ourCOMMUNITIESFUTURE

THE GOVERNOR’S TASK FORCE NEW MEXICO TOOLKIT FOR COMMUNITY GROWTH AND SUSTAINABILITY

Preserving Crit ical Lands In New Mexico

Anthony AnellA And John Wright

Published by the State of New Mexico,Department of Finance and AdministrationLocal Government Division

For more information about the Governor’s Task Force, visithttp://cpi.nmdfa.state.nm.us, and click onthe link “Our Communities Task Force.”

Ric Richardson and Mark Childs, series editors

Cover photo - Corrales PDR by John Wright

Each booklet in this series highlights one of the five legislative themes in the Task Force created by Governor Bill Richardson in 2004 and re-established through Executive Order No. 2005-060. The Toolkit Series provides examples of best practices in pedestrian environments, housing opportunities, natural resources and land conservation, and leadership in the economy of the future. Each booklet addresses key issues salient to New Mexico’s towns and communities, provides an overview of typical patterns and local situations, and identifies examples of best practices from other towns and communities.

OVERVIEW

The Toolkit Series Includes five booklets:

2 RIC RICHARDSON

KATE HILDEBRANDLISA ROACH

Provide Greater Housing Opportunities for All New Mexicans

3 Enhance Our Environment and Natural Resources

DAVID HENKEL

4 Preserve Crit ical Lands

1 MARK C. CHILDSCreate More Walkable Communities & More Mobility Choices

5 Provide Leadership in the Livable Economy of the Future

MELISSA BINDER

ANTHONY ANELLAJOHN WRIGHT

Raymond Sanchez, Esq.Rob Dickson

Steven AnayaDolph Barnhouse, Esq.

Jeanne BassettGus Cordova

Robert CzerniakMike Daly

Bill FulginitiMoises Gonzales

Lawrence KlineDebi Lee

June Lorenzo, Esq.Susan Maddox

Claudia MoncadaCarolyn Monroe

Claude MorelliMichael OlguinLawrence Rael

Maria RinaldiJerry Sandel

Arturo SandovalRoger Schluntz

DeAnza ValenciaChris Vigil

Don WiviottJoel Wooldridge

Ken HughesMary Day

Governor’s Task Force on our communiTies, our FuTure

Sanchez, Mowrer & Desiderio, Albuquerque (Chair)Principal, Paradigm & Co., Albuquerque (Vice Chair)Director, Fannie Mae New Mexico OfficeLuebben, Johnson BarnhouseExecutive Director, New Mexico Public Interest Research GroupEspañola City ManagerAssociate Dean, New Mexico State University, Las CrucesChief Operating Officer, Forest City/Mesa del Sol, AlbuquerqueExecutive Director, New Mexico Municipal LeaguePlanner, Sandoval CountyVice President, Denish & KlineManager, City of PortalesAttorney and Consultant, Pueblo of LagunaBoard Member, Maddox Foundation, HobbsAssociate Director, Diocese of Las CrucesPresident, Land America Albuquerque TitleExecutive Director, Walk AlbuquerquePresident, Socorro Chamber of Commerce, SocorroExecutive Director, Mid Region Council of GovernmentsCommunity Development Director, Town of BernalilloPresident, Aztec Well Servicing, AztecExecutive Director, VOCES IncDean, School of Architecture and Planning, UNMStudent, UNM Law SchoolGovernment Relations Director, NM Homebuilders AssociationDeveloper, The Lofts of Santa FeLobbyist, NM Chapter, American Planning Association

New Mexico Department of Finance and AdministrationNew Mexico Environment Department

MEMBERS:

STAFF:

�

F. MAKING CONSERVATION PROFITABLE

E. TOOLBOX FOR PRESERVING CRITICAL LANDS

D. LAND CONSERVATION PLANS

C. VOLUNTARY LAND CONSERVATION

B. BALANCING GROWTH AND CONSERVATION

A. REGULATORY LAND USE PLANNING

C o n t e n t s

4

7

8

9

31

6

Preserving Crit ical Lands in New MexicoANTHONy ANELLA AND JOHN WRIGHT

G. CASE STUDIES 46

H. CONCLUSION 82

�

INTRODUCTIONWHAT ARE CRITICAL LANDS?

New Mexico is a tricultural state with astonishing natural environments and a unique sense of place. We have a long tradition of striving to maintain our historic communities, agricultural lands, scenic beauty, wildlife habitats, and other lands that give our lives meaning. Conserving ranches, farms, and open spaces are vital to maintaining that cultural and natural legacy. To be competitive economically, New Mexico must also provide a superior quality of life to attract the businesses we need to prosper. While New Mexicans accept reasonable growth as healthy, most of us care deeply about protecting “critical” portions of our cultural landscapes from development – lands that define the places we call home.

New Mexicans believe the following are critical lands:

• Agricultural land – New Mexico’s productive ranches and farms• Rural landscape character and open space• Wildlife habitats and native species• Hispanic, Native American, and Anglo cultural landscapes• Hunting, fishing, and recreation lands

However, population growth and land development now threaten the critical lands we care about most. In 1950, New Mexico had 681,000 residents. Today, we have 2 million residents and we are the 6th fastest growing state. Land development now consumes 50,000 acres of New Mexico ranches, farms, open spaces, and wildlife habitats each year. In another fifty years, we are projected to have a population of more than 3 million. Even a landscape as big as New Mexico is perishable unless we act today.

�

New Mexico’s rapid population growth raises some fundamental questions.

What will be left of our cherished open spaces? Where will our food and fiber come from when agricultural land is gone? What will happen to key wildlife habitats?How will our cultural landscapes survive? What land conservation and land planning techniques can we use to responsibly conserve critical lands?How can we accomplish this while still respecting the private property rights of our neighbors?

The answers to these questions and more are contained in this booklet. Read further to learn ways of saving critical lands that will define the world our children and grandchildren live in. Our legacy depends on choosing wisely from an array of choices.

••

•••

•

WHy CONSERVE CRITICAL LANDS?

�

A. REGULATORY LAND USE PLANNING

New Mexico communities and counties use regulatory land use planning programs to create a good way of life for their residents. Most have a Comprehensive Plan or Master Plan that contains land use goals, objectives, and policies. Public input is used to express a shared vision for the future. Land development, housing, population, sewer/water issues, schools, police, fire protection, roads, economic development, and other subjects are discussed, statistics are presented, and a plan is described for moving forward.

These plans are implemented and enforced through subdivision regulations aimed at controlling the rate and type of lot splitting, zoning codes for steering different types and densities of land uses to preferred areas, and floodplain regulations to reduce damage to structures and riparian environments.

However, traditional land use regulations deal with how land will be developed, not if it should be. The basic purpose of most regulations is not to conserve critical lands but to assure that development does not cause problems related to sewer, water, roads, schools, and taxes. Creating quality development is a highly rational goal.

Yet, conserving critical lands is seldom addressed in typical land use planning. Despite clear statements in Comprehensive Plans about protecting agricultural land, scenic beauty, historical landscapes, and wildlife habitats, there is seldom much follow-through.

This happens because traditional regulatory planning often makes landowners angry. Constitutional rights of private property are strongly defended by those seeking to subdivide and develop their place. In response, planners and elected officials sometimes weaken the enforcement of land use regulations. The basic issue is economics.

�

Landowners often believe that any regulation of land use is a “taking without just compensation” under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Legally, a “taking”only occurs when land is condemned for public purposes or when a regulation is so extreme it effectively removes all economic benefits to a landowner. But the emotional truth is very different. In practice, zoning and subdivision regulation have significant limits in preserving critical lands because of the perceived “takings issue.” The best evidence of this is right before our eyes. Every day we see open land transformed to development. So, what can we do to create a sensible balance between growth and conservation? If regulations alone cannot achieve this, what lies beyond the “takings” line? One answer is giving – voluntary, financially compensating tools for preserving critical lands. Another is capitalizing on the economic value of land conservation in the marketplace --- in other words: making conservation profitable.

�

The crux of land conservation is balancing growth with land protection. This balance has to do with not only where development is appropriate, but also how much development is reasonable. Figure 1 illustrates the factors that influence this balance.

In the following sections we will discuss the voluntary approach to protecting land, and present a Toolbox for Conserving Critical Lands. Then we will discuss the market-driven approach, and present Sieve Mapping as a design process that identifies the conservation value of the land and demonstrates how to capitalize on this value in the marketplace.

B. BALANCING GROWTH AND CONSERVATION

Figure 1 - Conservation Development Balance

�

Landowners prefer having choices and being compensated for limiting the development of their land. This is human nature and should be fully acknowledged. Ranches, farms, and other open lands are often the only economic asset a family has. Agricultural operators are usually “cash poor and land rich.” Attempts to prevent development of key lands which ignore this fact are doomed to failure. In response, many proven techniques are being used to provide incentives for conserving critical lands in New Mexico and across America. The approaches often come from non-profit citizen organizations known as “land trusts” that apply a variety of tools designed to both compensate landowners and conserve the landscape. The tools have many names: conservation easements, purchase of development rights, cluster/conservation development, agricultural districts, conservation buyer programs, and others. Each will be explained in this booklet. The record of these techniques is impressive - more than 37 million acres of critical private lands have been permanently conserved by land trust groups in the United States. In New Mexico, the state’s six trusts and several national groups have helped landowners conserve over 1,000,000 acres. Federal programs such as the Wetland Reserve and Cropland Reserve programs have conserved millions of acres more. All of these efforts use economic incentives to encourage the conservation of critical lands. These incentives include: federal income tax breaks, estate tax relief, state income tax credits, real estate development income, and the enhanced value of conserved land in the marketplace. Land use planners, land trust personnel, and agencies are now crafting cooperative approaches to conserving critical lands in New Mexico. Communities now have an unprecedented opportunity to save key lands while still respecting the rights of their neighbors.

C. VOLUNTARY LAND CONSERVATION

Attiyeh Pasture Conservation Easement, El Prado - part donated and part purchased under USDA Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, Taos Land Trust.Photo by Carolyn Lake

Santa Fe Conservation Trust©J

W

�

D. LAND CONSERVATION PLANS

The first step to preserving critical lands is to map where they are and where development is occurring. These maps can be plain or generated in a Geographic Information System (GIS). In any case, key cultural and natural resources are mapped such as:

Prime agricultural lands – important farms and ranchesScenic open space – along key roadways and riversHistoric and archeologically significant landsCritical wildlife habitats, migration corridors, and other ecological valuesFloodplains and riparian lands

In New Mexico, several national, state-wide, and local land trusts are available to help communities map and analyze these resources and create a Land Conservation Plan. The New Mexico Land Conservancy (NMLC) has completed a Farmland Conservation Plan for Mesilla which will be explored shortly. Similar efforts have been completed by the Taos Land Trust, Santa Fe Land Conservancy, and the Rio Grande Agricultural Land Trust (Socorro). The Trust for Public Land (TPL) is completing a “Greenprinting” project for the City of Albuquerque to locate critical lands. The Malpai Borderlands Group is a rancher land trust operating in the Bootheel of New Mexico and across the line in Arizona. The Nature Conservancy stresses protecting biological diversity. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation works to protect elk habitat. Plans to conserve critical lands have many names: Land Conservation Plan, Farmland Conservation Plan, Open Space Plan, and others. The goal is not just to map critical lands but to use various tools to conserve them.

•••••

k

#*

Ranch Conservation Easement

[C.S.

#* Abandoned House & Barn

Conservation Area

Dirt Roads

Stock Tankk Spring

Sample GIS Map

GIS Overlays

©JW

©JW

�

The following approaches provide a useful toolbox for communities to consider and apply. Each tool has strengths and weaknesses that must be understood before proceeding. Links are provided to receive further information and face-to-face help.

E. TOOLBOX FOR CONSERVING CRITICAL LANDS

Rural Colorado©JW

�0

E1 Zoning E2 Large-Lot/Agricultural Zoning

Description: Types and densities of land use are mapped and enforced by regulations to implement a Comprehensive Plan.

Advantages: Little cost to government. Incompatible land use patterns may be avoided. No new ordinances, skills, or actions needed.

