A Framework for Assessing Climate Change Risks and Vulnerabilities at the Watershed Scale

Thinking Like A Watershed A Framework for Assessing Climate Change Risks and Vulnerabilities at the Watershed Scale How can human resilience to climate change be measured and improved in each of Massachusetts’ watersheds? This report presents a framework for applying a systems-thinking approach at the watershed scale to identify climate-related threats to human well-being. It presents methods for identifying opportunities to soften these impacts through changing the way that land is used and managed. It offers a collaborative framework through which communities will be able to work together to prioritize areas of intervention, and understand where they can work together to adapt and transform in a rapidly changing world.

Developed within two watersheds in western Massachusetts, this framework is designed to be applicable to watersheds throughout the state.

Prepared in tandem with a report on the Mill River Watershed in Hampshire/Franklin County, by Walker Powell, Marianna Zak-Hill and Amanda Smith

For The Mill River Watershed of Hampden County March 2020

Prepared for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs

By Dana Maple Feeney, Boris Kerzner, Shaine Meulmester The Conway School, Nothampton, MA

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1 What is the Resilient Lands Initiative? ..................................................................................................................... 1 Climate Change: How Will It Affect the Northeast?................................................................................................. 2 What is Resilience?.................................................................................................................................................. 5 What is Sustainable Land Use?............................................................................................................................... 6 Why Plan at the Watershed Scale? ......................................................................................................................... 7 Why This Watershed? ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Summary of the Process ......................................................................................................................................... 8

PART ONE Mill River Watershed Assessment............................................... 11 STEP ONE Forming a Watershed Working Group............................................................................................13 STEP TWO Identifying Risks and Community Priorities...................................................................................17 What is the History of the Mill River Watershed and How Does it Affect Current Conditions?.............................. 17 How is the Climate Likely to Change in this Region? ........................................................................................... 19 What do the Communities Perceive as the Biggest Risks?................................................................................... 20

STEP THREE Analyzing Assets and Vulnerabilities..........................................................................................23 Exposure to Heat................................................................................................................................................... 24 Impervious Surfaces.............................................................................................................................................. 25 Tree Cover.............................................................................................................................................................. 26 Risk of Flooding..................................................................................................................................................... 28 Exposure to Air Pollution........................................................................................................................................ 32 Polluted Water Bodies and Drinking Water ........................................................................................................... 34 Distribution of Residents and Their Demographics............................................................................................... 37

STEP FOUR Identifying Opportunities for Land Use Interventions....................................................................41 Identifying Sites...................................................................................................................................................... 41 Mill River Watershed Recommendations Planting Trees.................................................................................................................................................. 45 Implementing a Stormwater Utility.................................................................................................................. 49 Conserving Land............................................................................................................................................. 51 Greening Vacant Land.................................................................................................................................... 56

PART TWO Assessment Framework Summary............................................. 60 CONCLUSION............................................................................................. 62 APPENDIX A TERMS AND DEFINITIONS........................................................................................................63 APPENDIX B MAP PROCESS.........................................................................................................................66 APPENDIX C TREE PLANTING CONSIDERATIONS..........................................................................................69 APPENDIX D i-TREE MODELING....................................................................................................................71

Acknowledgements Funding for this project was provided by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA).

Our sincerest thanks to Dr. Timothy Randhir, University of Massachusetts-Amherst; David Bloniarz with the USDA Forest Service; Joseph Pellegrino with Greening the Gateway Cities; Alexander Sherman, Springfield City Forester; Patty Gambarini and Corrin Meise-Munns with the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission; Kevin Chaffee, Springfield Conservation Commissioner; and Scott Hanson, Springfield City Planner, for their guidance and input. We would also like to thank the Resilient Lands Initiative and especially our client Robert O’Connor, Director of Conservation Services, EEA, for the opportunity to work on this project.

Executive Summary How can human resilience to climate change be measured and improved in each of Massachusetts’ watersheds? This report presents a framework for applying a systems-thinking approach at the watershed scale to identify climate-related threats to human well-being. It presents methods for identifying opportunities to soften these impacts through changing the way that land is used and managed. It offers a collaborative framework through which communities will be able to work together to prioritize areas of intervention, and understand where they can work together to adapt and transform in a rapidly changing world.

Developed within two watersheds in western Massachusetts (this document, for the Mill River watersheds of Hampden County and the other for Hampshire and Franklin Counties), this framework is designed to be applicable to watersheds throughout the state. This report discusses the Mill River watersheds’ history, and analyzes the risks of heat, flooding, air pollution, water pollution, and analyzes the distributions of residents and their locations in relation to the risks listed.

Major recommendations based on this analysis include planting trees, implementing a stormwater utility, increasing and rethinking open space connectivity, and strategically conserving vacant land.

INTRODUCTION What is the Resilient Lands Initiative?

The Resilient Lands Initiative is a steering committee of over fifty environmental stakeholders convened by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) to inform an updated statewide conservation plan.

The previous plan was created in 2001 and adopted in 2003. The Resilient Lands Initiative steering committee explores how conservation and other nature-based solutions can mitigate and help communities adapt to climate change. The RLI helps identify opportunities to build more resilient communities and shift development towards more sustainable land use strategies, with a focus on municipal, regional, and statewide actions. Increasing the sustainability of land use has benefits beyond increasing community resilience to climate change because these changes can also help mitigate other issues, such as land degradation. Nature-based solutions can also increase opportunities for human connections with nature, outdoor recreation, pedestrian connectivity, and environmental education, and support biological communities.

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 1

INTRODUCTION

The Resilient Lands Initiative uses eight themes to guide their work: farms, forests, wildlife habitat, parks and public health, outdoor recreation, water supply protection, protection from climate impacts, and economic stability. By illuminating common goals across these eight themes, they can identify and promote the policies, land uses, and education necessary to shape more resilient communities across the state.

Examples of successful application of innovative land management strategies strategies in Massachusetts, such as the creation parks and the conservation of landengender sustainable forestry practices and have economic benefits (RLI, November 2019).

Having a framework or process for decision-making that acknowledges the importance of natural systems may help decision-makers see those systems and justify their protection in land use decisions. As explained more in the coming section, “Why Plan at a Watershed Scale?,” planning at the watershed scale can engender thinking that is more tied to ecological processes than current dominant modes of land use. Using the watershed as a geographic unit in planning can be a holistic approach that can support sustainable patterns of land use (RLI, November 2019). This report, commissioned by Robert O’Connor, Director of Conservation Services at the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Af­fairs, supplements the Resilient Lands Initiative’s work by adapting watershed planning to the RLI’s goals of enhancing climate change resilience.

This report offers a framework for communities to identify climate change risks and priorities, analyze vulnerabilities, and develop land use interventions at the watershed scale.

2

Climate Change: How Will It Affect the Northeast?

In the Fourth National Climate Assessment, published in 2018, the chapter on the Northeast outlines the climate change threats that are most likely to impact this region (Dupigny-Giroux, L.A., et al, 2018). These include rising temperatures, sea level rise and ocean acidification, and increased frequency and severity of extreme precipitation events. The Northeast is predicted to see a faster and higher rise in average temperatures than any other area of the contiguous United States. Unseasonable and inconsistent temperatures will alter seasonal patterns and already cause shifts in spring warming trends and milder winters.

Although the growing season is getting longer, the risk of a spring frost harming crops is increasing, due to the variability in frost dates and the likelihood of plants budding during an early warm period, and then being killed by a later frost (678). On the coasts, rates of sea level rise and higher temperatures are predicted to be greater in the Northeast than in other regions. This is likely because the ground itself is slowly sinking, due to the lingering effects of the glacier withdrawal 10,000 years ago, and because Gulf Stream, is weakening due to climate change (689).

Ocean acidification has also increased in the last 200 years, and will dramatically reduce ocean biodiversity, and attenuate ocean ecosystems. Among the species these changes are likely to diminish are economically valuable seafood such as oysters and other shellfish (687). The third primary threat in the Northeast is increasingly frequent and more severe precipitation events, such as rainstorms, hurricanes, ice storms, and blizzards. Since 1958, the Northeast has seen a 70% increase in precipitation rates during extreme events (which is defined as the heaviest 1% of all rain events), and this is projected to continue, although annual precipitation may not increase significantly. This in turn means that periods of drought are also likely to increase (682).

Human communities will feel the impact of these threats in all aspects of their lives. Key areas where climate change is predicted to have the greatest impact are human health, human safety, economic stability, and human migration patterns (671). Human health refers specifically to issues related to increased temperatures, pollution, and the impacts of more frequent droughts.

The decrease in air quality and increased temperatures will contribute to rising rates of asthma, heart disease, and heat-related illness and deaths.

Decreases in water quality may also

SECTION

pose risks to human health if warmer waters lead to bacterial growth, and drought may affect drinking water supplies and water quality (701). Human safety will be impacted due to more extreme storms and altered patterns of snowmelt in the spring, which will lead to more flooding. Many Massachusetts communities are built in floodplains or near rivers, and are often vulnerable to floods already. Sea level rise also significantly impacts human safety as coastal towns suffer more frequent inundations due to regular and very high tides. The storm surge inundation caused by more intense storm events, also an effect of climate change, is exacerbated by sea level rise. The climate effects on economic stability will be felt by all communities as changing weather patterns and extreme storms impact rural, urban, and coastal economies. Changing spring weather patterns have already caused hardship for farmers and maple syrup producers, which are important elements of the rural Massachusetts economy. Massachusetts tourism, ski, and outdoor recreation industries will also feel the impacts of warmer temperatures, less regular seasons, and less snow (680). Ocean warming and acidification will only exacerbate the issues already faced by fisheries and aquaculture farms, such as declining fish populations due to overfishing. Another concern, particularly in Western Massachusetts, is the shift in human migration patterns. Although predictions are ever-evolving, it is possible that sea level rise and changing temperatures will result in migration of people from coastal to inland areas, and from urban areas in floodplains or along coasts to rural, upland areas. This could lead to increased development pressure on areas that Above: A flooded picnic area in after historic 2010 floods. Credit: Tim Correira Right: Foresters at the Quabbin Reservoir. Credit: Richie Davis

may not be currently protected by zoning, for example, in areas where there has not been a strong pressure to convert fields and forests to housing. In the face of these threats, Massachusetts is addressing climate change at a state-wide level. The state has a variety of policies and programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve resilience and adaptability to climate impacts at both the statewide and community levels (Mass.gov).

Examples of programs currently in place include: • The Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) of 2008, which “requires a 25% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from all sectors of the economy below the 1990 baseline emission level in 2020 and at least an 80% reduction in 2050.”

• The 2018 Environmental Bond Bill, which provides grants and loans to aid businesses and communities to achieve greater resilience and adapt to climate impacts.

• The Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) program, which “provides support for cities and towns in Massachusetts to begin the process of planning for climate change resiliency and implementing priority projects,” by providing funding for the process of completing vulnerability assessments. Municipalities that complete the program qualify for MVP Action Grants to enact recommendations from their report.

• The Green Communities Grants program, which “provides funding opportunities to reduce municipal energy use and costs by way of clean energy projects in municipal buildings, facilities, and schools; guidance, technical assistance, and local support from Regional Coordinators.”

• The Community Preservation Act (CPA), which helps THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 3

INTRODUCTION

the protection of human communities, and includes “protecting humans from climate impacts� as one of the eight themes guiding the process.

communities fund historic and open space conservation, expand outdoor recreation opportunities, and build affordable housing. The CPA is funded through a local surcharge on property taxes and these funds are matched by the state.

In addition, the Baker-Polito Administration announced in January 2020 a resolution to reach net carbon neutrality by 2050 and has included $298 million in the 2021 budget to help support resiliency, preparedness, and data collection efforts to combat climate change.

The Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) is taking a leading role in the state’s efforts to combat climate change and improve energy efficiency.

While it is imperative to accelerate the reduction of carbon emissions and minimize global temperature increases, communities must also build resilience in the face of inevitable changes. While the risks posed by climate change are severe, many tools are available to communities.

Land use planning is one of the most promising avenues available (U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit). The decisions that a community makes today about what land to protect, what land to develop, and how development should take place can have positive impacts today, and decades from now, on human health and the built environment. It is for this reason that the statewide conservation plan being developed by the Resilient Lands Initiative affirms the link between conservation and other nature-based solutions and 4

Human development patterns within the United States historically restrained, contained, and disrupted natural processes. Stormwater management in the nineteenth century, for example, was designed to remove unwanted water away from development as rapidly as possible.

During this period of urbanization, many streams were channelized, piped, and buried to minimize flooding. These decisions now put humans at risk (Haigh, 2010).

Meanwhile, human-caused climate change is causing more erratic and extreme weather patterns that further tax these degraded natural systems.

Communities can invest in land use that works with, rather than against, natural processes, and in doing so, lessen the risk posed by natural disasters and protect the life-supporting functioning of these processes while improving human well-being, comfort and quality of life. In the face of climate change, human quality of life depends on supporting natural systems that, on the one hand, soften and can withstand the blows of more extreme weather patterns, and on the other hand, sequester carbon, thus mitigating climate change.

WHAT IS RESILIENCE?

What is Resilience?

Resilience is a word with several distinct definitions. What is meant by “resilience” in the context of this report?

Crawford Stanley Holling’s seminal paper “Resilience and Stability,” from 1973, makes the distinction between two different definitions of resilience: engineering and ecological. He describes engineering resilience as the ability of a system to return to a state of equilibrium after a disturbance (1). Holling describes ecological resilience, on the other hand, as “the magnitude of the disturbance that can be absorbed before the system changes its structure” (Holling “Engineering” 33). While this view similarly sees systems as inevitably returning to a point of equilibrium, it allows for many states of equilibria. In this view, a system may, as the result of a disturbance, move from one state of equilibrium to another equilibrium.

More recently, a third concept, socio-ecological resilience, has emerged (Folke et al.). This perspective challenges the notion of equilibrium altogether and acknowledges the “complex, non-linear, and self-organising” nature of ecological systems (Berkes and Folke 12), and sees those systems that possess “the ability to persist and[...]adapt” as the most resilient (Adger 1). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s definition of resilience echoes this; it defines resilience as “the capacity of social, economic, and environmental systems to cope with a hazardous event or disturbance, responding or reorganizing in ways that maintain their essential function, identity and structure, while also maintaining the capacity for adaptation, learning, and transformation” (IPCC 5).

function and structure, as increasing the resilience of these communities.

Many fields apply the engineering definition, and in doing so interpret resilience as the ability to bounce back to the previous state (the “normal” state) after an impact, without considering whether normal is desirable (Pendall 3).

For example, when the National Flood Insurance Program repeatedly subsidizes the rebuilding of homes in a flood zone, the homes are still subject to the same flood risk as before—an undesirable “normal” (Moore). In planning projects where the focus is on long-term adaptive capacity building, however, socio-ecological resilience is a more appropriate goal, as it acknowledges, and celebrates, that “normal” may be in constant flux.

The focus of this document is increasing resilience of human communities to the effects of climate change by using land use interventions to buffer both chronic stressors and acute shocks—in other words, helping communities adapt.

For example, a park that floods during large storm events and is closed for a duration afterwards buffers the acute risk of flooding for local homes without compromising the park’s essential function for the neighborhood. Adding trees to a largely paved neighborhood reduces the chronic stress of urban heat island effect (high temperatures in urban areas). Community safety and wellbeing is enhanced when the exposure (of people, homes, infrastructure, etc.) to climate change risk is reduced, and land use interventions, which can include policies, physical changes to the landscape, and practices, provide the buffer or hazard protection that reduces major impacts from a hazard. The best projects also achieve other community goals, which may include reducing greenhouse gas emissions, protecting wildlife habitat, increasing groundwater recharge, etc.; are equitable in process and outcome; and are cost-effective.

In applying the socio-ecological definition, this document sees interventions that allow the basic structure and critical functions of communities to persist after a disturbance, while also allowing for temporary or long-term shifts in Left: Tornado damage in Springfield, 2011. Credit: WAMC. Right: Graphic adapted from original by Y. Abunnasr in Hamin et al. (2017).

Disturbances can take multiple forms. Chronic stressors, such as economic inequality, chronic health conditions, racism, hotter temperatures and sea level rise, weaken the strength of a community gradually. Acute shocks, on the other hand, are sudden events like natural disasters (tornado, hurricane, etc.) or terrorism that create critical conditions in a brief period of time. Both chronic stressors and acute shocks wear down the resilience of a community, but the impact of acute shocks is often more severe when people and communities are experiencing chronic stressors as well.

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 5

INTRODUCTION

What is Sustainable Land Use? Sustainable land uses support resilience within socio-economic and ecological systems. Whereas resilience is the ability to cope, respond, and adapt to natural disturbances, sustainability is the practice of minimizing human impact on the natural functions which enable resilience. For example, a sustainable practice (discussed further in the recommendations section of this report) is increasing river buffers, which increases human resilience to flooding.

Integral to sustainability is the prioritization of people whose basic needs are not met, and an understanding of how human behavior impacts ecological systems so that what is extracted can be replaced, and what cannot be replaced is not extracted. In 1987, the Brundtland Report defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” and it acknowledged that “many,” and it acknowledged that “many of us live beyond the world’s ecological means, for instance in our patterns of energy use” (The World Commision on Environment and Development 41, 42). The challenge is thus to reassess what our needs are, and how our actions impact future generations in consideration of climate change.

While there are many pathways to sustainable land use, it is critical to identify the economic, cultural, and institutional barriers that prevent humans from adopting sustainable practices (Thomas et al 2017). Specifically, as sustainable farming, forestry, fishing, and pastoral practices benefit the surrounding community, and can reduce the impacts of natural disasters, humans in these lines of work need to be supported in the increased efforts that it takes to transition to those practices (Food and Agriculture Organization 2017. 2, 7). Sharing the tasks of supporting sustainable land use amongst communities, as in a watershed planning scenario, may augment the potential to overcome barriers.

When natural resources are extracted or protected for activities such as rural food production or upstream conservation, it influences surrounding communities (FOA 6). Watershed enables better coordination of how and where 6

WHY PLAN AT THE WATERSHED SCALE?

to protect or replace those resources. For example, if a forest is depleted in one part of a watershed, the impacts on soil erosion and water quality can be offset elsewhere in the watershed (The World Commision on Environment and Development 43), at least while the site of disturbance recovers.

Why Plan at the Watershed Scale?

Watershed planning is emerging as a common model to protect and improve water quality. Watershed management typically focuses on improving socio-economic stability and human health through improved water quality. For example, decreasing pollutants in a stream can increase outdoor recreation opportunities and reduce human exposure to health hazards.

