Merger of 4 Land Trusts Gives Rise to the Royal River Conservation Trust
The New Gloucester Preservation Trust, North Yarmouth Land Trust, Yarmouth Land Trust and Friends of the Royal River (FORR) recently merged, forming the Royal River Conservation Trust (RRCT). While FORR was a watershed based group serving eight communities, each of the other groups operated in a single town. When this process started all of the groups were unstaffed and struggling to keep up with the many tasks involved in operating a successful conservation organization.
Approximately six years ago, Directors of the region’s land trusts began talking about the benefits of consolidating their efforts as a way to strengthen land conservation and stewardship efforts in the region. Because FORR was the only regional group, the decision was made to broaden its mission to include land conservation, and to then have it serve as the merged entity for the other trusts. The idea grew into a reality over the course of six years, many discussions, and increasingly collaborative work. Ultimately the concept gelled during a facilitated session in which over 25 board members from the area’s land trusts gathered to discuss the pros and cons of a merger.
Long term sustainability and creation of efficiencies were viewed as significant benefits of merging, as was the idea of having a regional land conservation force that would have staff to lead and manage the ongoing efforts. A common concern of participants was the potential loss of local identity. In agreeing that the pros outweighed the cons, the group set out to legally merge the organizations while looking at ways to maintain local identity.
At times the process was difficult. “In merging their organizations, some people were concerned that the core strength of their work had been in its very local context. As we move ahead, it is vital that a feeling of ownership and local pride be maintained, while creating a stronger organization and stronger conservation region wide” says Henry Nichols, Executive Director of the Royal River Conservation Trust. With the legal work complete, the Royal River Conservation Trust is moving ahead on proactive land conservation projects, stewardship, and organizational effectiveness. The group has developed a regional conservation vision and plan that will guide its efforts. To meet this goal and maintain local identity RRCT is forming local groups that will reach out to land owners within conservation focus areas generating projects and support for the organization.
It is easy to see that the merging of four organizations resulted in significant stewardship responsibilities for RRCT. To ensure RRCT is meeting its obligations and adhering to Land Trust Standards and Practices, the group plans to hire a second staff person.
While the ink is still wet on the official documents, the Royal River Conservation Trust is optimistic that land conservation in the communities of the Royal River watershed will prosper under the new organization. Jane Arbuckle, who has been involved in this effort since discussions began, is optimistic about the future, “Now we can really step up to the challenges ahead of us – with a strength and level of sustainability that we couldn’t muster before. After all, we’re talking about perpetuity here, not just the next 10 or 20 years!”
MCPI: Advancing Coastal Conservation Collaboratively
by Amy Owsley, Land Trust Alliance
The Maine Coast Protection Initiative (MCPI) is a collaboration of over seventy organizations and agencies striving to increase the pace and quality of land protection in coastal Maine. Initially led by the Maine Coast Heritage Trust, Maine State Planning Office, NOAA Coastal Services Center, and Land Trust Alliance, this coalition met together over two years to define a common vision for the lands of the coast. The result is a groundbreaking blueprint, called the Strategic Conservation Framework, for advancing collective efforts toward critically important goals:
- A viable network of conserved lands that protects priority coastal and estuarine habitat, adequate coastal access to support commercial fisheries and recreational pursuits, and sufficient scenic viewsheds to preserve the unique character of the Maine coast;
- Land trusts with sustainable, professional, and technical capacity engaged in proactive strategic land conservation and long-term stewardship; and,
- Strong support and increased funding for coastal land conservation efforts. Run by a locally-driven steering committee, the Initiative’s energy is shared by a growing number of coalition participants, and has gained investment from leading national conservation interests. NOAA Coastal Services Center views this collaborative effort as the frontier of coastal conservation.
Grants Summary:
At the foundation of the Maine Coast Protection Initiative is the intent to attract new funding for increasing the pace and quality of conservation on Maine’s coast. To this end, nearly half the budget for the project is targeted for reinvestment in the tools and funds needed to most effectively leverage existing efforts which includes the creation of four grant programs.