Disadvantages: Variances and re-zonings weaken the process. Landowners strongly oppose zoning that strictly regulates land use.

Record: Ineffective at permanently conserving critical lands. It is important to remember that from 1900-1910, Los Angeles County was the leading agricultural district in the United States. Today, L.A. is the core of a regional metropolis of 15 million people. Nearly all of that agricultural capacity has been lost to development and that transformation took place through rezonings.

��

E2 Large-Lot/Agricultural Zoning

Description: Critical lands are re-zoned to low density. Also called “down zoning.” Densities of 1 house per 10 to 40 acres are typical.

Advantages: Administratively straightforward and inexpensive.

Disadvantages: Landowner opposition. Large-Lot Zoning is often seen as a “taking” of private property rights, especially in areas with high land values. Legal challenges to reducing development density are common. In time, Large-Lot Zoning falls apart from political and economic pressure. Land is seldom conserved long-term through this technique except where there is widespread acceptance of land use regulations such as in Eastern states or where the zoning district is created by the landowner themselves.

Record: This approach is most effective in voluntary districts such as Black Hawk County, Iowa and Gallatin County, Montana. In Colorado, 35-acre minimum lot sizes are common in rural areas. However, re-zoning often allows greater density once development reaches these properties. Large-Lot Zoning is mostly used as a holding action against development or to prevent “leap-frog” development.

Black Hawk County, Iowa

Gallatin County, Montana

©JW

©JW

��

E3 Cluster Development

Description: Housing development is clustered on a portion of a parcel with the majority of the land permanently protected from development by a conservation easement (see upcoming description). The number of development rights (homes/lots) is typically set by existing zoning. A “density Bonus” of additional development rights is granted as a financial incentive to encourage cluster development proposals that meet local design standards such as protecting farmland. A cluster development ordinance is implemented as a “zoning overlay” option on top of existing zoning districts.

Advantages: Proven effective in conserving farmland. Cluster development uses the financial incentive of additional lots to make the technique widely accepted. Encouraging creativity and flexibility in development design helps retain farms, rural character, enhances land values, and reduces conflicts. Costs for roads, sewer, water and other infrastructure are reduced for both the developer and community. Conserving farmland is accomplished using real estate market forces and not by raising taxes.

Cluster Development Design

©JW

��

Disadvantages: Voluntary. Even with density bonus incentives, not all landowners or developers may choose to create cluster developments. The loss of critical lands will continue if the ordinance is not widely used. The conservation easement used in this case brings no tax benefits since it was done as a quid pro quo in exchange for receiving additional lots. The number of additional lots must be sufficient to make the approach financially competitive or even superior to traditional subdivision.

Record: Cluster development ordinances are common and widely accepted in America. The amount of conserved land varies from 50%-90% of a parcel. Density bonuses vary from 10%-150% and are used to encourage the conservation of farmland and other open space. Cluster development is common in the West in such places as the Denver metropolitan counties, Arizona, California, the Mesa del Sol project in Albuquerque, and the Heritage Ranch developments near Hillsboro, Mountainair, and Corona. Mesilla has a cluster development ordinance which will be explained as a case study later.

Cluster Development Design

©JW

��

E4 Conservation Development

Description: Development based on land protection as a value-adding principle. Value is added through site-sensitive plat design, partial development, and the use of a conservation easement on undeveloped areas. Lots are carefully located through sieve mapping (described in the Montosa Ranch case study) or other land analysis approaches. Similar to cluster development with far lower housing density and intensity. Usually occurs where no city/county cluster development ordinance exists.

Advantages: Works well for landowners who want to develop part of their land while minimizing its impact. In areas with no cluster development ordinance, conservation development allows landowners to create a similar outcome. Landowners receive part of a lifetime’s worth of investment for retirement or estate planning purposes. Lot buyers can be sure that the protected land will never be developed. Conservation development is a win-win option: a win for the landowner in achieving their financial and conservation goals, and a win for the land through conservation.

Heritage Ranch Project Partial Development with Conservation Easement

©JW

��

Disadvantages: Timing the conservation easement donation with lot sales can be difficult. Maximizing income tax benefits requires a realistic assessment of how long it will take the lots to sell and for what price. Another “timing” factor is the short shelf life of a conservation easement appraisal. The appraised value must be done no earlier than 60 days before the date of the easement donation. Conservation developments are a small sector of the real estate market and in some areas, the marketplace may be unfamiliar with the approach.

Record: Widely used in New Mexico and the West. The Montosa Ranch case study shows how this process works in detail. The Evans Ranch project of Colorado Open Lands, the XXX Ranch in Wyoming, and the Heritage Ranch projects in New Mexico reveal a variety of applications.

Heritage Ranch Project

©JW

��

E5 Land Purchases

Description: Land is purchased to create a park or conserved area for public use.

Advantages: A willing seller receives fair market value for their land. The public has control over access and management.

Disadvantages: Purchasing land is extremely expensive, politically controversial, and must be used selectively. Land values in New Mexico have risen dramatically. In most cases, a community does not need to own a piece of land in order to keep development from occurring. Conservation easements, PDRs, cluster development, and other tools are more appropriate in all cases except the creation of a park or other area requiring full public access.

Record: Used widely to create developed parks and to protect recreation areas. Not appropriate for conserving agricultural land.

��

E5 Land Purchases E6 Conservat ion Easements

Description: Landowners voluntarily donate some or all of their development rights to a non-profit land trust or unit of government in perpetuity in exchange for federal and state tax incentives. The land stays in private ownership and on the tax rolls. Future subdivision and development is prohibited or severely restricted. The property continues to be farmed, ranched, or otherwise used like before. The tool is also called “land easements,” “agricultural easements,” or “open space easements” or “conservation agreements.”

In order to receive tax benefits, the conservation easement must be perpetual and provide a significant public benefit by protecting ecological, open space, agricultural land, historic, and/or recreation resources. Such an easement is a charitable gift whose value is determined by a land appraiser who compares the before and after value of the property.

Farmers and ranchers - people earning more than 50% of their income from agriculture – may deduct up to 100% of their Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) from their Federal taxes over a 16-year period.

Other landowners can deduct up to 50% of their AGI for that same number of years.

New Mexico donors of conservation easements may also be eligible for a State Income Tax Credit of up to $250,000 over 20 years. This tax credit is also “transferable” – meaning it may be sold to a person with substantial state income taxes due.

��

Federal and New Mexico Estate taxes may also be reduced by the donation of a perpetual conservation easement.

In general, the amount of tax breaks received depends on the donor’s income and the appraised value of the easement. Landowners should always receive professional legal and tax advice related to conservation easement.

Advantages: The land is protected from development forever. Easements are a voluntary tool that respects private property rights.

Disadvantages: Some landowners either cannot afford to or choose not to donate a conservation easement. Relying exclusively on landowner philanthropy and tax incentives will not conserve some critical lands. The public’s unfamiliarity with the technique requires a commitment to information outreach with landowners and their legal and financial advisors. This is best achieved through a long-term relationship with land trust professionals rather than by using local government staff.

Record: Over 10 million acres protected by conservation easements in the U.S.

Conservation easement use began in 1890 in Massachusetts and is now widespread. Conservation easements are similar to the Farmland Reserve Program (CRP) and Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. However, most easements are granted to one of the country’s 1,800 private, non-profit “land trust” groups

��

Voluntary donations may bring substantial income and estate tax benefits. Conservation easements are a proven tool with over 11,000 projects completed in the United States. Landowners have flexibility - retaining a few home sites for the kids or for sale while conserving the remainder of a property.

Conservation easements also work well in cluster developments to legally prevent the development of farmland open space in two ways:

When the landowner uses all the development rights they are entitled to, including any density bonus – no tax incentives will result. When the landowner does not use all the development rights they are entitled to, including any density bonus – tax incentives may be available

•

•

�0

Description: Development rights are bought from the owners of key parcels. Basically, a PDR is a conservation easement that is sold instead of donated. The land remains privately-owned and on the tax rolls. Also called “purchased conservation easements” or “purchase of agricultural conservation easements,” and “conservation agreements.” Since a landowner is paid for their development rights, no income tax deductions result unless they sell below market value – called a “bargain sale.” The bargain amount may then be treated as a charitable gift. Income received by a landowner for PDRs is treated under Capital Gains tax codes. Estate tax benefits may not result since the development value of land has simply been converted to other investments.

Advantages: Direct financial payments are often the most attractive land conservation incentive. Landowners are typically paid 75% of the value of their development rights with the remaining 25% of value donated as a charitable gift which helps off-set capital gains taxes. This is a “bargain sale” PDR. Like donated conservation easements, the farmland is protected in perpetuity from development. PDRs can also be combined with cluster development. PDRs are a very effective farmland conservation tool if the money can be raised.

Disadvantages: Raising the money. A local or regional open space bond would be needed since little State funding exists in New Mexico. Open space funds are raised through a General Obligation Bond that is paid off on property tax bills over a 20-year period. Creating and passing an open space bond requires strong community buy-in. A 50% match may be found in the Federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program. However, those funds are very limited in New Mexico.

E6 Purchase of Development Rights

��

E6 Purchase of Development Rights

Due to their cost, PDRs should be considered only for a community’s highest priority lands.

Record: Over 1.5 million acres have been conserved using this technique. Government PDR programs exist in many states, counties, and cities. Since 1994, $30 billion has been appropriated in statewide and local programs. The largest state allocations exist in Florida and New Jersey ($3 billion each). In the West, Colorado and Arizona have each provided nearly $1 billion for PDRs and other conservation transactions. In 2004, Tucson (Pima County) voters passed a $174 million “open space bond” to pay for PDRs on ranches and farms. New Mexico currently has no long-term funding for PDRs. Less than $2 million is administered by the Department of Game and Fish for wildlife habitat acquisitions and through another $3.5 million one-time state appropriation. In 2003, Albuquerque voters passed a $3.5 million “open space” bond to add to nearly $20 in previous funding. In 2004, voters in the Village of Corrales passed a $2.5 million open space bond to buy PDRs on farmland – it passed with 74% of the vote. These funds were matched with Federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program funds.

Corrales PDR©JW

©JW

��

E7 Transfer of Development Rights

Description: Development rights are transferred from “sending areas” to “receiving areas” in order to conserve critical lands. TDR systems use the marketplace to relocate development density. Owners of critical land in “sending areas” sell their development rights (not their land itself) to developers who use them to increase housing density in designated “receiving areas.” The increased density in receiving areas must support a community’s comprehensive planning goals and have water and wastewater capacity. Critical lands are conserved when TDRs are combined with a perpetual conservation easement to prevent future development. Easements in these cases are not tax deductible. The income received from TDRs is treated as a Capital Gain.

Advantages: The marketplace is used to fund farmland conservation. No local taxes are needed. Land is conserved forever.

Farms conserved by TDRNew Jersey and King County, Washington ©J

W

©JW

��

Disadvantages: TDRs are complicated. Designating “sending areas” – the lands a community wishes to conserve – is relatively uncontroversial. However, increasing the density of housing in “receiving areas” may be unpopular with residents, require the re-zoning of districts, and go against other goals of a comprehensive plan. Developers may also be initially hesitant to buy TDR development rights due to questions about price.

Record: TDRs have been used to conserve far less land than conservation easements and purchase of development rights techniques. Nationally, less than 400,000 acres has been conserved using TDRs much of this in New Jersey, Montgomery County, Maryland and King County, Washington (100,000 acres). TDRs are permitted under New Mexico law in Chapter 3, Article 18 NMSA 1978.

Farm conserved by TDRMontgomery County, Maryland©J

W

��

E8 Federal Agency Conservat ion Programs

Many federal programs are available to landowners wishing to conserve their land. Most are funded in the USDA Federal Farm Bill and are administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. A local Agricultural Extension agent should be consulted for details. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Owners of rangeland are paid to enter into 10-15 year agreements to plant or maintain former cropland in grasses to prevent soil erosion, to support wetlands, and provide buffers with ecosystems. Some 32 million acres were enrolled in 2005 at a cost of $1.8 billion. This nationwide program covers 27% of New Mexico’s former cropland.

The Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) is also administered by the NRCS. Since 2001, 16 million acres of wetland and adjacent uplands in America have been placed under conservation easements which prohibit housing and other development. Landowners are paid the appraised value of conservation easements placed on wetlands and adjacent rangelands in perpetuity or for terms of ten to thirty years. One hundred percent of wetland restoration costs are covered by WRP for perpetual easements with a lesser amount for term easements. Landowners may also choose not to sell an easement and instead select a cost-share program where up to 75% of the cost of wetland restoration is covered by WRP. Over 8,000 properties are enrolled in the U.S. covering 1.5 million acres. A cap of 2,275,000 acres was authorized by the 2002 Farm Bill and up to 250,000 acres may be added per year. The average price paid per acre for conservation easements is $1400 and the average parcel size is 177 acres. Landowners may lease the site for hunting, fishing, and other non-developed recreational uses to create another source of revenue. They may also continue farming or haying if this is compatible.

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) provides cost-share payments up to 75% of the expense of implementing conservation practices on rangelands. These include new grazing systems, irrigation water conservation,

��

enhancement of upland wildlife habitat and other actions. The period is up to ten years and the range of benefits is $50,000 to $450,000. The Conservation Security Program (CSP) provides payments to owners of rangelands that are well-managed. In 2005, $205 million was appropriated and payments are being made to 2,180 applicants across the country. Payments range from $20,000-$45,000 per year for terms of 5-10 years depending on the quality of lands. The Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) provides payments to restore and protect grasslands, rangelands, and shrublands with livestock grazing continued. The goal is to prevent the plowing of soils. National funding of about $220 million per year is used to purchase perpetual or term conservation easements, secure “rental” agreements, or fund rangeland restoration. A forty-acre minimum applies and a national cap of two million acres has been set. All actions are subject to a Conservation Plan agreed to by the NRCS. The Federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP) has resulted in perpetual conservation easements being purchased on 350,000 acres across the country. These Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement (PACE) efforts involve using FRPP funds to pay 50% of the appraised value of easements with a 25% local match (government or land trust), and a 25% landowner contribution. State natural resource agencies, land trusts, and national groups like the Trust for Public land facilitate deals to conserve threatened rangelands and croplands which also provide significant ecological and historic/archeological benefits. Over $97 million was available nationwide in 2006.

The Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP) also provides funds to buy easements on forest lands with two million acres authorized. This program is administered by through the Forestry Division of the New Mexico state government.

The Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) provides a 75% cost-share for improving wildlife habitat. It has been used to conserve 2.3 million acres in the U.S.

��

Local and regional land trusts are non-profit, private land conservation organizations. America’s 1,800 land trusts hold conservation easements on over 7 million acres, much of it in the Western United States. In New Mexico, the combined actions of The Nature Conservancy, Animas Foundation, and the Malpai Borderlands Group have resulted in over 420,000 acres of rangeland being placed under perpetual conservation easements. The Gray Ranch forms the core of this work – a 350,000-acre expanse in a biodiversity hot spot where the flora and fauna of the Chihuahuan and Sonoran deserts meet influences from the Rocky Mountains and Colorado Plateau. The New Mexico Land Conservancy is a state-wide trust that holds conservation easements on 60,000 acres including the 31,000-acre Montosa Ranch north of the Gila Mountains – a case study that will be explored shortly. Other land trusts in New Mexico include the Santa Fe Conservation Trust, Taos Land Trust, Southern Rockies Agricultural Land Trust, Rio Grande Agricultural Land Trust, and the Forest Trust. All of these trusts are available for consultation with individual landowners or communities seeking advice. National organizations working to conserve critical lands in New Mexico include the Trust for Public Land, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, American Farmland Trust, and the Conservation Fund.

E9 Land Trusts

Gray RanchProject of the Nature Conservancy

Malpai Borderlands

©JW

©JW

��

Description: A LLC is a legal structure for setting up a business. In this case, two or more landowners form a LLC and voluntarily create a cluster development on their contiguous lands. LLC’s are far less complicated than typical corporation structures and avoid double taxation for members. Legal advice is essential for those considering this option. The location of the development and conservation areas are carefully coordinated to achieve the personal and financial goals of the parties. The placement of housing clusters is designed to conserve key farmlands and scenic vistas as well as maximize development return. Financial arrangements are worked out between the parties based on the amount of land each contributes to development and the amount they retain to farm or ranch.

Advantages: The conservation and development of several properties is coordinated. The value of the cluster lots may be enhanced and the costs of infrastructure may be reduced. Neighbors take control of their future together.

Disadvantages: It is challenging for several landowners to cooperatively achieve their individual goals. Negotiating the financial terms may prove difficult. The timing of landowner’s financial needs is likely to vary.

Record: This approach is used in communities where adjacent landowners know and trust each other. For example, three ranchers in Steamboat Springs, Colorado formed an LLC, designed a development, conserved the remainder of their ranches, and apportioned the earnings and tax deductions.

E10 Limited Liabi l i ty Company

Conserved RanchlandSteamboat Springs, Colorado

©JW

��

Description: Informal districts where neighbors try to coordinate their individual conservation and development plans but are under no legal obligation to do so. Landowners simply talk to each other and see if development conflicts can be avoided and conservation goals can be attained.

Advantages: Not bureaucratic. Landowners can choose to participate or not.

Disadvantages: Results depend on personal relationships alone. It is difficult to maintain momentum. Suspicion can exist that stated goals will not be lived up to.

Record: The Blackfoot Challenge in Montana is a landowner group that has coordinated conservation easement donations, land development, public access, hunting, forestry, water use, and other matters for nearly 30 years. Over 32,000 acres are under conservation easements along the Blackfoot River.

E11 Farmland Distr icts

Conservation Easement Corridor Blackfoot River, Montana

Conservation Easement Corridor Blackfoot River, Montana

©JW

©JW

��

Description: Landowners list their property with real estate brokers who specialize in finding buyers for critical land protected by a conservation easement. The listing is for a specified period. A conservation easement could be placed on the property either prior to sale or by the purchaser at closing.

Advantages: Effective for landowners who choose to sell their property while assuring the land stays intact. Works well for landowners who are not in a rush to sell.

Disadvantages: It may take one to two years to locate a conservation buyer.

Record: Firms exist across the West that specialize in working with conservation buyers. Heritage Ranch Preserve in New Mexico, Conservation Havens in Colorado, and the American Public Land Exchange Montana are examples of companies specializing in this approach. Sotheby’s and other high-end real estate companies in New Mexico also work with conservation buyers on a regular basis.

E12 Conservat ion Buyer Program

�0

Description: A landowner is traded land equal in value to a conservation easement placed on their property. The exchanged land is then sold as compensation.

Advantages: Basically land is traded for a conservation easement. Landowners are paid like in a PDR but with land instead of cash. If disposable federal land could be made available to exchange for conservation easements, the mechanisms are in place for these transactions.

Disadvantages: Finding land to exchange.

Record: Trading BLM land for easements and property has occurred in Nevada as surplus land around Las Vegas is disposed. Over $3 billion in BLM land has been sold in Clark County, Nevada. In Doña Ana County, the BLM routinely sells off surplus land on the East Mesa as allowed under the Federal Land Management and Policy Act. The money has been used to buy key properties such as Soledad Canyon, Dripping Springs, Picacho Peak, and the Petroglyphs National Monument.

E13 Land Exchanges

Picacho PeakPurchased by the Nature Conservancy and BLM

Petroglyphs National Monument

©JW

©JW

��

According to E.O Wilson, making conservation profitable “is the only certain way to save the vast biological resources of the developing world”. What makes this observation problematical is that profit, in a free-enterprise system, is most often defined by short-term expectations. Contemporary land development is no exception. The conventional land ethic is motivated by short-term profit. It tends to destroy long-term value by ignoring the visual and environmental impacts of new development on the very resources that make the land attractive for development in the first place. This is our modern dilemma and the predicament of conventional development. Two facts contain a critical question. First, developers are not rewarded by the appreciation of long-term value; they are only rewarded by the profit margin at the time of the initial sale. Second, the enhancement value of open space contributes positively to the individual property owner’s equity. The critical question is this: How can the short-term profit that motivates the individual developer be harnessed to the long-term creation of real property value?

F. MAKING CONSERVATION PROFITABLE

��

Sieve mapping suggests an answer. It is a way of capturing the conservation value of the land for the short-term as well as the long-term. As an alternative to the conventional pattern of land development , sieve mapping is based on preserving the integrity of the natural landscape as a value-adding principle of development. The criterion for success is the enhancement of land value in the short-term, and the appreciation of land value in the long-term.

As a design process “sieve mapping” identifies the conservation value of the land and demonstrates how to capitalize on this value. It works within the conceptual framework of economic self-interest as a way of convincing both the landowner and the developer to adopt conservation as a profit-making principle of enlightened development. However, in doing so, it seeks to change the way the land and man’s relationship to it are viewed. It seeks to shift the contemporary ethic of extracting immediate value from the land as an individual privilege to a new ethic of creating long-term value through ecologically-based design and planning. It seeks to provide the contemporary practice of land development with a systematic process for protecting the integrity of the land for future generations in a way that is economically expedient as well as environmentally ethical.

Sieve mapping is a six-step design process that helps determine where conservation and development are appropriate. This analysis focuses on protecting the intrinsic qualities of the land that enhance the long-term value of the property. As a design process sieve mapping coincides with the interests of the landowner. The objective is to protect the integrity of the land, prevent unplanned development, and promote the appreciation of land values over time.

F1 Sieve Mapping

��

Step One: Identify the Conservation Areas

The first step is to decide where you should NOT develop. This is accomplished by systematically identifying the conservation areas to be protected. It makes good sense to protect those areas that most enhance the long-term value of the remaining land to be developed. However, this depends on subjective judgment. What intrinsic qualities of the land are most valuable? To a rancher? To a developer? To a homeowner? To an ecologist? These different value systems may result in conflict and compromise. But the beauty of sieve mapping is that it allows these different viewpoints to be reflected in the final design. Each can be mapped on the land as a way of finding common ground and avoiding conflict. Most importantly, the sieve mapping design process lets the existing features of the land determine where and where not to build. It is a value-based process that is rooted in the landscape, not imposed on it.

��

Step Two: Map the Information

The second step is to create overlay maps. Each overlay corresponds to a separate value of the landscape to be protected. For example, Figure 1 maps “Non-buildable Peaks.” These are areas on top of ridgelines and peaks (down forty feet below the tops) that should be protected from development. This restriction is based on the idea that it is preferable to have the horizon defined by a natural ridgeline rather than by a man-made structure., and that keeping the natural horizon free from man-made structures will enhance the value of the property.

Figure 1Non-buildable Peaks: To protect the natural horizon from man-made structures, this overlay maps the hills and ridges down to 40-contour-feet below the tops of the hill or ridge as being off-limits to development.

��

Figure 2 maps “Water Bodies and Drainage” as special places in the arid landscape of the American West that should be off-limits to development.

Figure 3 maps “Wildlife Habitat” (roughly corresponding to “Water Bodies and Drainage”) as a priority for conservation. Protecting these areas not only makes common sense from an ecological point of view, it also makes sense from a marketing point of view. Protecting wildlife habitat or ridgelines, for example, is a conservation value that also protects the buyer’s investment in the land.

Figure 2Water Bodies and Drainage: This overlay corresponds to land located within 150 feet on either side of a water body or natural drainage system. This land is being protected from development in order to preserve the natural drainage pattern of the land.

Figure 3Wildlife Habitat: This overlay corresponds to wildlife habitat (roughly corresponding to water bodies and drainage). This land is being protected from development i order to preserve the natural habitat of wildlife.

��

Figure 4 maps “Prime Agricultural Land” as an intrinsic value to be protected. This value is based on more than range or crop production. Agricultural land contributes significantly to the scenic beauty so many people are looking for. Lot buyers value open space and are willing to pay for it. Protecting prime agricultural land is another win-win.

Figure 5 maps “Historic and Archaeological Sites” as contributing to the intrinsic value of the land.

Figure 4Prime Agricultural Land: This overlay corresponds to prime agricultural land that is being protected from development in order to preserve agricultural productivity.