While it is slightly unconventional to use the watershed as a framework for assessing climate change resilience, many of the typical risks that watershed plans consider, such as flooding, are exacerbated by climate change. Confronting these unprecedented challenges within communities will require new partnerships amongst stakeholders, such as the ones the RLI steering committee seeks to promote through its work. Understanding the implications climate change will have on watershed communities, such as how increased flooding, runoff into streams, and channelization upstream will impact a community downstream, could highlight specific areas where communities may benefit from working together.

This document asks: How can watershed planning be applied as a framework for assessing human resilience to climate change, and improving resilience through land use changes? As ecological health and human health are inextricable, many land-based solutions that protect human health also benefit ecological systems. Both the watershed as a unit of planning and the goals of resilience can engender new forms of cooperation and support to communities as they take steps towards climate change preparedness.

Watershed planning enables communities to identify where their interests intersect so that they can share resources.

Resource sharing will require new logistical strategies, but this effort is imperative to protecting humans from climate change. Awareness and involvement in resilience thinking will perhaps become the common thread for such work.

The challenge at hand, to protect humans through land use changes, requires paradigm shifts. The management of watersheds, as with all environmental management, reTop: Sustainable agriculture. Credit: Unity College Center: Sasaki’s Runaway Park in Shanghai, China. Credit: Landzine Bottom: Wetlands sequester carbon. Credit: SPRI

quires a shift in social attitudes away from granting primacy to short-term economic need towards a more ecologically-minded, resilient vision (Beheim et al 2010. vi). One such shift is that the “highest and best use” for land may not always be development, such as commercial and residential construction, or the paving over of open space. Conservation, open space, agriculture, and other sustainable uses, uses that do not degrade the land but, rather, fit into resilient modalities on a societal level, may have equal or greater benefits. These sustainable land uses can support better relationships between people and land so that patterns of degradation do not repeat.

Massachusetts currently has watershed-based plans to protect and restore water quality in all twenty seven basins, based on EPA guidelines (mass.gov, 2020). This report differs from these other watershed plans in that it focuses on a watershed which is a sub-basin of one of the larger twenty seven watersheds, and it explores issues posed by climate change that are not solely related to water quality.

Watershed-based plans represent a multidisciplinary approach to community based resource management (Shriyana et al. 2020). Such collaboration can support the shift towards planning based on ecological functions as they will be impacted by climare change. At the watershed scale, it becomes apparent that resources such as forested land and wetlands, as well as challenges such as flooding, are shared amongst municipalities and require a cross-municipality approach.

Understanding climate risks at the watershed scale can also enable resource sharing and partnerships. In its guidelines for watershed planning the EPA writes, “[b]ringing together people, policies, priorities, and resources through a watershed approach blends science and regulatory responsibilities with social and economic considerations” (EPA, 2008).

Although watershed planning may initially require new frameworks for intra-municipality organization, eventually it could lead to towns being able to share resources, like planning efforts and financial resources, protect forested land, and create connected conservation areas and wildlife corridors. To this effect, Massachusetts is developing legislation called the GreenWorks bill, which among other things, enables groups of municipalities to apply for funding for resilience improvements and investments together (Golden, 2019).

In the face of climate change, it is ever more important to plan regionally. While it may seem that regional planning could be conducted on the county scale (Massachusetts does have the regional geographic unit of counties), the state does not currently have strong county-based planning THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 7

INTRODUCTION

(O’Connor 2020). Watershed planning provides not only a framework from which to begin that regional planning, but could make planning more tied to ecological functions than political boundaries.

This report is one of two watershed-based community resilience plans produced by the Conway School for the Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, The following pages describe a framework devised to identify key risks and vulnerable areas within a watershed, and recommend land use changes that would augment human resilience in the face of climate change. This framework was developed based on two study areas, the Mill River watershed of Hampden County, MA, and the Mill River watershed of Hampshire and Franklin Counties.

Why This Watershed?

The Mill River watershed that is the focus of this report is in Hampden County, and includes parts of the municipalities of Springfield, Hampden, East Longmeadow, and Wilbraham. It is urban in the western, downstream portion, but becomes suburban, and then increasingly rural from west to east, with rural residential development and some farms still operating in Wilbraham (Wilbraham, 2014).

One of the RLI’s goals is to assuage urban/rural cultural divides in the time of the climate change crisis, when every community has something to contribute (Resilient Land Initiative, 2019). Uniting a watershed such as this is one opportunity to bridge that divide. Within the Mill River watershed, there are ample opportunities to contribute; each comes with its own set of challenges Springfield is a large municipality with a robust planning department, but, being densely settled, has much less open space than the other three municipalities. In its strengths, challenges, and varied landscape, the watershed is representative of conditions found elsewhere in the state, which augments the potential for other communities to learn from the framework as it is applied here.

Y 8

Summary of the Process The primary purpose of this document is to explore the potential benefits of resilience planning at the watershed scale; the potential interventions in land use planning explored in the latter section of this document are secondary, and no actions should be undertaken without further study, as outlined in Step 3 and Step 4 of the framework.

Developed within two watersheds in western Massachusetts (this document within the Mill River watersheds of Hampden and the other within Hampshire and Franklin Counties), this framework is designed to be applicable to watersheds throughout the state. The work was informed by and hopefully complementary to ongoing efforts within the watersheds. Each municipality’s Hazard Mitigation Plan and other planning documents, to the extent possible, informed which hazards were studied within each area; however, the Conway teams, due to time constraints and the nature of the scope of this project, were not able to conduct a thorough review of existing documents and plans, or a robust public participation process.

m

Any process for assessing resilience at the watershed scale must acknowledge that climate change effects are not limited to watershed boundaries. The framework makes room for individual watershed planning groups to determine what is most relevant to their community. For example, one of the major, climate-change-intensified risks that the city of Springfield faces is Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI) (explained in Step 3). Because the area affected by UHI exceeded the bounds of the watershed, it remains in question how such risks should be integrated into a watershed resilience assessment.

The following pages demonstrate and explain the framework through an applied process in the Mill River watershed of Hampden County. They also include recommendations for future assessments. Following this, a short outline summarizes the assessment framework. Tentative recommendations for interventions are then offered for the Mill River watershed, as well as a discussion of the process as a whole. A critical step of the analysis, which this report identified but was not a component of the project scope, was to ground-truth findings with input from community members to ensure that land use interventions were appropriate based on the values of the community and ongoing projects.

SECTION

m

Project Goals • Develop a protocol for making a community resilience assessment at the watershed scale by analyzing resilience within a watershed chosen by EEA. • Assess the vulnerability of communities within that watershed to climate change.

• Identify local land use practices and policies within that watershed that support or hinder resilience • Identify opportunities for land use changes within each watershed.

Above: The Mill River Watershed of Hampden County Right: A rough break-down of development patterns in the Mill River Watershed. The western portion is highly urbanized, the center is more suburban, and the eastern portion is mostly rural.

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 9

PART ONE: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

10

PART ONE

Mill River Watershed Assessment This document describes the development and testing of a framework for watershed-scale assessment through the process of assessing the Mill River watershed in Hampden County. The following pages detail this Mill River assessment and outlines those parts of the process that have not yet been undertaken. These steps are included below and are indicated in grey.

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 11

PART ONE: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

12

STEP ONE Forming a Watershed Working Group

The framework presented in this report is an extensive process, and one that will likely require the formation of a working group or the hiring of a consultant to oversee it.

This group may include municipal, county, or state government officials; environmental, community health, and affordable housing non-profits; local business leaders; community members; academics; municipal and/or regional planners; natural resource managers; conservation organizations; recreation groups; and others.

The authors of this document performed some of the responsibilities of a watershed working group, as detailed in the following pages.

C

Above: An arborist at her work.

Credit: Megan Strating.

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 13

PART ONE:01: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT CHAPTER CHAPTER

CASE STUDY MYSTIC RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION The Mystic River watershed, which encompases twenty-one communities north of Boston, has been the home of several watershed-based collaborative efforts. The Mystic River watershed, like the Mill River watershed, comprises heavily urbanized areas, outdated stormwater systems, and high population density (“Reclaiming the Mystic”). Furthermore, the watershed is home to three Superfund sites, several environmental justice communities, and the highest concentration of critical regional infrastructure in New England (Wormser). The Mystic River also has elevated bacteria levels, contaminated sediments, and industrial pollution (“Reclaiming the Mystic”).

The Mystic River Watershed Association is a nonprofit that has been dedicated to improving water quality and wildlife habitat in the watershed through a collaborative approach since 1970.

For Julie Wormser, Deputy Director at MYRA, watershed-based efforts have helped foster a shared identity that connects diverse stakeholders. This identity has helped inspire municipalities to buy into projects from which they may not most directly benefit, but which benefit the larger watershed (Wormser).

For example, watershed collaboration facilitated by MYRA helped Cambridge receive the funding it needed to repair an aging dam. Cambridge had been requesting help from the Department of Conservation & Recreation for many years, but to no avail. When all twenty-one communities within the watershed came together to jointly advocate for DCR funding to harden the dam, the request was met. According to Wormser, this act of collective power was necessary to get the DCR’s attention. This suggests that projects may have a higher likelihood of receiving funding when backed by a larger consortium of municipalities.

Communities within the Mystic River watershed have also collaborated to prioritize green infrastructure improvements (Wormser). Seventeen communities worked together to identify all possible green infrastructure projects that could store water and provide other local benefits, then narrowed this list down to forty projects. Now, this consortium of municipalities has a pipeline of projects which will be funded over time, and the communities can request funding for these projects together.

14

According to Wormser, communities often know what they want to see happen, but lack the resources and regional support necessary to accomplish them. While the communities within the Mill River watershed benefit from the work and expertise of the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission and the Mystic River watershed benefits from MYRA, many of Massachusetts’ municipalities do not have this kind of regional support. For this reason, assembling inter-municipal stakeholders within a watershed working group may be necessary in order to conduct the assessment outlined in this report.

The existence of a working group may also increase the municipalities’ ability to secure grant funding (e.g.,, Municipal Vulnerability Grants)—one of the major barriers many municipalities face in accomplishing their goals (Wormser).

A working group may not be able to solicit the same funding resources as an organization like MYRA, but it would have an advantage in applying for grant funding. Lastly, a working group would create a sustained forum for municipal officials to communicate and build bridges across municipal lines.

SECTION

WATERSHED COLLABORATION CAN BUILD COLLECTIVE POWER TO HELP COMMUNITIES ACHIEVE THEIR GOALS

Above: The Mystic River. Credit: Chris McIntosh

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 15

PART ONE: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

16

STEP TWO Identifying Risks and Community Priorities Top: Main Street, Springfield in 1905. Credit: Detroit Publishing Company.

Researching the watershed’s historical patterns of land use, ecology, and geology informs our understanding of the present day conditions and helps us project future conditions of the area.

?

What is the History of the Mill River Watershed and How Does It Affect Current Conditions?

“Minnechaug” was the name given to the Mill River watershed by the Nipmuc people, a word which could be translated as Berryland (Gray).

The Nipmuc people shared the Connecticut River Valley with numerous native groups, including the Agawams and other Pocumtuck peoples (Norman). These tribes first encountered European settlers in the early 1600s. Settlers decimated and displaced these populations within a short period of time through violence, pathogens such as smallpox, and alcohol (Norman).

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 17

PART ONE: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

(Sarno). East of the city center, in the headwaters of the Mill River, Wilbraham’s fertile soil supported an agricultural economy (Town of Wilbraham).

Beginning in 1636, the young puritan William Pynchon started buying land from indigenous peoples in much of the Mill River Watershed—from the Connecticut River in Springfield to the foot of the Wilbraham Mountain Range (Powers 146). Over the next few decades, Pynchon and his family contributed to the transformation of Springfield from a small trading post into a thriving commercial city populated by colonists (Norman).

Built on the site of an arsenal established by George Washington during the American Revolution, the Springfield Armory strengthened Springfield’s position as an industrial center (National Park Service). The Armory was powered by the damming of the Mill River, a dam which still exists today. As the city’s industrial activity grew, the population spread out; Nathaniel Hitchcock settled the area known as the Outward Commons, modern-day Wilbraham and Hampden, in 1730 (Town of Wilbraham).

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, as waves of immigrants came to the United States, many were drawn to industrial cities such as Springfield by the promise of work.

Many African-Americans, fleeing racist Jim Crow laws and the associated racial caste system in the South, also settled in Springfield (Norman). These communities of immigrants fueled the growth of industry in Springfield.

The city saw an explosion of inventions during this period, including the first American dictionary, the first assembly line, and the first American gas-powered automobile 18

Starting in the mid-twentieth century, Springfield began experiencing a protracted decline, due in part to the overall decline of industry in the northeastern United States. Many jobs were lost as a result of the closing of the Springfield Armory in 1969, as well as from the closing of several other precision manufacturing plants. The construction of interstate highway I-91 along the Connecticut River in the 1960s severed the city from its greatest natural resource, the Connecticut River, buried the mouth of the Mill River, and occupied some of the city’s most valuable land. During this period, the suburbs saw agricultural land being converted into residential developments (Town of Wilbraham) as white flight from the city caused population in the suburbs to increase (HUD).

These two development patterns—industrialization and suburbanization—present challenges for resilience within the watershed. For example, in Springfield, industrialization led to the creation of Watershops Dam and the development of industrial facilities and residential neighborhoods on the banks of a highly engineered river channel. This development pattern poses both a contamination risk for the river and a flooding risk for adjacent buildings. In addition, the

HISTORY

engineered channels for the Mill River are continually eroded by the river and weakened by tree growth, an infrastructure challenge which requires continual and costly maintenance (Bloniarz).

Watershops Dam, the dam that powered the Armory, is considered a “High Hazard potential dam,” as failure or mis-operation would cause loss of human life and significant property destruction (FEMA). Flooding from its failure would occur predominantly in very low- income neighborhoods (Springfield Office of Community Development 10). (In February 2020, Springfield applied for NRDC Phase II funding to harden the dam.)

The City’s Combined sSewer oOverflow system, a system common in post-industrial New England cities, also poses a serious financial burden. The City has spent over $100 million on CSO reduction projects, and full elimination of CSOs is expected to take several more decades.

Springfield also contains over 1,000 sites known to be contaminated and in need of environmental clean-up (HUD).

Between 2011 and 2013, five presidentially declared weather disasters hit the region, including an EF3 tornado, Tropical Storm Irene, Hurricane Sandy, and an October snow storm (“Springfield Community Resilience” 1).

Damage to homes, businesses, and critical infrastructure from these events sparked a host of proactive risk mitigation planning efforts and a set of federal and state grants to rebuild what was damaged (“Springfield Community Resilience” 1). One of the areas that was recognized as particularly economically distressed in this process was an area in downtown Springfield which, in an application for Natural Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC) funding, was named the “Urban Watershed Resilience Zone.” In 2016, Springfield’s request for funding for affordable housing, an innovation and job training center, and a heat and power plant to provide non-grid energy in emergencies in this area was successfully awarded $17 million (“Springfield to Receive $17 Million”).

The economic trends also present challenges in Springfield.

Springfield has a poverty rate of 26.8% (compared to the statewide average of 10.4%), and despite the city’s position as an economic and employment center for the region, most high paid workers do not live in the city (HUD 3). This reality impacts the municipality’s tax revenue and therefore its ability to repair aged infrastructure, make necessary Upper Left: Springfield Armory 1923. Credit: NPS. Bottom Left: Construction of I-91 in 1969. Credit: MA Dept. of Public Works Right: Springfield’s "Urban Watershed Resilience Zone." Credit: Springfield NDRC application.

sewer and stormwater system improvements, and support vulnerable residents (HUD 3).

Springfield has recently attracted several large development projects, including the $1 billion New Haven–Hartford– Springfield intercity rail and a $1 billion MGM casino in an effort to revitalize the economy, but high levels of poverty, unemployment, and health problems are chronic stressors that make the residents in this portion of the watershed more vulnerable to, and less able to recover from, acute shocks like natural disasters (“Springfield Community Resilience Building”).

How is the Climate Likely to Change in this Region?

The introduction of this report describess the major climate trends this region is likely to see. To summarize: the northeastern U.S. is likely to see average temperatures rise more quickly than any other area of the contiguous U.S., and these temperatures will negatively impact air and water quality (Dupigny-Giroux et al.). Rain events are projected to be heavier and more intense, and periods without rain are also likely to be longer, exacerbating the risk of both flooding and drought (Dupigny-Giroux et al.).

The Connecticut River Valley in particular is likely to see precipitation increases of 3.88 to 6.01 inches per year by 2090, and 1.63 to 2.44 more days per year with precipitation over 1 inch by 2090 (MA EEA). Temperatures are proTHINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 19

PART ONE: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

jected to rise by an average of 5.09 to 9.48 °F by 2090, with 1.08 to 14.39 more days per year over 100 °F (MA EEA).

These changes will have impacts on human health, including increasing increasing heat and air quality-induced asthma, heart disease, and heat-related deaths, and flooding-induced injury, hypothermia, and mold. The economic impacts will also affect human quality of life. Storms and flooding threaten infrastructure, homes, and businesses.

Changing weather patterns may also impact agricultural and ecotourism businesses, mainstays of the New England economy.

What do the Communities Perceive as the Biggest Risks?

Climate change models can predict with a high level of accuracy what general changes in climate patterns are expected, but they cannot predict how those changes will impact specific communities and their built environment. To gain a clearer picture of potential outcomes, it’s helpful to understand the communities’ existing conditions, perceived vulnerabilities and future plans and priorities.

To this end, this step involves a thorough review of the work that has already been completed by communities within the watershed to identify key risks posed by climate change and community priorities. Examples of specific municipal reports which may be helpful to review include Hazard Mitigation Plans, Open Space & Recreation Plans (OSRPs), and Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) Plans.

In a stakeholder meeting organized for this process, planners working in the Mill River watershed noted that identifying overlap in municipalities’ priorities, goals, and perceived risks is a vital part of the planning process and one that is often neglected when planning occurs at the municipal level only. Reviewing reports prepared for or by municipalities in the watershed may reveal these overlaps and differences. Although an intensive review of such documents exceeded the scope of this project, the sections below explore key issues and questions that may guide this process.

Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard mitigation is the reduction of impacts to human life and property from disasters. The development of a hazard mitigation plan can guide state, tribal, and local governments in identifying risks and vulnerabilities related to natural disasters, and long-term strategies for protecting people and property. A FEMA-approved hazard mitigation 20

plan is needed to receive certain types of non-emergency disaster assistance, including funding for municipal projects (FEMA). The hazard mitigation plans of the Mill River watershed will be discussed in more detail in Step 3.

