Accreditation Preparation: Start Now by Organizing Policies! The Eagle Valley Land Trust (EVLT), one of the organizations participating in the first round of the Land Trust Accreditation Commission's pilot program, has helped preserve more than 9,000 acres of land in Colorado. Associate Director Jen Scroggins recently shared with the Commission some of what has helped EVLT prepare for the experience of serving as a pilot. "Reviewing and organizing your policies is a great learning experience for your organization and will help tremendously when you get ready to apply for accreditation." Read the full story. Gathering Waters Conservancy can help you organize your policies! Please contact Karen Bassler at karen [at] gatheringwaters.org or 608-251-9131 x 12 to learn more about our program designed to help land trusts review and update your policies and procedures. |
The Stewardship Fund needs your help. Write a letter TODAY to save the Stewardship Fund! Contact your Legislators today about the State Stewardship Fund. The fate of this crucial land conservation program is currently being debated in the Legislature as part of the pending State budget. Find out more at www.gatheringwaters.org/stewardship. |
Gathering Waters Conservancy website survey It has been nearly one year since we updated our website, www.gatheringwaters.org, and we would now like to assess its effectiveness and usability. Would you please take a couple of minutes to answer the following questions regarding your knowledge and use of our website? Thanks!
Please copy and paste these questions into an email and submit your responses by email to Liz Walsh at liz [at] gatheringwaters.org. Thank you for taking the time to provide us with this valuable feedback! |
Deer browsing impacts on forests The following article appeared in Woodland Management, the magazine for members of the Wisconsin Woodland Owners Association. Dear Editor: The Summer, 2006 issue of Woodland Management magazine addressing the impacts of deer on the health of our forests was excellent. I requested but was not permitted to address the hearing of the legislative Forestry Committee that addressed deer browsing impacts on forests. Only invited speakers testified. Had I been allowed to speak, I would have testified: -- Fifty-seven years ago as a graduate student at the University of Michigan School of Forestry, I participated in research on deer browsing impacts on the Ottawa National Forest a few miles from northern Wisconsin. Guess what? Too many deer then meant practically no regeneration of hemlock, yew, cedar, white pine and a host of other tree, shrub and forb species. At the same time, Ernie Swift, Conservation Department Director, and Stan DeBoer completed a survey of deer impacts on forests, and they found other than on the Menominee Indian Reservation, forest regeneration was severely impacted by deer. -- In the 1950s, as a biologist with the Wisconsin Conservation Department, I participated in legislatively mandated annual deer feeding programs to prevent deer starvation in winter deer yards. Guess what? Deer continued to die in spite of our puny efforts. This foolish program not only wasted large sums of sportsmen's money but had disastrous impacts on many precious conifer swamps and the surrounding uplands. -- I started my career as a game manager at Viroqua in 1950. There were practically no deer in the five counties I covered other than along major river corridors. Our big concern then was to convince farmers to get their cows out of the woodlands and to eliminate woodland burning to "green-up the pasture." High deer populations now have the same impacts on forest regeneration as did cows then. -- Thirty-nine years ago (1968) I purchased 220 acres in Richland County. One strong motive was to have quality deer hunting. At the time, there were five deer per square mile. My brother and I had splendid hunting and perhaps every several years would kill a big buck. In those early years my family and I planted thousands of pines, black walnut and wildlife shrubs. Even though the deer herd was increasing, the pine did well but I did have to prune the walnuts in the hope a leader would outgrow the reach of the deer. -- During the last two decades, I have put my emphasis on regenerating oak, as natural regeneration can only occur in spots that deer cannot reach. (To plant pine without using deer guards is out of the question). The deer herd is now some seven fold higher than in 1968. Oak trees are not only an important lumber species,but can be 200-year food patches for the entire biotic community:deer, grouse, turkey, wood ducks and a host of small mammals. My costs for planting are more now than $4 per tree (seedling,labor and protective tubes at $3.25 each). Costs preclude any major effort for oaks across the 220 acres,so I selectively plant in openings or forest edges. When I put wildlife shrub and conifer plantings around the farm house, I must now use 5-foot fence cages. -- Two years ago I had 18 aspen clones clearcut. The goal was clone regeneration for grouse habitat and forest diversity. Guess what? The deer found the fresh green succulent sprouts a splendid summer browse. It remains to be seen if enough suckers can out-grow the deer herd to even maintain the clone, let alone provide cover for grouse. -- My deer hunting journal records that almost 200 deer have been killed during my tenure. I also provide hunting to numerous friends and my neighbors are welcome when we are not hunting. Each hunter is expected to shoot a doe for every buck they kill. In retrospect, I had greater pleasure in hunting hard for a deer when the population was low. We located trails, tracked deer movements studied the land and