Figure 5Historic and Archaeological Sites: This overlay corresponds to historic and archaeological sites. This land is being protected from development in order to preserve the cultural heritage left by previous inhabitants.

��

Figure 6 maps “Steep Slopes” not because of the positive value derived from protecting them, but rather because of the negative consequences from developing them. The erosion caused by building on steep slopes diminishes land value and costs money to repair.

Figure 7 maps the “Public Viewshed” corresponding to that part of the property that is visible from the public highway. By protecting this viewshed, the experience of driving through the rural landscape is preserved for the benefit of both the homeowners and the public. Preserving this viewshed helps to qualify the property for the tax benefits that can result from donating a conservation easement.

Figure 6Steep Slopes: This overlay corresponds to the land where the slope exceeds 25%. This land is being protected from development because of the damage due to erosion caused by building on steep slopes.

Figure 7Public Viewshed: This overlay is identified as that part of the study area that is visible from the public roadway. To protect this area it is mapped as being off-limits to development. By protecting the viewshed, the experience of driving through the rural landscape leading up to the house sites is preserved for both the homeowners and the public.

��

Step Three: Synthesize the Information

The third step is to create a composite of all the overlays (Figure 8). What is revealed is an overall pattern of conservation priorities. It is an organic pattern based on the intrinsic qualities of the land and on what is perceived to be important for protection. The land that falls through the “sieve” of conservation priorities is the land that is more appropriate for development. It is also the land whose market value is most enhanced by the protection of what is not developed. The gray area on the composite map of conservation areas becomes the red area on the map of build-able land (Figure 9).

Figure 8Conservation Areas: This is a composite of the preceding maps. What is revealed is a pattern of conservation priorities. It is an organic pattern based on what is perceived to be important for protection. The land that falls through the “sieve” of conservation priorities is the land that is appropriate for development. It is also the land whose value is most enhanced by the protection of what is not developed. The gray area on this composite map of the conservation areas becomes the red area on the following map of buildable land.

��

Figure 9Buildable Land: The area on this map corresponds to the gray area of the preceding map of conservation areas. It is the land that has fallen through the “sieve” of conservation priorities.

�0

Step Four: Designate the House Sites

Figure 10 illustrates “House Sites Relative to Buildable Land”. Designating the house sites within areas that are appropriate for development is best accomplished by walking the land and field-verifying the information. Optimal sites are located based on views to the surrounding landscape, visibility of other homes, landscape relationships (topography, vegetation, water), and the cycle of seasons (wind, sun, precipitation). Photographs are taken to document the relationship of each site to the landscape and an analytical diagram is created (see Figure 11). These diagrams have the potential to serve as a tool for: (1) better understanding the land; (2) proving the credibility of the homesite; (3) graphically marketing the development; and (4) helping insure that the individual house sites complement the quality of the overall design.

Figure 10House Sites Relative to Buildable Land: Designating the house sites within the areas identified as being appropriate for development is best accomplished by walking the land and field-verifying the optimal sites based on views to the surrounding landscape, views to the other house sites, and the relationship of each site to the landscape (topography, vegetation, water) and the cycle of the seasons (wind, sun, precipitation).

��

Figure 11Analysis of House Site: To prove the appropriateness of each house site, photographs are made to document the relationship of the site to the landscape. In addition, an analytical diagram of each site relative to the features of the landscape is created.

��

Step Five: Lay Out the Roads

Laying out the roads is based on the following principles:

Avoid crossing areas prioritized for conservation.Make the roads as inconspicuous as possible by following contours and avoiding long, straight sections.Minimize the length and cost of new roads.Where possible, use existing roads.

Designing roads based on these conservation principles may add to the initial cost, but these expenses are offset by the enhanced value of the house sites. This contrasts with the road design criteria used in conventional development that is primarily quantitative: minimize costs by keeping roads short, straight, and avoiding steep slopes.

1.2.

3.4.

��

Step Six: Draw the Lot Lines

Once the conservation areas have been identified, the house sites designated and the road alignments determined, drawing the lot lines is relatively straightforward. However, there are at least two ways to accomplish this. One is to subdivide all the land into plats of fee-simple ownership. This is typically what happens in a conventional development. The other is to create an open space development with smaller platted areas of fee-simple owned property with the owners sharing an undivided interest in the remaining open space that continues to be grazed by cattle. In either case, houses are only allowed to be built within designated building envelopes. The remaining land -- whether individually or jointly owned -- is protected from development through a conservation easement.

��

Conservation Development versus Conventional Development

Figure 12 illustrates a conservation or “open-space” development based on the sieve mapping design process. This pattern offers several advantages. By only allowing the smaller lots to be fenced, the remaining areas are left completely open for shared uses such as horseback riding. The smaller lot sizes also minimize the maintenance responsibilities for the individual owner. The main advantage to the buyer is that of a “virtual ranch”: the pleasure of owning part of a responsibly managed working cattle ranch without having to personally take care of it.

Figure 12Conservation Development

��

Figure 13 contrasts a conservation development with a conventional development where all the land is subdivided into lots. It is important to note that even though the lot sizes are smaller in the conservation development, the number of lots remains the same. Keeping the number of lots constant allows the comparison to emphasize the qualitative advantages of the conservation development and its impact on lot prices. What would the buyer be willing to pay more for - a lot surrounded by protected land or a lot surrounded by private land with unknown future development possibilities?

In conclusion, sieve mapping is a design process that promotes a qualitative analysis of the land to determine where and where not to build rather than the quantitative analysis of conventional development. The qualitative analysis of sieve mapping focuses on what intrinsic qualities of the land enhance the long-term value of the development and on protecting those qualities. In contrast, the quantitative analysis of conventional development focuses on the number of lots and on the other factors of development that influence the short-term conversion of land value into cash.

Figure 13Conventional Development

��

G. CASE STUDIES

The following case studies reveal the diversity of approaches used to preserve critical lands in New Mexico. From community efforts, to corporations, to nonprofit land trusts, New Mexicans are saving landscapes in a variety of ways. These case studies explore how we can protect the Land of Enchantment.

G1 Mesilla Farmland Conservation

Mesilla farmland ©JW

��

G1 Mesilla Farmland Conservation How can small New Mexico towns preserve critical farmlands that give these communities their historic, cultural, natural, and economic identity? The historic village of Mesilla provides a hopeful case study. Mesilla is the finest example of a Chicano farming village in southern New Mexico. The community started as the Mesilla Civil Colony Land Grant in 1851 when the area was still part of Mexico. The cultural landscape displays all the traits of a village settled under the Spanish “Laws of the Indies” – a central plaza with gazebo, grid pattern or streets, adobe architecture, acequia irrigation system, and surrounding agricultural fields. The plaza and adjacent neighborhoods are now on the National Register of Historic Places. Agriculture dominated Mesilla’s historic land use pattern. Irrigated farmlands in the Rio Grande Valley formed a circular “greenbelt” around the core residential and commercial area. Chilies, pecans, cotton, alfalfa, onions, and other vegetables were grown. In 1972, the 3,669-acre town passed its first zoning ordinance to maintain this pattern. Preserving the agricultural green belt was attempted by establishing a Rural Farm Zone (RF – 5-acre minimum lot size) on 2,200 acres and a Residential Agriculture Zone (RA – 3-acre minimum lot size) on 200 acres. In 1973, farmland conservation was strongly stressed in the town’s Yguado Master Plan. A major objective of the plan was to “Control the loss of irrigable land which is an irreplaceable resource…and…encourage agriculture as a device for maintaining necessary open space and green belts.” For many years, these zoning districts helped maintain the Mesilla farmland “greenbelt.” It seemed impossible that anyone would buy five acres just to live on. However, by the 1990s, exactly that began to happen and 5-acre residential lots took more and more land out of agricultural production. Mesilleros saw this style of subdivision as a threat to the unique livability of their historic town. The 2004 Mesilla Comprehensive Plan revealed the community’s renewed resolve to preserve critical farmlands. Seventy-four percent (74%) of 600 survey respondents (in a town of 2,200) stated that Mesilla needed to do more to protect agricultural land.

Mesilla cluster development

Mesilla adobes

©JW

©JW

��

In 2007, Mesilla prepared a Farmland Conservation Plan funded by a Livability Innovation Fund grant from the New Mexico Local Government Division. The New Mexico Land Conservancy – a state-wide land trust – was hired by the town to perform this task. Dozens of public meetings were held to gain public input on goals, concerns, and approaches to farmland conservation. Questions abounded: what techniques exist to preserve farms, what are the economics of different alternatives, how will private property rights be respected, and how can the town accommodate needed growth while maintaining it’s rural character? The first step was to see how much farmland was left and where it was. Air photos were analyzed to map land use changes from 1967-2007. A Geographic Information System (GIS) approach was used. These maps revealed that Mesilla still retained about 1,800 acres of farmland. Much of that was in farms less than 50-acres in size with a large concentration along the Rio Grande. However, it was also discovered that 20% of Mesilla’s agricultural land had been converted to development, most of that in just ten years.

Mesilleros knew they needed to act or their farming landscape would be lost to 5-acre and 3-acre lots. People feared that further subdivision of even those parcels would occur in the future as land values rose. After examining all the choices in the land conservation toolbox, Mesilleros chose voluntary, financially compensating land conservation techniques.

!(!(

!( !(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

[

Map 8: Mesilla Farmland Conservation: Urban Development 1967 - 2007

miles

0 0.25 0.5 1

1997 - 20072007 - Present

No Change

1992 - 1997

Mesilla Town Limits

!( Residential Structures

1967 - 19741974 - 19831983 - 1992

Rio Grande

C.Saenz

Mesilla Development Trends (from Mesilla Farmland Conservation Plan)

��

Through the leadership of Mayor Michael Cadena, the Board of Trustees, and the Planning and Zoning Board, specific actions were quickly immediately. The town’s first priority was to create a Cluster Development Ordinance as their primary implementation tool. It went into effect in September, 2007. This “zoning overlay” option is designed primarily for the RF and RA zones. It provides a “density bonus” of additional building lots in exchange for placing a perpetual conservation easement on remaining farmland. Two options exist:

Basic Cluster Development: a Density Bonus of 50% more building lots than allowed under existing zoning is given in exchange for placing a conservation easement on 65% of the land. Houses are clustered on the remaining 35% of the parcel. For example: under existing zoning, a 50-acre would be split into ten 5-acre lots. Using the Basic Cluster option: 15 lots could be created on 17.5 acres with another homesite reserved by right on the 32.5 acre conserved farmland parcel. Enhanced Cluster Development: a Density Bonus of 125% more building lots is given in exchange for placing a conservation easement on 80% of the land. Houses are clustered on the remaining 20% of the parcel. For example: under existing zoning, a 50-acre parcel would be split into ten 5-acre lots. Using the Enhanced Cluster option: 23 lots would be created on 10 acres with another homesite reserved by right on the 40-acre conserved farmland parcel.

The point is to financially reward landowners for choosing the cluster development option. To assure the permanence of the conservation easements, they must be held by a land trust and not the town. Since the easement was given in exchange for increased development rights and profit, no federal or state tax incentives are available.

•

•

�0

Design standards for infrastructure were modified from existing zoning codes to reduce road widths, lots sizes, frontage requirements, and other specifications in order to accommodate the development clusters. Sewer requirements remained in force as did fire and emergency vehicle standards. The approach is widely accepted but some landowners are seeking rezonings to higher densities – a matter best resolved on the merits of the petition and not on arguments of economic hardship. The cluster development ordinance has expanded the economic options of landowners not reduced them. Today landowners have four economic choices for using farmland: farm or lease to a farmer, subdivide under existing zoning, Basic Cluster Development, or Enchanced Cluster Development. Mesilla is also investigating how density bonus incentives might be further expanded for projects that provide “Affordable Housing.” The keys here are to determine what an “affordable house” is, setting up a Housing Board or Authority, reviewing the 3-year income histories of applicants seeking to buy the affordable units, and legal limitations of the appreciation of resale value. This can be accomplished either by prohibiting the receipt of any profit for a set period of years, or limiting appreciation to a set percent per year. This is vital to assure that “affordable” homes are not “flipped” by the initial buyer for a huge windfall. This would defeat the purpose of the density bonus that was granted the developer and undermine legitimate efforts to create affording housing stock. The New Mexico Land Conservancy continues to work to implement the Farmland Conservation Plan. Land trust personnel are meeting with Mesilla landowners on cluster development and conservation easement options. The group is also investigating public support for an Open Space Bond to establish a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program targeted at lands along the Rio Grande near the new Mesilla Valley Bosque State Park.

