# New Jersey Conservation Foundation > A nonprofit land trust that has preserved more than 140,000 acres of open space, farmland, and parks in New Jersey since 1960. Website: https://www.njconservation.org ## [Home](https://www.njconservation.org/) ## New Jersey Conservation ##### [THE STATE WE'RE IN: A better education is rooted in nature](https://www.njconservation.org/nature-and-youth/) # Preserving New Jersey’s land and natural resources for the benefit of all ## NJ Birds X NJ Artists trading cards! The new trading card series, NJ BIRDS x NJ ARTISTS, highlights the connection between art and nature through a shared love of birds. Each card features an incredible work of art created by a New Jersey artist. By clicking the pink arrow, you can read about the project and donate \*at this link\* to get your packs today! ![Breaking News](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Untitled-design-e1763569987673.png) ## Current Issues ## [Growing Partnerships in Sustainable Agriculture](https://www.njconservation.org/current-issues/#4410) ## [New Trail System at Menantico Creek Preserve](https://www.njconservation.org/current-issues/#new-trail-system-at-menantico-creek-preserve) ## [Transforming Communities One Tree at a Time](https://www.njconservation.org/current-issues/#__trashed) ## [Landmark Court Decision](https://www.njconservation.org/current-issues/#landmark-court-decision) ## [Nature For All](https://www.njconservation.org/current-issues/#nature-for-all) ## [Protecting our Public Lands](https://www.njconservation.org/current-issues/#protecting-our-public-lands) ## Events ## [NJ BIRDS x NJ ARTISTS – Series 1](https://www.njconservation.org/event/nj-birds-x-nj-artists-series-1/) Support our land-saving efforts around New Jersey. For each $70 (or higher) donation made through this link, we will send you four packs of trading cards! Please note each pack includes 10 random cards from the series. ## [2026 Special Pinelands Plant Course – Fundamentals](https://www.njconservation.org/event/2025-special-pinelands-plant-course-fundamentals/) This year, we'll focus on the natural relationships and modern classification of plants, using the Pine Barrens of New Jersey as our outdoor classroom. ## 66 Years. 140,000 Acres. # 1 New Jersey. New Jersey Conservation Foundation preserves land for you. But we can’t do it alone. Become a member today! [**En Español**](https://www.njconservation.org/espanol/) [Nature For All: A 2050 Vision for NJ](https://www.njconservation.org/nature-for-all/) --- ## [Staff](https://www.njconservation.org/staff/) ## New Jersey Conservation Team # Staff ## Meet Our Team Get to know the dedicated staff behind New Jersey Conservation Foundation’s important work. ### Alison E. Mitchell \|Executive Director [info@njconservation.org](mailto:info@njconservation.org) Alison became sole Executive Director in 2025 after serving as one of three Co-Executive Directors for three years. Alison has worked for New Jersey Conservation Foundation for 30 years. Before becoming Assistant Director, she spearheaded the development and management of the Conservation Foundation’s public policy program for over a decade as the Policy Director. In earlier years, Alison also worked on land acquisition initiatives and led NJ Conservation’s Conservation Assistance Program, and played a leadership role in the organization’s farmland preservation efforts and farmland policy work. She is the author of two of the Conservation Foundation’s major publications – The New Jersey Highlands: Treasures at Risk and Gaining Ground: a farmland policy report. In addition to her work at the Conservation Foundation, Alison’s past accomplishments include serving as a founding trustee and former president of the Hunterdon Land Trust, and a member of the Board of Trustees of Isles in Trenton. She was appointed by Governor McGreevey to serve as a public member of the Delaware and Raritan Canal Commission. A graduate of Lead New Jersey, she also served as a member of the advisory committee of the NJ Agricultural Experiment Station Board of Managers at Rutgers University. In the 1990’s, she joined the U.S-German Environmental Policy Exchange Program sponsored by the Heinrich Boll Foundation. The program fostered transatlantic meetings and site visits to share information and ideas among nonprofit and high level government agency staff. Prior to joining NJ Conservation Foundation, Alison interned with the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy and The Wilderness Society. More recently, she served on the Board of Trustees of Buckingham Friends School. She holds an MA in Urban and Environmental Policy from Tufts University and a BA in International Relations from Connecticut College. ### Alix Bacon \|Project Manager, Sustainable Ag [alix@njconservation.org](mailto:alix@njconservation.org) Alix became Manager of the Western Piedmont Region in 2004 and is responsible for coordinating NJCF's acquisition, stewardship, outreach, and fundraising activities in this region. She brings local expertise to her work in the Western Piedmont project area, where she is working on the Wickecheoke Creek and Delaware River Bluffs. Before coming to NJCF, she worked for the South Branch Watershed Association and the Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions. Alix served on the Delaware Township Environmental Commission, and was chair for four years. She is also a member of the Delaware Township Open Space Committee, a founding member of the Hunterdon Land Trust Alliance Board of Trustees, and a landscape painter. She has a BA from Yale University. ### Tim Brill \|Regional Manager, Central Jersey [tim.brill@njconservation.org](mailto:tim.brill@njconservation.org) Tim Brill joined New Jersey Conservation Foundation as Central Jersey Project Manager in October 2015, to advance the preservation of open space and farmland and the development of parks, trails and greenways in the area. Tim served the NJ State Agriculture Development Committee as its Agricultural Retention Program / Planning Manager from August 1999, until July of 2015, supervising the New Jersey Farmland Preservation Program and the State Transfer of Development Rights Bank. He also coordinated the Farmland Preservation / Agricultural Retention Program with State and regional planning efforts as well as county, municipal, open space/recreation and historic preservation initiatives. In more recent years, Tim was responsible for the development of the Planning Incentive Grant program currently involving 18 counties and 47 municipalities, targeting the preservation of more than 5,600 farms and 300,000 additional acres. From 1988 through the first half of 1999, Tim worked for the Cumberland County Department of Planning and Development as the Assistant Planning Director. He also served as the President of the NJ County Planners Association in 1997. Tim started his career in 1980 with the City of Bridgeton, New Jersey’s largest National Register Historic District, serving as Planning Director, Downtown Revitalization Project Manager, Historic District Officer and Planning Board Administrator. He received a B.A. in Geography from Glassboro State College (now Rowan University) in 1980, and is a New Jersey licensed Professional Planner. ### Elise Cavicchi \|Land Protection Coordinator [elise.cavicchi@njconservation.org](mailto:elise.cavicchi@njconservation.org) As Land Protection Coordinator, Elise collaborates with the Land Acquisition Specialists and Managers to facilitate conservation easement acquisition projects. She coordinates with stakeholders in the community and assists in the identification and evaluation of potential land projects to meet open space and farmland preservation goals. As a PhD candidate in Cultural Anthropology and Ethnomusicology at the University of Pennsylvania, Elise has researched the relationship between land use and sonic practices in Italy and holds a BA in Music and Environmental Studies with a Concentration in Nature, Culture, and History from Mount Holyoke College. Prior to joining New Jersey Conservation Foundation, Elise held positions in education and outreach, as inventory coordinator, and as park photographer with the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission and the Sebasticook Regional Land Trust. In her free time, Elise enjoys photography, field recording, hiking, and singing Sacred Harp music. ### Aria (Beth) E. Davisson \|Highlands & Black River Acquisition Specialist [beth@njconservation.org](mailto:beth@njconservation.org) Beth works closely with NJ Conservation's Black River Greenway Regional Manager. Together they provide consulting services to the Township of Bedminster and to Peapack and Gladstone Borough. Beth focuses on fulfilling municipal open space and farmland preservation goals by coordinating land and conservation easement acquisition projects from inception to completion. Beth is a key player on our land acquisition team and serves on the Board of Lamington Conservancy. Beth received her BS in Environmental Engineering from Northwestern University. ### Richard Dodds \|Regional Manager, Highlands, Black River & Wickecheoke Greenways [richard.dodds@njconservation.org](mailto:richard.dodds@njconservation.org) Richard provides consulting services to the Township of Bedminster in implementing its open space and farmland preservation goals by coordinating land and conservation easement acquisition projects from inception to completion. Richard also provides land acquisition services to the Tewksbury Land Trust, Raritan Headwaters Association and Peapack Gladstone Borough through NJCF’s innovative shared staffing program and coordinates stewardship projects and outreach events in the Black River Greenway. Richard has served as the President of the Hunterdon Land Trust, Mayor of Kingwood Township, and currently serves as the Chairperson of the Lower Delaware Wild and Scenic Management Committee (a partnership program with the National Park Service as well as river communities and nonprofit organizations from south of the Delaware Water Gap to north of Trenton). ### Geo Fellema \|Development Manager [geo.fellema@njconservation.org](mailto:geo.fellema@njconservation.org) Prior to joining the team at New Jersey Conservation Foundation, Geo worked as Program Development Specialist at NJ 211 where he developed proposals and reports for foundation, county, state, and federal grant applications. He also served as Program Director for the Women’s Foundation of NJ, where he oversaw donor stewardship, event planning, and their competitive grants process. He has experience identifying native plants and teaching environmental education from his time working at Teaneck Creek Conservancy. Geo holds an MPA from Seton Hall University, a certificate in Nonprofit Management from Duke University, and a BA in Liberal Studies with a double minor in Philosophy and Environmental Studies from Ramapo College. In his free time, Geo enjoys paddle boarding and gardening with his husband and daughter. ### Jane Halsted, CPA \|Accounting Manager [janehalsted@njconservation.org](mailto:janehalsted@njconservation.org) Jane joined New Jersey Conservation Foundation as the accounting manager. She previously owned a small CPA firm for over 15 years where she served small businesses and a number of nonprofit clients. She later worked as the Finance Director for two nonprofit organizations. She holds a BS in Accounting from Bucknell University. She enjoys hiking, biking, cross country skiing, and music. ### Maria Hauser \|Director, Human Resources & Board Liaison [maria@njconservation.org](mailto:maria@njconservation.org) Maria joined NJ Conservation as Personnel Manager & Executive Assistant in 2001 and served in that role for almost 20 years before becoming Director of Human Resources and Board Liaison. She also served as Administrative Assistant to Land Acquisition for a short period of time. Prior to joining NJCF, Maria was with Champion International, a large paper manufacturing company, serving as the Personnel Manager for over 12 years. Maria holds a BS degree in Business Administration with a concentration in Management from the College of St. Elizabeth. ### Steven Jack \|Land Steward [steven@njconservation.org](mailto:steven@njconservation.org) Steve works with the Stewardship department to take care of the Franklin Parker Preserve in Chatsworth, Burlington County. He is a former firefighter with the Collingswood Fire Department. ### Russell Juelg \|Senior Land Steward [russell@njconservation.org](mailto:russell@njconservation.org) Russell is senior land steward for New Jersey Conservation Foundation, and has developed a trail system and educational programs for the Franklin Parker Preserve. He has a BA degree in Religion-Studies from Texas Christian University. Past work experience includes three years as managing director of Woodford Cedar Run Wildlife Refuge and 11 years as director of outreach at the Pinelands Preservation Alliance. His favorite areas of research include Pine Barrens vegetation communities, field botany, and threatened and endangered species. ### Bill Lynch, M.S. \|Director of Engagement & Communications [blynch@njconservation.org](mailto:blynch@njconservation.org) As Director of Engagement & Communications, Bill manages NJ Conservation's outreach and environmental education programs, including the Step Into Nature series. He oversees all of the organization's communications, including social media, newsletters, annual reports, the website, and the weekly State We're In op-ed. In addition to these responsibilities, Bill works to engage new constituencies by building partnerships and offering education and outreach opportunities in a variety of settings and locations. Bill received his Master of Science degree in Ecology and Evolution from Rutgers University, has worked for various conservation organizations, and serves on the board of Wild Bird Research Group. Bill is a passionate environmental educator, birder, and photographer. When he's not thinking about belted kingfishers, Bill can be found playing board games for hours on end. ### Melanie Mason \|Land Steward [melanie.mason@njconservation.org](mailto:melanie.mason@njconservation.org) Melanie joined NJ Conservation Foundation as a Land Steward in 2018. She is responsible for management and development of NJCF’s preserves in the northern region of the state. Her background includes stewardship and monitoring of NJ’s natural resources for New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife and Morris County Park Commission. Most recently she administered the Farmland Preservation Program and County Agriculture Development Board for Hunterdon County. She holds a B.S. in Ecology and Natural Resources from Rutgers University and a certificate in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) from Penn State. ### Tanya Nolte \|Conservation Information & GIS Manager [tanya@njconservation.org](mailto:tanya@njconservation.org) Tanya is responsible for all aspects of NJCF’s GIS mapping program. Before coming to NJCF, Tanya worked as a grant writer and publications manager at Reeves-Reed Arboretum in Summit. Prior to that, she was the GIS Director for seven years at Morris Land Conservancy, where she helped develop and implement the GIS program. Tanya has a Bachelor of Arts degree in geography and politics from Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, where she was born and raised. ### Allison Pieffer \|Stewardship Coordinator [allison.pieffer@njconservation.org](mailto:allison.pieffer@njconservation.org) Allison is responsible for monitoring and stewardship of all easement properties held by NJCF. As a New Jersey native, her previous experience includes habitat restoration, endangered species monitoring, and volunteer management with the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy in California, as well as with Delaware State Parks. Allison has a B.S. in Environmental Science from the University of Delaware. ### Karen Richards, CPA \|Director of Finance & Administration [karen@njconservation.org](mailto:karen@njconservation.org) Karen has managed NJ Conservation Foundation's finances for over 20 years. As Director of Finance and Administration she is responsible for the accuracy and integrity of all financial information and assets. She assists the Director of Human Resources and oversees the office management. She is a certified public accountant with 30+ years’ experience in private and public accounting. Karen previously served as a trustee for the Washington Township Land Trust. She holds a BS in Accounting from the University of Delaware. ### Bill Scullion \|Land Steward [bill@njconservation.org](mailto:bill@njconservation.org) Bill manages the South Jersey preserves. His previous experience includes working as a field biologist and land steward for the Nature Conservancy, and as a park naturalist at Cattus Island County Park in Ocean County. He holds a bachelor’s degree in environmental science from Richard Stockton College of New Jersey. ### John S. Watson, Jr. \|Senior Fellow for Conservation Justice [jay@njconservation.org](mailto:jay@njconservation.org) After a conservation career spanning nearly 45 years, Jay made the decision to step down from his Co-Executive Director role for NJ Conservation Foundation in January 2025 to focus exclusively on conservation justice in our cities and communities of color as he rounds out his career. That work will include advocacy and community engagement around the benefits of Green and Healthy Cities, and raising awareness and capital to implement green infrastructure projects where most needed, particularly related to climate adaptation and mitigation for city residents and visitors. In 2022, Jay became one of three co-executive directors of the organization, and oversaw our Statewide Land Protection team and lead the organization’s Urban Action agenda. Prior to being appointed as co-executive, he served as Senior Director for Statewide Land Protection and Community Relations. Before joining the nonprofit sector, Jay spent nearly 30 years in the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, most of it as Administrator of the Green Acres Program. He was then appointed as Assistant Commissioner for Natural and Historic Resources and soon after was appointed as the Department’s Deputy Commissioner, the title from which he retired from State Service in 2010. Jay is a proud graduate of Mercer County College and holds a BS Degree from Florida A&M University, one of the nation’s premiere HBCUs. He has served on many nonprofit boards including the Princeton Area Community Foundation and Isles Inc.; and is currently a Bunbury Fund Advisor and board member of Truehart Productions. ### Erica Arlès \| Land & Stewardship Program Coordinator [erica@njconservation.org](mailto:erica@njconservation.org) Erica joined NJ Conservation Foundation in 2003. As Land Program Coordinator, Erica provides support for NJCF’s statewide land acquisition program, managing and overseeing details of the land protection process. In coordination with all departments, she assists in farmland and open space preservation projects throughout the state. In 2020, she also joined in assisting the ReThink Energy NJ policy campaign. Prior to NJ Conservation, Erica worked in New York State as an arts education coordinator, and in New Jersey as a textile artist and an art teacher. Her studies include a BFA from Kutztown University and courses at the Universities of Paris and New Mexico. ### Mark Barrick \|Information Technology / Office Manager [mark@njconservation.org](mailto:mark@njconservation.org) Mark serves as Information Technology / Office Manager keeping current with the latest techniques in supporting, improving and maintaining IT infrastructure, as well as handling various office management duties. Mark has over two decades of IT experience from education to large corporate settings. He was born in Stuttgart, Germany and grew up in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. His love of the outdoors translates through his interests in photography, arts and a degree in Landscape Architecture from Louisiana State University. ### Rebekah Buczynski \|Project Manager, North Jersey [rebekah.buczynski@njconservation.org](mailto:rebekah.buczynski@njconservation.org) Rebekah began her work with NJ Conservation Foundation in 2022 as Project Manager for North Jersey, focusing work at the Rainbow Hill Preserve which ties the pastoral foothills of the Sourland Mountains across both Hunterdon and Somerset counties. Her interests and work prior to her start with NJCF have been New Jersey and its open spaces. After earning a bachelor’s degree in Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources Mgmt. from Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences she began stewarding lands in the upper Raritan watershed for the Raritan Headwaters Association. As a life-long plant enthusiast she was fortunate to work for many years conducting forest health and rare plant surveys across the state while working with Raritan Valley Community College, her 1st alma mater, and the NJDEP’s Office of Natural Lands Management getting to know New Jersey’s wonderfully wide array of plant communities and ensuring their health. ### Anthony Cucchi \|Assistant Director [anthony.cucchi@njconservation.org](mailto:anthony.cucchi@njconservation.org) Anthony joined New Jersey Conservation Foundation in October 2024, where he helps to lead the organization’s land protection, urban action and public policy efforts. Having worked to conserve land and create urban parks and green spaces for the past 25 years in New Jersey and elsewhere, Anthony focuses on ensuring that all New Jersey residents have access to high quality parks and natural areas. Anthony’s previous work experience includes serving as Superintendent of Parks for the Mercer County Park Commission, where he oversaw new park development projects and a variety of environmental programs. Prior to that he was State Director for the Trust for Public Land and oversaw land protection programs and the growth of urban park programs in Newark, Philadelphia, Camden and other New Jersey cities. Anthony has a bachelor’s degree in History from Cornell University and a Master’s of Forestry from Yale University. ### Emile D. DeVito, Ph.D \|Manager of Science & Stewardship [emile@njconservation.org](mailto:emile@njconservation.org) Emile has been the Manager of Science and Stewardship at the New Jersey Conservation Foundation since 1989. He received a doctorate in Ecology in 1988 for research on bird communities and vegetation landscapes in New Jersey’s Pine Barrens. Dr. DeVito develops management plans for NJCF’s 20,000+ acres of holdings designed to protect and enhance biological diversity. Emile educates government officials, advocacy groups, land trusts, teachers and students on forest-interior habitat and migratory stopover needs of Neotropical songbirds. He is a trustee of the Pinelands Preservation Alliance and the NJ Natural Lands Trust. He serves on the Endangered and Non-Game Species Advisory Committee within the NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife, the New Jersey Invasive Species Council, and the Science Advisory Committee of the NY-NJ Trail Conference. ### Jess Fasano \|Communications Manager [jess.fasano@njconservation.org](mailto:jess.fasano@njconservation.org) Jess joined NJCF in 2022 after spending several years working in higher ed communications where she helped elevate expert voices speaking on global issues. At NJCF, she collaborates with colleagues to implement the organization's communications strategy and also supports its media relations, social media presence, publications, and website. The Monmouth County native started her career as a weekly newspaper reporter covering everything from environmental initiatives to elections, the restoration of a local landmark to the origin of a local love story. ### Jane Gardner \|Policy & Development Assistant [jane.gardner@njconservation.org](mailto:jane.gardner@njconservation.org) Jane joined the NJ Conservation Foundation team in December 2016 to work on the Pipeline Campaign. She has almost 20 years of experience working at non-profit organizations, specifically in government affairs/public policy and public health, and worked as a research analyst and state reporting associate at a large insurance company. Jane earned a B.S. in Public Health from William Paterson University. ### Amy Hansen \|Policy Manager [amy@njconservation.org](mailto:amy@njconservation.org) As policy manager, Amy evaluates and analyzes legislation, regulations and public policy in New Jersey pertaining to land and natural resources conservation and management. She also prepares and provides testimony to the legislature and other state agencies. She specializes in farmland policy, and is a member of NJ Conservation's justice, equity, diversity and inclusion committee and internship committee. She has served on the Board of Trustees to the Musconetcong Watershed Association and the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Jersey (NOFA-NJ) Board of Trustees. Prior to joining the NJCF staff, Amy worked at NOFA-NJ, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network and for the Land Use Committee in Solebury, PA. Amy also helps manage the organic fruit and vegetable farm on which she lives in Asbury, Hunterdon County. Amy holds a BA in Fine Art with emphasis in Natural Science Illustration from the University of California, Santa Cruz. ### Bo Humphrey \|Director of Development [bo.humphrey@njconservation.org](mailto:bo.humphrey@njconservation.org) Prior to joining NJ Conservation Foundation as Director of Development, Bo has served as Development Director for The Harding Land Trust in Harding Township, NJ. Bo has spent the last 25 years raising funds for several non-profit organizations as a board member, and chair of special events, capital campaigns and grant efforts, in a volunteer capacity. She has worked with non-profits in the fields of land conservation, education, health, historic preservation, and social services. In addition to her development work, Bo also ran a successful project management and design business focusing on residential interiors and floral design. Bo is originally from Augusta, GA and holds a BA in history from the University of Georgia. ### Robyn Jeney \|South Jersey Regional Manager [robyn.jeney@njconservation.org](mailto:robyn.jeney@njconservation.org) Robyn joined New Jersey Conservation Foundation as South Jersey Regional Manager in 2024 and is responsible for open space protection and farmland preservation in the Pine Barrens and Delaware Bayshore landscapes. Robyn spent the first 15 years of her career at the New Jersey Pinelands Commission, gaining valuable experience in both the regulatory and planning spheres and developing a deep, lasting affection for pine barrens botany and ecology. Most recently, Robyn developed her land protection skills with Natural Lands, where she managed conservation easement and fee simple acquisition projects in southeastern Pennsylvania and the New Jersey Delaware Bayshore. Robyn has undergraduate degrees in Philosophy and Psychology from Penn State University and a masters degree in Environmental Studies with a concentration in Resource Management from the University of Pennsylvania. In her free time, Robyn enjoys hiking and knitting. ### Annie Licata \|Staff Writer [annie.licata@njconservation.org](mailto:annie.licata@njconservation.org) Annie joined New Jersey Conservation Foundation as Staff Writer in September 2024. She received her BA in Magazine Journalism and Writing and Rhetoric from Syracuse University, where she revived the campus music magazine, and later started her career as a journalist at Men's Journal. She then moved onto Rolling Stone, where she was the only female writer in the music department. After writing about and working in the music industry for over a decade - with artists from Bob Dylan to Beyonce - she refocused her writing to meet the times we're in. In the past four years, she has dedicated herself to reimagining conventional literature, lifting indigenous voices in the global environmental community, and reevaluating human-centric ideas through the lens of the artist/writer. She honors and is continuously learning from Indigenous wisdom, culture, values, languages, ceremonies, rituals, and ways of life. Her commitment to the natural world is not simply her "career," rather a way of meeting one simple truth: beauty is as essential as water. ### Lisa MacCollum \|Director - North & Central Jersey [lisa@njconservation.org](mailto:lisa@njconservation.org) Lisa assists the Co-Executive Director responsible for land acquisition in directing and coordinating the activities of the land program including directing and coordinating the regional managers in North and Central Jersey in all aspects of land acquisition within their regions. She is responsible for negotiation and acquisition of both fee and easement properties in various regions of the state with primary focus in the Sourland/Hopewell Valley Project Area. As a member of the management team, Lisa also consults with all departments on various issues relating to acquisition. She began as a volunteer at NJCF monitoring easements in 1992 and joined the staff in1993. Lisa received her BS in Natural Resource Management at Cook College, Rutgers University. ### Tim Morris \|Director of Stewardship [tim@njconservation.org](mailto:tim@njconservation.org) Tim oversees NJCF's Stewardship Program, and directly manages NJCF's conservation easements. He also contributes to the acquisition program by assisting with the drafting and negotiating of new conservation easements, and works with government and non-profit groups to strengthen easement stewardship practices. Before joining NJCF, Tim worked for the University of Washington, USDA Forest Service, and several non-profit groups, conducting wildlife research and monitoring. He serves on the Board of Trustees of the Washington Township Land Trust of Morris County. Tim has a BA in Biology from Rutgers College. ### Rudisha Okezie \|Regional Manager, Camden Area [rudisha.okezie@njconservation.org](mailto:rudisha.okezie@njconservation.org) Rudisha manages community and partnership connections for the Camden region with a focus on improving community health and livability by engaging residents and community partners in the region, to enhance access to parks, gardens, rivers, trails, programming, and community green spaces. Prior to joining New Jersey Conservation Foundation, Rudisha worked in the city of Camden for several years as a project manager of Community Initiatives. Rudisha holds a B.S. in Planning from Rowan University as well as an A.A.S. in Architectural and Civil Engineering technology from the Pennsylvania Institute of Technology. ### Martin Rapp \|Project Coordinator, North Jersey [martin.rapp@njconservation.org](mailto:martin.rapp@njconservation.org) As Project Coordinator, Martin applies the conservation skills and experience he gained from a 33-year career in NJDEP as Preserve Manager for The New Jersey Natural Lands Trust, into practical ecological land stewardship techniques across North Jersey. Describing himself as a “Has-Been Wildlife Biologist” he looks for opportunities to combine his interests in local history, old-timey knowledge, and human cultural land connections into new ideas for protecting our natural landscapes of the Garden State. While helping with various management needs across NJ Conservation’s northern properties, he keeps a watchful eye out to discover Ancient stone piles and stone walls he believes tell a long forgotten story of people on the land. ### Heidi Roldan \|Director of Program Funding [heidi.roldan@njconservation.org](mailto:heidi.roldan@njconservation.org) Heidi joined New Jersey Conservation Foundation in November 2016. She manages foundation and corporate grants, including grant writing, reporting, and compliance, as well as identifying new opportunities. Heidi also administers the Franklin Parker Conservation Excellence Grant Program. Prior to joining NJ Conservation, Heidi was an Environmental Engineer for a consulting firm, where she managed remediation projects and specialized in regulatory compliance. Heidi holds a bachelor's degree in Environmental Engineering from Rutgers University, and a master's degree in Environmental Management from New Jersey Institute of Technology. ### Katherine Stieh \|Development & Events Manager [katherine.stieh@njconservation.org](mailto:katherine.stieh@njconservation.org) Katherine joins New Jersey Conservation Foundation as Development & Events Manager, where she supports donor engagement, fundraising initiatives, and event coordination to advance the organization’s mission. She brings experience in event planning, stakeholder communications, and cross-team collaboration, with a background supporting development and engagement efforts in nonprofit and professional settings. In her role, she focuses on clear communication, thoughtful coordination, and collaboration to help strengthen relationships and support NJCF’s mission-driven work. Katherine holds a BA from Seattle Pacific University. ### Alison E. Mitchell \|Executive Director [info@njconservation.org](mailto:info@njconservation.org) Alison became sole Executive Director in 2025 after serving as one of three Co-Executive Directors for three years. Alison has worked for New Jersey Conservation Foundation for 30 years. Before becoming Assistant Director, she spearheaded the development and management of the Conservation Foundation’s public policy program for over a decade as the Policy Director. In earlier years, Alison also worked on land acquisition initiatives and led NJ Conservation’s Conservation Assistance Program, and played a leadership role in the organization’s farmland preservation efforts and farmland policy work. She is the author of two of the Conservation Foundation’s major publications – The New Jersey Highlands: Treasures at Risk and Gaining Ground: a farmland policy report. In addition to her work at the Conservation Foundation, Alison’s past accomplishments include serving as a founding trustee and former president of the Hunterdon Land Trust, and a member of the Board of Trustees of Isles in Trenton. She was appointed by Governor McGreevey to serve as a public member of the Delaware and Raritan Canal Commission. A graduate of Lead New Jersey, she also served as a member of the advisory committee of the NJ Agricultural Experiment Station Board of Managers at Rutgers University. In the 1990’s, she joined the U.S-German Environmental Policy Exchange Program sponsored by the Heinrich Boll Foundation. The program fostered transatlantic meetings and site visits to share information and ideas among nonprofit and high level government agency staff. Prior to joining NJ Conservation Foundation, Alison interned with the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy and The Wilderness Society. More recently, she served on the Board of Trustees of Buckingham Friends School. She holds an MA in Urban and Environmental Policy from Tufts University and a BA in International Relations from Connecticut College. ### Erica Arlès \| Land & Stewardship Program Coordinator [erica@njconservation.org](mailto:erica@njconservation.org) Erica joined NJ Conservation Foundation in 2003. As Land Program Coordinator, Erica provides support for NJCF’s statewide land acquisition program, managing and overseeing details of the land protection process. In coordination with all departments, she assists in farmland and open space preservation projects throughout the state. In 2020, she also joined in assisting the ReThink Energy NJ policy campaign. Prior to NJ Conservation, Erica worked in New York State as an arts education coordinator, and in New Jersey as a textile artist and an art teacher. Her studies include a BFA from Kutztown University and courses at the Universities of Paris and New Mexico. ### Alix Bacon \|Project Manager, Sustainable Ag [alix@njconservation.org](mailto:alix@njconservation.org) Alix became Manager of the Western Piedmont Region in 2004 and is responsible for coordinating NJCF's acquisition, stewardship, outreach, and fundraising activities in this region. She brings local expertise to her work in the Western Piedmont project area, where she is working on the Wickecheoke Creek and Delaware River Bluffs. Before coming to NJCF, she worked for the South Branch Watershed Association and the Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions. Alix served on the Delaware Township Environmental Commission, and was chair for four years. She is also a member of the Delaware Township Open Space Committee, a founding member of the Hunterdon Land Trust Alliance Board of Trustees, and a landscape painter. She has a BA from Yale University. ### Mark Barrick \|Information Technology / Office Manager [mark@njconservation.org](mailto:mark@njconservation.org) Mark serves as Information Technology / Office Manager keeping current with the latest techniques in supporting, improving and maintaining IT infrastructure, as well as handling various office management duties. Mark has over two decades of IT experience from education to large corporate settings. He was born in Stuttgart, Germany and grew up in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. His love of the outdoors translates through his interests in photography, arts and a degree in Landscape Architecture from Louisiana State University. ### Tim Brill \|Regional Manager, Central Jersey [tim.brill@njconservation.org](mailto:tim.brill@njconservation.org) Tim Brill joined New Jersey Conservation Foundation as Central Jersey Project Manager in October 2015, to advance the preservation of open space and farmland and the development of parks, trails and greenways in the area. Tim served the NJ State Agriculture Development Committee as its Agricultural Retention Program / Planning Manager from August 1999, until July of 2015, supervising the New Jersey Farmland Preservation Program and the State Transfer of Development Rights Bank. He also coordinated the Farmland Preservation / Agricultural Retention Program with State and regional planning efforts as well as county, municipal, open space/recreation and historic preservation initiatives. In more recent years, Tim was responsible for the development of the Planning Incentive Grant program currently involving 18 counties and 47 municipalities, targeting the preservation of more than 5,600 farms and 300,000 additional acres. From 1988 through the first half of 1999, Tim worked for the Cumberland County Department of Planning and Development as the Assistant Planning Director. He also served as the President of the NJ County Planners Association in 1997. Tim started his career in 1980 with the City of Bridgeton, New Jersey’s largest National Register Historic District, serving as Planning Director, Downtown Revitalization Project Manager, Historic District Officer and Planning Board Administrator. He received a B.A. in Geography from Glassboro State College (now Rowan University) in 1980, and is a New Jersey licensed Professional Planner. ### Rebekah Buczynski \|Project Manager, North Jersey [rebekah.buczynski@njconservation.org](mailto:rebekah.buczynski@njconservation.org) Rebekah began her work with NJ Conservation Foundation in 2022 as Project Manager for North Jersey, focusing work at the Rainbow Hill Preserve which ties the pastoral foothills of the Sourland Mountains across both Hunterdon and Somerset counties. Her interests and work prior to her start with NJCF have been New Jersey and its open spaces. After earning a bachelor’s degree in Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources Mgmt. from Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences she began stewarding lands in the upper Raritan watershed for the Raritan Headwaters Association. As a life-long plant enthusiast she was fortunate to work for many years conducting forest health and rare plant surveys across the state while working with Raritan Valley Community College, her 1st alma mater, and the NJDEP’s Office of Natural Lands Management getting to know New Jersey’s wonderfully wide array of plant communities and ensuring their health. ### Elise Cavicchi \|Land Protection Coordinator [elise.cavicchi@njconservation.org](mailto:elise.cavicchi@njconservation.org) As Land Protection Coordinator, Elise collaborates with the Land Acquisition Specialists and Managers to facilitate conservation easement acquisition projects. She coordinates with stakeholders in the community and assists in the identification and evaluation of potential land projects to meet open space and farmland preservation goals. As a PhD candidate in Cultural Anthropology and Ethnomusicology at the University of Pennsylvania, Elise has researched the relationship between land use and sonic practices in Italy and holds a BA in Music and Environmental Studies with a Concentration in Nature, Culture, and History from Mount Holyoke College. Prior to joining New Jersey Conservation Foundation, Elise held positions in education and outreach, as inventory coordinator, and as park photographer with the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission and the Sebasticook Regional Land Trust. In her free time, Elise enjoys photography, field recording, hiking, and singing Sacred Harp music. ### Anthony Cucchi \|Assistant Director [anthony.cucchi@njconservation.org](mailto:anthony.cucchi@njconservation.org) Anthony joined New Jersey Conservation Foundation in October 2024, where he helps to lead the organization’s land protection, urban action and public policy efforts. Having worked to conserve land and create urban parks and green spaces for the past 25 years in New Jersey and elsewhere, Anthony focuses on ensuring that all New Jersey residents have access to high quality parks and natural areas. Anthony’s previous work experience includes serving as Superintendent of Parks for the Mercer County Park Commission, where he oversaw new park development projects and a variety of environmental programs. Prior to that he was State Director for the Trust for Public Land and oversaw land protection programs and the growth of urban park programs in Newark, Philadelphia, Camden and other New Jersey cities. Anthony has a bachelor’s degree in History from Cornell University and a Master’s of Forestry from Yale University. ### Aria (Beth) E. Davisson \|Highlands & Black River Acquisition Specialist [beth@njconservation.org](mailto:beth@njconservation.org) Beth works closely with NJ Conservation's Black River Greenway Regional Manager. Together they provide consulting services to the Township of Bedminster and to Peapack and Gladstone Borough. Beth focuses on fulfilling municipal open space and farmland preservation goals by coordinating land and conservation easement acquisition projects from inception to completion. Beth is a key player on our land acquisition team and serves on the Board of Lamington Conservancy. Beth received her BS in Environmental Engineering from Northwestern University. ### Emile D. DeVito, Ph.D \|Manager of Science & Stewardship [emile@njconservation.org](mailto:emile@njconservation.org) Emile has been the Manager of Science and Stewardship at the New Jersey Conservation Foundation since 1989. He received a doctorate in Ecology in 1988 for research on bird communities and vegetation landscapes in New Jersey’s Pine Barrens. Dr. DeVito develops management plans for NJCF’s 20,000+ acres of holdings designed to protect and enhance biological diversity. Emile educates government officials, advocacy groups, land trusts, teachers and students on forest-interior habitat and migratory stopover needs of Neotropical songbirds. He is a trustee of the Pinelands Preservation Alliance and the NJ Natural Lands Trust. He serves on the Endangered and Non-Game Species Advisory Committee within the NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife, the New Jersey Invasive Species Council, and the Science Advisory Committee of the NY-NJ Trail Conference. ### Richard Dodds \|Regional Manager, Highlands, Black River & Wickecheoke Greenways [richard.dodds@njconservation.org](mailto:richard.dodds@njconservation.org) Richard provides consulting services to the Township of Bedminster in implementing its open space and farmland preservation goals by coordinating land and conservation easement acquisition projects from inception to completion. Richard also provides land acquisition services to the Tewksbury Land Trust, Raritan Headwaters Association and Peapack Gladstone Borough through NJCF’s innovative shared staffing program and coordinates stewardship projects and outreach events in the Black River Greenway. Richard has served as the President of the Hunterdon Land Trust, Mayor of Kingwood Township, and currently serves as the Chairperson of the Lower Delaware Wild and Scenic Management Committee (a partnership program with the National Park Service as well as river communities and nonprofit organizations from south of the Delaware Water Gap to north of Trenton). ### Jess Fasano \|Communications Manager [jess.fasano@njconservation.org](mailto:jess.fasano@njconservation.org) Jess joined NJCF in 2022 after spending several years working in higher ed communications where she helped elevate expert voices speaking on global issues. At NJCF, she collaborates with colleagues to implement the organization's communications strategy and also supports its media relations, social media presence, publications, and website. The Monmouth County native started her career as a weekly newspaper reporter covering everything from environmental initiatives to elections, the restoration of a local landmark to the origin of a local love story. ### Geo Fellema \|Development Manager [geo.fellema@njconservation.org](mailto:geo.fellema@njconservation.org) Prior to joining the team at New Jersey Conservation Foundation, Geo worked as Program Development Specialist at NJ 211 where he developed proposals and reports for foundation, county, state, and federal grant applications. He also served as Program Director for the Women’s Foundation of NJ, where he oversaw donor stewardship, event planning, and their competitive grants process. He has experience identifying native plants and teaching environmental education from his time working at Teaneck Creek Conservancy. Geo holds an MPA from Seton Hall University, a certificate in Nonprofit Management from Duke University, and a BA in Liberal Studies with a double minor in Philosophy and Environmental Studies from Ramapo College. In his free time, Geo enjoys paddle boarding and gardening with his husband and daughter. ### Jane Gardner \|Policy & Development Assistant [jane.gardner@njconservation.org](mailto:jane.gardner@njconservation.org) Jane joined the NJ Conservation Foundation team in December 2016 to work on the Pipeline Campaign. She has almost 20 years of experience working at non-profit organizations, specifically in government affairs/public policy and public health, and worked as a research analyst and state reporting associate at a large insurance company. Jane earned a B.S. in Public Health from William Paterson University. ### Jane Halsted, CPA \|Accounting Manager [janehalsted@njconservation.org](mailto:janehalsted@njconservation.org) Jane joined New Jersey Conservation Foundation as the accounting manager. She previously owned a small CPA firm for over 15 years where she served small businesses and a number of nonprofit clients. She later worked as the Finance Director for two nonprofit organizations. She holds a BS in Accounting from Bucknell University. She enjoys hiking, biking, cross country skiing, and music. ### Amy Hansen \|Policy Manager [amy@njconservation.org](mailto:amy@njconservation.org) As policy manager, Amy evaluates and analyzes legislation, regulations and public policy in New Jersey pertaining to land and natural resources conservation and management. She also prepares and provides testimony to the legislature and other state agencies. She specializes in farmland policy, and is a member of NJ Conservation's justice, equity, diversity and inclusion committee and internship committee. She has served on the Board of Trustees to the Musconetcong Watershed Association and the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Jersey (NOFA-NJ) Board of Trustees. Prior to joining the NJCF staff, Amy worked at NOFA-NJ, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network and for the Land Use Committee in Solebury, PA. Amy also helps manage the organic fruit and vegetable farm on which she lives in Asbury, Hunterdon County. Amy holds a BA in Fine Art with emphasis in Natural Science Illustration from the University of California, Santa Cruz. ### Maria Hauser \|Director, Human Resources & Board Liaison [maria@njconservation.org](mailto:maria@njconservation.org) Maria joined NJ Conservation as Personnel Manager & Executive Assistant in 2001 and served in that role for almost 20 years before becoming Director of Human Resources and Board Liaison. She also served as Administrative Assistant to Land Acquisition for a short period of time. Prior to joining NJCF, Maria was with Champion International, a large paper manufacturing company, serving as the Personnel Manager for over 12 years. Maria holds a BS degree in Business Administration with a concentration in Management from the College of St. Elizabeth. ### Bo Humphrey \|Director of Development [bo.humphrey@njconservation.org](mailto:bo.humphrey@njconservation.org) Prior to joining NJ Conservation Foundation as Director of Development, Bo has served as Development Director for The Harding Land Trust in Harding Township, NJ. Bo has spent the last 25 years raising funds for several non-profit organizations as a board member, and chair of special events, capital campaigns and grant efforts, in a volunteer capacity. She has worked with non-profits in the fields of land conservation, education, health, historic preservation, and social services. In addition to her development work, Bo also ran a successful project management and design business focusing on residential interiors and floral design. Bo is originally from Augusta, GA and holds a BA in history from the University of Georgia. ### Steven Jack \|Land Steward [steven@njconservation.org](mailto:steven@njconservation.org) Steve works with the Stewardship department to take care of the Franklin Parker Preserve in Chatsworth, Burlington County. He is a former firefighter with the Collingswood Fire Department. ### Robyn Jeney \|South Jersey Regional Manager [robyn.jeney@njconservation.org](mailto:robyn.jeney@njconservation.org) Robyn joined New Jersey Conservation Foundation as South Jersey Regional Manager in 2024 and is responsible for open space protection and farmland preservation in the Pine Barrens and Delaware Bayshore landscapes. Robyn spent the first 15 years of her career at the New Jersey Pinelands Commission, gaining valuable experience in both the regulatory and planning spheres and developing a deep, lasting affection for pine barrens botany and ecology. Most recently, Robyn developed her land protection skills with Natural Lands, where she managed conservation easement and fee simple acquisition projects in southeastern Pennsylvania and the New Jersey Delaware Bayshore. Robyn has undergraduate degrees in Philosophy and Psychology from Penn State University and a masters degree in Environmental Studies with a concentration in Resource Management from the University of Pennsylvania. In her free time, Robyn enjoys hiking and knitting. ### Russell Juelg \|Senior Land Steward [russell@njconservation.org](mailto:russell@njconservation.org) Russell is senior land steward for New Jersey Conservation Foundation, and has developed a trail system and educational programs for the Franklin Parker Preserve. He has a BA degree in Religion-Studies from Texas Christian University. Past work experience includes three years as managing director of Woodford Cedar Run Wildlife Refuge and 11 years as director of outreach at the Pinelands Preservation Alliance. His favorite areas of research include Pine Barrens vegetation communities, field botany, and threatened and endangered species. ### Annie Licata \|Staff Writer [annie.licata@njconservation.org](mailto:annie.licata@njconservation.org) Annie joined New Jersey Conservation Foundation as Staff Writer in September 2024. She received her BA in Magazine Journalism and Writing and Rhetoric from Syracuse University, where she revived the campus music magazine, and later started her career as a journalist at Men's Journal. She then moved onto Rolling Stone, where she was the only female writer in the music department. After writing about and working in the music industry for over a decade - with artists from Bob Dylan to Beyonce - she refocused her writing to meet the times we're in. In the past four years, she has dedicated herself to reimagining conventional literature, lifting indigenous voices in the global environmental community, and reevaluating human-centric ideas through the lens of the artist/writer. She honors and is continuously learning from Indigenous wisdom, culture, values, languages, ceremonies, rituals, and ways of life. Her commitment to the natural world is not simply her "career," rather a way of meeting one simple truth: beauty is as essential as water. ### Bill Lynch, M.S. \|Director of Engagement & Communications [blynch@njconservation.org](mailto:blynch@njconservation.org) As Director of Engagement & Communications, Bill manages NJ Conservation's outreach and environmental education programs, including the Step Into Nature series. He oversees all of the organization's communications, including social media, newsletters, annual reports, the website, and the weekly State We're In op-ed. In addition to these responsibilities, Bill works to engage new constituencies by building partnerships and offering education and outreach opportunities in a variety of settings and locations. Bill received his Master of Science degree in Ecology and Evolution from Rutgers University, has worked for various conservation organizations, and serves on the board of Wild Bird Research Group. Bill is a passionate environmental educator, birder, and photographer. When he's not thinking about belted kingfishers, Bill can be found playing board games for hours on end. ### Lisa MacCollum \|Director - North & Central Jersey [lisa@njconservation.org](mailto:lisa@njconservation.org) Lisa assists the Co-Executive Director responsible for land acquisition in directing and coordinating the activities of the land program including directing and coordinating the regional managers in North and Central Jersey in all aspects of land acquisition within their regions. She is responsible for negotiation and acquisition of both fee and easement properties in various regions of the state with primary focus in the Sourland/Hopewell Valley Project Area. As a member of the management team, Lisa also consults with all departments on various issues relating to acquisition. She began as a volunteer at NJCF monitoring easements in 1992 and joined the staff in1993. Lisa received her BS in Natural Resource Management at Cook College, Rutgers University. ### Melanie Mason \|Land Steward [melanie.mason@njconservation.org](mailto:melanie.mason@njconservation.org) Melanie joined NJ Conservation Foundation as a Land Steward in 2018. She is responsible for management and development of NJCF’s preserves in the northern region of the state. Her background includes stewardship and monitoring of NJ’s natural resources for New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife and Morris County Park Commission. Most recently she administered the Farmland Preservation Program and County Agriculture Development Board for Hunterdon County. She holds a B.S. in Ecology and Natural Resources from Rutgers University and a certificate in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) from Penn State. ### Tim Morris \|Director of Stewardship [tim@njconservation.org](mailto:tim@njconservation.org) Tim oversees NJCF's Stewardship Program, and directly manages NJCF's conservation easements. He also contributes to the acquisition program by assisting with the drafting and negotiating of new conservation easements, and works with government and non-profit groups to strengthen easement stewardship practices. Before joining NJCF, Tim worked for the University of Washington, USDA Forest Service, and several non-profit groups, conducting wildlife research and monitoring. He serves on the Board of Trustees of the Washington Township Land Trust of Morris County. Tim has a BA in Biology from Rutgers College. ### Tanya Nolte \|Conservation Information & GIS Manager [tanya@njconservation.org](mailto:tanya@njconservation.org) Tanya is responsible for all aspects of NJCF’s GIS mapping program. Before coming to NJCF, Tanya worked as a grant writer and publications manager at Reeves-Reed Arboretum in Summit. Prior to that, she was the GIS Director for seven years at Morris Land Conservancy, where she helped develop and implement the GIS program. Tanya has a Bachelor of Arts degree in geography and politics from Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, where she was born and raised. ### Rudisha Okezie \|Regional Manager, Camden Area [rudisha.okezie@njconservation.org](mailto:rudisha.okezie@njconservation.org) Rudisha manages community and partnership connections for the Camden region with a focus on improving community health and livability by engaging residents and community partners in the region, to enhance access to parks, gardens, rivers, trails, programming, and community green spaces. Prior to joining New Jersey Conservation Foundation, Rudisha worked in the city of Camden for several years as a project manager of Community Initiatives. Rudisha holds a B.S. in Planning from Rowan University as well as an A.A.S. in Architectural and Civil Engineering technology from the Pennsylvania Institute of Technology. ### Allison Pieffer \|Stewardship Coordinator [allison.pieffer@njconservation.org](mailto:allison.pieffer@njconservation.org) Allison is responsible for monitoring and stewardship of all easement properties held by NJCF. As a New Jersey native, her previous experience includes habitat restoration, endangered species monitoring, and volunteer management with the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy in California, as well as with Delaware State Parks. Allison has a B.S. in Environmental Science from the University of Delaware. ### Martin Rapp \|Project Coordinator, North Jersey [martin.rapp@njconservation.org](mailto:martin.rapp@njconservation.org) As Project Coordinator, Martin applies the conservation skills and experience he gained from a 33-year career in NJDEP as Preserve Manager for The New Jersey Natural Lands Trust, into practical ecological land stewardship techniques across North Jersey. Describing himself as a “Has-Been Wildlife Biologist” he looks for opportunities to combine his interests in local history, old-timey knowledge, and human cultural land connections into new ideas for protecting our natural landscapes of the Garden State. While helping with various management needs across NJ Conservation’s northern properties, he keeps a watchful eye out to discover Ancient stone piles and stone walls he believes tell a long forgotten story of people on the land. ### Karen Richards, CPA \|Director of Finance & Administration [karen@njconservation.org](mailto:karen@njconservation.org) Karen has managed NJ Conservation Foundation's finances for over 20 years. As Director of Finance and Administration she is responsible for the accuracy and integrity of all financial information and assets. She assists the Director of Human Resources and oversees the office management. She is a certified public accountant with 30+ years’ experience in private and public accounting. Karen previously served as a trustee for the Washington Township Land Trust. She holds a BS in Accounting from the University of Delaware. ### Heidi Roldan \|Director of Program Funding [heidi.roldan@njconservation.org](mailto:heidi.roldan@njconservation.org) Heidi joined New Jersey Conservation Foundation in November 2016. She manages foundation and corporate grants, including grant writing, reporting, and compliance, as well as identifying new opportunities. Heidi also administers the Franklin Parker Conservation Excellence Grant Program. Prior to joining NJ Conservation, Heidi was an Environmental Engineer for a consulting firm, where she managed remediation projects and specialized in regulatory compliance. Heidi holds a bachelor's degree in Environmental Engineering from Rutgers University, and a master's degree in Environmental Management from New Jersey Institute of Technology. ### Bill Scullion \|Land Steward [bill@njconservation.org](mailto:bill@njconservation.org) Bill manages the South Jersey preserves. His previous experience includes working as a field biologist and land steward for the Nature Conservancy, and as a park naturalist at Cattus Island County Park in Ocean County. He holds a bachelor’s degree in environmental science from Richard Stockton College of New Jersey. ### Katherine Stieh \|Development & Events Manager [katherine.stieh@njconservation.org](mailto:katherine.stieh@njconservation.org) Katherine joins New Jersey Conservation Foundation as Development & Events Manager, where she supports donor engagement, fundraising initiatives, and event coordination to advance the organization’s mission. She brings experience in event planning, stakeholder communications, and cross-team collaboration, with a background supporting development and engagement efforts in nonprofit and professional settings. In her role, she focuses on clear communication, thoughtful coordination, and collaboration to help strengthen relationships and support NJCF’s mission-driven work. Katherine holds a BA from Seattle Pacific University. ### John S. Watson, Jr. \|Senior Fellow for Conservation Justice [jay@njconservation.org](mailto:jay@njconservation.org) After a conservation career spanning nearly 45 years, Jay made the decision to step down from his Co-Executive Director role for NJ Conservation Foundation in January 2025 to focus exclusively on conservation justice in our cities and communities of color as he rounds out his career. That work will include advocacy and community engagement around the benefits of Green and Healthy Cities, and raising awareness and capital to implement green infrastructure projects where most needed, particularly related to climate adaptation and mitigation for city residents and visitors. In 2022, Jay became one of three co-executive directors of the organization, and oversaw our Statewide Land Protection team and lead the organization’s Urban Action agenda. Prior to being appointed as co-executive, he served as Senior Director for Statewide Land Protection and Community Relations. Before joining the nonprofit sector, Jay spent nearly 30 years in the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, most of it as Administrator of the Green Acres Program. He was then appointed as Assistant Commissioner for Natural and Historic Resources and soon after was appointed as the Department’s Deputy Commissioner, the title from which he retired from State Service in 2010. Jay is a proud graduate of Mercer County College and holds a BS Degree from Florida A&M University, one of the nation’s premiere HBCUs. He has served on many nonprofit boards including the Princeton Area Community Foundation and Isles Inc.; and is currently a Bunbury Fund Advisor and board member of Truehart Productions. ## Want to know how you can help our staff? Learn more about ways you can help preserve even more of New Jersey's beautiful lands. [Get Involved](https://www.njconservation.org/get-involved/) ## Environmental Progress Overview # The State We're In ## Environmental highlights and challenges in transition [![](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/NJ-State-House.png)](https://www.njconservation.org/environmental-highlights-2025/) Jan 30, 2026 By Alison Mitchell, Executive Director, New Jersey Conservation Foundation New Jersey’s new governor, Mikie Sherrill, takes the helm at a time of urgent need for climate leadership, environmental justice, and stronger protections for public land and water. Hopes are high given Sherrill’s record in congress and her selection of Ed Potosnak, who led the state’s chapter of the League of Conservation Voters, to head the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). As we look back at the final chapter of the Murphy Administration and the close of the legislative session, we see some essential environmental victories worth celebrating, along with setbacks that remind us of how fragile progress in environmental protection can be. New Jersey’s small size and large population brings many environmental challenges, and we can expect the state to continue to grapple with familiar tensions between development and conservation, short-term convenience, and long-term resilience. Add the environmental rollbacks at the federal level, and the hill gets steeper! This is just a small sampling of the wins and losses of late, starting with some recent good news: - Native plants and ecosystems in this state we’re in got a boost with the recent passage of the Invasive Species Management Act. It bans the sale of certain invasive plants and reinstates the New Jersey Invasive Species Council. - The DEP adopted rules aimed at strengthening community and business resilience in the face of sea-level rise, extreme weather, and chronic flooding. With this measure, our state is finally addressing serious risks to our coastline from erosion, sea-level rise, and hazardous storms. In addition to elevation requirements for new residential development in affected areas, the rules require better stormwater management for redevelopment. The measure also focuses on new “nature-based” solutions to coastal problems, including restoration and better protection of wetlands. - The New Jersey Appellate Court upheld the state’s Environmental Justice Law, affirming that economic benefits associated with development proposals don’t justify adding pollution in already overburdened communities. - New Jersey’s coastal wetlands, forests, and urban tree canopies gained much needed funding from the DEP’s Natural Climate Solutions grants to local governments and nonprofits. These grants are helping communities capture carbon, reduce flooding, and build a greener, healthier New Jersey. Unfortunately, there’s also been bad news, much of it coming from Washington: - The Northeast Supply Enhancement Project, a dirty and environmentally destructive pipeline designed to bring fracked gas from Pennsylvania to New York City, recently got green lights from New York and New Jersey. The project includes a pipeline that will run under the Raritan Bay and a massive, polluting compressor station in Franklin Township, Somerset County. Construction will disturb over 1 million tons of toxin-laden muck, further polluting the bay and ocean and impacting marine mammals. - At the federal level, 2025 brought environmental rollbacks that made protecting New Jersey’s natural resources more difficult. Changes to the National Environmental Policy Act rules weakened environmental reviews and reduced opportunities for public input. Efforts to winnow protections under the Marine Mammal Protection Act – a cornerstone law that prohibits harming whales, dolphins, and other marine mammals – and the Endangered Species Act pose significant threats to New Jersey’s wildlife. Other damaging federal actions by the Trump Administration and Congress have reduced protections for clean water, stymied advances in clean energy, curtailed funding for organic agriculture, and much more. Murphy’s leadership was essential in the successful effort to stop the unnecessary and damaging PennEast gas pipeline early in his second term. In opposing the project, he stood up for the State’s right to protect its drinking water and preserved lands. He also worked to advance a broader clean energy agenda, but the legislature failed to enact the kind of bold clean energy legislation we need to cut our reliance on fossil fuels. The new administration should take up the charge now. Governor Sherrill promised to look at energy affordability, and that should be good news for renewables. She can take advantage of lower solar energy costs – as well as battery storage – to lower emissions that contribute to climate change while decreasing ratepayers’ bills. If she does, it will be a win for ratepayers and the climate. With a new legislative session beginning and the Sherrill Administration establishing its agenda, now is the time to press for bold action and leadership! To learn about preserving New Jersey’s land and natural resources, visit the New Jersey Conservation Foundation website at www.njconservation.org or contact me at info@njconservation.org. ## About the Authors ### Alison Mitchell ###### Executive Director ### Michele S. Byers ###### Executive Director, 1999-2021 ### John S. Watson, Jr. ###### Co-Executive Director, 2022-2024 ### Tom Gilbert ###### Co-Executive Director, 2022-2023 View their full bios [here](https://www.njconservation.org/staff/). ## Filter Get The Latest News From The Garden State ## In the News [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/news/) [Newsletters](https://www.njconservation.org/newsletters/) --- ## [Mission](https://www.njconservation.org/mission/) ## Black River Greenway # Black River Greenway ## Black River Greenway The Black River Greenway is a region that includes parts of Hunterdon, Morris and Somerset counties. New Jersey Conservation Foundation and its conservation partners have preserved nearly 3,000 acres of land throughout the area, which is characterized by rolling open farms and dramatic dark forests. These lands are preserved for public access and to protect environmentally sensitive resources. This 180-square mile area is named after the Black River (also known as the Lamington River), a tributary of the North Branch of the Raritan River. Holding some of the largest open spaces in the stretch between Manhattan and Philadelphia, the Black River Greenway faces tremendous development pressure. New Jersey Conservation Foundation and local land conservation groups, municipalities and counties in The Black River Greenway are partnering to identify and protect lands vital to our future. ### Saving The Black River Greenway New Jersey Conservation Foundation and conservation partners have responded to environmental concerns and development pressures facing the region by preserving nearly 3,000 acres over the last 40 years. Recently, New Jersey Conservation Foundation has helped preserve: - 78 acres along Black River Road in Bedminster, including more than a mile of Lamington River frontage - 37 acres on Fox Hill Road in Tewksbury Township - 72 acres connecting Burnt Mills Park to River Road Park in Bedminster Township - A 6-acre addition to the Upper Raritan Watershed Association’s Fox Hill Preserve on Fox Hill Road in Tewksbury - An 86-acre farm along Spook Hollow Road in Bedminster - A 67-acre farm along Lamington Road in Bedminster Currently, New Jersey Conservation Foundation is working with partners to preserve the landmark 160-acre Hill & Dale Farm property along Hill & Dale and Rockaway Roads in Tewksbury Township. To learn more about New Jersey Conservation Foundation’s preservation work in The Black River Greenway, please contact info@njconservation.org ## Detail Chester, NJ 07930 [PROJECT MAP](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/BlackRiverGreenway.pdf) ## Explore More ## The State We're In By Michele S. Byers, Executive Director [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/) --- ## [Black River Greenway Project](https://www.njconservation.org/project/black-river-greenway/) ## Benefits of Green Space # The State We're In ## The many benefits of preserved green space [![](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Healthy-forest-Warren-County-cropped-1024x426.jpg)](https://www.njconservation.org/the-many-benefits-of-preserved-green-space/) Mar 1, 2024 By Alison Mitchell, Co-Executive Director It’s easy to take lands in their natural state for granted. An old forest or beautiful meadow in your town may have “always been there,” but unless the land has been permanently preserved, it may be built upon in the future. New Jerseyans seem to understand the wisdom of preserving land. Over the past 60-plus years, voters in the Garden State have overwhelmingly passed every statewide ballot question on funding to protect open space, farmland and historic sites. The most recent was in 2014, when voters approved a measure to dedicate part of the state’s Corporate Business Tax revenue to sustainably support long-term preservation efforts. Despite our state being the nation’s most densely populated, about a third of our total land mass has been permanently protected so it will be available for future generations. All of our 21 counties have amazing parks and nature preserves: everything from neighborhood pocket parks to vast properties covering hundreds, or thousands, of acres. These preserved properties offer tremendous benefits to nearby residents, as well as to those living in a much wider area: **Environmental** – Protected open space provides a host of environmental benefits for local communities, including replenishing groundwater supplies, improving water quality, mitigating flooding during storms, safeguarding wildlife habitat, and removing pollution from the air. Forests, trees and soils on preserved land absorb and store carbon from the atmosphere, helping in the fight against climate change. Tree-covered parkland in cities also helps reduce the urban heat island effect. Several years ago, the New Jersey Keep It Green coalition tried to quantify the environmental benefits of open space. They found that for every 10 percent increase in forest cover, water treatment and chemical costs decreased by 20 percent. Wildlife also benefits – open spaces in New Jersey support more than 2,100 known native plant species and nearly 900 wildlife species. **Recreation and health** – Preserved open space provides low-cost or free recreational opportunities to residents and promotes health and wellbeing. Parks and preserves throughout the state offer hiking, biking, birding, dog walking, paddling, fishing, horseback riding and more. Physically active people who use outdoor open spaces have lower incidences of cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, depression, certain cancers, and obesity. Experiencing nature at parks and open spaces provides a feeling of peace and serenity, boosting mental health. It is estimated that activities on protected open space account for millions of dollars in avoided medical costs annually, plus millions more in avoided losses from reduced productivity at work. Parks can also improve the public’s quality of life in other ways. Some provide space for community gardens, allowing people who don’t own land to grow their own fruits and vegetables. Other parks may offer an opportunity to prevent youth crime through recreation programs that offer social support from adult leaders, leadership opportunities for participants, a sense of group belonging, and opportunities for community service. **Property values** – Studies have found that protected open space increases the value of nearby homes, since buyers are willing to pay more for properties near and adjacent to green spaces. Who wouldn’t want to gaze out their window at a preserved forest or field, or simply step out their backdoor to access a trail system? New Jersey Keep It Green coalition found several years ago that the average home price increases 16 percent when it is located near permanently preserved open space, the value of a vacant lot increases 35 percent when it is located next to permanently preserved open space, and parks contribute up to 20 percent of the value of homes in urban areas. Homeowners who live near preserved lands are usually happy to have them as neighbors; indeed, nearby residents are often among the driving forces responsible for making these public green spaces a reality. Once a new public preserve or park is opened, neighbors often serve as the local eyes and ears to make sure that the green space is well-maintained and safe. According to the Rails to Trails Conservancy, which turns abandoned train lines into linear parks, nearby residents sometimes fear that a proposed new trail near their property will lead to increased crime, such as littering, trespassing, burglary and vandalism. For the most part, these fears are unfounded. “A large majority of trail opponents find that their fears about the trail never materialize, and numerous studies refute that rail-trails increase crime, lower property values or introduce new liability claims,” said an article by the Rails to Trails Conservancy. “In fact, adjacent residents almost invariably become enthusiastic trail users and supporters within a few years of a trail’s creation.” National studies back this up. In 2019, for example, researchers reviewed 45 papers on the connection between green spaces and crime, and found that the presence of green spaces, including parks and trees, reduces crime in urban areas. If open land near you is preserved as a park or preserve, there may be changes to adjust to. For example, if the property is purchased using public funding – including state Green Acres Program funds – the land will be open to the public. That usually means the addition of some level of amenities, which will vary in scope depending on the entity charged with managing the land. Trails and parking areas are common at rural preserves, while restrooms, ballfields, and other similar recreation facilities are more common in urban and suburban parks. If your community plans to acquire land in your neighborhood for new parks or preserves, studies suggest that residents will benefit. Your home will likely become more valuable, and you will hopefully have a great place to enjoy recreation in a landscape that will provide environmental benefits in perpetuity! To find out more about the benefits of open space, check out New Jersey’s 2007 study, _Valuing New Jersey’s Natural Capital: An Assessment of the Economic Value of the State’s Natural Resources._ The dollar figures are outdated, but the principles still apply. You can find it at [https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/35012/](https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/35012/). A more recent resource on public land is a _Return on Environment_ study by Mercer County. Find it at [https://www.mercercounty.org/departments/planning/return-on-environment-report/-fsiteid-1#!/](https://www.mercercounty.org/departments/planning/return-on-environment-report/-fsiteid-1#!/). And for information about preserving New Jersey’s land and natural resources, visit the New Jersey Conservation Foundation website at [www.njconservation.org](http://www.njconservation.org/) or contact me at [info@njconservation.org](mailto:info@njconservation.org). ## About the Authors ### Alison Mitchell ###### Executive Director ### Michele S. Byers ###### Executive Director, 1999-2021 ### John S. Watson, Jr. ###### Co-Executive Director, 2022-2024 ### Tom Gilbert ###### Co-Executive Director, 2022-2023 View their full bios [here](https://www.njconservation.org/staff/). ## Filter Get The Latest News From The Garden State ## In the News [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/news/) [Newsletters](https://www.njconservation.org/newsletters/) ## Data Centers and Environment # The State We're In ## Data centers must clean up their acts [![](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/c-Stephen-Elliott-Pinelands-Alliance.png)](https://www.njconservation.org/data-centers-clean/) Feb 27, 2026 By Alison Mitchell, Executive Director, New Jersey Conservation Foundation As tech giants race to build data centers across the nation, policymakers are struggling to manage energy affordability, and to protect the environment and local communities. In New Jersey, there are currently no clear rules requiring companies to shoulder the tremendous environmental and energy costs they impose. These massive and sprawling digital facilities run 24/7, consuming enormous amounts of water and electricity, often rivaling small cities. As a result, load (demand for electricity consumption) is increasing faster than new resources can be added across our shared 13-state electrical grid. This growing regional shortage of new generation is driving up costs across multiple states, including in New Jersey. More than 90 percent of new load projected by PSE&G is spurred by data centers! Virginia, which is part of our regional grid, is the world’s leading data center hub and has driven much of the load growth impacting New Jersey’s energy costs. Many more data centers are being planned and developed across the region. And there isn’t enough thought going into where they are located or the damage they bring. Policies to shield consumers are emerging, and many states are adopting rules — including special tariffs for very large loads. One approach requires corporations to develop their own energy generation either onsite, near a data center, or feeding into the regional grid. Some states require that new load to be served partly or entirely by renewables, nuclear, or other carbon free sources. But New Jersey has not yet advanced such policies, and corporations are taking advantage. Large data centers can bring millions in tax revenue and a surge of construction jobs – but short-term gains come with short, and long-term, pain. A hyperscale data center has opened in Vineland, New Jersey, developed by DataOne and operated by Microsoft to power AI systems. It’s designed to expand and potentially reach 300 megawatts, which would be nearly double the total amount of power used by the city right now! While firms like Google and Microsoft have invested in renewables and even nuclear generation to limit greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants in other places, there are no such plans for Vineland. DataOne is promising to produce an estimated 85 percent of its electricity on-site using gas turbines, in addition to hundreds of diesel generators. It’s akin to a new, medium-sized gas plant and will add substantial new greenhouse gas emissions, clearly undermining New Jersey climate policies. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has a regulation in place to control emissions from gas plants, but questions remain whether DataOne’s center is a regulated plant that will have to meet those standards. Data centers run hot, and those designed to cool with water require massive amounts. Cooling with air requires even more electricity. Noise, an often-overlooked pollutant, disturbs residential areas and threatens wildlife, including sensitive species like barred owls and Pine Barrens tree frogs. Without policies that safeguard natural and built communities, we risk repeating the mistakes of the warehouse boom, where rapid development outpaced planning, leaving communities and ecosystems to bear the costs of growth. New Jersey needs clear, enforceable policies that guide the location of data centers, regulate environmental impacts and require developers to provide their own carbon-free energy to meet their electricity demands. This would shift costs from the public to the responsible parties reaping the profits, protecting ratepayers while advancing state climate goals and preserving clean water, air, and wildlife. Senator Bob Smith has proposed a bill to require data centers to submit a plan showing that all their electricity will come from new clean energy sources. We need more of that kind of thinking, and we need action by other legislators and the governor. When people stay informed about local zoning and redevelopment decisions and get engaged early, they can avoid being in the shadow of a data center. Recently, in New Brunswick, swift public backlash halted a data center project practically before it began. We have a choice: allow unchecked expansion that burdens ratepayers and the environment or establish rules for data centers that protect our environment, keep energy affordable, and support the state’s climate goals. It’s time to act! To learn about preserving New Jersey’s land and natural resources, visit the New Jersey Conservation Foundation website at [www.njconservation.org](http://www.njconservation.org/) or contact me at [info@njconservation.org](mailto:info@njconservation.org). ## About the Authors ### Alison Mitchell ###### Executive Director ### Michele S. Byers ###### Executive Director, 1999-2021 ### John S. Watson, Jr. ###### Co-Executive Director, 2022-2024 ### Tom Gilbert ###### Co-Executive Director, 2022-2023 View their full bios [here](https://www.njconservation.org/staff/). ## Filter Get The Latest News From The Garden State ## In the News [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/news/) [Newsletters](https://www.njconservation.org/newsletters/) --- ## [Current Issues](https://www.njconservation.org/current-issues/) ## NJ Conservation Issues # Current Issues ## What You Need to Know ## [Growing Partnerships in Sustainable Agriculture NJ Conservation advances its goal of supporting sustainable, climate-friendly agriculture while increasing equitable access to preserved lands](https://www.njconservation.org/current-issues/#) In 2023, we formed a partnership with our friends at the [Foodshed Alliance](https://foodshedalliance.org/) to expand their Sustainable Agriculture Enterprise (SAgE) program to Sergeantsville, Hunterdon County. The SAgE program aims to make land more accessible to growers by providing low-cost, long-term land leases to farmers pursuing earth-friendly farming. Through this partnership, NJ Conservation is advancing its goal of supporting sustainable, climate-friendly agriculture while increasing equitable access to preserved lands. Akirah and Mancoba Hlatshwako, the founders of the nonprofit farm [Ubuntu Permaculture Mission Inc.](https://www.ubuntupermaculturemission.org/), became the first farmers to sublet part of a 19-acre preserved farm owned by NJ Conservation. The Hlatshwakos plan to grow “everything” on the six acres they’re leasing, including vegetables, fruits, and nuts. They have been using the Sergeantsville site to educate members of the wider farming community on incorporating sustainable farming principles like native tree planting, lowering waste, and composting through demonstrations at the farm. Ubuntu Permaculture Mission Inc. and the Foodshed Alliance recently welcomed Princeton University students to SAgE Sergeantsville to learn about sustainable farming methods. ## [New Trail System at Menantico Creek Preserve The Gregory Romano Trail traverses nearly four and a half miles of the preserve in Vineland, Cumberland County](https://www.njconservation.org/current-issues/#) A new trail system at Menantico Creek Preserve in Vineland, Cumberland County has been dedicated to the incredible legacy of Gregory Romano. Romano, a Vineland native, served from 2004‐2019 as director of the land program and assistant director at NJ Conservation, leading efforts to protect 35,000 acres around the state during his 15‐year tenure. The Gregory Romano Trail traverses nearly four and a half miles of the preserve. The forests there serve as breeding grounds for many migratory songbirds and are home to at least seven endangered, threatened, and special concern animal species, including bald eagles, barred owls, Cope’s gray tree frogs and red‐headed woodpeckers. For more information about the preserve, visit [njconservation.org/preserve/menantico-preserve/](http://njconservation.org/preserve/menantico-preserve/). Gregory Romano and his namesake trail. Photo by Courier‐Post ## [Landmark Court Decision A Huge Win for New Jersey and Beyond!](https://www.njconservation.org/current-issues/#) **We challenged another unneeded gas pipeline project and we won!** In _New Jersey Conservation Foundation, et al. versus the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission_(FERC), a federal appeals court has overturned FERC’s approval of the Regional Energy Access Expansion (REAE) gas pipeline project. This expansion of fossil fuel capacity into New Jersey was found to be unnecessary and failed to meet legal standards and environmental protections. New Jersey Conservation Foundation brought this case with our partners because of the continued threat posed to important lands – including preserved lands – by the proliferation of gas pipeline infrastructure. Projects like this stand in the way of moving to a clean energy future, and as with the now defeated PennEast pipeline, are built to supply **unneeded**, excess gas financed on the backs of ratepayers. This case is unprecedented as we have seen fossil fuel infrastructure that harms important natural lands and waterways with no resulting public benefit approved by FERC time and time again. **“In a pivotal decision, the DC Circuit has found that FERC wrongly green-lighted yet another unneeded fossil fuel infrastructure project that would cost New Jersey consumers $1B in increased rates. New Jersey Conservation Foundation has been fighting to ensure that FERC considers public need — not solely private interests — for years, and the court just agreed that FERC hasn’t been doing its job,” said Alison Mitchell, co-executive director, New Jersey Conservation Foundation. “In so doing, the courts have recognized the central role of state regulators and consumer advocates that do the hard work in making sure their own gas and energy needs are met with cost- and climate-effective solutions.”** **![](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Pipeline-construction-buffalo-farm-e1723210422322-1024x458.jpg)** The Niskanen Center, which represented NJ Conservation Foundation in the case, stated that “The court unanimously agreed that FERC failed to comply with the Natural Gas Act when it concluded that there was a public need for the REAE project over New Jersey’s assertion that its ratepayers do not need additional gas capacity and that FERC failed to weigh the project’s climate harms in approving the expansion. The court also agreed with the petitioners that FERC’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis was inadequate for failing to meaningfully evaluate the project’s enormous contributions to climate change.” Thank you for your support in standing up to threats to land and other natural resources in the Garden State! ## [Transforming Communities One Tree at a Time Trees for Trenton Initiative Will Bring 1,000 Shade Trees to the Capital City](https://www.njconservation.org/current-issues/#) A thriving tree canopy is a critical part of a healthy community. Not only do trees provide shade for homes and businesses, they also filter out pollutants and protect people from excessive heat, among other benefits. While the value of trees to communities may be less obvious than those of reliable bus lines, good street lighting, or well-maintained roads, they are vital to maintaining a healthy, vibrant neighborhood. Historically, there’s been an absence of adequate investment in green spaces in our urban communities. Urban residents have long been subjected to the negative impacts that accompany a lack of trees and green spaces, more so than those in suburban areas. Neighborhoods without trees experience the “heat island” effect, a phenomenon where a community has higher temperatures than surrounding suburban and rural areas because of limited shade and reflective paved surfaces. A well planned and cared for urban tree canopy is critical for combating high temperatures and working towards a community’s environmental resilience and eco-justice. New Jersey Conservation Foundation and our partners — City of Trenton, Isles, the New Jersey Tree Foundation, the Watershed Institute, and the Outdoor Equity Alliance — are working to build a greener, more equitable New Jersey through the [Trees for Trenton](https://www.treesfortrenton.org/) program. [Thanks to a grant](https://www.njconservation.org/press_release/new-jersey-conservation-foundation-receives-grant-to-plant-1000-trees-in-trenton/) from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 1,000 shade trees will be planted throughout Trenton over the next three to five years, creating a healthier environment for residents and visitors. Trees for Trenton was announced in 2023 at an Arbor Day celebration when the first trees were planted at Mulberry Street Park. More trees were planted in fall 2024 along the streets of Trenton and in its parks. Through 2050, the trees planted during this project will: - sequester nearly 3 million pounds of carbon dioxide - intercept more than 14 million gallons of rainwater, reducing stormwater runoff by 2 million gallons - promote tree equity and benefit 14 overburdened Trenton neighborhoods - restore the treescapes of historic Cadwalader Park and Mill Hill Park - aid in the restoration of historic districts including the D&R Canal, Berkley Square, State House, Mill Hill, and Ewing-Carroll Historic District to their original grandeur. Planting the right tree, in the right place, in the right way will lead to beautiful streets in our community. **Benefits of Urban Forestry** By expanding the tree canopy in Trenton and beyond, our communities will reap a multitude of benefits. [New Jersey is the third fastest warming state](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/03/nyregion/new-jersey-warming-climate-change.html#:~:text=While%20average%20annual%20temperatures%20across,that%20gathered%20the%20temperature%20data.) in the country, according to the nonprofit Climate Central, and temperatures have increased by about 3.5 degrees since 1970. Trees increase shade, thereby reducing high temperatures for residents. Shading homes and businesses also reduces the use of air conditioners and associated energy costs. Trees can also mitigate air pollutants, naturally filtering out harmful particles while releasing oxygen. They can also decrease runoff and lessen flooding by intercepting and absorbing rain. **Get Involved** Newly planted trees take around two years to become established. During this time, care is essential to the survival of the trees. Participation by city residents, including their help watering the trees and ensuring they are protected from damage, will be critical to growing healthy trees. We must all work together to reap the benefits of these plantings for generations to come. Public programs will also be offered as part of the project to increase awareness of the overall importance and value of trees in urban communities, as well as associated health benefits and improved quality of life. To learn more about opportunities, or to request a tree for your neighborhood, email [info@njconservation.org](mailto:XX@njconservation.org). ## [Nature For All A 2050 Vision for NJ](https://www.njconservation.org/current-issues/#) [**Nature for All: A 2050 Vision for New Jersey**](https://www.njconservation.org/nature-for-all/) sets forth a fresh vision for land conservation over the next few decades with two important recommendations. First, New Jersey must preserve 50% of the most critical remaining lands by 2050, focusing on ecological, water, and agricultural values. Second, the state must establish a comprehensive Green and Healthy Cities Initiative aimed at greening the state’s under-resourced communities and rectifying decades of environmental injustice. New Jersey must continue to lead the nation in land preservation, environmental protection and sustainability, and environmental justice to ensure a better future for all residents. The time for action is now! [![](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Nature-For-All-Cover.png)](https://www.njconservation.org/nature-for-all/) ## [Protecting our Public Lands Comprehensive Public Land Stewardship](https://www.njconservation.org/current-issues/#) ## Long-range Planning for Public Forests New Jersey needs a comprehensive regional vision and plan for its public forestlands to identify and designate ecologically sensitive areas and mature forests as natural areas and ensure that forest stewardship and management activities would avoid Natural Heritage Priority Sites. Such a plan will also ensure the conservation of rare forest interior species, the protection of scenic viewsheds, historic and archaeological resources, and the highly-valued passive recreational opportunities expected by the public on Green Acres-funded public lands. ## Fix Our Parks [Fix Our Parks](https://www.fixourparksnj.org/) is a movement to ensure that New Jersey’s state parks and forests and wildlife management areas are protected and enhanced for future generations. Fix Our Parks is coordinated by the [Pinelands Preservation Alliance](https://www.pinelandsalliance.org/) along with the [New Jersey Conservation Foundation](https://www.njconservation.org/), [New York-New Jersey Trail Conference](https://www.nynjtc.org/) and [New Jersey Highlands Coalition](https://njhighlandscoalition.org/). ## Rare Plants One-third of the plant species native to New Jersey are now considered rare, most are declining, and the public resources devoted to the conservation and management of the natural communities that support these species have been steadily shrinking. The NJDEP Office of Natural Lands Management and the Natural Heritage Program need funding in order to protect these public trust resources. ![blue flower](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/PineBarrensgentian14.jpg) **Program goals:** - Determine and prioritize key public land areas (those generally lacking in pre-existing data), which require rare plant surveys. - Develop collaborations with non-profit community and funding sources such as Natural Resource Damages funds to conduct rare plant surveys. - Determine boundaries of new and/or expansion of Natural Heritage Priority Sites and State Natural Areas. - Ensure that forest management, including logging, is only used as part of comprehensive planning which would ensure the protection of rare plant and animal habitats and other sensitive ecological features. ## Green Acres - The NJDEP and non-profit community have been striving to acquire and preserve parcels with significant conservation and recreation values for decades. Examples include the “Holly Farm” in Millville, the Conrail ROW through Wharton State Forest and other additions to various state parks, forests and wildlife management areas and natural areas. It is critical that these high priority acquisitions are fully funded and move forward quickly. - Develop full funding for land acquisition in all settings, from urban to rural. Additional protected parkland will be required to meet the needs of both natural resource protection and recreation as New Jersey nears buildout in the next few decades. A harmful concept, specifically that “we already have more public land than we can manage,” has crept into policy decisions in the last decade, when actually most lands do not require active management to protect natural resources, and the pace of protecting additional lands must continue if we are to provide opportunities for future resilience in the face of climate change and our ever-shrinking natural resource base. - Strengthen the Green Acres diversion rules that apply to county, municipal, and non-profit open space, and strengthen weak and outdated State House Commission requirements for diversions of state parkland. ## Additional Important Stewardship Needs - ![Trees](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/protect-our-lands.jpg) Restore habitat at the 12-year-old, 65-acre outstanding wetlands violation at Whitesbog, within Brendan Byrne State Forest. - In combination with NJ Department of Agriculture Phillip Alampi Beneficial Insect Laboratory and NJDEP Natural Resource Damages funds, investigate means of attaining biological control for our state’s three most disastrous invasive plant species: urban floodplain (Japanese Knotweed), coastal wetlands (Phragmites) and forests (Japanese Stiltgrass). - Harmful agricultural chemicals, especially neo-nicotinamide coated seeds, are wreaking havoc with pollinators, key insect populations and the food chain in natural environments. The New Jersey Natural Lands Trust has instituted a policy to end the use of neo-nicotinamide seeds on lands leased to farmers, whereas NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife has been able to place limits on harmful farming practices on public land. Statewide policies should be implemented to ban neo-nicotinamide coated seeds and phase-out Roundup Ready crops and sod farms on all leased public trust parklands owned by the NJDEP. ## [Pine Barrens Forest Protection Addressing ORV damage in Wharton State Forest](https://www.njconservation.org/current-issues/#) ### In 2017, the DEP pulled back from its plan to curb harmful off-road vehicle traffic in Wharton State Forest. However, we worked with the Pinelands Preservation Alliance and succeeded in urging the Pinelands Commission to adopt a motorized access map for all of Wharton. We are advocating that the DEP, under the Murphy Administration, enforce this new regulation and expand the designation of appropriate motorized access routes to all public lands in the Pine Barrens. This includes: - Development of signs and downloadable mapping tools so all visitors are aware of and responsible for vehicular use of state lands - Increased enforcement and development of restoration plans for degraded wetlands, streambanks and other illegal vehicular damage - Uphold the recently-developed policy of prohibiting the use of “single-track” forest trails for Enduro-type dirt bike motorcycle races on state lands. Single-track trails scar the landscape and are constantly re-used without permits, causing significant harm to natural resources. Recent actions at Brendan Byrne State Forest indicate that the single-track trail prohibition is not being followed. ## A Resource At Risk At 125,000 acres, Wharton State Forest in the Pine Barrens is by far the largest state-owned forest in New Jersey. This remarkably diverse forest is home to many rare plants, threatened and endangered species and historic sites, including some 300 bird species, nearly 60 reptile and amphibian species, and more than 90 fish species. Forty-three of these animals are listed by the state as threatened or endangered, including bobcats, timber rattlesnakes and red-headed woodpeckers. Since Wharton was purchased in the mid-1950s, motorized vehicles have been allowed to travel its network of sandy roads to tour the quiet of the forest’s interior, visit historic ghost towns and put in a canoe. In recent years the damage to habitats and roads within the state forest has greatly accelerated as people in motorized vehicles have deliberately torn up fragile wetlands creating deep and dangerous puddles, destroying habitats, and making access for other users almost impossible. The damage at Wharton State Forest has also hindered fire suppression efforts, and search and rescue, due to damaged roadways. Enforcement of illegal off-road activities has been extremely difficult without a map clearly designating roads where motorized vehicle use is permitted and delineating those areas that are strictly prohibited. ## [New Jersey Assuming Leadership on Clean Energy, Climate Change NJ has a goal to reach 100% clean energy by 2050!](https://www.njconservation.org/current-issues/#) ### New Jersey has made significant strides in addressing the monumental challenge of climate change and becoming a leader on clean, renewable energy. In the first half of 2018, the state legislature passed — and Governor Phil Murphy signed — the landmark Clean Energy Act, placing New Jersey among leading states nationwide on renewable energy. The law requires that 50% of energy consumed in the state come from renewable sources by 2030, and sets ambitious targets for offshore wind, energy efficiency and storage. New Jersey Conservation Foundation played a key role in shaping the legislation with our partners and then worked to ensure it was implemented effectively, especially the new solar energy policies required. We also successfully advocated for provisions to ensure environmentally-sound siting of utility-scale solar projects in subsequent legislation. Gov. Murphy also signed an executive order directing the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU) to create a new Energy Master Plan with a goal of 100% clean energy by 2050. New Jersey Conservation Foundation provided expert input to the BPU to help shape an effective plan that will transition our state away from polluting fossil fuels and toward clean, well-sited, renewable energy — which is the goal of the ReThink Energy NJ campaign that we lead. ## **Reaching our clean energy goals** Gov. Murphy has also jump-started New Jersey’s most promising, new clean energy industry — offshore wind —through multiple offshore wind solicitations that will bring clean energy, as well as new companies and jobs, to our state. New Jersey Conservation Foundation is now leading efforts to pass legislation to codify Gov. Murphy’s executive order to achieve 100% clean electricity, and to tackle the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in New Jersey: reliance on natural gas and other fossil fuels to heat water and space in our homes and businesses. To learn more, visit [www.ReThinkEnergyNJ.org.](http://www.rethinkenergynj.org/) Get The Latest News From The Garden State ## In the News [Read More](https://www.njconservation.org/news/) [Newsletters](https://www.njconservation.org/newsletters/) ## Contact NJ Conservation # Contact Us ## Reach Out ### Main Office Bamboo Brook 170 Longview Road Far Hills, NJ 07931 Call: [908-234-1225](tel:908-234-1225) Fax: [908-234-1189](tel:908-234-1189) Email: info@njconservation.org ### Trenton Office Mill One Building A, Suite 241 A 1 N Johnston Ave Hamilton, NJ 08609 Call: 908-234-1225 Fax: 908-234-1189 [Directions](https://www.google.com/maps/place/170%20Longview%20Road%20Far%20Hills,%20NJ%2007931) [Directions](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mill+One/@40.2330551,-74.7337875,15z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x89c1585801ce3f47:0x228160ea39d6a614!8m2!3d40.2330551!4d-74.7337875!16s%2Fg%2F1q6bk9pyy?entry=ttu) ### Questions about our preserves, properties, or easements? If you are in an emergency situation, please dial 9-1-1. For all other inquiries, please call Maria Hauser at 908-234-1225 ext. 100. ### Media Inquiries Please direct all **media inquiries** to Jess Fasano, Communications Manager at jess.fasano@njconservation.org or 908-234-1225 ext. 4. ### Deer Management Please contact deerprogram@njconservation.org **for all properties other than Franklin Parker Preserve** \- for inquiries about Franklin Parker Preserve, contact russell@njconservation.org. More information on the deer management program can be found by [clicking here](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/information-sheet-updated-2023.pdf). ## Support NJ Conservation ## Donate Today for NJ Land ### New Jersey Conservation Foundation preserves land for you - but we can't do it alone. Donate to become a member today! Donation Form #### ![](https://wl-cdn.donorperfect.net/assets/images/E366232/Fox.png) #### 6 Reasons to Become a Supporter: **Preserved Lands** keep our drinking water clean \| **Preserved Farms** provide fresh local food \| #### **Preserved Forests** filter pollutants from the air \| **Preserved Open Space** gets us outside\| #### **Preserved Parks** inspire us\| **Preserved Habitats** save wildlife Donation Information Amount Type of Donation One Time DonationRecurring Donation FrequencyMonthly I would like to dedicate this donation Complete the following fields. Type of TributeIn Memory OfIn Honor Of Tribute Name Send Notification to: Title First Name Last Name Address Address 2 City State/ProvinceAlbertaBritish ColumbiaManitobaNew BrunswickNewfoundland and LabradorNorthwest TerritoriesNova ScotiaNunavutOntarioPrince Edward IslandQuebecSaskatchewanYukonAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasArmed Forces AmericasArmed Forces OtherArmed Forces PacificCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaPuerto RicoRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWashington DCWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming Zip/Postal Code Email Contact Information First Name Last Name Company Name Address Address 2 City State/Province AlabamaAlaskaAlbertaArizonaArkansasArmed Forces AmericasArmed Forces OtherArmed Forces PacificBritish ColumbiaCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineManitobaMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew BrunswickNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNewfoundland and LabradorNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaNorthwest TerritoriesNova ScotiaNunavutOhioOklahomaOntarioOregonPennsylvaniaPrince Edward IslandPuerto RicoQuebecRhode IslandSaskatchewanSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWashington DCWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingYukon Zip/Postal Code Home Phone Cell Phone Work Phone Email Your entry is not a valid email address! Help Us Cover Costs Simply leave "Yes!" checked below to ensure that 100% of your intended donation is available for our mission. Yes! I want $0.00 to go to New Jersey Conservation Foundation and I will donate $0.00.No. I will donate $0.00 and New Jersey Conservation Foundation will cover the processing costs. Credit Card Information Card Holder Name ![](https://wl.donorperfect.net/images/cc_logo_vmd.gif)VisaMasterCardDiscoverAmerican Express Card Account Number Expiration Date Month010203040506070809101112Year2627282930313233343536 Security Code Billing Address Same As Above Address City State/ProvinceAlabamaAlaskaAlbertaArizonaArkansasArmed Forces AmericasArmed Forces OtherArmed Forces PacificBritish ColumbiaCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineManitobaMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew BrunswickNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNewfoundland and LabradorNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaNorthwest TerritoriesNova ScotiaNunavutOhioOklahomaOntarioOregonPennsylvaniaPrince Edward IslandPuerto RicoQuebecRhode IslandSaskatchewanSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWashington DCWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingYukon Zip/Postal Code Email Your entry is not a valid email address! Next ## _Your contribution is fully tax-deductible. No goods or services will be provided to you in consideration for your gift._ INFORMATION FILED WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONCERNING THIS CHARITABLE SOLICITATION AND THE PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED BY THE CHARITY DURING THE LAST REPORTING PERIOD THAT WERE DEDICATED TO THE CHARITABLE PURPOSE MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY BY CALLING (973) 504-6215 AND IS AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET AT http://www.state.nj.us/lps/ca/charfrm.htm. REGISTRATION WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT. The official registration and financial information of New Jersey Conservation Foundation may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling toll-free, within Pennsylvania, 1-800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement. [![](https://wl.donorperfect.net/images/dpOnlineFormsLogo.png)](https://www.donorperfect.com/fundraising-software/integrated-online-forms/) ©2026 SofterWare, Inc. v.2.00-C | | | --- | | ![](https://wl.donorperfect.net/Images/WebLinklogo3.gif) | | | ## 66 Years. 140,000 Acres Saved. # 1 New Jersey. Donations are essential to preserving land near you. Once you've given, go outside and enjoy the Garden State! [Find Nature](https://www.njconservation.org/find-nature/) ## Land Preservation Efforts # Mission --- ## [What We Do / Mission](https://www.njconservation.org/what-we-do/) ## Preserving Land & Natural Resources ### The mission of New Jersey Conservation Foundation is to preserve land and natural resources throughout New Jersey for the benefit of all. ![Franklin Parker Preserve](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Franklin-Parker-Preserve-gallery-5-edited.jpg) New Jersey Conservation Foundation is a private, not-for-profit organization. We rely on philanthropic support and grants from a variety of public and private organizations and individual donors. Recognizing that a healthy environment is critical to the well-being and survival of all living things, New Jersey Conservation Foundation is devoted to preserving land and protecting natural resources throughout New Jersey's rural, suburban, and urban landscapes. Since 1960, the nonprofit, nonpartisan, statewide organization has preserved more than 140,000 acres of open space, farmland, and parks. The organization manages more than a dozen nature preserves, conducts public outreach and education programs, and advocates for sensible land use and climate policies that will protect the health of New Jersey’s plants, wildlife, and people for generations to come. For more information, or to become a member, please contact us at **1-888-LAND-SAVE (1-888-526-3728)** or [info@njconservation.org](mailto:info@njconservation.org). [What accreditation means for us - watch this short video.](https://www.screencast.com/t/nOGeupl4dOU) ## Conservation Foundation History # History ## Over 65 Years of Impact **New Jersey Conservation Foundation was formed in 1960 as the Great Swamp Committee.** Within a few years, a small group of citizens successfully fought a plan by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to build the region’s fourth major airport in the middle of the ecologically-critical Great Swamp near Morristown. This fight led to the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge —New Jersey’s first National Wildlife Refuge, and the first federally-designated wilderness east of the Mississippi. [Read more about the preservation of the Great Swamp and founding of New Jersey Conservation Foundation >](https://www.nj.com/insidejersey/index.ssf/2009/02/the_great_swamp.html) ![quick-003a](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/quick-003a.jpg) From our Great Swamp roots, New Jersey Conservation Foundation emerged as a strong advocate for land and an effective land conservancy. During the last 65 years, we have preserved more than 140,000 acres, including many that are now federal, state, county or local parks, using every legal means available for land protection to achieve conservation goals. We also pioneered the use of conservation easements in New Jersey as a land-saving tool. [See a timeline of accomplishments and events during our first 50 years >](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2010NJCFARLG-Timelines.pdf) **We were instrumental in the passage of dozens of landmark environmental laws**, including those establishing the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act and the Pinelands and Highlands regional planning acts. We have advocated forcefully against inappropriate development, at times through litigation. As a result, many threatened lands were preserved, including Sparta and Wildcat Mountains in the Highlands, lands within the Pine Barrens and Newark’s pristine Pequannock Watershed, Soldiers and Sailors State Park in Edison, and Curlis Lake Beech Forest in Pennington. We fought and prevented the diversion of preserved public lands to other uses, including Hamburg Mountain Wildlife Management Area, Newark’s Riverbank Park, and parkland in South Harrison, Gloucester County. We have published significant and influential reports on land use issues. In 1992, we raised the alarm about the need to protect the Highlands region with **The New Jersey Highlands: Treasures at Risk**. We created regional open space plans including **Greenways to the Arthur Kill**, and **Charting a Course for the Delaware Bay Watershed**. We also produced a report on taxes and farmland in New Jersey titled **Gaining Ground**. **Over the years, we fostered and mentored dozens of local and regional citizen organizations and conservancies**, including the Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions, the Pinelands Preservation Alliance, the Highlands Coalition, Hunterdon Land Trust Alliance, Monmouth Conservation Foundation, Friends of the Sparta Mountains, Harding Land Trust, Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space, Musconetcong Watershed Association, South Jersey Land and Water Trust, Ridge and Valley Conservancy, Rancocas Conservancy, and many, many others. [See list of partners and links to their websites >](https://www.njconservation.org/partners/) **For nearly 50 years, we have produced a weekly column**, [The State We’re In](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/), which reaches hundreds of thousands of newspaper and internet news readers. For more than 25 years, we co-sponsored and led the [state’s largest annual conservation conference](https://www.njconservation.org/annual-nj-land-conservation-rally/). We developed the Songbird Connection, a teaching curriculum focused on neotropical songbird migration, currently used in both the United States and Costa Rica. In addition to reports on land use issues, we publish periodic publications including our newsletter, New Jersey Conservation. We serve as speakers and panelists in many venues and we testify and provide information at public hearings before all levels of government. We distribute conservation alerts that mobilize citizen action on key policy issues. **Lastly, we have developed a system of nature preserves – lands we own and manage for public use.** Taking these efforts to a new level, in 2003 we purchased 9,400 acres in the heart of New Jersey’s Pine Barrens – the largest private land trust acquisition in state history – and created the Franklin Parker Preserve. By 2008, the largest freshwater wetlands restoration project in the Northeast was underway at the Franklin Parker Preserve. The project won a Governor's Environmental Excellence Award in 2011. [See our preserves map and learn more about individual preserves >](https://www.njconservation.org/find-nature/) Over the years, we have used innovative techniques to protect land across New Jersey, including: - Celery Farm Natural Area in Allendale, Bergen County (1979) - Cooper River Greenway in Camden (1987 - ongoing) - Dismal-Harmony Reserve in Mendham Township, Morris County (1965) - Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in Morris and Somerset Counties (1964) - Grovers Mill Pond in West Windsor Township, Mercer County ("site" of Orson Wells 1938 War of the Worlds Martian invasion) (1985) - Historic Walnford in Upper Freehold, Monmouth County (1979) - Historic Whitesbog in Pemberton Township, Burlington County (1982) - Morristown National Historic Park - Jockey Hollow (addition of the Cross Estate) (1974) - "Portable Parks" in Newark (1975) - Patriot's Path in Morris County (1966 - ongoing) - Pinelands National Reserve (1978) - Tolz Beach, Lower Township, Cape May County (1985) - Walt Whitman Historic Complex in Camden (1989) - Wells Mills County Park in Ocean Township, Ocean County (1983) - Wickecheoke Creek Greenway in Delaware Township, Hunterdon County (1981 - ongoing) - Franklin Parker Preserve in Chatsworth, Burlington County (2003) - Thousands of acres of farmland since 2006 using federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program funds - The Oswego Gun Club property in Ocean County, the first to use Department of Defense funds (2009) - The Fichera farm in Salem County, preserved for both its farmland and natural areas (2010) - Thousands of acres in the Forked River Mountains of Ocean County (1995 - ongoing) Today, we continue to work across the state from Cape May to the Highlands, from the Hudson to the Delaware – and everything in between. To find out how you can help, contact us at **1-888-LAND-SAVE (1-888-526-3728)** or [info@njconservation.org](mailto:info@njconservation.org). --- ## [Find Nature / Preserves](https://www.njconservation.org/find-nature/) --- ## [Trustees](https://www.njconservation.org/trustees/) ## New Jersey Conservation Trustees # Trustees ## Get to Know Our Trustees Our trustees represent a passionate group of talented individuals dedicated to the mission of New Jersey Conservation Foundation. - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Louise Currey Wilson President - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Kathleen Bourke President-Elect - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Wendy Mager First Vice President - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Rosina B. Dixon, M.D. Second Vice President - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### George Allport Treasurer - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Jane Higgins Secretary - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Kenneth H. Klipstein II Assistant Secretary - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Patricia Canning - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Theodore Chase, Jr. - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Jack R. Cimprich - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Clement L. Fiori - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### William T. Knox IV - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Andrew Kricun - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Kevin Kuchinski - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Jim Lyons - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Sean Moriarty - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Frances Raymond Price - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Brian Quinn - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Dana Saporta - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Meredith Taylor - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Jennifer Williams ## Honorary Trustees - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Hon. Thomas H. Kean - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Hon. Christine Todd Whitman ## Advisory Council - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Michele S. Byers - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Bradley M. Campbell - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Christopher J. Daggett - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Wilma Frey - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Tom Gilbert - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### John D. Hatch - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Douglas Haynes - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### H.R. Hegener - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Hon. Rush D. Holt - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Cynthia Kellogg - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Blair MacInnes - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Scott McVay - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### David F. Moore - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### John Parker - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### L. Keith Reed - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Jamie Kyte Sapoch - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Leslie Sauer - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ### Tama Matsuoka Wong ## General Counsel - ![icon_pine_33x33](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/icon_pine_33x33.png) ## Discover what we have to offer in New Jersey. Explore our preserves pages to find your next natural adventure in the Garden State. [Find Nature](https://www.njconservation.org/find-nature/) ## Careers at NJCF # Careers ## Join Our Team New Jersey Conservation Foundation, one of the nation's premier land preservation groups, is proud of our enthusiastic team of professionals. We are a leading force in the nation's strongest open space movement, with more than 30 staff and more than 65 years of history. ![NJCF staff member Marie Newell](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/marie-newell.jpg) We offer competitive nonprofit salaries (commensurate with experience), [offices in a scenic park](http://morrisparks.net/index.php/parks/bamboo-brook), an excellent benefits program, and a great work environment. New Jersey Conservation Foundation is an equal opportunity employer committed to having a diverse staff, where employment and promotional opportunities are based upon individual capabilities and qualifications without regard to race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, national origin, marital status, citizenship, disability, veteran status or any other protected characteristic as established under law. ### Current Openings **DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION** New Jersey Conservation Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, is seeking a full-time Director of Finance and Administration. As an established statewide nonprofit organization, we have an annual operating budget exceeding $6 million, assets over $65 million, and a staff of 36 employees. As a key member of the senior leadership team, the Director will provide strategic financial guidance and operational oversight to support our mission. Reporting to the Executive Director and working closely with the Board of Trustees, this role is responsible for overseeing the Finance and Administration Department, including the preparation and maintenance of all financial records, budgets, financial statements, and investment programs. Key responsibilities associated with this role include: - Maintaining the accuracy and integrity of all financial information, records and assets. - Review reconciliations and monthly financial statements. - Prepare regular financial reports for distribution to the Board of Trustees and senior staff. - Administer investment program as directed by Finance Committee. - Oversee annual audit of financial statements. Serve as liaison to independent auditors and prepare required financial statements and supporting documents. - Prepare and file annual federal and state returns and reports. - Compile annual program budget information provided by department heads and develop an overall budget. - Facilitate financial aspects of real estate closings and record transactions. - Assist staff by providing requested reports or other financial information. - Attend meetings of Trustees and provide information as requested. - Serve as liaison for the board Finance and Audit committees. Schedule meetings, prepare meeting agendas and materials in coordination with the committee co-chairs. - Monitor insurance coverage. Maintain policies and coordinate renewals. - Assist Director of HR with benefits, including 401k plan, compensation and staffing. - Keep abreast of relevant accounting and tax issues. Communicate information to appropriate staff. - Supervise accounting manager, IT\\Office manager and Director of Human Resources - Assist the IT\\Office Manage with the responsibility of office management including facility, equipment and supplies. The ideal candidate will possess the following qualifications: - Knowledge of financial statement preparation and accounting standards. - Experience with computerized accounting systems and spreadsheet programs. - Proficient with Microsoft Office Suite or related software. - Ability to work well as a team player. - Ability to meet deadlines. - Excellent communication and presentation skills. - Bachelor’s degree and 7 to 10 years of expertise in nonprofit accounting and management/supervisory experience. - CPA certification and experience with real estate transactions are desirable. Initially, this position will require reporting to our Far Hills, NJ office five days per week. There is a possibility that this schedule could eventually transition to three days in the office and two days remote. The annual salary range for this position is $100,000 to $110,000. We offer a competitive salary and benefits package, including health insurance, Life, AD&D, and LTD insurance, paid holidays, vacation, sick, and personal time, a 401k plan with a generous company-sponsored 401k matching contribution after one-year of service. Interested candidates should submit a cover letter and resume via this link by May 15, 2026: [https://njconservation.bamboohr.com/careers/28?source=aWQ9MjU%3D](https://njconservation.bamboohr.com/careers/28?source=aWQ9MjU%3D) \-\-\----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **DEER STEWARDSHIP INTERN** NJ Conservation Foundation has initiated a statewide effort to find balance for our forests, farms and families through more responsible deer stewardship in New Jersey. This project aims to advance solutions in partnership with wildlife management agencies, local communities, hunters, animal welfare advocates, interested individuals and many others throughout New Jersey. We are seeking an intern to assist primarily with 5 key aspects of this project: 1. Identify potential partners in each of the stakeholder groups we have identified. 2. Connect with potential partners to learn their perspectives and insights. 3. Share draft “Action Guides,” which will provide guidance to a variety of stakeholder groups on how they can advance more effective deer stewardship. 4. Receive and incorporate feedback into the Action Guides while continuing to build relationships with stakeholders. 5. Support each stakeholder in their implementation of the Action Guides within their own spheres of influence. Qualities that are important for success in this role include: - Background in ecology and wildlife biology - Strong analytical skills - Outgoing personality and ability to work with a broad spectrum of people with different backgrounds and political beliefs - Good listener who can synthesize new information - Very good writing skills - Success and enjoyment working in teams The work for this position will require a minimum of 15 hours per week over 10 weeks, in a hybrid work environment with at least one day per week in our office based in Far Hills, NJ. The internship will include regular check-ins with supervisors and one or two standing team meetings during the week. The internship requires access to a mobile phone and your own transportation for periodic meetings with stakeholders. Pay rate is $20 per hour. Interested applicants are encouraged to submit a resume and cover letter via this link by May 7, 2026: https://njconservation.bamboohr.com/careers/27 _New Jersey Conservation Foundation is an Equal Opportunity Employer committed to having a diverse staff, where employment and promotional opportunities are based upon individual capabilities and qualifications without regard to race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, national origin, marital status, citizenship, disability, veteran status or any other protected characteristic as established under law._ --- ## [Ways to Give / Donate](https://www.njconservation.org/ways-to-give/) --- ## [News / Press Releases Index](https://www.njconservation.org/news/) ## New Jersey Conservation News # News ## Press Releases [![](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Liberty-State-Park-South-Lawn-%E2%80%94-Photo-Courtesy-of-Friends-of-Liberty-State-Park.jpg)](https://www.njconservation.org/press_release/nj-environmental-groups-sue-state-over-approval-of-liberty-state-park-marina-lease/) ## [NJ environmental groups sue State House Commission over approval of Liberty State Park marina lease](https://www.njconservation.org/press_release/nj-environmental-groups-sue-state-over-approval-of-liberty-state-park-marina-lease/) ## [835-acre property on track to be added to Black Run Preserve in Burlington County](https://www.njconservation.org/press_release/835-acre-property-on-track-to-be-added-to-black-run-preserve-in-burlington-county/) ## [Rainbow Hill at Sourland Mountain Preserve grows by 55 acres](https://www.njconservation.org/press_release/rainbow-hill-at-sourland-mountain-preserve-grows-by-55-acres/) ## [Land preservation project is a win for conservation and clean energy](https://www.njconservation.org/press_release/land-preservation-project-is-a-win-for-conservation-and-clean-energy/) ## [35 acres of farmland preserved in NJ Highlands](https://www.njconservation.org/press_release/35-acres-of-farmland-preserved-in-nj-highlands/) ## [NJ Conservation Foundation Preserves 118 Acres in the Delaware Bay Watershed](https://www.njconservation.org/press_release/nj-conservation-foundation-preserves-118-acres-in-the-delaware-bay-watershed/) ## [162-acre Pine Tree Center becomes new home to Pinelands Research Institute, educational programs](https://www.njconservation.org/press_release/162-acre-pine-tree-center-becomes-new-home-to-pinelands-research-institute-educational-programs/) ## [‘Nature For All’ selected for global 2025 World Wildlife Day Film Showcase](https://www.njconservation.org/press_release/nature-for-all-selected-for-global-2025-world-wildlife-day-film-showcase/) ## [268 acres preserved as open space in Sussex County](https://www.njconservation.org/press_release/268-acres-preserved-as-open-space-in-sussex-county/) ## [New Jersey Conservation Foundation and Partners Launch ‘Trees for Trenton’ Initiative](https://www.njconservation.org/press_release/new-jersey-conservation-foundation-and-partners-launch-trees-for-trenton-initiative/) - 1 - [2](https://www.njconservation.org/news/page/2/) - [3](https://www.njconservation.org/news/page/3/) - … - [11](https://www.njconservation.org/news/page/11/) - [Next »](https://www.njconservation.org/news/page/2/) ## Explore More ## The State We're In [Read More](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/) [Newsletters](https://www.njconservation.org/newsletters/) ## Conservation in New Jersey # The State We're In ## Selected Articles [![](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/c-Artem-Kniaz.png)](https://www.njconservation.org/nature-and-youth/) --- ## [The State We're In (Blog)](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/) ## [A better education is rooted in nature](https://www.njconservation.org/nature-and-youth/) [![](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Plastic-utensils.png)](https://www.njconservation.org/skip-the-stuff/) ## [Cutting waste, on the side](https://www.njconservation.org/skip-the-stuff/) [![](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Triantha-novacaesarensis-c-David-Taylor.png)](https://www.njconservation.org/triantha-novacaesariensis/) ## [The Pine Barrens is good at keeping secrets](https://www.njconservation.org/triantha-novacaesariensis/) [![](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Cardinal-c-Andrew-Dallos.png)](https://www.njconservation.org/spark-bird/) ## [When sparks fly](https://www.njconservation.org/spark-bird/) [![](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Hurricane-Sandy-c-Greg-ThompsonUSFWS.png)](https://www.njconservation.org/nj-real-rules-2026/) ## [Hold the line on New Jersey’s REAL rules](https://www.njconservation.org/nj-real-rules-2026/) [![](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Osprey-fish-c-flickr-user-@airboy123.png)](https://www.njconservation.org/forever-chemicals-threaten-new-jerseys-water-and-wildlife/) ## [“Forever chemicals” threaten New Jersey’s water and wildlife](https://www.njconservation.org/forever-chemicals-threaten-new-jerseys-water-and-wildlife/) [![](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Sphagnum-moss-c-Elise-Cavicchi.png)](https://www.njconservation.org/nj-moss/) ## [Small plants with big stories](https://www.njconservation.org/nj-moss/) [![](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Landfill.png)](https://www.njconservation.org/sharing-sheds/) ## [Head to the “Shed” with your unwanted item](https://www.njconservation.org/sharing-sheds/) [![](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Mining-bee-c-Steve-Begin.png)](https://www.njconservation.org/mining-bees-red-maple/) ## [Threads of life in early spring](https://www.njconservation.org/mining-bees-red-maple/) [![](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/sundew-flowers.jpg)](https://www.njconservation.org/a-pine-barrens-treat/) ## [A Pine Barrens Treat!](https://www.njconservation.org/a-pine-barrens-treat/) - 1 - [2](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/page/2/) - [3](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/page/3/) - … - [40](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/page/40/) - [Next »](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/page/2/) ## About the Authors ### Alison Mitchell ###### Executive Director ### Michele S. Byers ###### Executive Director, 1999-2021 ### John S. Watson, Jr. ###### Co-Executive Director, 2022-2024 ### Tom Gilbert ###### Co-Executive Director, 2022-2023 ### Dave Moore ###### Executive Director, 1969-1999 ## Filter Get The Latest News From The Garden State ## In the News [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/news/) [Newsletters](https://www.njconservation.org/newsletters/) ## Land Conservation Efforts # What We Do The New Jersey Conservation Foundation has been a statewide conservation leader since 1960. The mission of New Jersey Conservation Foundation is to preserve land and natural resources throughout New Jersey for the benefit of all. ## Areas of Impact We focus on four areas of impact: saving land (preservation), restoring land (stewardship), fighting for land (advocacy), and helping partners. ![Save Land](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/What-We-Do-Save-Land.jpg) ##### [Save Land](https://www.njconservation.org/land-conservation/) [link to https://www.njconservation.org/land-conservation/](https://www.njconservation.org/land-conservation/) ![Restore Land](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/What-We-Do-Restore-Land.jpg) ##### [Restore Land](https://www.njconservation.org/land-stewardship/) [link to https://www.njconservation.org/land-stewardship/](https://www.njconservation.org/land-stewardship/) ![Fight for Land Butterfly](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/What-We-Do-Fight-for-Land.jpg) ##### [Fight for Land](https://www.njconservation.org/policy-and-advocacy/) [link to https://www.njconservation.org/policy-and-advocacy/](https://www.njconservation.org/policy-and-advocacy/) ![Helping Partners](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/hepling-partners.jpg) ##### [Help Partners](https://www.njconservation.org/helping-partners/) [link to https://www.njconservation.org/helping-partners/](https://www.njconservation.org/helping-partners/) As a statewide conservation leader, New Jersey Conservation Foundation: - protects natural areas and farmland through land acquisition and stewardship - promotes strong New Jersey land use policies - forges partnerships to help safeguard clean drinking water and other natural resources Since 1960, New Jersey Conservation Foundation has: - protected over 130,000 acres of natural areas and farmland – from the Highlands to the Pine Barrens to the Delaware Bay, from farms to forests to urban and suburban parks - worked at the forefront of every key legislative initiative to protect farmland, forests and water quality throughout the state - provided critical support to hundreds of local conservation partners throughout New Jersey ## Projects New Jersey Conservation Foundation’s land protection program focuses on select project areas and greenways that have been identified as critical to our future. Learn more about these priority project areas by clicking on a highlighted project or visiting our projects page below. [![](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/arthur-kill-project-edited.jpg)](https://www.njconservation.org/project/arthur-kill-watershed/) [**Arthur Kill Watershed**](https://www.njconservation.org/project/arthur-kill-watershed/) [![](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/heart-of-the-highlands.jpg)](https://www.njconservation.org/project/heart-of-the-highlands/) [**Heart of the Highlands**](https://www.njconservation.org/project/heart-of-the-highlands/) [![](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/kittatinny-ridge-edited.jpg)](https://www.njconservation.org/project/kittatinny-ridge/) [**Kittatinny Ridge**](https://www.njconservation.org/project/kittatinny-ridge/) [![](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/scotts-mountain-edited.jpg)](https://www.njconservation.org/project/scotts-mountain/) [**Scotts Mountain**](https://www.njconservation.org/project/scotts-mountain/) [![](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/OEA-Trees-for-Trenton-photo-CROPPED-300.jpg)](https://www.njconservation.org/project/trees-for-trenton/) [**Trees for Trenton**](https://www.njconservation.org/project/trees-for-trenton/) ## 66 Years. 140,000 Acres Saved. # 1 New Jersey. New Jersey Conservation Foundation preserves land for you. But we can’t do it alone. Become a member today! ## Land Conservation Foundation # Land Conservation _NJ Conservation recognizes that New Jersey is part of the traditional homelands of the Lenape people. We pay respect to the Lenape and other Indigenous caretakers of these lands and waters, those who lived here before, and the generations to come._ ## Saving Land New Jersey Conservation Foundation works with landowners to design land preservation transactions that are a win-win for all. Using Garden State Greenways, a plan that envisions a network of interconnected open space and farmland as our guide, we primarily protect lands in identified project areas using established criteria. There are many methods to preserve land, including fee simple acquisition, conservation and agricultural easements, reserve life estate or remainder interest, and bequest. Each is briefly described below. These land preservation techniques can be accomplished through a donation, bargain sale or sale for full value. A bargain sale is a sale at less than the appraised fair market value; donation is an outright gift for no financial remuneration. The Internal Revenue Service allows an income tax deduction for qualified conservation donations of either a part or the entire value of a property. New Jersey Conservation Foundation strongly urges landowners to consult with their personal tax advisors regarding eligible deductions. ### Fee Simple Acquisition A fee simple acquisition by New Jersey Conservation Foundation is the sale or gift of the property to our organization. New Jersey Conservation Foundation becomes the owner of the land, which is restricted as permanent open space or farmland. In some cases, the land may be transferred to state or local governments, or nonprofit organizations, to further their open space or agricultural objectives. New Jersey Conservation Foundation has preserved over 140,000 acres of land. ### Conservation and Farmland Easements A landowner may donate or sell a conservation easement or farmland easement on his/her property. A conservation easement is a legal restriction that prohibits development of a property. It also restricts activities on the property that would have a negative effect on the natural characteristics of the property. These restrictions are usually tailored to each specific property and landowner. A farmland easement extinguishes development rights and limits the future use of the property to agriculture. A conservation easement may include provisions for agricultural and recreational uses, and continuing single residential use by the property owner. A conservation easement may reduce the value of the property for inheritance tax purposes, enabling the land to remain in the family rather than be sold to pay the estate taxes. The land remains in private ownership and New Jersey Conservation Foundation or its partners are responsible for monitoring and defending the restrictions. **[Easement Revitalization Guidebook for Land Trusts >>](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/EasementRevitilizationGuidebook-Sept2012.pdf)** ### Reserved Life Estate or Remainder Interest ![Rocks in Woods](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Land-Conservation-Body.jpg) With a reserved life estate or remainder interest, the land is transferred to New Jersey Conservation Foundation immediately and the owner reserves the use of the property for his or her lifetime. This allows the landowner to receive an income tax benefit during his or her lifetime and removes the value of the property from the estate. ### Bequest With a bequest, the landowner conveys the property to New Jersey Conservation Foundation at the time of his or her death through a will. This removes the value of the property from the estate for inheritance tax purposes. #### _Financial Benefits of Land Preservation_ Land preservation benefits the landowner as well as his/her surrounding communities. For every single family home built, municipalities collect additional property taxes. However, the cost to provide utilities, roadways, police and firefighter services, education, and all of the amenities that we expect far exceeds the increase in tax revenue. Over-development is a financial drain on municipalities. Preserved open space and farmland requires few municipal services. With better planning for land preservation and focused development, municipalities might avoid sprawl, preserve the character of their community, provide recreation space for their residents and protect the water supply and air quality. Landowners who preserve their lands may also derive a financial benefit. The landowner may be eligible to receive tax benefits by being able to deduct the value of a donation of land, or a donation of the development rights on the land, from his or her taxes for up to six years. A landowner who restricts development on his or her property by placing a conservation easement on the property may also reduce annual property taxes. New Jersey Conservation Foundation strongly urges landowners to consult with their personal tax advisors regarding eligible deductions. [![BePartoftheCHANJ_forWeb_Simple](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/BePartoftheCHANJ_forWeb_Simple-276x300.jpg)](http://www.chanj.nj.gov/) --- ## [Get Involved](https://www.njconservation.org/get-involved/) ## Land Stewardship Program # Land Stewardship ## Restoring Land Our stewardship program ensures that preserved lands remain protected and healthy forever. **We manage more than 24,000 acres** and provide training, technical assistance, advocacy and support to the state and regional conservation community. We take part in scientific research to study sensitive ecosystems and their distinctive animal and plant communities. In many areas around the state, we work to restore damaged habitats, monitor conservation easements, and promote public access to natural land. **_\\*\\*\\*_** **_For information about_** **_HUNTING_** **_on New Jersey Conservation Foundation properties,_** [**_click here>>_**](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/information-sheet-updated-2023.pdf) ![Close Up Skin of a Cornsnake](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Land-Stewardship-BODY.jpg) **In 2012, we completed the final phase of a wetlands restoration at the** **Franklin Parker Preserve in the Pinelands**. This implements recreation and public access plan for the preserve, including the creation of 20 miles of hiking trails, parking areas, informational kiosks and trail maps. We continue working with the [**Natural Resources Conservation Service**](http://www.nj.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/wrp/WRP_Conservation_Success.html#Wetlands_Reserve_Program_Restoration_at_the_Franklin_Parker_Preserve) on this large-scale wetlands restoration, which ultimately will convert 1,100 acres of agricultural wetlands back to natural wetland communities. Together, we carried out the first phase of the restoration in 2007, followed by a second phase including topographic alteration of 554 acres of former cranberry bogs. We retained professionals from [**Ducks Unlimited**](http://www.ducks.org/) to collect elevation data and develop engineering designs for the final phase, which involves the replacement of water control structures. **At the Apshawa Preserve in Passaic County, we are continuing efforts on a 300-acre forest restoration project**, where we have installed and now maintain deer fencing, removing invasive species, and planting native trees and shrubs. We were awarded a $125,000 grant from the National Forest Foundation for this large-scale reforestation effort, as well as some $20,000 worth of donated plants to enhance the native plant community. Efforts to move deer out of the fenced preserve have been largely successful and are continuing. [**More about Apshawa restoration project >>**](https://www.njconservation.org/press_release/apshawa-deer-drive-confirms-overpopulation/) **In Hunterdon County, we are working to eliminate the invasive Chinese pond mussel**, a damaging mollusk that is currently causing serious problems across Europe. We are working to develop a management vision for one of our recent land acquisitions, the 230-acre Borgenicht tract in Washington Township, Morris County, now known as the [**Maureen Ogden Preserve**](https://www.njconservation.org/preserve/maureen-ogden-preserve/) (formerly the Drakestown Preserve), as well as the magnificent 160-acre Hill and Dale Farm in Tewksbury Township, Hunterdon County. ### Our Volunteers **We are fortunate to have many volunteers -** including employees of New Jersey corporations that sponsor special volunteer days - who assist us with our stewardship work. Stewardship volunteers help with many tasks, including blazing trails, picking up litter, removing invasive plants and planting native trees, bushes and flowers. For more information about land stewardship programs, contact **Tim Morris**, Director of Stewardship, or call 908-234-1225. As stewards of the land, we are in the business of perpetuity. --- ## [Volunteer](https://www.njconservation.org/volunteer/) --- ## [Policy & Advocacy](https://www.njconservation.org/policy-and-advocacy/) ## NJ Conservation Advocacy # Policy & Advocacy ## Fighting for Land New Jersey Conservation Foundation has a long history of public policy work, beginning with our founding in 1960 when a group of citizens united to protect what is now the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge from a jetport proposal. **We work on bills in the New Jersey Legislature**, as well as regulations and policies put forth by state and regional agencies, and local governments. When federal issues pose an opportunity or a threat to our work in New Jersey, we lobby Congress and the federal agencies to achieve our goals. We litigate in court when we have exhausted our other strategies. ![Stop PennEast Pipeline Sign](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Policy-Advocacy-BODY.jpg) **Among the major environmental laws we helped pass were:** - [Strengthening the Global Warming Response Act (2019)](https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/S3500/3207_R2.PDF) - [Clean Energy Act (2018)](https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/AL18/17_.PDF) - [Constitutional amendment dedicating natural resource damages funds (2017)](https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp) - [Constitutional amendment for stable preservation funding (2014)](https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2016/Bills/PL16/12_.PDF) - [The Forest Stewardship Act (2010)](ftp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/20082009/PL09/256_.PDF) - [The Off-Road Vehicles Act (2009)](ftp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/20082009/PL09/275_.PDF) - [The Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act (2004)](https://www.nj.gov/dep/landuse/download/13_20.pdf) - [Garden State Preservation Trust Act (1999)](https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/9899/Bills/AL99/152_.PDF) - [The New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act (1987)](https://www.nj.gov/dep/landuse/download/13_9b.pdf) - [The State Planning Act (1985)](https://nj.gov/state/planning/state-plan.shtml) - [The New Jersey Agriculture Retention and Development Act (1981)](https://www.nj.gov/agriculture/sadc/rules/ARDA.pdf) - [The Pinelands Protection Act (1979)](https://www.state.nj.us/pinelands/reserve/NR_act_1978_502_16.pdf) ### How Do We Help? **Through our advocacy work, we preserve New Jersey’s biodiversity, our rare plant and animal species, and our wildlife habitat**. This policy work is grounded in scientifically-based natural resources conservation principles. We protect lands that safeguard drinking water, mitigate climate change and air pollution, and secure farmland that supplies food for the region. We also protect historic and scenic resources and provide public recreation opportunities. Strengthening policies for the protection of our natural legacy --- ## [Events](https://www.njconservation.org/events/) ## Helping Conservation Partners # Helping Partners ## Support for Our Partners New Jersey Conservation Foundation values our land and water conservation partners. Our Conservation Assistance Program is dedicated to supporting conservation organizations in New Jersey. We host forums that bring groups together to share new ideas and successful strategies to overcome mutual obstacles, We offer small grants to support conservation excellence. And we sponsor an annual conference that attracts 400 land-savers throughout the state and beyond to promote new ideas, recognize emerging trends, network with colleagues, and celebrate conservation achievements. Conservation success in New Jersey is reliant on strong partnerships. ### Annual NJ Land Conservation Rally The Rally is a one-day educational conference about open space and farmland preservation in NJ. [**_Find out more >>_**](https://www.njconservation.org/annual-nj-land-conservation-rally/) ### NJ Land Trust Network Members of land trusts, grassroots conservation groups and others involved in land preservation come together to share ideas, learn new techniques and strategies, network and collaborate. These workshops are the extension of the annual conference and occur throughout the year. [**_Find out more >>_**](https://www.njconservation.org/new-jersey-land-trust-network/) ### Franklin Parker Conservation Excellence Grant Program This grant program supports conservation acquisition, stewardship, education and organizational fitness projects for nonprofit groups that work in New Jersey. [**_Find out more >>_**](https://www.njconservation.org/franklin-parker-grants/) ### Partners in Conservation Directory that includes links to conservation organizations that work in New Jersey. [**Conservation Directory 2017**](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Conservation-Directory-2017.pdf) ## Help us help our partners. Donate to New Jersey Conservation Foundation today. ## Page Not Found # 404 Error ## Page Not Found Sorry, this page does not exist or it was removed, please try again. [GO TO HOMEPAGE](https://www.njconservation.org/) - [Chinese (Simplified)](https://www.njconservation.org/projects#) - [Chinese (Traditional)](https://www.njconservation.org/projects#) - [Myanmar (Burmese)](https://www.njconservation.org/projects#) - [Scots Gaelic](https://www.njconservation.org/projects#) --- ## [Media / Videos](https://www.njconservation.org/media/) ## New Jersey Conservation Videos # Media ## Watch Our Videos New Jersey Conservation Foundation is passionate about the state of New Jersey and preserving its natural resources. Check out the videos below to learn more about what we do and the programs we offer. You can view all our videos on our [YouTube channel by clicking here](https://www.youtube.com/@ConserveNJ/videos). Trees For Trenton - YouTube [Trees For Trenton](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swcC1P9RlEA) [New Jersey Conservation Foundation](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbH0BtkquPyy3rYIBvnl2ww) New Jersey Conservation Foundation445 subscribers ### Trees for Trenton The Battle for the Great Swamp: A New Jersey Conservation Foundation Story - YouTube [The Battle for the Great Swamp: A New Jersey Conservation Foundation Story](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_smM0iuRwzE) [New Jersey Conservation Foundation](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbH0BtkquPyy3rYIBvnl2ww) New Jersey Conservation Foundation445 subscribers ### The Battle for the Great Swamp Nature for All - YouTube [Nature for All](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImcyQ3nWDBk) [New Jersey Conservation Foundation](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbH0BtkquPyy3rYIBvnl2ww) New Jersey Conservation Foundation445 subscribers ### Nature for All 60 Years of Exemplary Conservation Leadership - YouTube [60 Years of Exemplary Conservation Leadership](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW8vql6DRc0) [Bill Lynch](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYMt-aanmwCHm0CwI2irHMQ) Bill Lynch1 subscriber ### Celebrating 60 years of exemplary conservation leadership NJCF Governor Byrne HD - YouTube [NJCF Governor Byrne HD](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa3cYgYEveI) [Bill Lynch](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYMt-aanmwCHm0CwI2irHMQ) Bill Lynch1 subscriber ### Governor Byrne Reflects on Pine Barrens Legacy For Land's Sake - Short Video - YouTube [For Land's Sake - Short Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsK-AjsuQtU) [New Jersey Conservation Foundation](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbH0BtkquPyy3rYIBvnl2ww) New Jersey Conservation Foundation445 subscribers ### For Land’s Sake (Shortened) For Land's Sake (Full Length Video) - YouTube [For Land's Sake (Full Length Video)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGyUFZAx3fI) [New Jersey Conservation Foundation](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbH0BtkquPyy3rYIBvnl2ww) New Jersey Conservation Foundation445 subscribers ### For Land's Sake (Full-Length) Saving New Jersey's Farms - YouTube [Saving New Jersey's Farms](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdWLSB7RS8k) [New Jersey Conservation Foundation](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbH0BtkquPyy3rYIBvnl2ww) New Jersey Conservation Foundation445 subscribers ### Saving New Jersey’s Farms The Heart of the Pine Barrens - YouTube [The Heart of the Pine Barrens](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWhHSW3nGtU) [New Jersey Conservation Foundation](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbH0BtkquPyy3rYIBvnl2ww) New Jersey Conservation Foundation445 subscribers ### The Heart of the Pine Barrens Buffalo Mozzarella Comes to NJ - YouTube [Buffalo Mozzarella Comes to NJ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbQd1y_G168) [New Jersey Conservation Foundation](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbH0BtkquPyy3rYIBvnl2ww) New Jersey Conservation Foundation445 subscribers ### Buffalo Mozzarella Comes to New Jersey Celery Farm Natural Area - YouTube [Celery Farm Natural Area](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55hYwP-jjV8) [New Jersey Conservation Foundation](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbH0BtkquPyy3rYIBvnl2ww) New Jersey Conservation Foundation445 subscribers ### Celery Farm Natural Area Foraged Flavor - YouTube [Foraged Flavor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZYGCAGXZ4w) [New Jersey Conservation Foundation](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbH0BtkquPyy3rYIBvnl2ww) New Jersey Conservation Foundation445 subscribers ### Foraged Flavor ## Discover what we have to offer in New Jersey. Explore our preserves pages to find your next natural adventure in the Garden State. [Find Nature](https://www.njconservation.org/find-nature/) ## Stay Updated! # Sign Up ## Sign Up Want to stay up-to-date on all New Jersey Conservation Foundation news and events? Fill out the form below to sign up for weekly newsletters and other important announcements. ## Privacy Policy Overview # Privacy Policy ## We're Committed to Your Privacy This privacy policy demonstrates our commitment to your privacy and protection of your information. As is true of most Web sites, we gather certain information automatically and store it in log files. This information includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, browser type, internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp, and clickstream data. We use this information, which does not identify individual users, to analyze trends, and to administer the site. If you have any questions or suggestions regarding our privacy policy, please [**contact us**](https://www.njconservation.org/contact-us/). --- ## [Newsletters](https://www.njconservation.org/newsletters/) ## NJ Conservation Newsletters # Newsletters ## Newsletter Archive Click on the various links below to read New Jersey Conservation Foundation seasonal newsletters in PDF format. ### Seasonal Newsletters **[Spring 2026 Newsletter](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/NJCF-Spring26NL.pdf)** **[Winter 2025 Newsletter](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/30925-NJCF-Winter25NL_WEB-2.pdf)** **[Spring 2025 Newsletter](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/30589-Spring25NL-web.pdf)** [**Winter 2024 Newsletter**](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/30311-5181-Winter24NL-WEB2.pdf) **[Spring 2024 Newsletter](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/NJCF-Spring-WEB.pdf)** **[Winter 2023 Newsletter](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/29612-NJCF-WEB.pdf)** **[Spring 2023 Newsletter](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/29158_newsletter-WEB.pdf)** **[Winter 2022-2023 Newsletter](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/28914_WebReady-NJCF-newsletter.pdf)** **[Spring 2022 Newsletter](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/28493-NJCF-Spring-22-Web-Ready.pdf)** [**Winter 2021-2022 Newsletter**](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/28227_Web-Ready.pdf) **[Spring 2021 Newsletter](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/27790_singlepge.pdf)** **[Winter 2020 Newsletter](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/27536-NJCF_Newsletter_Winter2020-Web.pdf)** **[Spring 2020 Newsletter](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/NJCF_Spring2020newsletter_WEB-sm4.pdf)** **[Winter 2019 Newsletter](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/26762-NJCF-final-web.pdf)** **[Fall 2019 Newsletter](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/26558-NJCF-Fall2019-WEB.pdf)** [**Spring 2019 Newsletter**](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/NJCF_Newsletter_Spring2019-A_single_lo-res.pdf) **[Winter 2018 Newsletter](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/25510_NJCF_Winter-2018-web.pdf)** **[Summer 2018 Newsletter](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Summer-2018-Newsletter.pdf)** **[Spring 2018 Newsletter](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Spring-2018-Newsletter.pdf)** **[Winter 2017 Newsletter](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Winter-2017-Newsletter.pdf)** **[Spring 2017 Newsletter](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Spring-2017-Newsletter.pdf)** **[Fall 2016 Newsletter](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Fall-2016-Newsletter.pdf)** **[Spring 2016 Newsletter](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Spring-2016-Newsletter.pdf)** **[Fall-Winter 2015 Newsletter](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Fall-winter-2015-Newsletter.pdf)** **[Spring 2015 Newsletter](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Spring-2015-Newsletter.pdf)** ## Annual Reports View the New Jersey Conservation Foundation Annual Reports here. ### Archive of Annual Reports [![Screenshot 2025-09-10 104301](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Screenshot-2025-09-10-104301.png)](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2024-Annual-Report-Web-PDF-V2.pdf) [**2024 Annual Report**](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2024-Annual-Report-Web-PDF-V2.pdf) [**2023 Annual Report**](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2023-AR-PDF.pdf) **[2022 Annual Report](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2022-Annual-Report.pdf)** [**2021 Annual Report**](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/28720_AR-REB-Weddy.pdf) **[2020 Annual Report](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/28051-NJCF-AR2020.pdf)** [**2019 Annual Report**](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/27327-NJCF_2020AR_FINAL_WEB.pdf) [**2018 Annual Report**](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/26224_NJCF-2018-AR-web.pdf) **[2017 Annual Report](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2017-AR-for-web.pdf)** **[2016 Annual Report](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2016-AR-for-web.pdf)** **[2015 Annual Report](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2015-AR.pdf)** ## The Latest Click the image below to view our latest newsletter. [![Screenshot 2026-05-07 155311](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Screenshot-2026-05-07-155311.png)](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/NJCF-Spring26NL.pdf) ## Land Preservation History 1960s Grassroots opposition mobilizes against Port Authority plan for 10,000-acre international “jetport” in the Great Swamp of Morris and Somerset counties. 