truly hunted. -- My forestry efforts now consist of modest plantings aiming for a mixed age and species composition and hopefully, with luck, some oak survival. Personal frustrations and the hard labor and costs now limit me. The deer have won. To sum up, deer have greatly reduced any realistic possibility of regenerating and sustaining our once splendid forest ecosystem. Prolific seeders, maple for example, and browse tolerant species will survive but diversity will be lost. Tears should also be shed for the now missing trilliums, forest orchids and a host of other delightful and interesting forbs. What to do? Forest landowners must get involved in setting deer seasons. Use the best science now available (Professor Waller at UW-Madison is an outstanding scientist who has studied the matter for decades). Eliminate baiting. Insist on deer seasons which balance deer numbers with healthy ecosystems. Deer/car collisions and crop damage will be reduced. Importantly, for the deer hunters, the quality of the experience will be enhanced as they learn more about hunting this magnificent game animal and the habitat in which it lives. H.C. "Bud" Jordahl,
Jr. For information on joining WWOA and subscribing to the magazine, contact WWOA, P.O. Box 285, Stevens Point, WI 54481 or visit their website at www.wisconsinwoodlands.org. |
Tall Pines Conservancy Initiates Second Stage PDR on Kieckhefer Property The following article appeared in Tall Pines Conservancy's Winter 2007 newsletter. Tall Pines is happy to report that on December 6, 2006, it initiated the second stage of its Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) project relating to the Kieckhefer family's property. The first stage of the project was completed at the end of 2005, when Tall Pines purchased the development rights covering 43 of the Kieckefer's 65 acres. As a result of that purchase, there is a permanent conservation easement on this environmental corridor which contains woods and farmland. The second stage involved the purchase of a restrictive easement covering the remaining 22 acres of grass and farmland, limiting potential development on this area to no more than 13 houses. TPC has a continuing option to purchase down the development rights over the next ten years to completely restrict development in this area. To keep this option alive, TPC must purchase the development rights to at least one house each year. The Kieckhefer transaction is important for a number of reasons. It permanently restricts development and preserves important environmental and open space qualities in a strategic location. It therefore tends to preserve conservation options in the large open space areas that are next to the Kieckhefer property. The transaction also serves as a model for surrounding communities to use in finding creative ways to preserve the area's rural character. We thank our donors who have made this project possible. To date, the project has required an investment of $600,000. Tall Pines will continue to ask for your support for this long-term project, as we have $200,000 in debt to retire on the first stage of the project, with an additional investment of approximately $100,000 for each of the next ten years in order to fully restrict development on the second-stage parcel. by Jeff Harris |
Building a Robust Membership Program Workshop In just over ten years, Gathering Waters Conservancy has grown from an idea, to a thriving and successful organization with a diverse and widespread membership. Join Sara DeKok, Gathering Waters' Member Relations Director, and Liz Walsh, Operations & Program Coordinator, for a day-long workshop to learn how to build a robust membership program for your conservation organization. This workshop will provide participants with data on national membership trends and will cover recruitment, retention and database management, three aspects critical to a successful membership program. Friday, May 11, 9:00 am - 3:00 pm OR Thursday, May 17, 10:00
am - 4:00 pm Registration is $50 for Land Trust Alliance member land trusts, Prairie State Conservation Coalition members and Gathering Waters Conservancy members and $70 for all others. The fee includes lunch, refreshments and related handouts. The deadlines for registration are May 1, 2007 (for the Illinois workshop) and May 7, 2007 (for the Wisconsin workshop). Register online today. |
| Honoring Conservation Leaders: Call for Nominations It's true that our Awards Celebration is months away, but it's already time to collect nominations for our Land Conservation Leadership Awards. The awards recognizes the outstanding accomplishments of individuals, policy makers, and land trusts who work together to conserve the places that make Wisconsin special. The awards honor the power of committed citizens and offer inspiring examples of conservation success. Visit our webpage for descriptions of past winners. We are seeking nominations for: Land Trust of the Year We invite you to nominate an individual or a land trust that has demonstrated leadership protecting Wisconsin's natural treasures and open lands. For nomination forms and more information about our awards, visit our website. The deadline for nominations is May 26, 2007. |
Help Shape the Future of Farming and Rural Life Registration is now open for the statewide conference, "Our Future, Our Heritage: Agriculture and Rural Life" on May 14-15, 2007 at Monona Terrace, Madison. Registration materials are now posted on the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters website. Yes, we know it's
planting time...but the Future of Farming and Rural Life Conference
is also a time for concerned and responsible citizens to plant seeds for
our collective rural future.
