Poll on Maps of Conservation Easements

In the Ossipee Mountains Closed thread, there has been various discussion of mapping mixed with other issues in that particular situation. One of the most disturbing features seemed to be that the NH Trails Bureau didn't approve of "advertising" the area.

I would like to start a discussion of whether users should have information about private land with recreation easements including maps thereof. Let's assume the easement reads in part:
"... the public shall have the right to pedestrian access to, on, and across the Property for hiking, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, hunting, fishing, and other low impact recreational purposes, except camping."

Perhaps a definition and example of what an "easement" is and the sorts of rules/expectations that usually accompany/are included with them should be provided.

My 2c:

Maps showing topography and property boundaries are fine and should be encouraged.

Any other information about resources on the property (trails, stone walls, cellar holes, cemeteries, swimming holes, rare plants, outlooks, deer yards, etc. etc.) should be subject to the landowner's approval out of respect to the landowner.

Some points worth noting:

1) SPNHF would probably agree with this stance... their properties are, with rare exceptions, accessible to the public on foot or on non-wheeled vehicles (snowmobiles with sufficient snowcover). I monitor a property for them and I can't remember the official policies overall, but some of their properties (like Monadnock) they wish to promote trails, whereas others are open but "low-key" and left unpromoted, and a few are considered sensitive from a natural resource perspective.

2) found this tidbit on stonewalls while looking at the SPNHF site

3) There's some sticky discussion going on at the state level in NH about semi-public information as it pertains to environmental review required for local subdivision/development permits, and to the NH Natural Heritage database on rare plant/animal occurrences. The latter is a compilation of natural resources on private lands done in cooperation with landowners. Would you open up your property to scientific examination, if you knew it could be used later to constrain you in trying to make use of your property? Landowners are justifiably concerned, and there are a number of groups sitting down to try to balance the many complex issues involved.

Please realize there are reasonable expectations of privacy rights. Conservation easements don't reduce those expectations.

hikingmaineac said:

Perhaps a definition and example of what an "easement" is and the sorts of rules/expectations that usually accompany/are included with them should be provided.

Click to expand...

SPNHF has a PDF on conservation easements. Some of it is specific to the state of New Hampshire but most of it is pretty general.

arghman said:

SPNHF has a PDF on conservation easements. Some of it is specific to the state of New Hampshire but most of it is pretty general.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Arghman. This is the first time I've seen a general description of conservation easement. It supports what you have stated, specifically that a "conservation easement" is first and foremost a "conservation easement," not a "recreation easement." It also notes that easement holders are responsible for monitoring and protecting the land. Everybody ought to take a "time out" and read this.

arghman said:

My 2c:

Maps showing topography and property boundaries are fine and should be encouraged.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I would argue that they are essential. I'd hate to be looking at features from an adjacent property with only a black hole where they should be on my map. Any kind of permanent feature (mainly roads) that might be viewable from off the property and useful in navigation is fair game. A trail that has been abandoned for decades is not a permanent feature (and probably not visible from off the property either).

The rest of the owner's personal business is not fair game, although I'd make some exceptions for larger structures that can be viewed from off the property (think of the Mt Washington Hotel, for instance). Frankly, you can see my house on any number of Internet sites (not just Google Earth) and I don't see the privacy concerns of large landowners as being any more important than my own.

I suspect that some landowners would consider my opinion too liberal, but the problem is that some may want to squash information that legitimately belongs in the public domain in lieu of solving the difficult problem of enforcing their property rights.

Waumbek said:

Thank you, Arghman. This is the first time I've seen a general description of conservation easement. It supports what you have stated, specifically that a "conservation easement" is first and foremost a "conservation easement," not a "recreation easement." It also notes that easement holders are responsible for monitoring and protecting the land. Everybody ought to take a "time out" and read this.

Click to expand...

This is exactly the point I was going to make. This is a pretty generalized question which can't take into account all of the nuances of the intent and purpose of all easements.

If a municipality or public/quasi-public agency acquires an easement to provide recreational access upon or across private lands it would do little good if they could not publish it. For instance, what good is a trail easement if you can't tell anyone the trail is there? Of course any advertisement of the easement should also set forth what restrictions apply. On the other hand if it is simply a conservation easement aimed at preserving open space/preventing development the landowner may have no intention of opening lands to public/recreational use.

The issue is way too complex to be covered by a simply yes or no answer, so I said maybe.

