No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Monitoring Natural Resources on Rangeland Conservation Easements
Abstract
Compliance monitoring of easement properties is monitoring to see if the easement is being stewarded as agreed in the terms and objectives of the easement. Additional monitoring of natural resources also called ecological monitoring can provide important information on ecological status and trends and can be part of an assessment of the effectiveness of easements as a conservation strategy. There is a high level of variability in rangeland easement terms and monitoring approaches. The residual dry matter guidelines in annual grasslands and oak woodlands were the most common rangeland measure in the grazing easements. It can provide important information to the ranch manager but is not indicator for all resource goals. The challenge for natural resource management on private land with conservation on private land with conservation easement is to create terms clear enough to prevent resource degradation over the long term but flexible enough to allow for adaptive resource management with changing conditions and rancher needs.
... In addition to spatial analysis, future research should address the level of protection ensured on the ground by conservation easements and fee-simple ownership. Recent research on conservation easement effectiveness indicates that easements allow for a range of development and commercial use on site (Rissman et al. 2007a) and that the issues of compliance and ecological monitoring on easements need more attention if easements are to provide long-term ecological benefits (Kiesecker et al. 2007, Rissman et al. 2007b. Previous efforts to map and analyze the ecological contribution of protected areas exemplify the lack of certainty about the level of protection ensured by conservation easements. ...
... Conservation easements are one-time, typically permanent, land-use agreements and may not require or even permit ongoing ecological monitoring and adaptive management. If conservation easements do permit access for ecological monitoring and contain mechanisms for altering land management over time, staff and funding may limit implementation (Rissman et al. 2007b). In fact, one of the primary motivations for http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art40/ ...
... Frost et al. (2008) also reported similar results for semi-arid rangelands. Many researchers point out the importance of stubble monitoring for effective grazing management and soil conservation on the rangelands (George et al., 2006;Rissman et al., 2007). We examined the monitoring possibilities of available forage, which is termed as stubble, during the grazing season using Sentinel 2A-derived NDVI values. ...
Management problems could cause rangeland degradation worldwide. Monitoring the seasonal variation of available forage may help to prevent vegetation from deterioration and help to ensure sustainable animal production. Therefore, seasonal variations in the amounts of available forage, and the contents of crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and digestible dry matter (DDM) were monitored for two years via both ground sampling and Sentinel 2A-derived NDVI data at semi-arid Bozdag Rangelands, Turkey. Available forage significantly varied between 374.4 and 936.4 kg ha − 1 through the season and all quality parameters showed significant seasonal variations. Available forage was estimated in strong accuracy only in dry season (r 2 = 0.72, P ≤ 0.01), but the seasonal variations of CP, ADF, and DDM contents were estimated in moderate accuracy (r 2 = 0.56, 0.40, 0.41 respectively) by the satellite-derived NDVI data. Free Sentinel 2A-derived NDVI values gave promising results for monitoring the forage quality of these semi-arid rangelands, but further research is needed to develop new vegetation indexes for considering woody tissues in vegetation, and higher resolution for greater monitoring accuracy.
... While a lack of standardized data collection on easement locations likely make this an underestimate, easements still cover a very small percentage of foothill habitats. As it is a voluntary solution that can provide conservation benefits to landowners and society while providing an infusion of money into ranching operations, conservation easements should be prioritized in public and private funding for rangeland conservation [60].The foothills of Mt. Lassen in the northern Central Valley is a region where extensive rangeland easements have helped limit the expansion of development from the city of Red Bluff while creating a connected network of protected lands stretching from valley floor to subalpine habitats (Figure 5A). ...
Land use change in rangeland ecosystems is pervasive throughout the western United States with widespread ecological, social and economic implications. In California, rangeland habitats have high biodiversity value, provide significant habitat connectivity and form the foundation for a number of ecosystem services. To comprehensively assess the conservation status of these habitats, we analyzed the extent and drivers of habitat loss and the degree of protection against future loss across a 13.5 M ha study area in California. We analyzed rangeland conversion between 1984 and 2008 using time series GIS data and classified resulting land uses with aerial imagery. In total, over 195,000 hectares of rangeland habitats were converted during this period. The majority of conversions were to residential and associated commercial development (49% of the area converted), but agricultural intensification was surprisingly extensive and diverse (40% across six categories). Voluntary enrollment in an agricultural tax incentive program provided widespread protection from residential and commercial conversions across 37% of the remaining rangeland habitat extent (7.5 M ha), though this program did not protect rangeland from conversion to more intensive agricultural uses. Additionally, 24% of the remaining rangeland was protected by private conservation organizations or public agencies through land or easement ownership while 38% had no protection status at all. By developing a spatial method to analyze the drivers of loss and patterns of protection, this study demonstrates a novel approach to prioritize conservation strategies and implementation locations to avert habitat conversion. We propose that this approach can be used in other ecosystem types, and can serve as a regional conservation baseline assessment to focus strategies to effect widespread, cost-effective conservation solutions.