We need your views, your voice, and your vision to explore Wisconsin's rural future. JOIN US BY REGISTERING NOW! The Future of Farming and Rural Life in Wisconsin is
the current Wisconsin Idea public policy program of the Wisconsin Academy
of Sciences, Arts and Letters. |
Ask
an Attorney Q: Does the exclusion from the Gross Estate provided in Section 2031(c), Internal Revenue Code, apply in the case of a bargain sale of the related conservation easement? A: Although there is no specific authority that it does, and although it may seem somewhat counter-intuitive, it appears that the answer is yes. Subsection 2031(c) was added to the Internal Revenue Code in 1997 and has been amended in several different ways subsequently. As an estate planning attorney, my reaction to it is that it is very unique in several ways. This, coupled with the fact that it is a relatively recent addition to the Code, there are no reported cases under it and the Treasury has not issued any Regulations providing additional guidance on how it is to be interpreted, leaves a number of unanswered questions regarding its application. Section 2031 of the Code defines the value of the assets includable in the Gross Estate of a decedent for purposes of computing the federal estate tax, the excise tax that applies against the value of the assets in which a decedent has an interest at the time of his or her death. Section 2031 dates back at least as far as the 1954 Internal Revenue Code, and conceptually dates back farther than that. Section 2031(c) allows the "executor," that is, the person (or entity) responsible for filing an estate tax return for a decedent, to elect to exclude from the value of the property of the decedent otherwise subject to estate tax, up to $500,000 worth of land that is subject to a conservation easement. To apply, the land must be located in the United States, the land must have been owned by the decedent (or members of the decedent's family) for at least three years prior to the decedent's death, and either the decedent, the executor of the decedent's estate, or a member of the decedent's family must either have granted a conservation easement on the property prior to the decedent's death or must grant a conservation easement on the property after the decedent's death, but before filing the estate tax return. The conservation easement must comply with the requirements of Section 170(h) of the Code. (Section 170 is the Code section that allows an individual a charitable contribution deduction for income tax purposes. This section is inapplicable to decedent's estates, but serves as the guidance for most of the conservation easement provisions that we use.) There are also certain limitations that apply in administering the exclusion. The exclusion is equal to 40% of the difference in value between the value of the property unencumbered by the conservation easement and the value of any estate tax charitable contribution deduction applicable to the conservation easement. For example, if the value of the property unencumbered by the easement equals $1,500,000, and a conservation easement valued at $500,000 is contributed to a land trust at the time of the decedent's death, then the exclusion amount is $400,000 ($1,500,000 - $500,000 x 40% = $400,000). There is an additional limitation, reducing the 40% multiplier by two percentage points for every percentage point that the value of the conservation easement is less than 30% of the value of the property. There are also some other limitations designed to insure that the conservation easement actually provides a significant public benefit, such as limitations on the value of the exclusion where the conservation easement allows any "retained development rights," that is, rights to develop or use the property for commercial purposes (other than farming or ranching). This restriction includes a virtual prohibition of use of the property for commercial recreational purposes. Accordingly, things such as "golf course easements" would never qualify. Hunting or fishing rights, however, may be acceptable so long as they are consistent with the conservation purposes of the easement. As indicated above, the intriguing thing regarding Section 2031(c) from an estate planner's perspective is that in the area of the estate tax, this exclusion applies in a way that no other estate tax exclusion or deduction applies, that is, it can be effected after the decedent has