Eastern Sierra Land Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770566099
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Bishop, CA, USA
Phone
7608734554
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,057,407
Expenses
$1,608,202
Assets
$15,952,331
Liabilities
$72,692

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Mark Drew (Executive Dir.): $166,186 total reported compensation
  • Amy Sturgill (Conservation Dir.): $123,819 total reported compensation
  • Darlene Scheutz (Development Dir.): $116,416 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Established in 2001, eastern sierra land trust (eslt) works with willing landownersto preserve vital lands in the eastern sierra region for their scenic, agricultural, natural, recreational, historical, and watershed values. Eslt recognizes that theland we share has long been used in a variety of ways, and we work to preserve ahealthy balance of uses from ranching to hiking, wildlife habitats to favoritefishing spots that can be sustained forever, ensuring a strong local economy andhealthy environment for generations to come. Eslt works to help families in the faceof pressures to subdivide their working farms and ranches. We work with landownersto protect the regions critical habitats. We work to offer the entire eastern sierra community, residents and visitors, the opportunity to connect with our treasured lands, wildlife and a rural heritage.as a nationally accredited land trust, eslt meets the highest standards for excellence, trust and permanence.

What it reported doing in 2025

Tribal Partnership: ESLTs Tribal Partnership Program aims to build long-term partnerships between ESLT and Tribal Nations throughout the Eastern Sierra by advancing meaningful collaboration, capacity-building, and inclusion of traditional ecological knowledge in ESLTs conservation and stewardship efforts. In 2025, a major milestone of the program was the development of the Commitment to Tribal Engagement and Collaboration guidelines, which established a framework for respectful, consistent, and culturally informed engagement with Tribal governments, leadership, staff, and community members. These guidelines have helped institute best practices and support long-term relationship building across ESLT's conservation efforts.The program also successfully launched three Tribal Subgrants, providing resources directly to Tribal partners to support projects that align with cultural stewardship, conservation, education, and community priorities. Through ongoing coordination, technical assistance, and project support, the subgrants have fostered Tribal-led initiatives and strengthened partnerships between ESLT and Tribal communities and supported Californias broader 30x30 and climate initiatives. Throughout the year, the Tribal Partnership Program engaged with Tribal Council leadership, Tribal staff, and program representatives to identify opportunities for collaboration, address community priorities, and ensure Tribal perspectives are incorporated into ESLT programs and projects. The program further expanded its reach through stakeholder engagement efforts with local, regional, state, and nonprofit partners to build support for both ESLT and Tribal initiatives, creating opportunities for shared learning and collaboration.In addition, the program facilitated and participated in numerous outreach, educational, and community engagement opportunities, including presentations, meetings, field visits, workshops, and partnership-building activities. These efforts aim to increase awareness of Tribal stewardship practices, strengthen community relationships, and promote greater understanding of the importance of Indigenous leadership and participation in land conservation and natural resource management throughout the Eastern Sierra.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 71% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 75.3%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.7 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 91.5%; rating input score 91; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.8%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.92; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 32.2%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72% of revenue deployed · 75.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $166K · 19 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.