In late 2005, MCPI released a total of $163,000 in competitive grants program to help organizations and agencies along the Maine coast implement the strategies in the Strategic Conservation Framework. Funded projects are aimed at developing the tools, examples, and data critical for advancing strategic conservation and building public support for conservation investment. Projects include mapping of coastal access points and diadramous fish habitat and developing a process for inventorying and prioritizing scenic and cultural features.
To guide work to address the mapping needs of coastal land trusts MCPI launched a program to fund GIS Service Centers serving coastal Maine. These Centers will act as epicenters for mapping data, services, and related training for coastal land trusts. A total of $70,000 was available through this grant program, along with ArcGIS software donated from the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI).
Currently, MCPI is selecting recipients for a competitive capacity-building grants program for coastal land trusts. This program will provide $250,000 to help coastal land trusts significantly expand their organization’s professional capacity to sustain programs and promote greater regional focus and regional collaboration. Each two-year grant of up to $60,000 will include technical assistance from Land Trust Alliance (LTA) staff or consultants for: conducting a guided organizational assessment; completing or updating a strategic conservation action plan; and engaging in other training or mentoring as funding permits. LTA, on behalf of the Maine Coast Protection Initiative, is currently working to secure an additional $100,000 to fund a second, smaller set of one-year capacity building grants for next year.
Upcoming for the Maine Coast Protection Initiative
These grant programs are just a subset of the deliverables for the Maine Coast Protection Initiative. Among the efforts in the coming year are the launching of a strategic conservation training tailored for coastal Maine, creation of a coastal reference map that depicts the protection priorities for the coast, and development of plans for more effectively communicating about and fundraising for conservation in coastal Maine. Check out what’s next on the Initiative website: www.protectcoastalmaine.org.
To sign-up for email updates about the Initiative’s work, please contact Amy Owsley, MCPI coordinator for Land Trust Alliance (aowsley@lta.org).
News from Our Members
Late last summer the Freeport Conservation Trust received a donated conservation easement on 161 wooded acres near the Freeport/Brunswick town line. The easement allows for sustainable forestry and protects wildlife and riparian habitat. It also includes a right-of-way for a public trail which will connect adjacent and nearby conservation lands.
Fulfilling its goal for the Meserve Farm (protected in 2004), the Scarborough Land Conservation Trust recently identified two area farm families to run farming operations on the property. The Farm will support a Community Supported Agriculture program featuring subscription-based marketing in which community members purchase “shares” of the seasonal harvest. A sublease of 20 acres will allow another area farmer to add rotational fields to their operation enabling them to incorporate organically raised products to their market operation.
Together, the Sheepscot Wellspring Land Alliance, Sheepscot Valley Conservation Association, and the Boothbay Region Land Trust are working to develop a conservation plan for the entire Sheepscot River watershed. The groups will use the plan to focus their proactive conservation efforts and build the support of local residents.
Seven acres of Pine Hill on Little Deer Isle, including the hilltop, were donated to Island Heritage Trust. The gift ensures that Islanders will be able to continue to enjoy the spectacular views of Deer Isle and the Reach afforded from the hilltop. IHT’s Stewardship Committee is busy improving public access to the property. In addition to the views, Pine Hill is host to 63 lichen species, including three not known to exist elsewhere in Maine.
In December the Cape Elizabeth Land Trust received a building and one acre of land in the center of Cape Elizabeth to be transformed into a new office for the organization. The office will greatly enhance CELT’s ability to utilize volunteers and interns in support of their land preservation, stewardship and educational programs. Reconstruction is scheduled to begin this fall.
Oceanside Conservation Trust of Casco Bay is pleased to announce the acquisition of Echo Pond on Peaks Island in Casco Bay. This lovely pool significantly enhances OCT’s abutting properties of Skillings Woods and the Davies Sanctuary adding to over 9 acres of conserved land on the heavily populated island. During this year’s monitoring, OCT directors marked the boundaries and biologist Mike Johnson examined the area.
