A Vision for Pittsfield's Conservation Areas: Linking Landscape & Community by Part and Parcel

A Vision for Pittsfield’s Conservation Areas: Linking Landscape & Community Located at the crossroads of Berkshire County, the City of Pittsfield is defined by an urban center surrounded by a wealth of natural beauty. Pittsfield is currently in the midst of an economic, environmental, and cultural revitalization, and has recognized the need for a conservation area management plan to safeguard its sense of place as a “city in the country.” Focusing on the City’s four largest conservation areas (Barkerville Conservation Area, Brattlebrook Park, David J. Tierney, Sr. Wildlife Refuge, and Wild Acres Conservation Area), A Vision for Pittsfield’s Conservation Areas defines existing assets, identifies community and ecological needs, and develops prioritized recommendations to guide the City’s management of their conservation areas. Integrating community feedback and guidance from the City’s Master Plan, this project presents an inspiring vision for the future of Pittsfield’s open spaces.

The Conway School is the only institution of its kind in North America. Its focus is sustainable landscape planning and design and its graduates are awarded a Master of Science in Ecological Design degree. Each year, through its accredited, ten-month graduate program students from diverse backgrounds are immersed in a range of real-world design projects, ranging from sites to cities to regions. Graduates play significant professional roles in various aspects of landscape planning and design.

Prepared for the City of Pittsfield Conservation Commission Miranda Feldmann & Corrin Meise-Munns The Conway School | Winter 2016

A Vision for Pittsfieldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Conservation Areas: Linking Landscape & Community

Prepared for the City of Pittsfield Conservation Commission Miranda Feldmann & Corrin Meise-Munns The Conway School | Winter 2016

Cover photo credits: Miranda Feldmann (left, center right, right); Jim McGrath (center left)

Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION Project Goals Public Engagement

6 10

CONTEXT The City of Pittsfield in Context

SITE ANALYSIS & SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES Barkerville Conservation Area Brattlebrook Park David J. Tierney, Sr. Wildlife Refuge Wild Acres Conservation Area Summary of Site Analyses OBJECTIVES FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

30 38 44 54 62 64

AFTERWORD

SELECTED REFERENCES

APPENDIX: COMMUNITY SURVEYS

Executive Summary Conservation areas enhance the quality of life within Pittsfield by providing access to a rich and varied network of wild spaces. City officials and community members have worked for decades to preserve natural resources within the city and maintain Pittsfield’s character as “a city in the country.” The Pittsfield Conservation Commission recognizes that preservation of the land is not enough; the City needs a management plan to guide decision making to protect and maintain their wealth of natural resources.

The Conservation Commission hired the Conway School to evaluate existing conditions at the City’s four largest conservation areas: Barkerville Conservation Area, Brattlebrook Park, the David J. Tierney, Sr. Wildlife Refuge, and Wild Acres Conservation Area. They requested objectives to guide management at each site and Pittsfield’s conservation areas as a whole.

The objectives offered in this plan were developed with guidance from the City’s Master Plan, consultation with the Conservation Commission, site analysis of the four parcels, and responses from community outreach. These objectives include recommended strategies for implementation and are meant to aid the Conservation Commission in protecting and maintaining the ecological health of the conservation areas while simultaneously improving the human experience of the sites. Each objective addresses the protection and enhancement of the city’s natural resources, quality of life, economic vigor, or a combination of these three interconnected principles.

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

From January through March of 2016, the project team and the Conservation Commission solicited input from the Pittsfield community regarding their use of and concerns for the conservation areas. Outreach included two community meetings on February 4 and March 1, 2016, interviews with community members and conservation professionals, and two online surveys. This valuable input was an important component of A Vision for Pittsfield’s Conservation Areas. Feedback suggests that community participants want to protect and enhance the ecology and beauty of these natural areas, with a management process that: • improves communication and public awareness, • ensures better enforcement to curb misuse,

• offers more educational opportunities for youth and adults,

• increases recreational opportunities while simultaneously restricting active recreational uses and organized sports, • maintains infrastructure and actively manages natural areas to deter invasive plants and repair ecological damage, and • expands accessibility to allow people with disabilities to use and access some of conservation areas.

The recommendations and strategies presented in this document address these concerns and ideas. In particular, the Conservation Commission will need to develop ways to publicize the conservation areas and balance recreational needs for different user groups.

SITE ANALYSIS

The site analyses explore the natural resources of the four study areas and evaluate their patterns of access, circulation, recreational use, and suitability for agriculture. Ecology Pittsfield’s conservation areas display a diversity of natural communities, including wetlands, deciduous, coniferous, and mixed woodlands, shrublands, and meadows. Hydrological features are a key component to each of the four conservation areas. With the exception of Barkerville Conservation Area, which has over two miles of frontage along the Housatonic River, wetlands comprise at least 40% of each site. Each of the eight Species of Conservation Concern found over the conservation areas of interest rely on aquatic habitat for part or all of their lifecycles, highlighting the importance of maintaining high i

water quality within Pittsfield’s waterbodies. The biggest threat to the ecological integrity of each of these parcels is contamination from historical sources, illegal dumping, or polluted stormwater runoff; ecological degradation caused by visitors’ misuse; and the spread of invasive species.

Access Many abutting neighbors enter the conservation areas from their own backyards. Due to their locations outside of the city center and a lack of available public transportation, access across all four of the parcels is likely limited to neighbors and visitors with access to vehicles. Fourteen percent of Pittsfield’s residents do not own a car, and the nearly 40% defined as environmental justice populations (high minority and low income) are clustered to the northeast or within the urban core. The four conservation areas are located outside of the urban core, suggesting that they are not equally available to all demographics. The conservation areas lack identified addresses and are not consistently marked with signs, further confusing access to the sites.

Suitability for Agriculture Each of the four conservation areas of interest contain soils of farmland importance. Brattlebrook Park and Wild Acres, each with histories of agricultural use and areas in current agricultural production, provide the best opportunities for agricultural use within the City’s conservation areas. Many of the agricultural soils in all four of the parcels currently support woodlands and wetlands, necessitating an environmental assessment of the impacts of disturbing the site for agricultural use. It is likely that the resources required to clear the land or comply with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act negates the potential benefits of agricultural use within these areas at each site.

OBJECTIVES

A Vision for Pittsfield’s Conservation Areas outlines the following objectives for the management of Pittsfield’s conservation areas: • protect, preserve, and maintain the City’s natural resources

• enhance access to the conservation areas for visitors of all demographics and ability levels • increase opportunities for environmental education and community outreach Many residential properties abut the conservation areas, like these homes overlooking Brattlebrook Park. Photo credit: Miranda Feldmann.

Circulation and Recreational Use Visitors to the conservation areas enjoy the sites for the passive recreational opportunities they afford. Common activities include hiking, dog walking, fishing, and nature observation. Active recreation, such as organized sports or the use of motorized vehicles, is discouraged or actively prohibited. The conservation areas risk ecological degradation under existing patterns of circulation and misuse. Wild Acres Conservation Area is the only one of the four parcels to feature official trails. The use of informal paths is widespread throughout the parcels, which can be damaging to each site’s ecological integrity. Although the use of all terrain vehicles (ATVs) is prohibited within the conservation areas, Brattlebrook Park and Barkerville Conservation Area are subject to frequent abuse from ATV operators who leave visible tracks on the properties.

• develop adequate staffing and funding sources for management of conservation areas

• foster communication and address gaps in information

The four conservation areas entice both locals and tourists alike to explore their waterways and natural open spaces. Enhancing access and engaging the community will inspire stewardship of these open spaces into the future.

One of Wild Acres’ biggest attractions is its observation tower, which overlooks the site’s wetlands to the south. Photo credit: Tom Lewis.

Introduction

Project Goals INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT Located in Berkshire County, Pittsfield, Massachusetts has been called “a city in the country” for its combination of urban living and easy access to the rural beauty for which the Berkshires are famous. The city has a wealth of hydrological resources, a rich network of conservation and recreation lands, and diverse examples of regionally uncommon species.

The Pittsfield Conservation Commission has recognized the need for a management plan to guide the maintenance practices and decision making processes for the city’s conservation areas. To lay the groundwork for this project, the Conservation Commission hired the Conway School to develop a visioning plan and evaluate existing conditions within the four largest conservation areas owned by the City. These include Barkerville Conservation Area, Brattlebrook Park, the David J. Tierney, Sr. Wildlife Refuge, and Wild Acres Conservation Area. The project team explored each parcel’s history of use and development, current patterns of circulation and recreational use, ecology, and suitability for agriculture. From these analyses, A Vision for Pittsfield’s Conservation Areas extrapolates

existing trends and identifies strategies for implementing recommended objectives for land management and community engagement which are applicable to all conservation areas in Pittsfield.