Open Space & Recreation Plan (OSRP) An OSRP is a planning document which guides the creation, conservation, and stewardship of a municipality’s open space. Open space can include natural areas, wildlife habitat, pocket parks, playgrounds, outdoor recreation facilities, or other undeveloped land. The creation, and regular updating of, an OSRP is required by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs for a municipality to receive grant funding such as LAND, PARC, Land and Water Conservation Funds, and other grants administered by the EEA (Patrick et al.).

Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness Plan (MVP) Unique to Massachusetts, the MVP program provides support for cities and towns planning and implementing projects for climate change resilience (“Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness”). The state provides funding for communities to complete vulnerability assessments and develop action plans. Once a community completes the MVP program, they become certified as an MVP community and are eligible for MVP Action grant funding and other opportunities.

Additional plans that may be helpful to review include Climate Action Plans, Master and Comprehensive Plans, and Water Quality Plans. There may also be plans available at a regional scale through a regional planning agency or watershed organization.

This suite of plans guides development within a municipality. MVP plans directly address risks from climate change.

HMPs also outline the major natural hazards, such as flooding, storms, high winds, hurricanes, etc. and incorporate climate change projections into the risk assessment. While OSRPs do not require an analysis of climate change vulnerability, reviewing OSRPs in tandem with other plans can reveal opportunities for intra-municipality collaboration as OSRPs encourage municipalities to look across boundaries for connectivity and common interests (e.g. trails, aquifer protection, wildlife habitat, river water quality, etc.). By reviewing the plans from each municipality within the watershed, the working group will learn both the major risks identified by the communities (HMPs and MVP plans) and the opportunities for intervention (OSRPs).

A comprehensive review of the similarities and differences amongst planning documents and policies in the Mill River Watershed exceeded the scope of this project; however, some initial comparisons arose from reviewing the docu-

MUNICIPAL PLANS

ments listed above. The priorities of each town do appear to differ; these priorities seem to relate to different physical conditions and budgetary challenges. There are nevertheless common values, and differences in approaches and resources, which could present opportunities for combining efforts.

Comparing the development patterns and economic histories of the municipalities within the Mill River (or any) Watershed enables a comparison of their current needs, and areas in which they may be able to support each other.

In terms of agricultural plans, Springfield is looking to convert vacant lots for agricultural use to provide fresh, affordable food to its residents (Springfield 2015). Hampden currently has a voluntary Farmland Preservation Act to support farmers through the financial challenges of keeping their land in agricultural use (Hampden 2017). Could the region work together to make the preservation of agriculture more economically feasible, while increasing the availability of affordable, local food?

development, “[t]here is also a pervasive apprehension that any changes made in the Town may adversely affect the Town’s quiet charm and rural character” (Hampden OSPR, 2017). Wilbraham is also exploring creative development options, which could enable, “possibilities for the Town [to obtain]more valuable and usable land” (Wilbraham 2014) and opportunities to make conservation more economically feasible for the town and landowners. East Longmeadow, also anticipating more development, is focusing on zoning as a tool to encourage desirable land use patterns. In addition to typical zoning challenges, “climate change is already causing natural hazards to have more of an impact on East Longmeadow, with hotter summers, wetter winters, more severe storms, and more frequent flooding” (The East Longmeadow Hazard Mitigation Committee, 2016).

Understanding what communities perceive to be the greatest risks will help guide the work in Step 3: analyzing where and how the watershed is most vulnerable.

Whereas Springfield hopes to carve out additional open space within a fully developed city (Springfield 2015), Wilbraham, is navigating how to allow new development while preserving community character and existing recreation and conservation areas (Wilbraham 2014). Springfield, although highly urbanized, is home to numerous critical wildlife habitats, including bogs (Springfield 2015). The city reports a continued commitment to monitoring and protecting wildlife. The city also contains a large number of public and private parcels that are open to the public, and recognizes that“maintaining high quality open space resources can only be achieved if the citizens of Springfield respect park and conservation land” (Springfield OSRP, 2015). The town of Hampden similarly recognizes in its OSRP, “protecting open space can provide profound economic benefits by helping avoid costly mistakes of misusing or overwhelming available resources” (Hampden OSRP 2017). How can each municipality continue to protect biodiversity, while providing human access to natural spaces that mitigate the hazards of climate change?

Most of Springfield’s undeveloped parcels are “marginally developable wetland with high resource value” (Springfield OSRP 2015). The other municipalities are currently planning for how to protect such high-value parcels, such as wetlands and floodplains, as development increases. In response to increasing development pressure since the 1980s, Hampden’s OSRP addresses how to protect wetlands, water, forests, and conservation land while allowing citizens the full benefits of access to open space. It reports that in the face of potential commercialization and increased THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 21

PART ONE: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

22

ANALYZING ASSETS AND VULNERABILITIES

STEP THREE

Analyzing Assets and Vulnerabilities

This step analyzes the exposure of people in the Mill River watershed to the risks of heat, flooding, air pollution, and water pollution. There are many potential risks related to climate change, but we chose to focus on these for the following reasons: Risks of heat and flooding are directly related to climate change predictions for New England.

Air pollution is a particular concern in the watershed—according to a 2018 report, Springfield was rated tenth in the U.S. for asthma prevalence (Asthma Capitals 2018, 5-6).

Many previous watershed reports have used water quality assessment as a central organizing principle, and we felt we would be remiss if we omitted such an assessment. This step also explores the distribution and demographics of people in the watershed.

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 23

PART ONE: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

Exposure to Heat Temperatures in the Northeast are expected to rise due to climate change, increasing the risk of heat-related health problems and premature deaths (Dupigny-Giroux et al.

698). Many factors—including topography, wind patterns, and land cover—affect how higher overall temperatures translate to particular, on-the-ground conditions. Exploring two relevant aspects of land cover—impervious surfaces and tree cover—can help shed light on the watershed’s exposure to the risk of heat.

24

IMPERVIOUS SURFACES

Impervious Surfaces If water falls on an impervious surface it will not infiltrate into the ground. Some of it will evaporate; the rest will either pool on the surface or flow over the surface to a different location. Roads, driveways, and rooftops are all examples of impervious surfaces. This is in contrast to most soils, which will absorb rainwater. High concentrations of impervious surfaces—typical of densely built urban environments—can contribute to a number of conditions related to human vulnerability to climate change: • Impervious surfaces absorb and retain more of the sun’s heat than vegetative cover, which can lead to higher temperatures in cities. In largely paved areas, temperatures can reach up to 10 degrees higher than their surroundings—a phenomenon known as the urban heat island effect. This is especially of concern in communities where residents do not have access to cool or air conditioned spaces, as high temperatures can cause heat-related illnesses and mortality. Higher temperatures can also contribute to increased ozone and smog levels, thus reducing air quality (Gartland 78).

• Water flowing over paved surfaces and roofs in densely developed areas during rain events or when snow melts must be managed via stormwater infrastructure—such as catch basins, pipes, and water treatment plants—in order to prevent pooling, flooding, or damage to buildings and infrastructure. Flooding can occur when the amount of rainfall exceeds stormwater infrastructure capacity—the risk of this happening increases during high-precipitation storms.

• Stormwater flowing over roads and sidewalks can carry fertilizers and pesticides from surrounding lawns and it can pick up car extrusions, dog waste, salt, and other pollutants. Since stormwater is not always treated, some of these pollutants may be deposited, together with the stormwater, into nearby water bodies. These pollutants, coupled with the fact that the stormwater may be hotter than the water body it’s discharged to due to its having flowed over sun-warmed impervious surfaces, can harm aquatic ecosystems. These pollutants may render the water in the water bodies less fit for particular activities such as fishing or swimming, and can negatively affect people’s health. For example, pollutants flowing into the Gulf of Mexico sometimes favor the growth of red algae, which leads to mass fish die-offs, damages the aesthetics of some beaches, and can cause respiratory symptoms and skin irritations for people.

Roughly 20% of the watershed is covered with an impervious surface, but the distribution varies widely. Impervious surface is highest on the western and northwestern edges of the watershed and gets progressively lower moving east.

Climate change means more rain and heat, which means more flooding, an increased heat island effect, and worse air quality. Reducing existing impervious surfaces, limiting future development projects’ percentage of impervious surface cover, and shading and treating runoff from impervious surfaces may help to ameliorate some of these negative effects.

Left: Impervious surfaces in the Mill River watershed are concentrated in the western half.

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 25

PART ONE: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

Tree Cover Trees—and other vegetation—are an asset and provide multiple benefits: • They cool communities in two ways. First, they cast shade, cooling surfaces underneath and protecting people from direct sun exposure. Second, they absorb water through their roots and release it as water vapor through their leaves, removing heat from the air in the process. This effect—termed evapotranspiration—combined with shade, helps to reduce temperatures (Gartland 110).

• They help prevent flooding by reducing the quantity and speed of stormwater. Their trunks, branches, and leaves intercept rainfall. Some of that rainfall stays on the tree. Some of it is funneled to the base of the tree,

26

where it can infiltrate into the soil and be taken up by the tree’s roots. The remainder flows off the tree, but has been slowed down in the process (Gartland 110).

This reduces the amount and speed of rain flowing across the ground, leading to a lessened risk of flooding.

• They improve air quality by absorbing gaseous air pollution through small openings on their leaves called stomata and by intercepting solid particulate matter on the surfaces of their leaves (Nowak 1).

Roughly 48% of the watershed is covered in trees, but, as with impervious surfaces, the distribution is uneven. Tree cover is higher in the eastern half of the watershed and lower in the western half.

TREE COVER

Modeling estimated heating/cooling contributions of different land cover types—such as impervious surface and tree cover—produces a map of heat vulnerability. (See Appendix B for details.)

The model used to generate the map is quite approximate, as it does not model solar radiation (which is heavily influenced by topography and time of year), existing structures, and other potential factors. Nonetheless, the map shows a broad pattern: heat vulnerability is concentrated on the west of the watershed and in the north. This is unsurprising as these heavily developed areas are both high in impervi-

ous surface and low in tree cover. The eastern part of the watershed is much less developed. It has less impervious surface and many more trees, so heat vulnerability is low.

It’s worth noting that the watershed boundary may be more relevant when considering risks such as flooding and water quality and less relevant when considering the risk of heat exposure, since temperatures across a region aren’t strongly related to the region’s watersheds. However, a watershed-based approach to planning for climate change resilience may lead to mutually beneficial cross-municipality collaborations and solutions related to heat vulnerability.

Left: Tree cover in the Mill River watershed is concentrated in the eastern half.

Top: Heat vulnerability is concentrated in the western part of the Mill River watershed.

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 27

PART ONE: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

Risk of Flooding The federal government provides insurance for property in areas with a 1% chance of flooding in any given year due to their proximity to water bodies. As part of this insurance, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) creates maps of 100-year flood zones and 500-year flood zones. Property owners in the 100-year flood zone with federally backed mortgages must pay for flood insurance.

The amount and intensity of precipitation in this region is expected to increase due to climate change, and the FEMA maps are based on historical data and do not include climate change projections (Bruggers). Although the maps do not accurately communicate flood risk, they do provide a useful starting point for identifying areas most vulnerable to flooding.

As discussed above, Hazard Mitigation Plans unlock funding from FEMA for municipal projects relating to hazard mitigation. Each of the four municipalities in the watershed has a Hazard Mitigation plan in place—either from 2015 or 2016. All four plans follow a similar framework and assess exposure to a number of risks. Hazard Ratings range from “1 - High Risk” to “5 - Low Risk.” The reports assess two types of flooding: general and localized. General flooding is caused by prolonged precipitation events, and the reports use FEMA’s flood zone definitions as a way to explore each

28

town’s exposure to this risk. Localized flooding occurs in specific, delimited areas as a result of high-intensity rainfall, and can be assessed via local knowledge of areas prone to flooding. All the reports—except for Springfield’s— combine both types of flooding and give them a single hazard rating.

• Springfield’s report assigns general flooding a rating of “3 - Medium Risk,” whereas localized flooding is assigned “2 - Medium-High Risk.” The report only assesses the risk of a 100-year flood when analyzing general flood risk.

• Wilbraham’s report rates the risk of flooding as “1 Highest Risk.” One contributing factor is “the presence of… steep topography on the eastern side of Wilbraham that channels water down to settled areas” (“Wilbraham HMP” 34).

• Hampden’s report rates the risk of flooding as “2 - High Risk.”

• East Longmeadow’s report rates the risk of flooding as “3 - Medium Risk.”

RISK OF FLOODING

One broad-view approach to mapping flood risk in the watershed is to show which parcels intersect the 500-year flood zone. Over 1,200 parcels in the watershed intersect the 500-year flood zone. Over half of these parcels are in Wilbraham. This is not surprising as Wilbraham has the most wetlands in the watershed, and many are adjacent to existing rivers and streams. During a large flood, those wetlands flood, covering a non-trivial amount of Wilbraham.

This is in contrast to Springfield which is much more developed, with only about 115 acres of wetlands (“Springfield HMP” 10), of which relatively fewer are adjacent to existing waterways. One factor which contributes to Springfield’s lower risk of flooding is that “development

Left: FEMA-defined flood zones are concentrated in the eastern half of the Mill River watershed.

Right: Map of parcels intersecting the 500-year FEMA flood zone. Vacant, conserved parcels and parcels without a building on them are excluded.

(See Appendix B for details.)

Town

Number of parcels

Springfield

365

Wilbraham Hampden

690 86

East Longmeadow

139

along the north and south branches of the Mill river corridors has been discouraged by public purchase and ownership of open space” (“Springfield OSRP” 36). Also, “flood plain is primarily forested along these two water resources” (“Springfield OSRP” 36). Leaving floodplains undeveloped—especially if they’re forested—allows them to serve as “sponges” that absorb and slowly release water into the river, which reduces the risk of flooding.

This approach to mapping flood risk could be made more THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 29

PART ONE: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

granular by analyzing the land uses of the intersecting parcels and mapping which structures within these parcels fall in the 500-year flood zone.

All four municipalities’ zoning laws regulate development in the 100-year flood zone, but not in the 500-year flood zone. This exposes current and potential future residents in the 500-year flood zone to the risk of flooding. Furthermore, without appropriate regulation limiting development, future development in the 500-year flood zone may infringe on the land’s natural ability to slow and infiltrate stormwater, thus increasing the risk of flooding.

Land cover higher up in a watershed matters for areas below, since water flows from higher areas to lower areas. The eastern part of the watershed is topographically higher than the western part, so land cover in the eastern part influences the potential for downstream flooding in the western part. The eastern part of the watershed contains extensive forests and wetlands. Forests intercept and 30

infiltrate water, and wetlands help with flood control and storm damage prevention. Stream buffers may also help to reduce flooding by infiltrating and slowing water. Most of these areas are not protected in perpetuity, which means that future development high up in the watershed—in Wilbraham and Hampden—could lead to reduced tree cover, potential infringement on wetlands, and more impervious surface, potentially causing flooding risks downstream—in Springfield—to increase. (The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act regulates development in and near wetlands, but conservation commissions can permit development in these areas. Stormwater discharges from new developments are also regulated to a degree.)

Wilbraham and Hampden’s Open Space & Recreation Plans acknowledge development pressure and focus on how to preserve the towns’ natural resources and rural character in the face of this pressure (Wilbraham OSRP, Hampden OSRP 2). The 2013 Wilbraham Looks Forward report tackles the question of how to shape inevitable development

RISK OF FLOODING

while maintaining Wilbraham’s charming, rural feel. Eight new developments were built in Wilbraham between 2004 and 2014 (Wilbraham OSRP 30).

Wilbraham’s Open Space & Recreation Plan (OSRP) from 2015 describes a theoretical upper limit to development in Wilbraham: In 2001, the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) prepared a build-out analysis for the town of Wilbraham which attempted to estimate the amount of future development that would be possible based on current zoning regulations and existing environmental restraints… The state build-out analysis estimated that there are 6,962 acres of additional developable land that, if developed, would result in 4,453 additional residential units and 848,918 additional square feet of commercial building floor

area. (28) Although it is doubtful that this upper limit would ever be reached, development is nonetheless a concern, and one way to shape this development would be to permanently protect more land high up in the watershed. More conservation high up in the watershed would help ensure that existing flood mitigation services provided by forests and wetlands continue into the future.

Combining FEMA flood zones, estimated stormwater runoff contribution of impervious surface in the watershed, and some critical infrastructure produces a map of flood vulnerability. (See Appendix B for details.) This map shows that—as with the map of heat vulnerability—vulnerability to flooding is concentrated on the west of the watershed and in the north. Some flood vulnerability is also concentrated along water bodies in Wilbraham.

Left: Many wetlands, forests, and stream buffers high up in the Mill River watershed are not protected. Note conserved land in Springfield along the north and south branches of the Mill River.

Right: Flood vulnerability is concentrated in the western half of the Mill River watershed and along water bodies.

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 31

PART ONE: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

Exposure to Air Pollution Air pollution exposure is associated with asthma and other respiratory diseases (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences). Compared to the rest of the United States, Springfield residents suffer disproportionately from asthma. According to a 2018 report, the city is rated tenth in the U.S. for asthma prevalence and is considered the most challenging place to live in the U.S. for those with asthma (Asthma Capitals 2018, 5-6). Factors known to contribute to asthma include: • Proximity to busy roads: I-91 in Springfield runs north/ south along the Connecticut River on the western edge of the city, and I-291 passes through the northern part of the city. Most of Springfield is developed and there are many roads throughout the city, with a denser collection of higher-trafficked roads in neighborhoods closer to the Connecticut River.

• Quality of housing stock: Housing stock in the city tends to be older (Lederman 2019), which increases the chances of residents being exposed to mold.

• High pollen counts: The same 2018 report mentioned above rated Springfield as seventh in the U.S. for high pollen counts (Asthma Capitals 2018, 21). The cause is unclear and warrants further investigation. Compounding this, climate change is predicted to lengthen and intensify pollen seasons in parts of the U.S (Dupigny-Giroux et al. 700).

• Ethnicity: African Americans and Hispanics—partic-

32

ularly Puerto Ricans—bear a disproportionate portion of the asthma burden in the United States (Mayrides et al. “Key Findings”). This bears particular relevance to Springfield, as the 2010 Census counted 22.3% of the city’s population as Black or African American and 33.8% of the population as Hispanic or Latino of any race. The vast majority of those identifying as Hispanic or Latino were Puerto Rican (American FactFinder).

