Land Use Incentives and Programs to
Conserve Wildlife Habitat on Privately Owned Land in the Greater Yellowstone
Area
Authored by: Ragina Smith and Morgan
Nichols
o
Conservation
Programs on Private Lands
- Challenges to Incentive
Tools and Program Implementation
- Actual World – Incentives and
Programs in GYE
- Growth Management Tools –
GYE
- Conservation Programs on
Private Lands – GYE
- Additional Land
Protection - GYE
- References
Introduction
As the land immediately
surrounding the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem experiences growth, both in terms
of population and development, it becomes increasingly more important for
private landowners to abide by similar conservation standards as their
neighbors. Privately owned land
contains some of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem’s most critical habit for
biodiversity and migration, however, all too many critical areas are threatened
by human development and impacts. Government actions such as the Endangered
Species Act and land zoning laws succeed only in discouraging conservation
efforts. Thus far, local governments,
community groups, non-governmental agencies and private landowners have focused
on three main methods of conserving wildlife on private land. The first is to control urban sprawl by
encouraging cluster developments, growth boundaries, subdivision regulations
and other growth
management tools. The second
is to encourage landowners to manage
private lands for wildlife habitat by providing monetary incentives.
The final conservation method has been the purchase and/or exchange of lands specifically
with habitat conservation and management in mind.
Including three states, two national parks, seven national forests, and twenty-two counties, GYE represents some of the most critical habitat and some of the fastest growing areas in the countries. This map shows the GYE with their respective growth rates from 1990 to 1999.
Back to top
An Ideal World – General Land Use Incentives and Programs
What follows is a list of ‘Ideal’ land use
incentives and programs we have identified to be the most important to conserve
habitat. These programs and incentives
are not necessarily in effect in the GYE, but exist elsewhere in the country,
and could be implemented in the GYE with
success.
Urban Sprawl – What can be done to mitigate impacts of land
conversion on habitat?
The effects of urban sprawl
on habitat have been known and documented for over a decade. We invite you to visit the Wildland
development section of this website to learn more. As populations surrounding Yellowstone
National Park grow, development spreads to areas
of critical
habitat and migration. This can lead to
overuse of existing habitats, species declination and even extinction. Curbing urban sprawl is one of the three
most concentrated efforts for wildlife and habitat conservation. Several specific growth management tools are
listed as follows;
- Self-zoning Districts[1] – These are areas that
local community groups or private landowners want to protect as critical
habitat and migratory ranges. Conservation rules and restrictions on
development are imposed and abided by on a volunteer basis. These can be very effective because of
a general agreement on behalf of the landowners on the terms of
regulations, and so strict enforcement is not necessary. GYE Example
- Citizen Involvement in Growth Management Plan Development – The involvement of citizens and local private landowners is important to any management plan. Without local compliance and input, any plan drafted is likely to receive resentment and controversy when approached. Local involvement can be in the form of attendance to city council or county commission meetings, reading drafted plans and ordinances, and education of local citizens regarding current issues. Citizens and landowners may also volunteer for positions in local government to be sure their voice is heard.
Tax Incentives – Tax incentives can
be in the form of tax breaks for conservation or increases for
development. States including
Idaho, Montana and Wyoming allow for the “differential Assessment” of farm
and timberlands. This means that
landowners pay taxes based on current output, and not the speculative
value of development and real estate.
This encourages owners to keep lands as ranches, farmlands and
timberlands, rather than taking advantage of sky-high real estate
prices. In Vermont, a real estate
transfer tax, imposed on those who convert farm and ranch land into developments,
is being used to fund open space acquisition. Not only does this discourage the conversion of vital lands,
but it also funds conservation.
