors Colorado program, which has made grants for conservation easement acquisition every year since 1995, including funding for stewardship endowment, transactional costs, and administrative funding. Colorado’s Wildlife Habitat Stamp has also been used to protect 253,000 acres since 2007, primarily via easements through the Colorado Wildlife Habitat Program (CWHP).
Habitat Montana helps support the strong private conservation community, providing funding for easements for over 40 years.
Montana has a robust form of easement funding through the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) Habitat Montana Program for public-private land conservation, which has protected nearly half a million acres through conservation easements over the past 35 years. In the past, Montana had additional dedicated funding for easements through the Agricultural Heritage Program, which protected 16,540 acres. However, the program’s authority expired in 2003.
The Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resources Trust (WWNRT) invested over $27 million in conservation easements between 2005 and 2018. Conservation easements are especially popular within the state, partially as a result of effective collaboration and communication between willing landowners, state agencies, and land trusts.
Utah’s LeRay McAllister Critical Lands Conservation Fund helped a Utah family protect over 2,000 acres for the next generation.
Utah’s LeRay McAllister Critical Lands Conservation Fund made grants of over $22 million to restore or conserve more than 90,000 acres between 1999 and 2016. However, funding for the program is allocated in a per-year appropriation, making it difficult for partners to rely on program funding from year to year. Deals for conservation easements often take years rather than months, and increased surety would enable more projects to move forward. Additionally, a quirk of the program is that acquired easements must be held by a state entity rather than a certified land trust. There is broad agreement within Utah that this element of the program should be changed, providing an opportunity to expand the program’s potential without increasing funding.
Since 80% of Nevada’s lands are federally managed and most of the remaining acres are privately owned, the Nevada Department of Wildlife sometimes uses its conservation bond allocations to leverage funding for conservation easements. Although original bond funding ran out before many easement projects were done, there is now an opportunity for additional work to resume after reauthorization of the program. The state should prioritize getting the program back up and running swiftly in order to support local land trusts and capitalize on leveraged federal funds.
Most states in the West have some easement funding through state land and wildlife management agency general funds or smaller reserves. However, most of these funds are spread thin across agency priorities, and are used for easements less often than funds in programs like those highlighted in Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, and Utah. An example of one of these programs is the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s Heritage Fund, which was only recently changed to include conservation easements as an acceptable use of funding.
Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, and New Mexico all lack significant sources of state funding for conservation easements. In the past, New Mexico had the New Mexico Natural Heritage Conservation Program, while Arizona had a State Parks Heritage Fund; however, both programs are no longer active due to a lack of funding. In Idaho and Nevada, a first priority should be to establish the infrastructure for a state funding source (such as that in New Mexico and Arizona), meaning that funds could be allocated in the future when available. All four of these states would benefit dramatically from increasing their financial investment in long-term conservation efforts by private landowners, bringing extensive economic benefits into local communities.
State land and wildlife management agencies also regularly support voluntary private conservation efforts through significant funding and investment in restoration and habitat improvement projects. Although such work does not permanently protect land, it improves habitat for both landowner use and wildlife, making important strides toward protecting America’s biodiversity.
Conservation tax incentives
Another way that state governments can encourage voluntary long-term private conservation is through tax incentives such as conservation tax credits. Tax credit programs encourage the donation of land or easements to state agencies and land trusts in exchange for tax credits against a landowner’s state income tax liability, making conservation a more affordable and attractive option for landowners. States without incentive programs can promote private conservation by assessing whether creating conservation tax credit programs and additional easement incentives makes sense for their unique tax environment.
Of Western states, only Colorado and New Mexico have implemented conservation tax credit systems. These programs can dramatically increase the efficiency of private conservation, as tax credit deals often take significantly less time to complete than funded deals. Colorado’s program has been hugely successful since its inception in 2000 (despite some criticisms): over 2.2 million acres have been permanently protected in Colorado using state tax credits. Colorado tax credits are valued at 75% of the first $100,000 of the donated easement’s value and 50% of any remaining donated value up to a maximum of $5 million per individual donation. The overall tax credit program is currently capped at $45 million annually, although the program is rarely fully leveraged. As of early 2021, Colorado has the opportunity to improve its tax credit program by passing House Bill 1233, which would increase the credit value to up to 90% of the donated fair market value of the easement, improving equity and enabling more complete leverage of the program. In New Mexico, tax credits are only worth 50% of the easement donation value, with a maximum value of $250,000. By increasing tax credit value for donated easements, New Mexico could support agricultural families and communities. Both Colorado and New Mexico conservation tax credits can be carried forward by 20 years and are transferable, increasing flexibility for landowners by allowing the credits to be sold.
An example of another form of a tax incentive is the Wildlife Habitat Exemption in Idaho. This tax exemption allows conservation easements of at least 15 years to be taxed at their previous agricultural value. In Idaho, taxed agricultural value tends to be decreased as a result of the Idaho Agricultural Exemption. On the other hand, in Montana, state law says that conservation easements cannot reduce property taxes, decreasing opportunities for tax incentives to play a role in incentivizing private conservation efforts.