Air movement does not adhere to watershed boundaries, so clean and polluted air may blow in from outside the watershed. Conversely, air conditions within the watershed can affect people outside the watershed. Planting more trees may improve air quality, irrespective of where air pollution originates. Trees produce oxygen, absorb gaseous air pollution through their leaves, and intercept solid particulate matter on the surfaces of their leaves (Nowak 1). Planting more trees in urban, heavily-paved areas of the watershed could help reduce residents’ exposure to air pollution.

The risk of poor air quality—particularly Springfield’s exceptionally high pollen counts—needs to be explored more thoroughly by talking to a wide array of Springfield residents and healthcare practitioners to gain a deeper understanding of how people in Springfield suffer from poor air quality and where these risks might be concentrated. This understanding could then be compared to the road network to see if and how they correlate. Nature-based solutions for improving indoor air quality could also be investigated.

AIR POLLUTION

Top: Busy roads are concentrated in the western half of the Mill River watershed.

Right: Impervious surfaces can lead to higher temperatures, and higher temperatures can contribute to air pollution.

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 33

PART ONE: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

Polluted Water Bodies and Drinking Water Many older cities’ wastewater infrastructure combines sewage with stormwater in one pipe and treats them together.

In many instances, older city’s populations have outgrown this infrastructure’s capacity, and the water treatment plants are unable to handle the combined sewage and stormwater load during high-precipitation events. These systems are designed to release combined sewage and stormwater directly into waterways during high-precipitation events as a way to reduce load on the system. Each time this happens is termed a Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO). The EPA has been regulating CSOs across the country since 1994, and requires municipalities with CSOs to have a plan in place to manage—and eventually eliminate—these CSOs, even if full implementation of the plan will take decades. Of all four municipalities in the watershed, only Springfield— the oldest and most-populated municipality—has CSOs. The Springfield Water & Sewer Commission is the entity responsible for these CSOs and describes their progress as follows: “Since the 1990s, the Commission has spent over $100 million on CSO reduction projects, resulting in an approximately 30% reduction in CSO volume. The cost

34

of designing and constructing CSO reduction projects is very high, and eliminating CSOs is expected to take several more decades to achieve” (Springfield Water and Sewer website, CSOs and Stormwater). As of 2020, twenty-two CSOs remain, of which seven are in the Mill River watershed. The seven that are in the watershed (map below) are all along the roughly one-and-a-quarter mile stretch of the Lower Mill River that exits Watershops Pond.

The EPA also requires states to have management plans in place for polluted water bodies. The 2016 Massachusetts Integrated List of Waters—a state-produced federally mandated plan describing the condition of Massachusetts’ waterways—lists the impaired water bodies in the watershed that require a management plan. (See table to the right for details.) The Connecticut River abuts the watershed and the portion of it closest to the watershed is impaired with Escherichia Coli (E. Coli) and PCBs in fish tissue. Since the Mill River flows into the Connecticut River, its impairments may contribute to the Connecticut River’s impairments.

WATER CONTAMINATION

Water body Lower Mill River

Watershops Pond Venture Pond Left: During rain, combined sewage and stormwater can flow untreated out to water bodies. (Graphic by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).)

Mill Pond

Impairments

• Debris • Trash • Escherichia Coli (E. Coli) • Odor

• Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators

• Dissolved Oxygen • Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators • Phosphorus, Total • Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators • Odor

Top: All combined sewer overflows and impaired waterways are in the western portion of the watershed and within Springfield. The GIS data layer for the CSOs was provided by the Springfield Sewer & Water Commission on February 27, 2020.

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 35

PART ONE: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

Climate change is expected to increase the frequency and severity of floods, and the risk of exposure to contaminated water increases during flooding events, which may be harmful to human health.

Both Springfield’s and East Longmeadow’s public water supply is managed through the Springfield Water and Sewer Commission; the source of the water is west of the Connecticut River, outside the watershed (Springfield HMP 9, East Longmeadow HMP 10). Wilbraham’s public water supply is obtained from the Quabbin Reservoir, also located outside the watershed. Roughly two-thirds of Wilbraham residents depend on the public water supply; the remaining one-third get their water from private wells (Wilbraham HMP 16). Hampden doesn’t have town-wide water supply and the “vast majority of residents rely on private, individual wells” (Hampden HMP 9). The Scantic Valley Water District supplies water to nine properties in Hampden, but the district lies outside the watershed (Hampden HMP 9).

36

To summarize, the vast majority of residents in the watershed obtain their drinking water from sources outside the watershed. The minority of watershed residents relying on private wells for their drinking water reside higher up in the watershed, far away from CSOs and polluted water bodies.

There appears to be low risk of watershed residents’ drinking water becoming contaminated due to CSOs or polluted water bodies.

It is unclear if a watershed resilience assessment should, by definition, include a resilience assessment of all public water sources servicing watershed residents, even if these sources lie outside the watershed; reliable drinking water supplies are crucial to human resilience and well-being, and some water sources are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (particularly to droughts). Excluding from analysis public water sources located outside the watershed might undervalue water quality, a concern central to many watershed reports that do not focus on climate change.

RESIDENTS

Distribution of Residents and Their Demographics There are roughly 94,438 people residing in the Mill River watershed per the 2010 census. The table below shows how many of these people live in each of the four municipalities and the relative population of each municipality. Roughly four out of five residents of the watershed live in Springfield.

to prioritize interventions which benefit areas with a high concentration of people expected to have a reduced ability to adapt to chronic stressors and recover from acute shocks due to factors such as old age, low income, food insecurity, and homelessness. In the Mill River watershed, these two areas overlap substantially.

Since this report is focused on improving resilience for people in the face of climate change, decision makers may want to prioritize interventions which benefit areas with the highest human density. Decision makers may also want

Population density is highest in the westernmost part of the watershed and decreases from west to east. There are some particularly dense parts of Springfield outside of the watershed boundary, to the northwest.

Mill River watershed population broken down by municipality:

Above: Population density is concentrated in the western half of the Mill River watershed.

Right: Table of watershed population broken down by municipality.

Municipality

Approximate population

Approximate percentage of watershed population

Springfield

76,152

81%

Wilbraham

11,236

12%

Hampden

1,927

2%

East Longmeadow

5,033

5%

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 37

PART ONE: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

Income is lower in the western half of the watershed and higher in the eastern half. There is a concentration of lower income block groups on the westernmost edge of the watershed, but the poorest parts of Springfield lie outside the watershed, in the northwest part of Springfield, along the Connecticut River.

The only block groups in the watershed with more than 20% minority population are in the western portion of the watershed. There is a large minority population just outside the watershed, in the northwest part of Springfield, along the Connecticut River. Roughly speaking, within the water-

38

shed, the denser and lower income an area is, the higher its percentage of minorities. As discussed below, these areas, in the wake of heavy industrialization, also have fewer trees and more paved surfaces, increasing residents’ exposure to the risks of very high temperatures and flooding. The people who face the most environmental adversity have the fewest resources to cope with them.

The above discussion is based on 2010 census numbers, which are now approximately ten years old. Although there will be a new census in 2020, this report has not come across any indication that the broad patterns have changed.

RESIDENTS

Ground-truthing Analyses Not completed as part of the Mill River watershed assessment

Left: This map shows median income in the Mill River watershed by census block group. Lower median income is concentrated in the western half of the watershed.

GIS mapping reveals overall patterns across a larger geographic area; however, datalayers may generalize patterns at the parcel level or at larger geographic units. On-the-ground conditions may vary, in some cases significantly, from the patterns shown in GIS maps. Verifying conditions through on-the-ground observation will increase the accuracy of analyses. Asking stakeholders and community members “What do these analyses get wrong? What do they leave out?� will reveal gaps in the analysis process; this underlines the value of a robust community participation process. Due to time constraints, this project was not able to complete this step, but future assessments could consider sharing analyses with local stakeholders and the public in order to learn what may have been missed.

Top: This map shows percent minority in the Mill River watershed by census block group. Minorities are concentrated in the western half of the watershed.

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 39

PART ONE: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

40

STEP FOUR

Finding Opportunities for Land Use Interventions

Identifying Sites The analysis process described in the previous pages revealed which parts of the watershed are most vulnerable to climate change threats. These analyses also helped to identify where land use interventions would best mitigate risk, given two assumptions: • interventions that reduce heat and/or flooding risk protect human health if implemented where those risks are highest; • interventions which absorb rainfall high in the watershed reduce flooding risk for communities downstream.

Since “land use interventions” was defined broadly as policies, designs, or projects that modify current land use or protect land use from future change, a list of ideas was gleaned from relevant literature to determine which kinds of land would be most useful (see Menu of Interventions next page).

Above: Trees offer many benefits to communities. Credit: Thomas Cizauskas.

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 41

PART ONE: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

WHAT’S POSSIBLE? MENU OF INTERVENTIONS

TO HELP DETERMINE WHAT KIND OF LAND COULD BE USED, A LIST OF POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS WAS GENERATED, BASED ON INPUT FROM LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS, OBSERVATIONS, AND SUCCESS STORIES FROM OTHER COMMUNITIES.

daylighting streams

adding vegetation in paved areas

placing conservation restrictions on land to shape development

supporting residential tree planting 42

supporting conversion of lawns to low-maintenance ground cover

MENU OF INTERVENTIONS

removing dams remediating urban soils

converting vacant lots to community green space

replacing asphalt with permeable surfaces for infrequently used parking spaces

using swales and rain gardens to capture stormwater

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 43

PART ONE: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

What is a “land use intervention”?

Land use intervention: a policy, design, or project that modifies current land use or protects land use from future change From a single street tree to a broad swath of conserved land, an “intervention” may take many different forms depending on community interest, size of available land, current land use, and other factors.

The kind of land that may be available for intervention and where such land is located were then deduced. Based on the Mill River watershed’s combination of urban, rural, and suburban areas, and informed by input provided by local stakeholders (such as planners, foresters, and nonprofits), three types of land were identified as most appropriate for interventions given ownership and the potential to reduce human risk to climate change threats: vacant land, open space parcels owned by the City or state, and parcels with high conservation value (see Appendix for mapping details). Possible interventions for each land type are explored in detail in the coming pages.

The kind of land available for intervention will be specific to each watershed. For example, an analysis of a largely rural watershed would not likely determine much need or identify many opportunties to remediate urban soils.

Communities within a mostly urban watershed may tailor their approach to interventions appropriate in developed areas.

Brownfields Not completed as part of the Mill River watershed assessment

In addition to the types of land analyzed in this study (vacant land, open space parcels owned by the City or state, and parcels with high conservation value), another type of land which may be suitable for land use intervention is brownfields.

A brownfield is a property, the expansion, redevelopment, 44

or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant (EPA). While this study was not able to investigate the brownfields within the Mill River watershed, brownfields are an appropriate target for land use interventions in this and other watersheds because of the opportunity to remediate degraded land and increase ecosystem services. Futhermore, the EPA’s Brownfields Program offers funding for communities to address and remediate brownfield contamination (EPA).

Ground-truthing interventions Not completed as part of the Mill River watershed assessment

While this study was unable to do so, in-person analysis of sites and consultation with local stakeholders, such as municipal employees, adjacent landowners, etc., will help determine if land use interventions are viable. Stakeholders may also have ideas of what other sites are available.

Public outreach Not completed as part of the Mill River watershed assessment

A equitable public participation process would also be beneficial in selecting appropriate targets. In order to solicit feedback on specific intervention proposals, public outreach could include: • • • •

Online Surveys Interactive online mapping Community meetings Pop-up events

Reviewing municipal plans and documents Municipal plans can be used to inform the selection of parcels and the prioritization of interventions. Are there any plans for projects articulated in municipal documents that have not yet been realized? Where do goals of municipalities within the watershed overlap?

In the Mill River watershed, the high-value conservation parcels identified in Wilbraham aligned with the Wilbraham Open Space and Recreation Plan’s expressed goal of creating a green corridor in the same part of town. Land use interventions that will reduce climate change risks to watershed communities while meeting other community goals, such as recreation, are likely to garner more public support and funding.

PLANTING TREES

Planting Trees Plant more trees in the western half of the watershed and expand the operating area of the Greening the Gateway Cities Program (GGCP).

Trees provide people with many benefits. They produce oxygen which people breathe. They cool their environment by shading it and through evapotranspiration. They absorb stormwater, helping to attenuate flooding. They absorb gaseous air pollution—such as ozone—through their leaves and intercept particulate matter on their leaf surfaces and thus have the potential to improve air quality.

Although 48% of the Mill River watershed, as a whole, is forested, this is disproportionately concentrated in the east, and there are parts of Springfield in the watershed with very low tree cover. For example, the portion of Springfield’s McKnight neighborhood within the watershed has about 17% tree cover.

Planting many more trees—particularly in dense, low-income parts of Springfield—could help to significantly reduce the urban heat island effect, attenuate flooding, and improve air quality. They could also make urban neighborhoods more pleasant and inviting places to live and encourage people to spend time outdoors.

Although trees—in general—improve air quality, it’s worth considering Springfield’s high asthma and allergy rates

when choosing which tree species to plant, as trees vary in their potential for ozone formation and allergic reactions.

(See Appendix C for more details.)

Greening the Gateway Cities—started in 2014—is a staterun program administered by EEA and DCR. Its goal is to plant trees—primarily on private properties—as a way to reduce both cooling and heating energy costs. Of course the trees provide additional benefits as well, such as stormwater infiltration, neighborhood beautification, and community building. More than 27,000 trees have been planted in fourteen communities since the program’s inception (O’Connor). This is a very successful program—in a survey, 98% of participating residents reported feeling “very happy” with the program and 98% of residents said they were “very likely” to recommend the program to a friend (Garvey 41).

Although getting homeowners to sign up for trees can be a challenge (Garvey 5), it appears that once people do participate in the program, they are very happy with it.

Springfield is one of the fourteen “gateway cities” that are part of this program, particularly important since parts of Springfield lost much of their tree canopy in the 2011 tornado. The approximately 800-acre section of Springfield in which the program currently operates intersects with the Mill River watershed and includes parts of the Old Hill, Upper Hill, and McKnight neighborhoods. The program would like to add an approximately 630-acre section to its program area, containing parts of the Six Corners and Forest Park neighborhoods. This section intersects with the Mill River watershed and contains an environmental justice population. Expanding the program to this section would increase resilience for particularly vulnerable populations in the watershed.

Right: This map—provided by staff from the Greening the Gateway Cities program in Springfield— shows the existing zone of the program and a proposed expansion zone.

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 45

PART ONE: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

The Conway team worked with Dr. Randhir from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst to visualize the potential effects of the program’s proposed expansion on flood risk reduction, using Dr. Randhir’s fine-grained water runoff data. The map below shows runoff values in the westernmost tip of the watershed with the proposed expansion zone outlined in red. Lighter areas indicate less runoff and darker areas indicate more runoff.

The Conway team modeled an approximate increase of five trees per acre over the 630-acre proposed expansion zone. This increase is visualized in the map on the opposite page, in which lighter areas outlined in green correspond to new clusters of trees. Runoff from the proposed expansion zone is projected to decrease with additional trees, which may contribute to a reduced risk of flooding and fewer and smaller CSO events. These trees would also be expected to reduce energy costs and ameliorate the urban heat island effect.

46

The Conway team also used two i-Tree tools (see Appendix D) to model the benefits of the current canopy in the proposed expansion zone and a best-case scenario with ten new trees per acre across the proposed expansion zone.

Planting ten trees per acre across the entire zone could— after ten years—approximately triple the avoided runoff, air pollution removed, and greenhouse gas sequestration potential of the zone’s tree canopy. These benefits would continue to increase as the trees got older and larger.

PLANTING TREES

Left: This map shows runoff values in the westernmost tip of the watershed with the proposed expansion zone outlined in red.

Top: The Conway team modeled an approximate increase of five trees per acre in the proposed expansion zone. This map shows many new lighter areas outlined in green, which correspond to new clusters of trees.

Right: Table of iTreemodeled current and estimated benefits of increasing the tree canopy in the proposed expansion zone by ten trees per acre.

Benefits of current tree canopy

Total benefits of tree canopy (after 10 years) if 10 trees / acre are planted across proposed expansion zone

Avoided Runoff (gallons/yr)

1,500,000

4,566,000

Avoided Runoff value* ($/yr)

$13,255

$40,653

Air pollution** removed (lb/ yr) CO2 equivalent sequestration (tons/yr)

7,039

16,412

476

1,297

* See https://landscape.itreetools.org/references/data/#hydrology for more details. ** This includes NO2, O3, SO2, PM2.5, and PM10.

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 47

CHAPTER 01: CHAPTER

Climatic Adaptation and Restoration of Ecosystem Services for Urban and Agricultural Landscapes (I-CARES) A project led by Timothy Randhir of the University of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Conservation Based on recent watershed, natural resources, landuse and climate change research, this model will help local communities set priorities for conservation and restoration projects to reduce climate impacts like flooding, drought and extreme heat. The model includes thirty years of recent precipitation and temperature data, new landuse data accurate to one meter, soils data, topography and future climate change scenarios. The model will show the importance of communities planning conservation and restoration projects on a watershed basis because it will show the benefits of projects like tree planting, conversion of unused, developed sites to parks and forests, implementing cover crops on farms, and conserving forested sites instead of developing them. By showing how downstream flooding changes with Green Infrastructure projects, communities

48

can forge new partnerships to implement projects. The below graphic shows how the model predicts water storage and flow across developed and natural landscapes. Local communities will be able to change existing landuses (like planting trees in urban neighborhoods, changes parking lots to urban forests or parks or developing hillside forests with development that has recently occurred nearby) to show downstream flooding and stormwater impacts. This spring the UMass team will add an “urban heat island model” that will show the impacts of conservation or restoration projects on neighborhood extreme heat events, which will become more prevalent later in this century. The model will also show the runoff and flooding benefits of planting cover crops on local farm fields and help farmers to decide when to plant these crops. The model will be tested by local communities this summer and released for general use this fall.

The Conway team applied the draft model to the Springfield neighborhood as shown in the preceding pages. Dr. Randhir’s project is funded by grants from MA EEA and NIFA McIntire-Stennis Project (MAS00036)- Spatial and Temporal Management of Forest Cover and Urban Impacts for Water Resources Sustainability.

STORMWATER UTILITY

Implementing a Stormwater Utility Springfield’s remaining twenty-two CSOs, of which seven are in the Mill River watershed, are regulated by the EPA. CSO events may become more common as climate change causes precipitation to fall in shorter, more intense bursts, which may increase the costs required to manage them.

Springfield’s DPW is open to the idea of using green infrastructure to help manage stormwater (Springfield’s Climate Action and Resiliency Plan), and green infrastructure plans exist for the Pioneer Valley region*, the City of Springfield**, and the X intersection right outside the watershed in Springfield’s Forest Park neighborhood***, but the city needs more funding to implement these projects. A stormwater utility could help.