passed away. Normally, the estate tax is premised on taking an "inventory" of the decedent's property at the instant of death. Elections can be made after death that affect the amount of tax that may be due, but the nature of the assets in the Gross Estate remain the same. Section 2031(c) allows the personal representative of the estate, or the family members to whom the property passes, to grant a conservation easement after the decedent's death and still claim an estate tax benefit. In addition to the exclusion of a portion of the value of the property interest otherwise subjected to estate tax, Section 2031(c) tacitly approves a deduction for estate tax purposes under Code Section 2055(f) equal to the value of the conservation easement. As indicated above, this means that the value of the Gross Estate would first be reduced by the value of the conservation easement and then up to $500,000 worth of the property interest remaining could be excluded by the terms of Section 2031(c). Regarding the question at hand, whether Section 2031(c) applies where the easement is sold for less than full value (a "bargain sale"), the language of Section 2031(c) does not seem to prohibit application of the section in the event of a sale of the conservation easement, whether for partial consideration or full fair market value. Subsection 2031(c)(1)(A), in describing how the 40% computation applies, states that the "applicable percentage" is to be multiplied against "the value of land subject to a qualified conservation easement, reduced by the amount of any deduction under section 2055(f) with respect to such land." [emphasis supplied] It is clear, therefore, that an estate tax charitable deduction is not required. And the fact that subsection 2031(c)(9) prohibits application of the exclusion for conservation easements granted after death if a charitable contribution deduction is taken for income tax purposes, adds weight to this conclusion. Of course, to the extent that consideration is received for the grant of the conservation easement, the deduction otherwise available under Section 2055(f) would be reduced. In addition, if the bargain sale had been effected by the decedent prior to death, the consideration would be includable in the Gross Estate as an asset, further reducing the tax benefit (but providing an asset in exchange). There are also questions about the basis of the land for purposes of determining gain on sale of the land or an easement, as it is quite possible that the normal basis adjustment rules would not apply to the extent of the exclusion. As indicated above, the Treasury has not promulgated regulations under Section 2031(c) as yet and there have been no reported cases involving Section 2031(c). There have been only two private letter rulings, and those are not helpful to resolving any of the issues identified above. It appears that it will take Treasury Regulations or some adventurous tax planning challenged by the IRS before we have greater knowledge regarding the parameters of this section. Section 2031(c) is a deceptively complex section of the Code, and I would strongly recommend consultation with an experienced tax attorney before attempting to use it. I would also recommend considering applying for a private letter ruling from the IRS on any set of facts that are "gray" rather than black and white. Send us your questions! Free legal advice! We're looking for questions to be featured in this section. Send any questions or suggestions to Liz Walsh at liz [at] gatheringwaters.org . |
| Building Land Conservation Partnerships across Wisconsin Gathering Waters Conservancy helps land conservation groups throughout Wisconsin and neighboring states work together to achieve their goals. We are fostering three exciting collaborative projects in different regions of the state. As a result of these initiatives, conservation groups in these regions are stronger, more connected, and able to protect more land. Lake Michigan Shorelands Alliance St. Croix Conservation Collaborative Milwaukee County Conservation Coalition Please contact Karen Bassler at karen [at] gatheringwaters.org or 608-251-9131 x 12 to learn more about collaborations in your area of Wisconsin. |
|
Upcoming Events • Publications • Services • Support Gathering Waters |
©2006, Gathering Waters Conservancy. 211 S. Paterson St. Suite 270 • Madison, WI 53703 • PH 608-251-9131 • www.gatheringwaters.org
Unsubscribe from Currents.