... These issues are a particular concern given the potential impact of global climate change on arid and semiarid ecosystems (e.g., Kueppers et al. 2005). Although all easements were monitored for compliance, the lack of long-term monitoring beyond compliance for most conservation easements is another gap in the cycle of adaptive management (Rissman et al. 2007b). RDM is an interesting exception to this lack of monitoring, because it is a compliance term linked to preventing overgrazing that is monitored annually. ...
Conservation initiatives on working ranches balance flexibility for land management with restrictions to ensure protection over time. Conservation easements are a common tool for range conservation, but the perpetual nature of their individually negotiated rights and restrictions may present a challenge for adaptive land management. The evolution of conservation easement approaches to land management was addressed in a review of 52 grazing easements created by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in California rangelands between 1973 and 2006 as well as through interviews with TNC staff. Easement terms related to land management increased in complexity over time, particularly for purchased easements on private land. Easements commonly contained restrictions oil riparian or wedand management (58%), residual dry matter (50%), and type of animal permitted (46%) but rarely restricted number of cattle or animal unit months (4%). Flexibility was provided by easement terms such as exceptions for drought years and reference to best management practices, the easement holder's administrative discretion, and easement amendment. Interviews with TNC staff revealed an iterative process in which conservation easements remain relatively fixed once they are established, whereas subsequent easements incorporate lessons learned from easement monitoring, enforcement, management, and applicable science. Conservation easements with an adaptive approach would link compliance terms with conservation goals, require monitoring of those terms, and have a mechanism for altering land management based on monitoring results. All three of these realms present challenges for the conservation easement structure. Improvements could be made in easement terms, ecological monitoring, and stewardship to improve the effectiveness and adaptability of this tool for maintaining ecological function on working ranches.
... Compliance monitoring is designed to detect violations of conservation easement terms. Ecological monitoring involves documenting characteristics and changes in natural resources, such as plant diversity, fire frequency, or spread of invasive species (Rissman and others 2007b). The United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) expects land trusts to monitor donated properties for compliance at least once per year, but organizations may not have the legal right or the capacity to monitor ecological conditions beyond conservation easement compliance (Cheever 1996; Parker 2004). ...
Conservation organizations rely on conservation easements for diverse purposes, including protection of species and natural communities, working forests, and open space. This research investigated how perpetual conservation easements incorporated property rights, responsibilities, and options for change over time in land management. We compared 34 conservation easements held by one federal, three state, and four nonprofit organizations in Wisconsin. They incorporated six mechanisms for ongoing land management decision-making: management plans (74 %), modifications to permitted landowner uses with discretionary consent (65 %), amendment clauses (53 %), easement holder rights to conduct land management (50 %), reference to laws or policies as compliance terms (47 %), and conditional use permits (12 %). Easements with purposes to protect species and natural communities had more ecological monitoring rights, organizational control over land management, and mechanisms for change than easements with general open space purposes. Forestry purposes were associated with mechanisms for change but not necessarily with ecological monitoring rights or organizational control over land management. The Natural Resources Conservation Service-Wetland Reserve Program had a particularly consistent approach with high control over land use and some discretion to modify uses through permits. Conservation staff perceived a need to respond to changing social and ecological conditions but were divided on whether climate change was likely to negatively impact their conservation easements. Many conservation easements involved significant constraints on easement holders' options for altering land management to achieve conservation purposes over time. This study suggests the need for greater attention to easement drafting, monitoring, and ongoing decision processes to ensure the public benefits of land conservation in changing landscapes.
Conservation easements have emerged as an important tool for land trusts and government agencies aiming to conserve private land in the United States. Despite the increase in public investment in conservation easement acquisitions, little is known about their conservation outcomes, particularly at a landscape scale. The nine-county San Francisco Bay Area exemplifies a complex conservation context: 190 organizations hold 24% of the land base in some type of protection status. Using a detailed protected lands database, we compared the contributions of conservation easements and fee-simple protected areas to ecological, agricultural, and public recreation benefits. We found that conservation easements were more likely to conserve grasslands, oak woodlands, and agricultural land, whereas fee-simple properties were more likely to conserve chaparral and scrub, redwoods, and urban areas. Conservation easements contributed to open space connectivity but were unlikely to be integrated into local land-use plans or provide public recreation. In particular, properties held by land trusts were less likely to allow for public recreation than were public lands. Conservation easements held by land trusts and special districts complemented fee-simple lands and provided greater conservation of some ecological communities and agricultural lands than fee-simple properties. Spatial databases of protected areas that include conservation easements are necessary for conservation planning and assessment.