A Vision for Pittsfield’s Conservation Areas draws guidance from multiple sources, including requests from the Conservation Commission, the City of Pittsfield Master Plan, and the Pittsfield Open Space and Recreation Plan. Public participants identified areas of opportunity and challenge within specific parcels and across the conservation areas as a whole. A common theme amongst all sources was the belief that conservation areas, when thoughtfully managed, contribute to a city’s protection of natural resources, quality of life, and economic vigor. Without high quality, accessible conservation areas, Pittsfield would not only risk degradation of its natural resources, but it would also risk losing its sense of place as “a city in the country.” These three interconnected principles form this plan’s visioning framework.

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | PROJECT GOALS

VISIONING FRAMEWORK Protection of Natural Resources Conservation areas by their definition are places that protect natural resources. Natural areas offer valuable services such as watershed protection, climate regulation, carbon sequestration, and wildlife habitat. Investment in conservation areas can improve air and water quality within protected areas and within the city at large (Alliance for Community Trees [ACTrees], 2011). Exposing youth to natural spaces can affect who they become in adulthood. In a 2009 study, Strife and Downey found that childhood access and exposure to nature can influence the development of lifelong attitudes and values associated with the natural world. Exposure to green environments when young is linked to enjoyment of outdoor activities in adults. According to a 2004 study by The Outdoor Foundation, 90% of adults who participate in outdoor recreation were introduced to outdoor activities between the ages of 5-18. Additionally, people who pursue careers in protecting the natural world often build on childhood experiences of “free play in nature” and a fascination with nature exploration (Chawla, 2006).

Quality of Life One measure of quality of life is access to conservation areas, which is beneficial for both individuals and the community at large. Conservation areas offer a variety of recreational opportunities, physical activity and social engagement. Just as nutrition plays a critical role in a human diet, researchers refer to nature’s role as an essential component of a healthy life as “Vitamin G” (Kuo, 2010). Physical benefits of exposure to green environments include faster recovery from illness, improved attention span, and an improved ability to cope with pain. Both adults and children who live close to parks or green spaces consistently have higher rates of physical activity than those who do not; they also report lower levels of stress (Urban Land Institute, 2013) and are less likely to be overweight or obese (Blanck, et. al, 2012). Trees filter airborne pollutants and improve air quality, reducing incidents of asthma and other respiratory issues (ACTrees, 2016). For aging populations, access to green, walkable places is linked with an ability to maintain independent living skills for a longer time and with overall longevity (Kuo, 2010).

In addition to the health benefits, a growing body of research indicates that access to green environments, like parks and natural open spaces, improves mental health and social interactions. Parks and open spaces help combat

depression, and make people more resilient to withstand and recover from stressors or losses (Kuo, 2010). Access to nature is linked with improved feelings of self-worth (Blanck, et. al, 2012) and decreases in aggression (Kuo, 2010). On the community level, greener neighborhoods report healthier social engagement through higher levels of mutual trust (Kuo, 2010) and a reduction in crime rates and domestic violence (ACTrees, 2011). The health and social benefits of access to green spaces are immediate and long-term (Stromberg, 2014). Investment in parks and conservation areas can build a more supportive community. To foster a healthy community it is important to provide opportunities to easily access natural areas, especially for youth, elderly and disenfranchised groups (Kuo, 2010). Economy Health benefits from cleaner air reduces the health care costs associated with asthma and respiratory illnesses, and increased physical activity through access to parks and open spaces reduces costs associated with obesity (Trust for Public Land, 2013). Trees can reduce up to 60% of road maintenance costs over 30 years, when planted to shade road surfaces. (ACTrees, 2011). In addition, trees have been shown to increase property values. Natural areas reduce stormwater runoff, which relieves pressure on stormwater systems and in turn reduces costs associated with flood control and property damage. Conserving land within floodplains can negate future costs by preventing development in areas prone to flooding. Setting aside land for conservation reduces the municipal demands required for that area, translating to decreased public services costs and maintenance of infrastructure. Ultimately, acquisition of conservation land is frequently less costly than allowing development.

The Trust for Public Land (2012) provides specific calculated values of goods and services by type of land cover (Figure 1 on page 8). Wetlands have the highest value, calculated at $2,570 per acre each year. Deciduous, evergreen and mixed forests have a calculated value of over $1,000 per acre per year. For every $1 invested in conservation land in Massachusetts, there was a $4 return in economic value in terms of ecosystem services. Conservation lands also have economic value for recreation, agriculture and tourist spending in the local community.

PROJECT GOALS | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Land Cover

Ecosystem Services

Deciduous forest

Stormwater management; water quality protection; carbon storage; carbon sequestration; air pollution removal; and soil retention

$1,220

Evergreen forest

Stormwater management; water quality protection; carbon storage; carbon sequestration; air pollution removal; and soil retention

$1,180

Mixed forest

Stormwater management; water quality protection; carbon storage; carbon sequestration; air pollution removal; and soil retention

$1,200

Woody wetland

All

$2,570

Cultivated crops

Agricultural good; pollination; carbon sequestration; and erosion control

$167

Air pollution removal; carbon storage; sequestration; and stormwater management

$464

Open space (e.g., parks) Emergent herbaceous wetland

All

$2,570

Open water

All

$239

Shrub/scrub

Stormwater management; water quality protection; carbon storage; carbon sequestration; air pollution removal; and wildlife habitat

$434

Grassland

Pollination, wildlife habitat; carbon sequestration; erosion control; and nitrous oxide reduction

* Value is reported in 2013 dollars. Table modified from “The Return of Investment in Parks and Open Space in Massachusetts,” by the Trust for Public Land, 2013, p47.

Figure 1: Estimated annual value per acre by land cover type.

Annual Value per Acre*

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | PROJECT GOALS

$31

Summary Conservation management is inextricably linked to quality of life, preservation of natural resources, and economic value. An economically viable community realizes its fiscal health is linked with its engagement with community and investment in the needs prioritized by the community. Pittsfield wants to be a community that is amenity rich with diverse recreational and outdoor opportunities that appeal to existing residents and attract new people, businesses and visitors. Preserving land is one way for this “city in the country” to reach those goals.

BUILDING ON THE CITY OF PITTSFIELD’S MASTER PLAN AND OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN In order to succeed in a city with limited staffing and budgetary resources, a plan for the City of Pittsfield’s conservation areas must align itself with the City’s established goals and vision for the future. This plan builds upon the emphasis that the City of Pittsfield’s Master Plan (2009) and its 2008 Open Space and Recreation Plan (OSRP) place on open space and conservation areas as building blocks for the quality of life and economic vibrancy the City is working to achieve. The City understands that successful communities can no longer rely exclusively on incentives for businesses; they must strive to create the kind of place that attracts a diversity of talents, drawing in new entrepreneurs while also supporting existing communities. Along with historic and urban character, natural resources are one of the city’s major assets with the power “...to attract the ‘creative class’ of people that will drive the economy in the decades ahead” (City of Pittsfield, 2009, p. 3). The City of Pittsfield established the following goals for its natural resources:

• To protect, preserve, and maintain the city’s natural resources and ensure adequate funding for open space and park planning • To provide opportunities for recreation and accessibility to open space and conservation areas for all citizens • To continue strategic development within the city while protecting large open spaces and avoid the fragmentation of Pittsfield’s natural resources and habitat (Master Plan, p. 9)

Summary Pittsfield understands the value of conservation areas to achieve the goals and vision for the future as outlined in the City’s Master Plan and OSRP. The objectives presented in this plan can be used to further the City’s mission to protect, preserve, and expand natural resources, enhance opportunities for access to open space for all citizens, reduce fragmentation of habitat, and source opportunities for potential funding, resources and partnerships for successful implementation of the strategies.

CLIENT PARAMETERS The Conservation Commission identified several parameters for the project, including to:

• Maintain and enhance the ecological diversity of the conservation areas.

• Honor restrictions outlined in the parcel deeds and meet accessibility requirements as mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

• Demonstrate ecologically sound management practices to residents and businesses. • Explore the agricultural value of the four conservation areas. • Encourage outdoor activity for its health benefits.

• Capitalize on the wealth of open spaces and the city’s location in the Berkshires to attract more people to use the conservation lands. • Identify low cost, high impact steps for immediate improvement.

