II. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

Published and unpublished literature about conservation easements, with notes (by Rachel Neugarten.)  Articles are listed in order of relevance, not alphabetically. Some articles are copywright protected, so you must be a member of the workspace (and logged in) for the links to work.

Back to Annotated Bibliography

Jenkins, J. 2008. Conservation Easements and Biodiversity in the Northern Forest Region. Open Space Institute and Wildlife Conservation Society. Report accessed 9/26/08, http://www.osiny.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Publication_ConservationEasements_Jenkins

• Provides descriptive information about conservation easements nationally and in the Northern Forest
• Distinguishes the "pragmatic" objective of maintaining current levels of biodiversity vs. the "idealistic" objective of improving/restoring ecosystem health - states that he (Jenkins) is a pragmatist when it comes to easements (other forms of protection may be more appropriate for restoration goals)
• Recommends a suite of 6 conservation tools:

1. Biological surveys
2. Special management areas
3. Forested buffer strips
4. Requiring sustainability
5. Requiring a balanced forest structure
6. Standard wildlife management techniques

• Recommends that both the goals and the criteria for meeting them be made explicit.
• "A typical timber investment company holds any given piece of land for 12 years or less." (p.14) - investors' return comes from the appreciation of the value of the land, so land must be sold for investors to get returns.
• Makes some generalizations about biodiversity in working forests, and makes some recommendations for conserving it (p 43)

Block, A., K. Hartigan, R. Heiser,G. Horner, L. Lewandowski, J. Mulvihill- Kuntz, and S. Thorn. 2004. Trends in easement language and the status of current monitoring on working forest conservation easements. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 270 pp. Available from http://www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt/pubs/wfce/wfcecomplete.pdf (accessed October 2008). 

• M.S. project involving 7 students at University of Michigan
• Collaboration with Tina Hall, Conservation Director of The Nature Conservancy's Upper Peninsula Conservation Center, Michigan Chapter
• Consisted of two parts: an evaluation of easement language and how it has evolved since 1985 (comparison of 82 easements from around the US)
• And an analysis of easement monitoring methods (via customized monitoring surveys of 23 land managers responsible for monitoring a subset of 39 easements). Interested in range of monitoring techniques and perceived effectiveness of monitoring.
• Developed recommendations for improved language and monitoring regimes on working forest conservation easements
• Also included a literature review - synthesis of others' recommendations for conservation easements and monitoring programs (Lind, Salafsky, etc.)
• "The surveys revealed that while the majority of WFCEs are monitored at some level, a range of methods and associated effectiveness rankings exist. Ground-level monitoring was the most common monitoring method reported, but newer easements tended to involve a greater variety of methods. The value of an "annual meeting" was often emphasized by monitoring professionals, and analysis of the data suggested that "annual meetings" increase overall monitoring effectiveness. Based on the evaluation of trends in easement language and on-the-ground testimonials, land conservation professionals need to ensure that connections are being made between easement language and monitoring practices... While some current monitoring reflects these language trends, other monitoring does not."

Kiesecker, J.M., T. Comendant, T. Grandmason, E. Gray, C. Hall, R. Hilsenbeck, P. Kareiva, L. Lozier, P. Naehu, A. Rissman, M.R. Shaw, M. Zankel. 2007.Conservation easements in context: a quantitative analysis of their use by The Nature Conservancy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment: Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 125-130.http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5%5B125:CEICAQ%5D2.0.CO%3B2

• analysis of data from 119 easements held by The Nature Conservancy
• 96% of sampled easements have identified biological targets
• 84% are within TNC priority sites
• 79% are adjacent to protected areas
• 92% of sampled easements have been monitored for legal compliance in the past 3 years
• only 19.8% of biological targets have been monitored quantitatively

• Surveyed 119 TNC easements from several US states
• Nearly half (46%) were “working” easements (included commercial ranching, forestry, or farming)
• 14% of easements included forestry
• Easements with commercial uses were significantly more likely to have management plans than easements without these uses
• Management plans were in place on 71% of easements with forestry
• Recommend quantitative monitoring, esp. on easements with commercial use
• Conservation targets actually DECLINED in some cases
• Recommend easement language include adaptive management
• Data available online: http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/TNC%20Easement%20Study/documents/withkeyword-documents.html?keyword=survey+instruments+and+data+se

Lind, B. 2001. WorkingForestConservation Easements: A process guide for land trusts, landowners, and public agencies. The Land Trust Alliance, Washington, D.C. 45 pp.