1960 Helen Fenske, Russell Myers of Morris County Parks, Hugh Stearns of the Morristown Rotary Club, and the Junior League of Morristown develop idea for Patriots’ Path, a greenbelt along the Whippany River in Morris County, an area rich in Revolutionary War history. Over more than four decades, it would grow to become one of the county’s signature parks. We help Somerset County acquire 749 acres along the Passaic River in the western section of the Great Swamp; it becomes Lord Stirling County Park. 1966 1961The Great Swamp Committee of the North American Wildlife Foundation is officially established, led by housewife-turned-activist Helen Fenske. We make first open space gift to newly-established New Jersey Natural Lands Trust, an agency created to accept donations of land from private property owners, donating 36 acres along the Rockaway Creek in Readington Township that were given to us by Mr. and Mrs. Gurdon Wattles. 1968 1965North Jersey Conservation Foundation makes its first purchase, the 77-acre Dismal Harmony Preserve in Mendham Township, which is later turned over to the town. It’s the first time a nonprofit Our first newsletter, Footprints, debuts. The State We're in 1970s We begin weekly column, “The State We’re In,” commenting on environmental topics in New Jersey. The column is still published today, running without a gap for 40 years. 1970 We acquire the 165-acre Cross Estate in Bernardsville and transfer it to Morristown National Historical Park. Basketball star Bill Bradley, just beginning his run for U.S. Senate, speaks at the dedication. An 84-acre parcel in Chester Township, given to us by Corinne and Percy Chubb, was transferred to the township, forming Chubb Park. Later, 42 adjoining acres in Chester Borough were turned over to that municipality, enlarging the park. This creates our first conservation easement, and one of the first in Morris County. 1972 North Jersey Conservation Foundation becomes New Jersey Conservation Foundation to reflect growing statewide focus. 1974 After years of helping preserve land in Monmouth County, we help found the Monmouth Conservation Foundation. Edward and Joanne Mullen donate Walnford Mills, an 18th century house and gristmill on 41 acres in Upper Freehold Township, Monmouth County, to us. We transfer the property to the Monmouth Conservation Foundation, which later ensures its preservation as a county historic park. 1979 The first one-mile section of 1974 Patriots’ Path opens in Mendham Township; a master plan for the 27-mile greenbelt park is finished the following year. 1979The New Jersey Legislature approves the Pinelands Protection Act, one year after Jimmy Carter signs bill creating the million-acre Pinelands National Reserve. We were among the leading advocates for the Act, and had spent three years fundraising for Pinelands preservation. By year’s end, we hold nearly 2,000 acres in Pine Barrens. 1980s We launch project to restore the state-owned but neglected Pine Barrens community of Whitesbog, home to Elizabeth White, who began cultivating native wild blueberries there in 1912. We help establish Whitesbog Preservation Trust. 1981 Gov. Brendan Byrne and State Senator Raymond Zane peruse our poster highlighting the persistent loss of farmland in New Jersey. The New Jersey Agriculture Retention and Development Act and a bond issue providing $50 million for farmland preservation are subsequently passed by voters. The 180-acre Van Doren farm in Tewksbury Township is sold to Hunterdon County as a park, along with easements forming a green belt surrounding historic Oldwick. We purchased the farm four years earlier to prevent a housing development from being built. We save land near the Forked River Mountains of Ocean County that later becomes Wells Mills County Park. Grover’s Mill Pond in West Windsor Township, Mercer County, site of Orson Wells’ fictional 1938 “War of the Worlds” Martian invasion, is acquired by us, and later passed to the township along with funds to maintain the dam. Assisting the city of Camden with plans for a greenway along the Cooper River, we begin seeking land and easement donations from private, corporate and nonprofit landowners. 1981 1981 NJ Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act becomes law, three years after we and our partners launch campaign to protect the state’s freshwater wetlands. 1987 We agree to help residents of northeastern Morris County save a forested ridge known as Pyramid Mountain. The land, which contains evidence of occupation by prehistoric people, eventually becomes Pyramid Mountain Natural Historical Area. We begin new project in cooperation with 1984Delaware Twp, Hunterdon County, to protect an eight-mile stretch of the Wickecheoke Creek. We save an 89-acre farm, one of the first to be preserved through the State Farmland Preservation Program. 1985Campaign launched to protect habitat along the Delaware Bay where migratory shorebirds stop each spring to replenish their energy by feasting on horseshoe crab eggs. We accept donation of a stretch of Bayshore beach in Cape May County, later turned over to state Natural Lands Trust . 1990s Actor Christopher Reeve, Gov. Jim Florio and former Gov. Brendan Byrne are special guests at our 30th anniversary dinner at the AT&T headquarters in Basking Ridge. We build a nature trail on one of our properties in Burlington County as a memorial to the late conservationists Brooks and Dorothy Evert. The property is now known as the Evert Preserve, one of the first of our properties to be actively managed. 1991 Walkill River National Wildlife Refuge in Sussex County is established; its nucleus is formed by the first property donated by us. 1992 The Donald and Beverley Jones Footpath in the Wickecheoke Creek Preserve is named to honor dedicated preservationists from Hunterdon County. Donald Jones is a former president of our board. 1993 Four influential New Jersey Conservation 1992 Foundation publications, starting with The New Jersey Highlands: Treasures at Risk, helped shape land use policy in key regions during the ’90s and beyond. The special reports that follow are: Greenways to the Arthur Kill, Charting a Course for the Delaware Bay Watershed, and Gaining Ground: Preserving New Jersey Farmland through Effective Tax Policy. We save 3,000 acres in the Forked River Mountains of Ocean County, the largest acquisition by a nonprofit group in New Jersey to date. David Moore retires after 30 years; Michele Byers becomes our third executive director. We become the first nonprofit to 1994 make a grant to a county to preserve farmland. Salem County used the funding to buy an agricultural easement on the dairy farm owned by Vera and Elmer Pettit. New Jersey Conservation 1996 Foundation offices move to the Bamboo Brook Outdoor Education Center in Chester Township, a property that was once home to Martha Brookes Hutcheson, one of America’s first female landscape architects. Garden State Preservation Trust Act 1998 passes, launching New Jersey’s ambitious initiative to preserve one million acres. 2000s A joint effort between us and the NJDEP’s Green Acres program preserves over 450 acres in the Burden Hill Forest of Salem and Cumberland counties – the Delaware Bayshore region’s only large, intact forest. 2000 Our 40th anniversary is celebrated at Drumthwacket, the governor’s mansion in Princeton. By now, we have helped save more than 100,000 acres throughout New Jersey. In partnership with Green Acres and Rutgers University, we launch Garden State Greenways, an online planning tool dedicated to the idea that every New Jersey resident should have easy access to parks, trails and protected lands. It builds upon a greenways project begun 15 years earlier. 2004 In partnership with Green Acres and Rutgers University, we launch Garden State Greenways, an online planning tool dedicated to the idea that every New Jersey resident should have easy access to parks, trails and protected lands. It builds upon a greenways project begun 15 years earlier. The circa 1795 Prall House in Stockton, Hunterdon County, is preserved, becoming a regional office for New Jersey Conservation Foundation and the Delaware River Mill Society. The largest freshwater wetlands restoration project in the northeast begins at the Franklin Parker Preserve. A year earlier, we received more than $5.4 million from the federal government to preserve and restore the wetlands. We become the first nonprofit to bring federal farmland preservation funding to New Jersey when we preserve an 85-acre vegetable farm in Pilesgrove Township, Salem County. We also launch the Tri-County Agricultural Retention Partnership (TARP) to support farmers in Gloucester, Salem and Cumberland counties. We become the first nonprofit to bring federal farmland preservation funding to New Jersey when we preserve an 85-acre vegetable farm in Pilesgrove Township, Salem County. We also launch the Tri-County Agricultural Retention Partnership (TARP) to support farmers in Gloucester, Salem and We help Ocean County preserve the historic Cedar Bridge Tavern in Barnegat Township, where the last battle of the Revolutionary War was fought. 2003 Fond Memorial of the 1977 Anniversary celebration December 2, 2009 The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Research scientists discover 30 rare, endangered 2006 and threatened plants at the Franklin Parker Preserve. More discoveries follow in the coming years, including rare insects and frogs. On the heels of the Highlands Water Protection and 2006 Planning Act of 2004, we help form and fund a new independent watchdog group, the New Jersey Highlands Coalition. 2010 PRESIDENTS OF THE NJCF BOARD OF TRUSTEES L. Keith Reed 2007 to present Gordon A. Millspaugh Jr. 2004 to 2007 Samuel W. Lambert III Samuel W. Lambert III 2000 to 2004 Langdon Palmer Langdon Palmer 1998 to 2000 C. Lawrence Keller C. Lawrence Keller 1995 to 1998 William D. Dana, Jr. William D. Dana, Jr. 1992 to 1995 I. Lloyd Gang I. Lloyd Gang 1989 to 1992 Antoinette C. Bentley Antoinette C. Bentley 1986 to 1989 Morton Scharmann Morton Scharmann 1983 to 1986 Donald B. Jones Donald B. Jones 1980 to 1983 Gordon A. Millspaugh Jr. Gordon A. Millspaugh Jr. 1977 to 1980 Dr. Edward F. Babbott Dr. Edward F. Babbott 1974 to 1977 Dr. David J. Reisner\* Dr. David J. Reisner\* 1971 to 1974 Charles R. DeBevoise\* Charles R. DeBevoise\* 1968 to 1971 Franklin E. Parker III\* Dr. Robert W. Krebs\*\*\* 1961 to 1964 Fanny H. Moore\*\*\*\* Franklin E. Parker III\* 1965 to 1968 Worrall F. Mountain Jr.\*\* Worrall F. Mountain Jr.\*\* 1964 to 1965 Josephine J. Lloyd\*\*\* 1961 to 1964 Grace C. Hand\*\*\* Grace C. Hand\*\*\* 1961 to 1964 Dr. Robert W. Krebs\*\*\* Walter Wescott\*\*\*\* 1960 to 1961 \\*\\* Great Swamp Conservation Foundation \\*\\*\\* Great Swamp Committee (Co-Chairpersons) \\*\\*\\*\\* Upper Passaic Valley Conservation Committee (Co-Chairpersons) Congressional Record We will celebrate 50 years of preserving natural areas and farmland throughout New Jersey on Saturday, October 30, at the Frelinghuysen Arboretum in Morristown. For more information about the 50th anniversary celebration, contact Elizabeth Bennett at 908-322-1100 or [ebennett@evergreenpr.com](mailto:ebennett@evergreenpr.com). Six former New Jersey governors will be honored for their environmental legacies: Brendan T. Byrne, Thomas H. Kean, James J. Florio, Christine Todd Whitman, James E. McGreevey, and Jon S. Corzine. Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen read a resolution into the Congressional Record on June 22, 2010 congratulating New Jersey Conservation Foundation for its 50 years of land preservation success. His father, former Congressman Peter H.B. Frelinghuysen, was instrumental in the fight to save the Great Swamp in the 1960s, and in the founding of this organization. We will also honor former Congressman Peter H.B. Frelinghuysen, who played a pivotal role in establishing the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge and the New Jersey Conservation Foundation. House of Representatives WASHINGTON, June 22, 2010 Mr. Frelinghuizen of New Jersey WASHINGTON, June 22, 2010 Mr. Prelindhagen of New Jersey Honoring New Jersey Conservation Foundation 50th Anniversary Say, I rise today to honor the Conservation Foundation, in Far Hills, New Jersey, which fifty years of service. Honoring New Jersey Citizen Madeline Speaker, I rise today to honor the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, headquartered in Far Hills, New Jersey, which is celebrating fifty years of successful land preservation. The New Jersey Conservation Foundation (NOCF) began in 1960 with a small group of concerned citizens determined to fight a plan by the Port Authority of New York to build the region's fourth major airport in the middle of the Great Swamp near Morristown. New Jersey. With great determination and perseverance, the group succeeded in 1964, they turned over 1,400 acres to the federal government and on May 29th of that same year, the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge was officially dedicated. It became New Jersey's first National Wildlife Refuge and the first federally designated wilderness area of the Midwest. After this triumph battle, the committee members made the decision to take the environmental health of the entire state as its responsibility. In 1975, the group officially organized in the New Jersey Conservation Foundation. In addition, NJCF has been at the forefront of every key legislative initiative to protect Farmland, forests, and water quality throughout the state. The foundation has been a leader in the passage of Alarmic legislation to protect the New Harms and the Highlands - respectively the Pinelands Protection Act and the New Jersey Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act - as well as every Ocean Area bond initiative. Today, NJCF continues their good work across the state from Cape May to the Highlands and the Hudson to the Delaware. ## Salem River Land Preservation # News ## 5.5 acres along Salem River preserved in Woodstown Jan 9, 2019 [![Salem River, Woodstown, NJ](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/webLaRosa-property-Woodstown.jpg)](https://www.njconservation.org/press_release/5-5-acres-along-salem-river-preserved-in-woodstown/) **WOODSTOWN** – At less than two square miles, the borough of Woodstown in Salem County is preserving its small town character, open spaces and unique natural resources. Woodstown is a classic “doughnut-hole” community, completely surrounded by the much larger and rural Pilesgrove Township. The two towns are closely knit, sharing many community resources, services and civic organizations. With the help of New Jersey Conservation Foundation, Woodstown Borough recently purchased 5.5 wooded acres along the Salem River from the LaRosa family for $28,000 to add to its growing inventory of parks and greenways. The project was led by the borough’s Open Space Advisory Committee, which has been active since 2005. The property supports bald eagle foraging habitat and Coopers hawk breeding habitat, and is less than 500 feet from an active bald eagle nest. It is also habitat for freshwater mussels known as triangle floaters, listed by the state as a threatened species. The newly-preserved property expands the borough’s Salem River Greenway and is adjacent to and near other preserved properties. “We’re very pleased to help Woodstown preserve this beautiful property,” said Michele S. Byers, Executive Director. “New Jersey Conservation has been preserving land in and around Woodstown for 25 years, and we know how strongly residents feel about protecting the corridor of the Salem River.” “Woodstown Borough Council is fortunate to have the support of a dedicated Open Space Committee, the state Green Acres Program and non-profit organizations such as New Jersey Conservation,” said Borough Councilman John Hall, who serves as the open space liaison. “Nowadays, it takes partnerships and teamwork to accomplish meaningful results. Through this approach, we’ve had good success achieving Woodstown’s land preservation goals.” **Funding Partners** Acquisition of the LaRosa property was funded by the borough’s Open Space Trust Fund and a Planning Incentive Grant from the New Jersey Green Acres Program. New Jersey Conservation contributed staff time and technical support. The William Penn Foundation funded the appraisal costs. In the past five years, New Jersey Conservation has assisted with the acquisition of several properties in Woodstown that contribute to greenways around the borough and along waterways like the Salem River. At the heart of the borough’s open space plan is a vision for a system of interconnected parks, trails and natural areas to provide a host of recreational, educational and scenic benefits. The vision includes proposed greenways along the Salem River and Chestnut Run, as well as a greenbelt surrounding much of the borough as a way preserving the historic municipality’s small-town character and linking existing public facilities like Marlton Park, Watson Park and Woodstown High School. “We are pleased to have partnered in the preservation of this important piece of land, which builds upon ongoing efforts to protect the beautiful Salem River watershed and the amazing diversity of wildlife it supports,” said Martha Sapp, Green Acres Program administrator. “Communities in this area have shown an ongoing commitment to protecting the character of the watershed for the enjoyment of future generations.” Preserving land along the Salem River also protects drinking water. The land sits atop the vulnerable Kirkwood-Cohansey Aquifer, South Jersey’s largest source of fresh water. As part of an effort to protect the surface and groundwater systems of the aquifer, the William Penn Foundation contributed to the administrative costs through the Delaware River Watershed Initiative. Funds were awarded through a program administered by the Open Space Institute. **About New Jersey Conservation Foundation** New Jersey Conservation Foundation is a private nonprofit that preserves land and natural resources throughout New Jersey for the benefit of all. Since 1960, New Jersey Conservation has protected 125,000 acres of open space – from the Highlands to the Pine Barrens to the Delaware Bayshore, from farms to forests to urban and suburban parks. For more information about the Foundation’s programs and preserves, go to www.njconservation.org or call 1-888-LAND-SAVE (1-888-526-3728). ## Explore More ## The State We're In [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/) [Newsletters](https://www.njconservation.org/newsletters/) ## Health Initiative Funding # News --- ## [Press Release: NJ Health Initiatives Grant](https://www.njconservation.org/press_release/new-jersey-conservation-foundation-named-one-of-twelve-grantees-for-new-jersey-health-initiatives-1-2-million-upstream-action-acceleration-initiative/) ## New Jersey Conservation Foundation Named One of Twelve Grantees for New Jersey Health Initiatives’ $1.2 Million Upstream Action Acceleration Initiative Jan 3, 2019 **_Camden, NJ_** (Jan. 3, 2019) – New Jersey Conservation Foundation announced today that they are among the 12 communities selected as a grantee in a new initiative from [New Jersey Health Initiatives (NJHI)](http://www.njhi.org/) – the statewide grantmaking program of the [Robert Wood Johnson Foundation](http://www.rwjf.org/) (RWJF). The _NJHI: Upstream Action Acceleration_ initiative supports community-focused, cross-sector coalitions to adopt and implement “upstream” environmental-, policy- and systems-change strategies, accelerating their work in areas identified as priorities to improve their communities’ health. “This funding allows us to work with community partners on a new mapping and planning tool that puts the health and well-being of Camden citizens front and center,” said Michele S. Byers, executive director of New Jersey Conservation Foundation. “Building on our historical work in Camden to ensure that all residents have access to clean air, clean water, safe parks and trails, community gardens and places to enjoy nature, this tool will enable local leaders, decision-makers, and residents to see data in a way that promotes shared decision making toward a healthier Camden.” “We’ve been working with the greater Camden community since 1986, and we’re grateful to New Jersey Health Initiatives and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for supporting our work with community partners,” Byers added. Through _NJHI: Upstream Action Acceleration_, 12 two-year grants totaling $100,000 each have been awarded to organizations to build on past or current strategies toward health improvement within New Jersey’s communities. Working “upstream,” these grantees will work collaboratively to achieve statewide impact in addressing social, economic and environmental factors that are known to influence health. These factors include income, employment, early childhood development, education, housing, nutrition and the built environment. “As we continue moving forward in making New Jersey the healthiest state, we’re learning from our grantee communities just how vital cross-sector collaboration is,” said Bob Atkins, Ph.D., RN, FAAN, director of NJHI. “We know that by partnering with diverse stakeholders such as residents, educators, law enforcement and elected officials, we can successfully address the factors that influence health.” Grantees will be part of a learning network and participate in opportunities for peer sharing through in-person and virtual convenings. In addition to strengthening an in-state network of similarly-driven coalitions, these collaborative learning activities will help the coalitions implement their local projects and inform the field about practice-tested strategies to improve community health. Throughout the grant period, the coalitions will also receive ongoing coaching, resources related to their initiative focus areas and communications support to promote and share their successes, challenges and lessons learned. Periodic updates about the coalition’s progress will be available on NJ Conservation’s [project page](https://www.njhi.org/projects/camden-specific-module-to-the-nj-conservation-blueprint-online-mapping-tool/) on the NJHI website – [_njhi.org_](https://www.njhi.org/projects/camden-specific-module-to-the-nj-conservation-blueprint-online-mapping-tool/) _._ The following other organizations have been awarded grants under the _NJHI:_ _Upstream Action Acceleration_ initiative: - **Allies In Caring, Inc, Hammonton, Atlantic County** - Project Title: Hammonton Health Coalition - **AtlantiCare Foundation, Atlantic City, Atlantic County** - Project Title: AC Collaborative - **Cape Regional Medical Center, Cape May County** - Project Title: Kicking ACES in Cape May County New Jersey - **Holly City Development Corporation, Millville, Cumberland County** - Project Title: Connecting Families to Communities - **Ironbound Community Corporation, Newark, Essex County** - Project Title: Cultivating Tenant Leadership for Community Health in Newark - **National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence of Hudson County, North Bergen, Hudson County** - Project Title: North Bergen Municipal Alliance Upstream Action Acceleration - **Raritan Bay Area YMCA, Perth Amboy, Middlesex County** - Project Title: Community Action for Safe Housing - **Robert Wood Johsnon University Hospital Foundation, Middlesex County** - Project Title: Mobilizing Just for the Health of it: Health Information Library on Wheels - **The Gateway Family YMCA, Elizabeth, Union County** - Project Title: Pulling Together: All Voices Heard and Count! - **Trenton Health Team, Trenton, Mercer County** - Project Title: Accelerating Action for a Healthy Trenton - **United Way of Passaic County, Paterson, Passaic County** - Project Title: Accelerating Community Safety To learn more about the _NJHI: Upstream Action Acceleration_ initiative, visit [njhi.org](http://www.njhi.org/). **About New Jersey Conservation Foundation** New Jersey Conservation Foundation is a private nonprofit that preserves land and natural resources throughout New Jersey for the benefit of all. Since 1960, New Jersey Conservation has protected 125,000 acres of open space – from the Highlands to the Pine Barrens to the Delaware Bayshore, from farms to forests to urban and suburban parks. For more information about the Foundation’s programs and preserves, go to [www.njconservation.org](http://www.njconservation.org/) or call 1-888-LAND-SAVE (1-888-526-3728). **About New Jersey Health Initiatives** New Jersey Health Initiatives is the statewide grantmaking program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Established in 1987 in honor of the New Jersey philanthropic legacy of RWJF’s founder, Robert Wood Johnson, NJHI supports innovations and drives conversations to build healthier communities through grantmaking across the State of New Jersey. To meet the many health needs of our state’s diverse populations, regions and communities, the NJHI national program encourages collaboration across sectors to foster deep relationships committed to long-term change affording all New Jerseyans the opportunity to live the healthiest life possible. Learn more about NJHI at [njhi.org](http://www.njhi.org/), and follow us on Twitter at [twitter.com/NJHI_](http://www.twitter.com/NJHI_) or on Facebook at [facebook.com/newjerseyhealthinitiatives](http://www.facebook.com/newjerseyhealthinitiatives). **About the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation** For more than 45 years the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has worked to improve health and health care. We are working alongside others to build a national Culture of Health that provides everyone in America a fair and just opportunity for health and well-being. RWJF has invested more than $1.2 billion in New Jersey since 1972. For more information, visit [rwjf.org/nj](http://www.rwjf.org/nj). Follow the Foundation on Twitter at [rwjf.org/twitter](http://www.rwjf.org/twitter) or on Facebook at [rwjf.org/facebook](http://www.rwjf.org/facebook). ## Explore More ## The State We're In [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/) [Newsletters](https://www.njconservation.org/newsletters/) ## Opposition to PennEast Pipeline # News ## Elected Officials Join Impacted Landowners, Mayors to Decry PennEast Pipeline’s Seizure of Private and Public Lands Dec 19, 2018 ### _Vow continued fight against unneeded project_ _First time in State history taxpayer-preserved lands seized through eminent domain_ [![Penneast Court Decision](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/penneast-court-decision-300x225.jpg)](https://www.njconservation.org/press_release/penneast-court-decision/penneast-court-decision-2/) Pennington, NJ (December 19, 2018) – A bipartisan group of elected officials today joined conservation leaders and citizen landowners whose land will be seized by PennEast pipeline after a court ruling on Friday, in opposition to an infrastructure project that will serve no public benefit. This is the first time in the state’s history that preserved open space has been condemned. The group, including mayors and representatives from townships along the pipeline’s proposed route, gathered at the home of Loretta Varhley, one of more than 100 homeowners whose land was approved for condemnation by PennEast in a court decision last week, despite the fact that the pipeline does not have all approvals needed for construction. The speakers strongly denounced the outcome of the December 14 decision in the U.S. District Court in Trenton, and vowed their continued opposition to the pipeline project that still needs approval from the NJ Department of Environmental Protection and Delaware River Basin Commission. “PennEast is seizing homes and public open spaces for a project that is far from approved, not needed, and should never be built,” said Tom Gilbert, campaign director for New Jersey Conservation Foundation. “This project faces tremendous opposition that is determined to protect our land, water and communities by ensuring that they never put a shovel in our ground.” “Although disappointed, we are even more steadfast in our resolve to stop this project by proving that this it is not needed, has little positive impact on employment, is unconstitutional and is very harmful to our homes, communities and our environment,” said Vincent DiBianca, a Delaware Twp. homeowner and owner of a small farm and business located on the pipeline’s proposed path. “We’ve reached this point – a business abusing eminent domain — because FERC falls far short of what we need when it comes to regulating energy projects. FERC fails to register the voices of those impacted by these projects, FERC fails to consider community need, and FERC fails to account for environmental preservation. My SAFER Pipelines Act is one way that we can repair this broken system. I will continue to push for its passage, and I will continue to raise my voice against PennEast, and any other fossil fuel project seeking to take private property for corporate gain,” said U.S. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman. “The PennEast pipeline threatens waterways, farmland, open space, and private land in one of the most beautiful natural areas of New Jersey, with no clear demonstration of economic need for our state,” said Congressman-elect Tom Malinowski. “I strongly oppose its construction, and as a member of Congress I will support tightening the rules that allow such pipelines to be approved in the first place.” “While I am highly disappointed in the court’s decision, I call on the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, which has the power and obligation to hold PennEast to the strictest environmental standards, to protect our precious natural resources and irreplaceable drinking water from this damaging fossil fuel project,” said NJ Senator Shirley K. Turner. “Our taxpayers have prioritized the preservation of open space and invested billions of dollars to protect our natural resources. Not to mention our homeowners who have worked hard and sacrificed to purchase their homes where they can enjoy our state’s natural assets. Friday’s ruling has placed PennEast’s private gains over the public’s interest.” PennEast is a proposed pipeline that would transport 1 billion cubic feet/day of fracked gas 118-miles from Pennsylvania into Hunterdon and Mercer counties in New Jersey. Experts have found no market need for this new pipeline in order to meet current or projected gas demands in New Jersey. “There is still hope to stop PennEast. Homeowners: please do not give up. We have a great ally in the NJDEP,” Senator Kip Bateman (R-16) said. “We will continue to fight against any pipeline company that threatens to come here and trample your rights to your land, and the rights we all have to safe and clean drinking water.” Delaware Twp. homeowners T.C. and Joe Buchanan added, “We were hopeful that the judge would protect the property rights of individual homeowners, landowners and small business operators rather than side with large private enterprise and their insatiable appetite for outlandish earnings.” “We were incredibly frustrated with the court’s decision to toss individual property rights aside today, but fortunately there are other critical initiatives simultaneously underway that rightly challenge the PennEast proposal,” said homeowner Jacqueline Evans, who along with DiBianca and the Buchanans are founding members of Homeowners Against Land Taking (HALT-PennEast), a group representing several thousand people whose homes, businesses and property rights are threatened by this unwarranted PennEast initiative. [About New Jersey Conservation Foundation](https://www.njconservation.org/contact-us/) [About HALT PennEast](https://haltpenneast.org/) **Contact:** Tom Gilbert, tom@njconservation.org, (267) 261-7325 Vince DiBianca, homeowner, (609) 306-1155 Jacqueline Evans, homeowner, (917) 816-3104 T.C. Buchanan, homeowner, (609) 397-1151 ## Explore More ## The State We're In [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/) [Newsletters](https://www.njconservation.org/newsletters/) ## Forest Preservation in Byram # News ## 44-acre forest preserved in Byram Township Dec 18, 2018 [![Cranberry Overlook Greenway](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Cranberry-Overlook-Greenway-view-ByramTwp-1024x618.jpg)](https://www.njconservation.org/press_release/44-acre-forest-preserved-in-byram-township/) **BYRAM TWP.** – From the Sparta Mountain ridges, the views of the surrounding forests and lakes in Sussex County are spectacular. Hikers and nature enthusiasts have more hills to climb and views to admire, now that 44 forested acres have been preserved by a public-private partnership and added to the township’s Cranberry Overlook Greenway. Byram Township purchased the land on Oct. 30 for $460,000 from Carole Johnson, wife of the late Carl Johnson. The property is located south of Tamarack Road, between Cranberry and Johnson Lakes, and adjacent to a 47-acre property preserved in 2005 to become the first phase of the Cranberry Overlook Greenway. Funding came from the township’s New Jersey Green Acres Program grant, a grant to New Jersey Conservation Foundation from the Open Space Institute, and funds from the New Jersey Highlands Council. Characterized by steep hills and rocky outcrops, the newly-preserved property is now open to the public for passive recreation. Plans call for extending existing trail networks onto the property. “Byram Township is known as the ‘Township of Lakes,’ and it’s also a place with significant open space and trails,” said Ray Bonker, Byram Township’s Open Space Committee chairman. “Preserving the Johnson property will allow us to add to our trail network, which includes the Cranberry Overlook Trail and Tamarack Park Trail.” “This is an incredibly beautiful part of the state, with its mountains, lakes and wildlife,” said Michele S. Byers, executive director of New Jersey Conservation Foundation. “We’re thrilled to be part of the public-private partnership that made this acquisition possible, and we deeply thank all our partners.” The newly preserved land is located within the Highlands Special Environmental Zone, the highest rank for preservation. With a mix of oak and sugar maple trees and vernal wetlands, the property provides habitat for rare species, including bobcats, barred owls, broad winged and red-shouldered hawks, hooded and worm-eating warblers, veerys, wood thrushes and least flycatchers. “We are especially excited to help preserve property in the Highlands Special Environmental Zone,” said Lisa J. Plevin, Highlands Council Executive Director. “Not only are we able to permanently protect some very important habitat and watershed lands from future development, but the public will be able to enjoy this richly forested land that really showcases all the Highlands has to offer.” Because the Highlands region provides drinking water for 70 percent of New Jersey residents, the benefits of preserving this property reach well beyond the local community. The project was supported by a $115,000 grant from the Open Space Institute’s Delaware River Watershed Protection Fund to New Jersey Conservation Foundation, made possible with funding from the William Penn Foundation for its Delaware River Watershed Initiative, which seeks to protect drinking water quality in the Delaware River Basin. The Delaware River supplies drinking water to the cities of Philadelphia, Trenton and Wilmington, Del. This forested area, atop a mountain ridge, protects wetlands that filter and purify the headwaters of the Musconetcong River, a major tributary of the Delaware River. “The successful protection of this land is an amazing win for the people of Byram Township, and for the millions of people who depend on unspoiled forests to protect their drinking water,” said Peter Howell, executive vice president of the Open Space Institute. “We applaud the vision and determination of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation in protecting a true natural gem.” The land is near other preserved parks and open space, including Allamuchy State Park, Tamarack Park, C.O. Johnson Park and the Sussex Branch Trail, a 20-mile rail trail connecting Waterloo Village to Branchville. New Jersey Conservation Foundation also owns a nearby 153-acre preserve, which includes Johnson Lake. “With the preservation of the Johnson property, Byram Township continues its great track record of preserving open space with the assistance of Green Acres funding to expand its parks and trails,” said Green Acres Program Administrator Martha Sapp. “We congratulate the township on this terrific acquisition.” “Byram Township has very ambitious open space preservation goals, and we’re very appreciative of the help of our partners at Green Acres, the Highlands Council, Open Space Institute and New Jersey Conservation Foundation in meeting those goals,” said Township Councilman Scott Olson. ## Explore More ## The State We're In [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/) [Newsletters](https://www.njconservation.org/newsletters/) ## Tewksbury Trail Celebration # News ## Tewksbury Land Trust Celebrates Its Mission to Create a Ten-Mile Trail through Tewksbury Nov 19, 2018 The Tewksbury Land Trust celebrated its mission to create a Ten-Mile Trail through Tewksbury, which is scheduled for completion in 2020. Held in the 18th century stone barn at Gregg and Jean Frankel’s Applewood Farm, on Wednesday evening November 14th, the event also honored Beth Davisson, New Jersey Conservation Foundation Regional Manager. Thanks to her sponsorship by New Jersey Conservation Foundation, Ms. Davisson has guided the Land Trust through the acquisition of 17 properties and easements, with more on the way. The mission to develop the Ten-Mile Trail has been dubbed, “Vision 2020.” Larry Ross, TLT president, shared his excitement with 70 some supporters in attendance: “Now, 24 years after our founding by Ted Koven and others in 1996, we are in a position to ‘connect the dots’- thanks to you all! Building on the conservation efforts of others, we are creating a trail that winds its way from existing TLT preserves on Fox Hill, through the Township’s Hell Mountain Preserve, on to New Jersey Conservation’s Hill & Dale Preserve, and finally, with the help of yet another TLT acquisition under way, to Hunterdon County’s Cold Brook Preserve on the edge of Oldwick. Our dream to build this trail is taking shape!” Following a presentation by Beth Davisson regarding the environmentally advanced design and engineering of the trail, Chris Teasdale, TLT Secretary, paid homage to Beth Davisson for guiding the Board through the acquisition of many of our preserves and the gathering of funds needed to complement donor contributions. “An organization is blessed when a rare talent supports its efforts,” said Teasdale. “Beth Davisson is that rare talent. She blends the skills of a consummate professional with a positive, cheerful, leap-over-any-obstacle approach to her work. Any Tewksbury Land Trust Board Member will tell you that without Beth’s tireless efforts, we would have nowhere near the 200+ acre portfolio of land preserves that we now have (not to mention approximately 400 acres of land we have preserved in partnership with other trusts – again led by Beth’s efforts).” In receiving her testimonial, Beth Davisson graciously stated, “Working with the Tewksbury Land Trust has been a terrific experience. The Board’s energy, creativity and commitment to teamwork has made this preservation mission very productive and rewarding.” To mark the occasion, board members published a 40-page booklet, which includes a letter from Tewksbury Township Mayor Louis DiMare, commending the Vision 2020 mission, and the TLT’s cooperation with the Township, New Jersey Conservation Foundation, Raritan Headwaters Association, and County as it builds the Ten-Mile Trail and preserves more land. Beth Davisson describes some of the remarkable engineering that will establish an environmentally state-of-the-art trail. A map of the trail is presented in four-color on the center spread, followed by TLT Secretary Teasdale’s glowing testimonial regarding Ms. Davisson’s singular contribution. To round out the commemorative editorial, Alison Jones, board member and past resident, recalls growing up in Tewksbury, and what she believes the Ten-Mile Trail will do for succeeding generations. Larry Ross also put pen to paper to recall a wonderful childhood in Tewksbury, and how – six decades later – the new trail will make living in Tewksbury even better. Board member Sandy Ross, professional landscape designer and photographer, designed the booklet and contributed wonderful photos of the vistas hikers and horseback riders will enjoy along the new trail. ### About the Tewksbury Land Trust Since 1994, when Ted Koven and others began organizing the Tewksbury Land Trust to preserve our rural ambiance, community support has helped it purchase more than two hundred acres that dot the landscape throughout the township. Contributions by residents enabled the TLT to work with other like-minded organizations in efforts that led to the preservation of 400 more acres. These important stewardship partners included NJ State, Hunterdon County, and Tewksbury Township organizations as well as the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, Hunterdon Land Trust, Raritan Headwaters, and Lamington Conservancy. **The mission of the Tewksbury Land Trust is:** 1. Preserving land to protect Tewksbury’s rural charm and agricultural & natural resources 2. Providing opportunities for passive enjoyment and wildlife habitat 3. Educating the community about the importance of protecting open space and farmland _This content was originally written by the Tewksbury Land Trust._ ## Explore More ## The State We're In [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/) [Newsletters](https://www.njconservation.org/newsletters/) ## Mount Rose Preserve Expansion # News ## 11 Acres Added to Mount Rose Preserve in Hopewell Oct 23, 2018 ![Group of people holding nets](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/mount-rose-preserve-group-photo.jpg) More than three years after the Mount Rose Preserve was created at the site of the former Western Electric/AT&T property on Carter Road, an additional parcel of land for the 350-acre public park has been secured. On Oct. 9, New Jersey Conservation Foundation purchased 11 acres where the Western Electric’s large conference center/hotel once stood on the west side of Carter Rd. Opened in 1959, the center was abandoned many years ago. The building was finally demolished and the land restored to open space per the terms of New Jersey Conservation’s contract to purchase the site. “These 11 acres were the proverbial hole in the doughnut, since the surrounding land was preserved in 2015,” said Michele S. Byers, Executive Director. “We’re now looking forward to transforming it into a meadow of native plants and wildflowers, with a new trail for the public.” New Jersey Conservation paid $52,250 for the land. “We’re very grateful to Mrs. Betty Wold Johnson, whose generosity made the final 11-acre purchase possible,” said Katherine Dresdner, Esq,. who led the legal fight to preserve the land from inappropriate development in 2007 and worked with New Jersey Conservation to raise the funds for the project. “I am very pleased that the final 11 acres have been purchased and the land is restored for the public to enjoy. It is a dream come true,” added Dresdner. “I want to thank the many partners, particularly Mercer County, Hopewell Township and New Jersey Conservation, who came together to make this new park a reality.” Mercer County Executive Brian M. Hughes praised the new purchase. “With the removal of the former Western Electric conference center and acquisition by New Jersey Conservation Foundation, these additional acres will expand the Mount Rose Preserve, a significant natural resource in Hopewell Township,” he said. “The County is pleased to be working in partnership with New Jersey Conservation, Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space and the Township of Hopewell to safeguard the Preserve as an amenity for the residents of Mercer County and beyond.” “Hopewell Township is very happy to see these 11 acres added to the Mount Rose Preserve, and we’re looking forward to seeing a new native meadow and hiking trail on the site,” said Mayor Kevin Kuchinski. The bulk of the Mount Rose Preserve was acquired in April 2015 by a partnership of more than a dozen public agencies and nonprofit organizations, as part of an innovative project to convert the 1950s corporate campus into a public park. In addition to New Jersey Conservation, Mercer County and Hopewell Township, partners included Hopewell Valley Citizens Group Inc., Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space (FoHVOS), New Jersey Green Acres Program, The Watershed Institute, Lawrence Hopewell Trail, Hopewell Borough, Pennington Borough, Friends of Princeton Open Space, D&R Greenway Land Trust, Lawrence Township and Princeton. The Mount Rose Preserve property was originally developed as a corporate park on both sides of Carter Rd. in Hopewell Valley for Western Electric/AT&T and was the first of its kind in the United States. If it had not been preserved, this environmentally significant property with two high-quality streams in the Stony Brook watershed would have been used for 800,000 square feet of commercial office space and a high-density housing project, bringing over 4,000 vehicles a day to rural Carter Road and threatening the region’s water resources. The Mount Rose Preserve is now owned and managed by a partnership including New Jersey Conservation Foundation, Hopewell Township, Mercer County, and the Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space. In addition to protecting water resources, the park provides critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, and a key link for the northern loop of the Lawrence-Hopewell Trail-a 30-mile regional trail system dedicated to walkers and cyclists. ### About New Jersey Conservation Foundation New Jersey Conservation Foundation is a private nonprofit that preserves land and natural resources throughout New Jersey for the benefit of all. Since 1960, New Jersey Conservation has protected 125,000 acres of open space – from the Highlands to the Pine Barrens to the Delaware Bayshore, from farms to forests to urban and suburban parks. For more information about the Foundation’s programs and preserves, [click here](https://www.njconservation.org/what-we-do/) or call 1-888-LAND-SAVE (1-888-526-3728). ## Explore More ## The State We're In [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/) [Newsletters](https://www.njconservation.org/newsletters/) ## Coastal Resilience Plan Launch # News ## Michele Byers’ Statement on the Launch of a Comprehensive Coastal Resilience Plan Oct 9, 2018 Michele S. Byers, Executive Director of New Jersey Conservation Foundation, released the following statement on the announcement from DEP Commissioner Catherine McCabe on the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s launch of a comprehensive plan to make coastal areas more resilient to the impacts of severe storms and sea-level rise: “We applaud the Murphy Administration for recognizing the critical importance of protecting New Jersey’s coastal communities and natural resources from the enormous threat of climate change and sea-level rise. We need greater emphasis on protecting and restoring natural systems along our coasts to enhance its resiliency. We look forward to working with the Administration and partners on this important initiative.” ### About New Jersey Conservation Foundation New Jersey Conservation Foundation is a private nonprofit that preserves land and natural resources throughout New Jersey for the benefit of all. Since 1960, New Jersey Conservation has protected 125,000 acres of open space – from the Highlands to the Pine Barrens to the Delaware Bayshore, from farms to forests to urban and suburban parks. For more information about the Foundation’s programs and preserves, [click here](https://www.njconservation.org/what-we-do/) or call 1-888-LAND-SAVE (1-888-526-3728). ## Explore More ## The State We're In [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/) [Newsletters](https://www.njconservation.org/newsletters/) ## Pine Barrens Preservation # News ## 442 Acres Preserved in the Heart of the Pine Barrens Oct 1, 2018 _![Wright family cranberry farm](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/wright-cranberry-farm-225x300.jpg)_ A former cranberry farm in Burlington County, owned by the same family since the Civil War, has been permanently preserved as open space, protecting clean water and the wildlife it supports. On Aug. 31, New Jersey Conservation purchased 442 acres off Route 70 in Woodland and Southampton townships for $560,000. The property includes 5.5 miles of streams, including the pristine Burrs Mill Brook, a tributary of the Rancocas Creek. The land was purchased from the Thompson and Wright families, which owned the Birches Cranberry Company. Birches was most recently owned and managed by members of the Thompson family. According to family member Fred Wright, the land was part of a larger parcel acquired by his great-grandfather, Martin Luther Haines, around the time of the Civil War. The land was passed down to three succeeding generations of the Haines, Wright and Thompson families, with some acreage sold to other cranberry growers in recent years. Cranberry production on the newly-preserved property stopped in 2004, and the land has been naturally reverting to wetlands and pitch pine forest. “This is a gorgeous property, with the Burrs Mill Brook running along its entire length and old cranberry bogs being reclaimed by nature,” said Michele S. Byers, executive director of New Jersey Conservation Foundation. “We’re very grateful to our preservation partners for making this project possible.” The property was purchased with funding from the New Jersey Pinelands Commission, New Jersey Green Acres Program, Rancocas Conservancy, Open Space Institute, William Penn Foundation, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Victoria Foundation and The Nature Conservancy. ### Home to Diverse Pine Barrens Wildlife The land will be open to the public for passive recreation, including hiking, birding and nature observation. Existing sand roads bordering the former cranberry bogs offer stunning views of wetland habitats and will form the basis of a future trail system. The land will be managed as part of NJ Conservation’s 1,227-acre Michael Huber Prairie Warbler Preserve, located less than a mile to the east on Route 70. The property lies within the Forest and Preservation areas of the New Jersey Pinelands, a critical ecological region that supports diverse plant and animal communities. It acts as a stepping stone between the tidal Rancocas Creek and the Atlantic Coast, providing prime habitat for numerous threatened and endangered species and migratory birds. According to New Jersey Landscape Project data, the land serves as habitat for endangered, threatened and special concern species like bald eagles, timber rattlesnakes, red-headed woodpeckers, barred owls, northern pine snakes, brown thrashers, great blue herons, worm eating warblers, American black ducks and eastern whip-poor-wills. Priority species that may breed on the property include American black and mallard ducks. Ring-necked and northern pintail ducks are common migrants, buffleheads have been observed at the site, and wood ducks are found in the region. ### Preventing Off-Road Vehicle Damage The Pinelands Commission provided $169,000 toward the acquisition through the agency’s Pinelands Conservation Fund. “We are pleased to help preserve this outstanding property,” said Nancy Wittenberg, Executive Director. “Permanent land protection is a critical part of the Commission’s mission to preserve the Pinelands’ ecosystem.” In its latest round of funding, the Pinelands Commission placed a new emphasis on preserving land that has been impacted by off-road vehicle use. There is evidence of off-road vehicle use on the eastern portion of the property. “Through this acquisition, the New Jersey Conservation Foundation’s active presence and management of the site will help to eliminate future damages wrought by off-road vehicles,” Wittenberg said. The property contained Pinelands Development Credits (PDCs), which were extinguished when New Jersey Conservation purchased the land. If not extinguished, those credits could have been used to increase residential development. ### Green Acres Funding The Rancocas Conservancy contributed funding from its state Green Acres grant. “The Rancocas Conservancy discussed the importance of preserving this property a decade ago,” said Rob Hofstrom, a conservancy trustee. “Its linear shape allows a long stretch of Burrs Mills Brook to be protected from development, thereby keeping intact the natural riparian buffer. “The project fits into the Conservancy’s mission to preserve and protect the Rancocas Creek Watershed, in this case by maintaining a healthy tributary,” added Hofstrom. “Thanks to New Jersey Conservation Foundation for leading this project to a conclusion, and to Green Acres for assistance that enabled the Conservancy to make a financial contribution to the acquisition.” “We congratulate all the partners who made this acquisition possible,” added Green Acres Program Director Martha Sullivan Sapp. “People will be able to come here to enjoy the serenity, scenery, and wildlife unique to New Jersey’s Pinelands.” ### Protecting Water Quality The Open Space Institute contributed funding to help protect the region’s water resources. The project was supported through OSI’s Delaware River Watershed Protection Fund. The Fund is made possible with support from the William Penn Foundation from its Delaware River Watershed Initiative, which seeks to protect water quality in the Delaware River Basin. The Thompson-Wright property is important for the health of the Delaware River because it protects the wetlands and forested headwaters of the Rancocas Creek, which travels through the New Jersey Pinelands and into the Delaware. The creek is the largest tributary of the river from the Pinelands, producing approximately 10 percent of the river’s total flow. “This is a milestone for the Delaware River, and for the 15 million people who depend upon the river’s unspoiled forests to protect their drinking water,” said Peter Howell, OSI’s Executive Vice President of Capital & Research Programs. “We congratulate the New Jersey Conservation Foundation on this remarkable achievement, which will benefit New Jersey for generations to come.” Preservation of the Thompson-Wright property bolsters the protection of the Kirkwood-Cohansey Aquifer, an underground sediment layer in South Jersey that stores 17 trillion gallons of pure, fresh water and provides for the drinking water needs of about a million New Jersey residents. The aquifer lies close to the land surface and also supplies much of the water in the rivers, streams and wetlands of the Pine Barrens. Funding was also contributed by Victoria Foundation, The Nature Conservancy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Division of Bird Habitat and Conservation. “A core mission of Victoria Foundation is to protect New Jersey’s drinking water supply,” said Irene Cooper-Basch, executive officer of the Newark-based foundation. “Helping to permanently preserve the Thompson-Wright property was an easy decision for us as its strategic location in the Pine Barrens will safeguard critical wetlands and pristine streams that feed into our aquifer.” “We are so pleased to have assisted the NJ Conservation Foundation in the protection of this property in the Pinelands,” said Barbara Brummer, New Jersey State Director of The Nature Conservancy. “This region has so many unique values and it is critical to keep its habitats connected and resilient.” The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contributed funding from the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, which awards grants to increase bird populations and wetland habitat while supporting local economies and American traditions such as fishing, bird watching, family farming and hunting. ## Explore More ## The State We're In [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/) [Newsletters](https://www.njconservation.org/newsletters/) ## PennEast Pipeline Report # News ## New Report Shows PennEast Pipeline Not Needed Under Any Scenario Sep 26, 2018 The title of a new report from New Jersey Conservation Foundation (NJ Conservation) sums it up: The proposed PennEast pipeline is a solution in search of a problem. The report, written by Barbara Blumenthal, PhD, research director, NJ Conservation, provides data and analysis showing that the pipeline isn’t needed to satisfy need, to reduce natural gas prices, or to ensure reliability or a low-cost transition to a clean energy future. “At this point,” the report concludes, “building unnecessary pipelines will only increase costs and increase emissions, taking the state in the wrong direction.” Natural gas is now a major source of emissions in New Jersey, as it provides energy for electricity generation as well as for heating and cooling. The state has a legislative mandate to achieve 80 percent lower emissions by 2050, requiring a major decline in natural gas consumption across most sectors of the economy. Instead, a smart combination of wind, solar, flexible load, storage, and stepped-up energy efficiency will not only heat, cool, and power New Jersey reliably, it will save money and support a vibrant economy. “This report counters PennEast’s misleading claims and scare tactics with hard facts and solid analysis and makes clear that building PennEast would only add to a glut of pipeline capacity while driving up costs and emissions,” said Tom Gilbert, campaign director, NJ Conservation and ReThink Energy NJ. “The research shows that a clean energy future based on renewables will save money, reduce emissions, grow our economy, and improve community health and safety.” The report compiles and updates research from gas experts and includes these key points: - New Jersey currently has substantial excess pipeline capacity to meet its needs – even during extreme cold periods – and by 2030 will continue to have more than 1.3 billion cubic feet per day of excess capacity. PennEast would add another 1 billion cubic feet of unnecessary capacity. - Experts reconfirmed this finding of excess capacity using new data from the extreme cold period (referred to as the “Bomb Cyclone”) from December 2017 through January 2018, stating: “This analysis shows that PennEast is not needed to meet peak winter demand, not even for a single day, even during extreme weather events.” - There is even more than enough excess pipeline capacity to accommodate an increase in gas-fired electricity generation that could arise if the state’s remaining coal and nuclear plants were to close. - The New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel concluded that the proposed PennEast pipeline’s self-dealing contracts do not reflect genuine market demand, and no evidence supports PennEast’s claim that its pipeline would increase pipeline grid reliability. - By creating a further glut of capacity, PennEast would increase costs to New Jersey consumers by $180 million to $280 million per year. - Independent research found that PennEast inflated its estimated job numbers by at least 66% and that the project would result in only 10 ongoing jobs in New Jersey. According to the research, PennEast would have an “infinitesimally small” contribution to the economy. On the other hand, clean energy jobs already employ about 52,000 New Jerseyans, and this number will grow significantly. - New Jersey must substantially reduce its use of natural gas, the primary source of emissions in the electricity generation, commercial, and residential sectors, in order to meet its Global Warming Response Act goals. - New studies that model electric grids each year until 2050 show that little-to-no-gas will be needed by 2050 if states support low-cost pathways with optimized clean energy portfolios. The report contains in-depth explanations of these points and others, supported by citations from experts. It includes detailed analysis of energy capacity and demand in New Jersey, and explores various contingencies that could affect the state’s energy situation for years to come. A Fairleigh Dickinson University Poll conducted this month for ReThink Energy NJ shows that New Jersey voters embrace a clean energy future. Sixty-six percent do not consider natural gas to be “clean” energy, an astounding 23-point increase since 2016, and three of every four voters want New Jersey to reach 100 percent of energy from renewable sources by 2050. The full report is available [here.](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/NJCF_Sept2018_PennEastReport_SolutionInSearchOfProblem_FINAL.pdf) ## Explore More ## The State We're In [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/) [Newsletters](https://www.njconservation.org/newsletters/) ## Land Preservation Success # News ## 130 Acres Along Creek Preserved in Hunterdon Aug 29, 2018 Sonia Millner could have sold the land where she grew up for a housing development. But she and her daughter, Barbara Gellner, made up their minds that they’d rather see their 130-acre property – a combination of fields and forest, and the pristine Wickecheoke Creek – permanently preserved as open space. “It was something we had always discussed,” Mrs. Millner said. “Rather than having a bunch of houses coming up, we did not want to see it developed.” On Aug. 14, New Jersey Conservation Foundation purchased the land at the corner of Whiskey Lane and Boars Head Road with the help of several funding partners, including the state Green Acres Program, Hunterdon County, Delaware Township, Franklin Township and the New Jersey Water Supply Authority. The property will be open to the public for passive recreation, including hiking, dog walking and nature observation. “New Jersey Conservation Foundation has been working for over 30 years to preserve land along the Wickecheoke Creek, a beautiful part of New Jersey, and an important drinking water supply source,” said Michele S. Byers, executive director. ### Growing up on the farm Mrs. Millner’s parents bought the property in the 1920s after visiting relatives nearby and liking the surrounding farming community. She and her brother and two sisters were raised there and helped out with farm chores. “Times were tough,” she recalled of the family’s early years on the farm and the Great Depression era. “We were poor but never knew it, because everyone was in the same boat.” The siblings worked in the fields and garden, and also helped out with the family’s cows, chickens, pigs, ducks, geese and goats. “We all went to a one-room school, which was a mile away in Locktown,” she added. “My mother would take us with the horse and wagon until we were able to walk there ourselves.” “We used to swim in the creek and fish in the creek. We’d get catfish, eels and sunnies,” she recalled. “The creek was very free flowing.” Although Mrs. Millner didn’t live on the property for most of her adult life, she said she and her daughter still consider it home. ### Forests protect water quality The Millner property includes three large farm fields, mixed hardwood forest and forested wetlands. Dense forests and forested wetlands, such as those found on the site, help protect water quality in the Wickecheoke Creek, which flows into the Delaware & Raritan Canal. Native plants like May apples, ferns, trout lilies, irises and Jack in the pulpits grow on the property, and there are few non-native invasive species. Wild turkeys, coyotes and bears have been spotted in the woods and fields. “Green Acres is pleased to be able to provide acquisition funding to Franklin and Delaware townships,” said Martha Sullivan Sapp, Director of Green Acres. “We commend all the partners for protecting the significant forests, fields, wetlands, and stream corridor of the Wickecheoke Creek for public recreation and open space purposes.” The newly-preserved property is located just down Boars Head Road from the 76-acre Fishkin property, preserved by NJ Conservation Foundation in 2005. “Hunterdon County is pleased to continue to support the efforts of New Jersey Conservation Foundation in preserving land along the Wickecheoke Creek and is thankful to the Millner family for their contribution to conservation,” said Freeholder Director J. Matthew Holt. “This project is preservation at its best; preserving land, a stream, and a story, achieved through the cooperation of willing landowners, hard-working nonprofits, and political will,” said Bob Hornby, Delaware Township Open Space Coordinator. Franklin Township Mayor Craig Repmann thanked Millner and Gellner “for their generous spirit in preserving a natural area that will provide a stimulating escape for generations of Hunterdon residents. We are pleased to have helped make it possible.” ### About NJ Conservation Foundation New Jersey Conservation Foundation is a private nonprofit organization that preserves land and natural resources throughout New Jersey for the benefit of all. Since 1960, New Jersey Conservation Foundation has protected 125,000 acres of open space – from the Highlands to the Pine Barrens to the Delaware Bayshore, from farms to forests to urban and suburban parks. For more information about New Jersey Conservation Foundation’s programs and preserves, [click here](https://www.njconservation.org/what-we-do/) or call 1-888-LAND-SAVE (1-888-526-3728). ## Explore More ## The State We're In [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/) [Newsletters](https://www.njconservation.org/newsletters/) --- ## [Heart of the Highlands Project](https://www.njconservation.org/project/heart-of-the-highlands/) ## Heart of the Highlands # Heart of the Highlands ## Heart of the Highlands The Heart of the Highlands project area includes parts of Passaic and Morris Counties and contains the best examples of intact northern hardwood forests within the New Jersey Highlands. The forests are home to many endangered, threatened and declining species. Visitors to this unique area can expect a near wilderness experience unfound in other parts of the Highlands. New Jersey Conservation Foundation is working to halt forest fragmentation and enhance the outdoor experience for all by focusing our efforts on acquiring properties adjacent to preserved land. Recent preservation projects have included: - 958 acres in Kinnelon Borough to expand Silas Condict County Park - 177 acres in West Milford and Bloomingdale near NJCF’s Apshawa Preserve - 90 acres expanding Norvin Green State Forest - 40 acres of wooded property in West Milford ### Apshawa Preserve The **[Apshawa Preserve](https://www.njconservation.org/preserve/apshawa-preserve/)** is a cooperative project of New Jersey Conservation Foundation and the County of Passaic. This 576-acre preserve offers a diversity of Highlands habitats, including mixed hardwood forest dominated by oak and sugar maple; the 40-acre Butler Reservoir, a scenic attraction for hikers and birdwatchers; and the Apshawa Brook, which flows through the preserve to the Pequannock River. Nearly seven miles of blazed trails traverse the Apshawa Preserve and are open for hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, nature study and fishing. The Apshawa Preserve is open from dawn to dusk for recreation and can be accessed from Macopin Road in West Milford. ### The New Jersey Highlands The New Jersey Highlands are part of the great green sweep of the Appalachians that shadow the East Coast from Georgia to Maine. The Highlands region stretches from eastern Pennsylvania through New Jersey and New York to northwestern Connecticut, forming a vital linkage between the Berkshires and the Blue Ridge Mountains. The Highlands form a greenbelt of forest and farmland around the New York metropolitan area and provide fresh air, natural areas and recreation opportunities for millions of residents of the greater New Jersey metropolitan area. Over 1,300 square miles in the northwest part of the state noted for its scenic beauty and environmental significance, the Highlands stretch from Phillipsburg in the southwest to Ringwood in the northeast and lies within portions of seven counties (Bergen, Hunterdon, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex and Warren), including 88 municipalities that are home for more than 750,000 people. The Highlands diverse natural communities are important statewide. With extensive forests, wetlands, rivers and streams, over 70 percent of the Highlands are environmentally sensitive while providing water supply for more than half of New Jersey’s families – over 5.2 million people. To learn more about New Jersey Conservation Foundation’s preservation efforts in the Highlands, please contact info@njconservation.org ## Detail West Milford, NJ 07480 [PROJECT AREA MAP](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Highlands.pdf) ## Explore More ## The State We're In By Michele S. Byers, Executive Director [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/) --- ## [Scotts Mountain Project](https://www.njconservation.org/project/scotts-mountain/) ## Kittatinny Ridge Conservation # Kittatinny Ridge ## Kittatinny Ridge New Jersey Conservation Foundation’s Kittatinny Ridge project area, about 60 miles west of New York City, can be found in the Appalachian Ridge and Valley region of New Jersey, an extension of the larger Shenandoah Valley area extending from Alabama to New York. The Kittatinny Ridge and Wallkill Valley appeared hundreds of millions of years ago when soft limestone and shale eroded from large mountains, leaving the hard quartz of the Kittatinny Ridge above fertile valleys. The largely undeveloped mountains, forest, meadows and wetlands range from New York’s Shawangunk Mountains to the Delaware River. Stretching across the state’s northwest border, the Kittatinny Ridge includes the highest elevation in New Jersey at [**High Point State Park**](http://www.state.nj.us/dep/parksandforests/parks/highpoint.html). At 1803 feet above sea level, this spectacular view to the southeast overlooks the rolling hills and fertile farmland of the Wallkill Valley. A study in contrasts, the Kittatinny’s forested ridges provide critical wildlife and plant habitat and fertile limestone soils support productive farms. Limestone valleys, sandstone ridges and shale hills have been created over the years. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recognized the region for its unusually diverse plant communities, rich biodiversity and its role as an important migratory corridor for bald eagles, peregrine falcons, bobcat, hummingbirds, osprey, wood ducks, kingfishers and all owls, hawks and swallows. Our work in the region has included the preservation of an 850-acre property which had been under intense development pressure for 15 years. The project helped to expand the **[Bear Swamp Wildlife Management Area](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/bear_swamp.pdf)**. Other preservation projects have preserved 55 acres of land along the Paulinskill River, enhanced public trails and a protected greenway, and created a 272-acre nature preserve in Hardwick Township. In addition to valuable natural resource treasures, the region offers spectacular views and unparalleled opportunities for hiking, camping, swimming, hunting, fishing, skiing and more. Just a few of the areas in the region worth exploring are the [**Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area**](http://www.nps.gov/dewa/index.htm), **[Stokes State Forest](http://www.state.nj.us/dep/parksandforests/parks/stokes.html)** and numerous **[New Jersey Division of Fish & Wildlife wildlife management areas](http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/wmaland.htm)**. To learn more about our preservation efforts in the Kittatinny Ridge, please contact info@njconservation.org ## Detail Sussex, NJ 07461 [PROJECT AREA MAP](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/KittatinnyRidge.pdf) ## Explore More ## The State We're In By Michele S. Byers, Executive Director [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/) --- ## [Land Conservation](https://www.njconservation.org/land-conservation/) ## Scotts Mountain Preservation # Scotts Mountain ## Scotts Mountain Scotts Mountain is located at the southwestern end of the New Jersey Highlands in Warren County and was home to a 19th-century farming community. The Scotts Mountain ridge reaches about 1,200 feet above sea level at its highest point, and stretches from Stewartsville northeast to Oxford. The Merrill Creek and the Lopatcong Creek, tributaries of the Delaware River, meander through the area’s scenic valleys. The largest contiguous forest area in southern Warren County, Scotts Mountain provides critical habitat for many forest-dependent bird species in the Highlands, including the scarlet tanager, wood thrush, eastern wood peewee and solitary vireo. One interesting feature of the area is the presence of linear piles of stones delineating old farm fields. These stone rows are a result of farming practices in rocky soil: Stones were moved from the path of the plow and set along the edges of fields, and over time the piles became considerable. Scotts Mountain also contains evidence of the area’s Native American past. Prehistoric finds at Scotts Mountain include projectile points from several settlement periods. The artifacts uncovered indicate a change in the course of the waterways during the past 2,000 to 6,000 years, as human occupation assumed to have occurred alongside streams does not coincide with today’s drainage patterns. The Scotts Mountain area was altered during the 1980s by the construction of the [**Merrill Creek Reservoir**](http://www.merrillcreek.com/), which covers terrain once occupied by old farmsteads. Now one of the area’s better-known attractions, the 650-acre reservoir is surrounded by a 290-acre environmental preserve and 2,000 additional acres of woods and fields. A pair of bald eagles has nested and raised young at Merrill Creek for many years. A hawk watch takes place there each fall. New Jersey Conservation Foundation has been helping protect land and natural resources in the Scotts Mountain area since 2003. In 2008, New Jersey Conservation Foundation preserved the 60-acre Hanssler/Bossert property, adjacent to the Merrill Creek Reservoir property. The land, a pristine wooded property crossed by the Lopatcong Creek, had been owned by the same German immigrant family since the 1930s. In 2010, we helped preserve a 78-acre farm on Scotts Mountain using part of our federal farmland preservation grant. **[Read more about this farmland preservation project >](https://www.njconservation.org/press_release/242-acres-preserved-warren-county/)** Other public recreation areas include the West Oxford Mountain Natural Resource Area, the Marble Mountain Natural Resource Area, Lake Marguerite Wildlife Refuge and Roaring Rock Park. A 1992 U.S. Forest Service study identified Scotts Mountain as one of six “Important Large Forested Areas” in the Highlands stretching between the Hudson and Delaware Rivers. The areas were defined by relatively undeveloped contiguous forested lands greater than 5,000 acres, key water resources, key wildlife habitat, and recreational and cultural opportunities. In 2002, New Jersey Conservation Foundation and the [**Highlands Coalition**](http://njhighlandscoalition.org/) mapped Scotts Mountain as one of 17 “Critical Treasures of the New Jersey Highlands.” For more information about our preservation efforts in the Scotts Mountain project area, contact info@njconservation.org ## Detail Harmony, NJ 07882 ## Explore More ## The State We're In By Michele S. Byers, Executive Director [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/) --- ## [Land Stewardship](https://www.njconservation.org/land-stewardship/) ## Easement Revitalization Guide # Easement Revitalization ## A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ i # Contents **Gratitude.** ... iii Land Trust Partners ... iii Guiding Experts ... iii ## Part 1: Introduction ... 1 Background ... 1 How to Use This Guidebook ... 3 ## Part 2: Initial Reactions and Responses to Problem Easements ... 5 What Is the Problem and How Do We Know? ... 5 A Visual Summary of Problem Easements ... 7 Brainstorming for Solutions ... 7 ## Part 3: Legal and Policy Constraints ... 11 Legal Constraints ... 11 Policy Constraints Arising from External Sources ... 15 Policy Constraints Arising from Internal Sources ... 16 Red Flag! Understanding Private Benefit and Private Inurement ... 17 **Part 4: A Process for Analyzing Your Problem Easements.** ... 23 Identifying Your Problem Easements ... 23 Analyzing Easements Identified as Problems ... 24 Thinking Ahead: Fixing, Fallback, Fallout, and the Future ... 24 --- ## [Helping Partners](https://www.njconservation.org/helping-partners/) Assessment #1: Conservation Value ... 25 Assessment #2: Drafting Problems ... 30 Assessment #3: Transactional Issues ... 33 Assessment #4: Competing Interests ... 37 Assessment #5: Complicating Matters ... 43 **Part 5: Managing Problem Easements.** ... 45 Strategy #1: General Stewardship Approach ... 46 Strategy #2: Risk Management Plan ... 47 Strategy #3: Holding Conversations with Landowners ... 52 Strategy #4: Managing Perceptions ... 56 Strategy #5: Sequestering the Easement in a Holding Company ... 58 ## ii EASEMENT REVITALIZATION ## Part 6: Evaluating Options for Fixing Problem Easements ... 62 Tool #1: Fixing Misstatements, Mutual Mistakes and Technical Errors ... 63 Tool #2: Amending the Easement ... 72 Tool #3: Asking the Court for Assistance ... 78 Tool #4: Extinguishing the Easement ... 83 Easement Revitalization: Getting Started ... 90 ## Parting Thoughts ... 91 **Appendices.** ... 92 Appendix 1: Resources ... 93 Appendix 2: Baseline and Current Conditions Reports: Authentication and Admissibility ... 95 Appendix 3: About the Solid Ground Study ... 103 **Consultant Team.** ... 105 Project Team Biographies ... 105 _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ iii ## Gratitude he Easement Revitalization Initiative was generously sponsored and funded by the # TOpen Space Institute in New York. #### Additional generous funders included: ƒƒ The Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation ƒƒ The Kohlberg Foundation ƒƒ Resources Legacy Fund ### Land Trust Partners Six organizations participated in this study. The results of those case studies are confidential and therefore are not included in this report. Case studies and stories presented in this report are fictional or amalgamate situations that the Solid Ground team explored through our research with these and other land trusts across the country. We thank the board leaders, staff members, and legal counsel of these organizations for their participation. ƒƒ Animas Land Conservancy (CO) ƒƒ Big Sur Land Trust (CA) ƒƒ Columbia Land Trust (WA/OR) ƒƒ Franklin Land Trust (MA) ƒƒ Maryland Environmental Trust (MD) ƒƒ New Jersey Conservation Foundation (NJ) ### Guiding Experts We thank the following individuals for their time and participation at various key points in the project. Their advice has been invaluable. #### Racine, WI (October 2011) ƒƒ Samantha Arthur, Big Sur Land Trust (CA) ƒƒ Sylvia Bates, Land Trust Alliance (NH) ƒƒ Tally Blumberg, Open Space Institute (NY) ƒƒ Michelle Byers, New Jersey Conservation Foundation (NJ) ƒƒ Darla Guenzler, California Council of Land Trusts (CA) ƒƒ Stephen Johnson, Sage Advisors (MA) ## iv EASEMENT REVITALIZATION ƒƒ Larry Kueter, Attorney (CO) ƒƒ Ed Lloyd, Columbia Law School (NY) ƒƒ Dan Pike, Colorado Open Lands (CO) ƒƒ Jane Prohaska, Attorney and Consultant (MN) ƒƒ Ann Taylor Schwing, Best Best and Krieger (CA) ## Portland, OR (July 2012) ƒƒ Sylvia Bates, Land Trust Alliance (NH) ƒƒ Tally Blumberg, Open Space Institute (NY) ƒƒ Michelle Byers, New Jersey Conservation Foundation (NJ) ƒƒ Stephen F. Cook, Bullivant Houser Bailey (OR) ƒƒ Dan Pike, Colorado Open Lands (CO) ƒƒ Ann Taylor Schwing, Best Best and Krieger (CA) ƒƒ Julie Turrini, Resources Law Group (CA) _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ ## Part 1: Introduction ### Background n 1630, the people of the newly established town of # IBoston voted to impose a levy on each household to finance the purchase of a privately owned parcel of land, to be used by residents for grazing cows, military training and public recreation. The birth of the Boston Common represents perhaps the earliest instance of two traditionally American activities that have shaped our social, political and natural landscape over the ensuing four centuries. The first is the banding together of ordinary citizens to accomplish goals to advance the common good. The second is the protection of land in an open, natural state for the benefit of the community. The land trust community in the United States is the direct heir of both of these strains in our society. Land conservation takes many different forms now, ranging from tiny community gardens in urban neighborhoods to the grand parks gracing many cities, all the way to the network of national parks that protect some of the signature landscapes of this country. Private conservation has always been part of the mix. Four decades ago, Congress made it possible to claim a tax deduction to offset the donation of a conservation easement to a qualified holder. While private landowners had used donated easements to protect land since the mid-19th century, the tax incentive sparked new interest in the tool. Established organizations that had always relied on fee simple purchase to conserve land were able to dramatically increase their efforts by use of easements. New land trusts formed as people saw the potential to protect critical land from development at a relatively low cost. Nearly all land trusts and public agencies charged with land conservation now include easements among their preferred tools. Informed insiders quickly saw the potential for ever-rising future costs as land trusts tackled the challenge of stewardship of these perpetual obligations. It took a few very expensive court cases for the rest of the industry to take their warnings seriously. As the people drafting, monitoring and enforcing easements shared their experiences, the land trust community gradually refined its understanding of how to use the tool most effectively. The Land Trust Standards and Practices were developed, and later revised, to encode that growing body of knowledge. Most easements being written today are stronger, clearer and easier to steward because of that evolutionary process. ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION Of course, the nature of a conservation easement means that the mistakes we all learned from live on in the form of perpetual obligations. The landowners are still bound by their restrictions and the holders are still obligated to enforce them. They create a dilemma for stewardship staff, who may spend an inordinate amount of time trying to enforce provisions that are ill-considered or The Downside of difficult to understand. In some cases, they find that the Doing Nothing easement restrictions prevent activities that would improve the conservation values of the land. Poorly drafted terms, The board of a very successful all volunteer land trust knew there were easements lacking significant conservation value, and some older “problem” easements in easements with problems in the easement conveyance all the portfolio but had decided to “let represent potential headaches for landowners and easement sleeping dogs lie” and keep limited holders. resources focused on new projects. Three years later, the board members Most land trusts continue to ignore the existence of problem faced a dilemma that would cause them to regret their earlier decision. easements in their portfolios. If they do think about problem Thirty years ago the land trust had easements, they often conclude that they can deal with the accepted an easement over a quarter-problems when they come up. They resist rocking the boat acre property surrounded almost in advance. But in taking this tack, a land trust runs the entirely by homes. The easement risk of having to make critical decisions about easements purportedly protected “scenic and wildlife habitat of significant importance in a hostile or deadline-driven setting. Rather than tackling to the public” and prohibited the cutting problem easements at a time of crisis, land trusts can take a of any trees existing on the property more proactive approach and plan for an orderly revitalization at the time, without exception. The land trust long ago had concluded the of their overall conservation portfolio when more resources, property had little conservation value options, and possible resolutions are available. due to its small size and the fact that the public could not really view the This Guidebook offers a process for dealing with the “scenic” property. Further, enforcement problem easements lurking in a land trust’s portfolio. The would be complicated by the fact Guidebook is designed to help land trusts analyze these that there was no baseline document prepared at the time of the donation, problem easements and understand the options available to and the prohibition on tree cutting was fix or manage the problems. This should not be seen as a one- overly restrictive. time project: the continuing evolution of standards and the _continued_ growing scientific understanding of such issues as biodiversity and climate change suggest that, twenty years hence, some of the easements we are writing today will seem just as flawed as those early easements we struggle with now. Land trusts that establish a program of regular review of their easements and plan how they will manage stewardship challenges will have a far more effective stewardship program. The Guidebook gives land trusts tools they will need to make good choices. How to Use This Guidebook This Guidebook is intended to provide a structured process for organizations that want to work through upgrading their older easements. It includes “next step suggestions” to start down the path. And it offers some lessons learned to start down the path. And it offers some lessons learned from the six case studies and other research conducted by the national conservation team of Solid Ground Consulting (the Easement Revitalization Initiative that resulted in the development of this Guidebook is described in more detail in the appendix). While the Guidebook is geared primarily for land trusts, other organizations that hold conservation easements, such as government agencies with purchased easement programs, will likely find the analysis helpful even though some parts of the analysis related to donated easements will not be applicable. If a land trust is just starting to think about problem easements, much of the background discussion in the Guidebook will be helpful – at the very least, it will prepare a land trust leader to have a more informed conversation with the land trust’s attorney. (The land trust should also consider If a land trust is just starting to think about problem easements, much of the background discussion in the Guidebook will be helpful – at the very least, it will prepare a land trust leader to have a more informed conversation with the land trust’s attorney. (The land trust should also consider the land trust’s attorney. (The land trust should also consider providing a copy of this Guidebook to its attorney to assist providing a copy of this Guidebook to its attorney to assist with the initial analysis.) The sections that frame the issue and summarize the legal and policy context provide a broad overview to inform analysis of specific problems. providing a copy of this Guidebook to its attorney to assist with the initial analysis.) The sections that frame the issue and summarize the legal and policy context provide a broad overview to inform analysis of specific problems. Some land trusts have already begun the process of evaluating their easements and analyzing the problems. Such groups may their easements and analyzing the problems. Such groups may find it useful to skip directly to the sections that offer detailed discussions of the options for fixing or managing problem easements. Wherever a land trust may be in the process, the Table of Contents will identify the most appropriate places to begin. their easements and analyzing the problems. Such groups may find it useful to skip directly to the sections that offer detailed discussions of the options for fixing or managing problem easements. Wherever a land trust may be in the process, the Table of Contents will identify the most appropriate places to What the Guidebook Will Not Do This Guidebook will not focus on how to resolve organizational problems that may lead to problem easements, nor will it address identifying and providing the financial resources necessary for this process. The Land Trust Alliance has many land trustspecific tools for supporting organizational effectiveness. The Alliance also has resources to help set policies for drafting and documenting good easements and ensuring sound The trees had gotten quite large over the past thirty years and had begun to shade out the two story house on the property. The current landowner, desiring a bit of sun, began cutting down a large oak tree nearest the house. A concerned neighbor called the land trust to warn of the landowner’s actions. The land trust consulted its attorney and decided to do nothing due to the lack of a baseline document, the high cost of the litigation, the minimal conservation value associated with the easement, and the potential challenge to the easement language. Irate that the land trust had failed to act, the neighbor contacted a local investigative reporter who wrote a scathing exposé about the land trust’s failure to enforce the clear terms of an easement. The land trust was besieged by phone calls from supporters wanting to understand more about the issue. One board member confirmed the land trust was more or less “side-tracked” by the debacle for over a year, during which it saw donations and new projects decline significantly. Another board member admitted, “We would have been better off working on this issue earlier when we had more options open to us.” ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION transactions. The “Assessing Your Organization” (AYO) process determines a land trust’s basic level of compliance with Land Trust Standards and Practices. The Alliance’s Learning Center organizes tools and examples to help land trusts become more effective organizationally and programmatically. And the Land Trust Accreditation Commission provides a comprehensive test of compliance with the most important of these standards and practices through its accreditation process. The sections in this Guidebook that deal with amendment do not try to capture the breadth of opinion, process or resources available on the subject. A good place to start might be the Land Trust Alliance’s 2007 research report, “Amending Conservation _Easements: Evolving Practices and Legal Principles,” available on the Alliance website._ Much of the analysis in the Guidebook relates to the Treasury regulations regarding donated tax deductible easements. This part of the discussion does not necessarily apply to purchased easements or easements exacted through a public regulatory process. Many easements for which no deduction will be sought still follow the format and wording of a tax deductible easement for various historical and practical reasons. Purchased and exacted easements often require perpetuity as do tax deductible easements, although sometimes for different reasons. Moreover, land trusts are subject to the same requirements as 501(c)(3) charities whatever kinds of easements they may hold. The Guidebook does not attempt to address the specific constraints imposed by regulatory or funding agencies as these are different for every program. Finally, the Guidebook does not specifically address easements held by public agencies. Public entities that hold conservation easements are subject to the same expectations and obligations as land trusts in terms of stewardship, monitoring, and enforcement. The tools offered here for assessing, managing and fixing problem easements will in many cases be applicable to publicly-held easements. However, there may be additional constraints, and there may be different options for resolving problem easements which differ considerably from those available to land trusts. **Disclaimer** This is a conservation practitioner’s Guidebook, not a legal treatise. It contains only a handful of legal citations, and a short list of resources in the appendix, legal and otherwise. Even though this book was prepared with input from and vetted by attorneys, the information, analysis and strategies offered are not and should not be construed as offering legal advice. The Guidebook is intended to give conservation land trust leaders a starting point for tackling their problem easements, but before proceeding on any course of action relating to the options discussed in this Guidebook, land trusts should consult with their attorneys. _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ ## Part 2: Initial Reactions and Responses to Problem Easements ### What Is the Problem and How Do We Know? any land trusts that have operated for a few years have # Mat least one easement that does not meet their current criteria for quality. These problem easements are likely to haunt these groups – and the land trust community as a whole – in the future. #### Three Types of Problems Problem easements can be organized into three basic categories: ƒƒ Eased lands that have no, or minimal, conservation value; ƒƒ Easement documents with drafting problems; and ƒƒ Problems with the supporting documents or the easement conveyance process (collectively, “Transactional Issues”). Here is a quick look at these problems, and a closely related area, referred to as “Complicating Matters.” Each of these categories will be discussed in greater detail in Part 4. #### No or Minimal Conservation Value “Conservation value” is a slippery beast in the world of land trusts. Based on differences in organizational mission and purpose, an easement with “minimal conservation value” for one group may be ideal for another – and therefore tricky to distinguish from a more subjective “undesirable” easement. Many land trusts hold easements that do not meet their current standards for conservation value. In some cases, these easements are the result of looser standards in the past; in other cases, they were acquired from another land trust in a merger or a transfer. The property may have always lacked conservation value so that the easement should never have been accepted. For other land protected with easements, some original conservation value has been lost. It may be lost due to ecological, biological, or natural changes, such as climate change or invasive species. It may be lost due to easement violations or human causes, such as ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION development or adjacent land uses, encroachment, or polluting activities. In very rare instances, such a major change may have occurred to the land that no conservation value remains, and extinguishment may be appropriate. In all other instances, the land trust has obligations to serve the conservation easements it holds, even those with perceived low conservation value. Staff and board members accustomed to a rigorous review of new easement proposals may question the importance of continuing to defend easements they see as contributing little to their conservation goals, but that does not excuse the land trust from its obligation. ## Drafting Problems Ambiguities, internally conflicting provisions, conflicts between language in the easement document and language in other supporting documents, overly vague or overly restrictive language that makes stewardship administratively burdensome or that invites landowner dispute – these are all examples of the many kinds of drafting problems that may be found in an easement document. The best corrective action will depend on many variables, including, for example, the extent of the problem, the landowner relationship, and relevant court rulings in the jurisdiction. ## Transactional Issues Examples of “Transactional Issues” include land description problems; failure to obtain a mineral remoteness opinion before closing; failure to obtain an accurate survey of the property; failure to obtain subordination of minerals and mortgages before closing; and failure to prepare (and have landowner and land trust execute) a comprehensive baseline document or report. As with drafting problems, how a land trust tries to fix the problem or manage the easement will depend on a great number of factors, discussed in the rest of this Guidebook. ## Complicating Matters “Complicating Matters” do not create problem easements but they complicate the resolution or management of the easement. For example, a landowner violation of a prohibition or restriction in an easement with drafting problems or transactional issues does not create a problem easement. However, it certainly complicates a problem easement. The diagram on the following page offers a visual way to think about how these pieces tie together. A Visual Summary of Problem Easements Brainstorming for Solutions Land trusts are blessed with smart people on their staffs and their boards. These individuals come to the land trust world with a broad range of expertise, from the forprofit and nonprofit worlds and from the public sector, and they often bring creative ideas for solving problems. Some of those ideas will turn out to be good solutions. Others will be seen as impractical or impossible when considered in the context of the laws governing nonprofit governance and conservation easements. Here are a few ideas. | THE IDEA | THE TYPICAL CONVERSATION | | --- | --- | | No action | “Weve had these easements in our portfolio for over a decade with no problem. Why should we start mucking things up by analyzing them and contacting the landowners when we see problems?” | | Extinguishment | “This easement doesn't have any real conservation value. The current landowner can't understand what we could possibly be monitoring, and gets ticked off at our yearly visits. Our staff feels like it is wasting its time on stewardship and administration of this easement. And, if we ever have a violation on the property, the last thing we want to do is enforce it. It would be a complete waste of our resources.” | | Sell Back to Landowner | “This easement is a dog. The landowner is eager to pay us the appraised value in order to get rid of it. We could eliminate the stewardship hassles and put that money to better use protecting more important land. Sounds like a win-win.” | | Amendment | “This easement was drafted back in the first year of our organization. It has a sketch of the easement area rather than a metes and bounds survey prepared by a licensed surveyor. Let's just talk to the landowner and see about amending the easement to make it more accurate.” | | Seek Judicial Relief | “We really want to take care of some ambiguous language in the easement. We never meant to restrict the southeast corner so that the landowner is denied the barn she is requesting. We would like to amend the easement but we're concerned there may be later scrutiny of our decision. Our attorney has explained that we could seek a declaratory ruling from our local court.” | | Transfer to New Holder | “This easement doesn't fit our mission anymore and we don't have the right kind of stewardship program to manage it. But there's another land trust in the region that focuses on this kind of property. Let's see if theyd consider holding it.” | | Private Letter Ruling | “Let's ask the IRS to interpret this one for us – they can tell us the tax consequences of what we're thinking of doing by either amending or seeking extinguishment for this easement. Yes, it's an expensive and time-consuming option, but at least we'd have some clarity on whether our proposed changes are consistent with our tax-exempt status.” | | Abandonment | “The Deep Hollow Land Trust is folding. We're willing to take their decent easements, but not the ones with little conservation value, and especially not the ones without any baseline documentation. Just let them go out of business after we take the good ones.” | | Sequestration | “In our last review, we just discovered five easements that we think have a high potential of being very expensive to administer and enforce, with low conservation value benefit. Some of them have uses that are likely to lead to violations. Others have ambiguous language in the easement or the exhibits that will be disputed by the landowner. Any lawsuits will be ugly and expensive. Let's convey these to a separate organization with minimal assets. If one of those high risk easements ever 'blows up,' we don't have to worry about it harming our main organization's assets.” | | Sequestration & Abandonment | “Maybe after we set up the new organization and transfer the problem easements to it, we'll just have all the board members resign.” | | Management Plan | “It's probably not cost effective or even possible to fix this easement, but we can anticipate likely problems and develop some strategies for preventing them or for dealing with them if they occur. That way we won't be caught off guard and react in a way that makes the problem worse.” | These ideas fall into three broad categories. (The first two are discussed in greater detail in Parts 5 and 6.) 1. Fix the Problem There are several legal tools available to eliminate problems in an easement. It may be possible and cost-effective to change an easement and rewrite the badly drafted language or to get a court to rule on its meaning. It may be possible to transfer the easement to an organization with a mission more appropriate to the intended type of conservation. Some transactional problems may be fixable as well. In a very few instances, it may be possible to extinguish the easement. While this last option undeniably gets rid of the problem, it is rarely appropriate and should be considered with great caution. There are several legal tools available to eliminate problems in an easement. It may be possible and cost-effective to change an easement and rewrite the badly drafted language or to get a court to rule on its meaning. It may be possible to transfer the easement to an organization with a mission more appropriate to the intended type of conservation. Some transactional problems may be fixable as well. In a very few instances, it may be possible to extinguish the easement. While this last option undeniably gets rid of the problem, it is rarely appropriate and should be considered with great caution. In many cases, a land trust that holds a problem easement will decide that the tools available to fix the problems are impractical. But that doesn’t mean the land trust should just shut its eyes and hope for the best. A thorough assessment of the risks associated with the easement and a plan to manage those risks will guide the holder in responding to challenges and may help prevent problems from coming to a head in In many cases, a land trust that holds a problem easement will decide that the tools available to fix the problems are impractical. But that doesn’t mean the land trust should just shut its eyes and hope for the best. A thorough assessment of the risks associated with the easement and a plan to manage those risks will guide the holder in responding to challenges and may help prevent problems from coming to a head in in responding to challenges and may help prevent problems from coming to a head in the future. ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION ## 3\. Avoid the Problem Doing nothing is a simple and common approach for dealing with problem easements. Some members of the land trust community feel that talking about mistakes will draw unwanted scrutiny and may discredit us all. Others point to the potential cost in time and money to address these problems and place them at the bottom of the priority list. It is tempting, especially when the land trust believes an easement holds little conservation value, to conclude that it will be a waste of resources to give the easement more than cursory attention – just do an annual drive-by, ignore all but the most flagrant violations, and call it good. However, organizations that hold easements have a basic obligation to monitor and defend them. Failure to do so might encourage the landowner to believe the land trust won’t ever enforce the easement, leaving the door open for complicated and expensive problems in the future. It may cause other owners of eased land to believe they can also violate their easements. Worse, it also can result in denial of accreditation, loss of public trust, revocation of “qualified holder” status, and even revocation of charitable status. This Guidebook is predicated on the belief that “do nothing” is a shortsighted approach and likely to lead to greater risk in the future. **Abandonment** The notion of simply abandoning problem easements may be seen as a subset of the “avoid the problem” category. But it is worthwhile to address it separately. There is no clear pathway allowing a land trust to abandon some easements while continuing to operate as a qualified holder of conservation easements. Thus, the option of abandonment generally comes up in the context of a merger of land trusts or the failure of a land trust. In both situations, a different land trust may be asked to accept responsibility for easements that do not meet its standards for conservation values, public benefit, or quality of drafting. That land trust might legitimately balk at taking on the burden of another organization’s mistakes. There are, however, good reasons not to allow easements to be orphaned, starting with the risk of discrediting the whole concept of conservation easements held by private land trusts. Moreover, the board members of the original holder land trust would be failing in their fiduciary obligations if they allowed this to happen. At some point, the land trust community probably needs to create structures to support land trusts that agree to accept orphaned easements, including funding to cover the costs incurred. _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ ## Part 3: Legal and Policy Constraints he problems and possible solutions # Tpresented in the Guidebook must be evaluated against the legal and policy constraints placed on a land trust. Those constraints fall into three basic categories: ƒƒ Legal and Institutional. Will the decision comport with federal and state laws governing conservation easements and tax-exempt public charities, as well as be consistent with Land Trust Standards and Practices? ƒƒ External. How will landowners, organization supporters, and the general public perceive the land trust’s decision? ƒƒ Internal. Does the decision support and further the land trust’s mission, goals and policies, and what are the financial and administrative ramifications of the decision? Below we provide a brief summary of the main points. Some of the concepts offered in this Guidebook – including Assessment #1 – Conservation Value and Assessment #4 – _**Competing Interests – dig deeper into these factors.**_ ### Legal Constraints Land trusts are by and large creatures of federal and state law. Any decision dealing with problem easements must be made with a clear understanding of the land trust’s limitations. Here is a brief summary of the legal constraints. #### Federal Law – Obligations under 170(h) Conservation Easement Statute To begin with, the conservation easement law, section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC” or the “Code”), must be evaluated as the land trust decides how it may deal with problem easements. Section 170(h) provides that a “qualified conservation contribution” is the contribution of (a) a “qualified real property interest;” (b) to a “qualified organization;” (c) “exclusively for conservation purposes.” The Treasury Regulations provide that a “perpetual conservation restriction” is a “qualified real property interest.” A “perpetual conservation restriction” is a restriction (such as a conservation easement) “granted in perpetuity on the use which may be ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION made of real property ... ” Reg. § 1.170A-14(b)(2) (emphasis added). Thus, a decision to extinguish or amend an easement will have implications with respect to this requirement. A “qualified organization” means (for nongovernmental organizations) the ability to meet, and continue to meet, the requirements of section 501(c)(3) of the Code. The organization must also “have a commitment to protect the conservation purposes of the donation, and have the resources to enforce the restrictions.” Reg. § 1.170A-14(c). So a decision not to steward or enforce the terms of an easement could have implications with respect to this requirement. _“Exclusively for conservation purposes” means, among other things, the easement must_ be perpetual and must provide no more than incidental benefit to the donor. Reg. § 1.170A-14(e). Not only must the easement be perpetual, it must be “enforceable for perpetuity.” Reg. § 1.170A-14(g). Finally, under the Treasury rules, extinguishment is available only if there has been a “subsequent unexpected change” in the conditions surrounding the conserved property that makes it “impossible or impractical” to use the property for conservation purposes. In those cases, the IRS will deem the conservation purpose to be nonetheless treated as protected in perpetuity if the restrictions are (1) extinguished by judicial proceeding, (2) the land trust receives its proportionate share of the value of the property at the time of its sale or exchange, and (3) the land trust uses all the funds in a manner consistent with the conservation purposes of the original contribution. Reg. § 1.170A-14(g). Obviously, a proposal to extinguish the easement will include evaluation of this part of the section 170(h) criteria. With this in mind, in considering an option to deal with a problem easement, the land trust will need to ask, among other questions: Will our proposed action jeopardize our _ability to meet the “qualified organization” test? Or, in the context of sequestration (see_ _Strategy #5: Sequestering the Easement): Will the new organization meet the test? Another_ question might be: Can we survive any legal scrutiny that we (or the donating landowner) _might face if we were to extinguish an easement that had been presented to the IRS as being_ _“perpetual?” On this point, some IRS agents have suggested that a land trust or a_ government agency could lose its status as a “qualified organization” for failure to show the capacity and willingness to steward and enforce the easements it holds. Several land trusts have, in fact, lost either status as a qualified organization or nonprofit status. Such an intervention would put the land trust out of business and reflect poorly on the land trust community as a whole. _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ ## Federal Law – Obligations for 501(c)(3) Tax-exempt Organizations As noted above, to be a qualified organization, the land trust must meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3). That section requires in relevant part: “Corporations … organized and operated exclusively for ... charitable ... purposes.” The phrase “exclusively for charitable purposes” has been refined by the Treasury regulations, as well as by case law, to limit the benefits a tax-exempt organization may confer on a private person. A land trust will need to ask: If we amend (or extinguish) this easement, will we _be conferring an impermissible private benefit on the landowner or otherwise risking our tax_ _exempt status? Again, loss of tax-exempt status would have a host of impacts on a land_ trust, including loss of “qualified organization” status. A land trust could seek a “private letter ruling,” in which the IRS will rule on the tax consequence of proposed changes to organizational purposes or activities. If a land trust is unsure about whether proposed changes are consistent with its status as an exempt organization or as a public charity (if applicable), it may request a private letter ruling or determination letter. ## Federal Law – Director and Officer Obligations Directors and officers have the duty to carry out the 501(c)(3) obligations. Under the tax rules, “managers” (which could include directors or officers) of a public charity can be subject to intermediate sanctions (excise tax penalties) for participating in a transaction known to them to be improper (such as one that bestows private benefit). This is one reason that it’s also really important to beware of private benefit pitfalls! Nonprofits often carry Directors and Officers Insurance, which may or may not provide a defense but which cannot pay the excise tax penalties if assessed. ## State Conservation Easement Statute State conservation easement “enabling” statutes have been enacted in almost every state. These statutes determine the enforceability of all kinds of conservation easements: donated, purchased, exacted (for example, by zoning regulations), temporary (for example, term easements), and perpetual. They also define what will qualify for treatment as a “conservation easement,” including what type of organization may hold a qualifying easement. In many cases, the enabling statutes will define easements and qualifying purposes broadly, given the application of the statutes to a broad range of types of easements. Holders are most frequently limited to government entities and nonprofit organizations with conservation purposes. Some states impose defined procedures on acquisition and termination of easements. Therefore, a land trust considering a certain strategy should, in addition to considering federal requirements, evaluate the limitations set by applicable state enabling statute. The Land Trust Alliance website includes a summary of all of the state conservation easement enabling statutes. State Nonprofit Laws Land trusts that are incorporated as nonprofits are subject to the limitations of their state nonprofit statute. Many nonprofit statutes restrict a nonprofit’s ability to convey away what are considered to be assets held in trust for the benefit of the public. A land trust may need to ask: Can we sequester (or abandon, or extinguish, etc.) the problem easements and still meet the state nonprofit statute requirements? The same nonprofit statutes typically place trustee-type or fiduciary-type obligations on nonprofit directors and officers. As a result, another question a land trust may need to ask is this: Will our decision with respect to a problem easement expose our board of directors to liability because of a breach of a statutory obligation? Usually the state attorney general is charged with overseeing state nonprofits. If an investigation were initiated, it would not only be embarrassing, but it could also lead to the loss of viability of the organization, either by loss of nonprofit status, or as the result of other direct or indirect repercussions. Other Legal Principles Contract law. Conservation easements are contractual in nature, with specific terms that certainly bind the landowner and holder vis à vis each other but which may be enforceable by third parties in certain situations, such as an adjacent landowner or the state attorney general in some states. A land trust may need to ask: Could someone argue that our decision with respect to this problem easement breaches the contract? A strong position by someone with standing to bring a contract challenge could embroil the land trust in contentious and expensive litigation, possibly not only with legal repercussions but also public relations consequences, including possibly loss of trust in the community. So additional questions may be: Are these the facts on which we are willing to risk a legal challenge and possibly have precedent set? Contract law may also come into play where the conservation easement resulted from a grant or other agreement with a funder, in most cases a government agency. In that case the land trust must ask: Is our proposed action consistent with earlier grant agreements that established this easement? Real property law. Although conservation easements are contracts, they are a special kind: namely, a conservation easement is a restrictive conservation servitude that runs with the land. A land trust may need to evaluate: Will our proposed action with respect _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ _to these problem easements be consistent with real property law interpretations? Possible_ repercussions similar to those identified under contract law, above, would need to be evaluated. _Trust law. In some or all cases, depending on the state, regional attitudes, and common_ law precedent, a donated conservation easement may be interpreted as a “thing of value” (in this case, conservation value) held in trust by the land trust and subject to the original donor’s intent. Either the donor or the attorney general (or a concerned citizen) might be able to sue in such a situation. Thus, the land trust may need to ask: Could our _actions with respect to problem easements be seen as a breach of trust? Possible repercussions_ similar to those identified under contract law, above, would need to be evaluated. ## Local Ordinances and Regulations While a conservation easement precludes or limits development, it does not affect the overlying zoning, if there is any, nor does the easement affect zoning on adjacent parcels. Changes in zoning that create market value by adding density or profitable uses can lead to new pressures on easement-encumbered property as development suddenly looks far more lucrative. While this may not be a legal constraint on the land trust’s decision- making, per se, it is a factor that may increase the likelihood of a violation: given the opportunity for a windfall, a landowner may decide to risk being caught violating the easement. A land trust might ask: Is our easement at risk if the zoning changes, or if _property values rise?_ # Policy Constraints Arising from External Sources Alongside the legal and regulatory obligations to which a land trust is subject, other competing interests may constrain the land trust’s options and actions in addressing its problem easements. Some constraints arise from perceptions or potential influence of sources outside of the organization – including the original easement donor, the current landowner, neighbors, the general public, and public “watchdogs,” including the press and environmental groups. Any easement revitalization efforts should begin by evaluating who will have an interest in (or simply an opinion about) the land trust’s activities. This will vary by region or state but will likely include some of these persons, groups or entities. While different land trusts may give different weight to these groups, all land trusts should go through the exercise of prioritizing and reconciling these interests. This Guidebook walks the reader through such an exercise in Part 4: A Process for Analyzing Your Problem Easements, under “Assessment #4 Competing Interests.” ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION # Policy Constraints Arising from Internal Sources In addition to balancing competing interests from outside sources, there may also be limitations due to the land trust’s mission, its capacity for dealing with the problem, and internal policies. ## Is the proposed action our best option for achieving our mission? This is a complicated question and the answer includes all the considerations above. Asking the question in this way puts the land trust’s conservation mission front and center. ## Is the cost of the proposed action manageable within our budget, and if not, are ## supplementary funds available? The land trust board is responsible for managing its funds wisely. The cost of the solution to a problem should be proportionate to the potential cost of the problem itself. “Cost” in both cases includes cash and intangible elements. ## Is the proposed action consistent with our existing policies? If the land trust’s existing policies do not provide for the proposed action, the board should consider why not. It may be that the current situation was never envisioned when the policy was enacted. But it may be that the policy was deliberately written to exclude or preclude such an action. The board should consider the reasons for adopting the policy as it stands and decide whether to amend the policy. It should also consider whether the land trust needs new policies to govern situations not covered in any existing written policy. _**Are there any conflict of interest issues? If the landowner is covered by the land trust’s**_ conflict of interest policy or affiliated with a covered person, or someone who is in a position to exert influence over the decision because of a relationship with the land trust, the decision should be subject to greater scrutiny to avoid the reality or perception of private inurement or impermissible private benefit. The risk of a perception of inappropriate influence may be enough to make the action inadvisable. _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ # RED FLAG! Understanding Private Benefit and Private Inurement Land trusts must assure their actions are never taken for the purpose of benefiting a private individual or entity. Amendments or extinguishment of easements are especially susceptible to private benefit or inurement issues. Land trusts should always seek experienced nonprofit counsel. **The Basics** Quick Points in Private _Private Benefit_ Benefit and Private Tax-exempt organizations, including land trusts, are Inurement prohibited from allowing “more than an insubstantial” (not ƒƒ Tax exempt organizations (“public defined by the rules) accrual of benefits, including non-charities,” including land trusts) must always bestow public benefits monetary benefits, to individuals or organizations, either through their actions, never private directly or indirectly. In egregious circumstances, the sanction benefits. for impermissible private benefit can be revocation of tax- ƒƒ “Private benefit” relates to people exempt status. For lesser excess benefit circumstances, fines outside your organization. may be imposed. This rule spawned from the fundamental ƒƒ “Private inurement” relates to requirement that a charitable organization operates people inside your organization, or closely related to it. “exclusively” for exempt purposes. ƒƒ You can compensate private The IRS focuses on whether an organization’s operations persons for services or products. further its tax-exempt purposes only and will find private However, the compensation must be commensurate with what the land benefit if the organization’s operations substantially benefit trust receives in return. private individuals or for-profit entities. An individual’s or entity’s relationship to the nonprofit does not matter and can include disinterested or unrelated persons. Importantly (and counter-intuitively), a violation can be found even when the nonprofit is furthering its charitable purpose during the activities that give rise to the impermissible private benefit, and it can make no difference whether the private benefit was reasonable or excessive. It is worth noting that “incidental” private benefit is both acknowledged and allowed. Here’s an example of what we mean by that: a landowner places a conservation easement over her 300-acre coastal property to protect important land for wildlife. A neighboring landowner enjoys an increase in property value because of the scenic views that are now protected on the adjacent conservation land. The benefit to the neighbor is incidental – that is, not caused by the neighbor’s activities – but it is real. ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION _Private Inurement_ No part of a tax exempt organization’s net earnings may “inure” to the benefit of a person who has a personal and private interest in the activities of the organization. This rule is very similar to the private benefit rule, and in many cases what will constitute private inurement will also constitute private benefit. The sanction can be revocation of tax exempt status. The rarely heard term, “inure” (gravitate toward or flow through), adopted by Congress in the Internal Revenue Code, has become an unfortunate part of the nonprofit vocabulary, but one IRS official offered a descriptive, understandable definition of it: “The inurement prohibition _serves to prevent anyone in a position to do so from siphoning off any of a charity’s income or assets_ _for personal use.” The private inurement rule does not prohibit transactions between public_ charities and disqualified persons. But public charities must avoid transactions (salaries, etc.) when what the private person receives has greater value than what the private person gives, referred to by the IRS as “excessive benefit.” ## Problem Easements and Private Benefit / Private Inurement When a land trust fixes a problem easement, it must not confer an impermissible private benefit on the landowner. (If the landowner is also an insider, this could also constitute private inurement.) _Amendments_ The land trust should scrutinize the proposed amendment and take pains to avoid impermissible private benefit. Any public benefits must significantly outweigh any part of the transaction that might somehow be construed as a private benefit by the IRS. The land trust should also carefully document its reasoning in making its decisions as to why its actions do not constitute private benefit or private inurement – including securing a property appraisal. _Extinguishment_ If the land trust simply extinguished the easement, there would be a clear private benefit (the landowner could do as wanted with the property at no cost). This is expressly prohibited by the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulations. The regulations explain that the extinguishment must occur through a judicial proceeding and, further, that the land trust must receive at least the pro rata benefit originally conferred on the donor by way of the value of the conservation easement donation. See “No Private Benefit” example, further below. _Enforcement_ Another situation in which a private benefit problem could emerge is if a land trust is aware (or should be aware) of a violation of easement terms and fails to enforce the terms. Things are not always that simple. Perhaps the landowner refuses to concede to the violation and _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ the land trust is concerned the easement restriction or prohibition at issue is ambiguous and that the land trust may not prevail at trial. Or, perhaps the land trust has determined that there is little, if any, diminishment in public benefit (conservation values in this case) from the violation. These risks should be evaluated with the assistance of experienced counsel. Again, the land trust’s decisions and reasoning should be carefully documented. ## Legal Factors _501(c)(3)_ To be entitled to tax-exempt status, the entity must be organized and operated so that “no part of ... \[its\] net earnings ... inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.” ## Land Trust Standards and Practices The material below, excerpted from Land Trust Standards and Practices, is used with permission from the Land Trust Alliance. _Practice 02C: Tax Exemption. The land trust has qualified for federal tax-exempt status_ and complies with requirements for retaining this status, including prohibitions on private inurement and political campaign activity, and limitations and reporting on lobbying and unrelated business income. If the land trust holds, or intends to hold, conservation easements, it also meets the IRC public support test for public charities. Where applicable, state tax-exemption requirements are met. _Practice 04C: Transactions with Insiders. When engaging in land and easement transactions_ with insiders (see definitions), the land trust: follows its conflict of interest policy; documents that the project meets the land trust’s mission; follows all transaction policies and procedures; and ensures that there is no private inurement or impermissible private benefit. For purchases and sales of property to insiders, the land trust obtains a qualified independent appraisal prepared in compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice by a state-licensed or state-certified appraiser who has verifiable conservation easement or conservation real estate experience. When selling property to insiders, the land trust widely markets the property in a manner sufficient to ensure that the property is sold at or above fair market value and to avoid the reality or perception that the sale inappropriately benefited an insider. _Practice 08D: The land trust evaluates and clearly documents the public benefit of every_ land and easement transaction and how the benefits are consistent with the mission of the organization. All projects conform to applicable federal and state charitable trust laws. If the transaction involves public purchase or tax incentive programs, the land trust satisfies any federal, state or local requirements for public benefit. Practice 11I: Amendments. The land trust recognizes that amendments are not routine, but can serve to strengthen an easement or improve its enforceability. The land trust has a written policy or procedure guiding amendment requests that: includes a prohibition against private inurement and impermissible private benefit; requires compliance with the land trust’s conflict of interest policy; requires compliance with any funding requirements; addresses the role of the board; and contains a requirement that all amendments result in either a positive or not less than neutral conservation outcome and are consistent with the organization’s mission. Practice 11K: Extinguishment. In rare cases, it may be necessary to extinguish, or a court may order the extinguishment of, an easement in whole or in part. In these cases, the land trust notifies any project partners and works diligently to see that the extinguishment will not result in private inurement or impermissible private benefit and to prevent a net loss of important conservation values or impairment of public confidence in the land trust or in easements. Some Examples Im permi ssib le P ri vat e Benefit Even though no money is exchanging hands, this amendment clearly benefits a private person with no offsetting public benefit (assuming an offset could even be contemplated), and therefore constitutes private benefit. The land trust could be sanctioned by the IRS, including losing its tax exempt status and thus its ability to hold conservation easements. P ri vat e Inurem ent A land trust board member donated an easement to the land trust 25 years ago. The board member forgot that she was prohibited from filling in the wetlands areas, and spent $100,000 on grade and fill activities. The land trust decided to overlook the violation because it was an innocent mistake. Again, no money need be exchanged to create private benefit or inurement. These facts present inurement because the private individual sits on the board. The land trust could be sanctioned by the IRS, including – in egregious circumstances – the loss of its taxexempt status and thus its ability to hold conservation easements. N o P ri vat e Benefit A very conservation-minded couple made five conservation easement donations over the course of two decades. The land, covering over 1,500 acres, is close to an urban center and abuts a city park used by thousands of city residents. A green space booster committee raised money for a bench within the city park facing the sprawling vista that was protected by the family’s conservation easement. An engraving on the bench identifies the family by name and explains that due to their vision and generosity this view is protected forever. The family may derive some private benefit from the placard; however, it would be considered incidental. C auti on A lava flow wipes out a 50 acre property encumbered by an easement protecting virgin forest. Nothing is left of the forest and it cannot be reestablished. The land trust and landowner petition the court to extinguish the easement. When the donation was made, the value of the unencumbered property value was $1 million, and the encumbered value was $500,000. The proportionate benefit is 50 percent. At the time of extinguishment, the unencumbered value of the property is $2,000,000. The court grants the petition to extinguish and orders the land owner to pay the land trust $1 million at the time of sale or other conveyance of the property. The facts may support the right to extinguish – or they may not: lava flows are common on the Island of Hawaii, for example. If the easement were to be extinguished, and the document contained the standard language on a federally deductible easement, the land trust would receive its proportionate share of the property’s increase in value due to the release of the encumbrance. C auti on A conservation easement established the building envelope in the eastern corner of the property. The landowner desires to amend the easement to move the building envelope to the western side of the easement. The landowner offers $25,000 to cover the land trust’s administrative costs of the amendment. There is insufficient information here to determine if the amendment can be accomplished without private benefit. An appraisal is needed to determine change in value. Cost of amendment is but one issue. The land trust must determine whether there will be any loss to conservation value from the change in location. There would then remain perpetuity issues for the land trust to address. ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION ## Preventive Measures ƒƒ In all amendment or extinguishment decisions, the land trust should obtain advice from experienced nonprofit legal counsel. ƒƒ Depending on the scope of the decision, judicial confirmation of the land trust’s decisions may help protect the land trust from a private benefit / private inurement problem. ƒƒ The land trust could also consider seeking a private letter ruling from the IRS, if a tax attorney felt this would be promising. A private letter ruling would clarify whether the land trust’s proposed changes are consistent with its tax-exempt charitable status. This is not an inexpensive way to go, but it’s certainly one option. ƒƒ The land trust should always carefully document its decisions and reasoning. _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ ## Part 4: A Process for Analyzing Your Problem Easements ### Identifying Your Problem Easements and trusts take different approaches to problem # Leasements lurking in their portfolios. Some proactively unwrap easements and review them thoroughly, one by one. Others wait for a problem to emerge, and then they address it. One approach – responsive or proactive – is not necessarily better, and both are practical responses. Whichever approach a land trust takes, a little advance thinking about the potential problems will make the process smoother. Some land trusts have built an initial review process into their easement monitoring routine. Monitors are given a checklist of specific kinds of problems to look for, and they read through the easement before their monitoring visits, flagging any problems they find. Depending on who monitors the easements, a process like this might require some training and oversight, at least in the beginning. A land trust could set a goal of reviewing all its easements in this way over the course of one year. Or it could set up a schedule to spread the process over several years. As problem easements are identified, they can be prioritized for further analysis and action as warranted. For example, easements on land still held by elderly donors might be addressed differently from easements on land that had changed hands. Even if a land trust decides not to survey all its easements, the checklist of specific problems can help analyze the response when an event such as a violation occurs. A land trust can probably make a good start on that list with ten minutes of brainstorming with its stewardship staff or volunteers. They will know if there are missing or inadequate baselines, sloppy property descriptions, undefined terms, contradictory restrictions and reserved rights, for example. If the easement template has been refined over the years, staff will know what kinds of ambiguities are no longer included in easements but still exist in older documents. For all-volunteer groups, it will fall to board leaders or key volunteers to shepherd the organization through this process. ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION # Analyzing Easements Identified as Problems Once an easement is identified as a problem needing attention, the land trust will want to do a more thorough review of the easement document and all supporting documents to analyze the options for addressing the problem. To start, this means assembling a group of capable, dedicated people to analyze the nature and scope of the land trust’s easement problems. This “Easement Team” might include land protection staff (acquisition, stewardship or both) and an attorney versed in conservation law – perhaps a staff or board member who is an attorney or perhaps the land trust’s legal counsel. In reviewing problem easements, the job of the Easement Team is to conduct the due diligence and to examine the legal, financial, organizational, and political implications of each potential strategy. The Easement Team takes a hard look at the four corners of the easement document, to understand what it was originally designed to do and how well it holds up in so doing. The team evaluates the completeness and accuracy of supporting documentation in the original transaction and assesses the land trust’s resources for ongoing stewardship – including funds, personnel, policies and procedures, and monitoring reports in the files. Land trust staff can help the Easement Team understand the broader context for the easement – for example, whether the original donor is still the current landowner, and the nature of that relationship. # Thinking Ahead: Fixing, Fallback, Fallout, and the Future Dealing with problem easements will generally entail working with landowners and regulatory agencies, and sometimes working with other land trusts. Groups will find that some problem easements can be fixed, whereas others cannot and will have to be managed instead. Either way, land trusts will have to evaluate the repercussions of their choices and manage the public relations implications. Five assessment steps will help your land trust get started. Begin by assessing _**Conservation Value – identifying what the easement was originally intended to protect**_ and the extent to which those conditions and other conservation values still exist. Next, assess the degree to which there are Drafting Problems in the four corners of the easement document or Transactional Issues in the process when the easement was accepted into the land trust’s portfolio. Analyze the potential Competing Interests that have some stake in any course of action you might choose to pursue, and determine the degree to which Complicating Matters gum up the works in resolving the problem easement. The following pages in the Guidebook outline important issues, considerations, and processes in moving through this analysis. _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ # Assessment #1: Conservation Value Figuring out the conservation value of an easement may be the trickiest but most fundamental starting point in analyzing easement problems. This Guidebook works from the basic assumption that an existing conservation easement cannot be ignored or extinguished just because it has minimal conservation value and will have minimal public benefit in return for the time and cost of stewarding and enforcing the easement. Quick Points in **The Basics: Defining “Conservation Value”** Assessing We have all heard someone say that some property “lacks Conservation Value conservation value.” But what does that really mean? Is that accurate? Probably not. ƒƒ It is rare to find a property that truly lacks any “conservation value.” It might mean that the property could not meet the ƒƒ It will be necessary to live with some “conservation purposes” test outlined in section 170(h) older conservation easements that we now know are protecting lands of the Code, but that does not mean the property has no with little conservation benefit, even conservation value. Instead, it means that the land would though the time and cost associated likely not qualify for a “qualified easement.” with stewarding and enforcing them could be expended on better projects. It could also mean that the property does not have sufficient ƒƒ Look for “silver linings” in existing conservation qualities of the type related to the land easements with low conservation trust’s mission. Yet, again, that does not mean there is no value. Can the focus on conservation purposes be redirected to revitalize conservation value. There could be “value” in conserving five the conservation values? Is there mature trees on a small lot in an urban setting. This does another holder who would see higher not mean, however, that all land trusts should strive to put conservation due to a different mission (e.g. urban holdings)? conservation easements on a property of this kind. ## Easements with Minimal Conservation Value Your land trust may hold some older conservation easements with only minimal conservation value. Or, your land trust, as part of a merger or other land trust consolidation, may be asked to hold easements with limited conservation value. Your initial instinct may be to consider whether to simply get rid of the easements. However, that is rarely the appropriate action. Constraining your options are legal obligations the land trust assumed when it accepted the conservation easement. These include the obligation to hold and protect assets (conservation easements) deemed to benefit the public. You must also consider that the donor or funder most likely believed the property had important conservation values at the time of the gift or purchase. As a result, the land trust may have fiduciary or trust-like obligations to the donor or funder. If the same conservation values are present today, what has changed? Perhaps only the land trust’s selectivity. ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION In addition to legal obligations, you must also consider how neighbors, supporters of the land trust, and the greater community feel about the perpetual nature of the easements held by the land trust. How would they respond if the newspaper announced that the land trust decided to extinguish an easement, and the accompanying photograph showed some trees on a small lot in an urban or rural setting? Many might see “value” or public benefits. They may not be sympathetic to the land trust’s concerns, such as the cost of stewarding versus the resulting conservation benefit. This is not to say that the land trust does not have legitimate concerns, including the minimal benefit of expending any portion of its limited budget on stewardship and enforcement of a conservation easement that lacks significant conservation value. Nevertheless, as discussed above, the land trust must in most cases find a way to hold and steward the easement notwithstanding its minimal conservation benefits. ## Legal and Other Factors _Section 170(h)_ On one level, section 170(h) is not applicable or relevant to the “conservation value” discussion because it is focused on whether a conservation easement will qualify for a tax deductible donation whereas, here, the focus is on whether there remains “conservation value.” Nevertheless, 26 U.S.C. § 170(h)(4), which enunciates the “conservation purposes” test, is certainly one indicator of what constitutes “conservation value.” Here is the test set forth by Congress: For purposes of this subsection, the term “conservation purposes” means— i. the preservation of land areas for outdoor recreation by, or the education of, the general public, ii. the protection of a relatively natural habitat of fish, wildlife, or plants, or similar ecosystem, iii. the preservation of open space (including farmland and forest land) where such preservation is— (A) Pursuant to a clearly delineated Federal, state, or local governmental conservation policy and will yield a significant public benefit, or (B) For the scenic enjoyment of the general public and will yield a significant public benefit, or iv. the preservation of a historically important land area or a certified historic structure. Section 170(h)(4) has been further interpreted (and qualified) by Treasury Department regulations that discuss each of these Code sections. However, even those qualifications leave much leeway. For example, recreation and education lands identified in 170(h)(4)(i) will not _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ meet the test unless “the recreation or education is for the substantial and regular use of the general public” – meaning, public access is a requirement for section (i) above. For section (ii) above, the regulations explain that even habitat altered by human activity may be considered, if it remains relatively natural, and that public access will not be required. As to open space, the Regulations make clear that there is no simple litmus test for establishing what will qualify and that many factors will come into play. Most will agree that “conservation value” could be defined even more broadly than as set forth in section 170(h)(4). This leads to the point that, once a conservation easement has been accepted by a land trust, it is very difficult to “unring the bell.” In most cases, the land trust will need to make room in its budget for maintaining the conservation easement, even though it may not have the most significant conservation value. _Section 501(c)(3)_ Land trusts as public charities are subject to 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). While the tax-exempt organization section does not provide guidance on what is or is not conservation value, it provides an important framework for the land trust’s choices as it evaluates conservation value. If the land trust wishes to seek extinguishment of a tax deductible easement, and wants to be within the bounds of the law, it must find that the easement has no conservation value. (See _Tool #4: Extinguishing the Easement.) As explained, those instances are extremely rare. If_ the land trust finds there is some conservation value in any kind of easement it holds—tax deductible, purchased or exacted, it is holding an asset that has some benefit to the public and has been acquired typically with public funds, whether through a tax deduction to the owner, a tax deduction for cash gifts to the land trust used to purchase the easement, direct public funds for many mitigation and exacted easements or otherwise. As such, the land trust cannot simply abandon the easement. Among other potential legal problems, abandonment would likely constitute “impermissible private benefit,” prohibited by section 501(c)(3), by enhancing the value of the land for the owner. ## Finding Opportunity in Easements with Low Conservation Value The old adage, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, can be reworked to this: conservation value is in the eye of the holder. Many “low value” conservation easements are low value because they are close to human populations, they are small in size, and surrounding uses may not be compatible with conservation. These small parcels with no threatened or endangered species could be wonderful urban parks or educational settings, if they permit public access. If your land trust does not include those types of public benefits in its mission, perhaps another nonprofit entity in your community does. This nonprofit could hold the easement if it is a qualified holder or alternatively manage the property. This, of course, requires landowner support. Another option is that the landowner might be willing to convey (by donation or bargain sale) the fee simple interest to the land trust or another appropriate nonprofit. Simply put, when faced with a problem easement, consider whether with some minimal effort the easement and the land could generate greater public benefits. On this page and the next are a few examples and a relatively basic “decision tree” for assessing conservation value. The decision tree doesn’t yet answer the question of how to “fix or manage” the problem, but it challenges a land trust to think more broadly about the conservation value that may yet be present in a problem easement. Assessing Conservation Value Some Examples C onservati on V alue C annot E xti ngui sh One of a land trust’s first conservation easements was from an enthusiastic board member. It is more than two acres of land situated in a rural area with lots of other two-acre house lots. The easement includes a half-acre building envelope, leaving 1.5 acres of second- or thirdgrowth deciduous forest. Surrounding the property are manicured lawns, dog runs, elaborate jungle gyms, and bocce ball courts. The conservation values identified in the easement include “natural habitat.” This is not an exciting easement and there is a risk of third party enforcement issues. However, the easement has some conservation value, providing shelter and food sources for nesting birds, squirrels, opossums, deer and other suburban wildlife, as well as a scenic respite for the eye amidst the suburban sameness. C onservati on V alue C an E xti ngui sh A land trust holds a conservation easement on a 5,000-square-foot, perfectly square, parcel situated in a densely developed city. When the easement was donated, there were (matching) skyscrapers on the north and south side, but no buildings on the west and east sides. On the east side was small park. One could sit on a bench in this park and look west, through the parcel, and see a large and magnificent Italian sculpture located on the other side of the parcel (but not on the parcel), and perfectly framed by the two skyscrapers. The sole purpose of the easement was to protect the parcel as open space to preserve the view of the sculpture, but no public access rights were permitted by the owner (who owned the two skyscrapers). Unfortunately, ten years after donation, the landowner on the west side moved the sculpture and built another skyscraper. The city, hit by the economic recession, sold the park to a developer to pay municipal salaries. Another skyscraper is planned where once there was park. The views protected by the open space parcel are gone. This easement is a candidate for extinguishment. At the same time, it is a perfect example of a potential pocket park, protected by a different organization such as a community garden or urban park organization. Different Conservation V alue Different Conservation V Caution It sounds as if some conservation value remains, just of a different type. The land trust may want to continue holding this easement. ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION # Assessment #2: Drafting Problems One land trust practitioner interviewed for this project suggested that all conservation easements contain language that could have been better drafted and might cause enforcement problems in the future. Another said: “All land trusts have some bad paper.” Perpetuity also has a habit of being unpredictable. The evolution of the land trust community reflects a growing understanding of the need for precision and clarity in drafting easements. A cursory scan of the Land Trust Listserv reveals many discussions of the best way to define terms or phrase certain kinds of restrictions. The process of refining standards for drafting easements will never be finished – the willingness to learn from experience and to entertain new ideas is a sign of a healthy professional community. The result of refining standards is that most land trusts hold easements that do not meet their current drafting standards. Easements may contain undefined terms, conflicts between reserved rights and restrictions, vague or confusing language that obscures the intent, or restrictions that are too loose to protect the resource. This Guidebook cannot list all the possible drafting errors. Each land trust will have its own list of common problems, rooted in its own history, mission and context. But a few broad categories appeared in the case studies, on the Listserv and in the experience of interviewees. The examples below come from all these sources. ## Undefined Terms Striking a balance among the need to define precisely what you mean, the need to keep easements a reasonable length, and the need to preserve some flexibility to respond to events or circumstances you could not predict is one of the most difficult tasks in drafting easements. Some particularly troublesome terms include: _Structures: It was common in early easements to prohibit “structures” without defining what_ was included in the term and what was not. Easement holders now debate whether a patio must be considered a structure or whether a small shed with wheels mounted to facilitate towing is a prohibited structure or just a vehicle parked temporarily on the land. _Agriculture: Easements on working farms and ranches typically allow the landowner_ considerable latitude to construct buildings needed for “agricultural uses.” If the drafters looked only at the current farming operation, they may have failed to anticipate how the farm might evolve. Did they intend to allow greenhouses, or an indoor riding ring? _Historic: In an attempt to hit as many 170(h) “qualified conservation purposes” as possible,_ many land trusts included preservation of historic structures or historic landscapes in the conservation purposes of the easement. In many cases though, they had no documentation _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ of the historic value in the baseline documents nor any restrictions aimed at protecting the historic values. Such easements make it unclear whether the drafters intended to impose an obligation to maintain the historic structures. ## Confusing or Conflicting Terms Careless drafting can lead to a restriction in one section effectively prohibiting exercise of a right reserved in another section. Conflicts can also arise between two conservation purposes. For instance, a prohibition on cutting vegetation, intended to protect the natural character of a property, can conflict with the goal of preserving a scenic view from a public vantage point across the property. A well-drafted easement would acknowledge the conflict and provide for exceptions or prioritize the various purposes. There are as many ways of drafting confusing easement terms as there are lawyers drafting easements. It would be impossible to enumerate them. With a little experience you should find it easy to spot them. If the easement monitors are not sure what they are supposed to be looking for, that should tip you off that the language is confusing. A landowner who constantly asks for interpretation of the language is another sign of a problem. ## Inadequate Restrictions Many easements define ambitious conservation purposes but allow extensive reserved rights that render the purposes ineffective. The classic example is reserved building rights that do not define the allowed location of the buildings. Restrictions that seemed adequate at the time may look different in the light of improved or changing understanding of the science of biodiversity or climate change. ## Inflexible Restrictions Sometimes the problem is that restrictions are too tight, preventing adaptation to changing circumstances or causing conflicts with landowners that serve no real conservation purpose. Some examples: _Forever Wild Easements: Easements prohibiting any human alteration of the landscape were_ common in early conservation easements. While it may be appropriate in some places just to let the ecosystem develop naturally, this approach can cause problems if the land is close to human habitation or is used by humans for recreation. Inability to remove dead or diseased vegetation can create a fire hazard. Inability to use machinery to construct and maintain trails can cause unsafe trails or significant erosion. ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION _Scenic Easements: Scenic easements necessarily reflect aesthetic judgments about what is_ “scenic.” Those judgments are often subjective, notwithstanding attempts by some agencies to quantify scenic qualities. The restrictions are often a prolific source of conflict with landowners, who may not understand the reason for certain restrictions or may not share the particular aesthetic judgments that shaped the easement. The problem may be exacerbated by pasting language that made sense for one property into an easement on another property with different characteristics. For example, many scenic easements on rural properties surrounded by undeveloped land impose requirements that buildings be sided in unobtrusive natural colors, with the goal of making them invisible to someone viewing the property. Such requirements may not be appropriate for a property in a more developed area where the neighborhood’s character includes highly visible houses in a range of colors and styles. ## Restrictions that Cannot be Monitored These days, land trusts generally include their stewardship staff in the easement development process. That was not always the case. The result was easement restrictions that are difficult or impossible to monitor. Problems include restrictions on use or square footage of buildings without access to the interior of the buildings for monitoring; restrictions that require scientific or technical expertise not readily available to the land trust; or restrictions on activities like hunting that require constant effort to monitor effectively. Such restrictions may be appropriate and defensible, given the mission of a particular land trust, but they must be carefully drafted and the land trust must provide for the resources needed for monitoring. The land trust must consider whether the value of the restriction is worth the extra cost and time it will require. Here are a few reasonable and practical examples of what a land trust can live with, in terms of restrictions that may seem (or may be) impossible to monitor: ƒƒ No All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) – monitor for tracks and trail use revealing ATV use ƒƒ No hunting – monitor for spent shells and/or advertisements for hunting opportunity on the land ƒƒ No tree cutting – monitor for stumps _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ # Assessment #3: Transactional Issues Transactional issues are defined here as problems in the process of developing and finalizing an easement that may not be enshrined in the actual document but can nonetheless leave the easement vulnerable to attack. Some problems may not be “fixable” – after all, you cannot go back and “amend” your process. But understanding the nature of the vulnerability will help the land trust develop its management plan. ## Baseline Documents Failure to develop and certify baseline documents is the most common transactional issue seen in the background research done for this Guidebook, notwithstanding the clear requirement in the Treasury Regulations. Untrained and/or overworked staff and volunteers may not have understood the requirement, or they may have put off the task for a “less busy” time that never arrived. Whatever the reason, there are many conservation easements in place without baseline documents, and enforcing these easements may be difficult. Land Trust Standards and _Practices, the Land Trust Accreditation Program and the Terrafirma insurance program, all of_ which require baseline documents for all easements, have already created a scramble to fill the gap. Perhaps even more common is the problem of inadequate baseline documents. While there have always been requirements in the Treasury regulations, like drafting standards, industry standards for what should be included in a baseline have evolved. Early examples may have been considered complete with a deed and a few photos; current standards may call for an up- to-date boundary survey, a natural resource inventory and GIS maps locating key features and identifying photopoints for a gallery of photographs. The best cure for a missing or inadequate baseline document is a current conditions report, although a complete file with years of thorough monitoring reports, maps, photos, correspondence and notes might suffice. The standards for compiling and authenticating such a report are the same as for a baseline document. The current conditions report, if properly prepared, should be admissible in a case arising from a violation that occurred after it was compiled but would likely have no value if the violation pre-dated the report. The Land Trust Alliance does not recommend that the easement holder attempt to determine the condition of the property at the time of the easement grant for purposes of the current conditions report, as it would be difficult if not impossible to establish the credibility of the resulting document. ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION ## Baseline Document Authentication From a court’s perspective, the baseline documentation is a form of hearsay. In legal terms, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter stated. A “statement” can be written or oral. Hearsay is not admissible unless it meets specific criteria that qualify it for an exception. The baseline would primarily be offered to prove the condition of the property at a specific time—to prove the truth of the facts set out in the baseline, so the baseline is inadmissible unless there is an adequate showing of facts to support an exception from the hearsay rule of inadmissibility. The principal exception that land trusts will need to use is commonly called the business records exception or, more generally, the exception for records of regularly conducted activity. The technical description of this exception is somewhat long and dense, but each element is important. Under this exception, a court may admit as evidence: ƒƒ a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation of events, conditions and opinions ƒƒ made at or near the time, ƒƒ by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, ƒƒ kept in the course of a regularly conducted business (or nonprofit) activity, ƒƒ when it was the regular practice of that business (or nonprofit) activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, ƒƒ as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, or by certification, and ƒƒ the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation do not indicate lack of trustworthiness. Each requirement must be satisfied for the evidence to be admissible. In a perfect world, the baseline authentication would address each requirement clearly. But the reality is that few land trusts understand this issue and their authentication templates do not address the requirements. If you conclude this is a potential problem, there are some steps you could take now to strengthen the argument for admissibility of your baselines. These steps include identifying clearly the persons who compiled them and their qualifications and knowledge, and establishing the timing of the baseline compilation (e.g., from records of travel reimbursements, or from dates included in photos). It will only become more difficult to produce such information if you wait. See Appendix 2 for a more detailed discussion and sample _authentication._ _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ ## Property Descriptions An unambiguous description of the property area encumbered by a conservation easement is a must to assure enforceability, especially with respect to activities along easement line boundaries, which might be disputed if ambiguous. What is sufficient will vary from project to project and region to region, and no specific requirement is set by the Land Trust Alliance or the Land Trust Accreditation Commission. While a metes and bounds description prepared by a licensed surveyor may be the best approach in some situations, it may be considered unnecessary or impracticable (for financial or geographic reasons) in other situations. Other acceptable alternatives, depending on the circumstances, may include, by way of example, a description based on township, range, and section (for example, in the West) or a map or plat to scale with accompanying descriptions and measurements. Even with great room for alternative describing mechanisms, in the past, land trusts have relied on descriptions which are insufficient. Examples include descriptions from old deeds not based on modern survey standards, hand-drawn sketch maps with insufficient data to locate the boundaries on the ground, or tax maps, which were never intended to verify boundary lines with specificity. Lack of clear descriptions and maps to document the boundaries of the easement can make it very difficult to monitor the easement and can lead to later disputes and misunderstandings. In many cases, this problem is simple to fix. In the absence of a current dispute over boundaries, a new survey or legal description and property description can be added to the easement through reformation of contract or a correction deed, in states that use that method. If the easement clearly covers all of the owner’s land, there should be no issue. If there is a dispute, however, because the easement is unclear or because it covers less than all of the owner’s land, the land trust may find it necessary to negotiate a compromise to settle the matter. The vaguer the boundaries are, the harder it will be to insist on the land trust’s position. ## Title/Priority Issues Land trusts are learning to conduct a title search on every property they protect, whether by easement or fee acquisition. But until recently, many land trusts did not do so when an easement was being donated. They relied on donors to attest that the title was clear. There are numerous instances of undischarged mortgages, undisclosed rights-of-way and severed mineral or water rights. ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION In some cases, such as mortgages, these problems may eventually go away assuming the donation was not audited. When a property is sold and the mortgage is paid off (or if the mortgage is satisfied without a property sale), the prior lien ceases to be a problem. The land trust should track this situation. But apart from that example, title problems are likely to be very difficult to fix. There is no incentive for a holder of a prior interest to agree to subordinate that interest to the easement. Buying back that interest may be possible in some cases. But an interest that is likely to be exercised may be very expensive or impossible to buy back. The land trust and owner may be aligned against the holder of the prior interest, and the owner may pay a portion of the cost. Often, however, the interest is revealed on the owner’s title insurance so there is no coverage. If there’s a real flaw with the title, there may be little a land trust can do if a claim is raised. _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ # Assessment #4: Competing Interests Any action to revitalize a conservation easement will catalyze responses from a host of players, all bringing their often conflicting interests to the table – even though the activity of easement revitalization should actually serve to prevent backlash. An easement revitalization project should begin by establishing policies that are informed by having evaluated these competing interests. The land trust need not accept every position, but it does need to be prepared to explain why a particular position should not be part of its policy. The land trust should anticipate that many people outside the organization will have difficulty understanding the complexity associated with problem easements and their revitalization. So proactive education Quick Points in will be at a premium. Let’s take a closer look at each of the Assessing Competing potential players and the diverse – and divergent – interests Interests of each. ƒƒ Easement revitalization will bring out strong opinions from interest **Original Easement Donor** groups who care most about their If the original easement donor no longer owns the land, she issue and less about the land may lack legal standing to object to any action the land trust trust’s issues. may take. (In some scenarios, depending on the jurisdiction, ƒƒ Some of the strong opinions on easement revitalization will come the original donor might have a claim against the land trust from within the land trust. under a breach of trust or fraudulent solicitation theory.) ƒƒ Start by acknowledging the But not having standing doesn’t mean she won’t have an competing interests within the land opinion about it, or attempt to sue anyway. And her reaction trust and evaluate how to reconcile can have an impact on the land trust’s reputation – either them. good or bad. The land trust should ask: Does our proposed ƒƒ Analyze early in the process what you know about the various _action honor the original intent of the donation, or if not, will_ interests involved. Update your _the original donor understand and support the action?_ analysis as you get new information. _Original Intent of the Donation. In most cases, people donate_ conservation easements because of their deep emotional attachment to the land they want to protect. They also feel a sincere pride in having made a gift to benefit their community. That’s almost certainly the case the land trust presented at the time of the gift. A donor who feels that the gift is no longer valued or respected by the land trust is likely to feel betrayed and angry. A generous supporter can be turned into a vocal enemy overnight. Ammunition for the anger can readily be found in the promises of perpetuity that almost certainly appear on the land trust’s website. ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION _Potential for Problems with the IRS. The original donor might wonder whether the land trust’s_ actions might prompt the IRS to re-examine his deduction – especially if the land trust is considering extinguishment. The statute of limitations for a routine audit of an income tax return is three years from the time the last deduction was taken. In a situation where a landowner “carries forward” her deduction over the allowed fifteen-year carry-forward period, taking a portion of the deduction each year, that statute of limitations can be as much as eighteen years from the date of the original donation. If there is concern that the original donor is vulnerable to an allegation of fraud, the situation is more complicated. The land trust is not responsible for the donor’s valuation of the easement (the most likely issue for a claim of fraud), even if the land trust signed a Form 8283 acknowledging the gift. But if the IRS were to allege fraud in the original valuation, the land trust would likely (perhaps inevitably) be brought into the case. If this is a concern, both the land trust and the donor should consult experienced tax attorneys. ## Landowner Interests Many of the options for revitalizing easements are only practical if the landowner cooperates. Thus, the land trust will likely need to ask: Will the landowner be amenable to our proposed _resolution of the easement problem? If the landowner is not amenable, do we still need to take_ _action, and if so, how do we minimize the risk of protracted dispute? This issue obviously goes_ further than the landowner at issue here. It possibly will affect how other prospective donors consider the land trust. _Protecting the Land. For the original donor, or a family member who has inherited the land,_ this may be the highest priority interest. Sometimes a second- or third-generation owner will turn out to have been attracted to the property because of the easement. Sometimes people who purchase a protected property become interested in the concept and become vocal advocates. All of these people are likely to be receptive to an approach emphasizing the opportunity to protect the land more effectively. _Retaining the Use of the Land. Even the most committed easement donor will likely have a_ strong interest in retaining what she sees as legitimate use of the land. If the land trust wants the owner to give up a retained right or agree to a stronger restriction, it might be wise to identify in advance some conservation-neutral concessions the land trust might be willing to offer. _Protecting Income. If a landowner’s use of the property is generating income, he is unlikely to_ agree to restrictions that threaten that income. _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ _Landowner’s Legal Counsel. Anticipate that, even if the landowner is amenable to working_ with the land trust, her lawyer will not necessarily share that feeling. The lawyer’s job is to alert her client to the potential negative effects of doing what the land trust proposes. The lawyer is not just being obstructionist in doing that. It’s your job to have good answers to those concerns. Consider discussing this with your own lawyer to anticipate concerns and, if possible, have your counsel present at any meetings where the landowner’s counsel will be present. ## Other Easement Donors and Successor Landowners Current and potential easement donors might very well be watching how the land trust manages its easements. They may want assurance that their donation will be respected in the future. Or, on the other hand, they may be looking for clues as to how the land trust will view their activities on their own land. The land trust should ask: What signals are we giving _other landowners about how effectively we defend the easements we hold?_ ## Adjacent Landowner Interests Adjacent owners will be concerned about ensuring that your land trust’s actions don’t negatively affect their ability to use their land. If adjacent land uses – particularly if they are in violation of local ordinances – have an adverse impact on the conservation values that your easement restrictions sought to protect, you have a tough decision about your recourse. Adjacent landowners may also gain access to their properties via access easements across protected property, throwing another wrinkle into the mix. By the same token, a neighboring landowner that has benefited from the conservation of a swath of land adjoining his property may not want to lose that protection if your land trust is pursuing extinguishment: loss of protection might cost him his view. It is probably wise to discuss with your lawyer the potential concerns of adjacent landowners in the event that your actions could impact them and to be prepared to respond. ## Donors and Grant Funders Land trusts make promises to the people and organizations that provide their funding. Some of those promises are general: We will use your money responsibly to achieve the mission you _support. Some are more specific: We will use your money to protect this particular property in the_ _following ways in perpetuity. It is critical to the organization’s ability to raise funds in the future_ (and maybe to keep the funds it has raised) that it keep those promises. The land trust should ask: Will our donors understand and support the action we propose? Moreover, when funds are raised or granted for a specific project, the land trust is bound by the representations made to ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION donors and funders in the campaign materials or grant proposals. In this case, the land trust must ask: Is the proposed action consistent with the grant agreement or promises made to donors? _Do we need to go back to the donors or funders for permission?_ ## Public Agency Interests _Internal Revenue Service. The IRS has started collecting information on easement_ amendments and extinguishments. If such an action is reported, there’s a chance it could trigger a review of the land trust, and in that event the IRS might find information that would trigger an audit of landowner as well. The IRS also has more general jurisdiction over the behavior of nonprofits. If a 501(c)(3) organization violates its responsibility to act in the public interest, it can lose its nonprofit status. The reporting requirement applies to all 501(c)(3) land trusts, including those that accept only mitigation or other non-tax deductible easements. _State Attorney General. In some circumstances, the attorney general will have the authority_ to step in and prevent an action that runs counter to state statutes. In some states, the easement enabling statute specifies situations in which the attorney general must be made a party to an action. States vary widely in the level of support for conservation efforts to be found in the attorney general’s office. It may make sense in one state to call in the attorney general even when not required – in other states that would be foolhardy. The land trust should understand the statutory requirements and the political context in the locality of the easement. _Local Agencies. In a few localities, local planning agencies must approve conservation_ easements or amendments. These planning agencies may or may not be supportive of the land trust’s conservation goals. Even when they are generally supportive, they have a long list of public interests they must serve, including economic development, housing and public safety. The land trust should be aware of the kinds of objections they might raise and be prepared to answer them. Even when their approval is not required, local planning agencies can be helpful advocates for the land trust’s mission. Taking the time to cultivate them now may pay off in unexpected ways in the future. _Public Funding Agencies. If public funds have been used to acquire an easement, there will_ be restrictions on what can be done to change that easement. The agency that provided the funds will often have to approve any amendment or extinguishment. It’s best to bring the agency into the conversation early to define the limitations on what can be done. _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ ## Land Trust Supporters _Achieving the Mission. People donate to nonprofits because their donation makes them a part_ of something they could never accomplish on their own. They expect the organization to be totally focused on the mission. If they see the land trust’s actions as contrary to the mission, they are likely to cut off their support and may become vocal enemies. A revitalization program involves concepts that may be new and easily misunderstood by supporters. Consider a public relations program well before you take any action. _Using Resources Wisely. Donors also want to feel that they are giving their money to a_ financially stable organization. If a land trust’s survival is threatened because of spiraling stewardship and enforcement costs, donors may withdraw support without stopping to think about how those costs are related to the mission of protecting land. Communications with donors should consistently make the case that stewardship is an integral part of the land trust’s mission and money spent on enforcement is money well spent. This should also include the nuances of the stewardship and enforcement process that guide the land trust when balancing stewardship expenses with conservation priorities. ## Land Trust Community / Accreditation Commission The larger land trust community has a very real interest in the actions of individual land trusts. Actions that harm the reputation of one organization can also taint other land trusts in the region or even nationwide. Decisions by a court may have a more tangible effect as they are cited or set binding precedents for future cases. So it is important to consider these effects and to consult others that may be affected. The ongoing need for easement revitalization notwithstanding, accreditation serves to some extent as a backstop or a hedge against future easement problems. Accreditation has its origins in the collective desire of the land trust community to be accountable to nationally adopted standards and sound practices that support perpetual land protection. Organizations that comply with Land Trust Standards and Practices – including land trusts that have received the imprimatur of the Land Trust Accreditation Commission – are more likely to avoid certain types of easement problems in the future, such as problems in drafting or in the transaction itself. ## The Press Newspapers, television and radio broadcast companies, news websites – whatever the medium, these are all businesses. They survive by attracting eyes and ears to their products. They look for the kinds of stories their consumers want to read. They are not there to cut and paste your ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION press releases into their product. If you don’t want to attract their attention, don’t be a good story. If you do want their attention, try to understand how they define a good story and frame your press release to get them to see you that way. If you don’t want their attention but think you’ll get it anyway, get out in front of the situation so you define the terms. A land trust that accepts both donated and mitigation easements should prepare for questions that arise because of the differences in these easements. ## The General Public The reputation of the land trust beyond its circle of donors also has an impact on its ability to be effective. Support from public officials, the media and vocal citizens will depend on their perception of the land trust’s trustworthiness and responsibility. The land trust should consider how interested parties will perceive the proposed action and what the land trust can do to affect that perception. ## The Watchdog Many members of the public or the media see their job as protecting the interests of the public by exposing what’s going on in the community to public scrutiny. Despite the discomfort of such scrutiny, this watchdog function is a basic reason for a free press. You may feel that the watchdog’s coverage is unjustified or slanted. Perhaps the best way to diffuse this problem is to reach out to potential watchdogs and educate them. Alternately, “steal their thunder” by initiating your own proactive PR campaign to educate the public in a balanced way about your easement revitalization plans. However, do not expect this to pacify all watchdogs who may want to speculate, at your expense, about the prospective harm to be caused by your policies or actions. Be prepared to respond. Assessment #5: Complicating Matters Let’s say that an easement has an ambiguous restriction that states: “No additional structures are permitted in the southeasterly portion of the property.” Absent clear a definition of “structure” and a map delineating the “southeasterly portion,” that is a Drafting Problem. In addition, no baseline document exists to prove the structure now present was erected after conveyance of the easement. That is a Transactional Issue. conveyance of the easement. That is a Transactional Issue. Finally, the land trust determines that the structure straddles the middle of the property so that it could be considered at least partly in the “southeasterly portion” (whatever that is determined to be). That is a Complicating Matter. The potential violation complicates how the land trust responds to resolution of the problems with the easement itself. Several types of issues complicate a land trust’s ability to deal with problem easements. These fall under a small handful of categories, each worth a quick examination here. Quick Point in Assessing Complicating Matters ƒƒ It’s better to deal with a problem easement before there are complicating matters. ƒƒ Organization problems that lead to orphaned or neglected easements - Existing or threatened violations - An antagonistic landowner ƒƒ Private benefit or private inurement problems Organizational Problems - Creditor problems Organizational problems can present challenges to resolving easement problems. Lack of sufficient administrative resources, stewardship funds, or enforcement funds, lack of willingness or ability to fundraise, or lack of desire or political will to steward or enforce easements – can cause easements to be neglected. If a land trust folds up its tents, leaving no functioning holder or no persons who are accountable for stewardship or enforcement or both, the easements may be considered “orphaned.” Private Benefit or Private Inurement Potential private inurement or private benefit problems, or the appearance of impropriety, certainly complicate resolution of a problem easement. Examples include a landowner who was (or became) a significant donor, an easement donor who was an “insider” as defined by the conflicts of interest policy, a property’s appraised value Problem Easements and Mergers “Mergers between land trusts are the new normal,” explained an experienced land trust lawyer. “However, some tough decisions have to be made when it comes to accepting another land trust’s problem easements. I’ve seen some mergers fail because one of the boards was unwilling to take on the complications and potential liabilities associated with some of the easements held by the other organization. Those situations are unfortunate because often one of the land trusts is close to failing, or at minimum, is not stewarding and enforcing as well as they should. “The successful ones I’ve seen are where both boards take a deep breath and acknowledge and embrace the problem as something inherent to a growing land trust industry. These boards want to ‘do the right thing,’ even if it means more work for the new land trust.” The lawyer continued, “While certainly more complicated, there are workable ways for land trusts to deal with problem easements during mergers.” the conflicts of interest policy, a property’s appraised value or tax deduction that was too high, and a conveyance that Problem Easements was a sham. The last two are worse, if the land trust knew, and Mergers and/or if the landowner received state tax credits! This Guidebook includes a completely separate section (Red Flag! Understanding Private Benefit and Private Inurement) on this topic alone. Creditor Problems Finally, creditor conflicts can gum up the works. If a property is in foreclosure, or subject to a bankruptcy proceeding, that can make resolution of easement problems difficult. So, too, can failure to secure subordination by a mortgage holder or a clouded title. It is clear from these scenarios that, when possible, it would be best to try to deal with a problem easement before there are Complicating Matters. Obviously, unavoidable or unforeseen circumstances are what they are: they present the challenge nobody could predict. All the more reason to address a problem easement before it blows up. _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ ## Part 5: Managing Problem Easements aving identified and analyzed a problem easement, # Hthe land trust is faced with the question of what to do with it. There are a variety of legal tools available that might be useful to fix the problem: these are discussed in Part 6 of the Guidebook. But in many cases those legal tools will be difficult and expensive to execute. Before resorting to one of those options, the land trust may find it helpful to step back and develop an overall management plan for the easement. The strategies outlined in this part will not seem novel to most land trusts. The principles here could be applied to management of any easement. But the reality is that stewardship staff and volunteers sometimes wonder why they should spend scarce resources on stewarding a flawed easement, especially when the conservation value seems insignificant. The goal of these strategies is to help the land trust minimize the potential for future problems by taking a thoughtful approach to routine easement management. The Land Trust Alliance’s publication Conservation _Easement Stewardship, part of the Standards and Practices Curriculum series, provides_ a comprehensive overview of an effective stewardship program. This Guidebook does not attempt to replicate that discussion. It focuses on how the general principles of easement stewardship can be applied to the special issues presented by problem easements. ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION # Strategy #1: General Stewardship Approach When a land trust begins to address the management of problem easements it will have to make some general decisions about its approach. Arguably, there is a spectrum of stewardship and enforcement options. The land trust’s leaders should be clear about what strategies and tools they are willing to consider. The land trust probably already has a set of stewardship policies to guide its easement stewardship and enforcement program, as well as a set of operating procedures that may be written or not. Those policies are likely designed to support rigorous enforcement of the terms of every easement, and they should be. This is a core responsibility of any organization or agency that holds Quick Points on conservation easements. Stewardship **Choose Your Battles** ƒƒ Land trusts holding problem easements must fulfill their core With that said, the reality is that allocating stewardship commitment to monitor and enforce resources is often a delicate balancing act. No matter how them. stable and effective an organization is, there is always a limit ƒƒ Participation in the Terrafirma Risk Retention Group LLC can to how much time and money can be spent on any given support the credibility of a land issue. While IRS regulations require that a “qualified” holder trust’s commitment to defend its have the resources and commitment to monitor and defend easements. its easements, nothing about the regulations requires that an easement holder bankrupt itself to defend any single easement. So a land trust must make choices about how to interpret easement language, what remedies to require for violations, and how aggressively to pursue those remedies. It’s never appropriate to say: “We’re going to ignore this violation because we don’t really care about this easement.” It may be appropriate to say: “We’re going to look for an interpretation or remedy that doesn’t unduly burden the landowner by requiring actions that don’t contribute to the protection of the conservation values of the property.” In other words, land trusts need to consider proportional responses to a violation or problem. It is easier to make these choices if the land trust has thought about them in advance of the actual occurrence of a problem. That’s the function of a “risk” management plan, and the land trust will be well served if it develops a plan for each easement. ## The Role of Conservation Defense Insurance The Land Trust Alliance will launch the Terrafirma Risk Retention Group LLC in 2013. Participation in this program can be an important indicator of the land trust’s commitment and ability to defend its easements. While the charitable risk pool will not cover all costs _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ of defending an easement, nor apply in all circumstances, it will provide resources – both financial and technical – that might not otherwise be affordable to the land trust. It may also provide a strong disincentive to landowners who might seek to challenge an easement. ## Review Stewardship Policies The land trust’s stewardship policies may contain provisions that will limit its options in dealing with problem easements, or may provide insufficient guidance. The land trust should review those policies and discuss how they would apply, and whether they should be rewritten. For example: ƒƒ Many amendment policies specify that the landowner must reimburse the land trust for all costs incurred in Quick Points on amending an easement. This may not make sense if Management Plans the land trust initiates the request for an amendment. ƒƒ Clarity and consistency in ƒƒ Do the monitoring and enforcement policies clearly communications with landowners delineate who has authority to speak for the land may prevent future challenges that trust in discussions with the landowner? Many could involve expensive and time- problem easements are complicated by unauthorized consuming enforcement actions. persons making casual assurances (or threats) during ƒƒ Plan in advance how you will monitoring visits or phone calls. interpret any vague or undefined language in the easement. # Strategy #2: Risk Management Plan ƒƒ Be on the lookout for changing circumstances that might make it A risk management plan for each problem easement will feasible to amend the easement guide the staff or volunteers responsible for stewardship. It or transfer it to a more appropriate holder. should document the assessment process and provide an action plan tailored to the specifics of the easement. ## Assessing Your Problem Easements ## Analyzing the Property Beyond the general description of the property, an easement risk management plan should address the following questions: ƒƒ Are boundaries marked, is access easy or hard, are landowners cooperative? Are there any barriers to effective monitoring? Can any such barriers be remedied with reasonable effort? ƒƒ Are there existing violations of the easement? What is the statute of limitations, if any, applicable to suing on the violations? What remedies are available? Is there credible evidence that the violation occurred after the grant of the easement? How difficult will the violation be to prove? How difficult would the violation be for the owner to cure? ƒƒ What is the history of changes to the property since the easement grant? What reserved rights have been exercised? What discretionary approvals have been sought and granted? Analyzing the Easement Document ƒƒ What are the key conservation values enumerated in the easement? ƒƒ What are the key conservation values enumerated in the easement? An Ounce of Prevention “We adopted the ‘ounce of prevention’ strategy a long time ago,” explained the lands committee chair of a fouremployee land trust with about 40 easements under management. He continued, “We’ve long known a few of our easements could have been better; however, we’ve evaluated ways to possibly fix them, working with current or future landowners. Where that likely won’t work, we determine how to manage them best we can. There’s no ‘silver bullet’ -- but doing nothing was not an option for us.” ƒƒ What are the basic restrictions that are clearly stated and related to preserving the conservation values? These restrictions are likely to provide little room for Ounce of Prevention interpretation. The land trust must enforce them in a manner that protects the conservation purposes of the easement. ƒƒ Are there any restrictions that are vague or contain “It’s unlikely we can make everyone happy with how we approach one of these problem easements,” admitted the executive director. “However, because we have done our homework, we know we can confidently explain to our supporters or to regulators that we had fully evaluated our options and had a legitimate basis for our approach to a problem easement. We think that is better than a ‘knee jerk’ response at a time of crisis.” ƒƒ Are there any restrictions that are vague or contain undefined terms? What are the land trust’s reasonable options for interpreting such language? Can a fairly loose interpretation of certain terms be justified as contributing to the overall conservation purposes of the easement? What has been the land trust’s interpretation to date, and has the owner come to rely on that interpretation? ƒƒ Are there any contradictory provisions? If an activity ƒƒ Are there any contradictory provisions? If an activity seems to be allowed in one place and prohibited in another, which provision would the land trust choose to enforce? What would be the rationale for the choice? Have the land trust’s actions already effectively made the choice or can the land trust make a fresh decision unencumbered by past events? Are there any contradictory provisions? If an activity seems to be allowed in one place and prohibited in another, which provision would the land trust choose to enforce? What would be the rationale for the choice? Have the land trust’s actions already effectively made the choice or can the land trust make a fresh decision unencumbered by past events? Transactional Issues ƒƒ Was a baseline document for the easement prepared at the ƒƒ Was a baseline document for the easement prepared at the time of the grant? ƒƒ If no baseline document was prepared, has the land trust prepared a current conditions report? ƒƒ Are there any other problems related to the transaction ƒƒ Are there any other problems related to the transaction (e.g., title problems or property description problems)? ƒƒ Relations with the Landowner - Relations with the Landowner ƒƒ Does the current landowner appear to understand the terms of the easement? _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ ## Action Plan _Prioritize Problem Easements_ Which problem easements might have simple fixes, and which ones are hairy, scary and nasty? You might decide to pick the low-hanging fruit and deal with that first, because it’s relatively easy. This approach may give you the opportunity to learn helpful lessons for tackling the more troublesome problems. On the other hand, as you weigh potential risks – legal, perceptual and financial – you may decide that your scariest problem easements are the ones you want to tackle early on because they’re likely to take time to resolve. Their resolution may also involve a multi-step process, such as sequestering them in a holding company while you consider options. _Determine the Most Appropriate Solution for a Given Problem Easement_ Look at your easements through the lens of possible options this Guidebook has described. Is the easement a good candidate for any of the permanent fixes described in Part 6? If so, are there resources to accomplish that? What is the appropriate time frame? _Baseline Documents_ If the land trust has no baseline documents for the easement, it should prepare a current conditions report to document the condition of the property at the time the report is prepared, and attempt to get the landowner’s signature. This document will not help in correcting existing violations, but will be useful in managing future activities. A landowner might not commit a new violation after seeing the completed current conditions report and realizing the evidence it makes available to the land trust. _Correcting Violations_ If there are existing clear violations of the easement, and convincing evidence that the violations do not pre-date the easement grant, the land trust must make and document a credible decision about how it will respond to the violation. In the case of a clear violation, the presumption should be that steps will be taken to address it. Your easement enforcement policy and related procedures should define the line between major and minor violations and outline the steps to take in enforcing them. Often the situation is not so clear. Especially in older easements, ambiguous language and undefined terms may leave room for an interpretation that defines the condition as a minor violation or no violation at all. This interpretation may be a good option if the land trust determines that the condition in question poses no threat to the conservation values of the property. Without baseline documentation, it may be unclear when the condition first occurred. Circumstances like these may be sufficient justification for taking a less aggressive stance in responding. The ambiguity and uncertainty may make a resolution possible. ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION The land trust should examine each case and decide how to approach it. It is seldom a good strategy to ignore the possible violation – it will almost certainly not go away on its own. In many cases, a land trust can actually build a stronger and more positive relationship with a landowner by negotiating a solution that honors the intent of the easement without placing an undue burden on the landowner. **Loo king for** _Preventing Future Violations_ **Opportunities** The best way to prevent violation of an easement is to make The stewardship director described it as sure the landowner understands the easement terms and a “pesky one.” The easement ranked what the land trust will do to enforce it. So it’s worth the as one of the best for this Plains state trouble to build a relationship with the landowner if you land trust. Unfortunately, when it was can. Decide how you’re going to define terms and interpret drafted twenty years ago the parties had failed to fully clarify reserved provisions, and communicate those decisions clearly and building rights, and the landowner consistently. Landowners who know the land trust has a thereafter had repeatedly claimed substantial defense fund may be less likely to violate, so the right to build in close proximity to two of the largest sloughs. The land the land trust may explain about the defense fund in its trust had repeatedly responded that newsletter or otherwise let the information out. the landowner’s interpretation of the easement was wrong, that structures _Reinterpreting Easement Language_ were limited to a less sensitive area. You may be able to take a new look at the easement language “We stuck to our guns on this one,” and determine a new interpretation of otherwise vague or explained the executive director. “Although we remained respectful, we non-exclusive language to permit a use that you believe does also let the landowner know we would not conflict with the easement’s conservation purpose. An exert all of our resources to protect that example of that appears below. Try having someone new sensitive part of the property.” The read the easement who is not familiar with the document or land trust’s perseverance paid off. The landowner transferred the property to the template. That person may see the words in a new light. her son as part of some tax planning. The son, an avid birder, had no interest _Keeping Options Open_ in disrupting this important migratory You may have decided that the best course of action at the bird layover, and was amenable to an moment is to just hold the easement as is. If so, the land amendment of the easement to confirm and clarify the prohibition on building in trust should consider in advance what situations might offer the sensitive area. new opportunities to make a problem easement a stronger tool or at least less of a problem. Staff or volunteers in charge of stewarding easements should be alerted to look for these situations. Some examples of situations that may provide opportunities: ƒƒ If the landowner wants something – an amendment to redefine or clarify a provision, for example – this can be an opportunity to clean up a badly drafted document and strengthen the terms essential to protecting the conservation values. A previously uncooperative landowner might be more willing to negotiate in this case. ƒƒ If the property changes hands, a new landowner might be interested in working with the land trust to clean up problems with the document. ƒƒ Another qualified holder may turn up whose mission and goals are more aligned with the conservation values protected by the easement. Examples of Interpreting Easement Language WRONG An easement cites as key conservation purposes the preservation of open space and natural habitat and public access to hiking trails on the protected property. It prohibits surface alterations except to construct and maintain trails and a small parking area. It prohibits “structures” but does not define the term. The landowner wants to improve the experience of hikers by building a restroom facility at the parking area. The design calls for a foundation that would accommodate a state-of-the-art composting toilet. Although it is likely that the proposed facility would enhance the public recreation value of the easement, it would clearly violate the prohibition on structures and surface alteration. If the land trust wants to encourage the construction of such a facility, it will have to amend the easement to change those restrictions. Such an amendment might be defensible as an enhancement of the key conservation value of public recreation. Alternatively, the owner of adjacent land might donate or sell a small section to be used as a trailhead with restrooms. RI GHT In a newer easement, the land trust would probably have defined the term “structure” and also probably have included benches on a list of exceptions to the prohibition on structures. The land trust might reasonably define the term as not including the movable benches, especially as they enhance a key conservation value without unduly threatening other values. This case might also be a good candidate for resolving via discretionary consent (described at the end of Tool #2 – Amendment), or for reformation. (See Tool #1 – Fixing Misstatements, Mistakes and Technical Errors) CAU TION An easement cites natural and scenic values as purposes. It prohibits the cutting of vegetation, except for removal of dead or diseased plants. The property is being overrun by an invasive plant, and the landowner wants to begin an aggressive campaign to remove it before it gets completely out of hand. The land trust generally approves of efforts to control invasives and wants to support a landowner willing to invest the time and money required. The stewardship staff proposes that they define the invasive species as “diseased” and allow eradication. While the goal of controlling invasive species may be laudable, the land trust should be careful of the potential for misuse of this sort of “creative interpretation” of easement language. Defining a term to mean something it doesn’t usually mean in general usage could be seen as an abuse of the holder’s discretionary authority. An amendment or possibly a reformation of contract would be a safer route. If the land trust decides to accept this proposal, it should define very clearly the limits on what it is approving and the situations where it will apply this definition. Strategy #3: Holding Conversations with Landowners Most strategies available to revitalize an easement that is outdated or has other problems require the participation of the landowner. In many cases, the landowner will have no obligation and may have no intrinsic incentive to cooperate. The land trust should prepare a careful plan for how to approach the landowner. Here are four types of scenarios under which these sorts of conversations might fall. The Mission: Let’s work together to make sure this land is better protected. This is probably the same case that was made when the easement was donated. It’s most likely to appeal to a highly supportive original donor. Quid Pro Quo: We’ll agree to what you want if you’ll agree to what we want. This may be the strongest negotiating position but is only useful if the landowner wants something that the land trust can lawfully grant. _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ ## Who Owns the Problem? In any negotiation it’s important to analyze how the various parties understand the situation. In the case of an easement revitalization process, that understanding may depend on the events that started the process. _The landowner wants something_ Quick Points The easiest negotiations are likely to happen when the on Landowner landowner has asked for an amendment or discretionary Conversations consent to do something the easement prohibits. This is ƒƒ Analyze the situation and the varying indeed the most common situation in which we have seen interests at play. amendments to clarify or strengthen easement terms. The ƒƒ In many cases, the best time to land trust has something of value to trade for the concession approach the landowner about making changes in the easement is it wants, and an external authority that limits what it can when he/she wants something from concede (i.e., IRS rules regarding private benefit). The the land trust. landowner has an intrinsic incentive to cooperate. ƒƒ Have as much information as possible in hand before approaching _The landowner has violated the easement_ the landowner. The dynamics in this situation are more complicated. If ƒƒ This negotiation is different from the the landowner is highly motivated to avoid litigation and original negotiation of an easement. Don’t be surprised or upset if the is generally cooperative with the goals of the easement, it conversation turns adversarial. may be possible to negotiate an amendment to clarify or strengthen the terms as part of a settlement. If the landowner is trying to defeat the easement, a settlement is unlikely. Between those two extremes there’s a wide area where a careful approach by the land trust can set the tone to encourage a cooperative process. _The easement holder wants to upgrade the easement before problems occur_ A proactive approach to upgrade an easement will generally leave the holder in the weakest negotiating position. It’s likely that the landowner will not have perceived any problem at all and may not understand why the land trust wants to revisit the easement. It will be important to have some idea of what factors might cause the landowner to agree to negotiate. A landowner who is friendly to the land trust and supports the goals of the easement might be motivated by pride in stewardship of the land. A landowner who thinks in practical terms might be receptive to the case that accumulated experience with easements has taught us better ways to avoid enforcement problems. Whatever approach is used, the land trust should be prepared for the landowner to ask for something in return for cooperation. He is likely to feel that he is granting a favor by agreeing to discuss the issue at all. ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION The bottom line is that the conservation easement is a legally binding document that the land trust is obligated to enforce in perpetuity. The land trust is in a perpetual relationship with the landowner. So it is in their mutual interest to work together to solve the problem. ## Planning the Approach to a Landowner There is no generic formula for how to approach a landowner with a proposal to upgrade an easement. Every situation is different and a number of questions must be asked in planning for the conversation. Ask and Ye May Receive _Is the current landowner the original easement grantor?_ “I was initially mortified at the Most land trusts assume that if they are dealing with the idea of telling a landowner that his original grantor of a donated easement their chances of easement needed a better legal description and was also lacking success are higher. It’s a reasonable assumption that the baseline documentation,” confided a original grantor will want the easement to protect the land stewardship staffer at a mid-sized land as effectively as possible. That assumption may also apply to trust. a purchased easement. It will be helpful in evaluating this “What turned things around for me factor if the land trust has good records of how the original was our role-play sessions,” she explained. “By the time we had negotiation went. If the easement was granted to satisfy the meeting, we had an arsenal of a permitting requirement, there is likely no advantage in reasons why fixing the problems was dealing with the original grantor. good for the landowner as well as us. Also instrumental was having a _What is the land trust’s history with the current landowner?_ supporter of the land trust present with us who had a good relationship A history of scrupulous adherence to the easement augurs with this landowner. Both sides were well for a cooperative negotiation. Continued support for able to have an open discussion the land trust is also a good sign. On the other hand, if the without getting defensive.” relationship is already contentious or hostile, it might be wise She concluded, “Now I’d be mortified if we failed to have that conversation – to try to improve it before proposing an upgrade. If there is even if we ultimately got turned down a history of multiple violations or requests for discretionary on our request.” approvals, it might be best to just wait for the next one to happen. _Who is the best person to approach the landowner?_ The success of a negotiation may hinge on the choice of who is in the room. The land trust should consider everything it knows about the landowner and the history of the relationship in making this critical choice. If the relationship with the landowner has been friendly, the person who has had the most contact (likely the easement monitor) should at least be part of the team and may be the logical person to make the first approach. If the relationship has been contentious, the land trust may be looking for someone with a talent for tact – or _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ even a peer who knows the landowner and can help with an entrée or in the conversations themselves. Alternatively, the land trust may look for the person with the highest level of authority. In any case, it is important to be clear about what the land trust’s representative has the authority to agree to. _Does the landowner have legal counsel?_ It’s in the landowner’s best interests to have a competent attorney who is experienced in conservation law, and it’s in everyone’s interests that the landowner’s attorney is as informed as possible. _What will the process cost and who will pay for it?_ Some land trusts have a policy that requires the landowner to pay all the costs of an amendment. These policies assume that amendments will always be initiated by the landowner. In such cases, the policies may make sense – they avoid private benefit, protect the land trust’s resources and weed out frivolous requests. With that said, lands trusts may differ on how much to require a landowner to participate in expenses associated with the amendment. If, however, the land trust has initiated the process to ward off potential problems, it will be hard to make the case that the landowner should bear the cost. The land trust should make as detailed an estimate as possible and decide in advance how much it is willing to spend. _What are the deal-breakers for the land trust?_ What are the limits on what the land trust is willing to agree to? It is impossible to predict every wrinkle that will appear in the negotiation, but there are likely to be some foreseeable requests that will be unacceptable. The land trust needs to walk into the conversation with what Roger Fischer and William Ury, in Getting To Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving _In, call its “Best Alternative To A Negotiated Agreement.”_ ## Getting Ready for the Meeting The land trust representatives should be ready to answer all the likely questions they can reasonably predict when they first approach the landowner with a proposal to upgrade the easement. At a minimum they should have: _A clear explanation of the proposal_ No jargon, no undefined technical terms – they should be able to explain what the land trust is trying to do and why, in plain English. _A detailed description of the process_ What are the steps in the process? Who needs to be involved? How long is it likely to take? ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION _Financial and tax implications_ Land trust representatives aren’t there to give tax advice, but the landowner has the right to know if there’s a potential for tax implications. She should be advised to consult her own counsel about this issue. The representatives should understand thoroughly the prohibition on impermissible private benefit and be able to explain how it precludes amending an easement in a way that shifts substantial value from the easement to the fee. # Strategy #4: Managing Perceptions One consequence of easement revitalization will be the land trust’s interactions with the press and social media. Some of these will be proactive in nature, and some, unfortunately will be reactive. Your response and the information you provide will have significant influence on public perception of your land trust’s work. Quick Points on As a guiding principle, you want your organization to be the Managing Perceptions first and best source of information. You can – and should – influence the language of the issue. It’s important not to let ƒƒ Develop clear goals. What is the outcome you desire? the issue be defined by someone else. Don’t be afraid to admit ƒƒ The more information the better. to the best choice out of a number of bad choices. ƒƒ Develop taking points that are simple and basic and explain them **Be First** well. Let’s say your land trust anticipates an action that may be ƒƒ Prepare a plan of action and follow controversial. If you have a good relationship with the press, it. Decide which staff or board member will work with the press or and you know a reporter with whom you can discuss this social networks. Assign positions action ahead of time, have a conversation off the record. for staff and board. While there’s no news yet, you can provide background information for something that one might expect to happen. ## Be Right Provide a press release outlining a proposed action or describing changes that have occurred. This is your opportunity to provide accurate and credible information from the source. ƒƒ Issue a clear and simple press release with as much information as possible (who, what, where, when, why and how). ƒƒ Remember reporters will follow the money. What are the financial details? ƒƒ Tell the human story connected to the issue. ƒƒ Be prepared for the worst and be the first to report it. ƒƒ Ideally all external communication needs to happen at the same time. _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ ## Be Credible Even if you get an unexpected call from a reporter asking about an action of the land trust – for example, a conservation easement extinguishment – consider the following: ƒƒ Take your time. You have no obligation to respond immediately. Get the information the reporter seeks and promise to call back by a date and time certain. ƒƒ Call back by the date and time you pledged. ƒƒ Think about strategy. ƒƒ Is this a daily reporter asking questions, or a journalist looking for background on a feature story? Act accordingly. A daily reporter’s story will be less complex. You need to ensure you provide accurate information. For a feature story, you may need to commit some time to adequately inform the reporter about this issue. ƒƒ Ask questions so you understand the reporter’s point of view. Think about how this might play out and where you can reasonably end up. ## K ey Points to Remember ƒƒ Always stick to talking points. ƒƒ Be clear about facts vs. conflict. ƒƒ Ideally, have one person serve as the contact with the press or social media. Refer all contacts to this assigned person. ƒƒ Internal communication is critical. Make sure all parties, including the board of directors, are aware of the action plan and who will talk to the press or communicate via social media. ƒƒ This may not be a situation where everyone will be happy. ƒƒ Prepare the landowner for the possible publicity. ƒƒ As a last resort you may have to identify bad actors: you are fixing something not of your making. ## An Example Your land trust decides to amend a conservation easement that you accepted from a now defunct land trust. When you accepted it, your staff and board agreed that it was unacceptable to have orphan easements in your region of focus and this project is adjacent to other easements your land trust has completed over the years. In exchange for amending the easement to clarify the terms, and provide clear protection to a wildlife corridor protected by your other easements, the landowners can now construct an indoor riding arena near their other existing structures. This is a very high visibility project that the neighbors who hold easements themselves have discussed with you. ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION You prepare a press release explaining the circumstances of the amendment. The press release includes the details of this amendment, as well as the number of amendments you have done in the past. While you don’t know the value, your press release also states the owner took a tax deduction for the original donation, and explains that appraisals were obtained to ensure that there was no impermissible private benefit to the landowner. This was one of the first easements completed in the area, and the land trust has learned a lot since then. Stress the idea that your land trust believes this to be a sensible, reasonable solution. While you did not make this easement, you are the only ones in a position to fix it. It would be irresponsible not to fix the easement, given the surrounding conservation success and the importance of the wildlife corridor. The press release should also mention this is one of the first easements completed in the area when easements were in their infancy. Before going public with the press release, create a plan of action and communicate it with all staff and board. Discuss it with the owner. Identify the most important person who needs to know this story first and talk to him or her. Quick Points in # Strategy #5: Sequestering the Easement Sequestration # in a Holding Company ƒƒ There may be some advantages to It is common in the corporate world to create separate placing problem easements in a business entities (e.g., limited liability companies) to hold sequestration land trust, but doing so certain assets in order to protect the other assets of the parent will not eliminate enforcement and stewardship responsibilities or costs. corporation from certain liabilities. In fact, even some ƒƒ A sequestration land trust will need nonprofits, including tax exempt organizations, employ to carefully observe governance such practices, especially when holding real property assets. requirements. Therefore, at first glance this might seem like a very attractive ƒƒ Federal tax law and the laws of most option for managing the potential liabilities associated with states only permit organizations problem easements. However, closer examination – especially with conservation purposes to hold conservation easements. An in light of the legal constraints identified in Part 4 – reveals organization formed to hold problem that this option may be less appealing. easements must have conservation purposes. **The Basics** ƒƒ Federal tax regulations for deductible easements require that the terms We use the word “sequestration” to mean placing an easement of a conservation easement prohibit in an organization that exists or is formed to “sequester” or its transfer to organizations that do hold problem easements. Some land trusts have considered not have qualifying conservation purposes. using such organizations to isolate but not abandon problem easements and the legal, financial, and public relations issues that may accompany them. _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ Placing a problem easement in a sequestration land trust can provide some shelter from potential liability for the organization that would otherwise administer the easement, if all the requirements are satisfied. It’s important to note, however, creating a sequestration trust is very difficult, and resource-intensive. ## Must Be a Separate and Viable Entity A legitimate and distinct corporate entity, even if controlled by a land trust, could represent a durable liability barrier. If the sequestration entity is fully separate, the liability stops there. However, if the sequestration entity is not fully separate, the liability passes on to the land trust. In legal language, that is called “piercing the corporate veil” and it compromises the goal of limiting liability. To preserve its shield (especially because a controlling land trust is vulnerable to an argument that the sequestration land trust is really not a distinct organization), the sequestration land trust needs its own board of directors and its own separate office. It will have to carefully maintain corporate records, hold meetings as its articles and bylaws specify, make required filings, and generally build a record that the sequestration trust is in fact a distinct, viable, and operating entity. It needs to have enforcement and stewardship endowment for the easements it holds. In short, it needs resources in order to be its own viable organization – and those resources will come from the parent land trust. The sequestration land trust will continue to have fiduciary responsibility for promises made regarding administration of the easements. It can be held to account by the attorney general, and – just like any land trust – is subject to contract law and trust law. The founding land trust can restrict the assets it makes available to the sequestration land trust for administration and enforcement of transferred easements, but providing less than reasonable amounts will bring the issues of viability and operating record into question. This requirement and related conclusions regarding the importance of the sequestration land trust being a legitimate and viable entity suggest that it may be as costly to properly sequester problem easements as it would be to deal with them. ## Must Be a “Qualified” Holder of Conservation Easements Both state and federal law will require the sequestration land trust to be a qualified holder, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. It takes time to set up a qualified holder, and the delay may make this option unsuitable even if it might otherwise work. Most state laws restrict holding of conservation easements to organizations that have purposes or powers of protecting (among other purposes not relevant to us) natural, open space, and scenic values of real property. Certainly the corporate documents of the sequestration land trust will have to include those purposes, but, if it does not fulfill those purposes by actually ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION protecting the properties it holds, a state attorney general might argue that it is not a qualified holder under state law. The founding land trust would have to figure out how to handle the ensuing issues in the possible but unlikely event of such attorney general action; the manner in which the sequestration trust came to hold the conservation easements it holds could certainly become public, as could a founding organization’s status as the founder or controlling member of the sequestration trust. Federal tax regulations setting forth requirements for deductible easements limit eligible holders to organizations that have a commitment to protect the conservation purposes and resources to enforce the restrictions. The regulations also require that the easement itself prohibit transfer to any organization that does not meet those requirements. Of course, the regulations are meant to deal with the initial gift and deductibility of conservation easement. If the sequestration trust were involved in a pattern of behavior-for example, systematically determining that it would not enforce certain conservation easements, thereby effectively conveying private benefits to landowners who would otherwise be restricted from obtaining those benefits by the conservation easements – then the sequestration trust could be subject to sanctions in relation to its federal public charity status. Because the founding land trust is likely to be deeply involved in the sequestration trust, it could suffer from bad publicity, and it might not be able to contain IRS enforcement to the sequestration trust. ## Managing Public Perception If the state attorney general or the IRS were to challenge the qualifications of a separate sequestration trust set up to hold certain troublesome easements, there would be a great risk of negative publicity and harm to the reputation of the parent trust. Both organizations need to be prepared to explain to their supporters and to the press the reasons for the structure and how they are ensuring that the obligations in the easements are fulfilled. Key issues that limit the viability of this option include the following: ƒƒ Legal Constraints. In almost all cases, the sequestration entity will need to be able to meet the “qualified holder” requirements established by section 170(h), discussed in Part 4, as well as any similar definition in the relevant state’s conservation easement act. Also as discussed in Part 4, section 501(c)(3), state nonprofit laws, and the regulations place implied and express protections on management of public trust assets, and may hold the organization and its directors and officers liable for inappropriate actions. These requirements then lead naturally to internal constraint issues. ƒƒ Internal Constraints. The requirement that the sequestration entity is properly capitalized and administered would likely include having directors who meet regularly, maintain records, file required reports and carry out the activities it is designed to accomplish, including stewardship and enforcement. Some minimal threshold amount of adequate financial and other resources must be available to carry out those activities. _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ The land trust will also need to consider whether there are people willing to serve as a director or officer of a sequestration entity considering its odd mission and potential liabilities. At least some directors must be unrelated to the parent land trust to ensure that the two entities are not collapsed into one, so the parent cannot rely only on insiders. ƒƒ External Constraints. If the sequestration entity fails to fulfill the obligation to defend the easements it holds, the resulting negative publicity is likely to include the parent trust as well. In fact, the very knowledge of the sequestration trust structure is likely to raise eyebrows with some in the community. The land trust may be called on to explain why sequestration is a public benefit. ## Further Exploring Sequestration If the land trust believes litigation over the easement initiated by the landowner or other interested party is likely, a sequestration trust – if properly constituted and maintained – would likely succeed in temporarily protecting the assets of the parent trust. In this case, the option might be reasonable – but it is likely to be only a temporary fix, and a costly one: since a sequestration trust holds the easements that are “dogs,” it is likely to be under-resourced relative to its stewardship obligations. Any land trust considering sequestration of problem easements will need to conduct substantial legal and other research before acting on this option. Questions to be answered will include: In sequestering, do we intend to meet federal _and state legal requirements? If so, what will be the financial and administrative cost of doing so?_ _How will external influences perceive sequestration? A further question that must be answered_ is this: In light of the purpose for establishing the sequestration entity, will it actually provide the _liability and other protection we desired? “Liability” in this context has multiple parts. Do we_ _have volunteers willing to serve as a board of directors for the sequestration trust? How will staff_ _responsibilities be handled?_ _Sequestration and Abandonment_ If the land trust considers sequestration, it might be tempting to take a next step and consider permitting the sequestration entity to quietly fade away, without making further arrangements for the easements it holds, thus effectively abandoning them. This concept is nothing new in the corporate world where shirking of liability is considered by some “part of the game.” However, tax-exempt nonprofit organizations with “qualified organization” status are held to much higher standards with respect to the care and protection of their assets. An entity set up with that intent would likely be seen as fraudulent if it came to the notice of the attorney general or court. The goal of providing a corporate shield to limit liability would fail, and the individuals involved could be exposed to personal liability for their actions. ### EASEMENT REVITALIZATION ## Part 6: Evaluating Options for Fixing Problem Easements everal approaches are generally available to land trusts for # Sworking through the issues. Some are problematic, some more workable. We do not suggest that land trusts fully ignore options that we label “problematic.” However, those options must be explored with caution. Sometimes, it may be possible for the conservation focus to be reconfigured to revitalize the conservation values. When that is not the case, there may still be a “silver lining” in existing easements that have low conservation value for the land trust that holds them. Where the opportunity is available, and it will further the conservation values of the easement, a land trust may convey the easement to a holder whose mission is more aligned to the type of easement. Of course, this new holder will be more inclined to accept transfer of an easement if its complicating matters have been addressed, and if the easement is accompanied by sufficient stewardship and defense funding. When there is no potential alternative holder for a problem easement, other action must be taken. This section provides four workable options, although the last option may have significant ramifications not only for a land trust that chooses this course of action but for the land trust community as a whole. While the option of transferring an easement to a new holder, described above, may have limited viability, other options remain for improving or managing problem easements. These include options for fixing mistakes of various types through reformation or correction deeds, amending easements, using the courts to provide _**judicial relief, or – in very rare cases – extinguishment. The Tools that follow**_ address these options. _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ # Tool #1: Fixing Misstatements, Mutual Mistakes and Technical Errors In some cases the problem with the language of an easement is simply a mistake in preparing the original document. Such mistakes may be mundane, such as a spelling error or an incorrect address. Or they may be more serious, such as an incorrect property description or a misstatement of the original agreement. The land trust should take steps to correct such errors as soon as they are noticed. There are two vehicles for correcting errors in the original document; the choice depends on the nature of the error, whether or not both parties agree that the error exists, and the law of the state in which the property lies. The land trust should consult experienced local Quick Points in counsel to determine which tool to use. The corrections made Reformation by both of these tools are retroactive to the date of the original agreement, which means they have the same title priority as ƒƒ The tax code and regulations do not address reformation. that agreement. They are thus distinct from amendments. ƒƒ Reformation will always require _**Correction deeds may be used (in some states) to correct**_ court approval. technical errors, if both parties agree to the error and the ƒƒ Even if the easement was not correction. These do not require court approval and can be a donated for federal tax benefits, an inappropriate reformation could simple and inexpensive solution. They can be used to correct jeopardize a land trust’s tax exempt errors such as typos, missing exhibits or incorrect property status, lead to other federal or descriptions. They may not be appropriate for correcting state penalties or result in negative publicity. the description of the restrictions and reserved rights in the ƒƒ Known or reported cases of easement. The possible repercussions for title and appraisal conservation easement reformation issues in such cases suggest that it would be safer to seek court are rare because most reformations approval for the proposed change. There may be specific are neither opposed nor appealed. definitions in the statutes and case law of the state for when a ƒƒ Reformation is not the same thing correction deed may or may not be used. as amendment. ## Reformation is a process requiring court approval that changes the deed or other writing to be consistent with the actual agreement originally made by the parties, not to make it more favorable to any party or to address changes occurring over time. As such, it can correct easement process problems such as vague language, in order to conform with the original donor’s intent. It may also be used to rectify transaction issues such as baseline problems, land description problems, or title issues. When appropriate, reformation is typically obtained with minimal expense or effort. In cases where the parties do not agree on either the existence of the error or the appropriate correction, either party may seek reformation unilaterally. A contested reformation is likely to require more expense and effort. ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION Land trusts considering reformation or a correction deed should always obtain assistance from legal counsel with a good understanding of conservation easement and tax law. Donors whose past tax returns may need amendment should retain qualified tax counsel. In any reformation or correction, land trusts must ensure there is no impermissible private benefit or private inurement. The discussion below refers mainly to the reformation process; some of the issues raised apply equally to correction deeds. ## The Basics Reformation is available when the parties actually reached an agreement and the written manifestation of that agreement was not properly expressed, most often by accident. Thus, reformation requires proof that (1) the parties actually reached an agreement; (2) they agreed to reduce that agreement to writing; (3) there is a writing that purports to be their agreement; (4) the writing and the agreement are inconsistent because an agreed-upon term was omitted or a term that was not agreed upon was inserted into the writing (5) either through mutual mistake of the parties or through the mistake by one party taken advantage of by another. A mutual mistake is one common to all parties that occurs in the writing of the document. Much less often in the conservation easement context, reformation is also available if one party knew the easement deed did not accurately reflect the parties’ agreement and concealed the defect from the other at the time of signing the deed. Reformation most often arises from a mistake of fact, and a mistake of law (a mistake as to the legal effect of known facts) may not support reformation in some states or circumstances. In conservation easements, common circumstances in which reformation may be appropriate include ƒƒ omission of an exhibit or attachment to the easement, ƒƒ omission of an intended term from the document, ƒƒ inclusion of a term that had been discussed and was agreed would not be included, ƒƒ error in setting out the property description or otherwise in identifying the property and its boundaries, and ƒƒ inaccurate depiction of the building envelope. All parties to the conservation easement, or their successors, must participate in the reformation, at least to the extent of declaring their lack of opposition. The party seeking reformation typically must plead (1) the identity of all interested parties, (2) the existence and substance of the actual agreement between the parties, (3) the parties’ agreement to reduce their agreement to writing, (4) the content of the written agreement, (5) the variance between the parties’ actual agreement and the writing, and (6) mutual mistake or other basis for _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ reformation of the writing. Upon proof of these elements, the court will order the agreement reformed to state the true agreement unless the rights of a third party will be unfairly affected. Absent a third party or a dispute, reformation can often be obtained based on a petition, briefing and declarations or affidavits of the parties. There may be a short hearing, but no trial or extended proceeding is required if there is no dispute about the mistake and need for its correction. If a federal tax deduction was taken, the IRS (or the taxpayers) may be a third party to be considered. So long as the error is limited to the conservation easement, and the appraisal was based on the actual agreement, there should be no tax consequence. Some errors have no tax consequence in any event, such as the misspelling of a name or omission of an exhibit. If appraisal relied on the easement terms and the reformation would change the easement in a way that would alter the appraisal to the taxpayer’s benefit, however, the land trust cannot seek or agree to reformation without ensuring that there is no private benefit. The briefing submitted to the court should address any tax consequences or explain the absence of any consequences. Reformation can be used for any written instrument. An error or omission in the baseline documentation can be remedied through reformation in the same way as the conservation easement itself. If the baseline was recorded with the easement, and the error is significant, reformation may be appropriate. Often, however, there would be no need for judicial reformation of a baseline as the parties could document and agree to the correction. ## Problems in Obtaining Reformation If the easement property changes hands before the omission or error is discovered, and if the new owner relied on the terms of the original easement as recorded, then reformation may be unavailable. For example, if a donor and land trust agree that the 500-acre property may have only two residences built in envelopes near the northeast corner, but the conservation easement is accidentally drafted to permit ten, not two, residences, reformation is possible while the donor owns the land. There are likely drafts and notes of conversations reflecting the agreement; committee and board minutes showing the true agreement, and appraisal and communications with the appraiser showing the two-residence restriction. Donor and land trust may seek reformation together. Even if the donor objects, the available evidence is likely to be overwhelming. If the donor sold to an innocent third party who had no knowledge of the two-residence restriction and relied on the recorded easement document in making the purchase, however, reformation is likely to be denied. The donor in this example enjoyed tax benefits based on the two-residence restriction, so reformation is consistent with the land trust’s obligations in signing the form 8283 at the time of the donation and in ensuring there is no private benefit. The innocent third party obtained ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION no tax benefit and presumably paid for land with a ten-residence restriction. The court will consider the circumstances of each party at the time of a proposed reformation to achieve a fair result. Thus, proof that the third party visited the land trust before the purchase and was told of the two-residence restriction could well change the result. Reformation is equitable in origin. Undue delay in seeking reformation coupled with prejudice to others may be sufficient to prevent reformation. The equitable defense of “unclean hands,” or action in bad faith, may prevent reformation. ## Legal and Other Factors Guiding Reformation Decisions _Conservation Easement Provisions_ Many easements have a provision declaring that the easement is the final and complete expression of the agreement between the parties and that any and all prior or contemporaneous agreements with respect to this subject matter, written or oral, are merged into and superseded by this written instrument. Reformation is inconsistent with this provision but not prevented by it. In some states, reformation may require proof to a higher degree than a preponderance of the evidence (such as clear and convincing proof ) because of the presumption that the writing correctly states the agreement. _Land Trust Standards and Practices_ Practice 02A provides: “The land trust complies with all applicable federal, state and local laws.” Practice 02C provides that the land trust complies with requirements for retaining its tax-exempt status, including prohibitions on private inurement. Practice 10A provides: “The land trust on its own behalf reviews each transaction for consistency with these requirements.” To the extent reformation is seen as analogous to amendment, Practice 11I prohibits private inurement and impermissible private benefit and requires compliance with conflict of interest rules and any funding requirements. All of these Practices are founded on the assumption that the land trust will seek to correct any errors in a recorded conservation easement and will act to prevent private benefit and private inurement. This assumption is consistent with IRC § 170(h) and 501(c)(3) and the nonprofit laws of the various states. _Uniform Conservation Easement Act (UCEA)_ The Act is silent as to reformation. The drafters of the UCEA explain that “the Act has the relatively narrow purpose of sweeping away certain common law impediments that might otherwise undermine a conservation easement’s validity” and that “the Act is intended to be placed in the real property law of adopting states ….” The real property law of all states includes reformation, so there was no need to address reformation in the UCEA itself. _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ _The Statute of Frauds, Rescission, Amendment_ Reformation is not amendment. An amendment changes the content of the conservation easement from the original agreement to a new agreement. A reformation causes the conservation easement to be worded as originally agreed. An easement amendment takes effect at the time it is made, whereas reformation is retroactive to the date of the original easement deed. Reformation is not rescission. Reformation affirms the existence of the conservation easement and normally corrects an inadvertent error or omission. Rescission terminates the effectiveness of the rescinded document. Reformation is not barred by the statute of frauds. _Perception by Donors, Landowners, Supporters and the General Public_ Since reformation conforms the document to the actual agreement of the parties, reformation is less likely to raise concern among donors, landowners, supporters and the general public and may not come to their attention. As the complaint or petition seeking reformation will be filed with the court, it may be read by local news reporters, especially if the land trust or owner is controversial or newsworthy. The drafter should include appropriate explanation supporting the reformation and explaining its justification. The types of mistakes that give rise to reformation are not unusual in real estate transactions and, although embarrassing, do not reflect negatively on the organization. _Judicial and IRS Review (Relevant Cases)_ There are essentially no cases considering reformation in the context of conservation easements. In Glass v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 258 (2005), the Tax Court noted in passing that the taxpayers had sued the land trust for reformation in state court. That action was dismissed, apparently when the taxpayers realized it would not assist them in the federal proceedings. Reformation is recognized and approved in private letter rulings involving charitable giving. Depending on the nature of the error and its impact on taxes owed, if any, the easement donor may be required to amend a past tax return and the land trust may need to provide a revised form 8283. If the appraisal is consistent with the actual agreement, however, these activities may not be required. _Private Letter Ruling 9818027 (Jan. 10, 1998)_ ƒƒ Facts: Taxpayer created and funded a charitable remainder unitrust, then discovered a drafting error that made it impossible for her to designate one or more private foundations, organizations described in section 170(c) but not in sections 170(b)(1)(A) or 509(a)(3), as remainder beneficiaries as she originally intended. Evidence of intent was provided. ƒƒ Holding: “Because the proposed reformation is the correction of a drafting error, it will not be treated as violating the requirement that the remainder interest to charity must be irrevocable. “ ƒƒ Comments: The IRS noted that reformation of the unitrust would affect taxpayer’s income tax deduction for the charitable contribution made to the unitrust, so its ruling was conditioned on filing a timely amended return reporting a reduced charitable deduction. Similarly permitting reformation is Private Letter Ruling 201133004 (Aug. 19, 2011) (the attorney used the wrong form and created a NIMCRUT instead of a CRUT; reformation permitted). Some Examples Inconsi st ent wit h t he O ri gi nal A greem ent A land trust has held a scenic, open space conservation easement over a 5,000 acre ranch for some years. The easement prohibits cell towers and commercial uses. The donor contends that he always intended that he could place cell towers inside the tall barn and silo located at the ranch because they will be invisible. Moreover, he argues that cell towers disguised as trees could be placed on the ridge line because they would not be noticed in among the existing trees. The land trust checked its records and found no notes indicating intent to permit cell towers. The express prohibition on cell towers is consistent with the prohibition on commercial uses which would itself prohibit the towers, so internal evidence in the easement confirms the memories of land trust personnel and board minutes. Allowing cell towers would also be inconsistent with the appraisal done at the time of donation, giving the donor a significant financial benefit not contemplated in the appraisal. | A land trust has held a scenic, open space conservation easement over a 5,000 acre ranch for some years.The easement prohibits cell towers and commercial uses.The donor contends that he always intended that he could place cell towers inside the tall barn and silo located at the ranch because they will be invisible.Moreover,he argues that cell towers disguised as trees could be placed on the ridge line because they would not be noticed in among the existing trees.The land trust checked its records and found no notes indicating intent to permit cell towers.The express prohibition on cell towers is consistent with the prohibition on commercial uses which would itself prohibit the towers,so internal evidence in the easement confirms the memories of land trust personnel and board minutes.Allowing cell towers would also be inconsistent with the appraisal done at the time of donation,giving the donor a significant financial benefit not contemplated in the appraisal. | The land trust cannot reform or agree to a reformation.The changes are inconsistent with the original agreement,would grant the donor an impermissible private benefit and would violate federal and state tax laws. | | --- | --- | wit C annot R eform The land trust cannot reform or agree to a reformation. The changes are inconsistent with the original agreement, would grant the donor an impermissible private benefit and would violate federal and state tax laws. L ack of Di sput e, N o Tax C onsequences R eform ati on or C orrecti on D eed One of a land trust’s first conservation easements was written in 1978 when the land trust was run by volunteers with little money, so no legal advice was obtained. The easement exhibits were accidentally omitted. No one noticed until the land trust was preparing for accreditation and reviewed its older easements. The donor had died, but her children had inherited and the donor’s copy of the easement which had been used by the appraiser had the omitted pages and paragraphs. They agreed it made sense to correct the recorded copy. The original agreement is clear and without any dispute. No tax consequence would be created. The land trust sought reformation through the court, to attach the relevant documents. This case might also have been addressed through a correction deed in states where they are allowed. E rror i n St ati ng R est ri cti ons, R eserved Ri ght s Shortly before an easement was signed, the donor agreed to reduce the number of permitted residences from two to one, in exchange for looser restrictions on the size of the permitted building. In the rush of the end-of-year deadline, the land trust printed out an earlier draft of the easement that did not include the changes and that copy was signed and recorded. It was not until two years later that the staff person who negotiated the easement noticed the discrepancy during a premonitoring review of the document. A search of the files revealed a clear trail of correspondence regarding the change and both parties’ agreement to it. R eform ati on eserved Ri ght The land trust accepted an easement over a 20 acre parcel as forever wild habitat. Right at the end of the negotiations, the donor realized he needed access through this parcel to another parcel he owned. The land trust reluctantly agreed and revised the easement to permit construction of a road where it would have the least undesirable impact. Unfortunately, because the knowledgeable land trust staff members were at Rally, the original version of the easement was signed, recorded and used for the appraisal. The mistake was discovered when the donor asked that the Form 8283 be signed. The donor wants the easement deed corrected, but he likes the appraisal number and prefers not to involve the appraiser. The land trust refuses to sign the Form 8283 unless the donor agrees to accept the recorded easement as the final version and to give up the road. Di sput e, Tax C onsequences The land trust should seek reformation of the easement to reflect the original agreement. It could do so unilaterally even if the donor has had second thoughts about giving up the second residence and resists. The appraisal should be reviewed to determine which set of restrictions was given to the appraiser. Reformation could have tax consequences for the donor if the appraiser relied on the incorrect document. C auti on The donor clearly wants more tax deduction than he is entitled to, and the land trust cannot be complicit. The dispute can be resolved with no reformation, no new appraisal and use of the existing Form 8283. Or the deed can be reformed if there is a new appraisal and a new Form 8283. ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION ## Inquiries and Action Items for Reformation For any reformation of a conservation easement, look closely at the existing language and documents and compare them to the proposed reformed documents. If the existing documents reflect the actual agreement that was made, then reformation is inappropriate. If the existing documents fail to reflect that original agreement, then reformation may be appropriate ƒƒ If the content of the actual agreement can be convincingly established, ƒƒ If there is no dispute or no credible dispute between the land trust and owner/donor, ƒƒ If there is no intervening third party whose rights would be adversely affected and who opposes the reformation, ƒƒ If there is no impermissible private benefit or private inurement and any potential private benefit can be eliminated by such steps as amending tax returns and Forms 8283 and obtaining new appraisals and paying any taxes that may be owed. ## Legal Issues and Inquiries ƒƒ Land trusts should be sure to involve attorneys who understand the tax and conservation easement issues at both the state and federal level. ƒƒ Look at the proposed reformation from all angles to ensure there is no impermissible private benefit or private inurement. ƒƒ Schedule D of the most recent Form 990 (annual nonprofit tax return) requires the reporting of the amendment and extinguishment of a conservation easement. Although reformation is not specifically identified, it is sufficiently similar that it should be disclosed. The land trust, working in cooperation with its accountants and attorneys, should provide a short explanation in the Form 990 and the pleadings and other papers filed with the court should provide a well-documented explanation of the reformation if the IRS questions it. ## Public Perception Issues and Inquiries ƒƒ To the greatest extent possible, contact the easement’s donor or donor’s family to make sure that they understand the purpose of the reformation and to address any of their concerns. In most cases, the need for reformation will be discovered relatively quickly, often when the donor remains in ownership. ƒƒ If the reformation is likely to be controversial, communicate with key supporters (such as major donors and community leaders). More often, the reformation can be done with little publicity. ƒƒ Consider whether the reformation would surprise or affect adjacent and other nearby landowners and whether to communicate with them. When the reformation conforms the document to what everyone believed it to state, there may be nothing to communicate. Still a little confused about the difference between when to seek amendment and when to pursue reformation? Here’s a way to think about it – bearing in mind, of course, the importance of talking with legal counsel to understand how best to move forward: ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION # Tool #2: Amending the Easement With a cooperative landowner and no private benefit issues, the cleanest solution to sloppy drafting may be to amend the easement. State laws and easement provisions vary concerning the process required to do this, and in some cases it could be expensive and time-consuming. But the benefits to the future stewardship of the easement may be worth the cost. Land trusts must proceed very cautiously and deliberately when considering an amendment of a donated conservation easement that compromises a conservation purpose or materially alters a prohibition, instruction, or restriction. The law is still unsettled in most states, and there is controversy in the land Quick Points on trust community about basic matters as whether amendments Amendments ought to be governed by federal law, the law of contracts, or ƒƒ Don’t be afraid to negotiate by other standards. Experienced attorneys can be found on clarifying amendments with various sides of the issues. This discussion is not intended to landowners; it isn’t surprising that propose that one view or the other is correct but, rather, to clarification may be needed in a perpetual instrument. make readers aware of the diversity of views so that they are ƒƒ Remember that land trusts cannot prepared to seek the best and most useful advice possible in confer impermissible private benefit their jurisdiction and situation. in an amendment process or anywhere else. Special caution: some state attorneys general have taken the ƒƒ Remember that the conservation position that donated conservation easements are charitable purpose is the most important trusts or restricted gifts. In their view, amendments value, that it is a public value, and that deprive the public of the charitable benefits of the the land trust has a fiduciary duty to defend it. easement or ignore the donor’s stated instructions (and in particular, the donor’s conservation-related restrictions) require court approval. No amendment should be entered into without consulting counsel experienced in tax, nonprofit law, and the law of charitable gifts. An amendment that only corrects a mistake, clarifies an unclear provision, or enhances conservation effectiveness can usually be entered into by the easement holder and the landowner. While the land trust community generally believes that amendments should be rare, it is also true that, over time, most conservation easements will probably be more effectively administered if the holders are willing to craft and enter into appropriate amendments. ## The Basics The amendment of conservation easements has attracted a good deal of attention over recent years in the land trust community. Arguments over proper amendment procedure have made many more cautious about proper amendments than they need to be. Almost all _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ knowledgeable advisers agree about two points: first, an instrument that defines a perpetual interest is likely to require amendment over time. Second, close attention to consequences is called for if a proposed amendment would eliminate a specific prohibition or restriction or compromise a stated conservation purpose or conservation value. The Land Trust Alliance, appropriately cautious about amendments, has stated that amendments should be rare. Its 2007 research report, Amending Conservation Easements: _Evolving Practices and Legal Principles, includes a set of amendment principles on which there_ is general agreement and provides guidance for land trusts trying to place easements on the risk spectrums as they decide how to proceed. While that policy usefully counsels caution and care, it is also true that over time and over a fair-sized portfolio of easements, amendments can be very appropriate and useful. Land trusts must be careful to uphold the conservation purposes of the easement, to assure the public interest is paramount for making the amendment, and to otherwise avoid conferring any impermissible private benefit in the amendment process. These issues may not even be raised in some amendments. However, in other amendments, such as those that deal with administrative provisions, any needed approvals will be available under more relaxed standards. Yet others, such as amendments that could be interpreted as relaxing the conservation prohibitions or restrictions, would likely raise different issues. In all cases, the amendments may be scrutinized by the IRS since current federal tax regulations require the disclosure of all amendments in a land trust’s annual tax return. The easement terms themselves may require judicial approval of any amendment, and this may be true for all kinds of easements. Therefore, great care by the land trust is warranted. ## Applicability of Charitable Trust Laws and Contract Laws Conservation easements, like some other instruments that convey real property, are contracts. Because, however they also serve as part of a system for publicly documenting real property interests, they are more than contracts. They are also deeds. The IRS, some state attorneys general and some practitioners believe that donated or partially donated conservation easements also represent instruments for conveying restricted gifts or instruments of trust. If donated easements are restricted gifts or charitable trusts, some attorneys would agree that they are subject not only to the law of contract and deed, but also to the well-developed legal principles that govern administration of charitable gifts. Some other attorneys take the view that conservation easements, governed as they are by the law of the states that make them enforceable, can be amended just as other easements can be – by the agreement of the parties to the easement. ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION Federal tax law (e.g., 170(h)) incorporates the key principles from the charitable gift view of easement law, by requiring that conservation easements intended to be deductible incorporate terms that prohibit extinguishment unless a court determines that accomplishment of conservation purposes is impossible. So, an amendment that compromises – or partly extinguishes – a conservation easement donated under 170(h) will require judicial approval in almost all circumstances. (See the appendix for additional resources.) State laws vary. About half of the states have adopted a form of the Uniform Conservation Easement Act (UCEA). The published comments that accompany the act make it clear that the authors of the UCEA believe that charitable trust/restricted gift law applies to donated conservation easements. Many UCEA states have included a provision stating that, for interpretation purposes, they intend to have the law correspond as closely as possible to the Uniform Act, meaning that the official comments have significant weight. However, many UCEA states have customized that Act significantly, and many other states have conservation easement laws that differ in very significant respects from the Uniform Act. Moreover, it is dangerous to consider state law in isolation in evaluating actions affecting donated easements for which federal deductions were taken. A state lacks the power to diminish the requirements of IRC sections 170(h) or 501(c)(3) or Treasury Regulations 1.170A-14(c) for purposes of federally deductible donations. Thus, there is no substitute for securing counsel that is familiar with the issues at stake in conservation easement, charitable and nonprofit law when considering an amendment. Land Trusts should be careful about concluding, absent the support of experienced counsel, that the amendment process is as simple as the language in some states makes it appear. That is, there are likely to be considerations beyond the words of a statute that includes a provision stating that a conservation easement can be amended or terminated in the same manner as other easements – for example, there may be conservation easement amendment language in the deed itself. Many experienced attorneys believe that the language in the UCEA was intended to address only the procedures for amendment—use of a writing, signatures, notarization, recordation and the like. Therefore, for amendments that change a restriction, an instruction, a prohibition or a purpose of a donated or partially donated conservation easement a land trust should consider, with good counsel, whether to seek court approval. The judicial proceeding in which that kind of approval is sought may include the state’s attorney general – representing the public interest – as a party. There is one further consideration here, arising from the current dispute in the land trust community about the extent to which amendments are permitted and the requirements to effect them. A land trust should consider what results may ensue if a course of action is selected and it is later, definitely determined to be wrong. A land trust that seeks judicial approval that turns out to have been unnecessary will have spent some money if would not _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ have spent had it known the future. A land trust that elects not to seek judicial approval may have placed its donor, its land protection program and its nonprofit status at risk. The risks are far greater for the land trust that assumes judicial approval is not required. ## Other K inds of Amendments Other amendments merely clarify an ambiguous term, correct an error, add property, or add protection. These typically do not require public participation and can be agreed upon by the property owner and the easement holder, acting alone. Even these must be disclosed to the IRS with an explanation on the land trust’s Form 990. In some cases, where the intent is to correct a technical error or misstatement of the original agreement in the document, a correction deed or reformation of the contract may be a more appropriate vehicle than amendment. See Tool #1: Fixing Misstatements, Mutual Mistakes and Technical Errors for a detailed discussion, and consult an attorney about whether these are available options. ## Other and General Amendment Considerations There are two other factors to consider in all conservation amendments, even amendments of purchased conservation easements. First, the land trust needs to review any representations made to donors in securing funds used for easement purchase or stewardship, as well as any restrictions imposed by the donor of funds. If the funds were donor-restricted, careful review and observance of the requirements of the restrictions are essential. If solicitations included a representation that the conservation achieved would be permanent, as is common, the land trust may want to consider approval by a court or the attorney general of a proposed amendment that affects that permanence, simply to have an independent affirmation of the good faith purpose that the amendment is designed to accomplish. That will reduce the likelihood of success of any claim of fraudulent solicitation. Second, the amendment needs in all respects to be consistent with the land trust’s corporate purposes and its obligation to administer its resources exclusively for charitable purposes. ## Public Perception The land trust should be ready to respond to questions from the press and the public about a decision to amend. Depending on the nature of the amendment, it would certainly be good practice to inform the original donor or seller or the donor’s heir of an intention to amend an easement, even if the property has changed hands. Doing so will improve the chance of maintaining good will in that relationship, as well as provide those parties an opportunity to recall history that may be useful. Discretionary Consent It’s not always necessary to go to the length of amending an easement document, if the document includes language that allows “discretionary consent.” This type of language in an easement permits a land trust to make interpretations of the easement provisions at its discretion. The idea is to provide flexibility for the land trust. At its discretion, the land trust may re-think activities that it might once have thought harmful, or consider activities not explicitly permitted or prohibited by the easement document, as long as the proposed uses substantially conform to the intent of the grant, are not inconsistent with the conservation purposes, and don’t materially increase the adverse impact of actions expressly permitted under the easement. Without such discretionary consent language, if there is some doubt about whether a landowner can take a particular action, the land trust could still analyze the potential impact to the conservation value and permit the activity if it found no adverse impact. But having that language provides comfort for the land trust in defending its decision and allows both parties to avoid the expense of legal fees associated with amendment. The permission can be limited to a period of years or to a particular owner, giving the land trust much greater control over the activity than the land trust would enjoy with an amendment. Some Examples WRONG An easement cites protection of natural open space and an unobstructed view of the ocean from a state highway among its conservation purposes. It allows construction of one residence in a defined building envelope in a corner of the property along the road. The landowner wishes to build the permitted residence but would prefer to locate it at the top of a bluff overlooking the ocean. He approaches the land trust to request an amendment. The desired placement of the residence would be in the middle of the open space and the view from public vantage points. Moving the building envelope there would clearly compromise the conservation purposes of the easement. Moreover, since a house overlooking the ocean would likely be worth considerably more than the same house placed along the road, the requested easement would confer an impermissible private benefit. R IGH T An easement protects sensitive native plants and prohibits the introduction of invasive species. The easement also prohibits use of herbicides. However, an invasive plant that for practical purposes can only be controlled with herbicide now threatens the integrity of the conservation purpose. An easement permits “residential uses” of the restricted parcel, but a fair reading of the whole easement makes it clear that the phrase does not mean that the property owner can build a house in the restricted area; rather, it means that the restricted property can be used in the way a residential owner would normally use open space adjacent to a residence. Because prohibition of herbicides would in this case defeat the conservation purpose, an amendment appears warranted. As in other such situations, the easement must be reviewed in totality to determine whether the land trust should seek court approval of the amendment (or attorney general approval, depending on the jurisdiction). The easement can be amended to eliminate the phrase “residential uses” and replace it with a short, illustrative, non-exclusive list of permissible activities. The amendment can be entered into by the easement holder and the landowner without public proceedings. CAU TION An easement cites natural and scenic values as purposes. The specific terms are weighted to the scenic purpose, citing the view across the property from a public vantage point of a skyline and mountains. However, the easement prohibits the cutting of vegetation, and trees are beginning to block that scenic vista. A case could be made that the prohibition on vegetation control was a mistake, as the real purpose was scenic. Thus, it could be argued that a clarifying amendment could be entered into by the owner and the holder without court approval. A more conservative view, however, is that there may be natural values other than the view-blocking trees that the easement was meant to protect, and thus that a judicial approval of any suggested remedy is desirable. A limited amendment, permitting the cutting of trees that obstructed the scenic view could be presented to a court for approval, with notice to the attorney general. Questions to consider might include who else benefits from the tree-cutting besides the viewing public, what will happen to the trees when cut and who will benefit. ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION # Tool #3: Asking the Court for Assistance Where the landowner will not consent to an amendment, and it is vital that the easement be clarified to avoid an imminent dispute, the land trust can ask a court to step in. This is more complicated and usually more expensive. For this reason, seeking court assistance (“judicial relief ”) is usually, but not always, the option of last resort. Before deciding to seek judicial relief, determine the financial Quick Points in Using cost and the risk of landowner opposition or supporter or the Courts public misunderstanding. ƒƒ In addition to enforcing easement terms, a court could help interpret **The Basics** a provision in an easement or evaluate the propriety of an _Alternative Dispute Resolution_ amendment. Some easements may require alternative dispute resolution ƒƒ Judicial relief will be required if a (ADR) before seeking certain types of judicial relief (as long as land trust and/or landowner desires there is no imminent threat of harm to conservation values). to extinguish an easement. In some cases, a land trust may simply want to try ADR ƒƒ Even relatively simple court matters may be expensive these days. before going to court. ADR consists of three options: Unless you have counsel who will ƒƒ Negotiations. The parties can try to work things out work pro bono (without charging a fee), anticipate the cost being between each other through one or more discussions, by $10,000 to $50,000 for even basic phone, in writing, or in person. In-person negotiations matters. are almost always better. ƒƒ There is always some risk that the ƒƒ Mediation. The parties can seek the assistance of a court will not rule the way the land third-party neutral charged with assisting the parties to trust would like it to rule. find resolution. Good mediators usually have training, experience and a good understanding of the court system. The mediator should also have a good understanding of the law relating to the issue at hand. ƒƒ Arbitration. Arbitration is not a way to seek compromise; instead it is an alternative to going to court. It may be faster and less expensive than going to court, but not always. Arbitration is usually fully binding on the parties and enforceable by law, including by the courts. It usually is not appealable. ## Judicial Relief A court will usually have the authority to grant a variety of kinds of “relief ” (assistance to the parties), including the following relevant ones: ƒƒ Injunctive relief. A court orders a party to do something, or to stop doing something. ƒƒ Monetary relief (damages). A court orders one party to pay another party. ƒƒ Declaratory relief. A court interprets a contract (such as a conservation easement), or a provision therein, or issues a ruling based on facts presented to it (however, the facts _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ will need to constitute a real case and controversy). Sometimes a request for declaratory relief can be presented in a non-adversarial fashion, such as if both the landowner and land trust agree to a particular course of action. In that case, they may present the issue as co-petitioners. ƒƒ Reformation of contract. A court modifies the contract to accomplish the original intentions of the parties. In the conservation easement context, reformation could be requested by a land trust if a provision is absent, but both parties understood that the missing provision was a part of the original agreement. This Guidebook includes a separate Tool that addresses reformation of contracts. **Jurisdiction** A court must have “jurisdiction” to hear the matter. This basically means two things. ƒƒ First, the issues presented in the matter must be of the type that the court can hear. For example, a land trust would go to the court that has jurisdiction over civil matters, including contracts and real property matters. This will usually be a state court. ƒƒ Second, the court must have jurisdiction over the parties in the case. For example, a Nebraska state court would not have jurisdiction to hear a case involving land in Colorado, when neither of the parties resided or had its principal place of business in Nebraska. **Standing** The person bringing the court case must have a legal right to bring it, called “standing.” This can involve complex factors, but in most cases it means: Will the person bringing the case suffer injury? In conservation easement cases, it can be stated even more simply: Does the person bringing the case have the right to enforce the conservation easement? Or is the person bringing the case subject to the easement terms by virtue of having an interest in the land encumbered by the conservation easement? Either would have standing. **Parties** The person who initiates a lawsuit is a plaintiff. The person named as the opposing party is the defendant. A case can have multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants. In some states, the attorney general may need to be named as a party. Some states may require public notice of the lawsuit and an opportunity for others to intervene. In some instances dealing with non-adversarial declaratory rulings, where both parties are requesting the same relief, the parties may be identified as petitioners. Such a filing may be more in the form of a petition (e.g., “In the Matter of the Blackacres Conservation Easement”). ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION ## Basic Parts of a Case ƒƒ Complaint. To initiate a case, a plaintiff must prepare and serve a complaint on the defendants who will be affected by the court’s ruling. In the case of a conservation easement, the parties are usually limited to the holder and the landowner and often the state attorney general. The complaint provides a brief description of the controversy and identifies the relief requested by the plaintiff. ƒƒ Answer. The defendant will provide a brief answer to the complaint. Neither the complaint nor the answer is meant to resolve the case in itself. These documents are initial procedural steps that define the scope of the issues the court is to resolve. ƒƒ Discovery. Court rules permit the parties to investigate facts by requesting documents, asking for written answers and questioning potential witnesses through depositions. ƒƒ Motion. Some matters can be resolved by motion. Each party is provided an opportunity to provide written reasons for a particular result. There is usually a hearing where oral argument is heard. Then the court will rule on the motion and issue an order. ƒƒ Evidentiary hearing. In some cases, there will be testimony and documents presented before a trial. This could be for a motion or for other reasons. ƒƒ Trial. At a trial, the court hears all the relevant, admissible evidence. Some controversies are entitled to a jury trial. It will depend on the state, the issue, and whether the plaintiff or defendant requests a jury. Otherwise, a judge will hear the trial. ƒƒ Judgment. A judgment is a final ruling by a court. A judgment can be issued after a trial and sometimes after a motion. ƒƒ Appeal. An appeal to a higher court can sometimes be taken from a judgment. ## When to Use the Courts to Resolve Problem Easements There are situations in which a land trust may want to seek judicial relief. In other instances, the land trust will have no choice but to seek judicial relief. Here are a few of these situations: ƒƒ The landowner has violated the conservation easement, the violation is causing significant harm to the conservation values, and the landowner refuses to cure the violation. Here the land trust has no choice but to seek help from a court. The land trust will seek injunctive relief and possibly monetary relief, as well as possibly attorneys’ fees and costs for having to bring the case. ƒƒ The landowner and land trust believe the easement should be extinguished. In this case, the parties will present the law and facts and ask the court to rule favorable to them. There may be the need for the attorney general to be a party to this type of case. ƒƒ The land trust and landowner are in agreement as to an amendment to the conservation easement, but the land trust wants to make sure the action does not constitute impermissible private benefit. (The ruling may have relevance only with respect to state laws, however, as the state court’s ruling would not be binding on the IRS. A land trust might be able to get a private letter ruling from the IRS, or the parties may seek declaratory relief in federal court.) _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ ƒƒ The land trust and landowner disagree over the interpretation of a provision in the easement and either of them (or both of them) desire to have the issue resolved by the court. Either party can seek judicial relief. More often than not, it will be the land trust that forces the issue, with or without the consent and support of the landowner. Here the land trust would seek a declaratory ruling or possibly reformation of terms in the easement. ## Preparing to Use the Court Land trusts should anticipate that at some point they will need to use the court to assist with one of the issues discussed above. Here are some steps that will help the land trust be prepared. ƒƒ Identify local counsel with the background to assist the land trust. This will not always be the same as the attorney who assists on nonprofit issues or conservation law issues. It will be a civil trial attorney (litigator) with experience in real property or tax matters. It should also be someone genuinely interested in the land trust’s specific issues, willing to provide early counsel, and, as necessary, prepared to represent the land trust. ƒƒ Consider supporting legal help from a national source. Conservation easements are unique, and there are benefits to having the assistance of an attorney who understands litigation as well as the nuances of conservation easement law. This person may not practice in your area but could assist a local attorney behind the scenes or by presenting in court through a process known as pro hac vice. Typically, it is not wise to rely exclusively on an attorney from far away because of lack of knowledge of state law and local judges, rules, and procedure. ƒƒ When considering whether the land trust’s enforcement funds are sufficient, include the likelihood of court costs associated with amendment, reformation or extinguishment. Conduct sufficient fundraising to meet any shortfalls. Consider seeking help from the Conservation Defense Fund, if the case may be precedential in nature. ## Applicable Land Trust Standards and Practices Here’s a quick rundown of relevant practices. More information can be found at the Land Trust Alliance’s on-line Learning Center. _Practice 11D: Landowner Relationships_ The land trust maintains regular contact with owners of easement properties. When possible, it provides landowners with information on property management and/or referrals to resource managers. The land trust strives to promptly build a positive working relationship with new owners of easement property and informs them about the easement’s existence and restrictions and the land trust’s stewardship policies and procedures. The land trust establishes and implements systems to track changes in land ownership. ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION _Practice 11E: Enforcement of Easements_ The land trust has a written policy and/or procedure detailing how it will respond to a potential violation of an easement, including the role of all parties involved (such as board members, volunteers, staff and partners) in any enforcement action. The land trust takes necessary and consistent steps to see that violations are resolved and has available, or has a strategy to secure, the financial and legal resources for enforcement and defense. _(See 6G and 11A.)_ _Practice 11I: Amendments_ The land trust recognizes that amendments are not routine, but can serve to strengthen an easement or improve its enforceability. The land trust has a written policy or procedure guiding amendment requests that: includes a prohibition against private inurement and impermissible private benefit; requires compliance with the land trust’s conflict of interest policy; requires compliance with any funding requirements; addresses the role of the board; and contains a requirement that all amendments result in either a positive or not less than neutral conservation outcome and are consistent with the organization’s mission. _Practice 11K: Extinguishment_ In rare cases, it may be necessary to extinguish, or a court may order the extinguishment of, an easement in whole or in part. In these cases, the land trust notifies any project partners and works diligently to see that the extinguishment will not result in private inurement or impermissible private benefit and to prevent a net loss of important conservation values or impairment of public confidence in the land trust or in easements. _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ # Tool #4: Extinguishing the Easement Where there is absolutely no conservation value, extinguishment of the easement may be an available option. This is a last-resort option, appropriate with conservation easements only in _**rare cases. Extinguishment should be pursued only with extreme caution and excellent legal**_ counsel. And the land trust’s entire share of any proceeds from any sale of the extinguished easement property must be used Quick Points on in a manner consistent with the conservation purposes of the Extinguishment easement. ƒƒ The tax code and regulations “Extinguishment” has been defined as “\[t\]he destruction or identify only one situation where extinguishment would be permitted cancellation of a right, power, contract or estate.” When a of a qualified conservation easement conservation easement is extinguished by both the landowner – where an unexpected change and the easement holder, it ceases to exist. The property is in the condition surrounding the property makes it “impossible or returned to its original unencumbered state and can thereafter impractical” to use the property for be used for any legal purpose. In most cases, it will be much conservation purposes. more valuable after extinguishment of the conservation ƒƒ Extinguishment of a tax deductible easement. For extinguishment to be successful, it will easement will require court approval. ordinarily require the agreement of both the land trust and the ƒƒ Even if the easement was not landowner and also the assent of a court. donated for federal tax benefits, an inappropriate extinguishment could Extinguishment should not be confused with “merger,” a jeopardize a land trust’s tax-exempt status or lead to other federal or different legal concept. In merger, there is a carrying on of state penalties the substance of the thing, except that it is merged into and ƒƒ Known or reported cases of the becomes a part of a separate thing with a new identity. In extinguishment of a conservation the case of a merger involving an easement, the substance of easement are quite rare, and the thing is the conservation purpose of the easement. For those that do exist do not provide clear guidance for the land trust example, if a landowner were to transfer the fee interest in her community. land to a land trust that held the conservation easement over that land, the fee interest and the easement are now held by the same entity. In theory, this could cause the two interests to “merge,” thereby potentially causing the easement to legally “evaporate” and no longer be enforceable. However, this rarely if ever could happen in the conservation easement context. Under most state laws and in the eyes of the IRS, the easement and the management and monitoring responsibilities associated with the conservation easement survive even though there is only one owner of both interests. This is a sound legal and practical result because otherwise, merger could be used to circumvent state and federal laws that apply to the extinguishment of a conservation easement. This is a critical distinction that must ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION be understood by any land trust that is contemplating the extinguishment of one of its conservation easements. In one instance the easement has been terminated and in the other the easement still exists. The distinction has both legal and public relations repercussions. ## Problem Easements and Extinguishment At first blush, extinguishment might appear to be a particularly attractive way to deal with an easement that the land trust determines, in retrospect, has low conservation value. The land trust may be rightly concerned that it will be spending some of its limited stewardship and enforcement resources on land that has questionable public benefit and want to say: “Look, we didn’t get it right when we accepted this easement, years ago. We now know it’s not benefiting the environment or RED FLAG! people. Let’s extinguish it and move on to bigger and better It is critical that the land trust avoid projects.” This reasoning is even more attractive because allowing the potential recovery of many landowners might not complain if the easement the easement’s value to become an incentive for extinguishment. Each were extinguished. And it may be especially tempting if easement must be considered on the landowner is offering to “buy back” the easement at its its own. The recovery of funds is appraised value. simply a part of the final process. It is not a reason for considering Legally and perception-wise, it’s just not that easy, as extinguishment. explained further below. The better option may often be something other than extinguishment of the conservation easement such as amending the easement or transferring the easement to another land trust that is better suited to own and manage the easement. Nevertheless, there may be limited situations where extinguishment is the best option – for example, for an easement where no conservation value can be objectively ascertained. It is rare to have an easement that has no conservation value. But if that situation does exist, the land trust will want to consider whether extinguishment is the best option. ## Deciding When to Pursue Extinguishment: Legal and Other Factors _Conservation Easement Provisions_ Most easements, and virtually all donated easements, contain language relating to extinguishment. This language must be carefully reviewed to ascertain what the original parties to the agreement intended and what contractual basis there may be to extinguish the easement. In the case of a tax-deductible easement, the language must be consistent with the IRC regulations discussed below. For example, in 2012, a tax court held that a provision in the easement that allows a land trust and donor to extinguish the easement at their mutual discretion will prevent the easement from qualifying for federal deductibility (Carpenter _v. C.I.R. Tax Court Memo 2012-1). How can the easement be extinguished in these_ circumstances and also meet the perpetuity requirement of the IRC? _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ _Land Trust Standards and Practices_ Practice 11K says: ## Extinguishment. In rare cases, it may be necessary to extinguish, or a court may order the extinguishment of, an easement in whole or in part. In these cases, the land trust notifies any project partners and works diligently to see that the extinguishment will not result in private inurement or impermissible private benefit and to prevent a net loss of important conservation values or impairment of public confidence in the land trust or in easements. This language flags critical issues related to extinguishment discussed below. _IRC § 170(h)_ If the original donor claimed a tax deduction for donating the easement to the land trust, Section 170(h) and related sections and regulations of the IRC are applicable. For an easement to be deductible under the IRC, it must comply with the IRC, including the requirement that the easement be “perpetual.” Clearly there is an inherent tension between “perpetual” and “extinguishment.” Treasury Regulation Section 1.170A-14(g)(6) addresses the issue of extinguishment. It provides that, if a subsequent unexpected change in the condition surrounding the property can make “impossible or impractical” the continued use of the property for conservation purposes, then, subject to a judicial proceeding and the required sharing of proceeds between landowner and easement holder, the easement may be extinguished. These regulations anticipate that an easement may be extinguished by seeking court action in accordance with a judicial proceeding that is often based upon the doctrine of “cy pres.” “Cy pres” (pronounced “see-pray,” which in French means “as near as possible”) permits a court to terminate a charitable trust, such as a conservation easement, when the purposes of the trust are impossible or impractical to continue. Recent examples of cy pres outside the easement context arose with respect to donated land and buildings restricted to exclusive use by men, or by members of a particular race. When these restrictions became recognized as unconstitutional, courts were asked to terminate the donation or to eliminate the restriction, based on the best determination possible at the time of the donor’s wishes. After a court has agreed to the extinguishment, upon the subsequent sale of the property and receipt of its required share of the proceeds, the land trust must use its share of the proceeds in a manner consistent with the original conservation purposes of the easement. The land trust’s share of the proceeds can be no less than the easement’s proportionate value of the property’s full value at the time of the donation. For example, if at the time of the donation, the easement was valued at 60% of the property’s full fair market value, then after extinguishment ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION and upon the subsequent sale of the property, the land trust is entitled to no less than 60% of the proceeds of the sale of the property. Until the subsequent sale of the property, for which there is no time limit, the land trust has a vested legal right in the property that will protect its right to its share upon the property’s sale. _IRC § 501(c)(3) and State Nonprofit Statutes_ If the original donor did not claim a federal tax deduction, IRC § 170(h) may not apply. Nonetheless, the land trust still has significant obligations due to its status as a 501(c)(3) “public charity,” or as a “nonprofit corporation” under federal law and under most state statutes. To receive the tax-exempt benefits provided by federal or state law, the land trust agrees to abide by restrictions and prohibitions that protect the public interest. These include the federal rules that a public charity act “exclusively” for charitable purposes and not for private purposes. In a similar vein, most state nonprofit corporation statutes include provisions quite similar to the federal rules. Inappropriate extinguishment of an easement may violate these requirements. A land trust should not undertake an extinguishment action without the assistance of excellent legal counsel who understands both the federal law and applicable state statutes. _Perception by Donors, Landowners, Supporters and the General Public_ In addition to legal restrictions, an easement extinguishment opens a land trust to potential scrutiny. An extinguishment could result in members of the public questioning the land trust’s principles. If the land trust decides an extinguishment is necessary, it should develop a plan for how to present the decision to a number of different audiences. The original easement donor, donors of other easements, neighbors of the property, other conservation organizations, the press and public watchdog organizations all have the potential to weigh in with an opinion. The land trust should know how it will answer their questions and, in some cases, may want to include some of these stakeholders in the decision-making process. Summary of Potential Outcomes of Extinguishment P ot enti al P ositi ve O ut com es ositi com P ot enti al N egati ve O ut com es The land trust will free up resources to devote to projects with real public benefit, provided that the proceeds are used in a manner consistent with the extinguished easement’s purposes. The land trust is required to report the extinguishment of any conservation easement on its Form 990. It is reasonable to assume that such a report will draw IRS attention to the details of the action, given the rarity of the event. Even if extinguishment is found to be justified, scrutiny will be uncomfortable at best. Even if extinguishment passes the regulatory tests, public reactions may be negative. The original donor might complain publicly. Existing and potential donors of other easements may question the land trust’s promises of permanent protection. Watchdog agencies may also object. P ot enti al P ositi ve O ut com es ositi com P ot enti al N egati ve O ut com es There is a risk that the original easement donor could claim that the land trust fraudulently encouraged the donation, contending that the extinguishment violates promises and commitments made by the land trust at the time of the donation. In many states, the donor could ask the state’s attorney general to investigate the land trust, and fraudulent solicitation can result in fines, penalties and loss of tax-exempt status. There is a potential for establishing legal precedents that may be cited in attempts to extinguish other, more valuable easements. A possible extinguishment example C an E xti ngui sh? A freight train derailment results in toxic contamination of a 20-acre suburban wetland property protected by a conservation easement. The wetland – protected for its value as a nesting area for migrating waterfowl – is polluted with chlorine, benzene, and petrochemicals. Adjacent residences have been evacuated while the area is evaluated for public health hazards. | A freight train derailment results in toxic contamination of a 20-acre suburban wetland property protected by a conservation easement. The wetland-protected for its value as a nesting area for migrating waterfowl-is polluted with chlorine, benzene,and petrochemicals. Adjacent residences have been evacuated while the area is evaluated for public health hazards. | A case could conceivably be made for extinguishment,given the level of damage to the wetland. This would be more supportable if the land trust conducted an analysis that determined that restoration of the wetland would be“impracticable or impossible”(this is the bar set by 170h). | | --- | --- | | A land trust holds a scenic easement along the bank of a brook facing the south side of a state road between two towns.It had the effect of rendering a four-acre area at the top of the bank undevelopable.Following Hurricane Irene,the brook had completely scoured the bank at this location,and a landslide obliterated the area at the top of the bank.Emergency repairs ordered by FEMA and the Highway Department resulted in a huge rip rap wall from the stream bed to the top of the bank.The land trust unsuccessfully sought damages and mitigation from the Highway Department,which cited its responsibility to protect public health and safety and restore transportation routes following a declared state of emergency. | On the other hand,consider this:While the conservation value of this wetland has ostensibly been damaged by the contamination,there may yet be potential for cleanup:drainage of the wetland,removal of toxic soils,and regrading.A land trust should not assume that this situation-as dire as it seems-is irreparable.With the funds from the settlement with the railroad,the land trust could work with the nearby university to use this land as a research/study demonstration on reclaiming damaged land. | | What do you think?Is there a case for extinguishment? | | A case could conceivably be made for extinguishment, given the level of damage to the wetland. This would be more supportable if the land trust conducted an analysis that determined that restoration of the wetland would be “impracticable or impossible” (this is the bar set by 170h). A land trust holds a scenic easement along the bank of a brook facing the south side of a state road between two towns. It had the effect of rendering a four-acre area at the top of the bank undevelopable. Following Hurricane Irene, the brook had completely scoured the bank at this location, and a landslide obliterated the area at the top of the bank. Emergency repairs ordered by FEMA and the Highway Department resulted in a huge rip rap wall from the stream bed to the top of the bank. The land trust unsuccessfully sought damages and mitigation from the Highway Department, which cited its responsibility to protect public health and safety and restore transportation routes following a declared state of emergency. What do you think? Is there a case for extinguishment? _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ ## Inquiries and Action Items for an Extinguishment Issue There are at least two considerations in extinguishment of a conservation easement. The first involves a thorough review of the law at both the federal and state level. The second should address the public response to extinguishment. Both are largely uncharted territory. At a minimum, any land trust involved in extinguishment of a conservation easement should consider the following. _Legal Issues and Inquiries_ ƒƒ Seek legal support from lawyers who understand the issues at both the state and federal level. ƒƒ Review IRS code and Treasury regulations (1.170A-14(g)(6)) that address extinguishment and ask and answer the question: does the potential extinguishment of the easement meet the “subsequent unexpected change in conditions” test? ƒƒ Review the applicable state statutes and consider whether the potential extinguishment is consistent with state law. ƒƒ Anticipate IRS inquiries. Schedule D of the most recent Form 990 (annual nonprofit tax return) requires reporting of amendment and extinguishment of conservation easements. In the event of an extinguishment, does the land trust, working in cooperation with its accountants and attorneys have a well-documented explanation of the extinguishment process if the IRS questions this action? _Public Perception Issues and Inquiries_ ƒƒ Make every effort to contact the easement’s donor or the donor’s family to make sure that they understand the purpose of the extinguishment and to address any of their concerns. ƒƒ Communicate with key supporters, including major donors, community leaders, organizational partners, and jurisdictional partners. ƒƒ Consider the perspective of adjacent and other nearby landowners and be prepared with a strategy to address their concerns. Although neighbors may not have a legal interest in the extinguishment, they can complain to a local newspaper or to a public agency. Consider the potential for setting a precedent affecting other land conservation organizations. Although the local impact of an extinguishment may be minimal, it could establish a state, regional or nationwide precedent. Has the land trust, as part of the process, contacted organizations such as the Land Trust Alliance for information and guidance purposes? ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION # Easement Revitalization: Getting Started Here’s a way to think about beginning your analysis. We’ve deliberately simplified the decision tree on the following page. The versions that appeared earlier were also fairly basic, but they offer a pathway into thinking about problem easements. ## A Possible Decision Tree **Are the conservation values** **that the easement set out to** **protect still present?** **YES.** **NO.** This easement will Is there any stay in your portolio. conservation value at all? Fix or manage any drafting problems or **YES. Is there** **NO. You might** transactional issues a potential **sequester the** **alternative holder** easement while you for this easement? evaluate options. Will the landowner **Extinguishment could** work with you be an option to amend the easement? **NO. Seek YES. Amend the NO. You’re going to** **YES. Explore the** **judicial relief or easement to correct** have to hold and possiblility of **reformation** vague or contradictory **steward this one.** **transferring the** language. **easement to this new** holder. Watch out for potential public **relations pitfalls** and private benefit issues. _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ ## Parting Thoughts ix land trusts – strong, effective organizations with deep # Sbench strength, solid land protection programs, and smart leadership – opened their portfolios and selected a handful of problem easements for our team to tease apart and analyze. What we learned from these analyses, and from scores of conversations with land trust leaders all over the country, is that there is a strong desire to resolve the problems – because they are a resource drain and they represent opportunity cost for the land trust, and because it’s the right thing to do to uphold conservation permanence. The result of someone else’s poor choices, these easements can be hard to justify. Lacking a road map, people are understandably worried about what the IRS might do, concerned about private benefit issues, and thoughtful about the potential impact of their actions on supporters and their peers in the land trust community. We hope that this Guidebook makes a few things clear: ƒƒ Doing nothing isn’t really an option. ƒƒ While different organizations have different levels of resources available, there is a path forward. Even if an audit of your entire portfolio is the gold standard, you don’t need to do an audit all at once. You could audit a few easements each year. You could review just the easements that show a problem. You could do a light audit one year and a deep review the following year. ƒƒ There are things you can do to fix some problems and to manage others. ƒƒ Acknowledging that there are problems with how land trusts used to bring easements into their portfolios is the same as saying that we know more and we’re better at this now. It should increase donor confidence, and the credibility of the land trust community overall as a responsible actor. From one of the land trusts that participated in the study, we heard this: “We feel very fortunate to have been a case study partner because we benefited greatly from your analysis of our easements, and the project is also forcing us to face our problem easements, encouraging us to be more deliberate and proactive.” We’re not fortune- tellers, but we’d hazard a guess that other groups will find similar satisfaction in tackling some of their problem easements – maybe even their really stinky ones – thoughtfully and head-on. EASEMENT REVITALIZATION # Appendices _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ # Appendix 1: Resources ## Conservation Effectiveness _Land Trust Standards and Practices can be found on the Land Trust Alliance website at_ [http://www.landtrustalliance.org/training/sp/lt-standards-practices07.pdf](http://www.landtrustalliance.org/training/sp/lt-standards-practices07.pdf) _Managing Conservation Easements in Perpetuity. Curriculum, Land Trust Alliance; Leslie_ Ratley-Beach, 2009. Available: [http://www.landtrustalliance.org/training/publications/curriculum](http://www.landtrustalliance.org/training/publications/curriculum) _The Conservation Easement Handbook can be found on the Land Trust Alliance’s_ Learning Center, at [http://learningcenter.lta.org/attached-files/0/57/5752/CEH_preview.pdf](http://learningcenter.lta.org/attached-files/0/57/5752/CEH_preview.pdf) ## Nonprofit status IRS Private Letter Ruling 201110020, at [http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/1110020.pdf](http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/1110020.pdf) IRS Release No. 20110903, at [http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/1109030.pdf](http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/1109030.pdf) A summary of all of the state conservation easement enabling statutes, prepared by Rob Levine, can be found on the Land Trust Alliance website: [http://www.landtrustalliance.org/](http://www.landtrustalliance.org/) policy/conservation-easement-enabling-statutes **Amendment** _Amending Conservation Easements: Evolving Practices and Legal Principles. Research_ Report, Land Trust Alliance, August 2007. **Extinguishment** IRS General Information Letter, No. 2012-0017 (Mar. 5, 2012), regarding “swaps” or extinguishment of easements that seek federal deductibility, is available at [http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/12-0017.pdf](http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/12-0017.pdf) IRS 2011 Instructions for Schedule D (Form 990) are available at [http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i990sd.pdf](http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i990sd.pdf) at 2 ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION ## Using the courts Land Trust Alliance Resources ƒƒ Land Trust Standards and Practices ƒƒ Land Trust Alliance Practical Pointer Series: • Types of Conservation Easement Violations • Easement Violation Process Decision Tree • Anticipating Costs And Creating Legal Defense Reserves ƒƒ Land Trust Alliance Conservation Defense Clearinghouse: • Attorneys’ Fees (various cases) • Conservation Easement Violations and Defense (various sources) • Stewardship Reserves, Legal Defense Funds and Deductibility of Donations (various sources) • Standing (various cases) ## Additional Resources Conservation Easement Audit Techniques Guide, [http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=249135,00.html](http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=249135,00.html) ## ITS Notice 2004-41, available at [http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-04-41.pdf](http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-04-41.pdf) _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ # Appendix 2: Baseline and Current Conditions Reports: Authentication and Admissibility _This section was prepared by attorney Ann Taylor Schwing, of counsel at Best Best and Kiger, and is_ _used with her permission._ Baseline documents serve two related purposes of the easement holder. They serve as a guide to determine whether and how the property has changed since the easement grant. And they serve as evidence for a claim that the landowner has violated the terms of the easement. In order to be admissible as evidence in a court case, baseline documents must meet the criteria for one of the exceptions to the general rule against admissibility of hearsay evidence; the most applicable exception is the business records exception. Quick Points **The Basics** in Baseline _Land Trust Standards and Practices Practice 11B—Baseline_ Authentication Documentation Report—provides in part, with added ƒƒ The format of the authentication emphasis:should address all the requirements for the business records exception to the For every easement, the land trust has a baselinerule against hearsay. documentation report (that includes a baseline map) ƒƒ The land trust’s policies regarding prepared prior to closing and signed by the landowner compilation of baseline documents at closing. The report documents the important should be consistent with the requirements as well. conservation values protected by the easement and ƒƒ A current condition report, compiled the relevant conditions of the property as necessary to after the grant of the easement, should monitor and enforce the easement. adhere to the same standards. The federal regulations governing deductions for donated easements, 26 C.F.R. §1.170A-14(g)(5), provide, with added emphasis: Protection of conservation purpose where taxpayer reserves certain rights— (i) Documentation. In the case of a donation made after February 13, 1986, of any qualified real property interest when the donor reserves rights the exercise of which may impair the conservation interests associated with the property, for a deduction to be allowable under this section the donor must make available to the donee, prior to the time the donation is made, documentation sufficient to establish the condition of the property at the time of the gift. Such documentation is designed to protect the conservation interests associated with the property, which although protected in perpetuity by the easement, could be adversely affected by the exercise of the reserved rights. . . . The documentation, including the maps and photographs, must be accompanied by a ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION statement signed by the donor and a representative of the donee clearly referencing the documentation and in substance saying “This natural resources inventory is an accurate representation of \[the protected property\] at the time of the transfer.” If these requirements are satisfied, this form of authentication is sufficient for the donor to obtain a tax deduction but not enough to protect the land trust. The land trust needs to ensure that the baseline documentation (and subsequent updates) will be admissible in court if there is an enforcement action. That lawsuit may occur years later, when everyone involved in the original donation and preparation of the baseline is dead or has disappeared. ## Baseline Reports Are Inadmissible Hearsay From a court’s perspective, the baseline documentation is a form of hearsay. In legal terms, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter stated. While the Federal Rules of Evidence (which have been adopted by most states) provide that a “statement” can be written or oral, hearsay is not admissible unless there is an exception from the hearsay rule. The baseline would primarily be offered to prove the condition of the property at a specific time—to prove the truth of the facts set out in the baseline, so the baseline is inadmissible unless there is an adequate showing of facts to support an exception from the hearsay rule of inadmissibility. There are three possible exceptions to hearsay that might be available in most states. ## Exception for statement made by opposing party. One exception is an admission of a party opponent or an opposing party’s statement, which is not hearsay at all because of its probative value and the presence of the party who can refute or explain the statement. If the land trust sues the original donor who signed the baseline as required by the regulations, then the baseline will be an admission by the defendant donor. The Treasury Regulations require the donor to make a written admission that the baseline is accurate in depicting the property. This exception is not especially valuable because few land trusts have reason to sue the original donor of a conservation easement. In some States, a court might admit a baseline in an action against a subsequent owner, especially if there were proof that the subsequent owner knew about the baseline and conservation easement and saw the baseline before acquiring the land and is reasonably bound by its contents, but no one should count on such generosity. The usual requirement when the statement was not made by the opposing party is that the opposing party must have manifested an adoption of the statement or a belief that it was true. Proof that a person bought land and saw the baseline at the time of purchase does not prove that the person manifested adoption of the baseline or believed its contents were true. The person would have constructive and perhaps actual knowledge of a baseline recorded with the deed of conservation easement, but knowledge of its existence or even of its contents does not constitute an admission of the truth of the contents. Even if an attorney believed this _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ factual difficulty could be overcome, no case so holds, so a land trust would face the risk and the expense of attempting to make new law. As the one offering the evidence, the land trust would have the burden of proof. ## Exception for present sense impression. Another exception is a present sense impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the speaker was perceiving the event or condition or immediately thereafter. If the baseline or other evidence revealed that it was prepared while visiting the property and within a very short time after, a court might accept at least part of the baseline under this exception, but the chances are very slim. Most or all courts require some degree of spontaneity. Years after a baseline is prepared, land trusts are not likely to have proof of the timing and other information sufficient to establish admissibility of the baseline on this theory, even if it could be used. ## Business records exception. The principal exception that land trusts will need to use is commonly called the business records exception or, more generally, the exception for records of regularly conducted activity. The technical description of this exception is somewhat long and dense, but each element is important. Under this exception, a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business (or nonprofit) activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness or by proper certification, unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness. A baseline is certainly a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation of events, conditions and opinions. The other requirements are ƒƒ made at or near the time, ƒƒ by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, ƒƒ kept in the course of a regularly conducted business (or nonprofit) activity, ƒƒ when it was the regular practice of that business (or nonprofit) activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, ƒƒ as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, or by certification, and ƒƒ the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation do not indicate lack of trustworthiness. If all of these are satisfied, the baseline is admissible to prove the truth of both the affirmative statements it contains (endangered plant X is located in identified vernal pools on the property) and the absence of facts on which the baseline is silent when it plainly would have ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION revealed those facts had they been discovered at the property. In other words, the baseline and other land trust documents that satisfy the business records requirement can be admitted to prove the nonoccurrence or nonexistence of the fact, if the fact was the kind of which a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation was regularly made and preserved, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness. Thus, admission at trial of a well-prepared baseline will provide evidence that there was no second residence on the property, no road or no orchard. ## Establishing the Admissibility of the Baseline Documents ## Authentication Format. The land trust community is very far from the goal of baseline authentication that will support ready admissibility of baselines against second and third generation owners. Possible reasons are that the language of Practice 11B and the Treasury Regulations do not affirmatively mandate as much of the hearsay authentication as they might and because there has been so little litigation that the issues of admissibility of evidence have not risen to the forefront. In a perfect world, the baseline authentication itself should address the critical elements of the business records exception and provide factual support as to ƒƒ the timing of its creation in relation to the time the information was gathered, ƒƒ the identity of the person(s) who created it and/or supplied the information, ƒƒ the knowledge and qualifications of the person(s) to collect the information and prepare the report, ƒƒ the land trust’s regular practice to prepare baselines, and ƒƒ the land trust’s regularly conducted course of activity to keep and preserve the baselines. Many land trusts use authentication forms, copied from various sources, that do not satisfy even Practice 11B and the IRS requirements. Virtually none begin to satisfy the requirements for admissibility under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The example below, from Peninsula Open Space Trust, addresses explicitly each of those requirements. It does not require notarized signatures, but rather specifies that the statements are made “under penalty of perjury.” It is not particularly difficult to complete as the several signing individuals can each sign at different times. **SAMPLE BASELINE AUTHENTICATION** **Acknowledgements** ## Baseline Documentation Team: Sam Smart, Land Stewardship and Acquisition Specialist Samantha Solid, Land Stewardship Specialist Zoe Ground, Ph.D, Soil Scientist Location of the Original Document The original signed document is stored in a fireproof cabinet located within the Peninsula Open Space Trust office. This original document was placed in this location on _______________, 2007 by __________________. Declarations I. Declarations of Accuracy This baseline report (consisting of xx pages of text including the table of contents, 4 appendices, 5 maps and 14 pages of photographs) is prepared to document the current status of the Great Ranch Conservation Property to be held by the Peninsula Open Space Trust, a California 501(c)(3), nonprofit organization. We declare that, in the preparation of this baseline report, we acted under and fulfilled our duty to gather and record the information contained herein accurately and in the regular course of the business of the Peninsula Open Space Trust. Further, we declare that the information contained herein accurately reflects our personal knowledge gained by our field observations on December 2 through 4, 2006. We declare that the information contained herein was recorded at or near the time that the information was obtained and accurately describes the conditions of the physical features and uses of the Great Ranch Conservation Property. We declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on December __, 2006. Sam Smart Samantha Solid Acting as the President of the Peninsula Open Space Trust and as its Custodian of Records, I declare that the Peninsula Open Space Trust adopts, has relied upon, and will rely upon the information contained in this report to describe the condition of the Conservation Property. Further, I certify that the preparation of this document complies with our general procedures for creating and maintaining business records and specifically with our procedures for the creation of baseline reports. This document was created in II. Declaration of Reliance and Certification of Record Zoe Ground ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION the regular course of our business for the purpose of managing our conservation easement portfolio. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on December __, 2006. * * * ## Helen Speaker ## President, Peninsula Open Space Trust ## III. Declaration of Acceptance I, George F. Donor, as Trustee of the George Y. Donor Trust, am the current owner of the Great Ranch Conservation Property subject to the conservation easement dated December __, 2006, to be conveyed to the Peninsula Open Space Trust and recorded in the official records of _______ County. I have read and independently reviewed this baseline report and declare that this report accurately describes the status of the physical features and uses of the conservation easement area. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on December __, 2006. ____________________________ George F. Donor, Trustee of the George Y. Donor Trust ## Verification/Notarization of the Baseline Authentication. The IRS regulations do not require a “swearing” to the truth of the authentication. Nevertheless, the presence of a swearing is likely to enhance the admissibility and credibility of the baseline. The gold standard for swearing out of court is an affidavit—with a notary attesting to the identity of the signer and the fact that the signer swore to the truth of the statements. If the land trust does not have a notary on staff, and the donor is in another location, getting notarized signatures can be such a burden that no signatures at all are obtained. A declaration under penalty of perjury is a near equivalent to an affidavit in many states and does not have the nuisance of a notary. Less weight is given to a simple signature, without the “under penalty of perjury” language that puts the signer at modest risk of criminal charges for perjury. _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ ## Beyond the Authentication. The custodian of the baseline document can supply additional evidence supporting its admissibility at the time of trial, and the custodian will be the one to establish that the land trust retained and preserved the baseline from the date of its preparation to the date of trial. For example, if the baseline authentication shows that Tom Jones prepared it and used information he collected as well as information Mary Smith collected, the custodian may be able to fill in the gaps with testimony that Tom had a college degree in botany and six years experience in land stewardship and other qualifications and that Mary was a surveyor’s assistant with training in map making. Of course, if Tom and Mary were summer interns or long departed employees, and there are no records of what they knew or what experience and training they had, then admissibility becomes more difficult. Some courts would admit the baseline and discount its credibility while others would exclude it. The same would be true for problems with proof of the other points required for admission of the baseline. The weaker the showing on any point or overall, the less hope of admissibility. The less detailed the baseline and the more time that has elapsed, the greater the problems the land trust will face in offering the baseline. Proof of the timing may be assisted if photographs have dates or if records can be located showing visits to the property (expense reimbursement records with explanatory notes may help, but these may have been discarded). If employee records have been discarded, it may be impossible to identify the scribbled initials and establish the preparer’s qualifications. As staff turns over with time, it may be impossible to prove the land trust’s course of activity in earlier years. The issue is not just having a good baseline but also being able to establish that it is good, and explain why. Even if the entire baseline is inadmissible, the photographs may be admissible if someone familiar with the land can be located to identify and authenticate the photographs. ## Baseline Documentation After the Fact Both Practice 11B and the Treasury Regulations require that the baseline report be prepared before the closing. There are cases in which that requirement is not met. The land trust may prepare a current condition report in such a case, applicable to the conditions at the time the report is prepared. The standards for compiling and authenticating such a report are the same as those for a baseline document. The current condition report, if properly prepared, might be admissible in a case arising from a violation that occurred after it was compiled, but would likely have no value if the violation pre-dated the report. The Land Trust Alliance does not recommend that the easement holder attempt to determine the condition of the property at the time of the easement grant for the purposes of the current condition report, as it would be difficult if not impossible to establish the credibility of the resulting document. ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION A current condition report might also be made at the time the property changes hands or at a time when significant changes have occurred that should be documented. If reserved rights have been built out, for example, or a natural disaster has altered the landscape, both land trust and landowner may be benefitted by an updated report. Such a report would not invalidate the earlier one but merely be additive to address the new circumstances. The following acknowledgement could be signed by a grantor or subsequent owner, creating a baseline as of a date after the creation of the original easement. ## A CKNO WLE DGE MENT OF BASELINE DO CU MENTATION The undersigned, being the grantor/successor under a conservation easement granted to Tardy Valley Land Trust (“TVT”) with respect to land located at ________________ ___________________________________ (“the Property”), hereby certifies to TVT that I have read and independently reviewed this baseline report which includes the “relevant documents” listed below is an accurate representation of the physical features and uses of the Property and its condition on the date hereof. \[I agree that the conditions documented in said baseline documentation do not necessarily represent the conditions of the Property allowed or required by the conservation easement and that TVT in no way waives any rights, either at or in equity, to enforce the provisions of the conservation easement.\] I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of _________ that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on December __, 2006. _______________________________ Grantor/Successor Acknowledged by: Tardy Valley Land Trust By: _______________________________ Relevant Documents: ƒƒ Conservation Restriction History, titled ______________________________ ƒƒ Baseline Inspection Report, dated __________ ƒƒ Photos (numbered 1 through ___ , and dated __________) - Photo Log, dated __________ - Photo Key, dated __________ - Preparer’s Affidavit, signed and dated, __________ _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ # Appendix 3: About the Solid Ground Study The aim of the Easement Revitalization Initiative is to develop strategies and tools that groups can use to “revitalize” their easements and make them suitable for prime time. Solid Ground Consulting launched this project in July 2011 with the sponsorship of the Open Space Institute. Preliminary findings were presented at Rally in Salt Lake City in October, 2012. This project had five major components. ## Conducting Research Solid Ground sought an early definition of the problem, as well as an understanding of the scope of the issue. The team conducted: ƒƒ In-depth interviews with twenty leaders in the land trust community. Interviewees included land trust staff leaders, service center representatives, and others with specific expertise. We looked for diversity of geography, mission and organization size in selecting the people to interview. ƒƒ An online survey collecting data about the experience of land trusts with certain kinds of easement-related problems. We invited a list of 95 land trust leaders to take the survey – again aiming for diversity. We also posted the link to the Land Trust Listserv to give other groups the opportunity to contribute. The data reflect a total of 71 respondents, though not everyone answered all questions. It is important to be cautious about extrapolating the survey responses to the larger land trust community. The respondents are self-selected and a fairly small sample. The survey nonetheless gives us some hints about the nature and scope of the problem. ƒƒ A review of published literature regarding certain aspects of the issue of troubled easements. While necessarily incomplete, the review turned up considerable discussion of the problems we are seeing, as well as discussion of some of the potential options for addressing them. ƒƒ A review of Land Conservation Case Summaries, compiled by Rob Levin, a Maine attorney working with several land trusts. This review pinpointed some of the key court cases that might inform our discussion. **Testing** A pilot case study tested early findings with one land trust partner in order to refine potential strategies for fixing or managing problem easements. ## Seeking Guidance We sought expert input into the process at the mid-point of the pilot study. ƒƒ A convening of conservation attorneys and land trust leaders in Racine, Wisconsin to examine and reflect on very preliminary findings, and provide guidance in reframing the issues and potential solutions to test. ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION ## Refining Strategies ƒƒ Land trust case studies conducted in 2011 and 2012 with five additional land trust partners, bringing the total of case studies (including the pilot) to six organizations working in seven states (California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey and Washington/Oregon). The case studies offered an opportunity to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the extent to which “problem easements” exist, and focus on how land trusts can remedy or otherwise manage problem easements. The six case study partners vary by geography, region, jurisdiction, size, and age, offering Solid Ground an opportunity to evaluate diverse problems and solutions. ƒƒ For each partner, an Easement Team was established, comprising the land trust’s staff and/or board members and its legal counsel, as well as attorneys and consultants from Solid Ground. Easement Teams analyzed four to six problem easements from each case study partner and reported findings to the land trust’s board of directors. ## Synthesizing Learning ƒƒ A second meeting of conservation law experts and land trust leaders in Portland, Oregon to examine and reflect on the case study results and refine overall learning for the land trust community. ƒƒ A presentation at Rally to offer preliminary findings from the project and to seek additional input. ƒƒ A Guidebook for land trust practitioners, including a process and tools for revitalizing and managing problem easements. _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ # Consultant Team ## Project Team Biographies ### Dale Bonar, Solid Ground Consulting, Hawaii For several decades, Dale has helped protect the best places in America. A marine biologist by training and former professor at the University of Maryland, Dale recently retired as Executive Director of the Hawaiian Islands Land Trust and the Maui Coastal Land Trust. In a prior lifetime, he served as the Director of the Land Trust Alliance’s Northwest office, where he provided training and support for land trusts in the region and facilitated the merger of several land trusts in Washington State. He was instrumental in the development of LTA’s Assessing Your Organization workbook and was one of the early voices supporting accreditation for land trusts. Passionate about the ocean, Dale spends as much time as he can under it and on top of it. He can also make some pretty amazing hardwood furniture, when he gives himself permission to spend time in his wood shop. ### Mike Dennis, Conservation Strategies, Virginia With over 35 years experience in conservation real estate, Mike serves as Legal Counsel of Ecosystem Investment Partners. He was The Nature Conservancy’s General Counsel for 25 years and its Vice President for Real Estate for six years. He served as a board member of the North American Wetlands Conservation Council and the Land Trust Alliance. Mike is also a member of the boards of the Conservation Law Center and Cuenca los Ojos. Mike holds a B.A. from Northeastern University, J.D. from Suffolk University Law School and LLM, Tax Law, from Boston University Law School. ### Allison Handler, Solid Ground Consulting, Oregon Allison has more than fifteen years of experience in affordable housing, land-use planning and land conservation. She has worked with nonprofit organizations and local governments on strategic planning, organizational assessment, business development and financial feasibility. Formerly the Executive Director of Portland Community Land Trust, Allison also founded the Land Stewardship Program, a housing land trust program of the North- Missoula Community Development Corporation in Missoula, Montana. Allison holds a B.A from Williams College and M.S. in Environmental Studies from the University of Montana. ## EASEMENT REVITALIZATION ## K aren Harris, Vermont Karen has more than 20 years of experience serving as a staff person, executive director, board member, and consultant to foundations and nonprofit organizations involved in myriad environmental and policy issues including conservation, land use, climate, energy, marine conservation, international security, and nonprofit capacity building. Karen has managed her own consulting business since 1997. Before becoming a consultant, Karen worked in the Conservation Department at the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. She was also Executive Director of the Ploughshares Fund where she was responsible for raising and administering $2 million in grants to support international security programs. Karen is currently a member of the Advisory Council of the Upper Valley Land Trust in Hanover, NH and serves as a volunteer facilitator for school board and town functions in Norwich, VT. Perhaps more importantly, she is raising two future circus performers, a legitimate claim to her children’s’ abilities that most parents can only lament. ## Bill Long, Solid Ground Consulting, Montana After 30 years with the Montana Land Reliance, Bill was a founding team member of Solid Ground Consulting’s national conservation team in 2009. As one of three Managing Directors at the Montana Land Reliance, he was responsible for managing land transactions, fundraising, financial management and planning. For over 20 years he has facilitated the Devil’s Kitchen Management Team, a Montana stakeholder group that helps manage hunting and wildlife management issues on private, state and federal land. Bill’s work has given him the opportunity to develop critical skills in strategic planning, mediation and conflict resolution, organizational development, and team building. He is currently Treasurer of Yellowstone Park Foundation. Bill holds a B.A. in Business Administration from Western Michigan University and a M.A. in Economics from the University of Montana. ## Tom Pierce, Solid Ground Consulting, Hawaii Tom runs a law firm on Maui (mauilandlaw.com) focusing on land conservation, land use and planning, real property and environmental law (transactional and litigation), and nonprofit law. He publishes Ti Leaf Express (tileafexpress.com) an online newsletter geared to providing land conservation, environmental and nonprofit information. He has been an adjunct professor at the University of Hawai\`i, William S. Richardson School of Law, teaching conservation property law. Tom was the founding President of Maui Coastal Land Trust, now Hawaiian Islands Land Trust. He also initiated the meetings that resulted in the formation of the Na Hale O Maui Community Land Trust. He currently volunteers with Public Access Trails Hawaii. _A Problem Solving Guidebook for Land Trusts_ ## Marc Smiley, Solid Ground Consulting, Oregon Marc is co-owner of the Solid Ground Consulting. Marc has more than 20 years experience providing direct organizational development consulting services to land trusts nationwide, and has done training and development work through the Land Trust Alliance, state services centers, private foundations and others in support of land conservation. In addition, Marc has experience working with community land trusts and other affordable housing groups, historic preservation organizations, and other groups connected to land. ## Wesley Ward, The Trustees of Reservations, Massachusetts Wes is Vice President for Land and Community Conservation for The Trustees of Reservations in Massachusetts. He joined The Trustees’ staff in 1981 and has been involved in the conservation of more than 30,000 acres of land and numerous historically significant properties. Wes was co-founder of the Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition and served as a member the Land Trust Accreditation Commission. ## Bill Weeks, Indiana University – Maurer School of Law, Indiana Bill is currently President of the Conservation Law Center, and Adjunct Professor of Law and Director of the Conservation Law Clinic at Indiana University Maurer School of Law. He has represented clients in natural resource conservation matters in private practice as a member of the Bar in Indiana and the District of Columbia. He also worked for the conservation of biodiversity as Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President of The Nature Conservancy. He is a graduate of the Indiana University School of Law and the author of Beyond the Ark (Island Press, 1996). ## Barb Welch, Solid Ground Consulting, Maine Barb served 14 years as Executive director of the Frenchman Bay Conservancy, a local land trust on the coast of Maine. As the only staff member for the first eight years, she was responsible for all aspects of program implementation, administration and fundraising. She has particular experience in planning, developing management systems, and building strong boards for a small, local land trust. Her work with the Conservancy has given her a very practical approach to helping nonprofits do their work effectively, and an understanding of how to develop systems at an appropriate scale while maintaining the basic principles of excellence. Barb chaired the statewide committee that developed the original charter of the Maine Land Trust Network, and served on the Network Steering Committee for ten years. She holds a B.A. from Stanford. ## Deer Management Guidelines New Jersey Conservation Foundation Deer Management Program Information Sheet 1. New Jersey Conservation Foundation (NJCF) permits only deer hunting on its properties. Hunting of other species is prohibited. Trapping of any kind is prohibited. 2. NJCF gives permission to hunters on a first come, first serve basis. The first hunters to request 3. NJCF gives permission to hunters on a first come, first serve basis. The first hunters to request permission to hunt a particular property will be granted permission. 4. Permission can be requested in writing by mail, email or fax to : 5. Permission can be requested in writing by mail, email or fax to : NJCF Deer Management Program 170 Longview Road 170 Longview Road Far Hills, NJ 07931 Fax: 908.234.1189 Fax: 908.234.1189 Email: [info@njconservation.org](mailto:info@njconservation.org) • Your Full Name • Mailing Address • Phone number • Email address • Name or location of property (When describing location, please provided municipality, street, and closest cross street) 4. If the desired property has no open hunting spots, hunters requesting permission will be added to a waiting list. 5. Hunters who receive permission may keep their permission for subsequent years if they meet 6. Hunters who receive permission may keep their permission for subsequent years if they meet all program requirements, follow all regulations, a re-register each year. 7. Upon being accepted into the program, a hunter will be notified and provided with a 8. Upon being accepted into the program, a hunter will be notified and provided with a registration package. 9. NJCF requires all hunters to provide the following: 10. NJCF requires all hunters to provide the following: • An annual fee of $75 per hunter • Membership in Conservation Hunters Association, a hunting club that provides liability insurance. • A completed harvest survey at the end of the season. While most NJCF properties are open to bow and firearm hunting, a few smaller properties are • Participation in two volunteer work days per year 8. While most NJCF properties are open to bow and firearm hunting, a few smaller properties are limited to bow hunting only. 9. In some areas of the state, NJCF requires that all hunters harvest one doe prior to harvesting an antlered buck. ## Deer Overpopulation Alert # News ## Apshawa Deer Drive Confirms Overpopulation Within Preserve Dec 13, 2010 ![People walking by trees](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/apshawa-deer-drive.jpg) About 60 volunteers and staff members from the New Jersey Conservation Foundation conducted a deer drive at the Apshawa Preserve on Sunday, December 5, moving white-tail deer out of a 300-acre area that has been fenced to promote regeneration and reforestation of the forest. Walking slowly on foot over steep and rugged terrain, the volunteers – many of them college students majoring in environmental studies – quietly herded deer toward openings in the wire fence that were later sealed. In the process, organizers conducted an informal deer “census” which showed that the deer population in the area has increased beyond levels that allow the forest to regenerate. “We counted at least 18 deer, which works out to a density of 40 deer per square mile,” said Dr. Emile DeVito, New Jersey Conservation Foundation’s staff biologist. “In order for the forest to be sustainable, the number of deer per square mile should be less than 10.” The purpose of the deer “exclosure” is to allow native plants to recover, and the forest understory to return, which creates a better habitat for other mammals, birds, reptiles and insects. “When there is an overpopulation of browsing deer, it negatively affects every other wildlife species in the forest,” noted DeVito. For example, forests that are severely affected by deer browse may have large trees but no understory of saplings and bushes that provide cover for birds and small mammals. DeVito said that because of the large size and irregular shape of the fenced area, it was not possible to drive all the deer out on December 5. “This is an ongoing process,” he said. “What’s important for now is that we have reduced the deer population. We may end up conducting another deer drive and census to further reduce the deer population inside the exclosure.” While volunteers fanned out on foot to drive deer toward temporary fence openings, New Jersey Conservation Foundation Executive Director Michele Byers and Pequannock River Coalition Executive Director Ross Kushner spoke with community members about plans to make it easier for other wildlife to get into and out of the exclosure. “We want to make sure the fence will not be a hindrance to other wildlife,” said Byers. “Ross is already helping to build log bridges that will allow animals like bobcats, foxes, raccoons, possums and even bears to easily cross into and out of the exclosure.” The fence was installed this fall using a $125,000 grant from the National Forest Foundation. The grant paid for 3.2 linear miles of wire fence, removal of invasive plants like Japanese barberry and Oriental bittersweet, and the planting of native trees and bushes like oaks, maples, spicebush and viburnum. The project also included nine pedestrian gates along the perimeter of the fence to encourage public access to the preserve’s trails. The 576-acre Apshawa Preserve is jointly owned by Passaic County and New Jersey Conservation Foundation, and is managed by New Jersey Conservation Foundation for passive recreation and natural resource protection. Within the preserve, the 40-acre Butler Reservoir is a scenic attraction for hikers and birdwatchers. The Apshawa Brook flows through the preserve to the Pequannock River. Nearly seven miles of blazed trails traverse the mountainous preserve and are open to the public for hiking, bicycling, horseback riding and nature study. New Jersey Conservation Foundation, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year, is a private nonprofit whose mission is to preserve land and natural resources throughout New Jersey for the benefit of all. Since 1960, the Foundation has protected more than 120,000 acres, or 187 square miles. For more information on programs and preserves, [click here](https://www.njconservation.org/what-we-do/) or call 1-888-LAND-SAVE (1-888-526-3728). ## Explore More ## The State We're In [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/) [Newsletters](https://www.njconservation.org/newsletters/) ## New Jersey Land Trust # New Jersey Land Trust Network ## NJ Land Trust Network ![NJ Land Trust Logo](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/NJ-Land-Trust-Network-logo-177x300.jpg) **New Jersey Conservation Foundation** is committed to promoting discussion, networking and knowledge sharing among land trusts, grassroots groups and other nonprofits involved in land preservation and stewardship. The **New Jersey Land Trust Network** meets throughout the year for presentations and discussions on various topics including policy, fundraising, mapping, membership and board development, and best practices. The Land Trust Network is a program of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, supported by [**Victoria Foundation**](http://www.victoriafoundation.org/). _Thanks to volunteer_ **_Carolann Clark_** _who designed the logo for the NJ Land Trust Network. To learn more about her work, contact_ [_**carolann.m.clark@gmail.com**_](mailto:carolann.m.clark@gmail.com). ### Share Issues, Topics, and Ideas! Please contact **Bill** at [**blynch@njconservation.org**](mailto:blynch@njconservation.org) to suggest program or topic ideas, or if your organization would like to host a Land Trust Network meeting. Outdoor programs encouraged in warm weather seasons! ## Help preserve New Jersey's land and natural resources. Donate today! ## Franklin Parker Grants # Franklin Parker Conservation Excellence Grants ## Franklin Parker Grants ### There aren’t too many people about whom you can say, “If not for him, many of the most beautiful, unspoiled places in our state would not exist today.” Franklin E. Parker III was one of those people. ![Franklin Parker Headshot](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/FrankParkerHeadshot.jpg) Frank was one of New Jersey’s true conservation pioneers. An attorney by vocation, his passion was land preservation in the Garden State and beyond. A myriad of conservation groups succeeded due to his leadership and vision. He served as the inaugural chairman of the New Jersey Pinelands Commission, established in 1979 to enforce laws protecting the Pine Barrens. He was a co-founder of New Jersey Conservation Foundation and a longtime trustee and former president. He founded and served as director of the New Jersey office of the Trust for Public Land. He was on the boards of numerous conservation organizations. It is a testimony to Franklin Parker's legacy that grants supporting the work of New Jersey land conservation groups are named in his honor. ### About The Franklin Parker Grants The Franklin Parker Community Conservation Program has been paused for 2025 as we work to raise re-grant funding. New Jersey Conservation Foundation remains committed to this important program, and looks forward to restarting it once sufficient funding is obtained. The Franklin Parker Conservation Excellence Grants provide funding for non-profit conservation organizations working in New Jersey. The grants are designed to enhance proficiency in land conservation, develop long-term viable programs, and design creative, innovative projects that can serve as models for other communities and projects. Since its inception in 1989, the Franklin Parker Conservation Excellence Grants Program has awarded more than $1,799,891 for 478 conservation projects throughout the Garden State. **Since 2020, NJ Conservation has awarded over $90,000 through 28 grants to help nonprofits address environmental challenges and improve quality of life for communities of color throughout New Jersey. This remains the purpose of the 2023 Franklin Parker Community Conservation Grants Program.** ![IMG_7098 - Bd Mem Patricia True Payne](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/IMG_7098-Bd-Mem-Patricia-True-Payne-1024x768.jpeg) ![Esperanza Community Garden N6th and Grant Streets](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Esperanza-Community-Garden-N6th-and-Grant-Streets.jpg) Interpretive Sign installed at the [Stoutsburg Sourland African American Museum](https://www.ssaamuseum.org/) in Skillman, NJ. [Camden Lutheran Housing, Inc. (CLHI)](https://clhi.org/) - _“Blight to Bright – Transforming Abandoned Places to Green Spaces” -_ Esperanza Community Garden **Past Grantees** [**Summary of 2023 Grant Awards**](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/NJ-Conservation-Franklin-Parker-Community-Conservation-Grant-Awards-June-2023.pdf) **[Summary of 2022 Grant Awards](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/2022-Franklin-Parker-Community-Conservation-Grant-Awards-June-2022.pdf)** **[Summary of 2021 Grant Awards](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/FP-2021-Grant-Awards-June-2021.pdf)** **[Summary of 2020 Grant Awards](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2020-Franklin-Parker-Community-Conservation-Grant-Awards.pdf)** ![New Jersey Highlands Coalition - Turtle Clan of the Ramapo Tribe promotes traditional farming on Munsee Farm at Muckshaw Preserve ](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/NJ-Highlands-Co-Turtle-Clan-3S-vounteer-04.jpg) [New Jersey Highlands Coalition](https://njhighlandscoalition.org/) - _Turtle Clan of the Ramapo Tribe promotes_ _traditional farming on Munsee Farm at Muckshaw Preserve_ ## Help preserve New Jersey's land and natural resources. Donate today! --- ## [NJ Conservation Directory](https://www.njconservation.org/resources/) ## New Jersey Conservation Directory #### NEW JERSEY # CONSERVATION ## Saving Land ### A Directory of Land Conservation Organizations in New Jersey Cover photo: Hill & Dale Preserve from [www.njconservation.org](http://www.njconservation.org/). # Saving Land ## A Directory of Land Conservation Organizations in New Jersey _August 2017_ Compiled by --- ## [Projects Overview / Directory](https://www.njconservation.org/projects/) ## New Jersey Conservation Foundation With the following Volunteers: ## Anne Gaus Ali Hiple Ash Kumar ## Kirill Leshiner John Romanko Valerie Snow _Visit [www.njconservation.org](http://www.njconservation.org/) to view the directory online._ # Celebrate Saving Land! Thank you to the 112 nonprofit conservation organi- zations working to preserve New Jersey’s natural, cultur- al, recreational and agricultural lands. Together, with state agencies and local governments, a total of 1.4 mil- lion acres (29%) of New Jersey’s lands are preserved. These lands protect drinking water supplies, provide local healthy foods, encourage a healthy citizenry, and ensure a diversity of habitats for current and future generations. We are awed by the work of our state’s nonprofit conservation partners, and are happy to say that New Jer- sey Conservation Foundation has partnered with over three-fourths of the organizations featured in the “Saving Land” directory. We will continue to embrace our conser- vation assistance role—Land Trust Network, annual land conservation conference, and Franklin Parker Conserva- tion Excellence grants—to maintain the strength of our conservation community. We have about one million acres yet to preserve. Let’s get to work—together! Michele S. Byers Executive Director New Jersey Conservation Foundation # Building bridges with NJ’s land trust community # About The Directory The directory will promote communication and partnerships among groups within the conservation com- munity. People who want to join others to take care of natural areas as well as landowners who want to preserve their land will find the booklet a handy resource. “Saving Land” was first published in 2010 and is up- dated annually. In 2010 a total of 91 nonprofit organiza- tions were listed. The 2017 edition of “Saving Land” lists 95 nonprofit organizations dedicated to preserving and stewarding land in New Jersey. The groups are as varied as New Jersey’s environ- ment. Some operate with all volunteers; others are pro- fessionally staffed. Some groups work in one municipality, region or watershed; others work statewide. Some groups only acquire land; others only steward or manage land; some serve as advocates; still others do it all. Some groups assist public agencies in managing parklands; oth- ers protect special habitats. Each organization in the directory is described briefly, including a mission statement, geographic focus area, and land owned or managed. To learn more, con- tact information is provided for every group. The directory is accessible online through New Jer- sey Conservation Foundation’s website ( [www.njconservation.org](http://www.njconservation.org/)). The volunteers who compiled the booklet used wording directly from the website of each organization. However, directory information chang- es rapidly. We welcome corrections, additions and com- ments. Please send any changes to [Laura@njconservation.org](mailto:Laura@njconservation.org). Celebrate the land savers of New Jersey! ## Page Organizations In The Directory 010 Alliance for a Living Ocean 0011 American Littoral Society 012 Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions 013 Barnegat Bay Partnership 014 Branch Brook Park Alliance (BBPA) 015 Bergen Save the Watershed Action Network (SWAN) 016 Becker Park Conservancy 017 Brookdale Park Conservancy 018 Camden Greenways Inc. 019 Canal Society (CSNJ) 020 Citizens Right to Access Beaches (C.R.A.B.) Inc. 021 Citizens United 022 Conserve Wildlife Foundation (CWF) of New Jersey 023 Cooper's Ferry Partnership 024 D&R Greenway Land Trust' 025 Delaware River Greenway Partnership (DRGP) 026 Eagle Rock Reservation Conservancy (ERRC) 027 Edison Greenways Group (EEG) 028 Edison Wetlands Association (EWA) 029 Elizabeth River/Arthur Kill Watershed Association 030 Fairview Lake & Watershed Conservation Foundation 031 Flat Rock Brook Nature Center 032 Foodshed Alliance 033 Forked River Mountain Coalition 034 Friends of Holmdel Open Space (FoHOS) 035 Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space (FoHVOS) 036 Friends of Island Beach State Park, Inc. 037 Friends of Princeton Open Space (FoPOS) 038 Friends of West Windsor Open Space 039 Fund for Roosevelt Inc. 040 Future City Inc. 041 Fyke Nature Association 042 Great Egg Harbor Watershed Association 043 Great Swamp Watershed Association (GSWA) 044 Greater Newark Conservancy ## Page Organizations In The Directory 045 Grover Cleveland Park Conservancy 046 Hackensack Riverkeeper Inc. 047 Harding Land Trust 048 Hudson River Waterfront Conservancy 049 Hunterdon Land Trust 050 Ironbound Community Corporation (ICC) 051 Isles Inc. 052 Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research 053 KEEP Conservation Foundation 054 Lake Hopatcong Foundation 055 Lamington Conservancy 056 Land Conservancy of New Jersey 057 Lawrence Brook Watershed Partnership 058 Lawrence Township Conservation Foundation 059 Meadowlands Conservation Trust 060 Medicine Waters Conservancy 061 Monmouth Conservation Foundation 062 Montgomery Friends of Open Space (MFoOS) 063 Musconetcong Mountain Conservancy 064 Musconetcong Watershed Association (MWA) 065 National Biodiversity Parks, Inc. (NBP) 066 Natural Lands Trust (NLT) 067 Natural Resource Education Foundation 068 Nature Preservation Council, Inc. (NPC) 069 New Jersey Agricultural Land Trust (NJALT) 070 New Jersey Audubon Society (NJAS) 071 New Jersey Conservation Foundation 072 New Jersey Highlands Coalition 073 Pennsylvania Railroad Harsimus Stem Embankment Coalition 074 POWWW, Protect our Wetlands, Water & Woods 075 Strike Team 076 NJ/NY Baykeepers 077 New York-New Jersey Trail Conference (NYNJTC) 078 Old Pine Farm Natural Lands Trust 079 Open Space Institute 080 Palisades Interstate Park Commission (PIPC) 081 Passaic River Coalition (PRC) 082 Pequannock River Coalition 083 Phillipsburg Riverview Organization (PRO) 084 Pinelands Preservation Alliance (PPA) 085 Pompeston Creek Watershed Association 086 Rahway River Association (RRA) 087 Rancocas Conservancy ## Page Organizations In The Directory 088 Raritan Headwaters Association 089 Ridge and Valley Conservancy (RVC) 090 Saddler's Woods 090 Save Barnegat Bay (SBB) 091 Save the Environment of Moorestown (STEM) 092 Schiff Natural Lands Trust (SNLT) 093 Schiff Natural Lands Trust (SNLT) 094 Skylands CLEAN Inc. 095 Sourland Conservancy 096 South Jersey Land & Water Trust (SJLWT) 097 South Mountain Conservancy 098 SPARK Friends of Riverbank Park 099 Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association (SBMWA) 100 Teaneck Creek Conservancy (TCC) 101 Tewksbury Land Trust 102 The Nature Conservancy 103 Trust for Public Land (TPL) 104 Unexpected Wildlife Refuge (UWR) 105 Verona Park Conservancy (VPC) 106 Washington Township Land Trust 107 Watsessing Park Conservancy (WPC) 108 Weequahic Park Association (WPA) 109 West Essex Park Conservancy (WEPC) 110 Whale Pond Brook Watershed Association 111 Whitesbog Preservation Trust # Alliance for a Living Ocean The Alliance for a Living Ocean was formed in 1987, at a time when the New Jersey shore was particularly threatened by severe pollution. The group seeks to protect and maintain clean water and a healthy coastal environment, and does this by taking legislative action, initiating local activities and individual responsibilities, and promoting education programs. ALO is based in Ship Bottom, NJ, and has 1 full time staff member as well as many dedicated volunteers. The group and its members have been recognized with a number of awards and honors for their work. ALO hosts many different events and programs to involve and educate the public. ## Contact Information ### Kyle Gronostajski, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** PO Box 2250 [livingoceanALO@gmail.com](mailto:livingoceanALO@gmail.com) Long Beach, NJ 08008 Long Beach Township, NJ **Phone Number Website** 609-494-7800 [www.livingocean.org](http://www.livingocean.org/) Photo from [www.livingocean.org](http://www.livingocean.org/) American Littoral Society The American Littoral Society (ALS) is a non-profit organization founded in 1961. The Society has 5,000 members and 13 paid staff. The mission of the American Littoral Society is to members and 13 paid staff. The mission of the American Littoral Society is to promote the study and conservation of marine life and habitat, protect the coast from harm, and empower others to do the same. The American Littoral Society’s geographic focus is others to do the same. The American Littoral Society’s geographic focus is the east coast of the United States, with activities in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast regions. ALS does not own property or hold easements, Phone Number (732) 291-0055 18 Hartshorne Drive Suite #1 Highlands, NJ 07732 Tim Dillingham, Executive Director As “stewards of the coast,” the ALS engages in many restoration projects. Contact Information Website [www.littoralsociety.org](http://www.littoralsociety.org/) # Association of NJ Environmental Commissions The Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions is a non-profit educational organization founded in 1969. It has 12 paid staff and 2,500 members. The mission of ANJEC is to promote the public interest in natural resource protection, sustainable development and reclamation and to support local environmental commissions, open space committees, and green teams working with citizens and other non-profit organizations. ANJEC focuses on the entire state of New Jersey; it does not own property or hold easements. ANJEC lending a hand to “help protect health and the environment in NJ’s urban and developed communities.” ## Contact Information ### Jennifer Coffey, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 157 [info@anjec.org](mailto:info@anjec.org) Mendham, NJ 07945 **Phone Number Website** (973) 539-7547 [http://www.anjec.org/](http://www.anjec.org/) Photo from [www.anjec.org](http://www.anjec.org/) # Barnegat Bay Partnership Founded in 1995, the Barnegat Bay Partnership is one of 28 Congressionally designated National Estuary Programs throughout the United States. The BBP is a partnership of federal, state, municipal, academic, business, and private organizations that work together with the communities of the Barnegat Bay watershed to help restore, protect, and enhance the natural resources of the Barnegat Bay ecosystem. The partnership seeks to restore, maintain, protect, and enhance the natural resources of the Barnegat Bay estuary, and takes an ecosystem-based management approach. The BBP prioritizes community outreach and engagement, and aims to nurture sustainability in both the community and natural resources. ## Contact Information L. Stanton Hales, Jr. Ph.D., Program Director **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 2001 [shales@ocean.edu](mailto:shales@ocean.edu) Toms River, NJ 08754 **Phone Number Website** (732) 255-0472 [www.bbp.ocean.edu](http://www.bbp.ocean.edu/) Photo from [www.bbp.ocean.edu](http://www.bbp.ocean.edu/) # Branch Brook Park Alliance Branch Brook Park Alliance (BBPA) and the Essex County Department of Parks, Recreation & Cultural Affairs are partners in improving this oldest of Essex County's parks, Branch Brook Park, the crown jewel of the first county parks system in the nation. The mission of the Branch Brook Park Alliance is to accomplish objectives essential to the restoration and revitalization of Essex County Branch Brook Park, conceived by Frederick Law Olmsted Sr. in 1867 and designed by the Olmsted Firm. The Alliance, in partnership with the Essex County Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs, also provides community- based programs and outreach initiatives. Branch Brook Park in Newark ## Contact Information ### Maureen Stapleton, Executive Assistant **Mailing Address Email Address** 115 Clifton Avenue [mail@branchbrookpark.org](mailto:mail@branchbrookpark.org) Newark, NJ 07104 **Phone Number Website** (973) 268-3500 [www.branchbrookpark.org](http://www.branchbrookpark.org/) Photo from [www.branchbrookpark.org](http://www.branchbrookpark.org/) # Becker Park Conservancy The Becker Park Conservancy is a 147-acre park owned by Essex County, and located in Roseland and Livingston Townships. Once a dairy farm, the property now consists of a mix of open fields and successional vegetation. The Becker Park Conservancy promotes and encourages the wise use and appreciation of the natural resources and historic properties in Becker Park. A small gauge railroad, the Centerville and Southwestern, delighted children and adults from 1940 to 1972. Most of the railroad was moved to the Phillipsburg Railroad Historians Museum in Phillipsburg, NJ where it can be seen today. ## Contact Information ### Russell Ferrara, Principle Officer **Mailing Address Email Address** 18 Spalding Drive See website Livingston, NJ 07039 **Phone Number Website** See website [www.beckerparkconservancy.org](http://www.beckerparkconservancy.org/) Photo from [www.beckerparkconservancy.org](http://www.beckerparkconservancy.org/) # Bergen SWAN The Bergen Save the Watershed Action Network (SWAN) is a non-profit organization founded in 1988. The Network is a volunteer-based organization with no paid staff or members. The mission of the Bergen SWAN is to preserve the natural lands surrounding drinking water supply reservoirs and promote the goals of watershed-based land use planning and management through public education and outreach. The Network’s geographic focus is the Upper Hackensack River Watershed, located in Bergen and Rockland counties. The organization neither owns land nor holds conservation easements. Volunteers help install a kiosk in Emerson, New Jersey. ## Contact Information ### Lori Charkey, Director **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 217 [bergenswan@sprynet.com](mailto:bergenswan@sprynet.com) Westwood, NJ 07675 **Phone Number Website** (201) 666-1877 [www.bergenswan.org](http://www.bergenswan.org/) Photo from [www.bergenswan.org](http://www.bergenswan.org/) # Brookdale Park Conservancy Brookdale Park, designed in 1928-1930 by the world renowned Olmsted Brothers Firm, is the fourth largest park in the historic Essex County Park System (est. 1895 as the first county park system in the US). With 78 acres in Bloomfield and 43 acres in Montclair, Brookdale is a serene oasis in an otherwise densely populated area. Brookdale Park offers the public access to both passive and active recreational activities as well as picturesque vistas. Trails for walking and running, lush groves and extensive lawns, sports fields, track facilities, tennis courts, an archery range, a playground and stadium with grandstand are just some of the numerous attractions that make Brookdale Park a magnet for nature lovers, families, and physical fitness enthusiasts. One of the park's most notable attractions is the Essex County Rose Garden (established 1959. which features more than 100 species of roses. ## Contact Information ### Mollie Smith Chairperson **Mailing Address Email Address** PO BOX 1148 See website Montclair, NJ 07042 **Phone Number Website** (973) 268-3500 [http://brookdalepark.org/](http://brookdalepark.org/) Photo from [www.brookdalepark.org/](http://www.brookdalepark.org/) # Camden Greenways Inc. Camden Greenways Inc. began in 1993 as the Camden Greenways Working Group and incorporated as a non-profit entity in 2000. It is a volunteer-based organization with no paid staff. The mission of Camden Greenways Inc. is to implement a comprehensive Greenways Plan that details an extensive linear park system along the Delaware River, Cooper River, and Newton Creek in Camden, New Jersey. The organization protects and preserves the greenways but does not own property or hold easements. Camden Greenways Inc. is hoping to establish a “continuous multi-purpose trail” to connect this area with other land. ## Contact Information ### Jack Sworaski, Chairman **Mailing Address Email Address** 433 Market St. [info@camdengreenways.org](mailto:info@camdengreenways.org) Camden, NJ 08102 **Phone Number Website** (856) 964-7336 Www.camdengreenways.org Photo from [www.camdengreenways.org](http://www.camdengreenways.org/) # Canal Society of New Jersey The Canal Society (CSNJ) of New Jersey is a non- profit organization chartered in 1969 with a volunteer staff and 1,200 members. The organization’s mission is to foster the study of New Jersey's historic canals, preserve and restore canal remains and artifacts, and educate the public. The Canal Society runs canal tours, presents educational workshops, and maintains the Canal Museum in Stanhope, Sussex County. CSNJ is working to preserve the Morris Canal Greenway, a series of parks and trails along the historic Morris Canal corridor. CSNJ does not own any properties or hold conservation easements. A CSNJ member educates the public at its annual Waterloo Canal Day. ## Contact Information ### Joseph Macasek, President **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 737 [nj-cnal@googlegroups.com](mailto:nj-cnal@googlegroups.com) Morristown, NJ 07963 **Phone Number Website** (973) 292 2755 [www.canalsocietynj.org](http://www.canalsocietynj.org/) Photo from [www.canalsocietynj.org](http://www.canalsocietynj.org/) # Citizens Right to Access Beaches (C.R.A.B) Citizens Right to Access Beaches (C.R.A.B.) Inc. is a non-political, non-profit organization made up of volunteers concerned that our beaches, a natural resource, are becoming inaccessible to the public. Registered in 1996, C.R.A.B. has no paid staff. C.R.A.B.’s mission is to preserve public beach access, promote proper stewardship and educate the public on its rights and responsibilities regarding public beach access. The focus of C.R.A.B. is being able to retain reasonable access to beaches in New Jersey. C.R.A.B. does not own or acquire land or conservation easements. Monofilament recycle program sponsored by C.R.A.B. ## Contact Information ### Ralph Cosica, President **Mailing Address Email Address** P. O Box 1064 [crabnj@yahoo.com](mailto:crabnj@yahoo.com) Point Pleasant Beach, NJ 08742 **Phone Number Website** (732) 361-2722 [www.crabnj.com](http://www.crabnj.com/) Photo from [www.crabnj.com](http://www.crabnj.com/) # Citizens United **Protect the Maurice River** **Citizens United to** Citizens United is a volunteer, non-profit corporation dedicated to the preservation and protection of the Maurice River watershed for the enjoyment of this and future generations. Founded in 1979 by local residents and incorporated as a charitable organization in 1986, CU now numbers over 430 memberships. The diversity of the Citizens United membership affords CU the opportunity to work in close contact with other environmental organizations, sharing each other’s knowledge and expertise. CU participates in many local, state and national cooperative conservation programs and serve on numerous advisory and policy-making boards. Members are also involved in keeping land trusts updated on possible land acquisition projects. Citizens United involves groups and individuals in hands on habitat and conservation projects, seen here building an osprey nest platform. ## Contact Information ### Jane Morton Galetto, President **Mailing Address Email Address** P. O Box 474 [forrivers@comcast.net](mailto:forrivers@comcast.net) Millville, NJ 08332 **Phone Number Website** (856) 300-5331 [www.cumauriceriver.org](http://www.cumauriceriver.org/) Photo by Marcia Walton from [www.cumauriceriver.org](http://www.cumauriceriver.org/) # Conserve Wildlife Foundation Clean Ocean Action of New Jersey Conserve Wildlife Foundation (CWF) of New Jersey is a statewide non-profit organization dedicated to New Jersey’s rare wildlife. CWF works to protect and recover rare wildlife in New Jersey by conserving and restoring habitats, researching species, educating residents and engaging the public to protect the wildlife living on their doorstep. CWF works throughout the state of New Jersey. CWF does not buy or own land or easements. ## Contact Information ### Cindy Zipf, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 18 Hartshorne Drive, Suite 2 See website Highlands, NJ 07732 **Phone Number Website** (732) 872-0111 [http://www.cleanoceanaction.org](http://www.cleanoceanaction.org/) Photo from Press of Atlantic City # Fund for a Better WaterfrontConserve Wildlife Foundation ## of New Jersey ### Contact Information Ron Hine, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 1965 \| Hoboken, NJ [fbw@betterwaterfront.org](mailto:fbw@betterwaterfront.org) 07030 **Phone Number Website** 201.217.0500 [http://betterwaterfront.org/](http://betterwaterfront.org/) Photo from [http://betterwaterfront.org](http://betterwaterfront.org/) **Conserve Wildlife Foundation** # Coalition to Preserve the of New Jersey Palisades Cliffs Conserve Wildlife Foundation (CWF) of New Jersey is a statewide non-profit organization dedicated to New Jersey’s rare wildlife. CWF works to protect and recover rare wildlife in New Jersey by conserving and restoring habitats, researching species, educating residents and engaging the public to protect the wildlife living on their doorstep. CWF works throughout the state of New Jersey. CWF does not buy or own land or easements. The American bald eagle, once on the brink of extinction, has had a remarkable recovery in New Jersey. ## Contact Information ### David Wheeler, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** P. O Box 420 [info@conservewildlifenj.org](mailto:info@conservewildlifenj.org) Trenton , NJ 08625 **Phone Number Website** (609) 984-6012 [www.conservewildlifenj.org](http://www.conservewildlifenj.org/) Photo from [www.conservewildlifenj.org](http://www.conservewildlifenj.org/) ### Conserve Wildlife Foundation # Conserve Wildlife Foundation ### of New Jersey # of New Jersey Conserve Wildlife Foundation (CWF) of New Jersey is a statewide non-profit organization dedicated to New Jersey’s rare wildlife. CWF works to protect and recover rare wildlife in New Jersey by conserving and restoring habitats, researching species, educating residents and engaging the public to protect the wildlife living on their doorstep. CWF works throughout the state of New Jersey. CWF does not buy or own land or easements. The American bald eagle, once on the brink of extinction, has had a remarkable recovery in New Jersey. ## Contact Information ### David Wheeler, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** P. O Box 420 [info@conservewildlifenj.org](mailto:info@conservewildlifenj.org) Trenton , NJ 08625 **Phone Number Website** (609) 984-6012 [www.conservewildlifenj.org](http://www.conservewildlifenj.org/) Photo from [www.conservewildlifenj.org](http://www.conservewildlifenj.org/) Conserve Wildlife Foundation Coopers Ferry Partnership of New Jersey Cooper's Ferry Partnership is committed to leveraging crucial economic development, using strategic planning to lay the groundwork for major redevelopment projects & initiatives in a revitalized Camden. CFP uses these projects to forward its mission of improving the City of Camden as a place to live, work, visit, and invest. CFP works towards its mission through a wide range of CFP works towards its mission through a wide range of activities including development of major Waterfront attractions, design and planning of municipal infrastructure, implementing improved streetscapes and roadways, and improved marketing to attract new businesses and support local business growth. CFP is working to cultivate vibrancy and a strong sense of place through physical upgrades and programming to attract new people, investors, and businesses. Contact Information Phone Number One Port Center 2 Riverside Drive, Suite 501 Camden, New Jersey 08103 See website [http://coopersferry.com](http://coopersferry.com/) # D&R Greenway Land Trust D&R Greenway Land Trust's mission is to permanently preserve a network of natural lands, farm lands, and open spaces throughout central New Jersey and to lend their expertise to advance land preservation in other parts of the State. As of 2009, D&R Greenway has led the preservation of over 22 square miles of land, an area about the size of Manhattan. The organization acts as a continuing steward for 100 preserves and conservation easements. D&R Greenway creates public access trails that encourage people to connect with the land. The Johnson Education Center, D&R Greenway’s headquarters, has become a focal point for conservation activity in New Jersey. Programs presented throughout the year range from professional workshops to lectures on conservation issues by academics and environmental leaders. St. Michael’s in Hopewell is a ma- jor preservation project for D&R. ## Contact Information ### Linda Mead, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 1 Preservation Place [info@drgreenway.org](mailto:info@drgreenway.org) Princeton, NJ 08540 **Phone Number Website** (609) 924-4646 [www.drgreenway.org](http://www.drgreenway.org/) Photo from [www.drgreenway.org](http://www.drgreenway.org/) # Delaware River Greenway Partnership Delaware River Greenway Partnership (DRGP) is a non-profit organization founded in 1998. The mission of DRGP is to engage with public and private partners to promote stewardship of the Wild and Scenic Lower Delaware River and its tributaries and to foster a shared sense of place among communities that adjoin the river by preserving and enhancing its ecological, scenic, historic, cultural and recreational resources. The geographic focus of this organization is the region from the Delaware Water Gap through the upper estuary of the river. DRGP does not own land or hold conservation easements. Tinicum Creek, managed by the DRGP, is one of the creeks designated as part of the Lower Delaware. ## Contact Information ### Mark Zakutansky, President **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 15 [info@delawarerivergreenway.org](mailto:info@delawarerivergreenway.org) Stockton, NJ 08559 **Phone Number Website** none [www.delrivgreenway.org](http://www.delrivgreenway.org/) Photo from [www.delrivgreenway.org](http://www.delrivgreenway.org/) # Eagle Rock Reservation Eagle Rock Reservation Conservancy Conservancy The Eagle Rock Reservation Conservancy (ERRC) is a non-profit organization established in 2004 and operates solely through the efforts of volunteers. The goal of the ERRC is to maintain and protect, preserve and restore the 408-acre Eagle Rock Reservation through fundraising, trail maintenance, and public awareness. The geographic focus of the Conservancy is the Reservation located on the border between West Orange and Montclair, Essex County, New Jersey. The organization does not own any land or hold easements. A volunteer works to maintain the trails in Eagle Rock Reserva- tion. ERRC volunteers clear fallen trees, divert standing water and other trail activi- ties. ## Contact Information ### James Christiano, President **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 235 [errc11@aol.com](mailto:errc11@aol.com) West Orange, NJ 07052 **Phone Number Website** (732) 382-7368 [www.eaglerockreservation.org](http://www.eaglerockreservation.org/) Photo from [www.eaglerockreservation.org](http://www.eaglerockreservation.org/) # Edison Greenways Group Edison Greenways Group Edison Greenways Group (EEG), Inc. is a non-profit volunteer organization founded in 1991 and incorporated in 1992. The organization’s mission is to work with township, county, state, and federal organizations to raise awareness about open space preservation, environmental, and bicycle and pedestrian issues. The geographic focus of Edison Greenways Group is Middlesex County, New Jersey. The organization does not own properties or hold conservation easements. EGG, a member of the Middlesex Greenway Coalition, helped secure an overpass over a highway to extend a greenway. ## Contact Information ### Robert Takash, President **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 10432 [info@edisongreenways.org](mailto:info@edisongreenways.org) New Brunswick, NJ 08906 **Phone Number Website** (732) 985-7071 [www.edisongreenways.org](http://www.edisongreenways.org/) Photo from [www.edisongreenways.org](http://www.edisongreenways.org/) # Edison Wetlands Association The Edison Wetlands Association (EWA) is a non- profit organization founded in 1989 to clean up toxic sites, preserve nature areas, fight for environmental justice, ensure balanced redevelopment, and provide environmental education for New Jersey families. EWA currently works on seventy toxic sites across New Jersey, with a focus on central New Jersey. The EWA owns the Triple C Ranch and Nature Center, the last remaining farm in northern Middlesex County located in the heart of the Dismal Swamp Conservation Area. EWA has been successful in preserving much of the 1,240-acre Dismal Swamp, a federal priority wetland. EWA offers environmental educational experiences. ## Contact Information ### Robert Spiegel, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 206 Tyler Road [ewainfo@edisonwetlands.org](mailto:ewainfo@edisonwetlands.org) Edison, NJ 08820 **Phone Number Website** (732) 321-1300 [www.edisonwetlands.org](http://www.edisonwetlands.org/) Photo courtesy of Edison Wetlands Association # Elizabeth River/Arthur Kill Watershed Association The Elizabeth River/Arthur Kill Watershed Association is a non-profit organization founded in 1997, and is a subsidiary of Future City, Inc. It operates through the efforts of volunteers and 3 staff members. The mission of the Association is to enhance the quality of life in and around the watershed for all of its natural and human residents by promoting the thorough investigation, impartial evaluation and effective removal of threats to the watershed. The Association accomplishes these goals through independent research, monitoring, public education and cooperation with state, federal and municipal authorities. Its geographic focus is the Elizabeth River and Arthur Kill Watershed, located in Union County of northeastern New Jersey. The organization does not own property or hold conservation easements. View of the Arthur Kill ## Contact Information ### Michelle Doran McBean, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 1045 East Jersey Street [erakwatershed@optonline.net](mailto:erakwatershed@optonline.net) Suite 204 Elizabeth, NJ 07201 **Phone Number Website** (908) 787-0802 none Photo from [www.njconservation.org](http://www.njconservation.org/) # Fairview Lake & Watershed Fairview Lake & Watershed Conservation Foundation Conservation Foundation Fairview Lake & Watershed Conservation Foundation (FL+WCP) is a non-profit organization founded in 1990. It has an all-volunteer staff and fewer than 100 members. The mission of FL+WCF is to protect and preserve Fairview Lake and its watershed and indigenous biodiversity, including the surrounding forest, field, stream, swamp, pond, and vernal pool habitats; to foster an appreciation of nature and understanding of basic ecological principles; and in cooperation with local partner organizations, to develop a unified approach to the ecologically-oriented management of Fairview Lake and its watershed. The organization’s geographic focus is the area surrounding Fairview Lake, located in Stillwater Township, Sussex County, New Jersey. FL+WCF owns the Weigen Burner Nature Reserve on East Shore of Fairview Lake. Fairview Lake ## Contact Information **Mailing Address Email Address** 369 South Riverside Drive none Neptune, NJ 07753 **Phone Number Website** 607-865-6497 none Photo from [www.njconservation.org](http://www.njconservation.org/) # Fairview Lake & Watershed Flat Rock Brook Nature Conservation Foundation Association Flat Rock Brook Nature Center is a 150-acre preserve and education center on the western slope of the Palisades in Englewood, New Jersey. The Center was established in 1973 by citizens who were committed to land conservation and environmental education. One of the last remnants of the Palisades Forest, the preserve is managed by the Flat Rock Brook Nature Association whose mission is to maintain the 150-acre preserve as a natural sanctuary for plant and wildlife in our urban area and as a nature preserve available to the public for trail walks, nature study and other passive recreation. ## Contact Information ### Kathleen Silberstein President **Mailing Address Email Address** 443 Van Nostrand Avenue See website Englewood, NJ 07631 **Phone Number Website** 201 567-1265 [www.flatrockbrook.org](http://www.flatrockbrook.org/) Pictures from flatrockbook.org # Foodshed Alliance The Foodshed Alliance is a grassroots, non-profit organization founded in 2001. Its mission is to work with farmers, consumers, and agricultural professionals to foster a self-sustaining "foodshed" that supports farmers, nourishes people, respects the land, and strengthens communities. The organization’s geographic focus is northwestern New Jersey. The Foodshed Alliance does not own property or hold easements. Produce on display at the Blairstown Farmers Market, sponsored by the Foodshed Alliance. ## Contact Information ### Kendrya Close, Director **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 713 [info@foodshedalliance.org](mailto:info@foodshedalliance.org) Blairstown, NJ 07825 **Phone Number Website** (908) 362-7967 [www.foodshedalliance.org](http://www.foodshedalliance.org/) Photo from [www.foodshedalliance.org](http://www.foodshedalliance.org/) # Forked River Mountain Forked River Mountain Coalition Coalition The Forked River Mountain Coalition is a non-profit organization founded in 1994. The Coalition has 100 members and their staff is strictly volunteer. The mission of the Forked River Mountain Coalition is to conserve, maintain, protect and restore the natural, cultural, historical, and recreational resources of the Forked River Mountains, centerpiece of a vast wilderness located in the NJ Pine Barrens. The geographic focus of the organization is the Ocean County/Barnegat Bay Watershed area. The Coalition owns over 100 acres of land and is actively pursuing the acquisition of additional property in the Forked River Mountain area and vicinity. ## Contact Information ### Kerry Jennings, President **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 219 [frmc@frmc.org](mailto:frmc@frmc.org) Forked River, NJ 08731 **Phone Number Website** (609) 971-1635 [www.frmc.org](http://www.frmc.org/) # Friends of Holmdel Open Space Friends of Holmdel Open Space (FoHOS) is a non- profit organization that is run by its volunteer board. The mission of FoHOS is to facilitate the acquisition, management, preservation and protection of open lands, historic areas and parks; to solicit and receive funds from the general public and to apply for, and administer, grants from private and public sources. Its geographic focus is Holmdel Township in Monmouth County, New Jersey. The organization does not hold land or conservation easements but rather assists in the acquisition of land and its transfer to the township or county. Lady Slipper Park trail con- struction and cleanup, a project of the Friends of Holmdel Open Space. ## Contact Information ### Janet Jackel, President **Mailing Address Email Address** 12 Indian Creek Rd. none Holmdel, NJ 07733 **Phone Number Website** (739) 241-4935 none Photo from fohos.org # Friends of Hopewell Valley # Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space Open Space Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space (FoHVOS) is a non-profit land trust that was founded in 1987. The organization has 3 part-time staff and 400 members. The mission of Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space is to promote conservation through open space preservation, informed land use, wise stewardship, education and outreach. The geographic focus is in the Hopewell Valley region of central New Jersey. FoHVOS owns, or has an interest in, over 2,500 acres in the Hopewell Valley, including 29 preserves and 11 conservation easements. FoHVOS volunteers participate in the group’s semi-annual Clean Up Day. ## Contact Information ### Lisa Wolff, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 395 [info@fohvos.org](mailto:info@fohvos.org) Pennington, NJ 08534 **Phone Number Website** (609) 730-1560 [www.fohvos.org](http://www.fohvos.org/) Photo from [www.fohvos.org](http://www.fohvos.org/) # Friends of Island Beach State Park Friends of Island Beach State Park, Inc. is a non- profit corporation. It was incorporated in 1996 and is governed by an all volunteer board of directors. The objectives of the Friends are to raise and receive funds or property for the enhancement of the nature habitat, buildings and properties of the park; support activities, educational and special events that further public appreciation, participation and stewardship of the park; and encourage protection of the barrier island ecosystem. The geographic focus of the Friends is Island Beach State Park, Ocean County. Island Beach State Park ## Contact Information ### Patricia Vargo, President **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 406 [info@friendsofibsp.org](mailto:info@friendsofibsp.org) Seaside Park, NJ 08752 **Phone Number Website** ((707) 636 4277 [www.thefriendsofislandbeach.org](http://www.thefriendsofislandbeach.org/) Photo from [www.friendsofislandbeach.com](http://www.friendsofislandbeach.com/) # Friends of Princeton Open Space Friends of Princeton Open Space (FoPOS) is a non- profit organization founded in 1969; it has 1 paid staff member in addition to its members and volunteers. The mission of FoPOS is to raise funds to assist in acquisition of easements and purchase of lands for permanent open space, advocate respectful yet worthwhile land use, foster understanding, and promote maintenance, publicity and stewardship of existing Princeton parks and open spaces. The geographic focus of this organization is Princeton in Mercer County, New Jersey. The Friends of Princeton Open Space does not own land or hold easements. FOPOS Local teens help FoPOS remove invasive plants and debris from along the D&R Canal near Princeton. ## Contact Information ### Wendy Mager, President **Mailing Address Email Address** 57 Mountain Avenue [info@fopos.org](mailto:info@fopos.org) Princeton, NJ 08540 **Phone Number Website** (609) 921-2772 [www.fopos.org](http://www.fopos.org/) Photo from [www.fopos.org](http://www.fopos.org/) # Friends of West Windsor Friends of West Windsor Open Space Open Space Founded in 1996, Friends of West Windsor Open Space is a non-profit organization run by volunteer members. The Friends’ mission is to promote the preservation of open space in West Windsor, encourage and assist the local environment by raising funds toward the purchase of open space, foster the study of natural resource conservation, and encourage farmland preservation. The geographic focus of the Friends is West Windsor Township in Mercer County, New Jersey. The organization does not own land or hold easements, but has been instrumental in the establishment of a memorial arboretum and the Clean Streets Program in West Windsor. Ronald Rog- ers Arboretum ## Contact Information ### Allison Miller, President **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 73 [fowwos@gmail.com](mailto:fowwos@gmail.com) West Windsor, NJ 08550 **Phone Number Website** (609) 799-8372 none Photo from [www.fowwos.org](http://www.fowwos.org/) # Friends of the Wetlands Friends of West Windsor Open Space Ronald Rog- ers Arboretum ## Contact Information Allison Miller, President **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 73 [fowwos@gmail.com](mailto:fowwos@gmail.com) West Windsor, NJ 08550 **Phone Number Website** (609) 799-8372 none Photo from [www.fowwos.org](http://www.fowwos.org/) # Fund for Roosevelt Inc. Fund for Roosevelt Inc. is a non-profit incorporated in 1999. The goals of Fund for Roosevelt are to save remaining open space in the Borough of Roosevelt, establish stewardship of natural areas and propose a plan for management, preserve and support the public school, aid in the development of human and financial resources to supplement the Borough’s resources, and preserve and restore objects and areas of natural, social and historic interest within the Borough. The geographic focus of the Fund is the Borough of Roosevelt, in Monmouth County, and the only municipality in New Jersey that is, in its entirety, a registered National and State Historic District. Scene from Roosevelt, south of vernal pond. ## Contact Information James C. Rogers, President **Mailing Address Email Address** PO Box 404 [ret@pluto.njcc.com](mailto:ret@pluto.njcc.com) Roosevelt, NJ 08555-0404 **Phone Number Website** none [http://pluto.njcc.com/~ret/ffr/](http://pluto.njcc.com/~ret/ffr/) fund.html Photo from [www.pluto.njcc.com/~ret/ffr](http://www.pluto.njcc.com/~ret/ffr) # Future City Inc. Future City Inc. Future City Inc. is a non-profit corporation, incorporated in 1997. The mission of Future City Inc. is to foster sustainable development by educating and assisting emerging racial and ethnic communities in policy formation, which will result in meaningful and measurable participation in environmental and community development. It further aims to apply sustainable development to watershed areas and green spaces while maintaining community friendly open spaces. The organization’s geographic focus is on Elizabeth and Newark, New Jersey. It does not own property or hold easements, although it oversees 3 programs dedicated to improving land use, water quality, watershed and open space conservation, and public health. The offices of Future City, Inc. in Elizabeth. ## Contact Information Michelle Doran McBean, President **Mailing Address Email Address** 1045 East Jersey Street [info@futurecityinc.org](mailto:info@futurecityinc.org) Suite 204 Elizabeth, NJ 07201 **Phone Number Website** (908) 659-0689 [www.futurecityinc.org](http://www.futurecityinc.org/) Photo from [www.futurecityinc.org](http://www.futurecityinc.org/) # Fyke Nature Association Fyke Nature Association is a non-profit organization founded in 1952 with 200 active members. Its mission is to save undeveloped tracts of land as nature preserves and educate the public about nature and wildlife conservation. The organization’s geographic focus is Bergen County; specifically, the Saddle River subwatershed, Allendale Brook area, Ramapo River subwatershed and the Ramapo Mountains. Fyke co-manages the Celery Farm Natural Area, a 107-acre wetlands preserve in Allendale. The Association also owns 2 land trusts: Celery Farm Land Trust and Ramapo Mountains Land Trust. Fyke does not hold conservation easements at this time. The Celery Farm, co-managed by Fyke, is home to diverse wildlife and over two- hundred forty species of birds. ## Contact Information ### Mike Limatola, President **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 141 [fyke@fykenature.org](mailto:fyke@fykenature.org) Ramsey, NJ 07446 **Phone Number Website** (201) 362-3428 [www.fykenature.org](http://www.fykenature.org/) Photo by Michael Tarkhan-Mouravi, from [www.tarkhan-mouravi.com/CeleryFarm](http://www.tarkhan-mouravi.com/CeleryFarm) Great Egg Harbor Watershed Great Egg Harbor Watershed Association The Great Egg Harbor Watershed Association was formed in 1989 and incorporated as a non-profit in 1990. The Association has over 150 members, 9 active trustees, and 2 full time staff employees. The organization’s mission is to protect and restore and 2 full time staff employees. The organization’s mission is to protect and restore the Great Egg Harbor River Watershed, promote research and action to determine and secure a healthy river system, and educate the public by increasing awareness of the watershed’s resources. Its geographic focus is the watershed’s resources. Its geographic focus is the Great Egg Harbor River and Watershed in the Pinelands of southern New Jersey. The Association does Jersey. The Association does not own property or hold easements, but it serves as the host organization for the Comprehensive Plan for the Great Egg Harbor National Scenic and Recreational River, Comprehensive Plan for the Great Egg Harbor National Scenic and Recreational River, and in that capacity, works closely with the National Park System. Contact Information Julie Akers, President Mailing Address P. O. Box 109 Newtonville, NJ 08346 Website [www.gehwa.org](http://www.gehwa.org/) # Great Swamp Watershed Association The Great Swamp Watershed Association (GSWA) is a member-supported 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. Established in 1981 by volunteers, the organization has grown to support approximately 1,500 regular members and professional staff of nine full-time and part-time employees. GSWA's mission is to protect and improve water resources in the Great Swamp region by monitoring local streams, advocating for intelligent land use, and educating communities about issues surrounding water quality and quantity. GSWA focuses its efforts on promoting the health and natural beauty of New Jersey's 55-square-mile Great Swamp Watershed region located in southeast Morris County and northeast Somerset county. GSWA owns and manages a 53-acres tract of forested wetland in Harding Township. Known as the Conservation Management Area (CMA) this land has been preserved and is being restored as open space. The organization also holds two conservation easements: one in in Chatham Township and one in Madison Borough. A boardwalk in the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. ## Contact Information ### Sally Rubin, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 300 [Info@greatswamp.org](mailto:Info@greatswamp.org) New Vernon, NJ 07976 **Phone Number Website** (973) 538-3500 [www.greatswamp.org](http://www.greatswamp.org/) Photo by Sasha Waldstein # Greater Newark Greater Newark Conservancy Conservancy The Greater Newark Conservancy is a private non-profit organization founded in 1987. It has 20 paid staff including many members and volunteers. The mission of Greater Newark Conservancy is to improve the quality of life in New Jersey's urban communities through environmental education, community greening and gardening, job training and advocacy for environmental justice. The Conservancy is a statewide organization with a special emphasis in Newark, New Jersey. The organization transformed two vacant buildings and the surrounding 1.5 acres in downtown Newark into the state's first urban environmental education resource center. It does not hold conservation easements. Students learn to appreciate the environment at one of GNC’s “living laboratories.” ## Contact Information ### Robin Dougherty, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 32 Prince St. [rdougherty@citybloom.org](mailto:rdougherty@citybloom.org) Newark, NJ 07103 **Phone Number Website** (973) 642-4646 [www.citybloom.org](http://www.citybloom.org/) Photo from [www.citybloom.org](http://www.citybloom.org/) # Greater Newark GreenFaith Conservancy Students learn to appreciate the environment at one of GNC’s “living laboratories.” ## Contact Information ### Fletcher Harper, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 101 S 3rd Ave [info@greenfaith.org](mailto:info@greenfaith.org) Highland Park, New Jersey **Phone Number Website** (732) 565-7740 [http://www.greenfaith.org](http://www.greenfaith.org/) Photo from Timeline Photos # Grover Cleveland Park Conservancy The GCPC is a New Jersey non-profit organization founded in 2001 dedicated to the maintenance, restoration and enhancement of the Grover Cleveland Park located in Caldwell and Essex Fells in partnership with the Essex County Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs. The Conservancy is administered by a Board of Trustees and an Advisory Board. The Conservancy serves as the park’s advocate. Its members stroll through the park daily, keeping the Park System apprised of maintenance and safety needs. Children’s Playground ## Contact Information ### Diane Mensinger, President **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 203 [gcpc@molink.com](mailto:gcpc@molink.com) Caldwell, NJ 07006 **Phone Number Website** (862) 525-2243 [www.groverclevelandpark.org](http://www.groverclevelandpark.org/) Photo from [www.groverclevelandpark.org](http://www.groverclevelandpark.org/) # Hackensack Riverkeeper Incorporated in 1997, the Hackensack Riverkeeper Inc. is a non-profit with a staff of 5 and over 300 volunteers. The mission of the organization is to provide representation for the natural living resources of the Hackensack River, manifested through environmental advocacy, education and conservation programs. Its geographic focus is the Hackensack River watershed, located in Bergen County, New Jersey. The Hackensack Riverkeeper does not own property or hold conservation easements. ## Contact Infor- ### Bill Sheehan, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 231 Main Street [info@hackensackriverkeeper.org](mailto:info@hackensackriverkeeper.org) Hackensack, NJ 07601 **Phone Number Website** (201) 968-0808 [www.hackensackriverkeeper.org](http://www.hackensackriverkeeper.org/) Photo from [www.hackensackriverkeeper.org](http://www.hackensackriverkeeper.org/) # Harding Land Trust The Harding Land Trust is a non-profit organization founded in 1990. It has 300 members. Its mission is to acquire, conserve and manage scenic, natural and historic lands in order to maintain the existing rural character for present and future generations. The geographic focus of Harding Land Trust is Harding Township in Morris County, New Jersey. The organization manages 35 fee, easement, and trail easement properties totaling approximately 290 acres. The offices of Harding Land Trust in New Vernon. ## Contact Information ### Nik Bjorkedal ,President **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 576 [contactus@hardinglandtrust.org](mailto:contactus@hardinglandtrust.org) New Vernon, NJ 07976 **Phone Number Website** (973) 267-2515 [www.hardinglandtrust.org](http://www.hardinglandtrust.org/) Photo from [www.hardinglandtrust.org](http://www.hardinglandtrust.org/) # Hudson River Waterfront Conservancy of New Jersey The Hudson River Waterfront Conservancy is a non- profit organization formed in 1988 and is governed by a volunteer Board of Trustees. Its mission is to oversee the creation of the Hudson River Walkway in New Jersey and provide a voice of support by working closely with local residents, governmental agencies, developers, and land owners to assist in the Walkway’s development, and to make sure the Walkway is accessible to the public. The geographic focus of the Conservancy is in Hudson and Bergen counties in northeastern New Jersey. The organization does not own land or hold conservation easements. The ribbon cutting of a half-mile section of the 18.5 mile Hudson River Walkway. ## Contact Information ### Helen Manogue, President **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 6217 [info@HudsonRiverWaterfront.org](mailto:info@HudsonRiverWaterfront.org) Hoboken, NJ 07030 **Phone Number Website** (201) 963-3511 [www.hudsonriverwaterfront.org](http://www.hudsonriverwaterfront.org/) Photo from [www.hudsonriverwaterfront.org](http://www.hudsonriverwaterfront.org/) # Hunterdon Land Trust Hunterdon Land Trust is a non-profit organization founded in 1996. It has full-time staff and more than 800 supporters and volunteers. The mission of HLT is to preserve, protect, and enhance the county's scenic beauty and its environmental and historic resources, to provide for the permanent preservation of farmland and to support and foster agricultural viability, and to promote the conservation and appropriate management of woodlands and open space. It accomplishes these goals through education, preservation, and partnership. The geographic focus of the organization is Hunterdon County, New Jersey. In addition to facilitating the preservation of 4,000 acres of land to-date, HLT owns and manages the 42-acre Dvoor Farm in Raritan Township, New Jersey. Volunteers of the HLT participate in trail maintenance and clean- up. ## Contact Information ### Patricia Ruby, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 111 Mine St. [info@hunterdonlandtrust.org](mailto:info@hunterdonlandtrust.org) Flemington, NJ 08822 **Phone Number Website** (908) 237-4582 [www.hunterdonlandtrust.org](http://www.hunterdonlandtrust.org/) Photo from [www.hunterdonlandtrust.org](http://www.hunterdonlandtrust.org/) # Ironbound Community Ironbound Community Corporation Corporation The Ironbound Community Corporation (ICC), founded by residents in 1969, is a multi-service, community-based organization rooted in and representative of the ethnically diverse Newark neighborhood called Ironbound. ICC’s mission is to engage and empower individuals, families and groups in realizing their aspirations and together work to create a just, vibrant and sustainable community. ICC services more than 600 people daily with programs that include early childhood care and education, school-age programs, family services, adult education, immigration services, senior citizen services, environmental justice, community information and neighborhood planning. ## Contact Information ### Joseph Della Fave, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 317 Elm St. [info@ironboundcc.org](mailto:info@ironboundcc.org) Newark, NJ 07105 **Phone Number Website** (973) 465-0555 [www.ironboundcc.org](http://www.ironboundcc.org/) Image from [www.ironboundcc.org](http://www.ironboundcc.org/) # Isles, Inc. Founded in 1981 by students and faculty of Princeton University, Isles is a community development and environmental non-profit organization. With a mission to foster more self -reliant families in healthy sustainable communities, Isles provides a variety of self-help tools and services which include community and school gardening, nutrition education, environmental education, green housing and real estate development, youth job training and educational services, green job training, energy efficiency education, community planning and more. Isles renovates parks and playgrounds. Isles provides public education statewide with a specific geographic focus in Trenton, NJ. Two students plant a school gar- den at their elementary school in Trenton, NJ. ## Contact Information ### Martin Johnson, President and CEO **Mailing Address Email Address** 10 Wood Street [info@isles.org](mailto:info@isles.org) Trenton, NJ 08618 **Phone Number Website** (609) 341-4700 [www.isles.org](http://www.isles.org/) Photo from [www.isles.org](http://www.isles.org/) Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve The Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve is dedicated to improving the management of New Jersey coastal environments through science, education, and stewardship. It is part of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. The Reserve encompasses about 115,000 acres in southeastern New Jersey. Less than 2% of this land is developed so as to preserve a healthy ecosystem and provide the opportunity for long-term monitoring and research. The land is made up of a variety of habitats, and is home to thousands of plant and animal species, some of which are endangered. The Research Reserve has 12 paid staff, and has plant and animal species, some of which are endangered. The Research Reserve has 12 paid staff, and has facilities in Tuckerton and Little Egg Harbor. National Estuarine Research Reserve Mailing Address 88 Lipman Drive, New Brunswick, NJ 08903 Contact Information Phone Number (848) 932-3474 Email Address [deluca@marine.rutgers.edu](mailto:deluca@marine.rutgers.edu) Website [www.jcnerr.org](http://www.jcnerr.org/) # KEEP Conservation Foundation Founded in 1998, KEEP Conservation is a non-profit organization dedicated to the protection and survival of migratory and breeding birds. Staffed by unpaid volunteers, it has 75 members. All donations to KEEP Conservation go directly to purchase and manage land and to educational programming. KEEP has preserves in Germantown, New York; Port Republic, New Jersey; and Pamela Kahn Bacca Preserve, Maricopa County, Arizona. KEEP owns 252 acres in total with 80 acres in New Jersey. KEEP has no easements. Keep Conservation Foundation’s Port Republic New Jersey Preserve is an 83 -acre preserve of woods, fields, pond and salt marsh. ## Contact Information ### Linda Atkins, President **Mailing Address Email Address** 38 West 11th Street [keepconservation@gmail.com](mailto:keepconservation@gmail.com) New York, NY 10011-8778 **Phone Number Website** (212) 254-9213 [www.keepconservation.com](http://www.keepconservation.com/) Photo from [www.keepconservation.com](http://www.keepconservation.com/) # Kingston Greenway Association Founded in 1998, KEEP Conservation is a non-profit organization dedicated to the protection and survival of migratory and breeding birds. Staffed by unpaid volunteers, it has 75 members. All donations to KEEP Conservation go directly to purchase and manage land and to educational programming. KEEP has preserves in Germantown, New York; Port Republic, New Jersey; and Pamela Kahn Bacca Preserve, Maricopa County, Arizona. KEEP owns 252 acres in total with 80 acres in New Jersey. KEEP has no easements. Keep Conservation Foundation’s Port Republic New Jersey Preserve is an 83 -acre preserve of woods, fields, pond and salt marsh. ## Contact Information ### Charlie Dieterich, President **Mailing Address Email Address** 305 College Rd E [keepconservation@gmail.com](mailto:keepconservation@gmail.com) Princeton, NJ 08540-6608 **Phone Number Website** (212) 254-9213 [http://kingstongreenways.org/](http://kingstongreenways.org/) Photo from [www.keepconservation.com](http://www.keepconservation.com/) # Lake Hopatcong Foundation **Lake Hopatcong** **Foundation** The Lake Hopatcong Foundation is dedicated to protecting and improving Lake Hopatcong for both present and future generations. They operate with three staff and many volunteers. The group runs a number of projects and initiatives, which include clean-ups, monitoring water quality, tackling invasive species, and research partnerships with local universities. They also work to maintain and improve recreation opportunities on and around the lake, such as hiking and boating. Volunteers at a fall lake clean-up. ## Contact Information ### Jessica K. Murphy, President **Mailing Address Email Address** 37 Nolan’s Point Park Rd [info@lakehopatcongfoundation.org](mailto:info@lakehopatcongfoundation.org) Lake Hopatcong, NJ 07849 **Phone Number Website** (973) 663-2500 [www.lakehopatcongfoundation.org](http://www.lakehopatcongfoundation.org/) Photo from [www.lakehopatcongfoundation.org](http://www.lakehopatcongfoundation.org/) Lamington Conservancy The Lamington Conservancy is a non-profit organization founded in 1999. Its mission is to protect and preserve the rural organization founded in 1999. Its mission is to protect and preserve the rural character and open countryside of the Lamington River Valley. Focusing on land conservation, land use planning, promotion of a rural economy, and the preservation of the country's natural and historic resources, the Conservancy promotes farmland preservation and the protection of strategic lands through acquisition and cooperative efforts with landowners, land trusts, and local and state governments. Furthermore, the Conservancy is dedicated to raising the awareness of landowners as to the economic, social, and environmental reasons for protecting open land. The Conservancy’s geographic focus is the Lamington River protecting open land. The Conservancy’s geographic focus is the Lamington River Valley in Somerset, Hunterdon, The Conservancy’s geographic focus is the Lamington River Valley in Somerset, Hunterdon, and Morris counties. The Conservancy owns interest in preserved lands but does not hold conservation easements. Bedminster ‘heartland’ tract is preserved through the efforts of the Lamington Conservancy Alexandra Allen, President Contact Information [lamingtonconservancy@yahoo.com](mailto:lamingtonconservancy@yahoo.com) Email Address Phone Number (908) 234-0041 # Lawrence Brook Watershed Partnership The Lawrence Brook Watershed Partnership is a non-profit organization founded in 1997 and operated by volunteers. The geographic focus is the Lawrence Brook Watershed in Middlesex County. The group seeks to provide a unifying environmental force for this area. It takes on such projects as land use, advocacy, clean- ups, biological and chemical assessments, and more. The Partnership trains and equips volunteers to handle these tasks. They also host activities such as nature walks, an annual bike tour, and numerous environmental education programs. Westons Mill Pond, part of the Lawrence Brook Watershed. ## Contact Information ### Alan Godber, President **Mailing Address Email Address** 85 Washington Ave [ContactLBWP@aol.com](mailto:ContactLBWP@aol.com) Milltown, NJ 08850 **Phone Number Website** (732) 249-LBWP (5297) [www.lbwp.org](http://www.lbwp.org/) Photo from [www.lbwp.org](http://www.lbwp.org/) Lawrence Township Conservation Foundation The Lawrence Township Conservation Foundation, founded in 1987, is a volunteer, community-based, nonprofit, tax-exempt organization with 75 supporters. The Foundation’s mission is dedicated to identifying nonprofit, tax-exempt organization with 75 supporters. The Foundation’s mission is dedicated to identifying and saving important portions of Lawrence Township’s remaining open spaces. It partners with other governmental agencies and land trusts to accomplish its conservation goals. The organization’s geographic focus is Lawrence conservation goals. The organization’s geographic focus is Lawrence Township in Mercer County. The organization has helped preserve several Township in Mercer County. The organization has helped preserve several hundred acres. Lawrence Township Central Park Mailing Address P. O. Box 6801 44 Titus Avenue Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 –0801 Contact Information Email Address none Website none # Meadowlands Conservation Meadowlands Conservation Trust Trust The Meadowlands Conservation Trust is a public agency comprised of environmentalists, private citizens and government officials. Its mission is to acquire environmentally valuable land, preserve open space and enhance the environment, creating a healthier landscape for wildlife. The geographic focus of the organization is the Hackensack Meadowlands District and the Hackensack River Watershed in Bergen and Hudson counties, New Jersey. The Meadowlands Conservation Trust owns the Skeetkill Creek Marsh Park, the Richard P. Kane Tract in Carlstadt and South Hackensack, NJ, and it holds conservation easements in Demarest, Norwood and Emerson NJ, totaling over 800 acres of land. The Richard P. Kane Natural Area is un- dergoing a 254-acre enhancement project ## Contact Information ### Bernard Nangle, CEO **Mailing Address Email Address** 1 DeKorte Park Plaza Lyndhurst, NJ 07071 [colleen.mercado@njmeadowlands.gov](mailto:colleen.mercado@njmeadowlands.gov) **Phone Number Website** 201-460-1700 [www.meadowlandsconservationtrust.org](http://www.meadowlandsconservationtrust.org/) Photo from [www.meadowlandsconservationtrust.org](http://www.meadowlandsconservationtrust.org/) # Medicine Waters Conservancy The Medicine Waters Conservancy was formed in 2001 as a non-profit organization to raise funds for the purchase and conservation of land. Its mission is to ensure the preservation of lands through purchase by the Conservancy or other organizations dedicated to preservation and to work to restore a healthy ecosystem, repair damage that has taken place through human misuse and prevent future misuse. Medicine Waters Conservancy’s geographic focus is the Pine Barrens of south-central New Jersey. The organization does not own land or hold conservation easements, but continues to take an active role in the stewardship and maintenance of many properties. Volunteers bring debris and small plants into the Pine Barrens to support the growth of new flora. ## Contact Information ### Tom Brown Jr., Chairman **Mailing Address Email Address** PO Box 487 [info@medicinewaters.org](mailto:info@medicinewaters.org) Waretown, NJ 08758 **Phone Number Website** (609) 971-7511 none Photo from [www.medicinewaters.org](http://www.medicinewaters.org/) # Monmouth Conservation Monmouth Conservation Foundation Foundation The Monmouth Conservation Foundation is a corporation founded in 1977. It currently has 2 paid staff members and many volunteers and members. The mission of the organization is to acquire, hold, preserve and protect the open lands in Monmouth County, the geographic focus of Monmouth Conservation Foundation. The Foundation owns or holds about 30 properties. Many of the Foundation’s acquisitions are transferred to a municipality, county parks system, or individual. The organization also holds 6 conservation easements. Representatives of Monmouth County, MCF, and the landown- ers hold a map of a conservation success. ## Contact Information ### William Kastning, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** P. O. Box 4150 [info@monmouthconservation.org](mailto:info@monmouthconservation.org) Middletown, NJ 07748 **Phone Number Website** (732) 671-7000 ext 101 [www.monmouthconservation.org](http://www.monmouthconservation.org/) Photo from [www.monmouthconservation.org](http://www.monmouthconservation.org/) # Montgomery Friends of Open # Montgomery Friends of Open Space Space Montgomery Friends of Open Space (MFoOS) is a non- profit organization founded in 2002, focused in Montgomery Township in Somerset County. It operates with the efforts of an all-volunteer staff, members, and other volunteers. The mission of MFoOS is to preserve remaining open space in Montgomery Township, to provide and support stewardship of the land that is preserved, and to sustain active farming. MFoOS has preserved approximately 420 acres of open space since its establishment and manages preserved land in partnership with Montgomery Township for passive recreation and for habitat protection. The group leads walks and programs to get local residents outdoors enjoying trails, pathways and to connect with the natural world. The group also sponsors the community farmers market featuring local produce, organic vegetables, organic meat and other NJ Fresh products. Drake Farm Closing ## Contact Information ### Sarah Roberts, President **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 287 [info@montgomeryfriends.org](mailto:info@montgomeryfriends.org) Skillman, NJ 08558 **Phone Number Website** (908) 359-4837 [www.montgomeryfriends.org](http://www.montgomeryfriends.org/) Photo from [www.montgomeryfriends.org](http://www.montgomeryfriends.org/) # Musconetcong Mountain Conservancy The Musconetcong Mountain Conservancy was formed in 2002 to promote the preservation of the New Jersey Highlands and surrounding environs. Musconetcong Mountain is a ridge which runs parallel to the Musconetcong River through the northern part of Hunterdon County. This is accomplished by identifying and preserving natural areas and cultural resources, establishing a corridor of continuous greenways and nature trails along the Highland ridge, participating in programs to protect and restore the sensitive watershed and supporting government and other private organizations and individuals to encourage land conservation. Building for the next generation— Tower Hill County Park in Hunter- don County. ## Contact Information ### Suzanne Wilder, President **Mailing Address Email Address** 424 Charlestown Road [sjw22021@yahoo.com](mailto:sjw22021@yahoo.com) Hampton, NJ 08827 **Phone Number Website** none none Photo from [www.mmc.nynjtc.org](http://www.mmc.nynjtc.org/) ## Musconetcong Watershed AssociationMusconetcong Watershed # Association The Musconetcong Watershed Association (MWA) is an independent, non-profit organization incorporated in 1992. A Board of Trustees oversees the operations and programs, while 2 professional staff members conduct the daily operations of the Association. The MWA has a membership base of approximately 100 families, businesses and organizations. Its mission is to protect and improve the quality of the Musconetcong River Watershed, including its natural and cultural resources, through public education and awareness programs, water monitoring, sustainable land management, and community involvement. The geographic focus of the MWA is the Musconetcong River valley, located in northwestern New Jersey. The organization does not own property or hold conservation easements. People of all ages participate in the annual MWA spring clean up. ### Contact Information #### Alan Hunt, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 10 Maple Ave [alan@musconetcong.org](mailto:alan@musconetcong.org) P.O. Box 113 Asbury, NJ 08802 **Phone Number Website** (908) 537-7060 [www.musconetcong.org](http://www.musconetcong.org/) Photo from [www.musconetcong.org](http://www.musconetcong.org/) National Biodiversity Parks Inc. National Biodiversity Parks National Biodiversity Parks, Inc. (NBP) is a federally designated non-profit land preservation and ecological management firm founded in 2000. It has 15 volunteers. National Biodiversity Park’s core mission is to National Biodiversity Park’s core mission is to preserve wildlife and the varied habitats needed to sustain it. NBP works toward this goal via diverse projects from acquisition/restoration of natural lands to endangered species monitoring to environmental education. NBP’s geographic focus is the state of New Jersey. education. NBP’s geographic focus is the state of New Jersey. Contact Information Fred Virrazzi, President and Chief Executive Officer [nationalbiodiversityparks@comcast.net](mailto:nationalbiodiversityparks@comcast.net) Website [www.nationalbiodiversityparks.org](http://www.nationalbiodiversityparks.org/) Image from [www.nationalbiodiversityparks.org](http://www.nationalbiodiversityparks.org/) Natural Lands Trust (NJ) Natural Lands Trust NJ Robert J. Cartica, President The New Jersey NATURAL LANDS TRUST Email Address Mailing Address P.O. Box 420 Trenton, NJ 08625-0420 Website [http://nj.gov/dep/njnlt/](http://nj.gov/dep/njnlt/) index.htm Natural Lands Trust (PA) Natural Lands Trust Natural Lands Trust (NLT) is a non-profit organization founded and incorporated in 1953. It has about 57 paid staff members plus many volunteers and members. The mission of NLT is to protect landscapes in members. The mission of NLT is to protect landscapes in eastern Pennsylvania and southern New Jersey by preserving and caring for natural lands, healthy habitats, and clean watersheds for the benefit of native plants, wildlife, and current and future generations. It wildlife, and current and future generations. It accomplishes its conservation goals through saving land, stewardship, and connecting people to nature. The geographic focus of people to nature. The geographic focus of Natural Lands Trust is the Delaware Valley. The organization owns and manages 42 nature Natural Lands Trust Delaware Valley. The organization owns and manages 42 nature preserves, totaling over 20,000 acres, and holds conservation easements and other restrictions exceeding 18,000 acres. Contact Information Mailing Address Hildacy Farm Preserve 1031 Palmers Mill Road Media, PA 19063 Phone Number (610) 353-5587 Email Address [info@natlands.org](mailto:info@natlands.org) [www.natlands.org](http://www.natlands.org/) # Natural Resource Education Foundation The Natural Resource Education Foundation is a non-profit organization founded in 1976. It has no paid staff. The group is dedicated to environmental leadership and to developing a well-informed and environmentally-aware public. They do this through interactive programs at the 194 acre Lighthouse Center in Waretown, Ocean County. The Lighthouse Center property includes diverse habitats such as salt marshes, freshwater ponds and swamps, and maritime forests, among others. The Center also features facilities such as lodging, a computer lab, a marine field station, and a pier. The “Experience Barnegat Bay” programs offer education and hands-on experience. A picture from one of the “Experience Barnegat Bay” programs, Waterfowling & Family Fun Day. ## Contact Information ### Nancy Eriksen, President **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 747 [pgalie@nrefnj.org](mailto:pgalie@nrefnj.org) Waretown, NJ 08758 **Phone Number Website** (609) 698-8003 [www.lighthousecenternj.org](http://www.lighthousecenternj.org/) Photo from [www.lighthousecenternj.org](http://www.lighthousecenternj.org/) # Nature Preservation Council Inc. A conservation Organization with a difference. The Nature Preservation Council, Inc. (NPC) is a non-profit organization founded in 1993, consisting of environmentalists and wildlife enthusiasts. NPC is dedicated to acquiring land and setting it aside as true wildlife sanctuaries. It does not allow any commercial or recreational use of their lands except for bird watching and hiking. NPC volunteers perform activities such as putting osprey nests in the coastal areas of Atlantic and Cape May counties. Inland activities include providing habitat for many types of wildlife. The geographic focus of NPC is Atlantic and Cape May counties in southern New Jersey. The NPC has acquired over 120 acres of land through private and corporate donations. ## Contact Information ### Gloria D. Maloney, President **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 127 See website Somers Point, NJ 08244 **Phone Number Website** (609) 677-9119 [www.npc-inc.org](http://www.npc-inc.org/) Image from [www.npc-inc.org](http://www.npc-inc.org/) New Jersey Agriculture Land Trust New Jersey Agricultural Land Trust The New Jersey Agricultural Land Trust (NJALT) was founded as a state and federal registered charitable organization in 2007. It is the first and only statewide farmland conservation organization focused exclusively on preserving farms. NJALT is dedicated to the Garden State’s farming preserving farms. NJALT is dedicated to the Garden State’s farming heritage, its sustainability and beneficial use. Its goals are to provide farm owners with land preservation options that combine landowners conservation ethic with forward looking business practices, as needed for independent and productive farm operations and to better prepare future farmers. The geographic focus of the organization is the farmers. The geographic focus of the organization is the state of New Jersey. Phone Number 609-462-9754 Pat O’Connell/Andy Strauss, Co-managers Mailing Address P.O. Box 9924 P.O. Box 9924 Trenton, NJ 08608 Email Address [njaglandtrust@gmail.com](mailto:njaglandtrust@gmail.com) # New Jersey Audubon Society The New Jersey Audubon Society (NJAS) is a private non-profit organization founded in 1897. It has about 71 full and part-time staff located throughout 10 facilities. The mission of NJAS is to foster environmental awareness and a conservation ethic among New Jersey's citizens, protect New Jersey's birds, mammals, other animals and plants, and promote preservation of New Jersey's valuable natural habitats. NJAS supports sound conservation practices, programs, and legislation; disseminates information on the natural environment; advances knowledge of New Jersey's flora and fauna through field research; and acquires, establishes, and maintains wildlife sanctuaries and educational centers. The organization’s geographic focus is the state of New Jersey. NJAS maintains stewardship of 34 wildlife sanctuaries and also holds a 24-acre conservation easement in Morris County. Bird watching at Scher- man-Hoffman Sanctuary in Somurset County. ## Contact Information Eric Stiles, President and Chief Executive Officer **Mailing Address Email Address** 9 Hardscrabble Road [Eric.stiles@njaudubon.org](mailto:Eric.stiles@njaudubon.org) Bernardsville, NJ 07924 **Phone Number Website** (908) 204-8998 [www.njaudubon.org](http://www.njaudubon.org/) Photo from [www.njaudubon.org](http://www.njaudubon.org/) --- ## [Delaware River Heritage Trail](https://www.njconservation.org/project/delaware-river-heritage-trail/) ## New Jersey Conservation Foundation New Jersey Conservation # Foundation New Jersey Conservation Foundation was established in 1960 to preserve what is now the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. It is a private not-for- profit organization with 35 paid staff, assisted by many volunteers. Their mission is to preserve New Jersey’s land and natural resources for the benefit of all. Through acquisition, stewardship, and advocacy, they protect strategic lands, promote strong land use policies, and forge partnerships with other conservation groups to achieve conservation goals. They also work to educate and support conservation leaders and offer healthy outdoor recreation opportunities for the public. The organization has helped protect over 125,000 acres in total and currently manages over 27,000 acres. With headquarters in Far Hills, the organization has field offices in Camden and Stockton. NJCF’s largest acquisition, 9400-acre Franklin Parker Preserve in Chatsworth, Burlington County. ### Contact Information #### Michele Byers, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 170 Longview Road [info@njconservation.org](mailto:info@njconservation.org) Bamboo Brook Far Hills, NJ 07931 **Phone Number Website** (908) 234-1225 [www.njconservation.org](http://www.njconservation.org/) Photo from [www.njconservation.org](http://www.njconservation.org/) # New Jersey Highlands Coalition The New Jersey Highlands Coalition is a non-profit organization with 8 paid staff members. Its mission is to advocate for the natural and cultural resources of the NJ Highlands Region, which includes 90 municipalities in 7 counties (Bergen, Passaic, Sussex, Warren, Hunterdon, Warren, Morris), and to educate the far greater and widespread number of people who depend on the Highlands for some or all of their water. The Coalition also sponsors the Annual Highlands Festival at Waterloo; a music, art, history, advocacy, and local food festival celebrating all things Highlands. The organization does not own property or hold conservation easements. Hikers enjoy the view at a state park in the Highlands region. ## Contact Information ### Julia Somers, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 508 Main Street [info@njhighlandscoalition.org](mailto:info@njhighlandscoalition.org) Boonton, NJ 07005 **Phone Number Website** (973) 588-7190 [www.njhighlandscoalition.org](http://www.njhighlandscoalition.org/) Photo by Kathleen Caccavale, from [www.njhighlandscoalition.org](http://www.njhighlandscoalition.org/) # NJ Invasive Species Strike Team **New Jersey Invasive** **Species Strike Team** The NJ Invasive Species Strike Team works to prevent the spread of emerging invasive species across New Jersey by harnessing the stewardship potential of public and private land stewards to search for emerging invasive species, map locations where populations are detected and eradicate the invasive species that are found. It administers a data clearinghouse, prepares an annual catalog of invasive species present in and around the state, prioritizes problem species, provides training for land stewards and property owners, coordinates detection and eradication programs and shares its experience with the public. The Strike Team is a program of the Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space. Combating European water chestnut, an aquatic invasive plant that is becoming increasingly widespread. ## Contact Information ### Michael Van Clef, Program Director **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 5752 [info@njisst.org](mailto:info@njisst.org) Hillsborough, NJ 08844 **Phone Number Website** (908) 722-1200 ext. 241 [www.njisst.org](http://www.njisst.org/) Photo from [www.njisst.org](http://www.njisst.org/) # New Jersey Tree Foundation The New Jersey Highlands Coalition is a non-profit organization with 8 paid staff members. Its mission is to advocate for the natural and cultural resources of the NJ Highlands Region, which includes 90 municipalities in 7 counties (Bergen, Passaic, Sussex, Warren, Hunterdon, Warren, Morris), and to educate the far greater and widespread number of people who depend on the Highlands for some or all of their water. The Coalition also sponsors the Annual Highlands Festival at Waterloo; a music, art, history, advocacy, and local food festival celebrating all things Highlands. The organization does not own property or hold conservation easements. Hikers enjoy the view at a state park in the Highlands region. ## Contact Information ### Julia Somers, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 508 Main Street [info@njhighlandscoalition.org](mailto:info@njhighlandscoalition.org) Boonton, NJ 07005 **Phone Number Website** (973) 588-7190 [www.njhighlandscoalition.org](http://www.njhighlandscoalition.org/) Photo by Kathleen Caccavale, from [www.njhighlandscoalition.org](http://www.njhighlandscoalition.org/) # NY/NJ Baykeeper Founded with the help of the Hudson Riverkeeper and the American Littoral Society in 1989, Baykeeper is now a wholly independent nonprofit. Baykeeper has full and part-time staff and many dedicated volunteers. The mission of NY/NJ Baykeeper is to protect, preserve, and restore the ecological integrity and productivity of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary to benefit the natural and human communities of the watershed. To accomplish this goal, the Baykeeper seeks to end pollution, improve public access, conserve and restore public lands, restore aquatic habitats, encourage appropriate and discourage inappropriate development, carry out public education, and work with federal and state regulators and citizen groups. The geographic focus of the organization is the Hudson-Raritan Estuary in the New York/New Jersey metropolitan region. The Baykeeper does not own land or hold conservation easements. ## Contact Information ### Debbie Mans, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 52 West Front Street [mail@nynjbaykeeper.org](mailto:mail@nynjbaykeeper.org) Keyport, NJ 07735 **Phone Number Website** (732) 888-9870 [www.nynjbaykeeper.org](http://www.nynjbaykeeper.org/) # New York New York # -New Jersey Trail -New Jersey Trail Conference Conference New York-New Jersey Trail Conference (NYNJTC) is an organization founded in 1920. The organization has a small paid staff, but it is volunteer-driven and has over 10,000 members. The mission of NYNJTC is to develop, build, and maintain hiking trails, protect hiking trail lands through support and advocacy, and educate the public in the responsible use of trails and the natural environment. The geographic focus of the organization is the New York-New Jersey metropolitan region. NYNJTC owns some undeveloped lands for trail access and several parcels in New York State. It also holds right-of-way easements for the Appalachian Trail. Volunteers maintain miles of trails on public lands. A hiker takes advantage of one of NYNJTC’s many well- maintained trails. ## Contact Information ### Edward Goodell, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 600 Ramapo Valley Rd [office@nynjtc.org](mailto:office@nynjtc.org) Route 202 Mahwah, NJ 07430 **Phone Number Website** (201) 512-9348 [www.nynjtc.org](http://www.nynjtc.org/) Photo from [www.nynjtc.org](http://www.nynjtc.org/) North Jersey Resource Embankment Preservation Conservation & Development Coalition The Pennsylvania Railroad Harsimus Stem Embankment Coalition is a non-profit organization incorporated in 1998. The mission of the organization is to preserve the incorporated in 1998. The mission of the organization is to preserve the historic Pennsylvania Railroad Harsimus Stem Embankment, develop its top as passive open space, and integrate the site into a network of local and regional pedestrian and biking trails, including the Hudson Waterfront Walkway and the East Coast Greenway. The geographic focus of the coalition is mainly Waterfront Walkway and the East Coast Greenway. The geographic focus of the coalition is mainly Jersey City although the greenways it helps create connect to other areas of New Jersey. The Coalition does not own any property or hold connect to other areas of New Jersey. The Coalition does not own any property or hold conservation easements at this time. Mailing Address 495 Monmouth Street Jersey City, NJ 07302 A conceptual rendering of the Harsimus Stem Embankment Park, a longterm goal of the Coalition. Contact Information Website [www.embankment.org](http://www.embankment.org/) ## Pennsylvania Railroad Harsimus Stern Em- # Embankment Preservation ## bankment Coalition # Coalition The Pennsylvania Railroad Harsimus Stem Embankment Coalition is a non-profit organization incorporated in 1998. The mission of the organization is to preserve the historic Pennsylvania Railroad Harsimus Stem Embankment, develop its top as passive open space, and integrate the site into a network of local and regional pedestrian and biking trails, including the Hudson Waterfront Walkway and the East Coast Greenway. The geographic focus of the coalition is mainly Jersey City although the greenways it helps create connect to other areas of New Jersey. The Coalition does not own any property or hold conservation easements at this time. A conceptual rendering of the Harsimus Stem Embankment Park, a long- term goal of the Coalition. ### Contact Information #### Stephen Gucciardo, President **Mailing Address Email Address** 495 Monmouth Street [info@embankment.org](mailto:info@embankment.org) Jersey City, NJ 07302 **Phone Number Website** (201) 659-4204 [www.embankment.org](http://www.embankment.org/) Images from [www.embankment.org](http://www.embankment.org/) Protect Our Wetlands Water and Woods POWWW, Protect our Wetlands, Water & Woods, is a not-for-profit conservation organization and land trust based in Denville, New Jersey. With the mission to protect the wetlands, woodlands and potable water supplies throughout the Beaver Brook watershed in Denville, Rockaway and Boonton Townships. They identify and support land acquisition, provide site stewardship and offer public education programs POWWW's Goals are Acquisition: Identification of properties, mapping boundaries, creating awareness and motivating funding from a variety of sources Stewardship: Trail blazing and repair, elimination of invasive plants and pests, encouraging passive recreation and monitoring usage and damage Education: Guided hikes and education programs for children and adults. POWWW PO Box 438 Denville, NJ 07834 Phone Number 2563403111 Contact Information Jim Florence President 2563403111 Email Address [info@powww.org](mailto:info@powww.org) [info@powww.org](mailto:info@powww.org) # Old Pine Farm Natural Lands Trust The Old Pine Farm Natural Lands Trust, created in 1992, is run by its volunteer members. The Trust’s mission is to conserve the natural features of the land and to educate the public about this environmental treasure along Big Timber Creek, which is managed by the Trust with guidance from the New Jersey Conservation Foundation. The geographic focus of the organization is the Big Timber Creek and surrounding area, located in Deptford Township in Gloucester County, New Jersey. The Trust owns and manages the Old Pine Farm, a 30-acre property. It does not hold conservation easements. Volunteer workers install a new split rail fence next to one of two mosaic pillars made by members of the Land Trust. ## Contact Information ### Carl Ford, Chairperson **Mailing Address Email Address** 340 Pine Avenue [info@oldpinefarm.org](mailto:info@oldpinefarm.org) Deptford, NJ 08096 **Phone Number Website** 856-579-4441 none Photo from [www.bigtimbercreek.org](http://www.bigtimbercreek.org/) # Open Space Institute ## Open Space Institute The Open Space Institute is a organization incorporated in 1964 and employs about 30 paid staff. The mission of the OSI is to protect scenic, natural, and historic landscapes to ensure public enjoyment, conserve habitats, and sustain community character. OSI achieves its goals through land acquisition, conservation easements, regional loan programs, fiscal sponsorship, creative partnerships, and analytical research. The geographic focus of the organization is the eastern United States. As Open Space Institute works primarily in New York, it does not own land or hold easements in New Jersey. Apart from the headquarters in New York City, the OSI has a second office in Albany NY. OSI gives loans to conservation groups all over the East Coast to further extend or protect preserves; Codario farm in Atlantic County NJ received one such loan. ### Contact Information #### Kim Elliman, Chief Executive Officer **Mailing Address Email Address** 1350 Broadway [webmaster@osiny.org](mailto:webmaster@osiny.org) Suite 201 New York, NY 10018 **Phone Number Website** (212) 290-8200 [www.osiny.org](http://www.osiny.org/) Photo from [www.osiny.org](http://www.osiny.org/) # Palisades Park Conservancy The charitable partner of the Palisades Interstate Park Commission, the Conservancy is established for charitable objectives, to receive and maintain funds and apply such funds for the improvement of and activities in the Palisades Interstate Park Commission (PIPC), and for purposes of promoting and expanding the preservation of natural, historical and cultural resources in the Park for the benefit of the public. The PIPC is among the oldest public/private partnerships in the nation and is a federally chartered bi- state system with jurisdiction over 20 state parks and eight historic sights. Preservation, education and recreation form the core of the Commission’s services. Since being establish in 2002, PIPC manages more than 110,000 acres of forest, wildlife habitats, and cultural resources in New York and New Jersey and greets more than nine million visitors each year. Palisades Park, NJ ## Contact Information ### Joshua E. Hyman, M.D., President **Mailing Address Email Address** 3006 Seven Lakes Drive See website P.O. Box 427 Bear Mountain, NY 10911 **Phone Number Website** (845) 786-2701 [www.palisadesparksconservancy.o](http://www.palisadesparksconservancy.o/) Photo from [www.palisadesparksconservancy.org](http://www.palisadesparksconservancy.org/) # Passaic River Coalition ## Passaic River Coalition The Passaic River Coalition (PRC) is a private non- profit watershed organization active since 1969. It has 7 paid staff and over 1,000 members. PRC works with citizens, governments and businesses to develop solutions to protect the watershed through land preservation including planning. The geographic focus of the organization is the Passaic River watershed of northern New Jersey and Rockland and Orange counties, New York. The Coalition has acquired 37 properties in 6 counties, totaling over 1,000 acres. The Butler Raceway, a PRC-owned property, along the Pequannock River. ### Contact Information #### Laurie Howard, Chair **Mailing Address Email Address** 330 Speedwell Avenue [lhoward.passaicriver@gmail.com](mailto:lhoward.passaicriver@gmail.com) Morristown, NJ 07960 **Phone Number Website** (973) 532-9830 [http://www.passaicriver.org/](http://www.passaicriver.org/) Images from [www.passaicriver.org](http://www.passaicriver.org/) # Pequannock River Coalition The Pequannock River Coalition is a non-profit organization with 500 members. The coalition focuses on water quality monitoring, riparian restoration, and youth environmental education. The geographic focus of the organization is the Pequannock River watershed in Sussex, Passaic, and Morris Counties, New Jersey. The Pequannock River Greenway continues to increase with several open space purchases in the last few years and more planned. It is also in the process of creating a new water trail and a new willow garden. Coalition volunteers plant trees along rivers to stop erosion, provide a habitat for wildlife, and restore lost vegetation. ## Contact Information ### Ross Kushner, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 392 [pequannockriver@optonline.net](mailto:pequannockriver@optonline.net) Newfoundland, NJ 07435 **Phone Number Website** (973) 492-3212 [www.pequannockriver.org](http://www.pequannockriver.org/) Photo from [www.pequannockriver.org](http://www.pequannockriver.org/) ## Phillipsburg Riverview Organization Phillipsburg Riverview # Organization The Phillipsburg Riverview Organization (PRO) is a non-profit organization, established in 1989, with a volunteer staff of 20 and several hundred members. The mission of PRO is to preserve the character of Warren and Hunterdon Counties through retaining interest and vitality in its hamlets, small towns and cities through revitalization, by discouraging inappropriate land use of open spaces and by protecting natural resources, preferably through preservation. The organization’s geographic focus is Warren and Hunterdon Counties in New Jersey. PRO owns land in fee, the largest holding of which is a 128-acre grassland preserve in Pohatcong Township, Warren County, New Jersey. Supporters of the organization’s REALSmart program protest housing development on farmland. ### Contact Information #### Reggie Regrut, Chairperson **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 291 [rregrut@yahoo.com](mailto:rregrut@yahoo.com) Phillipsburg, NJ 08865 **Phone Number Website** (908) 859-5632 [www.proriverview.org](http://www.proriverview.org/) Photo from [www.proriverview.org](http://www.proriverview.org/) # Pinelands Preservation Alliance The Pinelands Preservation Alliance (PPA) is a private non-profit membership organization founded and incorporated in 1989. It has 8 paid staff and over 3,000 members. PPA’s mission is to preserve the resources of the New Jersey Pinelands through education and advocacy. The organization’s geographic focus is the Pinelands region of southern New Jersey. Pinelands Preservation Alliance owns the historic Bishop Farmstead, which serves as its headquarters and Pinelands visitors center. PPA offers many programs such as guided canoe trips along the Mullica River (shown), Jersey Devil Hunts, and the Pinelands Heritage Series of Lectures and field trips. ## Contact Information ### Carleton Montgomery, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 17 Pemberton Road [carleton@pinelandsalliance.org](mailto:carleton@pinelandsalliance.org) Southampton, NJ 08088 **Phone Number Website** (609) 859-8860 [www.pinelandsalliance.org](http://www.pinelandsalliance.org/) Photo Pinelands Preservation Alliance ## Pompeston Creek Watershed Association The Pompeston Creek Watershed Association (PCWA) was incorporated in 1963 and obtained non-profit status in 1998. It has about 20 volunteers. The mission of the organization is to promote the restoration and conservation of the natural resources of the Pompeston Creek and its watershed; protect and conserve animal life, forest and other plant life, water sources, and soils; and encourage understanding of the need for such conservation through education, scientific investigations and research. PCWA’s geographic focus is the Pompeston Creek Watershed, located in Burlington County, New Jersey. The Association does not own property or hold easements. Students from the high school help PCWA with a stream clean- up in the Pompeston tidal marsh. # Contact Information ### Mark Jendrzejewski, President **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 2883 [pompestoncreek@gmail.com](mailto:pompestoncreek@gmail.com) Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 **Phone Number Website** (856) 291-6933 [www.pompestoncreek.org](http://www.pompestoncreek.org/) Photo from [www.pompestoncreek.org](http://www.pompestoncreek.org/) Rahway River Association The Rahway River Association (RRA) is a non-profit group established in 1992. The RRA’s mission is to protect and restore the group established in 1992. The RRA’s mission is to protect and restore the Rahway River and its ecosystem. To help fulfill its goals, the organization provides opportunities for networking among communities and organizations in the Rahway Watershed; promotes coordination between public and private entities to preserve and enhance the River’s ecological functions and benefits; works in cooperation with communities and other organizations to undertake ecologically beneficial activities; and provides education, curriculum support activities, community awareness, and environmental stewardship relating to the Rahway River and its natural resources. The organization’s geographic focus is the 24-mile and its natural resources. The organization’s geographic focus is the 24-mile long Rahway River and its 41-square mile watershed in Essex, Middlesex and Union Counties, New Jersey. The Association owns no land Counties, New Jersey. The Association owns no land or easements. Phone Number 908-892-7229 P.O. Box 1101 337 East Milton Avenue Rahway, NJ 07065 908-892-7229 Contact Information [info@rahwayriver.org](mailto:info@rahwayriver.org) Website [www.rahwayriver.org](http://www.rahwayriver.org/) # Rancocas Conservancy ## Rancocas Conservancy Rancocas Conservancy is a non-profit organization founded in 1989 and incorporated in 1991. It has 1 part- time staff member and a dedicated volunteer base of about 50. The mission of the Conservancy is to preserve, protect, and enhance the ecological and cultural integrity of the Rancocas Creek Watershed and its environs. The organization’s geographic focus is the Rancocas Creek Watershed, a 360-square mile area in Burlington, Camden, and Ocean counties, New Jersey. Rancocas Conservancy either owns or manages 9 nature preserves, the largest of which is 198 acres. It also holds one conservation easement. Members of the Conservancy participate in a spring clean up of an eighty- two-acre preserve. ### Contact Information #### Laura Bishop, President **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 2188 [rcconservancy@yahoo.com](mailto:rcconservancy@yahoo.com) Vincentown, NJ 08088 **Phone Number Website** (609) 859-8860 x 17 [www.rancocasconservancy.org](http://www.rancocasconservancy.org/) Photo from [www.rancocasconservancy.org](http://www.rancocasconservancy.org/) Raritan Headwaters Association The Raritan Headwaters Association was created in 2011, when the South Branch Watershed Association and the Upper Raritan Watershed Association merged. Both groups had previously been active since 1959. RWA is currently made up of ten staff members and a large group of volunteers and supporters. The mission of the Association is to protect and of volunteers and supporters. The mission of the Association is to protect and enhance the water resources of the Raritan River headwaters region by means of community participation, local leadership, and innovation, in order to improve the health of the human and natural environments. The Association’s geographic focus 470 square mile health of the human and natural environments. The Association’s geographic focus 470 square mile area that is the Raritan River headwaters region. SBWA neither owns land nor holds conservation area that is the Raritan River headwaters region. SBWA neither owns land nor holds conservation easements. Raritan Headwaters Association Phone Number (908) 234-1852 P.O. Box 273 2121 Larger Cross Rd., Bedminster, NJ Contact Information [cehrenclou@raritanheadwaters.org](mailto:cehrenclou@raritanheadwaters.org) Website Www.raritanheadwaters.org # Ridge and Valley Conservancy Ridge and Valley Conservancy Inc. The Ridge and Valley Conservancy (RVC) is a non- profit land trust formed in 1990 and has 4 staff members. RVC’s mission is to promote the public interest in conserving open space for aesthetic, recreational, cultural, ecological, agricultural, and development uses in harmony with the natural environment. The Conservancy focuses its efforts on the Appalachian Ridge and Valley region of New Jersey, primarily working in Warren and Sussex Counties. RVC owns 1,230 acres of property and holds 876 acres under conservation easements. A member places signs on one of RVC’s preserved properties. ## Contact Information ### Robert Canace, President **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 146 [bob@ridgeandvalleyconservancy.org](mailto:bob@ridgeandvalleyconservancy.org) 16 Main Street Blairstown, NJ 07825 **Phone Number Website** (908) 362-7989 [www.ridgeandvalleyconservancy.org](http://www.ridgeandvalleyconservancy.org/) Photo from [www.rvclandtrust.org](http://www.rvclandtrust.org/) Saddler’s Woods Conservation Assoc. Ridge and Valley Conservancy Inc. Saddler's Woods is a 25-acre urban forest unique for its diverse ecological features, including old growth forest, young woodlands, meadow, and wetlands. It is located in Haddon Township, NJ, within five miles of Philadelphia, PA. The woods surround the headwater spring of the main branch of the Newton Creek, a tributary of the Delaware River. Every year, thousands of visitors enjoy Saddler's Woods for passive recreation and nature interpretation. Saddler's Woods Conservation Association (SWCA) is nature interpretation. Saddler's Woods Conservation Association (SWCA) is a non-profit organization, formed by Haddon Township residents who were active in the movement to save the woods from a development threat. Since its preservation, SWCA volunteers have logged hundreds of hours restoring the woods and offering tours and educational programs. CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION Saddler's Woods Conservation Ass. P.O. Box 189 Oaklyn, New Jersey 08107 Janet Goehner-Jacobs, Executive Director Phone Number (856) 869-7372 [info@saddlerswoods.org](mailto:info@saddlerswoods.org) Website [www.saddlerswoods.org](http://www.saddlerswoods.org/) # Save Barnegat Bay Save Barnegat Bay (SBB) is a non-profit environmental group founded in 1971 as a local chapter of the Izaac Walton League of America. Its mission is to conserve undeveloped natural land and clean water throughout the Barnegat Bay watershed. Save Barnegat Bay’s efforts to protect natural land take two basic forms. The organization reviews development proposals on both the local and state level. The organization also uses Green Acres, foundation, and other funding to purchase environmentally sensitive land in order to convey it to public ownership as permanently protected natural open space, with appropriate public access. ## Contact Information ### Britta Wenzal, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 117 Haines Road [info@savebarnegatbay.org](mailto:info@savebarnegatbay.org) Toms River, NJ 08753 **Phone Number Website** (732) 830-3600 [www.savebarnegatbay.org](http://www.savebarnegatbay.org/) Image from [www.savebarnegatbay.org](http://www.savebarnegatbay.org/) ## Save the Environment of Moorestown Save the Environment of # Moorestown Save the Environment of Moorestown (STEM) was founded in 1972. Its mission is to preserve, protect and enhance the natural environment of Moorestown. STEM’s cooperative efforts with local, county and state bodies have led to the preservation of over 275 acres of land in Moorestown. STEM volunteers also help maintain open space in Moorestown. Boundary Creek Natural Resource Area is a 36-acre open space, part of the Rancocas Greenway acquired by the Burlington County Division of Parks. ### Contact Information #### Kathy Huffman, President **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 704 See website below Moorestown, NJ 08057 **Phone Number Website** (856) 722-9495 [www.stemonline.org](http://www.stemonline.org/) Images from [www.stemonline.org](http://www.stemonline.org/) # Schiff Natural Lands Trust Schiff Natural Lands Trust (SNLT) was established in 1984 as a private, non-profit organization and has 2 paid staff and many members and volunteers. The mission of SNLT is to acquire and preserve open space, serve as a model of environmental and educational stewardship, and improve the ecological value of natural areas using best management practices. It maintains an active nature center open to the public for environmental education, research and recreational activities consistent with the preservation of natural areas. Schiff Nature Center hosts hundreds of nature programs each year. Schiff’s geographic focus is Mendham Township and Mendham Borough in Morris County, New Jersey. The 350-acre Schiff Nature Preserve is the organization’s main property, but it also holds around 50 acres in conservation easements. Schiff is responsible for almost 600 acres. ## Contact Information ### Dorian Von Aulock, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 339 Pleasant Valley Road [dorian@schiffnaturepreserve.org](mailto:dorian@schiffnaturepreserve.org) Mendham, NJ 07945 **Phone Number Website** (973) 543-6004 [www.schiffnaturepreserve.org](http://www.schiffnaturepreserve.org/) Image from [www.schiffnaturepreserve.org](http://www.schiffnaturepreserve.org/) # Skylands CLEAN Inc. Skylands CLEAN Inc. is a non-profit organization founded in 1987. It is primarily made up of volunteers and has over 800 supporters throughout the state. Its mission is to protect and preserve the natural environment, water quality, and quality of life in the Highlands Region for present and future generations. The geographic focus of Skylands CLEAN is the New Jersey Highlands Region, located in the northwestern part of the state. The organization does not own land or hold conservation easements. ## Contact Information ### Jon Berry, President **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 85 [clean@skyclean.org](mailto:clean@skyclean.org) Ringwood, NJ 07456 **Phone Number Website** 847-280-7169 [www.skyclean.org](http://www.skyclean.org/) Photo from [www.skyclean.org](http://www.skyclean.org/) # Sourland Conservancy The Sourland Conservancy is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1986. The Conservancy is dedicated to protecting the ecological integrity, historic resources, and special character of the Sourland Mountain Region. This goal is accomplished through education, advocacy, special initiatives, and involvement of residents. In keeping with its mission, the Conservancy aims to strengthen land use regulation, increase permanently preserved public open space, promote stewardship, and protect native species and combat invasives. The Conservancy does not own or manage any easements or preserves. ## Contact Information ### Caroline Katmann, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 83 Princeton Ave Suite 1A [Ckatmann@sourland.org](mailto:Ckatmann@sourland.org) Hopewell, NJ 08525 **Phone Number Website** (609) 309-5155 [www.sourland.org](http://www.sourland.org/) Photo from [www.sourland.org](http://www.sourland.org/) # South Jersey Land & Water Trust South Jersey Land & Water Trust (SJLWT) is a non- profit organization founded in 1990 with 2 full-time staff people, two part-time consultants, and a dedicated base of volunteers and members. Its mission is to preserve and protect the water resources and land within the watersheds of southern New Jersey through public education, advocacy, increased scientific understanding, and habitat preservation. The Trust’s main geographic focus is Camden, Gloucester and Salem Counties. SJLWT owns approximately 40 acres and holds two farmland preservation easements. In addition, SJLWT is in the process of negotiating a new State park and a fossil dig site in Gloucester County and several farmland easements. Volunteers gathered to help SJLWT clean up local streams. ## Contact Information ### Christine Nolan, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 21 Main Street/Auburn-Pointers Rd., [contact@sjlandwater.org](mailto:contact@sjlandwater.org) Swedesboro, NJ 08085 **Phone Number Website** (856) 881-2269 [www.sjlandwater.org](http://www.sjlandwater.org/) Photo from [www.sjlandwater.org](http://www.sjlandwater.org/) # South Mountain Conservancy South Mountain Conservancy South Mountain Conservancy is a volunteer, non-profit organization founded in 2000. The mission of the Conservancy is to preserve, protect, and enhance Essex County’s South Mountain Reservation, including its trails, infrastructure, ecology, and natural beauty. It strives to promote ecologically sustainable use of the Reservation and environmental awareness through activities, educational programs, and regularly scheduled public service efforts by individuals, and corporate and community groups. It partners with the Essex County Park System in the management of the park and works with allied environmental organizations. The geographic focus of the Conservancy is the South Mountain Reservation, located in Essex County, New Jersey. The Reservation is comprised of 2,110 acres and is open for public recreation. The Conservancy does not hold conservation easements. The Conservancy’s Trail Work Crew meets monthly to maintain existing trails or create new, sustainable trails. ## Contact Information ### Dennis Percher, Chairman **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 273 [info@somocon.org](mailto:info@somocon.org) South Orange, NJ 07079 **Phone Number Website** 844-SOMOCON [www.somocon.org](http://www.somocon.org/) Photo from [www.somocon.org](http://www.somocon.org/) # SPARK Friends of Riverbank Park SPARK Friends of Riverbank Park is a non-profit organization whose mission is the preservation of Riverbank Park in the Ironbound section of Newark. SPARK Friends runs a Cultural Arts Program and a Community Learning Program, which teaches civics, sciences and history using the park as a resource. SPARK Friends also sponsors community gardening projects and park clean ups. The focus of SPARK Friends is Riverbank Park in Newark. An owlet makes a home in Riverbank park. ## Contact Information ### Nancy Zak, Project Coordinator **Mailing Address Email Address** 115 Clifton Ave, See website below Newark, NJ 07104 **Phone Number Website** (973) 268-3500 [www.riverbankpark.org](http://www.riverbankpark.org/) Photo from [www.riverbankpark.org](http://www.riverbankpark.org/) # Stony Brook-Millstone ## Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association # Watershed Association Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association (SBMWA) is a non-profit organization founded in 1949; it has 23 staff. The Association’s mission is to enhance the quality of the natural environment of the Stony Brook-Millstone watershed through intelligent and informed land use decision making, the protection of water quality and supply, and the improvement of the community's awareness of environmental issues. SBMWA’s geographic focus is the 265-square mile region in central New Jersey drained by Stony Brook and the Millstone River. The area includes 26 municipalities. The organization owns an 860-acre nature reserve, which includes 14 miles of hiking trails and an active nature center. Volunteers carry a coconut fiber log used to stabilize the edge of a stream bank. ## Contact Information ### Jim Waltman, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 31 Titus Mill Road [sbmwa@thewatershed.org](mailto:sbmwa@thewatershed.org) Pennington, NJ 08534 **Phone Number Website** (609) 737-3735 [www.thewatershed.org](http://www.thewatershed.org/) Photo from [www.thewatershed.org](http://www.thewatershed.org/) # Teaneck Creek Conservancy Teaneck Creek Conservancy (TCC) is a non-profit organization organized in 2001. TCC’s mission is to reclaim and protect the environmental, cultural, and historical legacy of the Teaneck Creek watershed. Its geographic focus is the Teaneck Creek watershed and surrounding area, located primarily in Bergen County, New Jersey. Although TCC does not own Teaneck Creek Park, the Conservancy, with Bergen County, Green Acres, and the Puffin Foundation, saved the 46-acre Park and established trails and programs for the public. The Conservancy does not hold easements. Visitors to the Conservancy take part in a nature photography session. ## Contact Information A L E X A M A R Q U E S , M . S . , M . A . E X E C U T I V E D I R E C T O R E X E C U T I V E D I R E C T O R **Mailing Address Email Address** 20 Puffin Way [info@teaneckcreek.org](mailto:info@teaneckcreek.org) Teaneck, NJ 07666 **Phone Number Website** (201) 836-2403 [www.teaneckcreek.org](http://www.teaneckcreek.org/) Photo from [www.teaneckcreek.org](http://www.teaneckcreek.org/) Tewksbury Land Trust Tewksbury Land Trust Tewksbury Land Trust is a non-profit organization founded in 1993. It has over 250 active contributors and volunteers. The mission of the Trust is to preserve open space volunteers. The mission of the Trust is to preserve open space and farmland in Tewksbury Township. This is accomplished through bequests, the use of conservation easements, and the acquisition deeded open land. The Trust, in partnership with the citizens of Tewksbury Township, other local land trusts, and governments, helps preserve the Township as a rural community for future generations. Its geographic focus is solely on Tewksbury Its geographic focus is solely on Tewksbury Township, Hunterdon County, New Jersey. The Trust owns land and holds conservation Township, Hunterdon County, New Jersey. The Trust owns land and holds conservation easements totaling over 200 acres. Phone Number (908) 439-3796 Contact Information Theodore G. Koven, Co-Founder Director Emeritus Website [http://tewksburylandtrust.org](http://tewksburylandtrust.org/) # The Nature Conservancy ## The Nature Conservancy The Nature Conservancy is the leading conservation organization around the world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people. Founded in 1951, The Conservancy operates in all 50 states and over 30 countries. To date The Conservancy has protected more than 120 million acres of land and 5,000 miles of rivers worldwide. The New Jersey Chapter has been preserving land across the state since receiving its charter in 1988. The Chapter has helped to protect over 55,000 acres of important habitat, owns and manages preserves across New Jersey, and has more than 45,000 supporters in New Jersey alone. The New Jersey Chapter works to abate threats to natural lands and waters through: acquisition and restoration, scientific research, outreach and advocacy. The Conservancy’s Minisink Valley Preserve, located in the Kittatinny Ridge. ### Contact Information #### Dr. Barbara Brummer, NJ State Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 200 Pottersville Road [newjersey@tnc.org](mailto:newjersey@tnc.org) Chester, NJ 07930 **Phone Number Website** (908) 879-7262 [www.nature.org/newjersey](http://www.nature.org/newjersey) Photo by Melissa Morris, from [www.nature.org](http://www.nature.org/) # The Land Conservancy of NJ Originally founded as the Morris County Parks and Conservation Foundation in 1981, the organization is a non-profit organization with 15 paid staff and over 1,400 members. The mission of the Conservancy is to preserve land and water resources, conserve open space, and inspire and empower individuals and communities to protect natural land and the environment. The Conservancy works with local governments to implement land preservation programs. The organization’s geographic focus is the state of New Jersey. TLC-NJ owns approximately 230 acres in fee and 2 conservation easements totaling 197 acres. ## Contact Information ### David Epstein, President **Mailing Address Email Address** 19 Boonton Avenue [info@tlc-nj.org](mailto:info@tlc-nj.org) Boonton, NJ 07005 **Phone Number Website** (973) 541-1010 [http://tlc-nj.org/](http://tlc-nj.org/) Photo from [www.NJConservation.org](http://www.njconservation.org/) # Trust for Public Land ## (New Jersey Office) The Trust for Public Land (TPL) is a national non- profit organization founded in 1972. TPL conserves land for people to enjoy as parks, gardens, and other natural places, ensuring livable communities for generations to come. In New Jersey, TPL supports local community priorities for land conservation—from inner-city park development to conservation of farms, forests, estuaries and watershed lands. TPL has offices in Morristown, Newark and Southampton Township, Burlington County. Through its “Parks for People—Newark” program, TPL has designed and built ten parks and playgrounds throughout the city and is now working to establish the first park on the Passaic waterfront in Newark. ### Contact Information Anthony Cucchi, New Jersey Field Office Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 20 Community Place [newjersey@tpl.org](mailto:newjersey@tpl.org) Suite 7 Morristown, NJ 07960 **Phone Number Website** (973) 292-1100 [www.tpl.org/newjersey](http://www.tpl.org/newjersey) Photo by John Rae # Unexpected Wildlife Refuge Unexpected Wildlife Refuge Unexpected Wildlife Refuge (UWR) is a non-profit organization supported by private donations. It is maintained by a Board of Directors. Its mission is provide an inviolate sanctuary for animals and plants indigenous to NJ Pinelands habitat; provide a living classroom for the public and promote environmental education. Its geographic focus is the Pinelands of New Jersey. UWR manages a refuge that began with an initial acquisition of 85 acres and has grown to 767 acres of swamps, bogs, forests and lakes. Sign at entrance to the refuge ## Contact Information **Veronica Van Hof**, Director **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 765 [director@unexpectedwildliferefuge.org](mailto:director@unexpectedwildliferefuge.org) Newfield, NJ 08344 **Phone Number Website** (856) 697-3541 [www.unexpectedwildliferefuge.org](http://www.unexpectedwildliferefuge.org/) Photo from [www.unexpectedwildliferefuge.org](http://www.unexpectedwildliferefuge.org/) # Verona Park Conservancy Verona Park Conservancy (VPC) is a volunteer, member-based non-profit organization founded in 1995. The mission of VPC is to work with the Essex County Parks Department and the public to maintain, beautify and improve Verona Park's appearance and facilities for the enjoyment of present and future generations. The Conservancy’s geographic focus is the 54-acre Verona Park, located in the town of Verona in Essex County, New Jersey. The Conservancy co-manages the Park with the Essex County Parks Department. It holds no easements. The Conservancy regularly patrols the park’s pond looking for litter, ranging from bottles to baseballs. ## Contact Information ### James McGregor , President **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 143 [VeronaParkConservancy@gmail.com](mailto:VeronaParkConservancy@gmail.com) Verona, NJ 07044 **Phone Number Website** none [www.veronapark.org](http://www.veronapark.org/) Photo from [www.veronapark.com](http://www.veronapark.com/) # Washington Township Land Trust Washington Township Land Trust Formed in 1990, the Washington Township Land Trust is a non-profit group with a mission to protect and preserve the lands, watercourses, ponds, streams, and structures which contribute to the natural beauty and rural character of Washington Township. In order to achieve this, the Trust acquires interests in land through purchase or donation, manages land uses for the benefit of the public, and makes itself available to the Township of Washington to assist in the stewardship of public lands and easements. The geographic focus of the Trust is Washington Township in Morris County, New Jersey. The Trust owns, co-owns, or manages nearly 400 acres of land and has helped preserve over 1,000 acres. It also owns and is restoring a 1750 grist and saw mill open for public tours. Owned by the Washington Township Land Trust, Wiltowns is a historic grist and saw mill, built circa 1750. ## Contact Information ### Jim Fitterer, President **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 4 [wtlandtrust@gmail.com](mailto:wtlandtrust@gmail.com) Long Valley, NJ 07853 **Phone Number Website** (908) 876-5986 [www.wtlt.org](http://www.wtlt.org/) Photo from [www.wtlt.org](http://www.wtlt.org/) # Watsessing Park Conservancy Watsessing Park Conservancy (WPC) is a volunteer non-profit organization founded in 2004 as an offshoot of the Watsessing Heights Neighborhood Association. The mission of WPC is to partner with Essex County in the preservation, maintenance and improvement of Watsessing Park and its structures, perpetuate the legacy of Frederick Law Olmsted, and preserve the character and historical integrity of the park and its environs. The geographic focus of the Conservancy is the 69- acre Watsessing Park, located in the Townships of Bloomfield and East Orange in eastern Essex County, New Jersey. The organization does not own the park, but co- manages it with the Essex County Parks Department. It does not hold conservation easements. Among many jobs to be done are cleaning the park and planting a colorful garden in the shape of a “W”. ## Contact Information ### Thess Prince, President **Mailing Address Email Address** Bloomfield Avenue and Conger Street [watsessingpark@gmail.com](mailto:watsessingpark@gmail.com) Bloomfield, NJ 07003 **Phone Number Website** (973) 429-1102 [www.friendsofwatsessing.org](http://www.friendsofwatsessing.org/) Photo from [www.wpcessex.blogspot.com](http://www.wpcessex.blogspot.com/) # Weequahic Park Association Association Weequahic Park Association (WPA) is a non-profit group formed in 1992; it has 6 paid staff. The mission of WPA is to redevelop, restore and conserve Weequahic Park, an area of great historical significance. The Association’s geographic focus is Weequahic Park, 311 acres located in the city of Newark in eastern Essex County, New Jersey. The organization does not own the park, but co- manages it with the Essex County Parks Department. It does not hold conservation easements. The Weequahic Park Association and Essex County Parks Department gets the community involved with events such as fishing derbies. ## Contact Information ### Joseph White, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** P.O. Box 2248 [wpapark@gmail.com](mailto:wpapark@gmail.com) Newark, NJ 07114 **Phone Number Website** (973) 643-7850 none Photo from [www.wpapark.org](http://www.wpapark.org/) West Essex Park Conservancy (WEPC) is a non-profit organization administered by a board of directors and supported through memberships, donations and volunteers. The mission of WEPC is to preserve the quality of volunteers. The mission of WEPC is to preserve the quality of life and the resources of nature in Essex County. Phone Number (973) 268-3500 Contact Information Mailing Address 115 Clifton Ave, Newark, 115 Clifton Ave, Newark, NJ 07104 Email Address [president@westessexparkconservancy.org](mailto:president@westessexparkconservancy.org) Website [www.westessexparkconservancy.org](http://www.westessexparkconservancy.org/) **Waters hed Associati on** **Whal e Po nd Bro ok** # Whale Pond Brook Watershed Association The Whale Pond Brook Watershed Association aims to restore the eroded banks and degraded water quality within the Whale Pond Brook Watershed. They also have a vision of creating a greenway that make it possible to walk from the source to the ocean. The Association is entirely comprised of volunteers from towns in the area of the watershed. They meet for clean ups, hikes, demonstrations, information sessions, and various other events that are open to the public. ## Contact Information ### Faith Teitelbaum, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 9 Marshall Court [faithteitel@gmail.com](mailto:faithteitel@gmail.com) Long Branch, NJ 07740 **Phone Number Website** (732) 513-5445 [www.restorethewatershed.org](http://www.restorethewatershed.org/) Photo from [www.restorethewatershed.org](http://www.restorethewatershed.org/) # Whitesbog Preservation Trust Whitesbog Preservation Trust is a non-profit organization founded in 1982. It has 3 staff members and many committed volunteers. The mission of the Trust is to restore, protect and enhance the land, sites and buildings at Whitesbog and to provide educational and interpretive programs and materials about history, culture and natural environment of Whitesbog. The geographic focus of the Trust is the historic Whitesbog Village in Brendan T. Byrne State Forest, Pemberton Township of Burlington County, New Jersey. The organization leases Whitesbog from the State of New Jersey for management and restoration; it does not technically own land, nor does it hold conservation easements. Trust volunteers staff the general store in Whitesbog Village, the starting point for tours and a great place to buy local goods. ## Contact Information ### Susan Phillips, Executive Director **Mailing Address Email Address** 120-34 Whitesbog Road [whitesbogpreservationtrust@gmail.com](mailto:whitesbogpreservationtrust@gmail.com) Brown Mills, NJ 08015 **Phone Number Website** (609) 893-4646 [www.whitesbog.org](http://www.whitesbog.org/) Photo from [www.whitesbog.org](http://www.whitesbog.org/) # Help keep the directory current! ## To add organizations or make changes to existing entries, please contact [Laura@njconservation.org](mailto:Laura@njconservation.org). ## Thank You! Compiled by New Jersey Conservation Foundation Bamboo Brook 170 Longview Road Far Hill. NJ 07931 [info@njconservation.org](mailto:info@njconservation.org) [www.njconservation.org](http://www.njconservation.org/) Phone: 908-234-1225 Fax: 908-234-1189 ## Morris County Highlands # Morris County Highlands ## Morris County Highlands For more than 50 years, New Jersey Conservation Foundation has actively preserved land in Morris County. The Foundation was established as a result of the successful effort in the early 1960s to preserve the Great Swamp. Since then, the organization has worked on such notable Morris County preservation projects as Pyramid Mountain, Patriots’ Path and Schooley’s Mountain. The Morris County Highlands project area encompasses the headwaters and feeder streams of two major New Jersey rivers, the Raritan and the Passaic. Preserving land in this area protects critical water resources for millions of New Jersey residents, and provides opportunities for hiking, bicycling, fishing, nature observation and other passive recreation. In 2010, New Jersey Conservation Foundation helped preserve two major parcels in the Morris County Highlands: the 228-acre Borgenicht property in Washington Township, now known as the **[Maureen Ogden Preserve](https://www.njconservation.org/preserve/maureen-ogden-preserve/)** (formerly the Drakestown Preserve), and the 63-acre Johanson property in Rockaway Township, which is adjacent to the state-owned Wildcat Ridge Wildlife Management Area. Additional land preservation projects adjacent to and near these parcels are planned. The Maureen Ogden Preserve and surrounding areas are characterized by large forested wetlands systems that have been largely undisturbed by development. It consists primarily of upland forest and forested wetlands with meandering headwater streams that lead to the South Branch of the Raritan River, which serves as a source of drinking water for more than 1.5 million New Jersey residents. The South Branch contains valuable trout production waters that flow to a major drinking water source, the Spruce Run Reservoir. The Maureen Ogden Preserve is located on the Schooley’s Mountain ridge, which is the Morris County extension of Musconetcong Mountain. The South Branch headwaters, Schooley’s Mountain and Musconetcong Mountain are all recognized as “Highlands Critical Treasures” by the [**Highlands Coalition**](http://njhighlandscoalition.org/). Farther north in Morris County, New Jersey Conservation Foundation is working in close partnership with [**The Trust for Public Land**](https://www.tpl.org/our-work/new-jersey#sm.00001slkelyznhekwu1a3i92ve7o0) to preserve additional parcels of land. The goal is to establish a contiguous open space assemblage that will enhance wildlife corridors and passive recreational opportunities in the area ultimately linking Wildcat Ridge Wildlife Management Area with Pyramid Mountain County Park. These properties are part of the Beaver Brook sub-watershed of the Passaic. The properties contain mature forest and critical habitat for many wildlife species, including red-tailed hawk, wild turkey, migratory birds and bobcat. For more information about preserving land in this project area, contact info@njconservation.org ## Detail Long Valley, NJ 07853 ## Explore More ## The State We're In By Michele S. Byers, Executive Director [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/) --- ## [ReThink Energy NJ](https://rethinkenergynj.org/) ## Musconetcong River Valley # Musconetcong River Valley ## Musconetcong River Valley The Musconetcong River Valley features an outstanding diversity of farms, hamlets, villages and secluded natural areas. The Musconetcong is a boundary waterway that flows through Morris, Sussex, Hunterdon and Warren Counties. A major tributary of the Delaware River flowing through the environmentally sensitive New Jersey Highlands, the Musconetcong is an important source of drinking water. The river corridor offers important habitat for many threatened, endangered and rare wildlife species. The Musconetcong also provides excellent recreational opportunities including hiking, canoeing, camping, nature study and particularly fishing, with the river and many tributaries supporting naturally reproducing trout populations. Beautiful scenic views can be enjoyed of the river valley, Highlands and Kittatinny ridges, and Delaware Water Gap. The deep, rich limestone soils make the area an exceptionally significant farmland region in New Jersey. But the same characteristics make the Musconetcong Valley very susceptible to suburban sprawl since developers often prefer well-drained soils, which are ideal for septic systems. New Jersey Conservation Foundation received funding from the State Farmland Preservation Program to preserve land in the Musconetcong Valley of Warren County, one of the largest areas of prime agricultural soils in the Highlands. New Jersey Conservation Foundation is continually looking for opportunities to preserve land in the Musconetcong River Valley project area. Recently, New Jersey Conservation has helped preserve: - A 62-acre farm on Cemetery Hill Road in Washington Township, Warren County - A 140-acre farm in Stewartsville, Warren County - A 54-acre farm in Greenwich Township, Warren County - A 57-acre farm in Asbury, Warren County ### New Jersey Highlands The New Jersey Highlands region stretches from eastern Pennsylvania through New Jersey and New York to northwestern Connecticut, forming a vital linkage between the Berkshires and the Blue Ridge Mountains. The Highlands form a greenbelt of forest and farmland around the New York metropolitan area and provide fresh air, natural areas and recreational opportunities for millions of residents of the greater New Jersey metropolitan area. NJCF’s publication **The New Jersey Highlands: Treasures at Risk** detailed the importance of preserving the region’s forests, fields and wetlands. With over 1,300 square miles in the northwest part of the state, the Highlands stretch from Phillipsburg in the southwest to Ringwood in the northeast and lies within portions of seven counties (Bergen, Hunterdon, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex and Warren), including 88 municipalities that are home for more than 750,000 people. The Highlands’ diverse natural communities are important statewide. With extensive forests, wetlands, rivers and streams, over 70 percent of the Highlands are environmentally sensitive while providing water supply for more than half of New Jersey’s families – over 5.2 million people. To learn more about New Jersey Conservation Foundation’s preservation efforts in the Highlands, please contact info@njconservation.org ## Detail Port Murray, NJ 07865 ## Explore More ## The State We're In By Michele S. Byers, Executive Director [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/) ## Sparta Mountain Greenway # Sparta Mountain Greenway ## Sparta Mountain Greenway The Sparta Mountain Greenway project area is located at the westernmost ridge of the New Jersey Highlands. The greenway offers magnificent vistas overlooking pristine lakes and ponds and a diversity of natural communities. Mature forests and steep ridges protect threatened red-shouldered hawk, wood turtle, blue-spotted salamander and bobcat. The forests provide critical groundwater aquifer and water quality protections. Wetlands and ponds provide flood control and habitat for amphibians and wading and migratory birds. The Sparta Mountain project area was identified by [**Garden State Greenways**](http://www.gardenstategreenways.org/), New Jersey Conservation Foundation’s online open space planning program, as an important regional natural area because it is located near other preserved lands. In the southern portion of the Sparta Mountains in Byram and Andover Townships and Hopatcong Borough, there is an opportunity to preserve more than 5,000 acres of land that can connect natural areas between state parks and wildlife management areas from Hamburg to Allamuchy. In the northern Sparta Mountains, more than 5,700 acres are already preserved and New Jersey Conservation Foundation has played a key role in these conservation efforts dating back to the 1990s. Recent preservation projects in the region have included: - 47 acres of woodlands in Byram Township overlooking Cranberry Lake - 50 acres inside the [**Sparta Mountain Wildlife Management Area**](http://www.njskylands.com/pksparmt), the highlight of which is a 17-acre spring fed lake - 118-acre addition to [**Allamuchy State Park**](http://www.njskylands.com/parks-allamuchy) - NJCF also helped New Jersey acquire $1.8 million in federal Forest Legacy Program funding to support preservation efforts ### New Jersey Highlands The New Jersey Highlands are part of the great green sweep of the Appalachians that shadow the East Coast from Georgia to Maine. The Highlands region stretches from eastern Pennsylvania through New Jersey and New York to northwestern Connecticut, forming a vital linkage between the Berkshires and the Blue Ridge Mountains. The Highlands form a greenbelt of forest and farmland around the New York metropolitan area and provide fresh air, natural areas and recreation opportunities for millions of residents of the greater New Jersey metropolitan area. Over 1,300 square miles in the northwest part of the state are noted for its scenic beauty and environmental significance, the Highlands stretch from Phillipsburg in the southwest to Ringwood in the northeast and lies within portions of seven counties (Bergen, Hunterdon, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex and Warren), including 88 municipalities that are home for more than 750,000 people. The Highlands diverse natural communities are important statewide. With extensive forests, wetlands, rivers and streams, over 70 percent of the Highlands are environmentally sensitive while providing water supply for more than half of New Jersey’s families – over 5.2 million people. To learn more about New Jersey Conservation Foundation’s preservation efforts in the Highlands, please contact info@njconservation.org ## Detail Sparta Township, NJ 07871 ## Explore More ## The State We're In By Michele S. Byers, Executive Director [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/) ## Delaware River Conservation # Delaware River Bluffs ## Delaware River Bluffs New Jersey Conservation Foundation’s Delaware River Bluffs project area is located along the wild and scenic Delaware River in Hunterdon County. It is comprised of the high ridge that runs along the river. Whether on the river looking to the ridge, or hiking the ridge overlooking the river ­– this area offers spectacular, unspoiled views. The many rocky ravines host a bevy of healthy streams that are protected by the surrounding intact forest. The contiguous forest provides significant undisturbed habitat for many interesting species, including unusual ferns, endangered salamanders and a variety of grasses found at the Milford Grasslands. The Devils Tea Table, a noted geological feature, is also located on the bluffs. ### Saving the Delaware River Bluffs The **[Delaware & Raritan Canal](http://www.dandrcanal.com/)** was made a state park in the 1970s and 80s. Since that time, many non-profit and state agencies have been working to preserve the surrounding bluffs to provide a buffer for the river and canal park, as well as to protect its viewshed, water and natural resources. In 2010, New Jersey Conservation Foundation and partners preserved 73 acres along Horseshoe Bend Road in Kingwood Township, a property with a panoramic view of the bluffs. Preserving the land surrounding the river and canal helps to ensure a stable and healthy water supply for the 1.2 million New Jersey residents who rely on the river for drinking water. If this land had been developed, the accompanying impervious surface would have swelled storm water run-off into the river, and increased flooding in a region that already endures excessive flooding. The D&R Canal State Park runs between the river and the bluffs, providing a publicly accessible trail from Trenton to Frenchtown. There are numerous parking areas and river access points along the trail. The public is welcome to explore a diversity of parks in the area, including [**Washington’s Crossing State Park**](https://www.state.nj.us/dep/parksandforests/parks/washcros.html), Baldpate Mountain on Jacobs Mill Road in Hopewell, [**Bulls Island State Park**](https://www.state.nj.us/dep/parksandforests/parks/bull.html) in Stockton and the Milford bluffs. The region can also be enjoyed by traveling along NJ’s first **[scenic byway, Route 29](https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/byways/byways/2463)**. With the help of non-profits like New Jersey Conservation Foundation and the [**Hunterdon Land Trust Alliance**](http://www.hlta.org/), the State [**Green Acres**](https://www.state.nj.us/dep/greenacres/) program has acquired some very significant acreage in the Delaware River Bluffs Greenway in recent years. The Stockton School remains New Jersey’s oldest and smallest school thanks to the Green Acres 2004 acquisition of My Ben. The 72-acre My Ben property in Stockton was slated for a large condominium development that would have inundated the tiny school with new residents while ruining scenic views from the river and creating a surge in stormwater runoff into the canal. Other recent Green Acres acquisitions include the Schuck property, a 200-acre addition to Bull’s Island State Park in Stockton, and the 170-acre Trap Rock property in Kingwood. The state and non-profits continue to work together to preserve the remaining land in this unique region. To learn more about New Jersey Conservation Foundation’s preservation work in the Delaware River Bluffs region, please contact info@njconservation.org ## Detail Franklin Township, NJ 08873 [TRAIL MAP](https://www.njconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/delawareriverbluffsmap.png) ## Explore More ## The State We're In By Michele S. Byers, Executive Director [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/) ## Delaware River Trail # Delaware River Heritage Trail ## Delaware River Heritage Trail The Delaware River Heritage Trail (DRHT) project involves counties and municipalities along the Delaware River from Palmyra to Trenton. It is a vision for a 40+ mile greenway which would connect Delaware River towns along the corridor. The foundation of this trail work will be Garden State Greenways, linking ecological hubs by way of a green infrastructure network. Throughout the years, a number of organizations have worked on the DRHT and have established stakeholders, an alignment, and design guidelines for much of the trail. One significant portion of the trail, which is complete and open to the public, is Burlington City’s Riverfront Trail. Another portion of the DRHT in Bordentown is under construction. These sections of the route will serve as great examples of the benefit to municipalities with local linear trails. While these local benefits are realized by some municipalities, New Jersey Conservation Foundation and other stakeholders are carrying the vision of a connected region that will become a regional tourist attraction as well as a local community asset. In addition to serving as a primary organizing advocate for the trail, New Jersey Conservation Foundation will assist organizations and government entities in taking the trail to the next stage. ## Detail Burlington, NJ 08016 ## Explore More ## The State We're In By Michele S. Byers, Executive Director [READ MORE](https://www.njconservation.org/the-state-we-are-in/) ---