Summary The Conservation Commission’s requests indicate a desire for strategic conservation management that contributes to the city’s quality of life and the protection and enhancement of natural resources in an economically viable manner. The Conservation Commission believes that conservation areas enhance the city’s character as a “city in the country,” and this project refines the Conservation Commission’s broad goals into specific and achievable action steps.

PROJECT GOALS | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Public Engagement

Meeting participants identify the key site features and assets at Brattlebrook (left) and Tierney (right) at the community meeting on February 4, 2016. Photo credit: Eric DePalo

Introduction In order to understand Pittsfield’s residents’ use of and vision for the four study parcels, the Conservation Commission hosted two community meetings which were facilitated by the Conway School team. Specific goals for the meetings included to explore what activities are currently taking place at each parcel; identify potential conflicts of use; and determine if the community differentiated conservation areas from other types of open space. To encourage responses from those who could not attend either community meeting, the Conservation Commission made two digital surveys available online.

Methods and Timeline The public outreach process for this plan ran from January through March of 2016. The Conservation Commission invited members of the public to attend a community visioning session on February 4, 2016. Twenty-seven community members attended this meeting, which was hosted by Robert Van Der Kar, Conservation Agent, and Jim McGrath, the City’s Park, Open Space, and Natural Resources Program Manager. At this meeting, attendees learned of the project and its timeline. Participants discussed differences between “passive” and “active” recreational use and what uses they considered appropriate at conservation areas in general. They identified potential and existing user groups of each of the four parcels.

During a second community meeting on March 1, 2016, the Conway School team presented project progress and initial broad recommendations for comment. This meeting was 10

attended by 25 community members, in addition to Robert Van Der Kar and Jim McGrath. The final portion of the meeting was open to comments from the community.

The Conservation Commission created two brief digital surveys to collect input regarding the community’s use of the four conservation parcels under study. The Commission posted one seven-question survey at the entrance to each of the four parcels with a scannable quick response (QR) code. The QR code survey was available from January 18, 2016 to March 14, 2016 and received 15 responses. The Conservation Commission also disseminated a nine-question survey to Pittsfield residents, visitors, and stakeholders on January 26, 2016. The Commission provided a link to the survey and promoted the meetings via a Facebook event, the City news email subscription blast, email notification to the Pittsfield Conservation Commission and Pittsfield Parks Commission, and a press release from the Mayor’s office to all media contacts. Local news outlets Berkshire Eagle and iBerkshire.com also provided a link to the survey from their news coverage of the project. This survey was available from January 26, 2016 to March 14, 2016. The nine-question survey was completed in full by 45 respondents, and an additional 8 people responded to selected questions. The full text of each questionnaire is included in “Community Surveys” on page 80. Lastly, the project team conducted in-person, email, and phone interviews with various stakeholders from the community, relevant local experts, and state agencies including the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

Drawing from the compiled community input, the Conway selected the option “I didn’t even know this existed” for at project team cataloged current patterns of use, community- least one of the four conservation areas. Two respondents identified opportunities for improvement regarding were unfamiliar with all four conservation areas. maintenance, ease of access, and accepted uses at each of the four The public responses reveal a need CONSERVATION AREAS OR PARKS? conservation areas. to raise the profile of these areas.

COMMUNITY RESPONSES

Conservation Area Uses Pittsfield conservation areas are designated for passive recreational use. Although “passive” recreation is not explicitly defined, interviews with the Conservation Commission agent and a survey of established conservation area rules suggest it includes self-generated activities such as wildlife observation or hiking and precludes the use of motorized vehicles, such as all terrain vehicles (ATVs) or motorbikes. In the community meeting on February 4, 2016, participants were asked to define what they considered to be appropriate uses of a conservation area. The community agreed that conservation areas were for “more passive than active recreation” and that the areas should involve “ecological management” and “management of varied habitats.” Participants desired “educational uses” of the properties, and suggested conservation areas could include alternative conservation methods, such as agricultural use.

When asked to characterize parks as opposed to conservation areas, community participants suggested that conservation areas are defined by “more wildlife and fewer people,” and “light management.” Parks, in contrast, are more appropriate locations for “structures and facilities” and provide “active recreation, like sports” and “concentrated use.”

Popularity Unsurprisingly, respondents to the QR survey enjoy frequent visits to the parcels. Eighty percent of respondents indicated that they visit a conservation area, “weekly” or “more than once a week.” QR flyers were posted at the conservation area entrances, indicating that despite cold and seasonal conditions, respondents continued to use the properties in the winter months. The survey responses combined with comments at the community meetings reveal that there is interest in year-round recreational activities.

Community feedback suggests that the most popular conservation areas are the two largest properties, Brattlebrook Park and Wild Acres Conservation Area. The majority of comments received at both community meetings concerned these two The majority of the community parcels. This was confirmed by participants thought the the responses to the QR survey. operation of motorized vehicles “My family moved to Pittsfield because of the Brattlebrook received 38% of all and organized sports represent abundance of public green space both in the QR scans, and Wild Acres received activities considered more “active” surrounding area and, most importantly, in the next highest response with in nature. However, some activities Pittsfield itself.” just under a third of QR scans. were not as clearly defined as Barkerville Conservation Area and either “active” or “passive”: the “Great open environment within walking the David J. Tierney, Sr. Wildlife community participants disagreed distance from my home. Large open spaces Refuge received 19% and 12%, on whether activities such as to play with my dogs. Enjoy going for walks respectively. biking, walking dogs off leash, and on some of the trails and getting outdoors.” model airplane flying would be Wild Acres’ and Brattlebrook Park’s considered active. The participants (Survey participants) relative popularity indicates that agreed that active recreation, such their management plans should as organized sports, was more evaluate ecological health in the appropriate in a park setting presence of heavy human access. than a conservation area. Participants ultimately agreed that conservation areas are places where “nature comes Lack of Visibility and Awareness first,” combining “ecologically sensitive” landscapes with The four study parcels for this project are the largest “dispersed and diverse use[s].” conservation areas owned by the City; however, participants lacked knowledge of one or more of these When the participants were asked what they loved most properties. When asked if they were familiar with each of and wanted to preserve about the conservation areas, they the study parcels in the online survey, 45% of respondents PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Fishing/ Hunting

Walking / Hiking

Picnicking

Dogwalking

Legend

- Dogwalking - Walking/Hiking - Nature Observation - Jogging/Running - Fishing/Hunting - Photography - Picnicking - Watching planes* - Soccer/Lacrosse - Biking/Mountain Biking - Snowshoeing or Cross-country skiing - Geocaching

Photography

Snow...

Geo...

Watching planes

Nature Observation

Soccer/ Lacrosse

Jogging/ Running Biking

Figure 2: Relative popularity of recreational activities at the Conservation Areas of Interest. Derived from feedback from community participants and survey respondents. “Watching planes” combines airplane watching at Wild Acres Conservation Area and model airplane flying at Brattlebrook Park.

Assets of Pittsfield Conservation Areas

Opportunities for Improvement at Pittsfield Conservation Areas

Natural Setting & Ecology Opportunities for Improvement

Restriction & Enforcement

Community Resource

Assets

Protected Land Nearby & Easy to Access Recreation Peaceful & Relaxing 0

Maintenance Public Awareness Programs & Recreation Access & Parking Other 0

Percent of respondents

Figure 3: Perceived assets of conservation areas. Community respondents perceived these features of conservation areas to be key assets for the City of Pittsfield.

Percent of respondents

Figure 4: Opportunities for improvement within conservation areas. Community respondents identified these features of conservation areas to be the highest priorities for improvement.

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

listed a variety of activities, with the two most popular being dog walking (both on and off leash) and walking/ hiking. Nature study is also popular, which includes watching birds and other wildlife and taking in scenic views or sunsets. Additional activities which community members enjoyed are shown in Figure 2. In addition to “passive” enjoyment, respondents offered additional assets of conservation areas, including the natural setting and ecological value. People saw conservation lands as a community resource, and they greatly appreciated that land was set aside for protection. Respondents enjoyed that conservation areas were nearby to their homes and considered the sites to be peaceful and relaxing (Figure 3). The community participants appreciate these assets and want to maintain the peaceful natural setting and the ecological value that these places afford the community.