Transparency and impact
Most states across the West have a need for enhanced easement data collection and centralization for the purposes of transparency, measuring conservation progress, and assessing the impact of state programs. Indeed, there is anecdotal evidence of states losing or not having access to easement data, making it difficult to determine the total number of acres under conservation easement. As a result, many states cannot adequately measure progress toward conservation goals or ensure that land already protected is properly stewarded. Even if data is not made publicly available, states have a responsibility to keep track of easements and assess the associated return on investment provided by state-sponsored programs.
Montana is the only state in the West where conservation easement reporting is mandatory. The requirement is the result of 2007 legislation following an audit that found a lack of transparency regarding easements held by both land trusts and the state. Data is centralized by the Department of Revenue.
Some states have made strides toward improved transparency and data centralization, while others still have a need to improve. In Colorado, the state supports the Colorado Ownership, Management, and Protection (COMaP) service, a project of Colorado State University that works to map protected lands, including easements, across the state. In Utah, there is an opportunity to create a position within the Department of Natural Resources to administer, develop, and coordinate easement data. Similar positions or collected databases would be useful within all states that do not currently have a system for coordinating and centralizing easement data.
The COMaP service helps coordinate conservation efforts within the state of Colorado. To view an interactive version of the map, visit the website and sign up.
Expanding the toolbox
There is a significant opportunity for Western states to lead the way with creative options to further promote voluntary private conservation.
One opportunity lies in working to value easements in a new way. Currently, conservation easements in areas with little to no development pressure have minimal value: easements are valued at the difference between the value of the potentially developed land and the value of the land in its current condition. The current valuation method cuts out the financial appeal of an easement for otherwise willing landowners and reduces the ability to protect land that is ecologically valuable. Through incorporating biodiversity credits, carbon markets, or ecosystem service evaluation into easements or similar mechanisms, private conservation efforts could take into account the true value of protected land and increase opportunities for conservation.
Colorado’s tax credit incentive enables private conservation practitioners to explore solutions to this problem. One proposed option would be for the state to add an alternative method of easement tax credit valuation via legislative change, which would allow a conservation easement to be assessed for conservation values on the property rather than the loss of development rights that a landowner gives up. Such a change would dramatically increase opportunities for voluntary private conservation in less developed areas of Colorado and support rural communities. However, this solution would make landowners ineligible for the federal easement tax deduction, limiting opportunities to effectively implement similar changes in states without incentive programs.
Private land conservation efforts are often fragmented. Through cohesive strategies, principles, and planning methods, states can better coordinate and prioritize investments in private conservation across the landscape. Colorado state agencies and programs such as Great Outdoors Colorado, the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife have supported the ongoing creation of a nonprofit-led Statewide Private Lands Conservation Plan, which seeks to fill this gap.
States also have an opportunity to mesh conservation science with private conservation by working to create additional incentives for voluntary conservation within key habitat areas. For example, the Montana state legislature created the Montana Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Program in 2015, providing a grant opportunity for conservation projects, including conservation easements, in designated greater sage-grouse habitat. In Wyoming, the first state to implement wildlife movement corridor designations, there is an opportunity to explore options for targeted landowner incentives within migration corridors.
Flexible and dynamic opportunities for private conservation will be key to reaching the 30x30 goal in a rapidly changing world. Some practitioners have suggested solutions such as habitat leases to meet these needs. Habitat leases are long-term contracts on the scale of decades that compensate landowners for the ecological benefits provided by existing habitat on private land.
Another example of a flexible private conservation initiative is Nevada’s Conservation Credit System (CCS). Through a system of buying and selling conservation credits and development debits, the state’s CCS for the sagebrush ecosystem creates new incentives for private landowners to preserve and restore critical lands. Through a market-based system, the program has offset over 15,000 acres of direct disturbance to sagebrush habitat with over 114,000 acres of voluntary conservation agreements with private landowners.
Takeaways
Voluntary private conservation is incredibly popular in the West, where many landowners have a strong stewardship ethic. Some Western states successfully promote long-term private conservation through tax incentives and dedicated funding for easements, but such efforts could be dramatically expanded through increased funding and additional incentives. As a result, states would inject capital into rural communities, increase financial options for struggling landowners, support agricultural economies, empower land stewards already protecting vulnerable landscapes, and multiply returns on investment. Throughout the process, states should collect and centralize easement data wherever possible in order to assess the impacts of their investments.
Traditional voluntary private conservation mechanisms, such as easements, will be key to protecting 30% of America by 2030. But states also have options to get creative to promote more effective and ambitious conservation that will benefit landowners while expanding private conservation and stewardship. Flexible conservation mechanisms like habitat leases, coordinated planning to prioritize investments, increased incentives for conserving key habitats, and valuation of easements based on ecological metrics are all opportunities to improve the on-the-ground impact of state conservation efforts.