Each and every easement would need to be reviewed to determine what rights, conditions and restrictions were agreed to by the parties at the time of creation of the easement.

IMO most cases I've seen where tension brews between the landowner and the public it's because someone takes the liberty of trying to expand "public" use beyond the scope of the original intent of the easement.

Together, the title and first post ask about three different things:
"recreation allowed by easement"
"recreation easement"
"conservation easement"

This already appears to be causing some confusion among the replies.

But the poll leaves out an obvious option: "regardless of easement status."
I am having trouble imagining a legal or ethical ground for claiming that you could have a parcel of land where entry is allowed (this does not require an easement in most states, certainly not in New Hampshire) but mapmaking is not.

Ethically, there's some room for debate if the map could encourage resource destruction ("the rare orchids are at these coordinates"), but I assume we're talking about a map that shows ordinary features like topography, roads and trails.

I didn't vote because none of the options really fits my opinion.

Perhaps because I am familiar with it, or maybe because it works well, and has worked well for over 30 years, I like the way the easement on the AMR lands in the Adirondacks is handled.

The conditions are clear cut and spelled out in the easement, and in signage. For hikers, the easement is a success, because even though this is private land, we can still hike the trails and access the mountains. This is one of perhaps 5 or 6 major trailheads in the High Peaks region, and as such, it's very valuable to us.

The ADK publishes trail maps which show the trails which are open to the public, and indicate the location of junctions with private trails for navigation purposes, but do not show the private trails themselves. The baseline topo maps for ADKs maps are the standard USGS maps, so all relevant topo features and significant improvements are shown. These are in the public domain, so all parties agree on them.

(I enjoy hiking in the Reserve. I know some others have posted that they did not enjoy the area, or felt excluded, but I think that's their choice. I've always felt welcome. The trails and the scenery are beautiful, and that's why we hike. The fact that the owners there are richer than me, or that they can take a car or a bus up the road to the lake, doesn't diminish my experience at all. I enjoy walking the road. I'm old enough to remember when you could buy a ride on the bus for $1. I wasn't at all surprised that the folks on the bus, who were all nicely dressed and fresh, looked a bit askance at the dirty, stinky hiker. When I was able to ride the bus, I enjoyed that, too.)

TCD

None of the above...

In poking around looking at various easement write-ups it's quite clear that it all depends on the specific easement and how it was put in place. Without reviewing the specific documentation on a specific easement who even has the right to comment on any specific item?

As stated by others... What specific rights are granted to/by the property owner? If they say hiking is okay (recreational) then hiking is okay. If the easement simply states that the owner can't develop (conservation) then the stay out.

StashZdanuk said:

Without reviewing the specific documentation on a specific easement who even has the right to comment on any specific item?

Click to expand...

This is exactly why I voted for "other." Some of the other choices might be perfectly acceptable but what does the easement say?

There is a landowner I know who has a very large parcel of land, at least by Northeast standards ( 25,000 acres). He allows fishing, hunting, snowmobiling, hiking, mountain biking...not sure about horseback riding. He also maintains over 80 miles of trails on his property, at his own expense, including grooming them for x-c skiing.

He will not allow ATV's, and the one other stipulation is that no maps are made of his land. He has maps on trees at all major trail junctions in the winter for the skiers. In his case, it seems like a reasonable request. He's trying to keep the sense of discovery in it for the people who travel the property he stewards.

I don't know how much this example applies to the overall question.....

RoySwkr said:

One of the most disturbing features seemed to be that the NH Trails Bureau didn't approve of "advertising" the area.

Click to expand...

Pardon me Roy if I missed it, but has there been a written account of the Burueau not approving of the "advertising"? The way I understand it, the Bureau is objecting to the abuse of the property in question, and backing up the property owner in this regard, but did not go as far as stating concerns with the map itself. I feel this is why the wording on the signs was changed significantly.

A landowner may have his own reasons for wanting to deny access to his land, but the Trails Bureau must be sure the reasons fall within the parameters of the easement before they can grant consent and support the landowner's request. In the Ossipee case, once they went "looking" and found rogue campsites and trash, they had reason(s) for closure that fit within the boundaries of the conservation easement.