Mesilla pecan orchard

Mesilla Plaza

Mesilla vista

©JW

©JW

©JW

��

Raising millions of dollars for PDRs in small towns like Mesilla is challenging but not impossible. The Village of Corrales, near Albuquerque, raised $2.5 million which was combined with Federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program funds to purchase development rights on critical farmland. Mesilla reminds us of the power of a long-term commitment to the preservation of critical lands. The Farmland Conservation Plan has served as a springboard for action, drawing deep on the agricultural roots of Mesilleros. Landowners are now seriously considering a much wider array of options than they had before: conservation buyers, forming LLCs, and Farmland Districts. But in the end, efforts to preserve critical farmlands in this historic town are focused on three major techniques in the toolbox:

Cluster Development OrdinanceConservation Easement donationsPurchase of Development Rights (PDRs)

Preserving critical lands is no longer just something large cities do. Expertise is now available in New Mexico to assist small cities and towns in saving the lands that make them special. See the Resources and Links section at the end of this booklet for help.

•••

!(!(

!( !(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( [

Map 11: Cluster Development - RF and RA Farmland

Irrigated Open SpaceVacantUrban

Non-Irrigated Open Space

Mesilla Town Limits

!( Residential Structures

miles

0 0.25 0.5 1

Rio Grande

C.Saenz

Cluster Development

Conserved Farmland Areas

Cluster Development

Mesilla Valley Bosque SitePark

Mesilla Cluster Development Scenario (from Mesilla Farmland Conservation Plan)

��

How can New Mexico Ranch families --- many who are land-rich and cash-poor --- preserve the integrity of their ranches while at the same time satisfy their financial goals? The Montosa Ranch Project provides a hopeful case study.

The Montosa Ranch straddles the northeastern edge of the Plains of San Augustin west of Magdalena, New Mexico. In 1989 B.W. and Billie Cox bought the Montosa Ranch with a life-long friend and California industrialist. The ranch consists of approximately 32,000 deeded acres and approximately 40,000 acres of land leased from the U.S. Forest Service and State of New Mexico.

Because neither of their two sons was interested in ranching, and because their wealth is tied up in land, B.W. and Billie Cox realized that to accomplish their financial goals, they would have to subdivide part of the ranch to get out some of their equity. At first they looked at developing approximately 2000 acres into 20 to 40-acre lots. However, they decided against this approach. The idea of having that many new neighbors did not sit well. They also did not want to see the kind of subdivision of their land that is being developed around Datil, New Mexico, located twenty-five miles away on the other side of the Plains of San Augustin. Both B.W. and Billie have an emotional attachment to ranching as a way of life. They want to live out their lives on the Montosa Ranch. When the idea of a conservation easement development was first presented to B.W. he was hesitant to consider it. The word “perpetuity” scared him.

“I don’t have all the answers for the best way to manage the ranch for the future”, B.W. said at the time, “but I want to keep my options open. Forever is a long time. I don’t want to be cursed by future generations for a wrong-headed decision I may make today.”

G2 Montosa Ranch Project

Montosa Ranch

Montosa Ranch

©AA

©AA

��

Although he has a very different financial profile, B.W. and Billie’s partner in the ranch, was also reluctant to consider the use of a conservation easement. He had not heard of conservation easements before, but they sounded a lot like “tree hugging” to him. Fortunately for the project, the Ranch’s attorney, John Garrett, was open to the idea of a conservation easement. “Why be against it”, John asked, “if it can satisfy your financial goals, and do some greater good?”

Two critical questions emerged for the owners: How do you maximize the fair market value of a limited number of lots that will be adequate to realize your financial goals without also providing open space amenities to the prospective lot buyers? And how do you develop a limited number of lots in a way that will not adversely affect the ranch and the ranching way of life you enjoy?

It turns out that these two questions are different sides of the same equation. Like most ranchers, B.W. and Billie Cox are not interested in seeing their land subdivided. On the other side, most conservation buyers are not interested in running a ranch. They value the land for the scenery, recreational opportunities, and privacy afforded by open space. Conservation easement design and development balances both sides of the equation. On one side it allows the ranch owners a way to get some equity out of the land while at the same time it preserves the integrity of the land for ranching. On the other side it protects the conservation values of the land that make it attractive to the conservation buyer. It also protects the conservation values that are required to qualify for the income and estate tax benefits.

Montosa Ranch

B.W. Cox

©AA

©AA

��

Although the owners were reluctant to place a conservation easement on the entire ranch, they recognized the need to enhance the value of the lots by protecting the views from the house sites. This recognition led them to analyze the financial and tax implications of several different scenarios. Using hypothetical numbers the scenarios were based on the following assumptions:

Total area of ranch: 32,000 deeded acresTotal area of lots to be sold: 5,000 deeded acresTotal area of view shed as seen from lots: 5,000 deeded acres.Total area of ranch headquarters: 5,000 deeded acres.BEFORE value of ranch, unencumbered by easement: $150/acre AFTER value of ranch, easement encumbering all of ranch: $75/acre Value of lots, if lots and entire ranch are under easement: $400/acreValue of lots, if entire ranch but not lots are under easement: $500/acre (Note: value increases because of potential tax benefit to buyer.)Value of lots, if only lots and view shed are under easement: $300/acre (Note: value decreases because less land is being protected.)Enhancement of portion of ranch not under easement: $50/acre

••••••

•

•

•

•

��

Scenario One:

Entire ranch, including seven lots and ranch headquarters, is placed under a conservation easement. 32,000 acres.

Before value ($150/acre): $4,800,000After value $75/acre): $2,400,000Easement value: $2,400,000

Sale price of lots ($400/acre): $2,000,000

Scenario Two:

Ranch, excluding lots (5,000 acres) and ranch headquarters (5,000 acres), is placed under a conservation easement. 32,000 acres – 10,000 acres = 22,000 acres.

Before value (22,000 acres): $3,300,000After value (22,000 acres): $1,650,000Easement value: $1,650,000Less enhancement (10,000 acres) ($ 500,000)Easement value: $1,150,000

Sale price of lots ($500/acre*): $2,500,000

* Value of lots increases to $500/acre because of potential tax benefit to buyer who would donate a conservation easement on their land.

��

Scenario Three:

Ranch, excluding ranch headquarters (5,000 acres), is placed under a conservation easement. 32,000 acres – 5,000 acres = 27,000 acres

Before value (27,000 acres): $4,050,000After value (27,000 acres): $2,025,000Easement value: $2,025,000Less enhancement (5,000 acres) ($250,000)Easement value: $1,775,000

Sale price of lots ($400/acre): $2,000,000

Scenario Four: Only seven lots (5,000 acres) and view shed (5,000 acres) are placed under a conservation easement. Total: 10,000 acres

Before value (10,000 acres): $1,500,000After value (10,000 acres): $750,000Easement value: $750,000Less enhancement (22,000 acres) ($1,100,000)Easement value: ($350,000)

Sale price of lots ($300/acre*): $1,500,000

* Value of lots decreases to $300/acre because of less land being protected.

In this scenario the easement donation ends up having no value due to the enhancement of the value of the part of the ranch that is not placed under the easement.

��

Scenario Five:

Only the view shed (5,000 acres) is placed under a conservation easement. 32,000 acres – 5,000 acres = 27,000 acres.

Before value (5,000 acres): $750,000After value (5,000 acres): $375,000Easement value: $375,000Less enhancement (27,000 acres): ($1,350,000)Easement value: ($975,000)

Sale price of lots ($300/acre*): $1,500,000

* Value of lots decreases to $300/acre because of less land being protected.

In this scenario the easement donation also ends up having no value due to the enhancement of the value of the part of the ranch that is not placed under the easement.

As they evaluated the different scenarios, four factors influenced the owners’ decision-making process:

the desire to maximize the fair market value of the limited number of lots to be sold the desire to maximize the tax deductiondeciding the amount of land to be encumbered by the easementlearning the restrictions on land use that would be required by the easement

•

•••

��

Scenario One illustrates how placing the entire ranch under the easement, maximizes the value of the easement. However, this approach does not allow the ranch owners to “hedge their bets”. What if they were wrong about conservation easements? They decided against this scenario.

Scenario Two illustrates how placing most of the ranch --- but not the lots --- under the easement, maximizes the fair market value of the lots. The advantage of not placing the lots under the conservation easement prior to the sale is that it may help the prospective buyer to justify a higher purchase price because of subsequent tax benefits that would come from them placing a conservation easement on the lot. The disadvantage of this approach is that it depends on trust between the buyer and the seller that the buyer will place a conservation easement on the lot. There can be no formal legal agreement without negating the potential tax benefits to the buyer. This is because the conservation easement has to be voluntarily donated to obtain the tax benefits; the IRS would disallow a quid pro quo. There could be no guarantee that the lot buyer would not subdivide the lot, which was precisely what the ranch owners were trying to avoid. The possibility of placing restrictive covenants on the lots as a way of preventing the buyers from further subdividing the lots (without having to rely on trust) was also explored. However, restrictive covenants depend on private individuals for enforcement. The ranch owners did not want to worry about these potential legal costs. And if the restrictive covenants were enforced by injunction as part of the deed, there would be no tax benefits to the lot buyer for placing a conservation easement on the lots since the lots would already be protected from future subdivision by the deed restriction. For these reasons, the ranch owners decided against this scenario.

Scenario Three illustrates how placing most of the ranch --- including the lots but not the ranch headquarters --- under the easement, provides a compromise solution. The sale price of the lots being sold under the easement is less than the example of Scenario Two, but there is no uncertainty about what will happen to the lots: the conservation easement prevents further subdivision. Further, it is the Land Trust’s responsibility to enforce the terms of the conservation easement. The ranch owners do not have to worry about the potential legal costs for enforcement. And by keeping the ranch headquarters out of the easement the ranch owners are not restricted from developing this land. They can hedge their bets.

��

Scenario Three also illustrates how keeping only a small portion of the ranch out of the easement results in only a small reduction in the easement value for tax purposes due to the “enhancement value”. In contrast, Scenario Four and Scenario Five both illustrate how the easement donation ends up having no value (and might actually result in a tax liability when too much land is left unencumbered by the easement. The “enhancement value” derives from the fact that land adjacent to protected land becomes more valuable than land adjacent to unprotected land. The Internal Revenue Service requires an accounting of this added value for the landowner in calculating the donation value of the conservation easement. Therefore, the donation value of the conservation easement is determined by subtracting the enhancement value of the land kept out of the easement from the fair market value of the conservation easement.

In the end the owners decided on Scenario Three: to place most of the ranch --- 27,000 of the 32,000 deeded acres --- under a conservation easement. The conservation easement includes the seven 640-acre lots that are to be sold. Under the terms of the conservation easement, each lot has the reserved right to fence a five-acre development area and a five-acre pasture area. The lot buyer is only allowed to graze a limited number of horses in the pasture. No fencing of the 640-acre lot boundaries is allowed, and the ranch owners retain the right to graze the lots outside of the ten acres each lot buyer is allowed to fence. All buildings and other disturbances to the landscape must be located within the five-acre development area. Further, the principle residence is restricted to a specific building envelope.

The building envelopes were located using the “sieve-mapping” design process (see Figures 16-25). Those portions of the ranch that fell through the design “sieve” of protected land were considered appropriate for development as potential house sites. Within those areas, the potential house sites were analyzed in terms of wind protection, solar access, and views (see Figure 26). Finally, to ensure that no lot owner will see the house of a neighbor, helium-filled balloons were tethered at each proposed house site to test the visibility of each house site from any of the others.

�0

Figure 16Natural Drainage: This overlay corresponds to land located within 150 feet on either side of an arroyo or natural drainage system. This lands is being protected from development in order to preserve the natural drainage pattern of the land and to provide habitat for wildlife.