Tax incentives can also include breaks for owners who comply with strict
environmental standards, and those who set aside conservation easements or otherwise manage
their land with conservation in mind. - Transfer or Purchase of Development Rights – An area has a finite
number of development rights. Once
that area exhausts those rights, development can no longer continue. However,
any area that has
maintained their development rights may be developed upon. King County, Washington, Gallatin
County, Montana and Teton County, Idaho in particular have established a
system of transferring or purchasing development rights from those wishing
land to remain undeveloped, to those who wish to increase
development. In this way, land
that sells its development rights can remain undeveloped eternally, while
urban areas can increase development, keeping it in a clustered formation
and decreasing urban sprawl. - Density Bonuses – These can include tax breaks or relaxed
zoning standards. They are awarded
to developers who build homes in a
density of usually greater than one per 20-35 acres. This avoids the “ranchette” and concentrates human impact to
specific developed areas.
·
Subdivision Regulations – Usually in the form of laws or ordinances,
subdivision regulations ensure that land that is subdivided is done so at
appropriate densities, and that critical agriculture, ranch or habitat land is
not subdivided at all.
·
Cluster Development – Along the same lines as Density Bonuses and Subdivision Regulations,
tax incentives can be made to encourage cluster development, or development at
a very high density over small land area.
These cluster developments can provide for a “freckled” landscape rather
that one whose entire area has been affected by development.
·
Open Space Bonds – Communities can pass Open Space Bonds to direct tax monies towards
the purchase of critical habitat.
Back
to top
Conservation Programs on
Private Lands
Incentives
for Conservation - What can be done to encourage landowners to manage private
lands, ranches and ranchettes for the benefit of wildlife?
As development spreads across
the GYE, it becomes increasingly important that not only lands owned by the
government and governmental agencies are managed for the benefit of wildlife,
but also the backyard of John Q. Taxpayer.
Wildlife knows no political boundary, no ownership or property line, and
Yellowstone National Park itself is not large enough to include all migration
areas and critical habitat. As the
far-sighted ecologist Aldo Leopold wrote in 1949,
“Even the National parks,
which run up to a million acres each in size, have not been large enough to
retain their natural predators, or to exclude animal diseases carried by
livestock. Thus Yellowstone has lost is
wolves and cougars, with the result that elk are ruining the flora,
particularly on the winter range”. [2]
The frequency of human-wildlife interactions
increases with each subdivision, as more and more humans move into land that
once belonged to nature. All of the
efforts that governments, landowners and conservation groups have made will have
been for nothing if private landowners discourage wildlife on their lands. There are several alternatives for the
encouragement of private landowners to manage private lands for the benefit of
wildlife.
·
Conservation Easements – A landowner may set
aside a portion of their land as a conservation easement. Conservation easements may not be developed
or used in any way that is not compliant with wildlife conservation. However, conservation easements may also
allow for considerable property tax breaks.
These are effective when a private landowner possesses a quantity of
land which is either no longer needed or subdividing is in consideration. It is a way to keep the land in ownership,
without losing money in the form of property tax.
·
Subsidy Programs –
Landowners may receive governmental subsidies for complying with strict
management plans or allowing for recreation on private land holdings. GYE Example
·
Hunting, Fishing and
Recreation Alliances – Organizations such as Operation
Stronghold and Ranching
for Wildlife promote recreation on private lands. A hunter, fisher or other recreationist pays
a yearly membership fee to recreate on a number of private lands. The owners of those lands receive a stipend
from the organization to compensate for property damage and reduced privacy. This has been successful in encouraging
landowners to manage habitats for fish, elk and other wildlife, thus increasing
recreation opportunities. GYE Example
·
Non-governmental
Compensation – An example of non-governmental compensation
includes the Wilderness Society. The Wilderness
Society provides compensation to ranchers who lose livestock to wolves. If a ranch owner can provide proof of a
livestock fatality due to wolf predation, the Wilderness Society will provide
that owner with compensation equaling the market value of the animal
killed. This gives some assurance to
ranchers that they will not lose financially due to the reintroduction of
wolves. Please see the Wolf
section of this web site for more information on the reintroduction of wolves.
·
Governmental Compensation /
Federal Subsidies - Federal Subsidy Programs allocate millions of
federal dollars, used to subsidize private landowners and encourage them to
protect open space and wildlife habitat and become responsible stewards of
their environmentally sensitive agricultural and forest lands
Back
to top
Land
Acquisition and
Exchange – What can be done to protect critical habitat?[3]
Much of the land
protection in the GYE thus far has been in the form of purchases of large
amounts of land by non-governmental agencies, governmental agencies and private
landowners.
