must be made for the rights which have been acquired, not for the more limited use to which the condem-nor may intend to devote the property taken.’ ” Id. (quoting 4A Nichols at § 14.15). To calculate the value of the property actually taken as a result of the permanent easements, the Court must consider not only the market value of the property and the amount of land taken, but also the percentage of the original bundle of ownership rights that the owner retains on the encumbered land. See, e.g., United States v. 122.63 Acres of Land, 526 F.Supp. 539, 542 (D.Mass.1981) (awarding only $500.00 in compensation after finding that permanent easement had only de minimus effect on owner’s use of pasture land); Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. 104 Acres of Land, 780 F.Supp. 82, 88 (D.R.I. 1991) (<HOLDING>); Texas Gas Transmission Corp. v. Hebert, 207
holding that permanent easement arising from condemnation of pipeline easement reduced property value by 20 recognizing that an easement may entitle the easement owner to do acts which were not for the easement would constitute a nuisance holding that an easement agreement and an unrecorded easement plan created an easement holding that one who possesses deeded easement need not use the easement to maintain his title and easement cannot be extinguished from nonuser alone holding that permanent easement on land containing natural gas pipeline reduced value of directly encumbered land by 75