Evaluating conservation effectiveness and adaptation in dynamic landscapes

Law and Contemporary Problems

Volumn 74, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 145-173

  Rissman, Adena R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 83455258048     PISSN: 00239186     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (98)

1. A. M. Merenlender et al., Land Trusts and Conservation Easements: Who Is Conserving What for Whom?, 18 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 65, 66-67 (2004).
2. See Oran R. Young & M.A. Levy, The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes, in THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGIMES: CAUSAL CONNECTIONS AND BEHAVIORAL MECHANISMS 1 (Oran R. Young & M.A. Levy eds., 1999).
3. For an example of land-trust claims that all conserved land was saved from development and offsets land lost to sprawl, see Patrick O'Driscoll, Report: conservation efforts offset land lost to sprawl, USA TODAY, Nov. 29, 2006.
4. See Nancy A. McLaughlin, Conservation Easements: Perpetuity and Beyond, 34 ECOLOGY L.Q. 673, 675 (2007).
5. SALLY K. FAIRFAX ET AL., BUYING NATURE: THE LIMITS OF LAND ACQUISITION AS A CONSERVATION STRATEGY, 1780-2004, at 269 (2005).
6. JULIE ANN GUSTANSKI & RODERICK H. SQUIRES, PROTECTING THE LAND: CONSERVATION EASEMENTS PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE 9 (2000).
7. On the importance of private lands for ecological and cultural resources, see J. Michael Scott et al., Nature Reserves: Do They Capture the Full Range of America's Biological Diversity?, 11 ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS 999, 999 (2001).
8. Mark W. Brunson & Lynn Huntsinger, Ranching as a Conservation Strategy: Can Old Ranchers Save the New West?, 61 RANGELAND ECOLOGY & MGMT. 137, 137 (2008).
9. See, e.g., Oran R. Young, Hitting the Mark, ENVIRONMENT, Oct. 1999, at 20, 23.
10. Nonequilibrium dynamics complicate management of natural resources. For instance, rangelands respond more to weather than to grazing pressure, which has led to the failure of grazing management systems based on static assumptions.
11. See Randall D. Jackson & James W. Bartolome, A State-Transition Approach to Understanding Nonequilibrium Plant Community Dynamics in Californian Grasslands, 162 PLANT ECOLOGY 49, 49 (2002).
12. Nonequilibrium processes feature plant populations driven more by abiotic factors like weather than herbivore populations, biotic decoupling of populations, and density independence, meaning that populations are not limited as a function of their increasing density. In contrast, equilibrium processes feature resource limitations, biotic coupling, and density dependence.
13. See A.W. Illius & T. G. O'Connor, On the Relevance of Nonequilibrium Concepts to Arid and Semiarid Grazing Systems, 9 ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS 798 (1999).
14. Adena R. Rissman, Designing Perpetual Conservation Agreements for Land Management, 63 RANGELAND ECOLOGY & MGMT. 167, 167 (2010).
15. See, e.g., Nancy A. McLaughlin, Rethinking the Perpetual Nature of Conservation Easements, 29 HARV. ENVTL. L. REV. 421 (2005).
16. Jesse J. Richardson, Jr., Conservation Easements and Adaptive Management, 3 SEA GRANT L. & POL'Y J. 31 (2010).
17. For foundations of political analysis of inputs, outputs, and outcomes, see D. EASTON, A SYSTEMS ANALYSIS OF POLITICAL LIFE 3-33 (1979). In other frameworks, outcomes are treated as the short-term effects of the program and impacts are treated as the broader or longer-term effects of the program.
18. See, e.g., R. E. Bowen & C. Riley, Socio-Economic Indicators and Integrated Coastal Management, 46 OCEAN & COASTAL MGMT. 299, 309-10 (2003).
19. John A. McLaughlin & Gretchen B. Jordan, Logic Models: a Tool for Telling Your Program's Performance Story, 22 EVALUATION & PROGRAM PLAN. 65, 66 (1999).
20. Amy W. Morris, Easing Conservation? Conservation Easements, Public Accountability and Neoliberalism, 39 GEOFORUM 1215, 1223-24 (2008).
21. Adena R. Rissman & Van Butsic, Land Trust Defense and Enforcement of Conserved Areas, 4 CONSERVATION LETTERS 31 (2010).
22. For discussion of the "watchful neighbor" in conservation easement monitoring, see Mary Ann King & Sally K. Fairfax, Public Accountability and Conservation Easements: Learning from the Uniform Conservation Easements Act Debates, 46 NAT. RESOURCES J. 65 (2006).
23. Paul J. Ferraro & Subhendru K. Pattanayak, Money for Nothing? A Call for Empirical Evaluation of Biodiversity Conservation Investments, 4 PLOS BIOLOGY 482, 483 (2006).