Chewonki Foundation celebrated the grand opening of the 4-mile Back River Trail this June. Located on the Eaton Farm property (formerly part of Maine Yankee Atomic Power Plant), the trail consists of two loops that meander along the coastline of Montsweag Bay on the Back River. The trail is the culmination of four years of work by Chewonki. Chewonki is now working with the Town of Wiscasset and Point East, a development company, to extend the trail from Chewonki Neck to the center of Wiscasset Village.
Trust for Public Land and the Down East Institute closed on the acquisition of this 8-acre lobster pound and research facility in March. DEI works to enhance local knowledge of the health and importance of shellfish and their habitat. Their operations at Black Duck Cove will serve multiple needs (economic, education, applied research, technology transfer) of area residents.
Advancing Working Waterfront Preservation
At a time when shorefront property values and taxes are skyrocketing and land trusts are increasingly turned to for protection of working waterfront access, a series of new tools, funding, and tax breaks are available. In June, the Governor signed two bills aimed at protecting commercial fishing properties and, recently, the Maine Department of Marine Resources requested proposals for working waterfront projects to be funded by the Land For Maine’s Future Program (LMF).
The first, LD 1972, makes shorefront land (below the head of tide) supporting commercial fishing and/or aquaculture eligible for current use taxation. Land used at least 50% to support commercial fishing activities may be enrolled in the new program beginning April 1, 2007. As with existing current use tax programs, landowners will be assessed a penalty for removing property from the program.
Working waterfront covenants, a new tool for permanently protecting commercial fishing properties, were created through the enactment of LD 1930. Defined in law as “an agreement in recordable form between the owner of working waterfront real estate and one or more qualified holders” working waterfront covenants are similar to conservation easements, but tailored specifically for commercial fishing properties. Through a covenant, qualified holders, which could be non-profit organizations, may limit a property’s resale price and equity appreciation; restrict its uses and the types of allowable structures; or impose other provisions to enhance the affordability and availability of the property for commercial fishing activities.
The LMF Board and the Department of Marine Resources (DMR) recently issued a request for grant proposals to the Working Waterfront Access Pilot Program. Established in 2005 when voters approved $2 million in funding, the pilot program is designed to finance the protection of working waterfront properties threatened with conversion making it possible for commercial fishing businesses to retain working access to the water. Acquisitions eligible for funding include: working waterfront covenants, conservation easements, access easements, development rights, full title or other permanent interests in land. Through the program, LMF will provide up to 50% of a project’s acquisition costs and retain a permanent right of first refusal to assure continued use of the property by fishing businesses. For more information contact Coastal Enterprises at 772-5356 or www.wwapp.org.
Beginning with Habitat: More than Maps
by Colleen Ryan, Beginning with Habitat
High quality and up-to-date natural resource data is vital for strategic ecological planning. Land trusts that are familiar with local conservation priorities, landscape functioning, and development patterns are more likely to provide meaningful habitat conservation for future generations. Furthermore, such conservation planning helps land trusts develop solid strategies for long-term land stewardship and strengthens funding requests.
For six years, the Beginning with Habitat program (BwH) has provided land trusts and other local planners with tools for conservation planning. BwH is a cooperative effort of State and Federal agencies and private nonprofit conservation organizations. BwH helps towns and land trusts build a functional wildlife landscape based on a system of interconnected and conserved lands by providing information in three primary areas: water resources and riparian habitats, high value plant and animal habitats, and undeveloped habitat blocks. BWH also provides information on identified focus areas of statewide ecological significance.
In addition to providing your land trust with hard copy maps and digital data, BwH can assist strategic landscape planning efforts. With expanded information and services, BwH will soon debut a new regional map format that can help land trusts to visualize the distribution of important habitats across several towns at once. Also coming soon are maps and descriptions of focus areas for northwestern, central, and northern Maine.
For more information on BwH, or to see if your area has been mapped, visit www.beginningwithhabitat.org. To request maps or assistance for your land trust, contact the Program Coordinator, Steve Walker, at 287-5254.
Land Trust Standards & Practices
This is the third article in a series describing the Land Trust Standards and Practices - the ethical and technical guidelines for the responsible operation of a land trust. Full text of the Standards and Practices, in addition to extensive supporting documents, appendices, and other details regarding each Standard and Practice are available at www.lta.org.