A stormwater utility generates funds to improve stormwater infrastructure by charging every property owner within its jurisdiction a fee that is related to their estimated contribution to the city’s total stormwater load. The funds can be used to pay for capital improvements as well as for operations and maintenance of stormwater infrastructure. There are many municipal stormwater utilities across the United States. The first one in Massachusetts was set up in Chicopee in 1999, and as of April 2016, five additional communities in Massachusetts—Reading, Newton, Fall River, Westfield, and Northampton—had stormwater utilities in place (Massachusetts Stormwater Utilities v. 2). Organizations like the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission—which helped set up Chicopee’s stormwater utility—and the Massachusetts Rivers Alliance could help advise Springfield on best practices for setting up a stormwater utility. There are challenges to implementing a stormwater utility. Putting a stormwater utility in place requires a vote at town meeting or by a city’s legislative body (e.g., city council), and there can be strong opposition to further increasing the fees that property owners must pay. Many residents in Springfield are renters. If a stormwater utility were instituted, landlords

might raise rents to help with paying their stormwater fees, which might lead to displacement in low-income neighborhoods where the majority of residents are renters.

Many residents in Springfield face financial hardships, and a stormwater utility ordinance can also specify credits and incentives to decrease or eliminate the additional hardship presented by the utility. For example, a Low Income Credit could reduce or eliminate the fee for people below a certain income threshold. Northampton’s stormwater utility fee— established in 2014—contains this type of credit.

Trees reduce stormwater runoff, and a stormwater utility could reduce stormwater fees for property owners who planted and maintained trees on their property, since the trees would reduce the property’s contribution to the city’s total stormwater load. Property owners would thus be incentivized to plant and maintain trees as it would reduce their stormwater fees.

Although most stormwater utilities in the U.S. are municipality-based, a regional stormwater utility encompassing all four municipalities in the watershed might be attempted. This could increase collaboration across the watershed and lead to creative stormwater solutions and funding. For example, in 2005, the Connecticut municipalities of New Haven, East Haven, Hamden, and Woodbridge came together to form the Greater New Haven Water Pollution Control Authority, a single water pollution authority for all four municipalities.

* See Pioneer Valley Green Infrastructure Plan, February 2014, prepared by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission ** See City of Springfield Green Infrastructure Technical Guidelines, by Meise-Munns, Corrin, et al. *** See Greening the X: A Vision for Green Streets in Springfield, MA, Winter 2016, by The Conway School. Accessed from https://csld.edu/project/ greening-the-x/.

Right: Stormwater catchment systems can be artful while mitigating the effects of runoff. Credit: Kevin Robert Perry.

Left: A visualization of the model. Credit: Timothy Randhir

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 49

PART ONE: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

Chicopee, a town of roughly 50,000 people, was the first community in Massachusetts to set up a stormwater utility, in 1999. The City has used it to great effect to help with managing CSOs, both by separating combined sewer and stormwater pipes into separate new pipes and by building treatment plants for CSO outflows. Currently, the stormwater fees bring in about $1,250,000 dollars a year (Lonczak).

Although the fees are mostly used for gray infrastructure projects, they have funded some green infrastructure projects. One notable example occurred as part of the Upper Granby Road sewer separation project around 2010. Newly

50

separated stormwater needed somewhere to go. A nearby stream was too small and a potential outfall at the Connecticut River was over two miles away. Building a stormwater pipe to the Connecticut River would have cost around $5,000,000. Instead, the capacity of an existing detention basin on city-owned land under power lines was expanded to store approximately four-and-a-half times more water, and a new infiltration facility was built on city-owned land within an abandoned railroad right-of-way. Both projects combined cost only $450,000, for a net savings of more than 90%.

CONSERVING LAND

Conserving Land Conserve more land—particularly wetlands and stream buffers—high in the watershed.

The two branches of the Mill River originate high up in the watershed, in the towns of Wilbraham and Hampden.

These towns also contain most of the watershed’s forests and wetlands. Forests intercept and infiltrate water, and wetlands store water, which helps to prevent flooding in communities downstream. Furthermore, undeveloped land along both branches of the Mill River and its tributaries helps to infiltrate and slow rainfall, which also helps prevent flooding downstream.

Both towns’ Open Space & Recreation Plans acknowledge development pressure and focus on how to preserve the

towns’ natural resources and rural character in the face of this pressure (Wilbraham OSRP, Hampden OSRP 2). For example, eight new developments were built in Wilbraham between 2004 and 2014 (Wilbraham OSRP 30). If a proposed rail-line between Boston and Springfield were built as part of a comprehensive New England passenger-rail vision, development pressure could increase.

Many of these valuable forests, wetlands, and stream buffers are not protected in perpetuity, making them vulnerable to development, and potentially exposing downstream communities to an increased risk of flooding, particularly with more and more intense rainfall predicted due to climate change. Conserving this land would preserve the runoff interception, storage, and infiltration currently provided by these lands. Minnechaug Land Trust works on land conservation projects in both Wilbraham and Hampden and could be a useful partner.

Above: Many wetlands and stream buffers high up in the watershed—which may be mitigating potential flooding downstream—are not conserved in perpetuity.

Right: A slide from a presentation explaining how using green infrastructure instead of building a new stormwater pipe to the Connecticut River provided the City of Chicopee with a net savings of more than 90%.

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 51

PART ONE: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

One method for identifying parcels for conservation is using GIS to score parcels in the watershed based on their proximity to wetlands and streams and their value as wildlife habitat—a traditional conservation priority. (See Appendix B for details.) Running this model for Mill River watershed reveals that the highest-scoring parcels are in Wilbraham and Hampden. In particular, there is a large north-south swath of high conservation value land east of Main Street in Wilbraham.

Conserving much of this swath dovetails with a vision described in Wilbraham’s Open Space & Recreation Plan, which acknowledges the wealth of natural riches within Wilbraham and aspires to establish a green corridor through the center of Wilbraham: Wilbraham has beautiful mountain vistas, gorgeous fields, shady woodlands, a unique white cedar swamp, a handicapped

52

accessible park and a disc golf course, just to mention a few of our Town Owned Treasures. Basically, we have the makings of a passive recreation wonderland…

The dream of the Open Space and Recreation Plan Committee is to eventually create a green corridor through the center of Wilbraham with pockets of green in other areas of town. A system of this sort would enable hikers to park at either Spec Pond on Boston Rd. or Fountain Park off Tinkham Road and hike the central portion of Wilbraham, mostly off road. (30) The area between Spec Pond and Fountain Park overlaps with the above-mentioned swath of high conservation value land east of Main Street in Wilbraham.

CONSERVING LAND

Continue to Conserve Wetlands Although flooding is a growing concern due to climate change, nature already has an answer: wetlands. Massachusetts has a lower rate of wetland loss than other states, and celebrates the economic, social, and environmental benefits of its wetland conservation programs. The state has a robust wetland restoration and conservation program, which supports a large number of jobs (Massachusetts SCORP 2017, 42). In addition to mitigating pollution and flooding, wetlands are critical to healthy ecosystems and clean water (Massachusetts SCORP 2017, 42).

Like forest and grasslands, wetlands sequester carbon from the atmosphere, which is essential to offset climate change (MN Board of Water and Soil Resources). As humans do their part to reduce carbon emissions, wetlands can sequester carbon that is already in the atmosphere. Although the state is aiming to have net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, it is likely that some critical services will still rely on fossil fuels some of the time, such as a hospital generator in a time when weather has reduced the availability of solar and

wind energy. Thus, it is essential to off-set not only present levels of carbon, but also potentially unavoidable future carbon emissions with carbon-sequestering natural systems, such as wetlands and forests (Marx 2020).

Wetlands are more than just beautiful landscapes: they filter sediment and runoff from fertilizers, pesticides, municipal sewers, and septic systems, (EPA 2006) which can otherwise be costly and hazardous to deal with. While the many benefits of wetlands and their internal dynamics of wetlands are well researched, as of yet there is less understanding on how to manage them at a watershed scale (Haigh 2010). It is especially critical to develop more widespread appreciation of wetlands because while they are among the most instrumental to resilience, they are also the most vulnerable. In cities especially, development around wetlands and green infrastructure that includes them must make thorough considerations to protect their natural functions (Mahanta & Rajput 2019).

Left: Result of scoring parcels in the Mill River watershed based on their modeled conservation value. Note the north-south swath of high conservation value land in the eastern half of the watershed.

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 53

PART ONE: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

54

Pedestrian Connectivity & Beating the Heat Springfield’s Lower Mill River

On a sweltering summer day, there is nothing more inviting that a walk along the river, or maybe a swim—but what if everything around the river is paved over and surrounded by busy streets? This is the case along what is referred to as the Lower Mile of the Mill River in Springfield, a stretch of river which currently hinders pedestrians who from accessing the Connecticut River Waterfront, and from accessing adjacent neighborhoods.

(Verel 11) In her thesis, Reclaiming the Miracle Mile: A Greenway Park Design & Land Use Strategy for Springfield’s Lower Mill River (2009), Amy C. Verel describes both the ecological and social challenges faced by residents of Springfield, as well as opportunities for green and social infrastructure in this area. Her project describes how improving pedestrian access and riparian health, via a greenway, would transform the Lower Mill River from a barrier to a connecting force between neighborhoods. She writes, “revitalizing the river corridor through ecological and recreational measures will help to coalesce the environmental and sociological elements necessary to stimulate Top left: just a few miles from The Lower Mile, Sullivan Park offers pedestrians access to the river and a cool, shadey retreat on hot days.

Trees along also filter any runoff that might have made it past the street trees uphill.

Middle left: Footbridges throughout The Vaughan’s Stream Reserve in Newzeland Credit: LandLAB Bottom Left: A foot path through a vegetated river corridor in Wassertrüdingen, Germany. Credit: Planorama Landschaftsarchitektur Above: right: the cover of Recliaming the Miracle Mile. Credit: Amy Verel Above left: a proposed zoning plan that incorperates a green coridor along the Lower Mile. Credit: Amy Verel

proper neighborhood and City stewardship over the river” (Verel 103). Ten years later, this project still encapsulates the challenges and possibilities of this area.

Around the world, people are finding post-industrial areas, such as the Lower Mile, to be optimal locations for green infrastructure. Creating a park along the lower Mill River could allow Springfield to pay homage to and reflect on its industrial path, while moving towards its current goals of becoming more sustainable.

On a broader scale, pairing increased pedestrian infrastructure with green infrastructure, such as vegetation that mitigates heat island effect and filters runoff. When compared to asphalt, concrete, and other hard surfaces, parks and green spaces in general are cooler. These vegetated areas are referred to as cool islands, in that they mitigate the effect of urban heat island (as discussed in the analysis section of this report). Cool islands can make the surrounding area cool, even if someone is not standing directly in them This means that re-vegetating hardened sections of the Mill River make high temperatures more tolerable even if people are not standing in them. Cool islands are especially vital in areas where people do not have air conditioning, not only because they alleviate the risk of heat exhaustion, but also because they provide a carbon-sequestering alternative to air conditioning.

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 55

PART ONE: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

Greening Vacant Land Vacant land can have a significant impact on a neighborhood when neglected. Research shows that vacant lots can decrease nearby property values, lower residents’ quality of life, and negatively impact mental health (Branas et al). The maintenance of vacant land can also be a financial and time burden for municipal departments (stakeholder meeting).

However, because the only land available for interventions in urban areas may be small parcels, vacant land can also be viewed as an opportunity to establish green space in a highly developed city (NYC Soil & Water 8).

Vacant lots can be used to increase vegetative cover in areas where it is low, and in doing so, reduce high temperatures and decrease stormwater runoff, in addition to providing many other benefits.

In Step 4 of the methodology, GIS was used to map vacant land (see Appendix B for details). (A map of vacant lots may also be available directly through the municipality.).

After learning that Springfield was the only municipality in the Mill River watershed with a number of vacant lots, the search here was limited was limited to Springfield proper-

56

ties, though in future asssessments the search would ideally include all municipalities within the watershed, as vacant lots in more rural areas can be used for land use interventions as well. This GIS analysis revealed the presence of 646 vacant lots in Springfield.

It may be appropriate for those further assessing the Mill River watershed to include abandoned properties (homes without residents) as potential locations for green infrastructure and other interventions, but adequate data was not available at the time of this report to do so.

Tax title parcels, or properties where the owner has not paid

GREENING VACANT LAND

taxes for a certain number of years, can be an indication that a property has been abandoned. In Springfield, 118 parcels were found that were tax delinquent since 2010 and did not have a building. For tax delinquent properties with a building, there is an ethical consideration, as the owners may still live on the property. Given that cities can undergo a process to acquire abandoned and tax title properties, a working group further assessing the Mill River watershed could consider gathering data to see if there may be opportunities to acquire and transform abandoned properties where people are not currently living.

As outlined in Step 3, the risk of water contamination and flooding in the western portion of the Mill River watershed is likely to increase with climate change. Increasing soil infiltration is one way to reduce the contamination of local waterways and the risk of flooding, and adding vegetation to vacant land has the potential to improve stormwater infiltration dramatically.

ter capture. In Detroit, for example, vacant lots are being transformed into large stormwater basins in strategic areas in order to reduce the load on the city’s CSO (Hester).

Especially when employed in strategic locations, green infrastructure can reduce the need for “hard� stormwater management infrastructure improvements such as retention tanks (NYC Soil & Water 2). Planning at the watershed scale can help municipalities and/or nonprofits make more strategic choices about which vacant land to green.

As described in the first recommendation, increasing tree cover and shrub vegetation also has the important benefit of mitigating extreme heat, a risk in the western portion of the watershed (Aram et al.).

Lastly, the greening of vacant land in Philadelphia, for example, has been linked with lower violent crime levels, lower resident stress levels and increased exercise (Branas et al).

Vacant land covered only by mown lawn has been shown to infiltrate very little stormwater, as soils have often been so heavily compacted by development and demolition that water cannot infiltrate (NYC Soil & Water 2). One study in Cleveland concluded that vacant lots covered in mown lawn shed as much stormwater as a paved parking lot (Cleveland Urban Design et al. 20). Converting vacant lots to community gardens has been shown to improve rainfall absorption, especially when tillage, compost, and cover-cropping are used (Freshwater Society 3). Compost could potentially be sourced from regional compost facilities. One study found that community gardens in New York City may be retaining an additional 12 million gallons of stormwater annually due to the use of raised beds and compost in gardens throughout the city (Gittleman et al. 1). One non-profit in Springfield, Gardening the Community (GTC), has transformed vacant land into a community garden. When GTC purchased the Walnut Street property (pictured to the right) in 2014, it removed over 400 tons of debris from the site, including trash, crumbling structures, and an abandoned boat (GTC website). The site is now a thriving farm, providing fresh food to the community through the Community Farm Store, also on the Walnut Street property.

Rain gardens, vegetated swales, and bioretention basins can also be installed on these lots to enhance stormwaLeft: Most vacant land in Springfield is found in small parcels.

Above: Eighth grade students planting a bioretention garden on a vacant lot in Detroit, Michigan. Credit: University of Michigan.

Right: Gardening the Community Walnut Street property before (above) and after (below). Credit: GTC

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 57

PART ONE: MILL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

The conversion of vacant land into green space does carry with it some risks, however. Urban greening can cause neighboring property values to rise. While this may be desirable in communities with high levels of homeownership, rising property values could also instigate gentrification, thereby displacing low-income community members.

In Brooklyn, New York, greening vacant land was correlated with, and perhaps accelerated, unwanted gentrification (Maantay and Maroko). In Philadelphia, simple greening treatments of vacant land—removing debris coupled with planting grass and trees—increased property value of nearby homes (Heckert and Mennis 1). More expensive and extensive green infrastructure in Philadelphia was also correlated with rising property values, but research indicates that gentrification happened simultaneously with green infrastructure installation; i.e., causality is not clear (Shokry et al.). In any event, it is important for greening efforts to take place in tandem with conversations about affordable housing and anti-gentrification policies if that appears to be a risk.

In the Mill River watershed, some barriers currently exist to greening vacant lots (stakeholder meeting). As Springfield’s ability to fund green infrastructure is already limited, the City may not be able to commit financial resources to the design, construction, and maintenance of green infrastructure on vacant lots. Another barrier is that municipal departments which would be tasked with maintaining new park space are understaffed (stakeholder meeting).

Several models exist to circumvent these challenges and offer communities control over how green space is developed.

One such model is the conservation land trust, a non-profit which owns and maintains conserved green space.

The conservation land trust model, through traditionally used in rural areas, has been creatively applied in cities such as Baltimore, Detroit, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia in recent decades (Bird). In Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust acquires vacant land from the City and creates public parks and gardens (see Case Study next page). In Baltimore, the nonprofit Baltimore Green Space works closely with the City to protect in perpetuity vacant land that has already been transformed into gardens and parks by community members (Baltimore Green Space).

Conservation land trusts often operate across municipal boundaries. Because the need for conserved open space exists in both urban and rural areas (see Conserving Land), a conservation land trust could operate throughout the Mill River watershed. The Greater Worchester Land Trust, for 58

example, works in both rural and urban areas to meet a diversity of conversation goals, including creating greenways, urban pocket parks, and wildlife habitat (The Greater Worcester Land Trust).

By working within a watershed boundary, a land trust could conserve a diversity of land types, meet the varied needs of communities, and, from the information gained through a watershed assessment, strategically protect land to reduce human vulnerability to climate change risks.

LOS ANGELES NEIGHBORHOOD LAND TRUST

CASE STUDY THE LOS ANGELES NEIGHBORHOOD LAND TRUST

“PARKS HAVE THE POWER TO ACTIVATE A NEIGHBORHOOD.�

The Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust is a non-profit organization converting vacant land into publicly accessible open space in South Los Angeles. Since 2002, LANTL has converted vacant lots into twenty seven gardens and pocket parks throughout the city. LANTL functions similar to a traditional land trust in that it holds and maintains the land for public use (Kent).

- ELIZABETH KENT, LANTL

LANTL oversees these land use conversion projects from the initial stages of construction through long-term operation. It works with community organizations, community members, elected officials, and public agencies to identify vacant lots for greening, and then continues to collaborate with community members to design, build, and steward the parcels (Kent).

LANTL models one method of repurposing vacant land with the involvement of community members. While there is not currently a non-profit in the Mill River watershed doing similar work, support for endeavors of this kind could relieve municipalities of the burden of ownership, while empowering community members and creating green space that would provide a myriad of social and ecological benefits.