24. Nathan F. Sayre, Viewpoint: The Need for Qualitative Research to Understand Ranch Management, 57 RANGELAND ECOLOGY & MGMT. 668 (2004).
25. See also Adena R. Rissman & Nathan F. Sayre, Conservation Outcomes and Social Relations: A Comparative Study of Private Ranchland Conservation Easements, SOC'Y & NAT. RESOURCES (forthcoming 2011).
26. C. Stem et al., Monitoring and Evaluation in Conservation: a Review of Trends and Approaches, 19 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 295, 296 (2005).
27. See also Kwaw S. Andam et al., Measuring the Effectiveness of Protected Area Networks in Reducing Deforestation, 105 PROC. NAT'L ACAD. SCI. 16,089 (2008).
28. David Newburn et al., Economics and Land-Use Change in Prioritizing Private Land Conservation, 19 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 1411 (2005).
29. See generally Raymond E. Gullison, P.C. Frumhoff, J.G. Canadell, C.B. Field, D.C. Nepstad, K. Hayhoe, R. Avissar, L.M. Curran, P. Friedlingstein, C.D. Jones & C. Nobre, Tropical Forests and Climate Policy, 316 SCIENCE 985, 985-86 (2007).
30. Conservation easement deed held by City of Woodland, California, No. 035084, recorded Aug.
31. [2002] (on file with author)
32. See I.R.C. § 170(h)(5)(A) (2006); Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6) (2004).
33. WALTER A. ROSENBAUM, ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS AND POLICY 321-62 (2011).
34. Gerald Korngold, Solving the Contentious Issues of Private Conservation Easements: Promoting Flexibility for the Future and Engaging the Public Land Use Process, 2007 UTAH L. REV. 1039, 1042 (2007).
35. See Richard A. Fuller et al., Replacing Underperforming Protected Areas Achieves Better Conservation Outcomes, 466 NATURE 365 (2010).
36. See Thomas Dietz et al., The Struggle to Govern the Commons, 302 SCIENCE 1907 (2003).
37. The public invests in the conservation promises of conservation easements through grants, tax incentives, and permits. It would be unfair for private landowners to receive windfall profits in the form of increased property values if conservation easement restrictions are removed.
38. See William Cronon, The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature, ENVTL. HIST., Jan. 1996, at 7.
39. A. Dan Tarlock, The Nonequilibrium Paradigm in Ecology and the Partial Unraveling of Environmental Law, 27 LOYOLA L.A. L. REV. 1121 (1993).
40. S.A. Moore et al., Diversity in Current Ecological Thinking: Implications for Environmental Management, 43 ENVTL. MGMT. 17, 17 (2009).
41. See E.J. Dyksterhuis, Condition and Management of Range Land Based on Quantitative Ecology, 2 J. RANGE MGMT. 104 (1949).
42. See D.D. Briske et al., State-and-Transition Models, Thresholds, and Rangeland Health: A Synthesis of Ecological Concepts and Perspectives, 58 RANGELAND ECOLOGY & MGMT. 1 (2005).
43. See NANCY LANGSTON, WHERE LAND & WATER MEET: A WESTERN LANDSCAPE TRANSFORMED 151-69 (2003)
44. A.L. Mayer & M. Rietkerk, The Dynamic Regime Concept for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, 54 BIOSCIENCE 1013, 1013 (2004).
45. See R.J. McLain & R.G. Lee, Adaptive Management: Promises and Pitfalls, 20 ENVTL. MGMT. 437, 437 (1996).
46. See Bernard T. Bormann, Richard W. Haynes & Jon R. Martin, Adaptive Management of Forest Ecosystems: Did Some Rubber Hit the Road?, 57 BIOSCIENCE 186, 186-88 (2007).
47. The challenges of aligning rules with multiple goals are common in public administration, and public land management provides relevant examples
48. See, e.g., Task Group on Unity in Concepts and Terminology Committee Members, New Concepts for Assessment of Rangeland Condition, J. RANGE MGMT., May 1995, at 271 (describing issues of public land grazing restrictions); Stubble Height Review Team, Using Stubble Height to Monitor Riparian Vegetation, RANGELANDS, Feb. 2006, at 23.
49. An incidental take permit is a permit issued under Section 10 the Federal Endangered Species Act to non-federal parties whose actions will result in take of a threatened or endangered species. It requires the applicant to create a habitat conservation plan to minimize and mitigate the effects of the authorized take, which may include a plan for acquiring land and conservation easements.