Conservation easements have emerged as an important tool for land trusts and government agencies aiming to conserve private land in the United States. Despite the increase in public investment in conservation easement acquisitions, little is known about their conservation outcomes, particularly at a landscape scale. The nine-county San Francisco Bay Area exemplifies a complex conservation context: 190 organizations hold 24% of the land base in some type of protection status. Using a detailed protected lands database, we compared the contributions of conservation easements and fee-simple protected areas to ecological, agricultural, and public recreation benefits. We found that conservation easements were more likely to conserve grasslands, oak woodlands, and agricultural land, whereas fee-simple properties were more likely to conserve chaparral and scrub, redwoods, and urban areas. Conservation easements contributed to open space connectivity but were unlikely to be integrated into local land-use plans or provide public recreation. In particular, properties held by land trusts were less likely to allow for public recreation than were public lands. Conservation easements held by land trusts and special districts complemented fee-simple lands and provided greater conservation of some ecological communities and agricultural lands than fee-simple properties. Spatial databases of protected areas that include conservation easements are necessary for conservation planning and assessment.
Land trusts, partnered with government agencies or acting alone, are working to conserve habitat, open space, and working landscapes on private land. Spending both public and private funds, such institutions frequently acquire less than full title by purchasing or accepting donations of conservation easements. These title and organizational arrangements are evolving so fast that it is difficult to assess their conservation accom- plishments and long-term viability. To understand the contribution of these arrangements to the preservation and restoration of biodiversity, conservation biologists need to identify the biological resources likely to be conserved and those likely to be left unprotected through easements held by land trusts. We describe land trusts and conservation easements and why they are currently an attractive approach to land protection. Our review of the literature showed that little information is available on (1) the resulting pattern of protected lands and resources being conserved, (2) the emerging institutions that hold conservation easements and the landowners they work with, and (3) the distribution of costs and benefits of land trusts and easements to communities and the general public. The prescriptive literature on how to establish land trusts and negotiate easements is extensive. However, easily available information on protected resources is too aggregated to determine what is actually being conserved, and more detailed data is widely scattered and hence difficult to synthesize. The social science literature provides some insight into the motives of landowners who participate but offers little about the variety of institutions or which type of institution works best in particular ecological and political settings. Equally undeveloped is our understanding of the inherent tension between the public and private benefits of this widely used incentive-based conservation strategy. Interdisciplinary research is needed to de- termine the ecological and social consequences of acquiring partial interest in private land for conservation purposes.
Cattle are usually thought of as a threat to biodiversity. In regions threatened by exotic species invasion and lacking native wild grazers, however, cattle may produce the type of disturbance that helps maintain diverse communities. Across 72 vernal pools, I examined the effect of different grazing treatments (ungrazed, continuously grazed, wet-season grazed and dry-season grazed) on vernal-pool plant and aquatic faunal diversity in the Central Valley of California. After 3 years of treatment, ungrazed pools had 88% higher cover of exotic annual grasses and 47% lower relative cover of native species than pools grazed at historical levels (continuously grazed). Species richness of native plants declined by 25% and aquatic invertebrate richness was 28% lower in the ungrazed compared with the continuously grazed treatments. Release from grazing reduced pool inundation period by 50 to 80%, making it difficult for some vernal-pool endemic species to complete their life cycle. My results show that one should not assume livestock and ranching operations are necessarily damaging to native communities. In my central California study site, grazing helped maintain native plant and aquatic diversity in vernal pools.
Usinga spatially and temporally replicated dataset, we built astate-transition model for Californian grasslands. We delineatedvegetation states by allowing TWINSPAN to classifyplot-level (10 m2) species cover datacollected over 3 to 5 consecutive years on 9 sites in an experimental designthat incorporated 5 residual dry matter (RDM) treatment levels representativeofthe range of grazing management prescriptions for this type (0, 280, 560, 841,1121 kg RDMha–1). We identified anddescribed a new California annual grassland subtype – Coast RangeGrassland – that is distinct from the previously described Coastal Prairieand Valley Grassland. Classification and regression tree(CART) analysis correctly classified 63% ofTWINSPAN-created vegetation transitions amongstates with interactions among site and monthly climate averages as the maindriving factors. The RDM variable (a surrogate for grazing intensity) wasimportant in model refinement, but only at a few site year combinations andpredictions were rarely attributable to the grazing intensity gradient. Theequilibrium-based conclusion that grazing intensity manipulation createsdistinctive community structure was restricted in application to a few sites.The results suggest that equilibrium models may be appropriate for predictingsystem productivity but not the community composition, details of which requirea nonequilibrium approach. The nonequilibrium state-transition modeloffers considerable potential for improving the development and testing ofhypotheses about vegetation change and the limitations of management controls,but will require relatively large spatially and temporally replicated datasets.