·
Land Purchases by Non-governmental Agencies – Conservation groups,
not-for-profit organizations and other non-governmental agencies have made
impressive steps towards habitat conservation with the purchase of thousands of
acres of critical habitat. Examples
include the Nature
Conservancy and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. GYE Example
·
Governmental Agencies – Rather than purchase lands,
most public agencies trade lands with other agencies in order to consolidate
the checkerboard pattern left over by America’s first railroads. Consolidating lands ensures that large areas
are being managed uniformly.
· Private landowners – Many private landowners and citizens that can afford to have purchased large, contiguous tracks of land that increase habitat networks and decrease habitat fragmentation. These citizens include many influential celebrities such as Ted Turner and Rick Schroder. Ted Turner's property has the largest conservation easement in the nation (about 22,000 acres), which he has coordinated through the Nature Conservancy, located in the Gallatin Valley at the base of the Spanish Peaks. Additionally, he offers many grants to other private landowners through the "Turner Foundation" to be put towards habitat preservation.[4] To learn more about Ted Turner’s contribution please see www.turnerfoundation.org/turner/.
Back to top
Challenges to Incentive Tools and Program
Implementation
The
striking fact that has been discovered in the writing of this site, is that many
incentive tools and programs do not exist in the GYE. Many programs that do exist are still in an infancy stage, and
hold little influence over practices on private lands. Due to efforts of governmental agencies,
wildlife is largely seen as a liability and a nuisance, and private landowners
are finding it much easier to sterilize the land than to comply with wildlife
standards. The Endangered Species Act
for example may protect many endangered and threatened species in the United
States, but it also holds landowners financially responsible for species found
on their land. Many landowners are
finding it easier and cheaper to plow their land under, ensuring no endangered
species would ever want to live there, than to comply with ESA
regulations. ESA regulations do however
provide funds for the protection of endangered species that may move onto
private lands while under private ownership, thereby not punishing landowners
for improving habitat such that they attract endangered species. Many governmental zoning laws however do
not, and discourage landowners from permitting wildlife on their land. This occurs when landowners are penalized by
the government for improving habitat. “Dayton Hyde, [creator of Operation
Stronghold], experienced such a problem after putting 25 percent of his ranch
into marshes for wildlife, initiating research on the sandhill crane, and
building a lake with three and a half miles of shore line for wildlife”2. After creating all of this, government
inspectors determined he possessed critical riparian habitat on his property,
and rezoned his land to disallow development and other rights, decreasing the
value of his property. Essentially, Mr.
Hyde was penalized for creating and maintain habitat, which discouraged his
neighbors from doing the same.
Another reason for
discouraging wildlife is the possibility for improving recreation on private
land. If a rancher improves stream
habitat by keeping cattle away from stream banks, he may increase fish numbers,
but he may also increase the numbers of fisherman on his land. Unless the benefits outweigh the costs,
private landowners are unlikely to allow this recreation on their land. With liability for the trespassers, lack of
privacy, destruction by recreationists of their lands and holdings and danger
to their primary livelihood, most ranchers, farmers and other private
landowners are unlikely to desire recreationists on their lands. Many programs such as Ranching for Wildlife,
Operation Stronghold, and Private Ranchers of Montana Inc. provide liability
insurance, a regular stipend from membership fees, and enforcement of strict
rules including gate closing, abiding by closed areas, and trash pick-up. These incentives help landowners to offset
the negatives of allowing for recreation, and encourage them to begin managing
for recreation by increasing wildlife numbers.
These programs have gone far to make wildlife management more attractive
to private landowners, but the liabilities and the deterrents still outweigh
the benefits for private landowners in the GYE.[5]
Back to top
Actual World – Land Use
Incentives and Programs Currently in Use in GYE
This section introduces a few key habitat conservation
programs defined earlier in the “Ideal World” section that are currently in
place in the GYE. Several short case studies have been included to illustrate
representative participants and their resulting successes.