Land Trust Standard 3: Board Accountability
The land trust board acts ethically in conducting the affairs of the organization and carries out the board’s legal and financial responsibilities as required by law.
The board has legal and ethical responsibilities to maintain the public’s trust and the land trust’s credibility. Every board member must understand and accept these responsibilities.
Practice 3A: Board Responsibility
The board is responsible for establishing the organization’s mission, determining strategic direction and setting policies to carry out the mission, and, as required by law, the oversight of the organization’s finances and operations. A board that understands and meets its basic responsibilities provides a firm foundation for the land trust, builds public confidence, paves the way for financial success, and allows the land trust to focus its energies on creative, effective ways to accomplish its land conservation mission.
Practice 3B: Board Composition
The board is of sufficient size to conduct its work effectively. The board is composed of members with diverse skills, backgrounds and experiences who are committed to board service. There is a systematic process for recruiting, training and evaluating board members. Above all, a land trust operates to further public, not private, interests, and the composition of its board reflects this purpose.
Practice 3C: Board Governance
The land trust provides board members with clear expectations for their service and informs them about the board’s legal and fiduciary responsibilities. The board meets regularly enough to conduct its business and fulfill its duties, with a minimum of three meetings per year. Board members are provided with adequate information to make good decisions. Board members attend a majority of meetings and stay informed about the land trust’s mission, goals, programs and achievements.
In general legal standards of behavior for board members require honesty, good faith, and ordinary and reasonable care and diligence. A truly effective board, of course, goes far beyond meeting its basic legal responsibilities; it works hard at operating as a creative team that can guide the land trust on a path of achievement and success.
Practice 3D: Preventing Minority Rule
The land trust’s governing documents contain policies and procedures (such as provisions for a quorum and adequate meeting notices) that prevent a minority of board members from acting for the organization without proper delegation of authority.
A land trust needs to have controls in place to prevent rule by the minority in order to ensure that the public interest is served. Decisions made by the board should reflect the opinion of a majority of the board and the constituencies that majority represents.
Practice 3E: Delegation of Decision-Making Authority
The board may delegate decision-making and management functions to committees, provided that committees have clearly defined roles and report to the board or staff. If the land trust has staff, the board defines the job of, oversees and periodically evaluates the executive director (or chief staff person).
(See Practices 3F and 7E for further information.) When delegating, it should be clear what authority is being delegated, to whom, and what reporting procedures are expected.
Practice 3F: Board Approval of Land Transactions
The board reviews and approves every land and easement transaction, and the land trust provides the board with timely and adequate information prior to final approval. However, the board may delegate decision-making authority on transactions if it establishes policies defining the limits to that authority, the criteria for transactions, the procedures for managing conflicts of interest, and the timely notification of the full board of any completed transactions, and if the board periodically evaluates the effectiveness of these policies.
To pave the way for informed decisions, and to have a smooth, predictable selection and approval process, the majority of land trust boards should be kept informed of a project’s status.
Excerpts taken with permission from the Land Trust Standards and Practices.
Ask an Attorney
by Karin Marchetti Ponte, MCHT General Counsel
Regulatory Exactions and Public Benefit Conservation Easements
Conservation easements held by land trusts must be designed to serve a significant public benefit. This general “rule of thumb” can often be overlooked when a land trust is enlisted to serve as holder of a conservation easement imposed as a “regulatory exaction.” “Exacted” easements are designed to satisfy various goals of regulatory agencies and may permit developers to forego certain regulatory permitting procedures. They are also sought, increasingly, to give town planning boards a back-up for the often detailed restrictions they wish to impose on a development. Land trusts must distinguish these “exacted” regulatory easements from purely “public benefit” conservation easements, which are part and parcel of the land trust’s work and the reason that the land trust is granted federal tax exempt status.
That is not to say that a regulatory exaction cannot be designed to serve a laudable public benefit, including very meaningful land conservation, even public access. But, all too often, they don’t. They often are designed to impose somewhat redundant restrictions on land already restricted by decades of wetland protection legislation, or to set aside a certain quantity of unbuilt open space that tends to benefit the lot owners, rather than the public. In some cases, the amount of genuine natural resource and landscape protection in an exacted easement is so slight that it really may not warrant the land trust’s commitment of time and resources.