Above: LANTL Community Garden. Credit: LANTL

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 59

PART TWO: ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK SUMMARY

PART TWO Assessment Framework Summary In summary, the assessment process comprises four main steps: assembling a working group, identifying the major risks and priorities, analyzing where the assets and vulnerabilities are and how they interact, and finally, identifying opportunities for land use interventions. *Steps which the Conway Team was not able to complete due to time constraints, but sees as integral and would recommend be undertaken. **Given the goals of this project, this analysis was constructed to identify the key risks climate change poses to human communities. A watershed assessment with different goals and values (for example, wildlife habitat, or critical infrastructure) could perform a similar analysis with different variables.

1

Form a Watershed Working Group

Assemble a working group to oversee the watershed assessment process. Consider including municipal, county or state government officials; environmental, community health, and affordable housing non-profits; local business leaders; community members; academics; municipal and/or regional planners; natural resource managers; conservation organizations; recreation groups; and others.*

2

Identify Risks and Community Priorities

How and why has the landscape changed over time? Research the geological, ecological, and cultural history of the watershed, especially how that history impacts present conditions.

What are the climate change projections for the area?

Assess climate change predictions and latest data for the target watershed.

What do the communities within the watershed perceive to be the greatest risks to human health and safety?** Review municipal documents prepared for or by municipalities within the watershed. Note the risks covered by each plan. Where are the plans in agreement? Where do the plans conflict? Are there climate change projections that are not addressed in the plans?

If planned projects have not been implemented, why not? Where possible, map identified threats and resources. Examples of these documents include:

60

• • • • • •

Hazard Mitigation Plans Open Space & Recreation Plans Municipal Vulnerability Plans Master Plans and Comprehensive Plans Water Quality Reports Watershed Studies (some communities have already conducted assessments at the watershed scale)

ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK SUMMARY

3

Analyze Assets and Vulnerabilities

What are the conditions of the watershed now? Generate maps of current conditions, including: •

Infrastructure and the built environment: • Impervious surfaces • Road network • Zoning and current land use* • Social factors: • Demographics and Environmental Justice populations • Population density by block • Ecological factors: • Land cover • Soils and bedrock geology* • Hydrology: rivers, RPA wetlands, WPA reser

voirs, aquifers • Water quality: stormwater infrastructure, MA

Integrated List of Waters, MS4 Regulations,

stormwater bylaws, stormwater utility fees • Farmland (location, type, APR or not)* • Conserved land by type (and percent of total area)*

Where are human communities most vulnerable to climate change impacts? Which impacts pose the most severe threats?** • Watershed issues: flooding, water pollution • Non-watershed issues: heat, air pollution, drought, pests,

coastal storm surges, fire, changes to soil chemistry,

erosion, climate migration, etc.* How do these vulnerabilities interact? Are there areas of overlap? Are areas located in neighborhoods with high population density? Environmental justice blocks?

4

Find Opportunities for Land Use Interventions

Reference “Menu of Interventions,” or consider creating one.

To identify land for conservation: map parcels with high conservation value based on community priorities.

To identify where developed land which could be remediated/ restored/greened: • Map vacant parcels • Map tax delinquent parcels • Map parcels owned by city or state • Map brownfields * • Analyze specific sites mentioned by local stakeholders* To identify open space which could be better stewarded:* • Identify conserved areas that are at high risk for degra

dation due to pests, pathogens, or invasive species.

• Identify conserved forests near water supply areas.

• Identify developed open space parcels where manage

ment practices could be improved.

Ground-truth intervention targets. Verify target sites are viable through in-person analysis, consultation with local stakeholders and a public participation process.* Cross-check with municipal plans. Are there interventions which would mitigate climate risks for more than one municipality? If so, could the municipalities apply for funding together? What conflicts could be addressed?* Prioritize recommendations. Consider creating a prioritization framework based on vulnerability assessment (Step 3), factoring in the goals and values of the municipalities within watershed. *

Verify assessments are correct through in-person analysis and consultation with local stakeholders.

Conduct a robust and equitable public participation process.

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 61

CONCLUSION

NN N

N

CONCLUSION Local planners shared that one of the biggest obstacles they face in achieving planning goals is lack of collaboration between independent efforts (stakeholder meeting). The watershed assessment outlined here one way of approaching regional planning, by starting the conversation with climate change as the first priority. Planning at the watershed scale can address issues that are tied to the watershed, like flooding, as well as issues that are not, like heat island effect, to generate a more complex representation of vulnerabilities, and make visible potential collaborative interventions across the watershed.

Land use in particular is one of the most powerful tools people have to enhance the health of their communities. In taking the watershed as the basis for planning, the social and ecological connectedness of those living within its boundaries is enhanced. In seizing upon climate change as an opportunity to build more resilient communities, many possibilities for transformation become evident.

Planning within the watershed offers an opportunity to build connections across municipal lines, work together in achieving common goals, and collaborate on projects critical to protecting communities in the coming decades.

62

APPENDIX A: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS A watershed, or basin, is the area of land that drains to a single outlet or body of water. Watershed boundaries are formed by connecting high points and ridges that divide runoff into separate basins. Watersheds can be evaluated at many different scales. The watershed of a single storm drain, also referred to as its catchment area, is the area that drains to that one point. Since water always drains downslope, watershed areas are determined by topography and do not change without intervention (human or geological/hydrological). In North America, the Continental Divide is the ridgeline along the Rocky Mountains that divides flow to the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. In Massachusetts, the Connecticut River basin is one of 20 watersheds at that scale, as defined by USGS and coded as hydrologic unit (or HUC) 8. The Mill River watershed is one of 251 basins at its scale, HUC 12, in Massachusetts.

A watershed often drains to a river. Tributaries are smaller streams that feed into the river. Headwaters are the smallest tributaries at the higher elevations, or uplands, in the watershed. Streams are evaluated by their order in the watershed, with headwaters forming the highest-order tributaries. The downstream areas of a watershed, or lowlands, tend to experience more flooding where the topography flattens out. River systems and watersheds can be described by their flashiness, which refers to how quickly a river rises during and after a storm event. Steeper and more paved or impervious areas tend to discharge runoff more quickly, contributing to high flashiness and flash flooding. Slowing down runoff discharge into a river can decrease its flashiness.

The word fluvial is used to describe something pertaining to a river or stream system, and alluvial describes sediment deposited by a river system.

Storm events include rain and snow storms that drop a measurable amount of precipitation on an area in a defined window of time. Snowmelt also discharges runoff and causes flooding. Designers use rainfall data to define typical storms for a geographical area based on a statistical return interval. Stormwater management regulations are based on this data, or design storms, and new development may be required to retain certain amounts of rainfall onsite rather than piping runoff directly to a discharge point, or outfall.

Due to climate change, storm intensity has increased sig-

nificantly and continues to do so, but many regulations still reference outdated design storm data.

The water cycle is the flow of moisture in different forms through the atmosphere. Moisture in the atmosphere falls as rain and snow. This water on the ground flows into the soil, runs into rivers and streams, gets sucked up by plants (water uptake), and some evaporates back into the air. Plants also breathe water back into the air as water vapor in a process called transpiration. Surface water that flows into a greater water body such as a lake or ocean also eventually evaporates back into the system.

Ecosystem services are the services performed by plants, soil, water, and the atmosphere, that are necessary to humans. Though invaluable, these services are sometimes quantified with a dollar value that approximates the equivalent cost of replicating these services artificially. Some ecosystem services are those provided by trees, such as water uptake, cooling, and carbon sequestration, and by soil, such as reducing flooding by absorbing moisture.

Trees provide a valuable ecosystem service by transpiring moisture back into the air, which also has a cooling effect.

Trees also draw up water from the ground when it isn’t raining, helping to dry out wet areas and reduce flooding, and cooling the air even in dry weather. Trees also capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in a process called respiration, turning it into biomass (wood and leaves) and breathing clean oxygen back into the air. The process of converting gaseous CO2 from the atmosphere and converting and storing it as biomass is called carbon sequestration.

The areas where the river is able to flood its banks are called floodplain, and they’re mapped based on the annual probability of being flooded. Technically, an area that can be expected to flood every year would be considered the one-year floodplain, or an area with a 100% of flooding in a given year. The 100-year floodplain is the area that has a 1%, or 1-in-100, chance of flooding in a given year. In our changing climate, however, these numbers are not accuTHINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 63

APPENDIX A

rate in describing the likelihood of a flood in a given year, and many communities have experienced several 100-year floods in the past decades.

While the 100-year (1% annual return interval) floodplain is regulated, the 500-year (0.2% annual return interval) is often not regulated. As storms and precipitation become more intense, these areas are both flooded more often, and the return interval for which they were delineated no longer accurately reflects the probability of flooding in those areas.

Increasing floodplain area, or low-lying, flat areas that are able to flood regularly, and allowing rivers to flood, protects downstream communities by dissipating flow energy and storing water volume before it reaches them.

Land use interventions are policies, designs, or projects that modify current land use or protect land use from future change.

Conservation is a term used broadly to refer to a range of designations that protect land from development, either temporarily or in perpetuity. Land with conservation status is referred to in many ways, such as: conserved or conservation land, open space, CR (conservation restriction), chapter 61 lands, APR (agricultural preservation restriction), and water supply lands. Often, conservation lands are owned by the state, municipality (a town or city), a land trust or other nonprofit, or the federal government, in the form many people are most familiar with, as fields and forests with public recreation access. A conservation restriction is a designation used on property, where the owner can place a deed restriction preventing future development of the site or a portion of it, while continuing to live there.

Biodiversity is a measure of how many species of plants and animals are present in an area. Higher biodiversity is often correlated with higher resilience of an area, as disturbances are less likely to cascade through the food web.

Invasive species are often considered harmful as they tend to spread quickly and choke out native species, making an area less biodiverse. Additionally, as invasive species are often not recognized as a food source for other species, this loss of biodiversity is often amplified beyond the initial effects. Pests and pathogens are also harmful to forest species, most notably to certain species of trees, and contribute to forest loss. Greater diversity of tree species in an area decreases the likelihood of the forest being wiped out by a single vector. Forest loss is also exacerbated by increasing temperatures, which are changing faster than tree species can evolve or migrate. Forest restoration projects can seek 64

to stay ahead of forest loss by planting more resistant or resilient species or those adapted to a warmer climate.

Connectivity is a measure of how easily wildlife can pass from one area to another, considering that fragmented protected wildlife areas are of lower habitat value than larger areas, or corridors connecting areas.

The State Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) is an office of the Massachusetts government that focuses on legislation to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The EEA commissioned this report.

The Resilient Lands Initiative (RLI) is a subset of the EEA. This group focuses on actionable climate change efforts on the ground, coordinating with stakeholders across sectors to identify priorities and solutions. The eight lenses of the RLI’s approach are: farms, forests, water supply, parks & public health, recreation, economic stability, and climate change.

The State’s Municipality Vulnerability Preparedness program (MVP) helps provide municipalities with the resources to address weakness locally. Communities outline hazards and vulnerabilities in an report and are then eligible to apply for grants to fund improvement projects. Municipalities can also compile an Open Space and Recreation Plan (OSRP), cataloging lands, development patterns, and conservation/recreation goals, which makes them eligible for other state grants to conserve more lands. The Community Preservation Act (CPA) is a state law adopted by municipalities allowing them to tax property owners to fund historic preservation, recreation, and open space projects.

The state matches the funds derived from the tax.

The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) is the regional planning agency that serves Hampden and Hampshire counties in the Pioneer Valley of Western Massachusetts. The PVPC supports planning efforts in its communities, such as MVP and OSRP production, and provides planning, development, and building standards and ratings.

The PVPC published a document called Valley Vision 4, which outlines some of the smart growth and green infrastructure policies we refer to in this report.

Green [stormwater] infrastructure, sometimes called nature-based stormwater solutions are engineered or natural systems that aim to capture rainfall as near to where it falls as possible. Green infrastructure can include rain

gardens or bioretention basins, vegetated swales, tree filters, permeable pavement, and engineered treatment, filtration, and storage systems. Infiltrating stormwater into the ground recharges groundwater aquifers, where much of our drinking water is stored, and prevents concentrated volumes of surface water from flowing directly into streams and rivers, worsening flooding. When stormwater flows across the ground surface without infiltrating, it’s called runoff.

Different types of surfaces, soils, and slopes have different infiltration capacities, ranging from paved/impervious surfaces (high runoff / no infiltration) to undisturbed forest land with sandy soils (high infiltration / low runoff). When soils are already saturated, however, they cannot infiltrate more water, and additional stormwater will run off – this is often a cause of flooding during sudden, intense rainstorms that dump water faster than soils can absorb it, as opposed to more frequent, lower volume storm events, which can be better absorbed by soils.

Traditional, or “grey” infrastructure, used in developed areas generally consists of catch basins (or storm drains) that connect to pipes, that discharge water to an outfall at a point lower than the drained surfaces, in a place that will keep the development from flooding. Often, these systems discharge directly to rivers or wetlands, although modern design standards no longer allow this practice. The use of gray infrastructure, or piping runoff directly into a river system, increases the flashiness (quickness to flood) of the river, endangering people, property, infrastructure, and ecology/wildlife. One benefit of replacing grey infrastructure with green infrastructure is that by slowing or removing discharge of water to the river system, the river may become slower to flood and less of a threat to surrounding communities and downstream water bodies. Additionally, green infrastructure can include more vegetation in paved areas, providing cooling, improving air quality, taking up excess water, creating habitat for wildlife, and providing a public health and aesthetic amenity.

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 65

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B MAP PROCESS Layers used • MassDEP Hydrography: https://docs.digital.mass.gov/dataset/massgis-data-massdep-hydrography-125000 • MassDEP Wetlands: https://docs.digital.mass.gov/dataset/massgis-data-massdep-wetlands-2005 • Standardized Assessors' Parcels: https://docs.digital.mass.gov/dataset/massgis-data-standardized-assessors-parcels • BioMap2 Core Habitat / Critical Natural Landscape: https://docs.digital.mass.gov/dataset/massgis-data-biomap2 • TNC’s Resilient and Connected Networks: https://easterndivision.s3.amazonaws.com/Terrestrial/E_Resilience_ConnectedLandscapes/Resilient_and_Connected_Landscapes.zip (obtained from http://www.conservationgateway.org/ ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/edc/reportsdata/terrestrial/resilience/Pages/Downloads.aspx) • 2016 Land Cover / Land Use: https://docs.digital.mass.gov/dataset/massgis-data-2016-land-coverland-use • NLCD 2016 Land Cover: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/mrlc/NLCD_2016_Land_Cover_L48_20190424.zip (obtained from https://www.mrlc.gov/data) • FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer: https://docs.digital.mass.gov/dataset/massgis-data-fema-national-flood-hazard-layer • Fire Stations: https://docs.digital.mass.gov/dataset/massgis-data-fire-stations • Police Stations: https://docs.digital.mass.gov/dataset/massgis-data-police-stations • Hospitals: https://docs.digital.mass.gov/dataset/massgis-data-acute-care-hospitals

Layer of all 4 municipalities’ parcels (“all parcels”) 1. Download the spreadsheet of links from Standardized Assessors' Parcels, and download each municipality’s parcel layer.

2. Join each municipality’s layer to the assessor dbf table by LOC_ID and export each one to a new layer.

3. For each layer, Select by Attributes with this clause: "POLY_TYPE" IN ( 'FEE', 'TAX'), and export to a new layer.

4. Merge the 4 new layers into one “all parcels” layer.

Parcels to intersect with FEMA 500-year flood zone Select by Attributes from the “all parcels” layer with this clause: "BLDG_VAL" > 0 AND "USE_CODE" NOT IN ('932').

Vacant city-owned parcels in Springfield Select by Attributes from the “all parcels” layer with this clause: "TOWN_ID" = 281 AND "OWNER1" = 'SPRINGFIELD CITY OF' AND "USE_CODE" NOT IN ('932') AND "BLDG_VAL" = 0.

Heat Vulnerability model 1. Make raster of land cover heating contribution: Reclassify NLCD 2016 Land Cover by Value: i. 21 => 1 ii. 22 => 2 iii. 23 => 3 66

iv. 24 => 4 v. 31 => 1 vi. 81 => 1 vii. 82 => 1 viii. NoData => NoData ix. All other values => 0 2. Make raster of land cover cooling contribution: Reclassify NLCD 2016 Land Cover by Value: i. 11 => 1 ii. 12 => 1 iii. 41 => 4 iv. 42 => 5 v. 43 => 4 vi. 51 => 3 vii. 52 => 3 viii. 71 => 2 ix. 72 => 2 x. 73 => 2 xi. 74 => 2 xii. 81 => 1 xiii. 82 => 1 xiv. 90 => 5 xv. 95 => 5 xvi. NoData => NoData 3. Run Raster Calculator with this expression: "%heating-layer-from-step-1%" - "%cooling-layer-from-step-2%".

4. Run Focal Statistics: i. Neighborhood: Circle ii. Radius: 3 iii. Units: Cell iv. Statistics Type: MEAN

Flood Vulnerability model 1. Make a FEMA flood zones raster: a. Clip FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer to a rectangular Area Of Interest containing the watershed. b. Run “Feature to Raster” i. Field: FLD_ZONE ii. Output Cell Size: 3 c. Reclassify the raster: i. X => 1 ii. AE => 2 iii. A => 2 iv. AREA NOT INCLUDED => 0 v. NoData => 0 2. Make an impervious surface raster: a. Get tile layers R12C08, R12C09, R13C08, R13C09 from 2016 Land Cover / Land Use, combine them into one layer, and run “Feature to Raster” with field COVERCODE. b. Reclassify the raster: i. 2 => 1 ii. all other values => 0 c. Run Focal Statistics with these parameters: i. Neighborhood: Rectangle ii. Height: 20 / Width: 20 iii. Units: Cell THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 67

APPENDIX B

iv. Statistics Type: MEAN 3. Make a critical infrastructure layer: a. Combine Fire Stations, Police Stations, and Hospitals into one layer. b. Clip this layer to a rectangular Area Of Interest containing the watershed. c. Add a 75 meter buffer around the points. d. Run “Feature to Raster”: i. Field: OBJECTID ii. Output Cell Size: 1 e. Reclassify the raster: i. all values => 1 ii. NoData => 0 4. Now take the rasters from the previous steps and run Raster Calculator with this expression: "%layer-from-step-1%" * 0.5 + "%layer-from-step-2%" + "layer-from-step-3%.

Scoring parcels by conservation priority 1. Start with the “all parcels” layer described above.

2. Mark parcels which intersect with a water body: a. “Select Layer By Location” with MassDEP Wetlands layer’s WETLANDSDEP_POLY data. b. For selected parcels, set new is_wetland column on the “all parcels” layer to 1.