Summary The community participants’ responses reveal that they enjoy a variety of activities while visiting the Pittsfield conservation areas. Some confusion remains as to what constitutes passive recreation and accepted uses versus active recreation and misuse. Activities not easily defined within this binary include biking, model airplane flying and walking dogs off “They are oases in an urban leash. Some members of the community environment, an opportunity to get voiced interest in these activities, away and relax nearby.” indicating that if deemed inappropriate within conservation lands, the City “They need to be kept cleaner, free should explore opportunities to offer of litter, lawn areas maintained, them elsewhere within Pittsfield. monitored parking lots at night to stop the kids from trashing it.” The feedback suggests that the community participants desire to expand accessibility and educational programming, clarify intended uses of each parcel, and increase public awareness regarding the resources the conservation areas offer.

(Survey participants)

Conflicts of Use Forty-seven percent of survey respondents want to restrict one or more activities within conservation areas. Some community members thought organized sports and hunting should be banned, and they wanted better enforcement to prevent littering, vandalism, alcohol or drug use, ATV use, and off leash dogwalking. Additional concerns, shown in Figure 4, were insufficient maintenance and management of infrastructure, trails, and invasive species, a lack of public awareness, a dearth of recreational activities and educational programming, and inconsistent access and parking. One respondent commented that the Pittsfield conservation areas were fine as they were and thought “nothing” needed to change.

By better informing the citizens of Pittsfield about conservation areas, the city could benefit from greater participation in stewardship efforts by an engaged and passionate user group. Stewardship opportunities available to residents could include site cleanup, opening and closing gates, the formation of a Park Watch group (see call out box: “Park Watch” on page 68), and hosting or staffing events.

The meetings and surveys attracted responses from a relatively small fraction of the Pittsfield’s population; the City will need to expand outreach efforts to obtain responses from a greater cross-section of the city’s residents.

The community had concerns regarding safety and lack of public awareness. For example, visitors wanted information regarding safe use of the parcels during hunting season, or if the properties were safe to use despite past contamination and recent dumping. Some participants questioned why an ADA-compliant path had not been installed at Wild Acres to allow for barrier-free access. The desire for more educational programming was noted multiple times. A few community members would like designated trails for biking or mountain biking as well as areas designated for dog walking. Some survey respondents thought that the properties should be opened up to all uses including organized sports and motorized vehicle use.

Participants responded to a presentation of the site analyses of the four parcels at the second community meeting. Photo credit: Jim McGrath.

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Context

The City of Pittsfield in Context “A City in the Country” Pittsfield has earned the moniker “a city in the country” as a reflection of its dense urban center surrounded by a wealth of natural resources (Figure 5). The natural setting was seen as an asset in the 1800s and still is today. Within a 20 mile radius of the city are 17 state parks, forests, and reservations. The Taconic Crest Trail passes a few miles west of the city and the Appalachian Trail passes just a few miles to the east. The tandem development of agriculture and industry influenced expansion and “made the city,

although a manufacturing one, a place where the conditions of living [were] wholesome and cheerful with fresh air and sunshine” (Boltwood, 1915, p. 369). Of Pittsfield’s 40.47 square miles, 18.6% is protected in perpetuity through various protection mechanisms on private, municipal and state owned lands. Pittsfield’s open space and park system represents 25% of the land in Pittsfield. This network of open space represents the assemblage of lands purchased by the City or gifted by generous citizens. The lands were

LANESBOROUGH

DALTON

ota

Lak

HANCOCK

City of Pittsfield

Conservation Areas of Interest

PITTSFIELD

River or Stream Pond or Lake

Appalachian Trail

LENOX

Riv

RICHMOND

Miles 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Figure 5: Open space within Pittsfield and the surrounding area. Open space in Layer the form of conservation areas, state forests and reservations, Service Credits: wildlife management areas, and long distance recreational trails contribute to Pittsfield’s identity as “a city in the country.”

Legend

Taconic Crest Trail

Protected and Recreational Open Space Recreation & Conservation Agriculture Areas

Historical/Cultural Areas

Land Protected for Water Supply

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | THE CITY OF PITTSFIELD IN CONTEXT

formerly pastures and farms, suburban estates and the homes and grounds of successful businessmen from Pittsfield’s industrial past. Proper planning is necessary to maintain Pittsfield’s character “a city in the country.”

SOCIAL CONTEXT History In 1872, a writer for the Springfield Republican wrote:

“The glorious beauty of Berkshire scenery was deeply and strongly appreciated by the men and women of Pittsfield long before it achieved a fame more widely spread; and a summer day’s excursion among the hills was always, as always it will be, a favorite pastime.”

In the 1960s, after almost 100 years of thriving industry, Pittsfield’s fortune took a marked turn as many manufacturing companies moved to the south, where labor was cheaper. When industry giant General Electric Company (GE) left Pittsfield, the city experienced a pivotal change. General Electric was the largest employer in Pittsfield, employing up to 13,000 workers (Donn, 1997), or 22% of the city’s approximately 58,000 citizens in the late 1960s (Bureau of Census, 1981). As major businesses moved from the region, many of Pittsfield’s unemployed residents followed. Between 1960 and 2005, the city experienced an approximate 25% drop in population.

Pittsfield is no longer the (Boltwood, 1915, p. 13-14) quiet, dullish, somewhat dingy village that some of us remember it [as], standing with Yankee reserve in the midst of fine scenery, In addition to the economic recession that followed the where it seemed a little out of place. It has become population decline, Pittsfield was subjected to a legacy of late years a bustling, ambitious, architectural of environmental contamination leftover from decades town, almost a city and quite ready for the title. of mismanaged industrial waste. The most infamous (Boltwood, 1915, p. 2) example of industrial contamination in Pittsfield is the polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) contamination from Pittsfield was settled at the confluence of the East, West, GE. From the 1940s until banned by the United States and Southwest Branches of the Housatonic River. A prime Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1979, GE used location for agriculture and, later, industrial development, PCBs in manufacturing of its power transformers at its the river and its many tributaries provided irrigation, 52-acre facility in Pittsfield. During that time and into the alluvial soils, and hydrological power to the young city’s 1980s, GE contaminated the site of the manufacturing farmers and mills. The Housatonic River remains vitally plant, the Housatonic River and places throughout the city important to the city today as an ecological, aesthetic, and by distributing contaminated fill to residents, businesses, recreational resource. and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, who used it to straighten oxbows in the Housatonic River. By 1873, the city had transitioned from a semi-agricultural economy to a focus in manufacturing. In 1891, Pittsfield had grown to a population of 12,000 and was incorporated into a city. Before the turn of the century, townspeople believed that expansion was not possible as new land to farm was not available, and the waterways were already completely dominated by mills for textile manufacturing. The introduction of two regional railways was looked upon with suspicion as the market did not seem to be able to withstand additional growth or an influx of population. One railway ran east to Boston. Another main line was planned to pass through Lee just a few miles south of Pittsfield. The city experienced exponential growth as Pittsfield’s population passed 25,000 residents in 1905, reached 32,121 in 1910, and hit 39,607 in 1915. This constituted a 330% increase in population in just over three decades.

The EPA estimates that the cleanup will take another 15 years of active remediation (2016). The Housatonic River Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) has evaluated the extent of environmental damage associated with PCB contamination and identified the amount of monetary compensation and restoration projects required as reparations for the damage (Massachusetts SubCouncil, Housatonic River Natural Resource Trustees, n.d.). Through major public and private investment in the last decade, Pittsfield has begun an economic and environmental revitalization. Offering a combination of historical and cultural attractions and easy access to natural resources, the city is well positioned to attract a young creative demographic and revitalize its economy.

THE CITY OF PITTSFIELD IN CONTEXT | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Demographics Pittsfield is the largest city in the Berkshire County with 44,737 people and serves as the county seat. In 2010, residents over 65 years old made up 17.6% of the population, while children under five years old and those under 18 years of age represented 5.7% and 21.2% respectively. Compared to national distribution of age range, Pittsfield has a larger percentage of older residents. While the City hopes to attract a younger demographic, they also need to ensure access and recreational opportunities at conservation areas for the city’s aging population.

Pittsfield’s population is predominantly white (85.9%), while Black or African American and Hispanic or Latino people represent the next largest groups at 5.3% and 5.0% of the population respectively. People who identify as Asian make up 1.2%, and Native Americans make up 0.2% of the population. People who identified with more than one race comprised 3.0% of the population. These numbers reflect Pittsfield’s status as one of the more ethnically diverse municipalities in Berkshire County, in which the white population totals over ninety percent. It will be important to ensure that minority input is taken into account when planning events and educational programming at conservation areas.

Pittsfield’s median household income is $43,489, which is approximately $6,000 less than the median in all of Berkshire County. Sixteen percent of Pittsfield’s residents live below the poverty line, which is higher than the totality of Berkshire County, which averages 13.6%. Pittsfield’s environmental justice populations, defined as communities with high minority and low-income populations, account for 36.8% of the City’s residents from the 2010 US Census. The environmental justice neighborhoods are concentrated in downtown Pittsfield and on the northeast side of the city (Figure 6). Some of these populations are adjacent to the northwest corner of Brattlebrook Park. The other conservation areas do not have environmental justice populations in the near vicinity. Access to Conservation Areas Pittsfield is car-centric and its five state highways have some of the highest traffic volumes in Berkshire County. The state highways in the city see over 20,000 cars per day (Google Earth, 2016). While these major highways connect the city center to outer neighborhoods, they also act as barriers to pedestrians, cyclists, and wildlife. Research suggests that most people will walk a quarter to threequarters of a mile to reach a park (Blanck, et. al, 2012), and community feedback reinforced that people walk to 18

the parcel closest to where they live, or if farther away they drive to the conservation areas. As 14% of Pittsfield households do not have access to a car (City of Pittsfield, 2009), proximity to the conservation lands and car ownership ultimately limit who uses the conservation areas.

Bicycle access in Pittsfield is limited by the high levels of traffic on many roads, and the City currently has few bike lines. A new regional bike trail has been in development since 2007. The proposed route would run along the east side of the city and connect the Ashuwillticook Rail Trail in the north to points south toward Lenox and Lee. The northern portion of the route will enter Brattlebrook Park then continue south via an undetermined route. The proposed regional bike trail does not connect to downtown Pittsfield or to any of the other conservation areas in the study. Expansion of multi-modal transportation routes is necessary to achieve Pittsfield’s goal of providing equal access to conservation areas to all citizens.

Summary Pittsfield is at a crossroads both physically and with respect to its vision for redevelopment. Its early history was dominated by agriculture, which gave way to essentially a company town when Pittsfield was synonymous with GE manufacturing. The migration of industry away from the region and the drop in population that followed has caused the City to reevaluate its identity as an industrial city. Economic revitalization is at the forefront of the City’s efforts, but as a “city in the country” Pittsfield’s fiscal health is inextricably linked with its long history of protecting its natural resources and the quality of life its natural resources afford residents of diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | THE CITY OF PITTSFIELD IN CONTEXT

City of Pittsfield

On ota

Lak

Riv

Figure 6: Environmental justice populations in Pittsfield. Environmental justice (EJ) populations by income include census blocks with median household income of $40,673 or lower. Populations by Minority and Income include the same income requirement and include over 25% minority population in the same census block. The majority of Pittsfield’s environmental justice populations are located in the center and to the northeast of the urban core. As most people walk one quarter to three quarters of a mile to reach a park, the half mile radius encompasses the area where most visitors travel by foot. None of the EJ populations are within a half mile radius of the conservation areas of interest.

0 0.25 0.5

1.5

Miles 2

Legend Conservation Areas of Interest Road

State Highway

Medium and High Density Development

Environmental Justice Populations Population by Income

Population by Minority & Income

1/2 mile Radius from Entrance to Conservation Area

Service Layer Credits: Content may not reflect National Geographic's 19 THE CITY OF PITTSFIELD IN CONTEXT | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS current map policy. Sources: National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO,

ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT The quality of Pittsfield’s natural resources is linked to the ecological health of the region. Situated in a location with high levels of biodiversity, the convergence of several riverine systems, and unusual bedrock geology, Pittsfield lays claim to unique ecological conditions within New England and the world. Strategic planning is necessary in order to maintain and enhance these natural resources.

The three branches of the Housatonic River converge within the city to form the main stem of the Housatonic River and the top of the Housatonic River watershed (Figure 7). All of Pittsfield’s rivers and streams, along with surface water and stormwater runoff, drain into the Housatonic River. From Pittsfield, the river flows 149 miles southward to empty into the Long Island Sound.

ic River W ate r

Top of the Watershed Pittsfield was settled at the confluence of the East, West, and Southwest Branches of the Housatonic River. A prime location for agriculture and, later, industrial development, the rivers and their many tributaries provided irrigation, alluvial soils, and hydrological power to the young city’s

farmers and mills. These 64.7 miles of rivers and streams, and nearly 1,797 acres of natural water resources (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 2009) remain vitally important to the City today, with an emphasis on their ecological, aesthetic, and recreational values.

Figure 7: Housatonic River Watershed. As Pittsfield is located at the headwaters of the Housatonic River, its open space management principles have implications for the health of the whole watershed.

River Housatonic

nd d Sou Islan g n Lo

ts Portion of the Wat huset ersh ssac ed Ma

ton usa

Pittsfield

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | THE CITY OF PITTSFIELD IN CONTEXT

City of Pittsfield

ota

Lak e

West Branch subbasin: 35% Impervious surface 23% Forest cover

East Branch subbasin: 33% Impervious Surface 28% Forest Cover

ton

usa

Ho er

Riv

0.5

Miles 2

Legend

Legend River or Stream

Figure 8: Drainage Subbasins. Lake orsubbasin Pond A watershed must consist of at least 65% canopy cover no more than Conservation Areasand of Interest 10% impervious surface to maintain high Subbasins water quality. Areas of dense vegetation and canopy cover, Forest Coversuch as conservation areas, have the ability to slow, infiltrate, Impervious Surface cool, and clean stormwater as it travels to High the Housatonic River. Low

Southwest Branch subbasin: 12% Impervious surface 48% Forest cover

River or Stream Lake or Pond

Conservation Areas of Interest Subbasins

Forest Cover

Impervious SurfaceSurface Impervious High

Low THE CITY OF PITTSFIELD IN CONTEXT | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

0.5

As an urban area, Pittsfield has a substantial amount of impervious cover including roads, sidewalks, roofs, and parking lots. The city’s impervious surface covers 13% of its land area. As little as four to 12% impervious surface within a watershed subbasin can degrade water quality (EPA, 2011). Stormwater and snowmelt pick up pollutants such as chemicals, oils, and litter as they flow into nearby waterways. These pollutants and waste can affect both the quality of aquatic habitats and the safety of the waterways for recreational activities such as fishing and swimming.

Although the city’s impervious surface covers 13% of its total land area, it is concentrated in the city’s urban core. The urban core’s impervious surface is divided amongst the subbasins of the East, West, and Southwest Branches of the Housatonic River, and covers over 12% of each (Figure 8). While the impacts of development are critical to the health of the watershed, forest cover is “perhaps the most powerful indicator to predict the quality of streams.” Only by minimizing the development of impervious surfaces and maintaining at least 65% forest cover can the health of a subbasin’s riverine habitat be preserved (Center for Watershed Protection, 2003).

Canopy cover not only shades waterbodies and riverways; it also shades and cools impervious surface, which in turn reduces the temperature of stormwater runoff. Warm water holds less oxygen than cool water, decreasing the amount of oxygen available to aquatic wildlife. Areas of dense vegetation, such as conservation areas, act as sponges, slowing and infiltrating stormwater before it enters local riverways. In this way, the location of open space and conservation areas has implications for both their ecological health and the water quality of the subbasin as a whole. Water from Tierney, Barkerville, and Wild Acres flows into a subbasin of the Southwest Branch of the Housatonic River, and water from Brattlebrook Park flows into the East Branch subbasin. The conservation areas slow and filter surface runoff of sedimentation and contaminants before it enters the Housatonic River. While the conservation areas benefit the health of the river in this way, they experience ecological damage as a result of absorbing polluted water from abutting parcels. Sound management practices can address the quality of the water running into the conservation areas as well as the water entering the river and its tributaries.

Ecoregions Ecoregions are defined as areas within which the physical systems that give rise to ecosystems are generally similar, and contain characteristically distinct formations of natural communities and species. Pittsfield lies at the confluence of three EPA designated ecoregions: the Berkshire Highlands, the Taconic Mountains, and the Western New England Marble Valleys, making it an area of rich biological diversity (Figure 9). Barkerville Conservation Area, Brattlebrook Park, David J. Tierney, Sr. Widlife Refuge, and Wild Acres Conservation Area are located within the Marble Valleys ecoregion, distinguished by calcareous limestone geology, alkaline soils and rich mesic forests. These conditions are unusual in New England, where soils tend to be more acidic. Therefore, this ecoregion has the potential to support regionally uncommon forest and aquatic species, which makes the four conservation areas under study of regional conservation significance.