Figure 17Non-buildable Peaks: This overlay corresponds to land located on ridges or peaks down of 40-contour-feet below the tops of the ridge or peak. This land is being protected from development in order to keep the natural horizon free from man-made structures.

Figure 18Wells and Water Lines: This overlay corresponds to land located within a 300-foot radius of stock tanks. It also denotes the location of existing waterlines. This land is being protected from development because of the critical importance of water wells and stock tanks both to the operation of the Montoas Ranch as a working cattle ranch and to wildlife.

��

Figure 19Archaeologic Sites: This overlay corresponds to areas where there are concentrations of archaeologic sites. This land is being protected from development in order to preserve the cultural heritage left by previous inhabitants.

Figure 20Elk Habitat: This overlay corresponds to known corridors of elk migration as well as to prime elk habitat. It is based on information provided by the outfitter who leads hunts on the ranch, and by the ranch owner. This land is being protected from development in order to preserve elk habitat and migration routes.

Figure 21“Blowsand” Zone: This overlay corresponds to areas where sand has been blown in from the Plains of San Augustin. The location of the sand is an indicator of the prevailing wind pattern over geologic time. This land is being protected from development in order to avoid building houses in zones of high wind as evidenced by the sand.

��

Figure 22Steep Slopes: This overlay corresponds to the land where the slope exceeds 25%. This land is being protected from development because of the damage due to erosion caused by building on steep slopes.

Figure 23Conservation Areas: This map creates a composite of all preceding overlays and reveals a pattern of conservation priorities. It is an organic pattern based on what is considered to be important for protection. The land that falls through the “sieve” of the conservation priorities is the land that is appropriate for development.

Figure 24House Sites Relative to Buildable Land: This map corresponds to the land that has fallen through the “sieve” of conservation priorities. The area of buildable land is mapped in red. The house sites are located within the area of buildable land. To further enhance the value of the property, each house site is located to be concealed from view of the other house sites.

��

The 640-acre lot size was based on what the realtor responsible for marketing the project, considered to be marketable. The model can be modified to fit different marketing circumstances. It works equally well with 50-acre lots. Whether the lot is 50 acres or 640 acres, the lot buyer only gets to build within a specific building envelope.

From a marketing point of view Scenario Three also makes the most sense, given the owners understandable reluctance to encumber the entire ranch with a conservation easement. The realtor responsible for marketing the project, pointed out that what is being sold is not so much real estate as a package of amenities consisting of protected open space, and that placing most if not all of the ranch under a conservation easement created a much better package to sell.

Equally important from the realtors’ point of view was for the prospective buyer to understand the conservation and ranching aspects of the deal. The Montosa Ranch is a working cattle ranch. The continued operation of the ranch needs to be protected as a reserved right, including, for example, grazing rights as well as the right to construct fences, corrals, water wells, and pipelines, and the like.

The fact that, in Scenario Three, the lots are included as part of the conservation easement BEFORE the lots are sold is significant. This is because the conservation easement helps to define exactly what is being sold. The owners wanted the building site restrictions (the precise locations of the building sites, the development areas, and the pasture areas) to be included in the conservation easement and they wanted the conservation easement to be recorded prior to the sale of the first lot so that the restrictions could not become negotiating points with the prospective buyers. The owners knew that if the restrictions were only included in the covenants, the savvy prospective buyer would know that the owners could modify the covenants for the sake of a sale.

Figure 25Lot Lines and Infrastructure: This map represents the lot lines relative to the house sites. It also shows the existing infrastructure and improvements to the infrastructure that are required.

��

However, monitoring the building site restrictions as part of a conservation easement is a responsibility that not all land trusts will accept. From the land trust’s point of view, this responsibility adds to the risk of having to defend the conservation easement in court. For this reason, the initial land trust involved decided to pull out of the project. As a new land trust just getting started, they were honest about their limited capacity to monitor and enforce such restrictions.

The New Mexico Land Conservancy (NMLC), had more experience with easements that included building site restrictions. The NMLC board was willing to accept the responsibility of monitoring and enforcing the building site restrictions as part of the conservation easement. To facilitate the land trust’s monitoring and enforcement responsibilities, the ranch owners had the building sites, the five-acre development areas, and the five-acre pasture areas surveyed and staked. Doing this reduces the potential for any misunderstanding of the conservation easement by the lot buyers: they know up-front where they can build and what they can fence. To further strengthen the land trust’s capacity to monitor and enforce the conservation easement, the amount of the stewardship contribution was tied to the number of lots that were actually sold. Since each lot buyer represents a potential lawsuit, this formula made sense for the Land Trust. It also made sense for the ranch owners who could defer most of the stewardship contribution until they had income from the lot sales.

The restrictions on where not to develop (as identified by the sieve-mapping design process) added value to those sites where development is appropriate. This made the conservation development work. The challenge was figuring the optimum level of restrictions. For example, unlike many developments, the house sites were not placed on the top of hills or ridges to maximize views. Instead, they hug the terrain for wind protection and to minimize their visual encroachment on the ranch. At the same time, they are positioned to take advantage of the spectacular views of the nearby mountains. The restriction against building on hill tops or ridges adds value because it preserves the natural horizon for everyone’s enjoyment, and protects the value of the land as a long-term investment. Land protection is the value-adding principle of the Montosa Ranch development.

��

Figure 26Analysis of House Site “A”: To prove the appropriateness of each house site, photographs are made to document the relationship of the site to the landscape. In addition, an analytical diagram of each site relative to the features of the landscape is created.

In exchange for the restriction of only being able to build a house within a specified building envelope, the lot buyer gets the certainty of never having to look at the house of a neighbor. In exchange for the restriction against further subdivision, the lot buyer gets the certainty of a house site that is surrounded by land that will never be developed. What better way to protect the long-term value of one’s investment? In exchange for the restriction against fencing the entire 640-acre lot, the lot buyer gets the right to ride a horse or hunt over a 32,000-acre ranch. In short, they get a ranch without having to worry about managing. And they get to participate in land conservation in a meaningful way.

The Montosa Ranch Project is about capturing the conservation value of the land for the benefit of the ranch owners. It is also about promoting and financing land protection. When it is completed, the Project will result in 27,000 acres of private land being protected from future development. It will also result in the ranch owners realizing their financial and estate planning goals without having to sell the ranch or destroy the integrity of the land. It is an important conservation project not only in terms of its size but also because it provides for the land’s continued use as a cattle ranch. Traditional agricultural use will provide the future with an important cultural link with the past.

��

Thinking It Through

There is no single best way for completing a conservation development like the Montosa Ranch Project Giving away certain development rights in order to protect most of the ranch in perpetuity while simultaneously adding value to the land that is set aside for limited development can be complicated. Further, “in perpetuity” is a difficult concept to grasp. As someone once said, “forever is a long time --- especially towards the end”. No one wants to be cursed by his or her great grandchildren for decisions made today. The following are some questions along with a suggested sequence of benchmarks to help determine if conservation development is right for your situation:

What are your financial goals?If your heirs inherited your estate today, how would the estate tax bill be paid?If you were to sell a limited number of lots, what are the restrictions and rights that you --- as landowner --- want to retain, and what restrictions and rights are you willing to give up?Seek a land trust or other receiver to discuss a possible easement donation.Find a conservation easement attorney, get their advice.Have a title report prepared for the property.Hire a conservation land planner – complete Baseline Report and Sieve Mapping.Begin conservation development design - line up a developer and real estate broker.Locate an appraiser Draft the Conservation Easement, the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, and the Bylaws of the Homeowners Association.Complete preliminary appraisal.Comply with any County or State subdivision requirements including drafting any required “disclosure statements” that must be consistent with the conservation easement and restrictive covenants.Survey and submit the preliminary plat of the subdivision for county planning review.

1.2.3.

4.5.6.7.

8.

9.10.

11.12.

13.

��

Negotiate the final Conservation Easement including the Stewardship Endowment Fund with the Land Trust.Finalize the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, and the Bylaws of the Homeowners Association.Approval of final subdivision plat by Planning Board and County Commission.Record the approved plat.Complete the appraisal.Place the signed conservation easement in escrow with instructions to escrow officer to record the easement immediately PRIOR to the sale of the first lot.Begin real estate marketing.Complete lot sales.Stewardship. Rancher continues to manage conserved areas. Land trust does annual monitoring of the land under conservation easement. Homeowner’s Association enforces restrictive covenants in force on the lots.

In conclusion, completing a successful conservation development may seem like a real chore. While the complexity of this process should not be underestimated, with the help of competent advisors, patience, and a personal commitment to a solid outcome, they can be and have been of great help to landowners across New Mexico.

14.

15.

16.17.18.19.

20.21.22.

��

Two different models for contemporary land development in the Ancestral Puebloan landscape lie along the Rio Grande in the greater Albuquerque Metropolitan Area. One is the conventional single-family, detached housing development of “River’s Edge I”, developed by AMREP Southwest Inc., a subsidiary of the New York-based AMREP Corporation between 1987 and 1993. The other is the clustered housing development of “La Luz”, developed by Ray Graham and designed by Antoine Predock between 1969 and 1974. The context for each is the same. Both developments share an identical relationship to the river and the adjacent cottonwood bosque that grows along it. Both are situated on the west side of the Rio Grande above the river’s flood plain in an arid vegetation zone characterized by grama grass and four-wing saltbush. And both have spectacular views of the Sandia Mountains to the east. What distinguishes each development is a different business plan which reflects a fundamentally different attitude regarding man’s relationship to the land and the creation of long-term versus short-term economic value.

G3 AMREP & The Pueblos: River ’s Edge & La Luz

��

G3 AMREP & The Pueblos: River ’s Edge & La Luz

River’s Edge I is an expression of a conceptual framework that views land as a commodity and ownership as a privilege to be exploited. This relationship is rooted in the historical circumstances that made the 1862 Homestead Act possible when land was abundant and non-native settlers were scarce. Even though these circumstances have changed, the criteria for land development that grew from this relationship still prevail. River’s Edge I is an artifact of the contemporary culture which occupies the Anasazi landscape; it is premised on a relationship of perceived abundance between people and the land that is strictly market-oriented.

Aerial photo of River’s Edge.

�0

La Luz, on the other hand, expresses a different conceptual framework (figure 26). It follows in the Pueblo tradition which clusters the housing in order to preserve the remaining land for open space. It is a conservation-based development that maintains local character and conserves resources. It shifts the conventional paradigm of extracting immediate value from the land as an individual privilege to a new paradigm of creating long-term value by protecting the land through ecologically-based design and planning.

Aerial photo of La Luz. Courtesy of Ovenwest Corporation.

��

A comparison of the property value appreciation at La Luz with the property value appreciation at River’s Edge I suggests that La Luz is a more financially rewarding long-term investment. The average price of a 1740-square-foot La Luz townhouse appreciated by 17.71% per year from $77.90 per square foot in 1993 to $96.74 per square foot in 2000. The average price of a 1425 square foot River’s Edge I detached house appreciated by 16.88% per year from $55.89 per square foot in 1993 to $75.53 per square foot in 2001. It is important to note that the average age of the River’s Edge I house sold in 2001 was only 12 years whereas the average age of a La Luz townhouse sold in 2000 was 24 years. The fact that, since they were first constructed 28 years ago, the average annual appreciation for a La Luz townhouse has been 13.89% makes a powerful statement about the long-term value of La Luz as an investment. It remains to be seen whether or not the River’s Edge I development will continue to appreciate at the same rate as the houses grow older and the construction deteriorates. Nevertheless, the land development pattern represented by River’s Edge I is by far the dominant pattern. This paper will explore why the River’s Edge I model works, and why the land development pattern exemplified by La Luz has not been emulated in the marketplace. It will question the conventional wisdom regarding the inevitability of the River’s Edge I pattern of development. And it will conclude with a discussion of an alternative pattern for land development based on a design process known as “sieve mapping” which identifies the conservation value of the land and demonstrates how to capitalize on this value. The River’s Edge I development responds to the need for affordable housing in Albuquerque. This is why River’s Edge I is so successful. For a young family just getting a start it provides the opportunity to build equity as an attractive alternative to paying rent. In part, AMREP achieves affordability through the economies of scale and mass production. A limited number of house models are offered for sale to the prospective buyer. Further, the land is bulldozed to create identical house pads for each of these models, thereby avoiding the added expense of customizing the house to fit a specific site. There is no question that this pattern of development has enabled thousands of New Mexicans to realize the enduring dream of home ownership. However, what makes River’s Edge I affordable is a false economy. Cheap land at the fringe of the Metropolitan Area combined with development and construction practices designed to last no longer than a 30-year mortgage are the real reasons River’s Edge I is affordable.