Changes in rangeland species composition can effect forage quality, ecosystem function, and biological diversity. Unfortunately, documenting species compositional change is difficult due to a lack of accurate historic records. We took advantage of herbarium records dating from the early 1950's to reconstruct the past flora of a 2,168 ha hardwood rangeland in Mendocino County, California, and then compared this to the current flora of the site. An inventory of vascular plants conducted from 1996 to 2001 added 44 native and 15 non-native species bringing the total number of species and infraspecific taxa at the study site to 671. Of the original 612 species recorded prior to this study, 34 native and 1 non-native species could not be relocated. The percentage of non-native species increased from 19% in 1952 to 23% in 2001. Based on estimates from the early 1950's, mid 1980's, and 1996 to 2001, at least 13 non-native species have increased in abundance, while some native species have decreased. Livestock grazing, competition with invasive species, conversions to different vegetation types, and transportation of propagules into the site by vehicles and livestock, combined with the difficulty of relocating rare species, are posed as the most likely causes for the documented changes.
Conservation easements are one of the primary tools for conserving biodiversity on private land. Despite their increasing use, little quantitative data are available on what species and habitats conservation easements aim to protect, how much structural development they allow, or what types of land use they commonly permit. To address these knowledge gaps, we surveyed staff responsible for 119 conservation easements established by the largest nonprofit easement holder, The Nature Conservancy, between 1985 and 2004. Most easements (80%) aimed to provide core habitat to protect species or communities on-site, and nearly all were designed to reduce development. Conservation easements also allowed for a wide range of private uses, which may result in additional fragmentation and habitat disturbance. Some residential or commercial use, new structures, or subdivision of the property were permitted on 85% of sampled conservation easements. Over half (56%) allowed some additional buildings, of which 60% restricted structure size or building area. Working landscape easements with ranching, forestry, or farming made up nearly half (46%) of the easement properties sampled and were more likely than easements without these uses to be designated as buffers to enhance biodiversity in the surrounding area. Our results demonstrate the need for clear restrictions on building and subdivision in easements, research on the compatibility of private uses on easement land, and greater public understanding of the trade-offs implicit in the use of conservation easements for biodiversity conservation.
Saving the ranch: Conservation easement design in the American West
- A Anella
- J B Wright
Anella, A. and J. B. Wright. 2004. Saving the ranch: Conservation easement design in the American West. Washington, DC: Island Press. 176. p.
Regnerating rangeland oaks in California. Oakland, CA: University of California, Division of Agricultural and Natural Resources Publication 21601
- D D Mccreary
McCreary, D. D. 2001. Regnerating rangeland oaks in California. Oakland, CA: University of California, Division of Agricultural and Natural Resources Publication 21601. 62. p.
2005 Land Trust Alliance census. Washington, DC: Land Trust Alliance. Available at: http://www.lta.org/census
- Land Trust
Land Trust Alliance. 2006. 2005 Land Trust Alliance census. Washington, DC: Land Trust Alliance. Available at: http://www.lta.org/census. Accessed 30 January 2007.
Lassen foothills Available at: http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/ california/preserves
- The Nature
The Nature Conservancy. 2006. Lassen foothills. Available at: http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/ california/preserves. Accessed 10 January 2007.
Monitoring understory composition of blue oak woodlands on conservation easements. Sixth Symposium on Oak Woodlands, California's Oaks: Today's Challenges, Tomorrow's Opportunities
- A R Rissman
- S E Reed
- C Hughes
- R Reiner
Rissman, A. R., S. E. Reed, C. Hughes, and R. Reiner. 2006. Monitoring understory composition of blue oak woodlands on conservation easements. Sixth Symposium on Oak Woodlands, California's Oaks: Today's Challenges, Tomorrow's Opportunities; 9–12 October 2006; Rohnert Park, CA.
Conservation easements: biodiversity protection and private use press). 5. National Research Council Rangeland health: New methods to classify, inventory, and monitor rangeland
- A R Rissman
- L Lozier
- T Comendant
- P Kareiva
- J M Kiesecker
- M R Shaw
- A M Merenlender
Rissman, A. R., L. Lozier, T. Comendant, P. Kareiva, J. M. Kiesecker, M. R. Shaw, and A. M. Merenlender. 2007. Conservation easements: biodiversity protection and private use. Conservation Biology (in press). 5. National Research Council. 1994. Rangeland health: New methods to classify, inventory, and monitor rangeland. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 180 p.