Advertisement

Small-scale Forestry

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 35–47 | Cite as

A Survey of Forestland Conservation Easements in the United States: Implications for Forestland Owners and Managers

  • Michael J. MortimerEmail author
  • Jesse J. RichardsonJr.
  • Jeffrey S. Huff
  • Harry L. HaneyJr.
Research Paper

Abstract

Internationally, conservation easements are increasingly popular land management tools for private landowners, government agencies and non-governmental organizations seeking to preserve forests and other natural settings. This paper reports a study of the design and use of conservation easements by organizations and public agencies in the USA. More than 355 conservation organizations and 16 state agencies holding at least 3,598 forestland easements were identified. Demonstrated shortfalls in baseline forest inventories, record keeping, and professionally-developed management plans were evident on working forest easements. Failure to address these shortcomings runs the risk of jeopardizing the legitimacy of the easement approach even where favorable legal and tax conditions exist. Management restrictions varied broadly, with a minority of respondents prohibiting such techniques as clearcutting and salvage logging. Concerns for the use of chemicals, best management practices, and streamside management zones were commonly reflected in easement language, whereas logging road design and the cultivation of old-growth conditions remain largely undeveloped. Implications from the US experience, where easements are relatively well-developed, highlights the need for professional forestry advice—particularly for non-industrial or small-scale forest owners—in both easement development and implementation, the need for careful planning, and the need to carefully consider the respective goals of the forest landowners in crafting the easement documents. In the cases of developing nations, consideration of the differing needs of landowners may require increased flexibility in management documents.

Keywords

Property rights Easement documents Fragmentation and parcelization Baseline inventory Streamside management zones 

