Conservation easements have conservation values.

In accordance with the provisions for conservation easements set up under 170 (h) of the IRS CODE, in order for a property to qualify for a conservation easement it must adequately protect one of five listed conservation resources criteria:

Scenic – Property that is valuable to the community as open space due to its proximity to developing areas, or its impact on a view corridor.  Established by its visibility from a major roadway; in some instances correlated with an actual vehicle count.

​

 

 

 

Historic or Cultural –Property that is valuable to a community because of its historical or cultural value or its proximity to an historically significant area.  This can even apply to a land use pattern; however, if this is the only criteria being used, National Register Designation is preferred.

​

 

 

Wildlife or Ecological – Property that contains endangered, threatened, or ecologically significant species, or natural systems.  This often includes wetlands and migration corridors, critical habitat as identified by the division of natural resources; however, added to this criteria is that the area be of significant size to insure that, should the property be surrounded by development, the wildlife values can be protected.

​

 

Established in accordance with a clearly delineated government policy – Property with significant agricultural or forestry resources.  Agricultural practices as defined under the Farmland Assessment Act definitely qualify; forested properties may qualify as well.

​

 

 

 

Public Recreation or Education – this has been the criteria most commonly used in establishing trails and greenways which are more significant for the connection they provide to recreational opportunities; an important component of this criteria is the fact that the public must be allowed on the property.

​

 

 

​

Even if the property meets the above criteria, Utah Open Lands must evaluate the proposed parcel with the following considerations in mind:

• Whether the property has significant resources that can be protected even if adjacent property is developed;

• Whether the easement would be difficult to enforce or would require extensive management;

• Whether the property owner insists on provisions in the easement which UOL believes would seriously diminish the property’s primary conservation values;

• Whether the property is of sufficient size so that its conservation resources are likely to remain intact even if adjacent properties are developed;

• Whether the property would be an island of conservation, creating a patchwork of unconnected, protected properties;

• Whether the conservation resources for which the lands are being preserved are currently in a condition which will insure the long-term viability of those conservation resources;

• Whether the property is part of a larger conservation plan for the community or region.