��

American homebuilders have operated on the assumption that abundant supplies of inexpensive energy make it easier to pump vast amounts of cold air into houses in the summer and hot air into houses in the winter than to pay for site- and energy-efficient buildings designed by architects in direct response to the climatic conditions found in a particular location. The advantage of this site-specific and environmentally- house design has been rarely considered in the modern history of building homes in this country. The exigencies of mass production result in “anywhere” design and construction. This is why the house designs of River’s Edge I are similar to those of any other part of the country. They show no more awareness of the climatic, geographic or cultural conditions particular to their site than do new houses in Phoenix or Amarillo. Albuquerque ends up looking like Los Angeles. To put it another way, the American marketplace favors the short-term advantage of a low down payment on a smaller mortgage over the long-term advantage of energy efficiency resulting from environmentally-responsible design and construction. The prevailing attitude in the marketplace is to postpone until the future what you don’t have to pay for today. As modern Americans we have grown fat from our indulgences at the expense of creating a legacy of a healthy environment for our children. AMREP’s purchase, in the early 1960’s, of about 90,000 acres of West Side land at or near rock-bottom prices is one of the reasons for the low prices. Another is that AMREP has not provided basic improvements such as sidewalks, residential street lighting or underground storm drainage --- not to mention amenities such as parks, recreation facilities or libraries that contribute to making a community. Over the years the AMREP Corporation and its subsidiaries have been accused of negligence on everything from improper sewage disposal and inadequate house foundations to using inferior indoor plumbing pipe (Hartranft, Albuquerque Journal, 22 Feb 1991). In 1978 AMREP settled a class-action lawsuit brought by area landowners that accused AMREP of deceptive land sale practices by donating 161 acres of land and $350,000 in cash to the City of Rio Rancho as part of the settlement (Staff Report, Albuquerque Journal, 22 April 1993). In 1991, the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office brought a lawsuit against AMREP Southwest Inc. alleging that AMREP built many homes with lumber that was not pressure-treated for use below ground; this law suit was also settled against AMREP (Geis, Albuquerque Journal, 27 June 1992).

��

Deficient flood control also contributes to the false economy that makes AMREP’s development of Rio Rancho affordable. Rio Rancho relies almost entirely on using streets to carry storm water (Miller, Albuquerque Journal, 25 June 1989). This has a drastic effect on the dry landscape because the street-level drainage often causes erosion when a street ends abruptly and turns into a dusty mesa or an unlined arroyo (Miller, Albuquerque Journal, 25 June, 1989). For example, it normally takes between one-half and one inch of rain to create run-off in the desert; after the development of streets, houses, and parking lots, run-off occurs with only one tenth of an inch of rain. As a result of development, instances of run-off in arroyos jump from an average of once every three years to twenty-three or more times in a year (Miller, Albuquerque Journal, 25 June 1989). Rio Rancho did not establish comprehensive drainage and flood control laws until 1988. Enforcing the laws has been difficult. Part of the problem is that from 1963 when Rio Rancho’s first homes were built until the incorporation of Rio Rancho as a city in 1981, Rio Rancho’s destiny was controlled by AMREP. AMREP built the community’s homes and roads. It also owned and operated the water and sewer system which, in effect, controlled how and where the city grew (Hartranft, Albuquerque Journal, 22 Feb 1991). In short, AMREP functioned autonomously as a quasi-government. Even after incorporation the relationship between Rio Rancho and AMREP has been like that between David and Goliath. This is because Rio Rancho is dependent on the large amount of revenues it receives in sales taxes on new AMREP homes. In 1988-1989, according to the City Finance Director at the time, Hal Donovan, just more than $1 million or 16.5% of the City’s total $6.3 million in revenue came from new home sales. AMREP built 88% of the City’s new single family homes during that time (Miller, Albuquerque Journal, 25 June 1989). “That makes the City of Rio Rancho very vulnerable and tied to AMREP’s operations”, according to Chuck Easterling, a West Side engineer and mastermind of Albuquerque’s drainage laws who served as a private engineer under contract with Rio Rancho. “It’s not a healthy situation” (Miller, Albuquerque Journal, 25 June 1989).

��

Easterling said he refused AMREP’s request to approve the first phase of the Vista Hills subdivision after finding that AMREP hadn’t built a storm drain at a key intersection as directed. But he said then-Mayor Richard Wiles approved the subdivision anyway. AMREP said it was simply a difference of opinion between Easterling and the AMREP engineer. Richard Wiles said he couldn’t remember the incident (Miller, Albuquerque Journal, 25 June 1989). In 1988 the Vista Hills subdivision was devastated by a flood that filled the streets with thousands of tons of sediment and caused an estimated $500,000 in property damage (Guest, Albuquerque Journal, 1 August 1988). When Rio Rancho incorporated in 1981, some residents suspected that the power behind incorporation was AMREP (Hartranft, Albuquerque Journal, 22 Feb 1991). It seemed dubious for AMREP to willingly give up the power it had as an autonomous quasi-government. But in 1990 a second flood swept through the Vista Hills subdivision. Many residents blamed AMREP. Richard Williams, the public affairs director for AMREP at the time maintained that AMREP was not to blame for any possible drainage problems in the Vista Hills subdivision since its drainage plans were approved by the proper officials. “A lot of this is the City’s responsibility, too,” Williams said, “because this is an incorporated town now” (Miller, Albuquerque Journal, 17 July 1990). An inadequate water supply is another example of the false economy that make AMREP’s development of Rio Rancho affordable. On 13 July 1989 the Rio Rancho City Council, by a 5 to 1 vote, approved a 60-day moratorium on issuing new building permits (Miller, Albuquerque Journal, 13 July 1989). They did so because of periodic water outages and low water pressure in some areas of Rio Rancho. The Albuquerque Utilities Corporation was blamed for not pumping enough water to keep up with the resident’s needs. The utility was owned by AMREP at the time. (It has since been sold by AMREP to the General Waterworks Corporation.) The next night, on 14 July 1989, the City Council reversed itself and lifted the ban on building saying the measure penalized the

��

City and its residents without helping to resolve Rio Rancho’s water supply problems (Miller, Albuquerque Journal, 14 July 1989). According to Martin Block, a member of the State Public Service Commission at the time who attended the Council meeting, the residents of Rio Rancho were paying $1.16 per 1000 gallons of water, compared with a state average of about $2.50 per 1000 gallons of water. He told the Council that the Albuquerque Utilities Corporation could install more storage tanks, wells and pumps to meet the demands for water, but that residents must be willing to pay for the extra equipment (Miller, Albuquerque Journal, 13 July 1989). AMREP ignores the long-term costs of building a community without adequate infrastructure. It also ignores the long-term costs due to commuting and energy consumption that can burden a family’s annual budget. And it ignores the consequences to a family that finally pays off the 30-year mortgage only to find that their equity in home ownership has evaporated in poor construction and in the depreciation of their property’s value in a declining --- because badly planned --- neighborhood. AMREP responds to short-term social and economic needs at the expense of creating real long-term value that would benefit not only the family’s equity in home ownership but also the community of Rio Rancho as a desirable place to live. This “false” economy has to do with living in an age of instant gratification where success is defined by the realization of short-term goals. Unfortunately, the short-term interests of a large public corporation like AMREP with the responsibility of making quarterly financial reports to its shareholders may not coincide with the long-term interests of a community. And yet sustained and sustainable prosperity is in everyone’s interest.

��

Before the era of abundant and cheap energy supplies, there were practices of architecture and planning --- evolved out of necessity --- that reflected an acute awareness of the climatic and geographic conditions particular to a site or region. Just such an awareness resulted in the building traditions of the Anasazi in the desert Southwest. The settlement of Mesa Verde, for example, is based on a remarkable human collaboration with topography and climate. The cliff dwellings are built in canyons that dissect a relatively flat tableland or mesa that tilts to the south. Over a 15-mile stretch the elevation varies from 8500 feet at the northern escarpment to about 6500 feet at the southern end. This gentle tilt

Cliff Palace at Mesa Verde ©AA

��

of the land towards the sun results in greater solar radiation and accounts for a slightly longer frost-free season for growing corn than that of the surrounding Montezuma Valley (Erdman, Douglas and Marr 1969: 47-58). The longer growing season, in addition to the increased precipitation due to the higher elevation, may explain why Mesa Verde was occupied in the first place. It would take an acute awareness of the environment to recognize this advantage. But in the unforgiving environment of the desert, such an awareness would have been critical for survival. There is an equally elegant relationship between the human settlement of Mesa Verde and geology. Cliff Palace, for example, is located in an alcove created at the interface between a strata of sandstone and a strata of shale that outcrops on the steep canyon slopes (Erdman, Douglas and Marr 1969: 15-16). As water seeps down through the sandstone it meets the impervious shale which forces it to migrate laterally to the canyon walls. There, a process of freezing and thawing undercuts the sandstone cliff where it is in contact with the impervious shale. This weathering process produces not only the alcove that shelters Cliff Palace but also the very stones the Anasazi used to build it! At Mesa Verde, the architecture is given meaning by an order established by geology and by a synergy that occurs when human design interacts intelligently with nature.

��

At Chaco Canyon the architecture is given meaning by an order established by astronomy and by a sophisticated awareness of the solar and lunar cycles. The major buildings at Chaco Canyon are part of a complex and intricate building project based on this awareness of astronomy (Sofaer 1997: 88). Pueblo Bonito, for example, commemorates the solar cycle in the cardinal orientation of its walls (figure 28). According to Anna Sofaer in her essay The Primary Architecture of the Chacoan Culture, “Each day at meridian passage of the sun, the mid-wall [of Pueblo Bonito] which approximately divides the massive structure casts no shadow. Similarly the middle of the sun’s yearly passage is marked at Pueblo Bonito as the equinox sun is seen rising and setting closely in line with the western half of its south wall. Thus, the middle of the sun’s daily and yearly journeys are visibly in alignment with the major features of this building which is at the middle of the Chacoan world.” (Sofaer 1997: 116). Sofaer and others make a compelling case for how the synchronization and integration of the solar and lunar cycles determines the design of the major buildings at Chaco Canyon in terms of their orientation, their internal geometries and their alignment with each other. It would take an acute awareness of the movement of the sun and moon to recognize these cycles and a profound sensibility to integrate these cycles into the design of Chacoan architecture. Such an awareness and sensitivity was no doubt critical in an environment where survival was a delicate human dance with the elements of sun, wind and water.

Pueblo Bonito at Chaco Canyon. Photo courtesy of National Park Service.