Some might assume that anything that qualifies under state law as a conservation easement is worth holding. Not true. Unlike easements designed in cooperation with a long term landowner whose goal is to identify and protect the most valuable scenic and ecological attributes of a property, exacted easements are often compromise designs crafted to provide economic efficiency for the developer and meet quantitative regulatory guidelines. This can result in restrictions that do little to provide a public benefit or further the mission of the enlisted land trust holder.
What, then, can a land trust do when considering an exacted easement? The first thing a land trust must consider when asked to hold an exacted easement is whether the easement, (as written, or with some land trust-driven changes,) can actually further its organizational goals. Will it truly protect land and natural resources worth conserving? Will it provide a benefit to the general public that makes it worth the stewardship effort required over time? The developers and regulators who seek the land trust’s help need to be apprised of the land trust’s burden in stewarding the restrictions over time. It costs the land trust significant time and money to negotiate, do baseline data, accept, and keep records for the conservation easements they hold. Then on into forever, the trust must continue to monitor the property, manage multiple and changing ownership relationships, grant or deny required holder-approvals, manage requests for amendment, certify compliance, and ultimately stand behind those restrictions in a court of law. This commitment is only appropriate to accomplish meaningful conservation.
A land trust can offer to educate the parties and become an active partner in creating meaningful restrictions that serve its goals and benefit the public. The land trust can also ask the regulatory agency to use alternative methods to impose the restrictions that are unlikely to accomplish conservation of significant public benefit, such as: deed restrictions, subdivision mutual covenants enforceable by the lot owners and the original developer, or simple binding conditions of regulatory approval that can be tested over time and modified by variance or subsequent review. Likewise, the town can be enlisted to hold the easement, since all governmental entities are qualified to hold easements in Maine. The land trust can also agree to hold a conservation easement only on certain elements of the regulatory scheme. By taking care to follow these steps, the land trust can feel confident that it is dedicating its scarce charitable resources only to stewardship of important land and natural resources, for the good of the whole community.
MLTN Steering Committee Welcomes 10 New Members
We are please to announce that the Maine Land Trust Network welcomed 10 new Steering Committee members representing land trusts from Shapleigh to Hancock to Norway. These new members join a cadre of others who, together, are hard at work advancing land conservation in Maine through programs of MLTN.
Of course, we could not bring in these new members without bidding farewell to others. Many thanks to Bonnie Lounsbury, Robert Miller, Tin Smith, Barbara Welch, and Bill Zwartjes for years of service and leadership on behalf of Maine’s land trust community!
MLTN Steering Committee Members:
- Judy Adelman, Crabtree Neck Land Trust *
- Madge Baker, Three Rivers Land Trust *
- Tom Bradbury, Kennebunkport Conservation Trust/MCHT *
- Susan Caldwell, The Nature Conservancy *
- Deb Chapman - Vice Chair, Georges River Land Trust
- Roger Cole, Kittery Land Trust
- Tony DeFeo, Landmark Heritage Trust
- Mark DesMeules, Damariscotta River Association*
- Scott Dickerson, Coastal Mountains Land Trust
- Jim Dow, Blue Hill Heritage Trust *
- Jay Espy, Maine Coast Heritage Trust
- Chris Franklin, Cape Elizabeth Land Trust
- John Gunn, Western Foothills Land Trust *
- Tom Henderson, Greater Lovell Land Trust
- Maureen Hoffman – Chair, Sheepscot Valley Conservation Association
- Sally Jacobs, Orono Land Trust/MCHT
- Rob Levin, Portland Trails
- Lucy McCarthy, Vinalhaven Land Trust
- Paul Mentag, Loon Echo Land Trust*
- Frank Miles, Maine Farmland Trust
- Jim Mitchell, Mahoosuc Land Trust
- Nancy Perlson, Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust
- Jeff Pidot, Kennebec Land Trust *
Laura Sewall, Phippsburg Land Trust *
Denotes new member