EFFECTS OF PCB CONTAMINATION ON THE HOUSATONIC RIVER The PCB contamination of the Housatonic River and environs has wide ranging effects on life both within the river and across the landscape. Many species within the river and its floodplains are exposed to PCB concentrations 10 to 100 times greater than levels considered safe. Effects include reduced survival rates, impaired development, and malformations of benthic invertebrates and larval fish and amphibians. Predatory species ingesting contaminated prey face dire repercussions. For example, 50% of newborn mink, fed with contaminated fish, die within 6 weeks of birth, and osprey and bald eagle populations exhibit reproductive impairment. Although cleanup is complete for the area of the Housatonic River above the confluence of its branches, cleanup for the rest of the river and its floodplains is expected to take up to 15 more years. (EPA, 2016)

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | THE CITY OF PITTSFIELD IN CONTEXT

Legend Taconic Mtns. Marble/Berk/Hoos/Hous Valleys

12.5

Miles City100of Pittsfield

ota

Lak

Berk. Highlands/S. Green Mtns.

ic R ton

usa

r ive

Legend

0.5

Miles 2

River or Stream Legend

Lake or Pond

Conservation Areas of Interest

River or Stream Ecoregions Figure 9: Ecoregions in Pittsfield. The four conservation parcels of interest Lake or Pond Berkshire Highlands/Southern Green Mountains are located within the Western New Conservation Areas of Interest England Marble Valleys ecoregion, Taconic Mountains Ecoregions known for its regionally unusual Western NewMountains England Marble Valleys alkaline soils and rich mesic forests. Berkshire Highlands/Southern Green Taconic Mountains

Western New England Marble Valleys

THE CITY OF PITTSFIELD IN CONTEXT | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

0.5

Species of Conservation Concern BioMap2, a study by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP), identifies over one third of Pittsfield’s land area as critical to the lifecycle of Species of Conservation Concern, or species in decline or in need of conservation protection (Figure 10). In addition, approximately 24% of Pittsfield’s land area, or 6,475 acres of 27,179 total acres, is designated as Core Habitat to these species. Core Habitat identifies “specific areas necessary to promote the long-term persistence of rare species, other Species of Conservation Concern, exemplary natural communities, and intact ecosystems” (NHESP, 2012). Of Pittsfield’s Core Habitat, 2,679 acres, or 41.4%, is protected in perpetuity. Finally, BioMap2 identifies 7,426 acres (approximately 27%) of Pittsfield as Critical Natural Landscape (CNL), defined as the large blocks of intact natural vegetation which support Core Habitat. Of Pittsfield’s Critical Natural Landscape, 44.8%, or 3,325 acres, is protected in perpetuity.

Eighty-nine percent of Pittsfield’s CNL is aquatic in nature. More than 50% of each of the four conservation areas of interest include Core Habitat and/or CNL, and every single species of concern that exists within each of these parcels relies on wetlands, streams, or rivers for part or all of their lifecycle. Therefore, successful conservation management plans will need to protect and restore rivers, streams, and wetlands as a core component to habitat protection for Pittsfield’s species of concern.

BIOMAP2: PROTECTING MASSACHUSETTS’ BIODIVERSITY

NHESP Priority Natural Communities Natural communities are recurring, observable associations of flora, fauna, and their physical environments. NHESP has identified Priority Natural Communities as those with limited distribution across Massachusetts as being of priority conservation concern. According to NHESP, Pittsfield is home to seven instances of Priority Natural Communities, spanning five classifications: • black ash-red maple-tamarck-calcareous seepage swamp • calcareous sloping fen • major river floodplain forest • transitional floodplain forest • red oak-sugar maple transition forest

With the exception of the red oak-sugar maple transition forest, each of these communities are classified as wetlands and ranked as “imperiled” in Massachusetts, with only six to 20 “good occurrences” in the state. The largest threats to these communities are disturbance through development, fragmentation of habitat, and invasive species.

The red oak-sugar maple transition forest is a terrestrial community with an “apparently secure” ranking, indicating that this community is uncommon within the state but not rare. Pittsfield’s red oak-sugar maple transition forest is one of Massachusetts’ best examples of its type, earning the designation as an Exemplary Natural Community in good condition with excellent species diversity (NHESP, 2012). To secure the health and quality of its Priority Natural Communities, Pittsfield will need to reduce habitat fragmentation and pressure from development by strategically preserving ecological connectivity between areas of conservation value.

“The Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program and The Nature Conservancy’s Massachusetts Program developed BioMap2 in 2010 as a conservation plan to protect the state’s biodiversity. BioMap2 is designed to guide strategic biodiversity conservation in Massachusetts over the next decade by focusing land protection and stewardship on the areas that are most critical for ensuring the long-term persistence of rare and other native species and their habitats, exemplary natural communities, and a diversity of ecosystems” (NHESP, 2012). 24

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | THE CITY OF PITTSFIELD IN CONTEXT

ota L

ak e

City of Pittsfield

Legend Conservation Areas of Interest

Legend Conservation Areas of Interest River or Stream

Legend Pond or Lake

Open Space Protected inAreas Perpetuity Conservation of Interest BioMap2 Core Habitat

River or Stream

BioMap2 Critical Natural Landscape

Pond or Lake Priority Natural Communities

Black ash-red maple-tamarack calcareous seepage swamp

Open Space Protected in Perpetuity

Calcareous sloping fen

BioMap2 Core Habitat

Major-river floodplain forest

BioMap2 Critical Natural Red oak-sugar maple transition forest

Transitional floodplain forest Priority Natural Communities

Landscape

River or Stream Pond or Lake

Open Space Protected in Perpetuity Miles 0

0.5

BioMap2 Core Habitat

BioMap2 Critical Natural Landscape

Priority Natural Communities

0.5

Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Black ash-red maple-tamarack calcareous seepage MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

Calcareous sloping fen

Serv Map Miles and

2 swamp

Major-river floodplain forest

Red oak-sugar maple transition forest Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Service Layer Credits: MapmyIndia, Transitional floodplain forest© OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

Black ash-red maple-tamarack calcareous seepage swamp

Figure 10: BioMap2sloping identifies Calcareous fenover 25% of Pittsfield’s land area as critical Major-river floodplain forest to Species of Conservation Concern, indicating a need for a management plan Red oak-sugar maple transition forest which will reduce habitat fragmentation. Transitional floodplain forest THE CITY OF PITTSFIELD IN CONTEXT | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Ono ta La ke

City of Pittsfield

Legend River or Stream Pond or Lake Protected Open Space Conservation

Legend RiverRiver or Stream or Pond or Lake

Stream

Pond or Lake

Protected Open Space

Protected Open Space Conservation

0.75

1.5

Agriculture or Water Supply

0.75

user community

Forested Areas (Including Woody Wetlands)

Agriculture or Water Supply

Areas of Potential Terrestrial Connectivity

Recreation and Conservation

Conservation Areas of Interest

Forested Areas (Including Woody Wetlands)

Conservation Areas of Interest

Agricultural Open Space

Land Cover

Forested Areas (Including Woody Wetlands)

1.5

Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorm MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributo user community

Conservation

Agriculture or Water Supply

Agricultural Open Space

Areas of Aquatic Connectivity

Agricultural Open Space Figure 11: Terrestrial ecological connectivity exists through areas of contiguous open space to the northeastern, western, and southern edges of the city. Pittsfield’s high frequency of rivers and streams make opportunities for hydrological connectivity abundant within the city limits.

Service Layer Credits:Areas Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Conservation Under Study MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS

Land Cover

Recreation and Conservation

Land Cover

Recreation and Conservation Miles

Legend

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | THE CITY OF PITTSFIELD IN CONTEXT

Ecological Connectivity Ecological connectivity provides corridors for wildlife moving from one area of habitat to another and allows room for natural communities to adapt to local stressors or variations in climate. With a densely developed urban core, a history of industry and development along riverways, and over half of each of the conservation parcels’ land area designated as critical to species of concern, Pittsfield’s conservation priorities should address areas of ecological connectivity. The City’s Master Plan recognizes the need for ecological connectivity, stating: A major vision is a network of open space that rings the city. Not all of this land needs to be publicly accessible, but it provides corridors for wildlife, protects biodiversity, and maintains the health of rivers and lakes (City of Pittsfield, 2009, p. 9).

Unless protected in perpetuity, undeveloped forests and fields are subject to change over time. Many current areas of connectivity are threatened by parcel fragmentation, demonstrating a need to prioritize strategic acquisition of parcels which can help complete the ring of open space referenced in the Master Plan.

Summary Pittsfield occupies an area wherein many unusual geological and ecological processes give rise to unique, diverse habitats of regional conservation interest. Many of Pittsfield’s natural resources are aquatic in nature: its alkaline wetlands and riverine systems host many Species of Conservation Concern. As explored in “Project Goals” on page 6, the health of Pittsfield’s natural resources is pivotal to the City’s quality of life and economic vitality.