3. Mark parcels near a water body: a. “Select Layer By Location” with MassDEP Wetlands layer’s WETLANDSDEP_POLY data (Search Distance = 200 meters). b. For selected parcels, set new nr_wetland column on the “all parcels” layer to 1.

4. Mark parcels which intersect with a stream: a. Extract perennial and intermittent streams from MassDEP Hydrography layer’s HYDRO25K_ARC data. b. “Select Layer By Location” with the new streams layer. c. For selected parcels, set new is_stream column on the “all parcels” layer to 1.

5. Mark parcels which intersect with a BioMap2 Core Habitat: a. “Select Layer By Location” with BioMap2 Core Habitat. b. For selected parcels, set new is_bm2_cr column on the “all parcels” layer to 1.

6. Mark parcels which intersect with a BioMap2 Critical Natural Landscape: a. “Select Layer By Location” with BioMap2 Critical Natural Landscape. b. For selected parcels, set new is_bm2_cl column on the “all parcels” layer to 1.

7. Mark parcels which intersect with TNC’s Resilient and Connected Networks: a. Clip TNC’s Resilient and Connected Networks raster to a rectangular Area Of Interest containing the watershed. b. Reclassify raster by “Value” field: i. 0 => NoData ii. 2 => 1 iii. 3 => 2 iv. 4 => 3 v. 12 => 4 vi. 33 => 5 vii. NoData => NoData c. Use the “Raster to Polygon” operation to convert the raster into a shape file. d. “Select Layer By Location” with new shape file. e. For selected parcels, set new is_tnc column on the “all parcels” layer to 1.

8. Clear Selected Features.

9. Set new score field in “all parcels” layer to [is_wetland] * 5 + [nr_wetland] * 4 + [is_stream] * 3 + [is_bm2_cr] * 3 + [is_bm2_cl] * 2 + [is_tnc] * 2.

68

APPENDIX C TREE PLANTING CONSIDERATIONS Although trees—in general—improve air quality, it’s worth considering Springfield’s high asthma and allergy rates when choosing which tree species to plant, as trees vary in their potential for ozone formation and allergic reactions. Trees produce volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) which can lead to the formation of ozone (O3) and carbon monoxide, two air pollutants (Nowak 2). The ability of a tree to form ozone is sometimes referred to as ozone-forming potential (OFP) in the scientific literature. As mentioned previously, trees absorb ozone through their leaves, so if the amount of absorbed ozone exceeds the amount formed because of the tree's VOC emissions, then the net ozone effect of the tree is positive. A 2013 review paper concluded that "realistic estimations of ‘losses’ and ‘gains’ of O3 due to urban vegetation are challenging. It is however quite likely that in climatic conditions that do not limit plant physiology and productivity, O3 uptake dominates over O3 potentially formed (Calfapietra 78)" from VOC's. Nevertheless, tree species vary widely in how much VOC’s they emit, so it may be wise to consider planting trees expected to produce low VOC’s and avoid those that produce high VOC’s (Gartland 115-116). For example, black gum (Nyssa spp.), sycamore (Platanus spp.), poplar (Populus spp.), oak (Quercus spp.), black locust (Robinia spp.), and willow (Salix spp.) are all genera with high VOC emission rates (Nowak 2). The i-Tree Eco model from the U.S. Forest Service may be a useful tool to assess potential tree species, because it models both pollution reduction and trees' production of VOC's (i-Tree Eco: Application Overview).

Another consideration when choosing which trees to plant is their potential for causing allergic reactions. A 2018 report rated Springfield seventh in the U.S. for high pollen counts (Asthma Capitals 2018, 21)—a risk factor for asthma—and climate change is predicted to lengthen and intensify pollen seasons in parts of the U.S. (Dupigny-Giroux et al. 700) This appears to already be happening (Reardon). These facts make it particularly important to consider trees’ allergenic potential when planting trees.

Tree species come in two varieties: monoecious (same-sexed) and dioecious (separate-sexed). Monoecious species have male and female parts on the same tree. Dioecious trees, on the other hand, have either male or female parts on any given tree, but not both. Only male parts produce allergenic pollen, so planting more female dioecious trees and fewer monoecious and male dioecious trees is likely to cause fewer allergic reactions. Contemporary landscapers and arborists often favor male trees because they don't produce seeds, seed pods, or fruit (Ogren). In addition, different tree species have different allergy-causing potential. Thomas Omgren—in The Allergy-Fighting Garden—has created an allergy index named OPALS which takes into account various factors and rates many trees and other plants on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most allergenic. Consulting this index might help those planting trees in the Mill River watershed select trees less likely to cause allergic reactions. Finally, being repeatedly exposed to the same kinds of pollen increases the likelihood that people will develop allergies, so increasing the diversity of tree species in the urban canopy may reduce the risk of allergic reactions (Ogren).

A thorough inventory of Springfield’s urban forest might help elucidate its potential contribution to residents’ high incidence of allergies and asthma.

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 69

APPENDIX C

The website of the state-funded Greening the Gateway Cities program in Springfield provides fact sheets for some of the trees it provides. For reference, the table above provides the OPALS Ranking for each of these trees, taken from Thomas Omgren’s The Allergy-Fighting Garden. Some are low-allergy and some are high-allergy.

70

APPENDIX D i-TREE MODELING To model benefits of existing tree canopy: 1. Go to i-Tree Landscape - https://landscape.itreetools.org/.

2. i-Tree Landscape doesn’t appear to allow uploading a polygon, so instead choose 11 block groups whose total area approximates the proposed expansion zone.

3. Click “See Tree Benefits” tab.

To model additional benefits to tree canopy of planting 10 trees per acre across proposed expansion zone: 1. Go to i-Tree Planting Calculator - https://planting.itreetools.org/.

2. Use these parameters: a. Location: Springfield, Massachusetts b. Years for the Project = 10 c. Tree Mortality over Project Lifetime = 0 (best case scenario; adjust to make it more realistic) d. Trees: i. Maple, Sugar ii. Elm, American iii. Gingko iv. Oak, English e. Parameters for every tree: i. DBH: 3 ii. Dist. to Nearest (building) in feet: 20-39 iii. Tree is ___ of Building: South (180) iv. Vintage: Built before 1950 v. Climate Controls: Heat & A/C vi. Condition: Excellent vii. Exposure to Sunlight: Full Sun viii. Number of Trees: 1575 (note: 1575 * 4 = 6,300, i.e. 10 trees per acre across 630-acre zone)

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 71

REFERENCES

WORKS CITED Adger, W. Neil. “Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change.” Economic Geography 79, no. 4 (2003): 387–404. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2003.tb00220.x.

“Air Pollution.” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/air-pollution/index.cfm. Accessed 27 Mar. 2020.

“American FactFinder.” American FactFinder, https://factfinder.census.gov/. Accessed 30 Mar. 2020.

Aram, Farshid, Ester Higueras García, Ebrahim Solgi, and Soran Mansournia. “Urban Green Space Cooling Effect in Cities.” Heliyon 5, no. 4 (April 8, 2019). https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01339.

Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. Springfield, Massachusetts: Why It’s the #1 Asthma Capital. 15 May 2019, https://community.aafa.org/blog/springfieldmassachusetts-why-it-s-the-1-asthma-capital. Baltimore Green Space. https://baltimoregreenspace.org/. Accessed 7 Apr. 2020.

Asthma Capitals 2018. Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, 2018, https://www.aafa.org/media/2119/aafa-2018-asthma-capitals-report.pdf.

Beheim, Einar, Govind S. Rajwar, Martin J. Haigh, and Josef Krecek. “Integrated Water Management Perspectives and Problems.” Springer, 2010. https://link-springer-com.silk.library.umass.edu/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-90-481-3769-5.pdf.

Berkes, Fikret, Carl Folke, and Johan Colding. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Bloniarz, David V. Conversation, March 30, 2020.

Boston Real Estate Times. “Springfield to Receive $17 Million Funding to Support Urban Watershed Resilience Zone.” Boston Real Estate Times (blog), January 26, 2016. https://bostonrealestatetimes.com/springfield-to-receive-17-million-funding-to-support-urban-watershed-resilience-zone/.

Branas, Charles C., Rose A. Cheney, John M. MacDonald, Vicky W. Tam, Tara D. Jackson, and Thomas R. Ten Have. “A Difference-in-Differences Analysis of Health, Safety, and Greening Vacant Urban Space.” American Journal of Epidemiology 174, no. 11 (December 1, 2011): 1296–1306. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/ kwr273.

Bruggers, James. “FEMA Flood Maps Ignore Climate Change, and Homeowners Are Paying the Price.” InsideClimate News, 1 Nov. 2018, https://insideclimatenews. org/news/01112018/fema-flood-map-climate-change-hurricane-mexico-beach-florida-sea-level-rise.

Calfapietra, Carlo, et al. “Role of Biogenic Volatile Organic Compounds (BVOC) Emitted by Urban Trees on Ozone Concentration in Cities: A Review.” Environmental Pollution, vol. 183, Dec. 2013, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749113001310#!

“Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands | MN Board of Water, Soil Resources.” Accessed March 30, 2020. https://bwsr.state.mn.us/carbon-sequestration-wetlands.

Chaffee, Kevin, Corrin Meise-Munns, Patty Gambarini, Scott Hanson, David V. Bloniarz, and Joseph Pellegrino. Stakeholder Meeting, March 11, 2020.

City of Springfield Office of Community Development, and Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. “Strong, Healthy & Just: Springfield’s Climate Action & Resilience Plan,” June 2017. http://www.pvpc.org/sites/default/files/SHJ_REPORT_FINAL_REV_2017.pdf.

Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative, ParkWorks, Neighborhood Progress, Inc, and Cleveland City Planning Commission. “Re-Imagining a [Greater] Cleveland: Action Plan for Vacant Land Reclamation,” August 2011. http://www.cudc.kent.edu/projects_research/research/reimag_actionplan_final_sm.pdf.

Collins, Matthew, Reto Knutti, Julie Arblaster, Jean-Louis Dufresne, Thierry Fichefet, Xuejie Gao, William J Gutowski Jr, et al. “Long-Term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility,” n.d., 108.

“CSOs and Stormwater.” Springfield Water and Sewer, http://waterandsewer.org/education-and-community/csos/. Accessed 30 Mar. 2020.

Davoudi, Simin, Keith Shaw, L. Jamila Haider, Allyson E. Quinlan, Garry D. Peterson, Cathy Wilkinson, Hartmut Fünfgeld, Darryn McEvoy, Libby Porter, and Simin Davoudi. “Resilience: A Bridging Concept or a Dead End? ‘Reframing’ Resilience: Challenges for Planning Theory and Practice Interacting Traps: Resilience Assessment of a Pasture Management System in Northern Afghanistan Urban Resilience: What Does It Mean in Planning Practice? Resilience as a Useful Concept for Climate Change Adaptation? The Politics of Resilience for Planning: A Cautionary Note.” Planning Theory & Practice 13, no. 2 (June 1, 2012): 299–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.677124.

Dupigny-Giroux, L.A., E.L. Mecray, M.D. Lemcke-Stampone, G.A. Hodgkins, E.E. Lentz, K.E. Mills, E.D. Lane, R. Miller, D.Y. Hollinger, W.D. Solecki, G.A. Wellenius, P.E. Sheffield, A.B. MacDonald, and C. Caldwell, 2018: Northeast. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 669–742. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH18 East Longmeadow Hazard Mitigation Plan. Town of East Longmeadow, 2016.

EPA. “Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters,” 2008. http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/watershed_handbook.

———. “Reclaiming the Mystic River Watershed - Together,” n.d. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/uwfpmysticriverbackgrounder.pdf.

FEMA. “Hazard Mitigation Planning.” Hazard Mitigation Planning, March 22, 2020. https://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-planning.

Folke, Carl, Stephen Carpenter, Brian Walker, Marten Scheffer, Terry Chapin, and Johan Rockström. “Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability.” Ecology and Society 15, no. 4 (November 15, 2010). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03610-150420.

72

Freshwater Society, and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization. “Urban Agriculture as a Green Stormwater Management Strategy,” February 2013. https:// www.arboretum.umn.edu/UserFiles/File/2012%20Clean%20Water%20Summit/Freshwater%20Urban%20Ag%20White%20Paper%20Final.pdf.

Gartland, Lisa. Heat Islands. 2008.

Garvey, Liam. Greening the Gateway Cities Program (GGCP) Residential Survey. Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, 2018.

GGCP Springfield: Trees We Offer. https://www.springfield-ma.gov/park/index.php?id=321. Accessed 30 Mar. 2020.

Gittleman, Mara, Carson J. Q. Farmer, Peleg Kremer, and Timon McPhearson. “Estimating Stormwater Runoff for Community Gardens in New York City.” Urban Ecosystems 20, no. 1 (February 2017): 129–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-016-0575-8.

Golden Jr., Thomas A. An Act Relative to GreenWorks, Pub. L. No. 3846 (2019). file:///C:/Users/dmf14/Downloads/H3846.pdf.

Gray, Coralie M. Wilbraham. Arcadia Publishing, 1996.

Haigh, Martin J. “Sustainable Management of Headwater Resources,” 2010.

Hampden Hazard Mitigation Plan. Town of Hampden, 2016.

Hampden Open Space and Recreation Plan. Town of Hampden, 2017.

Heckert, Megan, and Jeremy Mennis. “The Economic Impact of Greening Urban Vacant Land: A Spatial Difference-In-Differences Analysis.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 44, no. 12 (December 2012): 3010–27. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4595.

Hester, Jessica Leigh. “Detroit Is Turning Vacant Lots Into Sponges for Stormwater.” CityLab, June 24, 2016. http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2016/06/detroit-vacant-lots-gardens-stormwater/488342/.

Holling, Crawford S. “Engineering Resilience versus Ecological Resilience,” 1996, 13. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4, no. 1 (November 1973): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245.

IPCC, David. “2014: Summary for Policymakers,” n.d., 34.

“I-Tree Eco: Application Overview.” ITree, https://www.itreetools.org/tools/i-tree-eco/i-tree-eco-overview. Accessed 30 Mar. 2020.

Kent, Elizabeth. Conversation, March 11, 2020.

Lannan, Katie. “Mass. House Votes To Commit State To Goals Of Paris Climate Accord.” State House News Service, November 2017. https://www.wbur.org/ news/2017/11/02/house-votes-climate-change-accord.

Larson, Courtney L., Sarah E. Reed, Adina M. Merenlender, and Kevin R. Crooks. “Effects of Recreation on Animals Revealed as Widespread through a Global Systematic Review.” PLOS ONE 11, no. 12 (December 8, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167259.

Lederman, Jesse. “Springfield, Massachusetts: Why It’s the #1 Asthma Capital.” Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (blog), n.d.

Lonczak, Quinn T. Interview with Quinn Lonczak, Project Supervisor at the City of Chicopee’s Water Pollution Control Department. Mar. 2018.

The Planning Report. “Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust Goals: Creating Urban Gardens and Pocket Parks,” February 7, 2011. https://www.planningreport. com/2011/02/07/los-angeles-neighborhood-land-trust-goals-creating-urban-gardens-and-pocket-parks.

Maantay, Juliana A., and Andrew R. Maroko. “Brownfields to Greenfields: Environmental Justice Versus Environmental Gentrification.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, no. 10 (October 2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102233.

Mahanta, Niva Rana, and Banafsha Rajput. “Landscape Interventions for Resilience and Sustainability in Urban Wetland Parks: A Review.” In 2019 Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International Conferences (ASET), 1–6, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASET.2019.8714401.

Massachusetts Dept of Public Works. An Aerial Photograph of Interstate 91’s Springfield, Massachusetts Viaduct, Shortly Prior to the Completion of the Highway in Massachusetts. 1970. Photograph. Semiannual report to Governor Francis W. Sargent on the highway program : July 1-December 31, 1969. https:// commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:I-91_Springfield_viaduct_meets_completion,_Massachusetts_Dept_of_Public_Works.jpg.

Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. “Climate Change Clearinghouse for the Commonwealth.” resilient MA, 2017. http://resilientma.org/.

“Massachusetts Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.” Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, 2017. https://www.mass.gov/doc/ scorp-2017/download.

Massachusetts Stormwater Utilities v. 2. Massachusetts Rivers Alliance, Apr. 2016, http://massriversalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/MassStormwaterUtilities-FeesApril201604-16.pdf.

Mass Audubon “Losing Ground: Planning for Resilience (Patterns of Development and Their Impact on the Nature of Massachusetts).” Mass Audubon, June 2014.

Mayrides, Mo, et al. Ethnic Disparities in the Burden and Treatment of Asthma. Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America and National Pharmaceutical Council, Jan. 2005, https://www.aafa.org/media/1633/ethnic-disparities-burden-treatment-asthma-report.pdf.

Moore, Robert. “Seeking Higher Ground: Climate Smart Solutions to Flooding.” Natural Resources Defense Council, July 2017. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/ files/climate-smart-flood-insurance-ib.pdf.

Mass.gov. “Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) Program.” Accessed March 17, 2020. https://www.mass.gov/municipal-vulnerability-preparedness-mvp-program.

“Mystic River Watershed Initiative: Working Together to Improve Water Quality, Public Access and Recreation throughout the Watershed.,” n.d., 8.

National Park Service. “History & Culture.” Springfield Armory National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service), February 26, 2015. https://www.nps.gov/spar/ learn/historyculture/index.htm.

New York City Soil & Water Conservation District. “Greening Vacant Lots: Planning and Implementation Strategies.” NatLab, December 2012. https://www.nrdc.org/ THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 73

REFERENCES

sites/default/files/wat_13022701a.pdf.

Nowak, David. The Effects of Urban Trees on Air Quality. USDA Forest Service, 2002, https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/units/urban/local-resources/downloads/Tree_Air_ Qual.pdf.

Norman, Richard. “Our Plural History, Springfield, MA,” 2009. http://ourpluralhistory.stcc.edu/firstpeoples/overview.html.

O’Connor, Robert. Conversation. 30 Mar. 2020.

Ogren, Thomas Leo. “Allergy-Free New York.” New York Times, 6 Apr. 2010, https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/opinion/06ogren.html.

---. The Allergy-Fighting Garden. Ten Speed Press, 2015.

Patrick, Deval, Ian Bowles, and Bob O’Connor. “Open Space and Recreation Plan Requirements,” n.d., 11.

Pendall, Rolf, Kathryn Foster, and Margaret Cowell. “Resilience and Regions: Building Understanding of the Metaphor.” Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 3 (March 10, 2009): 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsp028.

Powers, David M. “Historical Journal of Massachusetts.” Historical Journal of Massachusetts 45, no. 2 (Summer 2017): 144–67.