I guess my feeling is that maps of public conservation areas including recreation easements should be generally available. At a minimum they should include property lines so you don't accidentally wander onto someone else's property - I can't count the number of times I've walked up to a "No Trespassing" sign from the back because the interior
boundaries weren't well marked. It would be nice if they also included interior features - this is the owner's chance to tell you what to see and what to avoid. Ideally small maps should be available on the Internet but larger maps might be available only in hard copy for sale.

Check out the (private) Trustees of Reservations in MA, each property comes with a map and fact sheet of what to expect except for those properties with restricted access.
http://www.thetrustees.org/places-to-visit/list-reservations/

One example that surprised me at how well it could be done was the New York City Department of Environmental Protection which administers watershed protection areas upstate. You do have to register online and agree to abide by their rules, but once there you can access maps of their various properties and the restrictions that apply to each. There's even an 800 number for questions - not bad for one of the potentially most bureaucratic organizations in the country.
http://nyc.gov/html/dep/html/watershed_protection/recreation.shtml

On the other side is the NH Fish & Game Wildlife Management Areas. Only the larger ones have online maps, and the smaller ones (which are the easier to wander off of) often have no obvious parking and poorly marked boundaries.

Should online map posting be required to sell an easement? Perhaps for some programs but not for others. Obviously properties offering less to the public should expect to get a lower price for the easement.

smitty77 said:

Pardon me Roy if I missed it, but has there been a written account of the Burueau not approving of the "advertising"?

Click to expand...

Yes, in their press release:
"The property posting was sparked by irresponsible trail development, use, and advertisement, ..."
http://www.nhtrails.org/trail-news-and-conditions/news.aspx

RoySwkr said:

Should online map posting be required to sell an easement? Perhaps for some programs but not for others. Obviously properties offering less to the public should expect to get a lower price for the easement.

Click to expand...

In which case I would expect fewer landowners willing to bother with conservation easements, and more forest land giving way to housing developments and strip malls.

RoySwkr said:

Yes, in their press release:
"The property posting was sparked by irresponsible trail development, use, and advertisement, ..."
http://www.nhtrails.org/trail-news-and-conditions/news.aspx

Click to expand...

Thanks!

And taking this a step further.... By advertisement, are we to assume the discussion of the Ossipee 10 on this forum may also be construed as "advertisement"? Very few people have a reason to hike the area other than "because it is there", but the number increases greatly when a "list" is involved, IMO.

I agree with you Roy that maps should be made available to conservation areas. In this case, the denial of a landowner's request to make revisions probably ignited the blaze we are contending with now, more than just the existence of the map itself.

RoySwkr said:

Check out the (private) Trustees of Reservations in MA, each property comes with a map and fact sheet of what to expect except for those properties with restricted access.

Click to expand...

Roy -- are you pointing Trustees of Reservations out as an example of a private landowner, or as an alternative to SPNHF's approach? (Trustees of Reservations is sort of the Massachusetts equivalent of SPNHF: both are statewide private land trusts that own numerous reservations generally open to the public) I think Trustees of Reservations does a better job w/r/t recreational info than SPNHF, they may have more resources though to do it + recreation may be a more central part of their charter. SPNHF's properties are aimed more towards sustainable timbering and resource protection, than public recreation.

I don't know of any (but that certainly doesn't mean there aren't any) individual or family landowners, with their property under a conservation easement, who've made maps of their property.

Should online map posting be required to sell an easement? Perhaps for some programs but not for others. Obviously properties offering less to the public should expect to get a lower price for the easement.

Click to expand...

I could see that, though I'd probably state it the other way: properties offering more opportunities to the public should expect to get a higher price for the easement.

griffin said:

In which case I would expect fewer landowners willing to bother with conservation easements, and more forest land giving way to housing developments and strip malls.

Click to expand...

As we have seen in the Ossipee Mtns case, there are real costs to the landowner of allowing public access and they deserve compensation for them. Why should those who don't allow access expect the same compensation?

I agree those offering more access should be entitled to greater compensation - I was referring more to "Should online map posting be required to sell an easement?"

If I owned a large property, I'm not sure I'd want to take on the risk and headache of mapping the property for others.

And I would imagine there's a large gap between "willing to grant access" "willing to cede control" and "willing and able to enforce regulations and restrictions without additional assistance."

You hold the Trustees of the Reservations here in Mass as an example of conservation and public access done right. And they do do a wonderful job of making their properties accessible to the public - but as arghman suggested they're also a very different kind of entity with a very different misison than the vast majority of private landowners. It's not a fair comparison.