50. See, for example, conservation easements associated with incidental-take permits for the Butler's gartersnake, such as a 2005 conservation easement which states that "the purpose of this easement is to promote the existence of the Butler's gartersnake and the Conservancy Area and to ensure that the Conservancy Area's conservation value for the snake will not be destroyed or substantially degraded. .. ." Available at http://sos.nmtvault.com/pdf/THEOSOS_128/images/00043092.pdf [hereinafter Butler's gartersnake easement].
51. For more information on conservation easements associated with Endangered Species Act mitigation, see Jessica Owley Lippmann, Exacted Conservation Easements: The Hard Case of Endangered Species Protection, 19 J. ENVTL. L. & LITIG. 293 (2004).
52. David L. Pearson, Selecting Indicator Taxa for the Quantitative Assessment of Biodiversity, PHIL. TRANSACTIONS: BIOLOGICAL SCI., Jul. 29, 1994, at 75, 75-76.
53. M. Westoby et al., Opportunistic Management for Rangelands Not at Equilibrium, 42 J. RANGE MGMT. 266 (1989).
54. L.M. Kueppers et al., Modeled Regional Climate Change and California Endemic Oak Ranges, 102 PROC. NAT'L ACAD. SCI. 16,281 (2005).
55. D.J. FIORINO, THE NEW ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 3 (2006).
56. See generally C.S. HOLLING, ADAPTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT (1978).
57. A survey of conservation easements in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area in 1998 revealed that only fifty-one percent of the conservation easements were monitored. See BAY AREA OPEN SPACE COUNCIL, ENSURING THE PROMISE OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS (1999), available at http://learningcenter.lta.org/attached-files/0/56/5613/EnsuringThePromise_of_CEs.pdf.
58. Joseph M. Kiesecker et al., Conservation Easements in Context: A Quantitative Analysis of Their Use by The Nature Conservancy, 5 FRONTIERS ECOLOGY & ENV'T 125, 125 (2007).
59. Duncan M. Greene, Dynamic Conservation Easements: Facing the Problem of Perpetuity in Land Conservation, 28 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 883 (2005).
60. For instance, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources conservation easement with Plum Creek Timberlands funded by the federal Forest Legacy Program requires the landowners to follow BMPs for water quality (document on file with author)
61. See, e.g., R. Shepard, Nutrient Management Planning: Is It The Answer to Better Management?, 60 J. SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 171, 171 (2005).
62. Brian W. Ohm, The Purchase of Scenic Easements and Wisconsin's Great River Road: A Progress Report on Perpetuity, 66 J. AM. PLAN. ASS'N 177, 183 (2000).
63. See, e.g., LAND TRUST ALLIANCE, AMENDING CONSERVATION EASEMENTS: EVOLVING PRACTICES AND LEGAL OPINIONS (2007).
64. Hicks v. Dowd, 157 P.3d 914, 916-17 (Wyo. 2007); Salzburg v. Dowd, Stipulated Judgment, Civil Action No. CV-2008-0079 (Wyo. 2010). The landowner approached the county about terminating the conservation easement after the subsurface mineral rights holder conducted coal-bed methane mining on the property.
65. See Nancy A. McLaughlin & W. William Weeks, Hicks v. Dowd, Conservation Easements, and the Charitable Trust Doctrine: Setting the Record Straight, 10 WYO. L. REV. 73 (2010).
66. See THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, California Lassen Foothills, http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/california/preserves/art6320.html (last visited Aug. 30, 2010).
67. For further description of conservation easement impact research in the Lassen Foothills, see Kristin B. Byrd et al., Impacts of Conservation Easements for Threat Abatement and Fire Management in a Rural Oak Woodland Landscape, 92 LANDSCAPE & URB. PLAN. 106, 107 (2009).
68. JAMES W. BARTOLOME ET AL., CALIFORNIA GUIDELINES FOR RESIDUAL DRY MATTER (RDM) MANAGEMENT ON COASTAL AND FOOTHILL ANNUAL RANGELANDS (2002).
69. For a discussion of science and uncertainty in ecological management, see Helen M. Regan et al., A Taxonomy and Treatment of Uncertainty for Ecology and Conservation Biology, 12 ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS 618 (2002).
70. See also Holly Doremus, Precaution, Science, and Learning While Doing in Natural Resource Management, 82 WASH. L. REV. 547 (2007).
71. For more on iterative ecological science in policy, see K. Carden, Bridging the Divide: The Role of Science in Species Conservation Law, 30 HARV. ENVTL. L. REV. 165 (2006).
72. D.G. Brown et al., Rural Land-Use Trends in the Conterminous United States, 1950-2000, 15 ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS 1851, 1855-58 (2005).
73. A.J. Hansen et al., Effects of Exurban Development on Biodiversity: Patterns, Mechanisms, and Research Needs, 15 ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS 1893 (2005).