��

What the Ancestral Puebloan examples at Mesa Verde and Chaco Canyon teach us is an enlightened self-interest predicated on a simple assumption: that man is a part of nature, not separate from it. Out of the necessity of surviving in an arid and unforgiving land, they offer an example of tough-minded pragmatism and grace: the kind of pragmatism that recognizes the ethical and practical expedience of preserving the integrity and stability of the land for future generations; the kind of grace that occurs when human design collaborates with the wonder and beauty of nature. Places such as Mesa Verde and Chaco Canyon are original pedagogues. We may never return to those now forgotten traditional ways of building, but neither can we afford the luxury that has allowed us to be as wasteful of our resources or as oblivious to our environment as we have been in the recent past. La Luz, designed by architect Antoine Predock with the creative and visionary sponsorship of developer Ray Graham, offers an example of a contemporary housing development looking back at older traditions and reinterpreting them in innovative ways. La Luz asserts not just modern but far-sighted principles of open space and community planning in direct response to the climate and the site. La Luz clusters its housing in order to preserve open space while achieving the housing densities necessary to make it economically feasible. And it did so back in the days when land was still relatively inexpensive in the Albuquerque Metropolitan Area and before “sprawl” had become a buzzword of the “New Urbanists”. La Luz was built with a pre-central-air-conditioning sensibility regarding the climate. As an artifact of our culture it is an anomaly: it embodies values that are related to the Anasazi building traditions in its reverence for the landscape and nature. Perhaps one reason La Luz has never been emulated in the marketplace is precisely because it is a cultural anomaly. In spite of the fact that it has been fully occupied since its construction with a very low turn-over rate, and in spite of the fact that during the past 28 years it has appreciated in value at an average annual rate of nearly 14%, realtors report that prospective buyers still hesitate at buying a townhouse that shares common walls with its neighbors. Never mind that it is almost impossible to find a single unit that has its privacy or its views compromised by any of the neighboring houses. And never mind that, by gracefully stepping the houses up the natural topography so that each house

�0

has an unobstructed view of the Sandia Mountains to the east, La Luz conveys a sense of open space lacking in most suburban developments, and at River’s Edge I in particular. We Americans like our ranchettes. According to Gary L. Wells, the qualifying broker at the Rio Rancho office of Coldwell Banker Legacy, “Price sensitivity has kept really well-built developments like La Luz from happening. Also, in general, more people prefer detached housing to attached housing”. Another reason La Luz has not been emulated may have to do with the conventions of development. Developers understandably favor quick returns on their investments in order to shorten their exposure to interest payments required by debt financing of the construction loan. La Luz was developed by someone with deep pockets who had the staying power to be patient long enough for the market to accept the innovation. Further, developers are not rewarded by the appreciation of long-term value. They are only rewarded by the profit margin at the time of the initial sale. The appreciation of long-term value rewards the buyer: the homeowner who will invest the lion’s share of his or her net worth in paying off the mortgage. It also rewards the community. In 1919 the landscape architect Frederick Law Olmstead Jr. observed that “a local park adds more to the value of the remaining land in the residential area which it serves than the value of the land withdrawn to create it” (as cited in Fausold and Lilliholm 1996, p.8). This enhancement value of open space influenced the thinking of developer Ray Graham and architect Antoine Predock who preserved 200 acres of land to the east of La Luz as perpetual open space. Mr. Olmstead’s observation is substantiated by several empirical studies measuring the enhancement value of open space which are cited in a Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Research Paper by Charles J. Fausold and Robert J. Lilieholm which has been published in Environmental Management. For example, a 1967 study of a 10-acre neighborhood park in Lubbock, Texas found that “within a two-and-one-half block area around the park, land values declined with distance from the park” (Fausold, Lilliholm 1996: 8). This relationship was true for the sales price of land only --- not houses and land --- a fact with revealing implications for land developers. In Boulder, Colorado, a 1978 study found that “the existence of greenbelts had a significant impact on adjacent residential property values.” The relationship proved to be linear: a $4.20 decrease in the price of residential property for each foot away from the

��

greenbelt. The aggregate property value in one of the neighborhoods studied was approximately $5.4 million greater than it would have been without the greenbelt. This resulted in an additional annual neighborhood property tax revenue of $500,000 (Fausold, Lilliholm 1996: 9).

These empirical studies quantify the fiscal and economic implications of open space preservation. They demonstrate that, as Mr. Olmstead observed, open space does affect the surrounding land market in positive ways --- both for the individual property owners as well as for the local governments which depend on property tax for operating revenue. Unfortunately the reverse is also true. Poor planning can cancel the enhancement value of open space. Witness River’s Edge where the design of open space was an afterthought. Not until the fall of 1992 did the city of Rio Rancho enlist Dekker/Perich and Associates P.A. and their sub-consultants Campbell Okuma Perkins Associates Inc. to prepare a development plan for the River’s Edge Open Space. At that time River’s Edge I and III contained no parkland, and River’s Edge II had a small neighborhood park under construction. The result of this poor planning is that the River’s Edge Open Space was forced to occupy the left-over space between the river and the pre-existing residential development : a missed opportunity. In contrast, when thoughtfully designed to be integrated into a neighborhood, open space preservation contributes not only to the intangible value of making more enjoyable places to live, but also to the economic bottom line. The economic implications of open space preservation and other quality of life issues prompt a reassessment of the conventional wisdom about the consequences of development and conservation.

��

Examine each question in terms of what is ethically and esthetically right, as well as what is economically expedient. A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.

~Aldo Leopold

Aldo Leopold

Aldo Leopold, a man destined to become one of America’s most important conservationists, served as the first secretary of the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce from 1918-1919. One of his pet projects was to create a park along the length of the Rio Grande that would be one of Albuquerque’s “greatest assets”. In Forward Albuquerque, the Chamber’s quarterly bulletin, Leopold wrote, “every landowner should remember that the City, in asking for the donation of the necessary lands is not asking charity of its citizens. It is offering a business proposition which every thoughtful man knows to be for the mutual benefit of all concerned.” He added, “It will be the largest City Park between Denver and the coast. It offers the finest scenery and views to be found in the valley.” Leopold’s vision resulted in the Rio Grande City Park, which includes Albuquerque’s first-rate zoo and the Rio Grande State Park.

Today there is a growing awareness among local business leaders that a community’s quality of life is one of its chief economic assets. New businesses choose to locate or expand in locales that offer enjoyable places in which to live.

H. CONCLUSION

��

Communities that have allowed their natural amenities to be degraded suffer a competitive disadvantage when trying to attract new employers. As Leopold observed, it is in the entire community’s interest to protect these special places.New Mexico’s critical lands are a precious natural resource for all residents of our state. They are an invaluable economic asset as an attraction to both new business and tourism. Preserving and protecting these special places should become one of New Mexico’s top priorities.

The goal of this book is to provide you, the citizens, community leaders, and elected officials of New Mexico with the tools to preserve our state’s special places as part of the meaningful commitment to promise our children the inheritance of a beautiful and healthy physical environment.

Following is a list of other resources to help you honor this promise:

��

Resources and Links

New Mexico Land Trusts Forest Trust – www.theforesttrust.org New Mexico Land Conservancy – www.nmlandconservancy.org Rio Grande Agricultural Land Trust – www.rgalt.org Santa Fe Conservation Trust – www.sfct.org Southern Rockies Agricultural Land Trust – email sralt@hotmail.com Taos Land Trust – www.taoslandtrust.org

National Land Conservation Organizations American Farmland Trust – www.farmland.org Land Trust Alliance – national organization of land trusts, www.lta.org Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation – www.rmef.org The Nature Conservancy – www.tnc.org Trust for Public Land – www.tpl.org

New Mexico State Government Dept. of Energy, Mineral, and Natural Resources – Forestry Division www.emnrd.state.nm.us/fd Dept. of Finance and Administration – Local Government Division www.local.nmdfa.state.nm.us Land use planning, community development, grants New Mexico Game & Fish www.wildlife.state.nm.us/ Federal Agencies Bureau of Land Management – www.blm.gov Natural Resources Conservation Service – www.nrcs.usda.gov U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – www.fws.gov U.S. Forest Service – www.fs.fed.gov

��

Selected References

Anella, Anthony and John B. Wright. 2004. Saving the Ranch: Conservation Easement Design in the American West. Washington D.C., Island Press.

Arendt, Randall. Conservation Design for Subdivisions. Washington D.C., Island Press.

deBuys, William. Editor. 2003. Valles Caldera National Preserve. Valles Caldera Trust. Espanola, New Mexico.

Duekken, Christopher and and Cara Snyder. 2005. Nature Friendly Communities. Washington D.C., Island Press.

Erdman, James A., Charles L. Douglas, and John W. Marr. 1969. Wetherhill Mesa Studies: Environment of Mesa Verde, Colorado. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Fausold, Charles J. and Robert Lilieholm. 1996. “The Economic Value of Open Space: A Review and Synthesis” in Environmental Management. Springer, New York.

Geis, Gayle. 1989. “Judge Approves Settlement Against AMREP.” Albuquerque Journal, 27 June

Guest, Greta. 1988. “Rio Rancho Residents Form Flood Study Group.” Albuquerque Journal, 1 August.

Hartranft, Michael. 1991. “Rio Rancho: A Vision That Grew.” Albuquerque Journal, 22 February.

��

Hartranft, Michael. 1991. “Incorporation Loosened Bonds to AMREP.” Albuquerque Journal, 22 February.

McHarg, Ian L. 1967. Design with Nature. Doubleday/Natural History Press. Garden City, New York

Miller, Christopher. 1989. “Flood of Headaches: Many Factors Make Rio Rancho Drainage Woes Tough to Fix.” Albuquerque Journal, 25 June.

Miller, Christopher. 1989. “Rio Rancho Calls Halt to Building.” Albuquerque Journal, 13 July.

Miller, Christopher. 1989. “Rio Rancho Lifts Ban on Building.” Albuquerque Journal, 14 July.

Miller, Christopher. 1990. “Rio Rancho Picks Up Mess Storm Left.” Albuquerque Journal, 17 July.

Sayre, Nathan R. Working Wilderness: The Malpai Borderlands Group and the Future Of the Western Range. Rio Nuevo Publishers, 2005

Sofaer, Anna. 1997. “The Primary Architecture of the Chacoan Culture: A Cosmological Expression.” In Anasazi Architecture and American Design. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

��

��

ANTHONy ANELLA WAS BORN AND RAISED IN ALBUQUERQUE. HE SPENT HIS EARLy SUMMERS WORKING ON FARMS AND RANCHES IN NEW MEXICO. FROM THAT EXPERIENCE HE GAINED AN ABIDING RESPECT FOR THE LAND AND THE PEOPLE WHO EARN THEIR LIVING ON THE LAND. THIS RESPECT CONTINUES TO INFORM HIS WORK IN DESIGN, RESEARCH, AND WRITING. HE IS THE PRINCIPAL OF ANTHONy ANELLA ARCHITECT AIA (anella.com), AN AWARD-WINNING ALBUQUERQUE PRACTICE DEDICATED TO SITE-SENSITIVE DESIGN. HE IS THE CO-AUTHOR (WITH JOHN WRIGHT) OF SAVING THE RANCH: CONSERVATION EASEMENT DESIGN IN THE AMERICAN WEST, AND CURRENTLy SERVES ON THE BOARD OF THE NEW MEXICO LAND CONSERVANCy. HE BELIEVES THAT GOOD DESIGN IS DISTINGUISHED By THE ART OF LISTENING AND By LETTING THE LAND DO MOST OF THE TALKING.

Unless otherwise noted all images are copyright Anthony Anella (©AA) or John Wright (©JW).

��

Graphic Design by Rowe Zwahlen: rzwahlen@hotmail.comand Amos Arber: a_arber@yahoo.com.

JOHN (JACK) WRIGHT HAS BEEN INVOLVED WITH LAND USE PLANNING AND LAND CONSERVATION FOR MORE THAN THIRTy yEARS. HE HAS WORKED AS A COUNTy LAND USE PLANNING DIRECTOR, CONSERVATION EASEMENT CONSULTANT, HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHy AT NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITy, AND CHAIR OF THE NEW MEXICO LAND CONSERVANCy. JACK HAS HELPED COMPLETE MORE THAN 100 CONSERVATION EASEMENTS ON OVER 250,000 ACRES ACROSS THE WEST. HE HAS HELPED GUIDE THE NEW MEXICO LAND CONSERVANCy TO THE COMPLETION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS ON OVER 70,000 ACRES OF RANCHES AND FARMS, WILDLIFE HABITATS, AND SCENIC OPEN SPACES. JACK IS THE AUTHOR OF FOUR BOOKS ON LAND CONSERVATION INCLUDING SAVING THE RANCH: CONSERVATION EASEMENT DESIGN IN THE AMERICAN WEST, WHICH HE CO-AUTHORED WITH ANTHONy ANELLA. HE CURRENTLy TEACHES GEOGRAPHy AT NMSU AND ACTS AS A LAND CONSERVATION CONSULTANT.

�0

THE GOVERNOR’S TASK FORCE NEW MEXICO TOOLKIT FOR COMMUNITY GROWTH AND SUSTAINABILITY