“Rehabilitation of High Hazard Potential Dam Grant Program | FEMA.Gov.” Accessed March 25, 2020. https://www.fema.gov/rehabilitation-high-hazard-potential-dam-grant-program.

Reardon, Kelly. “Here’s Why Pollen Season Lasts Longer in Springfield.” 22News WWLP.Com, 1 Apr. 2019, https://www.wwlp.com/weather/weather-news/heres-whypollen-season-lasts-longer-in-springfield/.

“Resilient Lands Initiative Virtual Meeting.” Accessed March 24, 2020. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/bob/FMfcgxwHMPqxjcKvMHXtNVzCwcqPxVKr?projector=1&messagePartId=0.2.

Sellberg, My, P Ryan, Sara Borgström, A Norström, and Garry Peterson. “From Resilience Thinking to Resilience Planning: Lessons from Practice.” Journal of Environmental Management 217 (April 14, 2018): 906–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.012.

Shokry, Galia, James JT Connolly, and Isabelle Anguelovski. “Understanding Climate Gentrification and Shifting Landscapes of Protection and Vulnerability in Green Resilient Philadelphia.” Urban Climate 31 (March 1, 2020): 100539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2019.100539.

“Springfield Community Resilience Building Workshops: Summary of Findings.” Municipal Vulnerability Plan. PVPC, US Dept of Housing and Urban Development, City of Springfield, May 2018. http://www.pvpc.org/sites/default/files/doc-municipal-vulnerability-preparedness3349.pdf.

Springfield Hazard Mitigation Plan. City of Springfield, 2016.

Springfield Open Space and Recreation Plan. City of Springfield, 2015.

“Sustainable Land Management,” n.d., 2.

Taylor, Audrey R., and Richard L. Knight. “Wildlife Responses to Recreation and Associated Visitor Perceptions.” Ecological Applications 13, no. 4 (2003): 951–63. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2003)13[951:WRTRAA]2.0.CO;2.

The Greater Worcester Land Trust | Preserving & Protecting Worcester’s Critical Open Spaces. http://www.gwlt.org/. Accessed 7 Apr. 2020.

The Nature Conservancy. “Lands of Opportunity: Unleashing the Full Potential of Natural Climate Solutions,” November 2017.

The Springfield Planning Board. “Open Space and Recreation Plan 2015-2022 The City of Springfield Massachusetts,” n.d.

Thomas, Richard, Mark Reed, Kathyrn Clifton, Nathan Appadurai, Anthony Mills, Claudio Zucca, Elie Kodsi, et al. “A Framework for Scaling Sustainable Land Management Options.” Land Degradation & Development 29, no. 10 (2018): 3272–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3080.

Town of Wilbraham. “History of Wilbraham | Wilbraham, MA - Official Website.” Accessed March 16, 2020. https://www.wilbraham-ma.gov/217/History-of-Wilbraham.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “City of Springfield Exhibit A: Executive Summary.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d. Accessed March 15, 2020.

Verel, Amy C. “Reclaiming the Miracle Mile: A Greenway Park Design & Land Use Strategy for Springfields’s Lower Mill River.” University of Massachusets, n.d.

2020 “Watershed-Based Plan Information,” March 2020. https://www.mass.gov/guides/watershed-based-plan-information.

Wormser, Julie. Conversation, March 27, 2020.

Wilbraham Hazard Mitigation Plan. Town of Wilbraham, 2015.

Wilbraham Looks Forward. Town of Wilbraham, Sept. 2013, https://www.wilbraham-ma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/768.

Wilbraham Open Space and Recreation Plan. Town of Wilbraham, 2014.

74

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 75

REFERENCES

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Adamski, Tracy J. East Longmeadow Stormwater Program. https://www.eastlongmeadowma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8315/East-Longmeadow-MS4-Program-Presentation. Town Council Meeting.

Bentrup, Gary. “Evaluation of a Collaborative Model: A Case Study Analysis of Watershed Planning in TheIntermountain West.” Environmental Management, vol. 27, no. 5, May 2001, pp. 739–48. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1007/s002670010184.

Bird, Caroline. Baltimore Green Space—Pigtown Horseshoe Pit (Source: Baltimore Green Space Website). p. 29.

Brawders, Constance. Master Plan 2020 East Longmeadow, Massachusetts. 2020, p. 19.

Brown, Robert D., et al. “Designing Urban Parks That Ameliorate the Effects of Climate Change.” Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 138, June 2015, pp. 118–31.

DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.006.

“Brownfields Cleanup.” Mass.Gov. www.mass.gov, https://www.mass.gov/brownfields-cleanup. Accessed 26 Mar. 2020.

CAPS_IEI_SPRINGFIELD.Pdf. Chow, Winston T. L., et al. “Observing and Modeling the Nocturnal Park Cool Island of an Arid City: Horizontal and Vertical Impacts.” Theoretical and Applied Climatology, vol. 103 (1), 2010, pp. 197–211.

“City Farms on CLTs.” LILP. www.lincolninst.edu, https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/city-farms-clts. Accessed 4 Mar. 2020.

City of Springfield Office of Community Development. Strong, Healthy & Just: Springfield’s Climate Action & Resilience Plan. June 2017, http://www.pvpc.org/sites/ default/files/SHJ_REPORT_FINAL_REV_2017.pdf.

Conservation Assessment and Prioritization System. http://www.umasscaps.org/data_maps/massdep-maps.html. Accessed 25 Jan. 2020.

Data & Tools – Connect the Connecticut. http://connecttheconnecticut.org/data-tools/. Accessed 25 Jan. 2020.

Davies, John-Mark, and Asit Mazumder. “Health and Environmental Policy Issues in Canada: The Role of Watershed Management in Sustaining Clean Drinking Water Quality at Surface Sources.” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 68, 2003.

DePalo, Eric, and Breyonne Golding. Greening the X: A Vision for Green Streets in Springfield, MA. The Conway School, Winter 2016, https://csld.edu/project/greening-the-x/.

Doherty, Karen, et al. Positively the Pits! Successful Strategies for Sustainable Streetscapes. Notheast Center for Urban and Community Forestry, Nov. 2003, http:// www.umass.edu/urbantree/publications/pits.pdf.

EastLongmeadowMAHazardMitigationPlanUpdate_2016.Pdf. https://www.eastlongmeadowma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8240/EastLongmeadowMAHazardMitigationPlanUpdate_2016. Accessed 19 Mar. 2020.

Final-Stormwater-Bylaw.Pdf. https://www.wilbraham-ma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3193/final-stormwater-bylaw. Accessed 22 Feb. 2020.

Guide to Equitable, Community-Driven Climate Preparedness Planning. May 2017.

Heckert, Megan, and Jeremy Mennis. “The Economic Impact of Greening Urban Vacant Land: A Spatial Difference-In-Differences Analysis.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, vol. 44, no. 12, Dec. 2012, pp. 3010–27. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1068/a4595.

Jansky, Libor, et al. Sustainable Management of Headwater Resources: Research from Africa and India. United Nations University Press, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uma/detail.action?docID=829914.

Kumar and Hundal, “Soil in the City: Sustainably Improving Urban Soils.” ResearchGate, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeq2015.11.0589. Accessed 17 Feb. 2020.

Land Conservation and the Public Trust. http://wholecommunities.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/CWCLandConservation2013.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb. 2020.

“Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust Goals: Creating Urban Gardens and Pocket Parks.” The Planning Report, 7 Feb. 2011, https://www.planningreport. com/2011/02/07/los-angeles-neighborhood-land-trust-goals-creating-urban-gardens-and-pocket-parks.

Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. Massachusetts Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2017. Dec. 2017, p. 67, https://www.mass.gov/doc/scorp-2017/download.

Mass Audubon,“MAPPR Tool 2.0.” https://www.massaudubon.org/our-conservation-work/advocacy/shaping-the-future-of-your-community/current-projects/mappr-project/mappr-tool. Accessed 25 Jan. 2020.

Matteo, Michelle, et al. “Watershed Scale Impacts of Forest Buffers on Water Quality and Runoff in Urbanizing Environment.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, June 2006.

Mayor Sarno Joined with City and Other Officials for an Announcement and Tour of the Watershop Dam. www.springfield-ma.gov, https://www.springfield-ma. gov/cos/index.php?id=news-story&tx_news_pi1%5Bnews%5D=14195&tx_news_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&cHash=bd9878b6f12810eaa32d1306b396740d. Accessed 20 Mar. 2020.

Meise-Munns, Corrin, et al. City of Springfield Green Infrastructure Technical Guidelines. p. 211.

MGM Springfield - Our Vision. https://web.archive.org/web/20120825001237/http://www.mgmspringfield.com/springfield/vision.aspx. Accessed 13 Mar. 2020.

Minnesota Wants to Pay Homeowners to Create Bee-Friendly Lawns. 13 June 2019, https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/585502/minnesota-wants-pay-homeown76

ers-create-bee-friendly-lawns.

Morris, Ashleigh G. “Conservation Easements and Urban Parks: From Private to Public Use.” Natural Resources Journal, vol. 51, p. 29.

“Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness Program.” BETA, https://www.beta-inc.com/mvp/.

“Mystic River Watershed Association | MyRWA | Boston.” Mystic River Watershed Association. mysticriver.org, https://mysticriver.org. Accessed 8 Mar. 2020.

New Haven - Hartford - Springfield Rail Program. https://www.nhhsrail.com/. Accessed 13 Mar. 2020.

Nguyen, Vi D., et al. “Branching out to Residential Lands: Missions and Strategies of Five Tree Distribution Programs in the U.S.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol. 22, Mar. 2017, pp. 24–35. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2017.01.007.

Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. Pioneer Valley Green Infrastructure Plan. Feb. 2014, http://www.pvpc.org/sites/default/files/PVPC%20Green%20Infrastructure%20Plan%20FINAL%2002-18-14.pdf.

---. Understanding Green Infrastructure in Zoning. http://www.pvpc.org/sites/default/files/files/PVPC-Green%20Infrastructure%20and%20Zoning.pdf. Accessed 22 Feb. 2020.

Planning and Land Use | U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit. https://toolkit.climate.gov/topics/built-environment/planning-and-land-use. Accessed 20 Mar. 2020.

Potter, Kenneth W., and Donald K. Frevert. Watershed Management 2010: Innovations in Watershed Management under Land Use and Climate Control. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uma/detail.action?docID=3115476.

Randolf, John. Environmental Planning and Land Use Management. Island Press, 2004.

“New Strategies for America’s Watersheds.” www.nap.edu, doi:10.17226/6020. Accessed 22 Feb. 2020.

Resilience Alliance. Assessing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: Workbook for Practitioners. Version 2.0. 2010, http://www.resalliance.org/3871.php.

Resilient Land Mapping Tool. http://maps.tnc.org/resilientland/. Accessed 25 Jan. 2020.

Sarno, Mayor Domenic J. City of Firsts. www.springfield-ma.gov, https://www.springfield-ma.gov/cos/index.php?id=gtk-firsts. Accessed 12 Mar. 2020.

Slater, Graham. The Cooling Ability of Urban Parks. American Society of Landscape Architects. https://www.asla.org/2010studentawards/169.html.

Accessed 12 Mar. 2020.

Springfield Armory National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service) History & Culture. www.nps.gov, https://www.nps.gov/spar/learn/historyculture/index.htm.

Accessed 12 Mar. 2020.

Sriyana, Igntius, et al. “Watershed Management Index Based on the Village Watershed Model (VWM) Approach towards Sustainability.” International Soil and Water Conservation Research, vol. 8, no. 1, Mar. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2020.01.003.

Stockholm Resilience Centre. Adaptive Governance. 6 Dec. 2010. www.stockholmresilience.org, https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-streames/ stewardship/adaptive-governance-.html.

StormWater-Management-By-Law.Pdf. https://www.eastlongmeadowma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/87/StormWater-Management-By-Law?bidId=.

Accessed 22 Feb. 2020.

The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, and The Springfield Natural Hazards Mitigation Planning Committee. The City of Springfield Local Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. 17 Oct. 2016.

The Wilbraham Hazard Mitigation Planning Workgroup, and The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. The Town of Wibraham Hazard Mitigation Plan. Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency and Massachusetts Department of Conservation Services.

Timpane-Padgham, Britta L., et al. “A Systematic Review of Ecological Attributes That Confer Resilience to Climate Change in Environmental Restoration.” PLOS ONE, vol. 12, no. 3, Mar. 2017, p. e0173812. PLoS Journals, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0173812.

UMass. Overview of CAPS IEI Data. http://www.umasscaps.org/data_maps/maps.html.

Urban Land Institute. Springfield, MA Technical Assistance Panel (TAP). https://www.springfield-ma.gov/planning/fileadmin/Planning_files/1200_Hall_of_Fame_ Building_Plans/Springfield_TAP_Presentation_FINAL_diagrams.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar. 2020.

Urban Research in Springfield - Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service. https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/springfield/about/. Accessed 13 Mar. 2020.

US EPA, OLEM. “Types of Brownfields Grant Funding.” US EPA, 15 July 2014. www.epa.gov, https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/types-brownfields-grant-funding.

US EPA, OW. “2019 Healthy Watersheds Consortium Grant Awards.” US EPA, 30 July 2019, https://www.epa.gov/hwp/2019-healthy-watersheds-consortium-grantawards-0.

US EPA, REG 01. “The Mystic River Watershed Initiative.” US EPA, 8 June 2015. Massachusetts, www.epa.gov, https://www.epa.gov/mysticriver/mystic-river-watershed-initiative.

“U.S. Forest Service Studies Springfield Reforestation Effort.” WAMC, 30 Oct. 2013, https://www.wamc.org/post/us-forest-service-studies-springfield-reforestation-effort.

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 77

REFERENCES

IMAGES Brick Building Stock Photo. Photography. Accessed April 1, 2020. https://www.pexels.com/photo/brick-building-5623/.

Buro Happold. Green Infrastructure. Photograph. Accessed March 30, 2020. https://www.burohappold.com/articles/making-economic-case-green-infrastructure-investment/.

“City of Springfield Urban Watershed Resilience Initiative, NDRC Application.” Accessed March 26, 2020. https://www.dropbox.com/s/e8j0wejvoq7bie8/Resilience%20Zone_Springfield_MA.pdf?dl=0.

Davis, Richie. Quabin Foresters. n.d.

DC Water. Irving Street Green Infrastructure Project. Accessed March 30, 2020. https://www.dcwater.com/projects/irving-street-green-infrastructure-project.

Detroit Publishing Company. Main Street in Springfield, Massachusetts. 1905. Photograph. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Main_Street_-_Springfield,_ Massachusetts.jpg.

Giel, Immanuel. Rasenpflasterstein 1. 2007. Photograph. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rasenpflasterstein_1.jpg.

Landzine. Untitled. n.d.

Johnson, Human Streets; LandLAB, LandLAB Foot Bridge; Planorama Landschaftsarchitektur, Foot Bridge.

Massachusetts Dept of Public Works. An Aerial Photograph of Interstate 91’s Springfield, Massachusetts Viaduct, Shortly Prior to the Completion of the Highway in Massachusetts. 1970. Photograph. Semiannual report to Governor Francis W. Sargent on the highway program : July 1-December 31, 1969. https:// commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:I-91_Springfield_viaduct_meets_completion,_Massachusetts_Dept_of_Public_Works.jpg.

Flickr. “Mystic River in Boston, Chelsea, Medford, Everett, and Somerville, MA,.” Accessed March 30, 2020. https://www.flickr.com/photos/corpsnewengland/7697963394/.

NPS Photo. Springfield Armory’s Experimental Shop in Bldg. 28, ca 1923. circa 1923. Photograph. http://www.nps.gov/spar/learn/historyculture/experimental-rifles-by-john-garand-1919-36.htm. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Springfield_Armory%27s_experimental_shop_in_Bldg._28_,_ca_1923.jpg.

Samantha Durfee. Forest. 2010. Photograph. https://www.flickr.com/photos/74444001@N00/4960313193/.

Seoul’s Cheonggyecheon River. n.d. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Korea-Seoul-Cheonggyecheon-2008-01.jpg.

Sorenson, Loretta. NRCS Helps Union County, SD Farmer Reclaim Land. February 25, 2012. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NRCS_HELPS_UNION_ COUNTY,_SD_FARMER_RECLAIM_LAND_(21899925191).jpg.

SPRI. Untitled. n.d. Photograph. https://www.sprioilgas.com/blog/carbon-sequestration-and-the-oil-and-gas-industry.

Perry, Storm Water Design. https://artfulrainwaterdesign.psu.edu/project/ne-siskiyou-green-street Planorama Landschaftsarchitektur, Foot Bridge. Accessed April 7, 2020. http://landezine.com/index.php/2020/03/landesgartenschau-wassertrudingen-by-planorama-landschaftsarchitektur/ Strating, Megan. Arborist. n.d.

Sustainability, University of Michigan School for Environment and. Bioretention Gardens in Detroit. May 18, 2016. Photo. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ snre/27097633235/.

Unity College. Untitled. n.d. Photograph. https://www.unity.edu/area-of-study/majors/sustainable-business-enterprise/sustainable-agriculture-track/.

Verer, Proposed Land Use in “Reclaiming the Miracle Mile.”

“View of Springfield, Mass. 1875.” Accessed March 23, 2020. https://www.flickr.com/photos/oldeyankee/2665464419/.

WAMC. Untitled. n.d. Photograph.

LandLAB, LandLAB Foot Bridge. Accessed April 7, 2020. http://landezine.com/index.php/2019/11/vaughans-stream-corridor-wetlands-bridge-by-landlab/

78

THINKING LIKE A WATERSHED | 79

Thinking Like A Watershed A Framework for Assessing Climate Change Risks and Vulnerabilities at the Watershed Scale How can human resilience to climate change be measured and improved in each of Massachusetts’ watersheds? This report presents a framework for applying a systems-thinking approach at the watershed scale to identify climate-related threats to human well-being. It presents methods for identifying opportunities to soften these impacts through changing the way that land is used and managed. It offers a collaborative framework through which communities will be able to work together to prioritize areas of intervention, and understand where they can work together to adapt and transform in a rapidly changing world.

Developed within two watersheds in western Massachusetts, this framework is designed to be applicable to watersheds throughout the state.

Prepared in tandem with a report on the Mill River Watershed in Hampshire/Franklin County, by Walker Powell, Marianna Zak-Hill and Amanda Smith

For The Mill River Watershed of Hampden County March 2020

Prepared for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs

By Dana Maple Feeney, Boris Kerzner, Shaine Meulmester The Conway School, Nothampton, MA