• A how-to manual for using working forest conservation easements effectively.
• Provides recommendations and examples on everything from: evaluating organizational capacity, evaluating the specific context (property, conservation values, interests of landowner and easement holder, community support, regulatory framework) for each easement, drafting easement language, including a separate forest management plan, monitoring, dealing with violations, etc.
• Recommends clear goals: "Specific goals or objectives for forest management must accompany the easement provisions that govern management... Without information as to what kind of forest is desired, neither landowner nor easement holder could determine if the forest is being managed in support of the purposes of the easement."
• Recommends the development of a separate forest management plan
• Recommends day-to-day monitoring (professional staff available to answer questions, monitor major harvest activities on the ground) as well as annual monitoring (aerial and annual landowner meetings)

Perschel, R.T. 2006.Ensuring Sustainable Forestry Through Working Forest Conservation Easements in the Northeast: A Forest Guild Perspective. Forest Guild. Santa Fe, NM. 54 pp.

• Lays out eleven "levels" of easement approaches, in increasing order of "assurance" of sustainable forestry.  Range from relying on existing standards (state, local, and federal laws, third-party forest certification, etc.) to easements tailored to a particular ownership (defined management principles, a forest management plan, prescribed practices)
• Three case studies: The Pingree Easement, Maine, The West Branch Easement, Maine, and The Peck-Hull-Norcross Easement and Covenant (Massachusetts?)

Mortimer, Michael et al. 2007.A Survey of Forestland Conservation Easements in the United States: Implications for Forestland Owners and Managers.Small-Scale Forestry 6.1: 35-47.

• 355 conservation organizations and 16 state agencies holding at least 3,598 forestland easements were identified
• Shortfalls: baseline forest inventories, record keeping (i.e. total area of forest in the easement), and professionally developed management plans
• Recognize "need for careful planning" and "need to carefully consider the respective goals of the forest landowners in crafting easement documents"
• lots of statistics on % of easements that had inventories, management plans, kept forest records, restricted harvest practices, etc.
• recommend involving a professional forester

DeGooyer, K., and D.E. Capen. 2004. An analysis of conservation easements and forest management in New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. Final report to North East State Foresters Association. 75 pages. (Available for downloadfrom http://www.nefainfo.org/)

Huff, J. 2004. A Survey of Conservation Easement Restrictions on Private Forest Land to Determine their Effects on Forest Management and Timber Supply. M.S. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05172004-143547/unrestricted/Cons_Easement_Thesis.pdf

Reed, Frank C., Steven A. Sader, and Keith Ross. (2002?) Developing a stewardship protocol for the Pingree Forest conservation easement. Groton, MA: New England Forestry Foundation. Accessed 2 Jan 2009. http://www.newenglandforestry.org/downloads/monitoringbooklet.pdf

• describes the monitoring protocol for the Pingree easement, a 762,192-acre easement purchased by the New England Forestry Foundation (NEFF) from the Pingree family, in Maine
• purchase price: $31.6 million, monitoring fund: $1 million (3%)
• 3 level monitoring protocol: satellite change detection (whole site, annually), aerial photography (1/3 of site every year or as needed), and ground visits (as needed)
• monitor for: hunting camp leases and structures, structures used for forestry, structures permitted for non-forestry, roads, gravel pits, riparian habitat buffer disturbance, clear cutting, wetlands disturbance, conformance with forest management plan, recreational site size, forest characteristics (% disturbed/harvested, ratio of young to old cover, size, connectivity, softwood vs hardwood, etc.)
• developing monitoring for forest diversity, retention of riparian ecosystems, cavity trees, mast, downed woody debris, vertical and horizontal diversity, vernal pools, and featured species
• no socioeconomic metrics