References

  1. Alig RJ, Plantinga AJ, Anh S, Kline JD (2003) Land use changes involving forestry in the United States: 1952–1997, with projections to 2050. Gen Tech Report PNW-GTR-587. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  2. Bick S (1996) Donations and sales of conservation easements on forestland in the northern forest of New York State. Diss., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bick S, Haney HL Jr (2001) The landowner’s guide to conservation easements. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, IAGoogle Scholar
  4. Boelhower ME (1995) Forest forever: a comprehensive evaluation of conservation easements on working forests in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Masters Thesis, University of New Hampshire, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowles I, Downes D, Clark D, Guérin-McManus M (1998) Economic incentives and legal tools for private sector conservation. Duke Environ Law Policy Forum 8(2):209–243Google Scholar
  6. Butler BJ, Leatherberry EC (2004) American family forest owners. J Forest 102(7):4–9Google Scholar
  7. Cubbage FW, O’Laughlin J, Bullock III CS (1993) Forest resource policy. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  8. de Klemm C, Shine C (1993) Biological diversity conservation and the law. Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 29. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  9. Diehl J, Barrett TS (1988) The conservation easement handbook: managing land conservation and historic preservation easement programs. Land Trust Exchange and the Trust for Public Land, Alexandria, VAGoogle Scholar
  10. Dillman DA (2000) Mail and Internet surveys: the tailored design method. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  11. Endicott E (ed) (1993) Land conservation through public/private partnerships. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Gaddis DA (1999) An analysis of wetlands regulation and conservation easements on private nonindustrial forest lands in North Carolina. Diss., North Carolina State University. Available online at http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/wq/LandPreservationNotebook/PDFDocuments/gaddis.pdf; last accessed March 2003
  13. Haney HL, Hoover WL, Siegal WC, Greene JL (2001) Forest landowners’ guide to the federal income tax. Agriculture Handbook No. 718. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Helms JA (ed) (1998) The dictionary of forestry. The Society of American Foresters, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  15. Joint Commission on Taxation (2005) Options to improve tax compliance and reform tax expenditures. JCS-02-05. U.S. Congress, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Katila M, Puustjärvi E (2004) Markets for forest environmental services: reality and potential. Unasylva 219(55):53–59Google Scholar
  17. Katzman MT, Cale WG Jr (1990) Tropical forest preservation using economic incentives. BioScience 40(11):827–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kiss A (2004) Making biodiversity conservation a land use priority. In: McShane T, Wells M (eds) Getting biodiversity projects to work: towards more effective conservation and development. Columbia University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  19. Land Trust Alliance (LTA) 2001. Summary data from the national land trusts census. Available online at http://www.lta.org/newsrom/census_summary_data.htm; last accessed July 2003Google Scholar
  20. Lehman T (1995) Public Values, private lands: farmland preservation policy, 1933–1985. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NCGoogle Scholar
  21. Lind B (2001) Working forest conservation easements: a process guide for land trusts, landowners, and public agencies. Land Trust Alliance, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  22. Mahoney JD (2002) Perpetual restrictions on land and the problem of the future. Virginia Law Rev 88(4):739–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McEvoy TJ (1998) Legal aspects of owning and managing woodlands. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Merenlender AM, Huntsinger L, Guthey G, Fairfax SK (2004) Land trusts and conservation easements: who is conserving what for whom? Conserv Biol 18(1):65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mortimer MJ (2004) Forest regulations in the USA: evolving standards for conserving forest biodiversity in the past 300 years. In: Honnay E, Verheyen K, Bossuyt B, Hermy M (eds) Forest biodiversity: lessons from history for conservation. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 269–280Google Scholar
  26. Parker D (2002) Cost-effective strategies for conserving private land: an economic analysis for land trusts and policy makers. Political Economy Research Center, Bozeman, MTGoogle Scholar
  27. Pinchot G (1947) Breaking new ground. Harcourt, Brace, and Co., New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  28. Rilla E (2002) Landowners, while pleased with agricultural easements, suggest improvements. Calif Agric 56(1):21–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Small SJ (2002) Preserving family lands: book III. Landowner Planning Center, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith WB, Miles PD, Visage JS, Pugh SA (2004) Forest resources of the United States, 2002. Gen Tech. Report. NC-241. USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MNGoogle Scholar
  31. Snider AG, Pattanayak SK, Sills EO, Schuler JL (2003) Policy innovations for private forest management and conservation in Costa Rica. J Forest 101(50):18–23Google Scholar
  32. Stephens J (2006) Fairfax case draws line on easements. Washington Post. June 4. Available at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/03Google Scholar
  33. Swift B, Arias V, Bass S, Chacon CM, Cortes A, Gutierrez M, Maldonando V, Milano M, Nunes L, Tobar M, Sanjines V, Solano P, Theulen V (2004) Private lands conservation in Latin America: the need for enhanced legal tools and incentives. J Environ Law Litig 19(1):85–139Google Scholar
  34. Telesetsky A (2001) Graun bilong mipela na piela no tromweim: The viability of international conservation easements to protect Papua new Guinea’s declining biodiversity. Georgetown Int Environ Law Rev 13(3):735–778Google Scholar
  35. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) (2004) Imagining the future: our long term vision for the forests of the Berkshire Taconic landscape. Available online at http://nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/berkshire/about/art2313.html: last accessed April 2004Google Scholar
  36. US Department of Agriculture (2004) U.S. agriculture and forestry greenhouse gas inventory: 1990–2001. Global Climate Change Program Office. Office of the Chief Economist. US Department of Agriculture. Technical Bulletin No. 1907Google Scholar
  37. Watson RT, Noble IR, Bolin B, Ravindranath NH, Verardo DJ, Doken DJ (eds) (2000) Land use, land use change, and forestry: a special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  38. Wear DN, Greis JG (2002) The southern forest resource assessment. Gen Tech. Report SRS-53. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NCGoogle Scholar
  39. Wolman A (2004) Review of conservation payment initiatives in Latin America: conservation concessions, conservation incentive agreements and permit retirement schemes. William and Mary Environ Law Policy Rev 28(3):859–884Google Scholar
  40. Wright JB (1993) Conservation easements: an analysis of donated development rights. J Am Plan Assoc 59(4):487–493Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Steve Harrison, John Herbohn 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Mortimer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jesse J. RichardsonJr.
    • 2
  • Jeffrey S. Huff
    • 1
  • Harry L. HaneyJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ForestryVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.School of Public and International AffairsVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations