J o a n W h i t e  

           The  work  of  VLT  is  intimately  tied  to  climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation.  Climate  change  will  drastically  affect  the  land  that  VLT  has  worked  to  conserve,  altering  flooding  regimes,  species  compositions,  recreational  opportunities,  and  agricultural  productivity.  Also,  because  land  is  one  of  the  primary  resources  needed  to  provision  food,  water,  and  energy  under  a  changing  climate,  VLT  has  a  unique  opportunity  to  address  climate  change.  This  internal  audit  report  gathers  together  institutional  knowledge  about  current  work  related  to  climate  change,  ideas  for  the  future,  opportunities,  risks,  and  resources  needed.    

VLT    Climate  Change  Project  Internal  Audit  Report   2015  

08  Fall  

Vermont  Land  Trust  Staff  Consider  Responses  to  Climate  Change  

 

TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  

EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY  .................................................................................................  1  

WHY  THIS  REPORT  .........................................................................................................................  1  APPROACH  .....................................................................................................................................  1  MAJOR  FINDINGS  ............................................................................................................................  2  

FRAMING  .....................................................................................................................  4  

THE  THREATS  OF  CLIMATE  CHANGE  IN  VERMONT  .........................................................................  4  MITIGATION  AND  ADAPTATION  .....................................................................................................  5  FOOD,  WATER,  AND  ENERGY  ..........................................................................................................  5  

OPPORTUNITIES  ...........................................................................................................  6  

AN  ETHICAL  OBLIGATION  ...............................................................................................................  6  MEMBERSHIP  AND  FUNDING  ..........................................................................................................  7  

STRENGTHS  OF  VLT  ......................................................................................................  8  

LAND  ..............................................................................................................................................  8  RELATIONSHIPS  .............................................................................................................................  8  COMMUNICATIONS  .........................................................................................................................  9  

ADAPTATION:  POTENTIAL  OPTIONS  ...........................................................................  10  

IDENTIFY  AND  CONSERVE  PRIORITY  AREAS  FOR  NATURAL  COMMUNITIES  .................................  11  EXAMPLE:  THE  NATURE  CONSERVANCY  SPATIAL  MODELING  ...................................................  12  CONSERVE  RESILIENT  LANDSCAPES  FOR  HUMAN  COMMUNITIES  ................................................  13  EXAMPLE:  OTTER  CREEK  WETLANDS  PREVENTED  $2.5  MILLION  IN  FLOOD  DAMAGE  ...........  14  ALLOW  FLEXIBILITY  IN  LAND  MANAGEMENT  ..............................................................................  16  PROTECT  LOCAL  FOOD  SYSTEMS  .................................................................................................  17  PROMOTE  FLOOD  RESILIENCE  .....................................................................................................  19  ASSESS  VULNERABILITY  ..............................................................................................................  20  EXAMPLE:  NORTHWOODS  RESTORATION  WILL  NO  LONGER  PRIORITIZE  BOREAL  SPECIES  ....  20  

MITIGATION:  POTENTIAL  OPTIONS  ............................................................................  21  

MINIMIZE  VLT’S  OPERATIONAL  FOOTPRINT  .............................................................................  21  ACQUIRE  LANDS  TO  SEQUESTER  CARBON  ....................................................................................  22  EXAMPLE:  AMC  SELLS  CARBON  CREDITS  TO  FINANCE  FUTURE  CONSERVATION  .....................  24  CONTAIN  SPRAWL  .......................................................................................................................  25  CONSIDER  RENEWABLE  ENERGY  .................................................................................................  25  INFLUENCE  PUBLIC  OPINION  AND  POLICY  ...................................................................................  27  

POTENTIAL  RISKS  AND  ISSUES  ....................................................................................  29  

THE  “FLAVOR  OF  THE  MONTH”  PROBLEM  ...................................................................................  29  THE  “ACTUALLY  DOING  SOMETHING”  PROBLEM  .........................................................................  29  

 

PUBLIC  RESPONSE  .......................................................................................................................  30  PUTTING  RISKS  IN  PERSPECTIVE  .................................................................................................  31  

NEEDED  RESOURCES  ..................................................................................................  32  

SHORT-­‐TERM  STAFF  CAPACITY  ...................................................................................................  32  PARTNERSHIPS  ...........................................................................................................................  33  STRATEGIC  FUNDING  ...................................................................................................................  33  STAFF  DEVELOPMENT  .................................................................................................................  34  

  1  

Executive  Summary    Why  this  report    Climate change will impact the land and resources conserved by VLT. Species compositions in forests will change; the length of the growing season will change; important recreational activities like leaf peeping and skiing will change. Even if emissions of greenhouse gasses stopped tomorrow, the climate will continue to change because of historical emissions. VLT has an opportunity to plan for these changes, helping landowners, farmers, and communities to prepare and thrive under climate change. Much of VLT’s current conservation work will help Vermont prepare for climate change. VLT has conserved eight percent of the private, undeveloped land in the state and maintains relationships with thousands of landowners, members, and opinion leaders. As the effects of climate change are being felt more acutely, local-level strategies for mitigation and adaptation are becoming more important. VLT Board and leadership agree that it is time to evaluate the organization’s approach to climate change. To begin this conversation, VLT commissioned a research project about the organization’s work. This report is an internal audit considering current work related to climate change and gathering ideas about future options, vulnerabilities, and limitations from VLT staff and Board members. Another report surveys best practices at other organizations as well as the latest available scientific literature about land conservation and climate change. Both reports, along with an edited selection of readings about land conservation under climate change, can be found at http://climatechangereading.blogspot.com/.  This report is a collection of initial, unedited ideas, thoughts, and reactions by staff and Board members. It does not present fully-formed, concrete recommendations for action. This is the first phase of a longer conversation that will delve more deeply into the costs and benefits of each approach. The views presented in this report do not reflect the official views of the VLT Board of Trustees, staff, or the author.  Approach    I interviewed 10 staff members, 3 members of the Board of Trustees, and received survey responses from 23 staff members. Questions touched on vulnerability assessments, adaptive management, conservation planning, agricultural practices, communications, and renewable energy. Although I generated questions in advance, many conversations ranged widely in response to staff knowledge and interests. Staff presented a variety of

  2  

rich and deeply informed reactions. It is clear that VLT staff care passionately about climate change and have very specific ideas about how their work relates, or could relate to it effectively. Their responses are organized thematically. You will find the last names of interviewees following ideas they presented. A list of the interviewees and their titles can be found on page 35. Appendix A contains the full list of interview questions. Appendix B contains the full survey results. Appendix C is a the VLT Renewable Energy Policy.  Major  findings    1. Opportunities. Climate change is a major ethical issue of our time and it may be an

opportunity to build a more diverse and larger membership base, although more research is needed. It might open up additional sources of funding from foundations which are not currently significant contributors.

2. Strengths. VLT is a major land holder in the state, giving it a unique position among

non-profits. It also maintains excellent working relationships with thousands of landowners. Effective communications with these landowners and other audiences are key to the success of any climate change strategy.

3. Conserving priority landscapes. Spatial modeling and extensive fieldwork

could identify areas which are key to climate change adaptation. VLT’s ability to conserve land strategically is limited by its opportunistic approach to conservation and current funding sources. By partnering with state and local organizations, VLT could maximize the impact of any planning exercises.

4. Principled adaptation in land management. The outcomes of climate

change are far from certain and will vary widely across space and time. Successful adaptation requires flexibility in land management. Many felt that current easements are flexible enough to allow for adaptation and current best management practices leave landowners well-equipped for adaptation.

5. Local food. Climate change is projected to impact food security. The provisioning

of local food as an important adaptive strategy. By conserving diversified local farms near population centers, VLT could reduce the distance food travels from farm to plate and promote food security. Not all farms are ecologically sensitive, so VLT could decline to conserve some types of farms.

6. Flood resilience. Flood resilience is a hot topic in the state following Tropical

Storm Irene in 2011. By strategically conserving flood-plain areas or requiring meander corridors be written into stream-side easements, VLT could improve flood resilience in the state.

  3  

7. Vulnerability assessments. Lands conserved by VLT are vulnerable to the effects of climate change as uses and species change over time. VLT could conduct formal vulnerability assessments on large, fee owned lands to inform land management decisions.

8. Reducing VLT’s footprint. VLT operations contribute to climate change

through vehicle emissions and building energy use. VLT could reduce its own operational footprint, especially in transportation.

9. Carbon sequestration and storage. VLT could acquire large, forested parcels

to sequester and store carbon. Funding for forest projects is extremely limited. Participation in carbon markets is currently unfeasible.

10. Containing sprawl. Transportation emissions are a significant contributor to

greenhouse gas emissions in Vermont. VLT could attempt to limit transportation emissions by containing sprawl through strategic land conservation. This strategy may be expensive because of the relatively high value of land near development.

11. Renewable Energy. Renewable energy from solar, wind, and woody biomass all

require more land area than traditional fossil fuels. VLT recently revised its renewable energy policy to clarify renewable development for landowners on conserved parcels.

12. Public Education and Political Action. As an influential “middle of the

road” non-profit, VLT can reach a broad audience. Staff were nearly unanimous in their support of VLT conducting public education and landowner outreach efforts, but were more mixed in their support of political lobbying for pro-climate policies.

13. Risks and Issues. Some thought that climate change might be seen as the current

“flavor of the month” with the next big environmental issue supplanting it in a few years. Although communicating differently about current work is almost certainly part of a climate change strategy, communications alone are not sufficient. Staff and board members felt that some changes in programs are needed. Some VLT stakeholders may not support specific actions in response to climate change. It is important to keep potential hazards in perspective and weigh them against the benefits of addressing climate change.

14. Needed Resources. VLT may need some short-term staffing to integrate climate

change thinking into day-to-day operations. Strategic partnerships with academic researchers and state agencies could provide much needed insight into the specifics of climate change in Vermont. Stewardship staff felt they need training to communicate about climate change with landowners. Additional sources of funding for forest conservation and to ease the financial burden of floodplain restrictions on farmers would be helpful.

 

  4  

Framing    The  threats  of  climate  change  in  Vermont    

Climate change has already impacted Vermont, causing more frequent extreme storm events, higher night-time temperatures, and a lengthening of the frost-free growing season. Even if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions stopped tomorrow, the climate has already changed significantly and is projected to change further. Although some effects of climate change are positive, such as a short-term increase in winter snowpack, the negative effects of climate change on natural and human systems are potentially severe. High-flow events are projected to occur more frequently along streams and rivers even as the state experiences more frequent drought events. The growing season in Vermont is projected to lengthen, but farms could be under greater stress from drought, weeds, disease, and pests. Forest composition is projected to change, favoring oak-hickory forests while important species such as spruce, fir, and sugar maple may face increasing stress and decline in number. The holdings of VLT will change. The composition of natural communities, hydrologic cycles on farms and recreational opportunities that make VLT’s assets so valuable will change in unpredictable and significant ways. Conservation which

focuses on maintaining the status quo or restoring properties to a historical state will not be successful. Understanding potential changes, planning for them, maintaining flexibility, and rethinking conservation goals are all essential in a new era of uncertainty. In the broader Vermont context, impact to economic and social systems could be severe in the areas of public health, transportation infrastructure, housing, and business.1 Land is a key asset to communities as they manage these impacts.

                                                                                                               1 Vermont Climate Assessment: Considering Vermont’s Future in a Changing Climate. The Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, The University of Vermont. 2014. Available at http://dev.vtclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/VCA2014_FullReport.pdf.

Summers  in  Vermont  could  feel  like  summers  in  Tennessee  and  Georgia  under  a  high  emissions  scenario.  (Northeast  Climate  Impacts  Assessment,  2007)    

  5  

Mitigation  and  adaptation    Although climate change is already in motion, its severity may be limited by mitigation. Mitigation activities seek to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas either by preventing additional emissions or by absorbing greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. Examples of mitigation include driving less and allowing regeneration of large forests to sequester carbon. Even with mitigation efforts in place, the climate will continue to change because of historical emissions. As a result, society must adapt to new conditions. Adaptation strategies may reduce the negative financial, social, and ecological impacts of change. Some examples of adaptation are installing tile drains to cope with increased precipitation, removing housing and infrastructure from floodplains to avoid future loss, or conserving north-south corridors so species can migrate to new ranges. This report addresses both mitigation and adaptation because both are essential.  Food,  water,  and  energy    Food, water, and energy are the key resources for adaptation. Provisioning these essential resources so that they are locally available all year long is a central challenge to any adaptation strategy. (Mihaly). Land, and the biodiversity hosted by an intact landscapes, are suppliers of critical resources for human communities to adapt to climate change. (Poleman). Local food from farms in Vermont, energy harvested from the wind, trees, and sun, and ground and surface water represent critical flows of resources that VLT can help protect through targeted conservation. (Mihaly, Poleman). When viewed through the lens of ecologically-sensitive resource procurement, the working landscapes preserved by VLT could be a resource for communities in the state to adapt to climate change and to mitigate it. (Mihaly, Poleman).

“Adaptation  is  the  process  of  adjustments  that  social  ecological  systems  make  in  response  to  changing  situations  to  reduce  vulnerability  from  climate  change  impacts.  Meanwhile,  mitigation  refers  to  a  proactive  process  that  moderates  climate  change  disruption  through  reducing  our  overall  contribution  to  emissions.”    

-­‐  Vermont  Climate  Assessment:  Considering  Vermont’s  Future  in  a  Changing  Climate.  P.  15    

 

  6  

Opportunities    An  ethical  obligation    Climate change will impact almost every aspect of natural and human systems including human health, well-being, and security. Two board members felt strongly that VLT has an ethical obligation to use its influence and resources to address climate change. (Mihaly, Poleman). They noted that climate change will be the major environmental issue of our time and that how society copes with climate change now will determine the well-being of future generations. Because land is key to provisioning the necessary resources for human survival, staff and board members see VLT’s resources as key to adaptation and mitigation. (Annes, Mihaly, Poleman). The land that VLT has already conserved will likely aid in adaptation and mitigation as well as providing value that VLT has traditionally considered including “contributing to the cultural, economic, and ecological vitality of local communities.”2 Land provides multiple benefits, so land conserved specifically for reasons related to climate change benefits communities in other ways as well. (Annes). Social justice is strongly implicated under climate change because the less fortunate members of our communities can least afford to take adaptive steps such as elevating their homes above the floodplain, for example. VLT’s commitment to ensure that land is “accessible to the public, and working landscapes are affordable and available” intersects directly with the social justice impacts of climate change. VLT could potentially bring the benefits of land to the public to help ameliorate the negative impacts of climate change. For example, VLT could conserve land upstream of low-income communities to slow and diffuse floodwaters. (Annes). Climate change is a long-term problem and requires long-term thinking. VLT is uniquely positioned to address climate change because staff, board members, and supporters tend to think in long time horizons. (Mihaly). Some pointed out that VLT tends to think on more operational or transactional terms and can sometimes lack a strong ethical filter for its activities. Without a strong sense of higher purpose, VLT may miss its larger impact on land and people. Climate change is an ethical issue, and many felt that VLT has a strong moral obligation to address it. (Muyskens, Poleman).  

                                                                                                               2 Vermont Land Trust Ends Policy. Available at http://www.vlt.org/about-vlt/guiding-principles.

“It  is  incumbent  upon  us  to  be  an  active  voice  in  the  climate  change  debate  because  we  are,  at  our  core,  an  environmental  organization”    

-­‐  Walter  Poleman    Member  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  

  7  

Membership  and  funding    Several people thought that climate change might offer a significant opportunity for VLT to recruit new, younger members and to develop new audiences for its work. (Annes, Berrini, Muyskens, Poleman,). VLT might be able to recruit new members who see VLT as a local way to address what seems like an inaccessible global problem. (Annes). Although several of those interviewed thought that membership would respond positively, more research is needed to determine how members and donors would respond. (Annes). Before moving forward with specific actions on climate, VLT could consider surveying members and donors. Questions could focus on whether donors and members think VLT should engage with climate change, how exactly VLT should cope with the threat that climate change poses to its assets, and what specific actions members would support. (Annes). Although we do not currently have research to support this conclusion, some people speculated that specific projects or events focused on climate change mitigation could draw in a new kind of land trust supporter who cares passionately about climate change and sees the importance of land in addressing it. (Miller, Muyskens). Some felt that VLT stakeholders would respond very positively. Being more vocal and proactive about climate change could help build support among current stakeholders and funders. (Muyskens, Poleman). Some foundations and federal agencies are beginning to offer funding for land conservation related to climate change. Recently VLT received funding from the Open Space Institute’s Resilient Landscapes Initiative to conserve land in Windham County (Diamond, Moore, Osborne, Thompson). Such funding opportunities may grow in the future though they are currently very modest. (Diamond, Thompson). The Open Space Institute funding focuses on parcels that are larger than the usual VLT project, so there is a mismatch in scale. (Diamond, Thompson). VLT may need more data to create successful proposals for funding. For example, how much carbon would be sequestered by a project or what would be the anticipated savings from flood resilience projects in the

Climate-­‐change  related  sources  of  funding    

v Doris  Duke  Charitable  Foundation  Environment  Program  

 v Grantham  Foundation  for  the  Protection  

of  the  Environment    

v Open  Space  Institute’s  Resilient  Landscapes  Initiative  

 v Wildlife  Conservation  Society’s  Climate  

Adaptation  Fund    

v FEMA  hazard  mitigation  grants  

  8  

event of a major storm? Some funding sources would require a more data-intensive approach than VLT has traditionally used. (Annes, Berrini). Although some state, federal, and foundation funding may be opening up, it is unclear how climate change relates to VLT’s traditional sources of funding. VLT has not historically pursued funding from foundations. Individual donors and landowners donating easements are an important constituency to consider in the decision about whether or how to address climate change. (Annes).  

Strengths  of  VLT    Land    Most staff members saw access to land as VLT’s greatest strength in both mitigating climate change and preparing for it. Examples of how land could be used appear throughout this report, but a consistent theme was that VLT stands out from other NGOs, state agencies, or planners in that it has direct influence over thousands of acres of land. (Diamond, Livingston, Miller, Smith, Thompson). The degree to which VLT can influence the use of land varies depending on whether VLT owns the land fee simple or holds easements. Several staff suggested using fee owned lands to conduct research, demonstration projects, or public education events. (Thompson, van Loon). As for land where VLT holds easements, influence is less direct. There is a natural tension around how prescriptive easements should be. On the one hand prescriptive easements could ensure conservation objectives are met such as meander corridors or protection of rare natural communities. On the other hand climate change will result in fundamental changes in the value, productivity, and ecology of the landscape. Overly prescriptive easements limit the ability of future generations to respond to changing circumstances. (Livingston, Miller, Smith).  Relationships    VLT has strong working relationships with landowners throughout the state. Through these relationships and annual visits, VLT can serve as a conduit for information about climate change as well as serve in a networking role, connecting landowners to resources to both mitigate and adapt to climate change. (Miller, van Loon). VLT-affiliated landowners represent a broad cross-section of society from working class farmers to well-off second home owners. This diversity gives VLT a strategic edge because it can reach a wider audience than many NGOs. (Diamond, Thompson). With 4,000 members and publications that circulate to over 10,000 people, the larger network of VLT also constitutes a significant outreach opportunity. (Annes, Livingston, Mihaly, Miller, Smith).

  9  

Annual visits are a key part of the stewardship relationship that VLT has with landowners. VLT could leverage this annual contact to encourage climate-friendly management practices or prepare landowners for anticipated threats and opportunities. To do this effectively, the communications team would need to work with the stewardship team at their annual meeting on messaging. Relationships can be leveraged, but only if thoughtful attention is given to how and what specifically VLT would be asking for. A “soft” relational approach to encouraging landowners to manage for climate change may ultimately be more effective than writing overly restrictive or specific easements. (Miller, Moore, Osborne, van Loon). VLT is also one of the most respected NGOs in the state when it comes to conservation and land use. VLT has excellent working relationships with state agencies, towns, Regional Planning Commissions and NGOs. VLT could leverage these relationships to move the dialog on climate change forward in the state. (Muyskens). Because VLT reaches a broad audience with a range of political affiliations, it could play a leadership role in bringing groups together to address climate change. (Muyskens). VLT could conduct surveys, polling, or community events to find out what is important to people in communities around Vermont. (Annes, Berrini).  Communications   VLT has a significant opportunity to influence landowner behavior and to reach its members and stakeholders. The organization has built up significant goodwill in Vermont through careful stewardship of relationships. If VLT decides to move forward in addressing climate change, communications are key to any successful strategy. (Annes, Berrini). Communications could be used to convince landowners and members to take action. Technical Bulletins and the annual stewardship visits are the two key channels for this type of communication. If VLT makes substantive programmatic changes, like allowing more renewable energy on conserved lands or conserving different types of land, those changes will need to be carefully communicated to members, funders, partners and the public. Communications strategy will vary by audience and channel. (Annes, Berrini). In discussing climate change, wording matters. There is some general research about effective communication around climate change, but VLT does not have enough data to know how its audiences would respond to specific climate change messaging. (Annes, Berrini). For example would landowners be more likely to make pro-climate management

“There  is  definitely  work  that  we  can  do  to  educate  and  help  prepare  our  landowners  for  changes,  give  them  recommendations  about  how  to  deal  with  challenges.  ”    

-­‐  Stewardship  team  member  (survey  results)  

 

  10  

decisions if VLT discussed local or international benefits of that management? VLT could conduct surveys, focus groups, or polling to discover which messages resonate most strongly with its audiences. No matter the audience, communications work better when they avoid being preachy or pedantic, keep a positive outlook, and provide specific, fun targets. (Annes, Berrini). For example VLT could create a pocket guide to local eating or brochures about local places to recreate. Several members of the Stewardship and Field teams expressed interest in receiving climate change talking points from the communications team. (Diamond, Miller, Thompson, van Loon). Some of the talking points need not mention climate change directly, but could address related topics like pollinator habitat, buffers, and the importance of large forest blocks. (Diamond, Thompson).  

Adaptation:  Potential  Options    Land provides resilience functions such as soaking up flood waters, providing locally available food, and allowing species to adapt their ranges to new conditions. Land is essential for both societal and ecological adaptation. VLT could target land acquisitions in areas that will allow human and natural communities to survive under climate change. New conservation can be either opportunistic or strategic. VLT tends to conduct conservation opportunistically as land owners approach the organization, but some conservation is targeted or strategic. (Diamond, Thompson). Identifying priority landscapes for climate change adaptation was perhaps the most frequently discussed strategy by staff and board members. Many felt that VLT could be more strategic, creating maps of ideal areas to conserve and prospecting in those areas. Several noted that preserving land for climate change adaptation is synergistic with VLT’s current mission. (Diamond, Mihaly, Miller, Moore, Osborne, Poleman, Thompson).

Key  audiences    

v Landowners    

v Members    

v Prospective  easement  donors    

v Major  funding  institutions    

v Government  officials  and  legislators    

v Partners  (e.g.  Vermont  Housing  and  Conservation  Board)  

 v General  public  

 v Press  

  11  

Identify  and  conserve  priority  areas  for  natural  communities    Natural communities will face increasing pressure as the climate changes, and conserving land strategically may help species adapt to climate change. Land plays a central role in resilience, and identifying land that adds to resilience for species could be the primary goal of planning. (Diamond, Thompson). In order to strategically conserve resilient lands, we must understand which features contribute most to resilience then identify where those features occur. (Thompson). Some of these features can be identified using remote geospatial data, but others must be identified on the ground through field work. (Thompson). Landscape connectivity and diversity of habitat types has long been a part of conservation thinking, but climate change intensifies the need think about landscape-scale conservation systematically. (Diamond, Thompson). There is an emerging scientific understanding about which natural features contribute most to resilience of species in the face of climate change. Resilience planning for conservation of species might involve targeting a variety of microclimates, geologic features and connections. (Diamond, Thompson). Ranges of species are expected to change dramatically with climate change, and some have theorized that preserving a variety of geologic features would also preserve a variety of species even as ranges change.3 Anderson et al. developed a method of estimating the value of different features to terrestrial resilience.4 The factors used to estimate resilience were: landform variety; elevation range; wetland density; landscape complexity; landscape permeability; and local connectedness. These factors were then combined to create a “resilience score” for each 1,000-acre hexagon in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. This modeling has been used by other conservation organizations, such as the Open Space Institute, to target conservation in particularly resilient areas. The Nature Conservancy, which produced the research, found that the areas they had already conserved overlapped significantly with areas found to be particularly resilient for climate change.5 This finding indicates that the traditional recommendations of conservation biology (such as conserving connectivity and core habitat areas) will likely help conserve biological diversity under climate change.

                                                                                                               3 Conserving the Stage: Climate Change and the Geophysical Underpinnings of Species Diversity. Anderson MG, Ferree CE. PLoS ONE 5(7): e11554. (2010). Available at http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011554 4 Anderson, M.G., M. Clark, and A. Olivero Sheldon. 2012. Resilient Sites for Terrestrial Conservation in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science. (2012). Available at https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/edc/reportsdata/terrestrial/resilience/Pages/default.aspx 5 Id.

  12  

Example:  The  Nature  Conservancy  Spatial  Modeling  

Conservation organizations should not rely on spatial modeling alone, but should conduct rigorous field work before deciding that an area does not contribute to resilience or should not be a conservation priority. (Thompson). Spatial modeling can be used as a “coarse filter” approach to identify some features relevant to resilience, but there are important aspects of resilience that cannot be captured by spatial modeling alone. (Thompson). For example extremely important vernal pools and fens cannot be identified by remote sensing and so are often missing from geospatial datasets. (Thompson). Spatial modeling that relies on remote sensing alone may miss these critical areas. Another way in which exclusively relying on spatial modeling may provide inadequate conservation response is in connectivity. (Thompson). Organisms must be able to move through the landscape unencumbered in order to survive because movement allows them

The  Nature  Conservancy  modeled  areas  that  would  help  species  survive  under  climate  change.  Spatial  modeling  is  an  important  first  step,  but  fieldwork  remains  extremely  important  for  identifying  important  natural  areas.  Remote  sensing  misses  important  areas  such  as  fens  or  vernal  pools.  

  13  

access to new habitats and genetically diverse populations for breeding. Landscapes that allow this movement are considered highly connected and score highly in resilience analyses. However many researchers who conduct spatial modeling use a definition of connectivity that applies only to larger mammals. The ways that other organisms move through the landscape are not considered. For example, the movement of small amphibians may be encumbered by even small dirt roads. What looks like a connected landscape for a larger mammal, such as deer or bears would be a fragmented landscape for a newts or salamanders. Spatial modeling often glosses over these differences among species. (Thompson). VLT could “downscale” the data generated by The Nature Conservancy (and plans to apply for a grant from the Open Space Institute to do so), but even with spatial modeling in place, fieldwork and local knowledge are critical to identify important areas for conservation of species. VLT could consider connecting with local community organizations that know of critical natural areas. (Thompson). Spatial modeling for biodiversity is an important coarse filter tool which offers the advantage of analyzing entire landscapes at one time. Conducting fieldwork for an entire county or state is not necessarily feasible, so from a logistical point of view spatial modeling is appealing. However, relying on modeling alone may exclude critical areas, or define resilience too narrowly.  Conserve  resilient  landscapes  for  human  communities    Resilience is a unifying concept in Vermont. Vermonters are trying to craft communities that can bounce back from natural disasters and thrive under new climactic conditions. Resilience for human landscapes could focus on flooding, food systems, and livable communities. VLT recently developed the Vermont River Sensitivity Coarse Screening Tool and has proposed work on a Forested Headwaters Mapping Tool. These tools will help VLT identify key areas for flood resilience and water quality and are examples of mapping to inform strategic conservation. Funding to conserve land or targeted prospecting in key areas identified by the tools is required to follow through on the results. (Annes). VLT could use the lens of ecosystem services for conservation planning. Ecosystem services are benefits that flow from nature to humans. Ecosystem services related to climate change include water regulation, carbon sequestration, food production, pollination etc. VLT could be more strategic in acquisitions and management to protect these essential services that nature provides. (Poleman, Mihaly). It is worth noting the climate change itself may significantly impact how effective the landscape is at delivering ecosystem services. Modeling of specific services under different climate change scenarios can help identify areas will provide services into the future. An area that currently provides services may not be as effective in the future, so accounting for future change is important.

  14  

©  Joan  Allen  

Example:  Otter  Creek  Wetlands  Prevented  $2.5  Million  in  Flood  Damage  

Under  climate  change,  the  frequency  and  severity  of  storms  are  expected  to  increase.  By  targeting  conservation  efforts  on  wetlands  upstream  of  communities,  VLT  could  reduce  peak  flooding  and  enhance  resilience.      

During  Tropical  Storm  Irene  in  2011,  the  Otter  Creek  swamp  complex  absorbed  flood  waters  and  released  them  slowly,  reducing  peak  flow  in  downstream  Middlebury  by  12,000  cubic  feet.  The  complex  is  one  of  the  most  biologically  diverse  in  New  England  according  to  The  Nature  Conservancy.  Conserving  land  with  climate  change  in  mind  often  results  in  auxiliary  benefits  for  wildlife  and  people.  

On  the  left,  actual  flooding  in  Middlebury  during  Tropical  Storm  Irene.  On  the  right  projected  flooding  if  the  Otter  Creek  Wetlands  were  not  in  place.  An  estimated  $2.5  million  in  additional  property  damage  may  have  occurred  without  the  wetlands.      This  study  was  conducted  by  Keri  Bryan,  Gillian  Galford,  Steve  Polaky,  Taylor  Ricketts,  and    Jarlath  O’Neil-­‐Dunne  of  the  Gund  Insitute  for  Ecological  Economics  at  the  University  of  Vermont.  View  a  presentation  of  the  results  at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4AZMJk22_0    

  15  

As climate change unfolds and impacts become more apparent, mapping and modeling efforts would need to be adjusted to reflect changing circumstances. Planning is not a static, one-time process. (Mihaly). Planning would benefit from the involvement of academics, consultants, and scientists. (Livingston, Mihaly). VLT could partner with towns, Regional Planning Commissions (RPCs), state agencies, and other NGOs like the Nature Conservancy or the River Conservancy to identify key areas for conservation. Partner organizations, especially state agencies and towns possess a significant amount of power to influence resilience planning because they hold direct regulatory authority over land use. (Diamond, Miller, Thompson). A coordinated effort would take a significant amount of staff time and attention, but could yield useful maps not only for VLT but for partners, and maps could be shared with state and local authorities. (Mihaly, Miller, Poleman). VLT would likely take on some conservation projects identified in planning exercises, but others may be better handled by towns, RPCs, or the state. (Mihaly). Spatial modeling of resilient landscapes is a perfect example of the old adage “the devil is in the details.” (Moore, Osborne). If VLT moved forward with this option, it would need to operationalize a definition for what constitutes a resilient landscape, a task that could be conducted in partnership with state agencies or university researchers. Spatial modeling could streamline existing acquisitions and stewardship workflows. It is useful in evaluating new properties and in considering amendments to existing easements where an overlay or additional restrictions might be warranted. (Diamond, Thompson). Spatial modeling could identify which parcels would be especially valuable. It can also create efficiencies in the stewardship workflow when landowners request modifications to existing easements. (Moore, Osborne). However, it is important to note that modeling alone is not sufficient to determine an area’s importance. It serves as a precursor to fieldwork. (Thompson). Both fieldwork and the local knowledge of towns, RPCs, and local non-profits are needed to augment modeling. (Thompson). Maps of important areas should include fieldwork and local knowledge. Some mapping projects in the past have not resulted in substantial changes to conservation efforts, as VLT remains in a opportunistic mode. There are several ways to ensure mapping is used more effectively. If funding were available to offer to specific landowners, spatial modeling could identify prime land where funding could be spent.

“(The  most  important  thing  VLT  can  do  to  address  climate  change  is)  incorporate  the  best  available  climate  science  into  our  work.”    

-­‐  Field  team  member  (survey  results)  

 

  16  

Results of mapping could be shared with state agencies who might be targeting conservation or enforcement efforts. (Moore, Osborne). VLT could do more active prospecting of easement donations in highly resilient areas even without funding to offer landowners. (Diamond, Thompson). Many agreed that mapping should only be undertaken if VLT plans to use the results to target acquisitions or management. (Livingston, Mihaly, Moore, Osborne).  Allow  flexibility  in  land  management    The outcomes of climate change are very uncertain, especially at the parcel level. One of the most important aspects of land management in the face of climate change is maintaining flexibility. As the situation evolves, staff and landowners may need to change management tactics in response to changing circumstances. This is the principle of adaptive management. Because the easement is a perpetual document, integrating the latest science is difficult. Perhaps it is best to avoid overly prescriptive language which can limit adaptive management. (Miller, Smith). VLT recently revised language commonly used in Ecological Protection Zone clauses to account for change over time. Under the new language, management activities must focus on maintaining existing natural communities “or communities that may develop naturally over time, informed by the best current ecological science.” (Diamond, Thompson). This language recognizes that natural communities may change while requiring a strong scientific basis for any changes in management. VLT could consider including climate change clauses in other areas of easements to allow for more flexibility. Such clauses would need to respect the landowners desire for perpetual preservation while defining preservation in such a way to make flexible management possible. (Mihaly). For example, if we expect more frequent and severe storm events, then we can expect more damage to conserved properties. The workload of the stewardship staff might increase if volatility in weather (ice and wind storms, flooding, etc.) increases the need for special approvals. (van Loon). Because VLT holds so many easements, it is not feasible to conduct “hands-on” monitoring of strict and specific easement terms. Some staff suggested specific land management techniques be written into easements (meander corridors for rivers and streams, no-till or perennial cropping for farms etc.); however, staff resources may be limited to monitor such specific management requirements. (Livingston, Smith).

“we  need  to  continue  to  be  mindful  of  flood  resiliency  and  easement  flexibility  in  the  face  of  unknown  changes  to  climate,  species  composition,  disease,  etc.”  

-­‐  Field  team  member  (survey  results)  

  17  

The stewardship staff agreed that there is currently enough flexibility in existing easements to respond to changing situations on the ground. (Miller, van Loon). In forest management, even non-standard management is permitted if those practices are based on sound silviculture. For example if an unexpected event occurs, like a wind storm with extensive damage, easements generally allow enough flexibility to conduct responsible salvage operations. (van Loon). Agricultural easements are generally very permissible of new management strategies. Staff members work with farmers as they adapt their management practices and support them when they adapt in ecologically sensitive ways. (Miller). VLT is already engaged in many land management practices that maintain flexible landscapes. For example in most forest management plans, landowners are required to manage the forest in ways that promote resilience. VLT forest stewardship staff already discourage monocultures, combat invasive species and overgrazing by deer, encourage diversity in age structure and the preservation of course woody debris and snags. Managing forestlands to both maintain economic productivity and preserve ecological integrity is an effective climate change adaptation strategy. (van Loon). On the other hand, easements often require “acceptable management practices” as defined by the “Acceptable Management Practices for Maintaining Water Quality on Logging Jobs in Vermont,” a set of rules maintained by the Department of Forests Parks and Recreation. These practices are defined by the state, not by VLT. If some practices would better mitigate climate change (like requiring larger diameters for harvested trees for example), but those are not included in state regulations, VLT has little power currently to require landowners to follow those recommendations. (Moore, Osborne). However, VLT could consider encouraging changes to the acceptable management practices. VLT has a good working relationship with the Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation, and there is opportunity to work with them to improve and expand the rules to better address climate change. (Thompson).  Protect  local  food  systems    Several staff people and board members pointed out the importance of local food systems to climate change adaptation. (Annes, Mihaly, Muyskens, Poleman). In the face of price volatility and inter-annual variation in crop production, maintaining a diversity of farming landscapes could provide food security for Vermonters and New Englanders. VLT has a unique opportunity to conserve farmland and could be more proactive in this area. (Annes, Mihaly, Miller, Smith). Some thought that large dairy farms are crowding out smaller, more sustainable farms that could boost the local food system. VLT holds easements on some large dairy farms, so perhaps it could consider refusing to conserve such farms in the future. (Annes, Muyskens). Others pointed out that local food production does not necessarily emit less

  18  

greenhouse gas than imported food, so local food is not automatically better for the climate. (Berrini). Farmers who are applying to the farmland access program could be required to discuss climate change in their business plans. (Poleman). VLT stewardship staff could learn about potential adaptation strategies for coping with flood, drought, weeds, and invasive species, and educate farmers about how to prepare for these aspects of climate change. (Miller, Poleman). VLT could conserve land as a common-pool agricultural resource such as community garden space in urban and sub-urban areas. (Poleman). Some felt that current VLT easements on farmland allowed unsustainable practices. Some farms, especially large dairy farms, may be emitting significant amounts of methane. Other farms may be contributing to phosphorous pollution in Lake Champlain. VLT could consider conditioning easements on sustainable farm management practices or rejecting farm projects that do not meet sustainability criteria. (Muyskens). Other farm practices such as no till and perennial cropping release less carbon into the atmosphere than traditional farming. VLT could encourage these practices on conserved farms by using financial incentives. (Smith). One important emerging issue is the conversion of forested parcels to maple sugar monocropping. In the short run, high prices for maple syrup are motivating conversion from multi-species hardwood forests to single-species monocropping of sugar maple. Monocropping for sugar maple could leave forests more vulnerable to invasive species. Owners of forested parcels may be soon submitting management

“All  aspects  of  food  security  are  potentially  affected  by  climate  change,  including  food  access,  utilization,  and  price  stability”    

-­‐  IPCC  Fifth  Assessment  Report.  Climate  Change  2014:  Impacts,  Adaptation,  and  

Vulnerability.  P.  488        

Forest  cover  types  are  predicted  to  change  drastically  under  climate  change.  Maple-­‐Beech-­‐Birch  forest  types  may  be  replaced  with  Oak-­‐Hickory  forest  types,  impacting  maple  sugaring  in  Vermont.  (U.S.  Global  Change  Research  Program).    

  19  

plans that include selective logging to create monocropped sugar maple stands. Maple tree ranges are projected to migrate northward under climate change, so in the long run, monocropped stands may not survive in Vermont. (van Loon).  Promote  flood  resilience    Vermont state agencies, towns, and individuals are paying special attention to flood resilience following Tropical Storm Irene in 2011. VLT can potentially play a key role in promoting flood resilience by targeting new easements in floodplains and encouraging effective floodplain management on existing easements. VLT could work closely with the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation to identify areas to conserve as well as add meander corridors to existing easements. (Mihaly, Moore, Osborne). Especially for farmers, adding corridor restrictions for rivers could limit funding they receive from the USDA Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). Any new restrictions should consider potential conflicts with CREP so that farmers can continue to receive annual income from that program. (Miller). Older easements have no corridor restrictions and some farmers with VLT easements are still installing rip-rap, a practice not recommended for flood resilience over the long-term. (Miller). VLT may need to reject some farm conservation projects if donors are unwilling to include appropriate stream buffers or meander corridors. (Muyskens). On forestlands, most landowners do not actively manage stream or river corridors, which means bodies of water generally have more freedom to wander naturally. This lack of management is likely very helpful to flood resilience, although if VLT wanted to quantify this benefit, more research would be needed. (van Loon). On forestlands, it may be helpful in some cases to impose an overlay to restrict logging in the immediate vicinity of streams to maintain cooler temperatures and prevent erosion. Where VLT imposes an overlay, it is important to consider whether the overlay limits the landowner from participating in federal cost-share programs or Vermont’s Current Use program. Such programs are often crucial to allowing landowners to retain their land. (van Loon).    

“I  think  the  work  we  are  doing  on  flood  resilience  and  river  corridor  management  areas  is  a  very  important  role  we  can  play  and  it  could  become  a  larger  part  of  our  work.”    

-­‐  Field  team  member  (survey  results)    

 

  20  

©  M

ark  Godfrey  

Assess  vulnerability    The Land Trust Alliance, in its Climate Change Toolkit, suggests that land trusts conduct vulnerability assessments of current holdings.6 Vulnerability assessments identify holdings that are most threatened by climate change. As the climate changes the benefits or value of land VLT has conserved will change as well. For example, streams may warm causing trout habitat to become more limited. The composition of forests may change, bringing different species that have different lifecycles, habitat value, or commercial forestry applications. To understand the nature and impact of projected changes, VLT could conduct vulnerability assessments. Assessments could focus on which species, systems, and parcels will be affected, how those assets will change, and what appropriate management and conservation responses might be. Vulnerability assessments could allow VLT to prioritize conservation actions, and guide future management decisions. Assessments consider both exposure and sensitivity to the impacts of climate change, and the ability of the parcel to adapt.7

Example:  Northwoods  Restoration  Will  No  Longer  Prioritize  Boreal  Species  

                                                                                                                 6 The full Land Trust Alliance Climate Change Toolkit is available at http://www.landtrustalliance.org/climate-change-toolkit#b_start=0 7 For more on vulnerability assessments, see the National Wildlife Federation’s Climate-Smart Conservation: Putting Adaptation Principles into Practice. Available at http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/Media-Center/News-by-Topic/Global-Warming/2014/05-014-14-New-Guide-Provides-Conservation-Guidance-in-a-Changing-Climate.aspx

Historically,  Minnesota’s  Northwoods  were  rich  in  boreal  species  such  as  balsam  fir  and  white  pine.  Logging  had  depleted  those  species.  Forest  managers  were  working  to  restore  the  boreal  species  mix  through  planting  and  selective  logging.  After    conducting  a  vulnerability  assessment,  they  concluded  that  these  species  will  experience  unsuitable  habitat  conditions  under  climate  change  and  may  be  lost  regardless  of  management  techniques  designed  to  preserve  them.  Now  in  some  areas  The  Nature  Conservancy  is  focusing  on  structural  and  genetic  diversity  so  whatever  climate  change  brings,  the  forest  can  adapt.    

  21  

Vulnerability assessments that look at the potential impact of climate change on specific parcels might be useful to landowners if there were particular management recommendations that came out of those assessments. Some impacts of climate change may be so far into the future that vulnerability assessments would not have management implications yet, and would be less useful. VLT could group properties by geographic region, elevation, soil type, or other relevant features to identify general threats and educate landowners. A parcel-by-parcel assessment is not realistic. If VLT wanted to see how useful a vulnerability assessment would be, it could conduct them for larger fee owned lands and see whether the assessment would change management decisions. (Poleman, van Loon).  

Mitigation:  Potential  Options    Minimize  VLT’s  operational  footprint    One immediate way that VLT could address climate change is to minimize its own energy use in buildings, transportation, and supplies. (Diamond, Mihaly, Poleman, Thompson). Many thought that if VLT would have more credibility in addressing climate change if it decided to “walk the walk” by reducing its own greenhouse gas emissions, purchasing offsets, and producing green power at its offices. (Muyskens, Poleman). A complete energy audit of the organization could show the most cost-effective way to reduce energy use. (Livingston, Smith). Energy efficiency is likely the most cost effective method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but VLT could consider producing some of its own power. (Diamond, Mihaly, Poleman). New building acquisitions or remodeling activities could present a unique opportunity to consider energy efficiency. (Livingston, Smith). Staff agreed that transportation is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions by VLT. Staff travel frequently for acquisitions and stewardship, and this mileage contributes to climate change. VLT could conduct an energy audit of its annual transportation expenditures to calculate carbon impact. (Diamond, Thompson).

“I  think  VLT  could  do  a  better  job  of  modeling  how  to  have  a  smaller  climate  change  footprint.  This  could  range  from  how  we  heat  our  office  space  (or  having  efficient  office  space  to  heat)  to  providing  alternatives  for  more  fuel  efficient  vehicles  for  staff  who  travel  on  a  regular  basis  for  their  work.  ”    

-­‐  Stewardship  team  member  (survey  results)  

 

  22  

VLT could consider purchasing or leasing a small fleet of fuel efficient vehicles for staff who travel the most. (Annes, Diamond, Miller, Smith, Thompson,). Alternatively one vehicle could be stationed at each office and staff could coordinate use. (Moore, Osborne). VLT could consider plug-in electric hybrid vehicles along with solar-powered charging stations at its offices. (Mihaly). Some thought that leasing efficient vehicles might be cost neutral because VLT already reimburses for staff mileage and spends administrative time tracking mileage. A detailed analysis of costs would be needed to see what the cost implications would be. (Miller, Mihaly). One disadvantage of this approach is that some easements are in difficult-to-reach locations that require four-wheel drive and higher ground clearance than current hybrids provide. (Livingston, van Loon). Staff could plan site visits more efficiently by booking visits in the same region on the same day or by staying overnight in a region rather than driving back and forth, some vehicle miles could be avoided. Landowners are not always available to meet, so this strategy will not always work. (van Loon, Moore, Osborne). Statewide satellite orthoimagery could be used to review existing easements rather than annual staff visits, though this would sacrifice the working relationship that landowners have with staff. (Moore, Osborne). More internal staff meetings could take place online via Skype. (Miller, Poleman, Muyskens). Telecommuting could be allowed and encouraged whenever possible. (Muyskens). VLT staff could carpool more often to meetings around the state. (van Loon, Miller).  Acquire  lands  to  sequester  carbon   Forests in Vermont perform significant carbon sequestration function, removing carbon from the atmosphere and concentrating it in woody biomass and soil. Large forested parcels help to mitigate climate change. The exact management techniques that maximize carbon storage are still being researched, and universal agreement has not been reached. (Diamond, Thompson). VLT could concentrate financial resources on conserving forested land with the expressed purpose of sequestering and storing carbon. (Livingston, Muyskens, Smith, van Loon). There is generally less funding available for forest conservation than farm conservation with funding from the Forest Service’s Forest Legacy program being low and extremely competitive. (Livingston, Muyskens). Funding from the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board is not focused on large forested parcels. Easements that qualify for National Resource Conservation Service funding are limited to farms and even exclude portions of farms which are forested. (Diamond, Thompson). These limitations in funding are significant barriers to forest conservation in Vermont. VLT would need to identify major new sources of private funding including major donors, foundations, and easement donations. (Muyskens). On the other hand preserving large forest blocks far from settlements creates few conflicts over use and the cost per acre is low. (Livingston, Smith). Some have suggested that forest conservation could be funded by selling carbon credits in international markets. Landowners with large forested blocks can undergo a process of

  23  

certification that verifies their forests are sequestering and storing carbon. Landowners then receive credits which they can sell on the market to individuals and companies wishing to offset their own greenhouse gas emissions. Revenue from carbon credits for VLT forest projects could offset costs of conservation or fund future conservation. Some staff noted that participation in carbon markets is not an economically viable option for VLT – either for fee owned lands or for landowners with forested easements. There are several barriers to participation including the very high initial costs of entry into the market. Becoming certified is expensive, time intensive, and requires large tracts of land. For small landowners, markets currently do not allow small parcels to be aggregated up into full size projects. The current market price for carbon offsets is very low. Without a national cap and trade system, prices are likely to remain low and prevent carbon projects from supporting themselves economically. The staff time required to conduct self-certification and monitoring on VLT fee owned lands, the Atlas Timberlands for example, would be a significant barrier to participation. (van Loon.). VLT could consider conducting specific carbon-sequestration demonstration projects on existing fee owned lands. VLT could showcase projects to landowners, showing how to maximize carbon sequestration on their own lands. Outside expertise on forest management for carbon would be needed. These demonstration projects would be good adjuncts to the one conducted on the Atlas lands by the Northern Institute of Applied Science. (van Loon). Another excellent model of how to successfully execute demonstration projects is the recent timber sale spearheaded by Dan Kilborn at Mud Pond to enhance bird habitat. (Miller, van Loon). Simply conducting a demonstration project is not enough to fulfill the potential of this option. Methods, results, and ideas must be communicated to private landowners. Scientists continue to explore the process of carbon sequestration in northern hardwood forests. It is currently unclear how different harvest regimes affect total sequestration and storage over time. VLT could partner with scientists to conduct research on large forested parcels held by VLT. (Livingston). VLT may lack the necessary staffing itself to verify and monitor carbon storage, especially as scientific consensus evolves. Partnerships with the University of Vermont or other research organizations would be key to success. (Livingston).

“Having  VLT  lands  to  serve  as  demonstration  sites  for  adaptation  practices  would  be  very  exciting  and  most  likely  be  of  interest  to  owners  of  conserved  land.”    

-­‐  Stewardship  team  member  (survey  results)  

  24  

Example:  AMC  Sells  Carbon  Credits  to  Finance  Future  Conservation  

In  2003  the  Appalachian  Mountain  Club  (AMC)  acquired  the  66,500-­‐acre  Katahdin  Ironworks  property.  In  addition  to  providing  benefits  to  wildlife  and  local  communities,  the  conserved  forest  sequesters  and  stores  carbon,  helping  to  mitigate  climate  change.  On  10,000  acres,  where  no  timber  harvesting  would  take  place,  AMC  underwent  the  certification  process  for  the  Forest  Project  Protocol  of  the  Climate  Action      Reserve  in  order  to  sell  carbon  credits  in  the  California  offset  market.  AMC  had  to    demonstrate  that  emissions  offsets  are  permanent,  verifiable,  and  “additional”  meaning  that  without  the  project,  the  carbon  would  not  have  been  stored.  Monitoring  and  verification  efforts  must  remain  in  place  for  100  years.    

David  Publicover,  a  senior  staff  scientist  at  AMC  stewarded  the  project,  conducting  time-­‐intensive  self-­‐certification  process.  "It  was  by  far  the  most  challenging  and  complex  project  I've  ever  worked  on,"  he  said.      Revenue  generated  by  the  sale  of  the  credits  will  finance  future  conservation.        

VLT  may  be  limited  from  participating  in  carbon  markets  because  the  certification  process  is  so  expensive  and  time  intensive.      For  more  information  about  AMC’s  Katahdin  Ironworks  carbon  offset  project,  see  their  press  release  at    http://www.outdoors.org/about/newsroom/press/2014/carbon-­‐credit-­‐sale.cfm      

  25  

Contain  sprawl    VLT could consider conserving land to contain suburban sprawl. One major source of greenhouse gas emissions in the state of Vermont is transportation. If VLT conserved land around growing communities, perhaps it could encourage growth in town and village centers. This might lower emissions from transportation. (Smith). Preserving land for recreation near settlements could also reduce transportation emissions if people travel less because recreation is nearby. (Annes). Whether this strategy is desirable depends on how effective it is. In a rural state, even if sprawl is contained on a local level, many people still commute to other communities or urban centers for work. Detailed transportation modeling would be needed to ensure this strategy’s effectiveness. (Smith). Another natural tension in this strategy is how to make it cost effective. Using available funds to target land that is distant from current development likely yields greater acreage (and potential carbon storage) per dollar than purchasing relatively expensive land near current developments. (Livingston). On the other hand some land in remote areas is not under threat of development, so spending conservation dollars to protect it might not make sense. (Moore, Osborne). Affordable housing is another major concern in the state, and VLT could take a more active role in conserving land near urban and village cores specifically for the development of low-income housing. (Muyskens). Concentrating development of affordable housing in the urban core alleviates both emissions from transportation and high housing prices. (Muyskens).  Consider  renewable  energy    VLT’s recently revised renewable energy policy provides thoughtful guidance for the development of renewable energy resources by landowners where VLT holds easements. That policy is included as an Appendix C to this report. The VLT renewable energy policy does not explicitly consider the development of renewable energy resources on VLT fee-owned land, but interviewees agreed that such development is extremely unlikely. However, some felt that VLT could consider very small-scale solar at its offices to offset usage. When considering whether to allow renewable energy development on easement land, all agreed that ecological and social impacts are an important part of the equation. Some felt that VLT is uniquely well positioned to help site renewables in an ecologically sound way. (Diamond, Mihaly, Miller, Poleman, Thompson).

  26  

VLT staff could identify sites which are the least harmful ecologically or sites where the development of renewables would be unwise from a conservation point of view. (Thompson). The first phase of using a coarse filter to identify areas could be done remotely using GIS. Criteria would need to be clearly defined and could include physical characteristics such as presence of unique natural communities, slope and aspect as well as more subjective characteristics such as proximity to population or visibility. (Moore, Osborne). Several thought that individual easements should be carefully crafted to allow for renewable energy development. This could mean designating larger areas as exclusions on non-ecologically sensitive parts of the property (Diamond, Mihaly). This view is reflected in the new policy which generally considers small renewable projects to be compatible appurtenant structures if they produce only enough power to offset use at the site. Farmers could gain significant income from solar or methane projects, but some thought that such projects should avoid prime agricultural soils because renewables would not be the highest and best use of the land in that case. (Annes, Miller, Mihaly). Some thought that VLT could play a larger role in connecting project financiers with interested farmers or help farmers site solar well on their land (Diamond, Miller, Moore, Osborne). One Board member thought that VLT could promote projects that are sited specifically to protect biodiversity and are profit-sharing for the community or owned by municipalities. (Poleman). Although farms represent a significant opportunity for renewable energy development, some farmers may oppose renewable development because they perceive that it restricts the supply of farmland in the short-term and could raise prices for farmland. (van Loon). The VLT renewable policy generally considers projects which are “1% of property acreage or +/-1 acre” to be conservation scale. Projects of such relatively small size would not likely restrict acreage for farming on a scale relevant to the cost of land.  VLT could consider working with landowners who are supplying wood to biomass plants for electric generation. If VLT decided to go in this direction, caution is warranted. Electric generating units are not an efficient use of wood unless they also provide heat (combined heat and power projects). Forest management plans may be crafted so that trees are sustainably harvested, but the long-term implications of repeat harvests on nutrient-poor sites are unclear. The long-term carbon neutrality of electric generation from woody biomass is under dispute because carbon is released in the short-term, but carbon storage from forest growth takes place on a much longer time-horizon. (van

“Climate  trumps  everything.  The  tendency  is  to  avoid  wind  because  it’s  controversial,  but  we  should  not  overlook  any  potential  resources”    

-­‐  Marc  Mihaly    Member  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  

  27  

Loon). Also, demand may outpace sustainable supply if forests are not large enough. (Livingston). Much further research is needed before VLT conserves forests for supply of woody biomass.  Influence  public  opinion  and  policy    As a well-respected and well-connected conservation organization in the state, VLT has a significant opportunity to influence public opinion and policy on climate change. VLT could use its political influence to encourage state policies that curb greenhouse gas emissions, encourage low-carbon land use patterns, limit development on forested lands, or create a carbon tax. VLT has special relationships with several state agencies that could be leveraged to help Vermont mitigate and adapt to climate change. Interviewees mentioned the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, the Agency of Agriculture, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. (Diamond, Miller, Moore, Osborne, Thompson, van Loon). Some potential partners hold broad authority to address climate change including the legislature, state agencies, and the governor’s office. Leveraging relationships that VLT has with these bodies could allow VLT to “punch above its weight” in addressing climate change. On the other hand, it may be difficult for VLT to be ahead of its major partners on climate change. (Annes, Berrini). Many pointed out that strong relationships with these agencies already exist, and there is no need to institutionalize cooperation because it is happening naturally already. (Diamond, Thompson, van Loon). Because many VLT easements require “best management practices” (BMPs) that are defined by state and federal regulations, VLT could lobby agencies that define BMPs in a climate-cognizant way. VLT staff could identify and lobby for BMPs that effectively store carbon, minimize greenhouse gas emissions, promote compact development, and allow for more natural functioning of streams and rivers. (Livingston, Moore, Osborne, Smith). One major question is whether VLT should play a leadership role in convening other groups to address climate change. Several people questioned whether it would appropriate for VLT to be on the “front lines” in lobbying related to climate change. Such

“People  tend  to  pay  attention  to  what  we  are  doing,  both  in  the  state  house  and  in  the  media.  If  we  can  call  attention  to  what  we  are  doing  then  maybe  we  can  help  guide  the  conversation  about  climate  change.”    

-­‐  Legal  team  member  (survey  results)  

  28  

lobbying would be a major shift in the organization’s focus and some thought that there are other, more appropriate NGOs in the state to fill that role. (Mihaly, Muyskens, Poleman). Several felt that VLT is unlikely to develop a new climate change initiative on its own and would need to cooperate with other NGOs and state partners. (Livingston, Miller, Smith).

Using existing communications channels, VLT could consider promoting awareness of climate change and encourage action among members and landowners. (Annes, Muyskens, Poleman,). There was broad consensus among survey respondents that VLT should engage the general public on the issue of climate change. One specific issue VLT could consider is maple sugar monocropping. VLT could lobby to amend the current use program to exclude lands that have been converted to maple sugar plantations. Conversion to monocropping leaves land vulnerable to invasive insects and negatively impacts biodiversity. In the longer term, as the range of maple trees migrates northward under climate change, monocropped lands would become susceptible as maple may be unable to survive in new climate conditions in Vermont. (van Loon).  

Survey  results.  18  of  23  respondents  thought  that  VLT  should  engage  the  general  public  through  its  newsletters,  website,  and  events.  Only  8  thought  VLT  should  engage  national  agencies.  No  one  thought  VLT  should  not  engage  in  any  communications  regarding  climate  change.  

18  

8  

0  0  

2  

4  

6  

8  

10  

12  

14  

16  

18  

20  

The  general  public   Namonal  agencies   VLT  should  not  engage  

Num

ber  o

f  respo

nden

ts  

Survey  Results:  Should  VLT  engage  in  public  educa`on  or  poli`cal  lobbying  to  slow  climate  change  or  cope  with  its  

impacts?  (Check  all  the  groups  you  think  VLT  should  engage)  

  29  

Potential  risks  and  issues    The  “flavor  of  the  month”  problem    Some staff pointed out that planning priorities have frequently changed at VLT, and that focusing on climate change could be an ephemeral interest. Other examples of priorities that have come up in the past, but may have only guided a few major conservation decisions are habitat connectivity, limiting phosphorous loading into Lake Champlain, and preserving productive forests for timber purposes. If VLT decides to make addressing climate change more central to its mission, staff felt that a long-term commitment would be necessary to carry out spatial planning, target areas for conservation, and successfully obtain easements in those areas. A short-term passing interest would be unfortunate.  The  “actually  doing  something”  problem    Some were concerned that a new focus on climate change would not result in any concrete operational changes at VLT. (Livingston, Muyskens). Specifically, some worried that a new focus on climate change could manifest as primarily as a public relations strategy without substantively changing the actions of the organization. Others pointed out that a new focus on climate change would require more prescriptive approach to stewardship. Without changing the way easements are crafted or being more hands-on in stewardship, efforts may fall short. (Poleman). Some were worried that planning and mapping efforts may go to waste if VLT does not have the financial resources to target conservation or fails to do so. (Mihaly, Moore, Osborne). Monitoring and evaluation are an important part of any strategy for addressing climate change. VLT would benefit from defining concrete goals and measuring progress toward those goals regularly to evaluate the success of any programmatic changes. (Muyskens). Most people interviewed agreed that VLT has an opportunity to engage in substantive programmatic changes, and would be missing that opportunity if current work were simply recast as being “climate-change related.” (Annes, Livingston, Smith).    

“Let's  start  actually  doing  things  and  then    how  we  talk  about  it  will  emerge  and  be  much  more  credible.”    

-­‐  Community  Relations  team  member    (survey  results)    

 

  30  

Public  response    VLT has a reputation of being a “middle of the road,” balanced NGO. It generally does not become involved with highly politicized issues. As a result VLT’s constituency is diverse and holds a range of political and social attitudes. It is possible that some VLT constituencies may not respond positively to a decision to emphasize climate change in the organization’s activities. (Annes, Livingston, Miller, Muyskens, Smith). Survey results indicate that VLT staff feel stakeholders would react generally positively if VLT decided to address climate change more directly. Of the 23 respondents, 18 thought stakeholders would respond positively or very positively.

More research is needed to determine how important constituencies may react. Specifically staff recommended research about what donors and members think in three key areas. (Annes). 1. Do members/donors agree that the Vermont Land Trust as a global, regional and local citizen has a responsibility to act to strengthen our communities and, where possible, safeguard our natural resources from the negative impacts of GCC?

0  

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

7  

8  

9  

10  

Num

ber  o

f  Respo

nden

ts  

How  would  people  react  if  VLT  announced  it  will  address  climate  change  through  changes  to  land  stewardship  and  acquisi`ons?  

Generally  Negatively    

Generally  Positively    

1   2   3   4   5  

Survey  results.  Eighteen  staff  members  thought  stakeholders  would  respond  positively  if  VLT  decided  to  address  climate  change.  VLT  could  consider  conducting  surveys  of  stakeholders  to  more  specifically  assess  their  opinions.  

  31  

2. Climate change will put our nearly 40 years of conservation achievements at risk, and will have profound implications for our natural and economic systems. There are documented risks of increasing temperatures and extreme weather events to our productive farm and forest assets. What do members and donors think VLT should do or what level of investment should it should make in responding to GCC? 3. How do members and donors want VLT to involve them in this area of our work? (e.g. public events, educational outreach, consultation committees). VLT constituencies, especially at the community level, have not historically been receptive to hearing about complex science, modeling, or data. Communicating about climate change, or even using the phrase “climate change” may deter people from being involved with land trust activities. How to communicate climate change without alienating people or overwhelming them with science remains a significant challenge. (Annes, Berrini). Public relations about work related to climate change may be more effective if it focused on the immediate, local benefits. (Annes, Berrini, Smith). VLT staff were particularly concerned about the response of landowners and members to the potential development of renewable energy projects on conserved lands. Most staff members thought renewable energy presents an exciting opportunity, but they noted that VLT has a commitment to sustainable management, and some constituents may be concerned about the specific siting of renewable projects. Projects would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis to ensure they do not jeopardize VLT’s reputation or important natural features. Several staff noted that opposition is likely against any wind development specifically. VLT’s new renewable energy policy provides a helpful framework for ecologically sound siting of conservation-scale projects. (Miller, Moore, Osborne, Poleman, van Loon). Several staff members pointed out that large conventional dairy farmers operating on conserved lands are the VLT constituency most likely to oppose action on climate change. Their interests may be directly affected by easement restrictions like meander belts or surface water quality protections. Open communication with these farmers and careful attention to their interests would be needed. (Miller, Moore, Muyskens, Osborne,). If VLT decided to move in a climate-change focused direction, it would need to present the idea to farmers in a way that resonated with that community. Economic incentives to support specific practices certainly help. For example farmers could be paid to avoid using rip-rap along streams if funding were available. VLT has worked hard to build relationships with farmers, so it may be the perfect organization to bring the issue to farmers effectively. (Miller).  Putting  risks  in  perspective   Any new strategy or change in course for an organization presents some reputational, financial, and operational risks. These risks must be weighted against the potential

  32  

rewards, which in this case include addressing a key ethical issue of our times, drawing in new audiences and funding, and making Vermont a more resilient state. There are risks to consider, but those risks need not hinder progress that the board and staff see as necessary to the organization’s future. (Annes, Poleman). Some felt that while a small minority may oppose action on climate change, the majority of VLT’s audiences would support action. (Annes, Berrini). If VLT is concerned about how stakeholders might react, it could conduct polling in advance of any major policy changes. (Annes, Berrini).  

Needed  Resources    Short-­‐term  staff  capacity      VLT staff possess deep knowledge and skills to address climate change. Thinking about climate change is likely to be more successful if it penetrates all aspects of VLT’s work. For example, the acquisitions team should think through how climate change might impact a parcel before the easement is crafted, and the stewardship team may want to alert landowners to potential changes in conditions on their land under climate change. Many of the strategies outlined in this report require a rethinking of current workflows rather than hiring new staff or acquiring new resources. For example stewardship staff already have annual contact with landowners, so adding information about different land management strategies for climate change would not significantly increase workload. (Miller). Planning exercises could be conducted by current staff with existing, publicly available datasets. (Moore, Osborne). Existing communications channels could be deployed to raise awareness about climate change. (Annes, Berrini). Although climate change should not be isolated into a separate team, current staff capacity to take on new projects and rethink workflows is limited. The process of integrating climate change into the day-to-day thinking of staff may take an initial investment in additional resources to figure out exactly how to change programs, revise technical bulletins, add content to the website, or initiate staff training in climate change communications. (Annes). A dedicated steward or staff person could direct such a process. Having a short-term investment in staffing resources could boost the likelihood of success. (Annes). One way to structure a decision about whether and how to address climate change is through the lens of available resources. VLT could think through several options and organize them by cost – free options, low cost options, and higher cost options. (Muyskens).    

  33  

Partnerships    Nearly every interviewee mentioned the importance of partnerships in addressing climate change. From sharing data, modeling, and maps to crafting best management practices that promote adaptation, staff felt that the work of VLT will be more effective if it partners with state agencies, other NGOs, media, legislators, or other major players. VLT has excellent working relationships with many of these groups already, so partnerships need not be institutionalized in order to be effective. (Thompson). It is clear that some roles are well suited to VLT and its mission while others are better left to counterparts. For example many survey respondents thought that political lobbying and renewable energy development were better left to others, but that VLT could work with them to coordinate messaging or think through the ecological implications of energy development. VLT may need to decide whether to take a leadership role or follow the lead of other NGOs and partners. (Muyskens). One ripe area for partnerships is in research. Because VLT does not generally originate new science, partnering with academic institutions may provide more insight into what to expect under climate change. (Livingston). In some cases, state agencies are conducting research that can inform the work of VLT. For example, one important partner is the Vermont Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation, which put on a workshop detailing how landowners and organizations like VLT can manage forest lands to effectively cope with climate change.8 (van Loon).  Strategic  funding      Although many staff members felt that VLT could do a great deal with existing resources, there are a few strategic areas where additional funding sources would be helpful. These areas are conservation planning, large forest conservation, and farmland management. Conservation planning which identifies priority landscapes for adaptation and mitigation will require funding for both the planning phase and the execution phase. Most of the data needed for initial spatial modeling are publicly available, and the GIS staff at VLT                                                                                                                8 Materials by the Vermont Division of Forestry (the division which conducted the workshop) regarding forest adaptation can be found at http://www.vtfpr.org/htm/for_climatechange.cfm.

“It's  easy  to  say  ‘we  need  more  funding  and  staff,’  i.e.  we  need  to  hire  our  own  climate  change  czar.    That  really  isn't  part  of  our  mission.    Our  mission  is  to  protect  land  so  partnerships  may  be  the  best  way.”    

-­‐  Field  team  member    (survey  results)  

 

  34  

have the technical capabilities to conduct mapping and planning exercises. (Moore, Osborne). Fieldwork and working with local partners will require time and funding. Once priority landscapes are identified, acquiring land or easements in those areas will require additional funding. (Diamond, Thompson). If funding is not available to target conservation in those areas VLT could engage in more active prospecting or partner with state agencies, other land trusts, or town and regional planners to conserve key areas. (Diamond, Thompson). There is currently very limited funding available to conduct forest conservation. Forest Legacy Program funding is limited and difficult to obtain. Carbon offset markets do not yet provide a viable funding source. (van Loon). If VLT decides to move forward with carbon sequestration projects, it will have to identify additional funding. (Livingston, Muyskens). Restrictions to farmland management that cut into the profitability of farms are difficult to implement without sources of funding to compensate farmers. For example requiring meander corridors for rivers, larger streamside buffers, no till farming, or perennial cropping may significantly decrease farmer revenues. Farmers would not likely be in a position to adopt these practices without compensation. (Miller).  Staff  development    If VLT decides to apply any of these strategies to address climate change, some staff members may require a broader skill set than they currently have. (Muyskens). If the VLT board and leadership team decide to move forward with a specific strategy, it could evaluate which teams would be involved and what knowledge, training, and dialog those teams need to be successful. (Muyskens). Stewardship staff expressed a willingness to communicate about climate change with landowners, but do not always feel equipped to do so. (Miller, van Loon). For example, managing for resilience may require different practices, like letting streams wander, allowing for more shade around water bodies, or diversifying crops. Encouraging landowners to change their practices on a voluntary basis can be very effective given long-standing relationships. However, staff do not feel that they have the expertise about the effects of climate change, what the recommendations would be, or how to communicate them to move forward with landowners. VLT would need to devote more

“(VLT  needs)  forestland  conservation  funding.    We're  working  on  it,  but  to  make  meaningful  advances,  we  will  need  massive  amounts  of  funding  .”    

-­‐  Field  team  member    (survey  results)  

 

  35  

thought, time, and skill building to prepare stewardship staff for conversations about climate change. (Annes, Berrini, van Loon).  

Interviewees   Annes – Elise Annes, Vice President for Community Relations Berrini – Nadine Berrini, Communications Director Diamond – Allaire Diamond, Conservation Ecologist Livingston – Gil Livingston, President Mihaly – Marc Mihaly, Member of the Board of Trustees Miller – Tyler Miller, Stewardship Director Moore – Chris Moore, Data Integration Manager Muyskens – Sarah Muyskens, Member of the Board of Trustees Osborne – Jon Osborne, GIS Director Poleman – Walter Poleman, Member of the Board of Trustees Smith – Siobhan Smith, Vice President for Conservation & Stewardship Thompson – Liz Thompson, Director of Conservation Science van Loon – Pieter van Loon, Director of Forest Stewardship