Citizen Petitioned Zoning Districts
Representative
Participants
Gallatin
County, Montana is the most active region participating in citizen
self-zoning districts. More detailed program information can be acquired
directly from their website. Additional active planning offices include
Flathead and Yellowstone Counties.
Gallatin County is one of
the highest development growth areas in the state of Montana. Currently, there
are no countywide zoning policies in place. As a result, private landowners
have taken the lead in preserving their natural resources and wildlife habitat
by establishing citizen petitioned zoning districts. A district can be created
when 60% of the property owners in a designated area agree to zone. In Gallatin
County there are currently 16 of these districts, the boundaries of which are
established by geographic and political determinants. The three most successful
districts in this region are Spring Hill, Middle Cottonwood, and Bridger
Canyon. Each is listed below with their different planning goals[6].
·
Spring Hill District – This plan was designed
around agriculture and rural preservation. To preserve habitat, resident
density is kept at one home per 160 acres.
·
Middle Cottonwood District – This plan was designed to
protect mule deer winter range. Resident density varies throughout the
district, dependent upon where it is located within the range. (click here
to view Middle Cottonwood’s zoning regulations document.)
·
Bridger Canyon District – This plan was designed to
preserve outdoor recreation opportunities. Resident density varies. (click here
to view Bridger Canyon’s development plan and here
to view the zoning regulations document)
Gallatin
County Case Study: Middle Cottonwood District– Self-Zoning to Protect Mule Deer
Winter Range[7]
In the early 1990’s, residents of the Middle
Cottonwood District became concerned that the influx of newcomers to Gallatin
County would not only change the nature of their community but would also
forever alter the wilderness habitat. In an attempt to avert future disaster,
residents launched a dynamic grassroots effort to save the way of life for them
and the wildlife that inhabit the region. Forming a citizen committee and
working 
closely with the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks,
it was determined that preservation of mule deer winter range should be the
emphasis of the plan. Once the external geographical boundaries of the district
were established, a line was drawn within to define critical mule deer habitat.
North of this line is now considered critical habitat, south of the line not as
critical. To minimize impact on the deer, 1 home per 40 acres is zoned for
north of the line. South of the line, increased density is allowed at 1 home per
20 acres. To additionally protect critical habitat, a transfer of development
rights incentive program (see definition in Growth Management Tools section)
was developed with the assistance of Gallatin County. The TDR program allows
landowners north of the line to sell their development rights to landowners who
are located south of the line; northern landowners in turn receive a double
development credit.
Back to top
Conservation Programs on Private Lands - GYE
Representative
Participants
Specific details about programs in the Yellowstone
Region can be acquired from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) or local Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) and Farm Services Agency (FSA)
offices.
In April 1996 Congress enacted a revised Farm Bill
that improved existing conservation programs to create new opportunities to
protect critical wildlife habitat on private land. These programs provide
cost-share and incentive payments to participating landowners with a limit of
$50,000 over the life of the contract and have been incredibly successful to
conserving habitat in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Farm Bill programs
include the Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program,
Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program, Environmental Quality
Incentives Program, Environmental Easement Program, and Farm and Ranch
Protection Programs. Specific wildlife targeted opportunities include:
Wildlife
Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) –
The WHIP program helps landowners improve wildlife habitat on their lands.
Cost-share payments are made to landowners who are willing to develop habitat
for threatened and endangered species as well as upland, wetland wildlife and
fish habitat.
Partners for
Wildlife Program (PWP) - The PWP
program is administered by the FWS and results in partnerships between private
landowners and state and federal agencies. These partnerships result in
restoration and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat. The FWS provides
technical assistance and a cost share of almost 100%. Eligible activities for
the program include construction of nest sites, planting of native and riparian
vegetation, restoration of wetlands and adjustment to grazing plans.[8]
State Easement Programs
Representative
Participants
For more information, contact the any of the following
three State wildlife departments: Idaho
Fish and Game, Wyoming
Game and Fish, and the Montana Fish,
Wildlife and Parks.