74. We used object based image classification software to identify developed areas from a color aerial photograph of the region
75. See R.J. REINER, P.M. HUJIK & J.F. POLLOCK, ASSUMPTIONS USED TO JUSTIFY PRESCRIBED FIRE AS A RESTORATION TOOL IN CALIFORNIA ANNUAL GRASSLANDS (R. Schlising & D. Alexander eds., 2006).
76. See Julia D. Mahoney, Perpetual Restrictions on Land and the Problem of the Future, 88 VA. L. REV. 739 (2002).
77. Jessica Owley, Changing Property in a Changing World: A Call for the End of Perpetual Conservation Easements, STAN. ENVTL. L.J. (forthcoming 2011).
78. Miguel de Franca Doria, Emily Boyd, Emma L. Tompkins & W. Neil Adger, Using Expert Elicitation to Define Successful Adaptation to Climate Change. 12 ENVTL. SCI. & POL'Y 810, 810 (2009).
79. Examples include the Wetlands Reserve Program, California's Williamson Act, and Wisconsin's Managed Forest Law program
80. See 16 U.S.C. § 3837 (Supp. 2010) (Wetlands Reserve Program).
81. California Land Conservation Act of 1965, CAL. GOVT. CODE § 51200-51207 (2010) (California's Williamson Act).
82. WIS. STAT. ANN. § 77.82 (2010) (Wisconsin's Managed Forest Law).
83. USDA FARM SERV. AGENCY, CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM MONTHLY SUMMARY- SEPTEMBER 2010, available at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/sep2010crpstat.pdf (last visited Nov. 10, 2010).
84. V. H. DALE, ET AL., BIOFUELS: IMPLICATIONS FOR LAND USE AND BIODIVERSITY, Biofuels and Sustainability Reports, Ecological Society of America (ESA) 1 (2010), available at http://www.esa.org/biofuelsreports.
85. USDA FARM SERV. AGENCY, CRP CONTRACT EXPIRATIONS FROM 2005 TO 2009, accessed online Nov. 10, 2010 http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=rns-css.
86. Shawn Bucholtz, Presentation at the Resources for the Future Seminar: Keeping the C in the CRP: How Well Does the Conservation Reserve Program Work? (Oct. 6, 2010).
87. K.A. McGurty, The State of Agricultural Land Preservation in California in 1997: Will the Agricultural Land Stewardship Program Solve the Problems Inherent in the Williamson Act?, 7 SAN JOAQUIN AGRIC. L. REV. 135 (1997).
88. Jon Breschak & Mark Rickenbach, The Managed Forest Law Property Tax Program, 50 Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, Forestry Facts 1, 1-2 (2010), available at http://forestandwildlifeecology.wisc.edu/extension/Publications/50.pdf.
89. B.K. Jack et al., Designing Payments for Ecosystem Services: Lessons from Previous Experience with Incentive-Based Mechanisms, 105 PROC. NAT'L ACAD. SCI. 9465 (2008).
90. Kelly J. Wendland et al., Targeting and Implementing Payments for Ecosystem Services: Opportunities for Bundling Biodiversity Conservation with Carbon and Water Services in Madagascar, 69 ECOLOGICAL ECON. 2093 (2010).
91. See, e.g., Jennifer Alix-Garcia et al., Lessons Learned from Mexico's Payment for Environmental Services Program, in PAYMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES IN AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES: ECONOMIC POLICIES AND POVERTY REDUCTION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 163 (Randy Stringer David Zilberman, Leslie Lipper & Takumi Sakuyama eds., 2008).
92. Some slippage was evident in Mexico's program, in that deforestation efforts shifted to forests not enrolled in the program. This reduces the overall effect of the program.
93. J.J. Wu, Slippage Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program, 82 AM. J. AGRIC. ECON. 979, 979 (2000).
94. Amy W. Morris & Adena R. Rissman, Public Access to Information on Private Land Conservation: Tracking Conservation Easements, 2009 WIS. L. REV. 1237 (2009).
95. See 7 U.S.C. § 8791(b)(2)(B) (Supp. 2010) (codifying § 1619(b) of the Farm Bill Act of 2008).
96. See, e.g., Mike Strand, No Freedom of Information, SALINA JOURNAL, Jan. 11, 2009, available at http://www.salina.com/news/story/crp-stuff.
97. Alejandro E. Camacho, Can Regulation Evolve? Lessons from a Study in Maladaptive Management, 55 UCLA L. REV. 293 (2007).
98. Holly Doremus, A Policy Portfolio Approach to Biodiversity Protection on Private Lands, 6 ENVTL. SCI. & POL'Y 217, 217 (2003).