Waterways are a major vehicle for connectivity within Pittsfield, with streams and rivers acting as corridors for avian, terrestrial, and aquatic wildlife. As is depicted in Figure 11, areas of relatively unfragmented open space form terrestrial corridors to the northeastern, western and southern edges of the city. The City’s protected open space is concentrated to the south, west, and northwest of the city center, while gaps remain in the northeast and east. The urban core and eastern edges are largely developed.

THE CITY OF PITTSFIELD IN CONTEXT | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Site Analysis & Objectives

Ho u

sa to

nic

Riv er

Barkerville Conservation Area

Figure 12: Barkerville Conservation Area in context. Barkerville is located in a mixeduse area west of downtown Pittsfield. An Eversource substation is located at the center of the site, and the substation access road is shared by visitors to the conservation area.

20 Old Mill Foundation

Access R

Eversource Substation

Wild Acres Brook

oad

Eversource Gate

u So

Legend Barkerville Conservation Area

rke

Railroad

Wild Acres Conservation Area

ici un M t ld or fie Airp ti ts

a Ro

River or Stream Lake or Pond

ÂŻ

0.1

Public Entrance

0.2

Miles 0.4

Powerline Easement

CONTEXT Service Layer Credits:

Location Barkerville Conservation Area consists of two undeveloped parcels, totaling approximately 74 acres in a mixed-use area (residential, commercial and industrial) west of downtown Pittsfield. The Southwest Branch of the Housatonic River bounds the property on the north, with access off Barker Road to the south, where an official conservation area sign marks the property. Residential properties surround the site to the south and east. A cleared area with a radio tower is located northwest of the site. Industrial parks lie to the west and north. The Southwest Branch of the Housatonic River provides a strong hydrological link within the West Branch subbasin of the Housatonic River Watershed. 30

Located less than a mile from Wild Acres, Barkerville forms a strategic link in the long-range development of a greenway that could extend along the Southwest Branch of the Housatonic River from the Pittsfield Airport to Clapp Park, which is one mile northeast of Barkerville. Eversource owns a one-and-a-half-acre electric substation in the center of the site, located outside of the parcel property lines. A powerline easement associated with the substation crosses the site east to west. Eversource accesses the substation via a gravel road, which is also the access point into the parcel for the public. Eversource controls an access gate on the road, which sits approximately 50 feet in from Barker Road. A gravel and dirt parking lot is located just off of Barker Road before reaching the Eversource gate (Figure 12).

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S CONSERVATION AREAS | SITE ANALYSIS: BARKERVILLE CONSERVATION AREA

Barkerville Conservation Area has a strong connection to the Southwest Branch of the Housatonic River. Photo credit: Jim McGrath.

History Acquired in 2011, Barkerville is the newest of the Pittsfield conservation parcels. Purchased from the Kroboth Family Limited Partnership, funding for the purchase was made possible by a $250,000 grant from the Massachusetts Natural Resource Damages Program, which is used to quantify contaminant-caused ecological damages, assess the cost of remediation, and procure funds from the responsible party. At the time of purchase it was zoned for single family residential use. A requirement of acquisition of this property included that hunting would continue on site. Barkerville’s acquisition excluded a portion of the site adjacent to the Housatonic River. From the 1880s to the 1950s, this northern portion of the site included buildings that were likely part of the W. E. Tillotson Woolen Mill. The river was historically dammed at this location, and a millpond was located west of the dam. A Phase I Environmental Site Analysis by New England Environmental found that the foundations from an old woolen mill and a tannery, in addition to the visible presence of coal ash, are considered a Recognized Environmental Condition (2011). A Recognized Environmental Condition indicates: the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. (Partner Engineering & Science, 2016)

The report also noted that contamination in the form of petroleum was found on the property, likely from industrial sites across the river. Although the contaminated site is technically outside of the conservation area’s boundaries, there are no property markers and visitors pass by the mill foundation when traveling along an informal path. Prior to 1972, improvements to the site removed both the woolen mill and its dam, and Western Massachusetts Electric Company (now Eversource) built an electric substation on site. Some areas of the site have exposed gravel, and the Conservation Commission believes the site may have been at one time used as a gravel quarry.

The visible legacy of Barkerville’s industrial and agricultural history is a key point of interest on the site. Several wolf tree specimens, or legacy trees that are unusually large and dominate the surrounding environment, are found near the river and remnants of the woolen mill foundation provide visual interest along the site’s informal paths.

HUMAN USE Infrastructure & Access Infrastructure on the property consists of the one-anda-half-acre Eversource electric substation and the power lines extending out from the substation.

From the parking lot along Barker Road, visitors continue to the property on foot. Additional informal access is likely from neighboring residential properties.

SITE ANALYSIS: BARKERVILLE CONSERVATION AREA | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

A historical woolen mill foundation, located adjacent to Barkerville Conservation Area, provides an aspect of historical interest. Photo credit: Jim McGrath.

Barkerville is predominantly wooded, with over two miles of river and stream frontage. Photo credit: Miranda Feldmann.

Lack of public transportation to the property and a small parking area with room for two vehicles limits visitorship to Barkerville. Although Barker Road is not as busy as some of the City’s other roads, there is no pedestrian sidewalk or bike lane. Circulation Patterns/Use Barkerville’s current uses include fishing, hunting, dogwalking, trail walking, bird watching, and all terrain vehicle (ATV) use.

The property has no formal trails, but many informal paths exist. There is visible evidence of ATV use on the property in the form of wide informal trails with signs of berming at the sides and erosion along the fall-line, which is the most direct route downhill on a given slope. The ATV trails wind throughout the property in steep areas, near the river, and continue into the easements under the Eversource power lines. The use of ATVs on conservation area land is prohibited, and the Pittsfield Conservation Commission, survey respondents, and those present at the community meetings expressed concern about the effect of ATV use on the ecology of the site. The community was also concerned about using the property for other recreational purposes such as hiking or dogwalking while ATV use was happening. Hunting is allowed on the property as a requirement of the parcel’s acquisition. The number of hunters who use the property is unknown. Some community members expressed concern regarding safe use of the property during hunting season and the lack of information regarding its dates. 32

Barkerville has some rocky terrain, like this exposed rock along one of the informal paths. Photo credit: Miranda Feldmann.

A gate controlled by Eversource sits fifty feet back from Barker Road and is in view from the official Barkerville Conservation Area sign. Photo credit: Miranda Feldmann.

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | SITE ANALYSIS: BARKERVILLE CONSERVATION AREA

ECOLOGY

Core Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern BioMap2 has identified 40 acres, or approximately 54%, of Barkerville’s land area as core habitat for barren strawberry (Geum fragarioides), as depicted in Figure 13. The Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) lists barren strawberry as a species of special concern. As this native species is rare in New England, protecting its preferred habitat in Barkerville should be a key component to the conservation area’s management plan.

Natural Communities Barkerville Conservation Area is a heavily wooded 74-acre site with more than two miles of river frontage along the Southwest Branch of the Housatonic River. Approximately six percent of the site is comprised of wooded wetlands, with another 89% comprised of coniferous, deciduous, and mixed woodlands. The remaining site is comprised of scrub/shrub habitat (Figure 14).

¯ 10,000’

Legend Scrub/Shrub

Shrub Swamp Mixed Forest

0.05

0.1

Miles 0.2

Legend Legend

Deciduous Forest

Coniferous Forest

Figure 14: Barkerville’s Natural Communities. Barkerville is a heavily wooded site, with some acreage in shrub and woody wetlands.

River or Stream Pond or Lake Bog

Shrub Swamp

River or Stream Pond or Lake Bog

Shrub Swamp

BioMap2 Core Habitat

BioMap2 Critical Natural Landscape

Figure 13: BioMap2 in Barkerville. Approximately 40% of Barkerville’s land area is considered core habitat for MESA species of special concern Geum fragarioides.

SITE ANALYSIS: BARKERVILLE CONSERVATION AREA | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Farmland Soils Barkerville has five acres of Copake fine sandy loam, designated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as prime farmland soil (Figure 15). The Copake loam, located in the southwestern edge of the parcel, is well drained and highly productive as cropland, pasture, or hay. Barkerville also features 42 acres of Groton gravelly sandy loam, considered farmland soil of statewide importance. This soil is less than prime but compromises some of the best in Massachusetts. The Groton loam, covering much of the parcel from the center to the west, and across the northern edge, is excessively well drained and commonly used as cropland.