To protect critical open space and wildlife habitat
the three states in the Yellowstone region (Idaho, Wyoming and Montana) have
allocated funding to purchase titles and easements or to exchange state lands
with private lands. The State usually gives precedence to securing big game
winter range, protecting habitat for waterfowl and ensuring long-term fishing
access. Revenues for these programs are generally generated from the sale of
fishing and hunting licenses.
Habitat
Montana
Of the three states, Montana is at the forefront of
conservation efforts. Unfortunately, Wyoming and Idaho have not yet established
equivalent easement programs. Through this highly successful program Montana
has conserved many important habitat areas in the Yellowstone region, including
elk and bighorn sheep winter range in the Bridger Mountains and Paradise Valley
and rangeland in Madison Valley. The conservation easement program was
established in 1987 by the state legislature under House Bill 526. This law
earmarks a portion of fees collected from hunting licenses to be used for
conserving wildlife habitat on private lands through leases, easements or
outright purchase. The primary goal of Habitat Montana is to protect at least
10% of each of three specific habitat types. Targeted habitat falls into three
seriously threatened major habitat types including: riparian areas, intermountain
grasslands and sagebrush grasslands. These habitat types are home to species
such as Mountain Plover, Ferruginous Hawk, Sage Grouse, Black-tailed Prairie
Dog, Richardson's Ground Squirrel, and Black-footed Ferret. State officials and
savvy landowners are learning to design deals that maximize public and private
benefits while costing little to taxpayers.
Habitat
Montana Case Study: Rangeland Habitat Preservation
Under Habitat Montana, a retiring landowner in Powder
River County wanted his 35,000 acre ranch protected in perpetuity from
subdivision and preserved for hunting. Through a series of negotiations, the
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks was able secure a 30,000 acre conservation
easement with the retiring landowner and a neighboring ranch owner in Valley
County. In this scenario, all parties ended up satisfied - the Valley County
landowner received cash payments as well as thousands of acres of additional
range for his livestock and the state secured agreements for range management
improvements, pesticide reduction and public access for hunting.
Wildlife
Benefits: This rangeland easement
contains critical sage grassland habitat crucial to the survival of the
endangered Sage Grouse. Additionally, this type of terrain provides habitat for
seasonal and year-round resident species. Year-round, grouse, pronghorn
antelope, coyotes, and several raptor species inhabit these areas. Seasonally,
mule deer, elk and bighorn sheep migrate to winter ranges in the valleys. In order to maintain the integrity of this grassland
ecosystem, these easements are becoming ever more important.
Habitat
Montana Case Study: Rangeland
Preservation for Mule Deer
As urban sprawl creeps across the countryside, large
unbroken tracts of habitat are becoming scarcer. 880 acres of important mule
deer winter range in the
Bridger Mountains to the north of Bozeman, Montana, was threatened by
subdivision and development. A conservation easement was put in place to
preserve this grassland habitat as well as to ensure public hunting access. The
landowner received a cash payment and tax deduction, and can be secure in the
knowledge that his property will remain undeveloped.[9]
Representative
Participants
There are a variety of
individuals and organizations developing these type of conservation programs.
Key organizers include the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (Montana Block Management Program), Private Ranches of Montana, Inc. (providing
hunting and fishing access to several large contiguous ranches), the Gallatin
Wildlife Association, and the Milesnick
Ranch.
Hunting/Fishing
Alliance Case Study: The Milesnick Ranch - Belgrade, Montana[10]
Tom
and Mary Kay Milesnick are third-generation Montana ranchers who have created
an economically viable ranch, working in unison with the surrounding ecosystem
and its wildlife inhabitants. In the late 1990’s, the Milesnicks became
concerned that environmentalists might push for regulations on cattle grazing
to protect habitat and water quality. Instead of fighting the inevitable, the
Milesnicks decided to show that recreationists, cattle, and healthy fisheries
can co-exist. They now epitomize success, merging the concepts of maintaining
valuable open space, improving wildlife habitat and natural resources, while
also allowing public access. These
cattle ranchers are most widely known for allowing public fishing access to
portions of the renowned trout filled East Gallatin River that flows through
their property. The Milesnicks charge $50 per day to fish the ranch rivers. As
the 2001 winners of the National Environmental Stewardship Award for Region V
(which includes Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado and Montana)[11]
they have become known as leaders in responsible private land stewardship. They
are improving the GYE and their business through responsible land conservation
practices. Their Gallatin Valley ranch consists of two regions – the Belgrade
place (1,400 acres) and the Livingston place (4,800 acres of mountain pasture),
formed into the Milesnick Recreation Company in 1999. In addition to their
cattle enterprise, hay, grain, fishing, and waterfowl and elk hunting
complement their business endeavors. 
How the Milesnick Ranch functions as part of the GYE[12]
·
The Belgrade unit
primarily provides winter forage areas, public fee fishing and various
waterfowl hunting, serving as the focal point for their riparian corridor
management. The Mountain unit provides migratory regions for elk and also
functions as a timber resource for wildlife habitat and planned timber
harvests.
·
To dramatically improve
range conditions, the Ranch employs a 17-pasture short-duration rest-rotation
cattle grazing system, ranging from ½ to 3 ½ days (with a maximum of five
grazings per pasture per year).
·
The riparian corridors
are carefully managed, only allowing cattle in on a closely monitored cyclical
basis to control noxious weeds. Specific gravel cattle crossings and watering
sites have been created to decrease damage to fish habitat. Controlled access
to the stream bank grass keeps it cropped for anglers and also serves to
maintain bank stability.
·
The flow of the stream
has been changed and deepened for trout habitat, adding in riffles and bends
where it had previously been too shallow and straight.
·
These range management
tactics have increased beef production by 30% while also creating substantial
increases in fish and elk herd populations.
·
To minimize soil
erosion, permanent native vegetation has been established throughout the ranch
system.
·
For further information
about the Milesnicks, please visit www.milesnickrecreation.com.
Back to top
Additional Land Protection - GYE
Land Purchases,
Land Trusts, and Land Exchange
Representative Participants
These non-governmental organizations seek to protect
wildlife habitat in the GYE through a variety of strategies, such as through
land purchase, land trust, and land exchange. The following lists some of the
most active organizations. Land Trust Alliance
Northwest, Montana Land Reliance,
Teton Valley Land Trust, Idaho Nature
Conservancy, Montana
Nature Conservancy, Gallatin
Valley Land Trust, Wyoming Nature
Conservancy, Wyoming
Open Land Project, The Trust for Public Land,
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and other good links.
Land
Protection Case Study: Gallatin County Land Exchange – Partnerships Between
Public and Private Groups to Preserve Big Game Habitat
In order to achieve complete ecosystem protection in
GYE, organizations (governmental and non-governmental) and landowners must work
as a fluid unit to conserve properties that influence communal resources such
as watersheds and rangelands. It is imperative that multilateral agreements
across jurisdictions involve a variety of measures for protection, such as
conservation easements, trusts, and land exchanges. Under the Gallatin Land
Consolidation Act of 1998[13],
it is provided that the exchange of land and other assets, which include timber
harvest rights with the Big Sky Lumber Company, will eventually be included in
the Gallatin National Forest and Deerlodge Forest, Montana. Under an earlier
version of the act, the Taylor Fork Big
Game Habitat Acquistion project evolved.
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, with a grant from
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (a nonprofit natural resource
management organization established by Congress in 1984), was able to acquire
Section 35 in the Taylor Fork drainage basin of the Gallatin River in Gallatin
County[14].
This land was part of an 11,000 acre tract owned by Big Sky Lumber, originally
identified for public acquisition under the Gallatin Range Consolidation and
Protection Act of 1993. The drainage provides important winter range for moose
and the endangered grizzly bear as well as approximately 40% of the Gallatin
elk herd from Yellowstone National Park. Additionally, the drainage serves as a
migration route for huge numbers of elk that spend winters and calve in the
Madison Range. After the purchase, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation gave the
land to the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MDFWP). Management
and ownership of the property by the MDFWP will permanently protect the
wildlife habitat and ensure that future management is coordinated with other
contiguous resource lands. This example illustrates how innovative partnerships
between public and private organizations can work towards successful long term
wildlife habitat protection.
Back to top