With the majority of its acreage established as woodlands, establishing productive farmland on Barkerville would take considerable effort and resources. Further study would be necessary to determine the effect of clearing a portion of the woodlands on the health of the site’s ecology. The quality of the productive farmland soils can be maintained by proper management of the conservation area’s soils.

0.05 0.1

Miles 0.2

Legend River or Stream

Legend River or Stream Pond or Lake

Farmland Designation Prime

Statewide importance

Soil Type & Slope

Pittsfield loam, 8-15%

Copake fine sandy loam, 3-8%

Groton gravelly sandy loam, 3-8%

Groton gravelly sandy loam, 8-15%

Pond or Lake

Farmland Designation Prime

Statewide importance

Soil Type & Slope

Pittsfield loam, 8-15%

Copake fine sandy loam, 3-8%

Groton gravelly sandy loam, 3-8%

Groton gravelly sandy loam, 8-15% Figure 15: Farmland Soils. Barkerville’s soils include some of the state’s best for agriculture. The conservation area’s management plan should explore methods of maintaining the quality of this soil.

The presence of wolf trees within Barkerville indicates that the site was previously cleared, perhaps for agriculture. Photo credit: Miranda Feldmann.

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | SITE ANALYSIS: BARKERVILLE CONSERVATION AREA

Environmental Challenges Barkerville’s ash trees appear not yet to be infected with the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) which has been found at Wild Acres Conservation Area located less than a half-mile away. There is no inventory of invasive plant species on the property, but, given the close proximity to residential properties and the presence of invasive plants on other study parcels, the potential is present.

Petroleum spills and deposits of coal ash along the riverbed can leak into the water table and cause contamination of the water table and surface water, posing health risks to both wildlife and humans. At this time, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment has not yet been done to quantify the risk of these contaminants on publicly-owned land. Barkerville’s management plan will need to address the potential threats of EAB infestation and invasive species, and the existing challenges of environmental contamination, in order to preserve and enhance the ecological health of the conservation area.

SITE SUMMARY: ASSETS & CHALLENGES Assets Barkerville is a beautiful wooded property with access to the West Branch of the Housatonic River. With views of a historical mill foundation and its river frontage, the property offers an example of Pittsfield’s industrial heritage with a strong connection to its waterways. These assets present opportunities for interpretive signs and environmental and cultural education. The property also offers connectivity for wildlife and ecology with its close proximity to Wild Acres and its location on the Housatonic River. The property is heavily wooded and contributes to ecological services in canopy cover, carbon sequestration and wetlands that slow and clean water as it leaves the property.

Challenges Contamination from the old woolen mill, a tannery, and industrial sites across the river has been identified in a parcel adjacent to Barkervile. Contaminants include petroleum spills and deposits of coal ash along the riverbed. Coal ash can leak into the water table and cause contamination of the water table and surface water, posing health risks to both wildlife and humans. A Phase II Environmental Site Assessment should be performed within the publicly owned lands to quantify the hazards to users and the local ecology.

The steeply sloping terrain and power lines associated with the electric substation are conducive to the use of ATVs, as Eversource keeps the land under its power corridors clear of woody obstacles. Lack of enforcement and barriers for ATV use has resulted in a network of illegal trails traversing the property.

A remnant of the hydro-powered mills once occupying the site, coal ash remains embedded along the riverbed, posing a challenge to ecological health and recreational safety. Photo credit: Jim McGrath.

The central location of the Eversource substation presents an aesthetic challenge, and future trails should be sited in such a way where they highlight Barkerville’s natural assets while avoiding the substation. Summary A management plan for Barkerville will need to focus on highlighting its character as an area of historical and ecological value, while addressing misuse and contamination.

SITE ANALYSIS: BARKERVILLE CONSERVATION AREA | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Barkerville Conservation Area: Specific Objectives OBJECTIVES Objective: Protect, preserve, and maintain Barkerville’s natural resources. Strategy 1: Based on the preceding site analysis, develop a management plan for Barkerville that encourages appropriate patterns of use (see “Exploring alternatives for Appropriate Use at Barkerville Conservation Area”, right). Strategy 2: Work with Eversource to develop an organic, ecologically sound management regime for power line easements. Promote early and mid-successional habitat within these right of ways. Strategy 3: Involve the public in screening for emerald ash borer. Provide on-site information material regarding emerald ash borer facts, identification, and how to report sightings. Strategy 4: Incorporate a Park Watch group (see “Park Watch” on page 68) to report and help prevent ecologically destructive activities such as ATV use (see “Curbing Motor Vehicle Use On Conservation Lands” on page 45) and dumping. Objective: Enhance human access to Barkerville. Strategy 1: Provide access improvements. A. Determine appropriate size for and create a new parking area at the existing entrance off of Barker Road. B. Design parking and trails using the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles to prevent likelihood of misuse (see “The Four Principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design” on page 66). Strategy 2: Encourage visitation by promoting safe recreational opportunities at Barkerville. A. Explore the option of developing a permitting program to regulate hunting on the property and restrict to bow hunting only. Post dates of the hunting season, types of hunting allowed, and permitting requirements (“Case Study: Engaging Hunters in Protection of Conservation Lands” on page 37). B. Complete a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of the contaminated areas on publicly-owned property to determine the level of contamination, its possible effect on human recreational activity and natural resources, and methods of remediation. C. Identify priority areas where human activity should be restricted due to sensitive ecological resources, cultural significance, or risk to human health. 36

EXPLORING ALTERNATIVES FOR APPROPRIATE USE AT BARKERVILLE CONSERVATION AREA Option 1: No intervention. Allow unguided use of site. Benefits: No strain on budget. No strain on site from development. Will not attract more visitors to site, who could potentially impact site ecology. Constraints: Unguided use is damaging to site ecology, with visitors treading over understory in wooded communities, through meadows, and into wetlands.

Option 2: Prioritize access while minimizing ecological degradation. Install a formal hiking trail following Forest Trail Accessibility Guidelines (“Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines” on page 65) and highlighting river frontage. Benefits: Directs visitors to areas of concentrated use and discourages exploration on the ground. Care and maintenance could discourage misuse. Formal trails could be designed to deter ATV users. Constraints: Increased interest in the site may attract more visitors, leading to increased ecological disruption. Potential for budgetary strain, unless there is a concerted effort to rely on donated materials and volunteer labor. Option 3: Prioritize access while minimizing ecological degradation. Assess informal ATV trails for conversion to mountain bike trails. Benefits: A formal bike trail would focus use and ensure the least impact on the site’s ecology. Constraints: A mountain bike trail could conflict with other recreational uses of the site including hunting and fishing. Increased use to the site could increase visitorship, ecological disturbance and maintenance costs.

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | OBJECTIVES: BARKERVILLE CONSERVATION AREA

Objective: Increase opportunities for environmental education and community outreach. Strategy 1: Promote Barkerville as a prime site for historical and environmental education and passive recreation. Strategy 2: Educate abutters as to how their property management can affect Barkerville’s ecological integrity. Supply resources regarding ecologically sound landscape management practices. Strategy 3: Post interpretive signs with information highlighting Barkerville’s natural and social history and a notice board for communicating updates. Objective: Foster communication and address gaps in information. Strategy 1: Establish, implement, and publicize general rules, management policies and/or unsafe areas. Clearly define Barkerville’s boundaries with posted signs. Strategy 2: Erect an informational kiosk at the public entrance. The kiosk should have contact information for reporting misuse or safety issues, communicating events, and promoting educational programs.

CASE STUDY: ENGAGING HUNTERS IN PROTECTION OF CONSERVATION LANDS Sudbury, MA is a town of approximately 18,000 people in Boston’s MetroWest. Sudbury was one of the first towns in Massachusetts to allow bow hunting on conservation parcels. The experienced archery hunters in the Sudbury program are a valuable asset to the Conservation Commission: they help control deer populations safely and ethically, and, as a requirement of their hunting permit, perform service projects to maintain or improve the town’s conservation areas. (MetroWest Daily News, 2014).

Hunters are required to apply for a permit from the town, pass a proficiency test and undergo an interview to be accepted into the program. In 2012, the town capped the number of permits at 25, spread over 15 public properties. Once accepted into the program, hunters are assigned to a specific conservation property and may only hunt at that location with bow and arrow. Hunters must follow all state game laws and are required to clearly label all hunting equipment, such as tree stands, with their permit number. Anyone who finds hunting equipment without a permit is asked to contact the Sudbury Conservation Commission office (Peters & Dineen, 2012). While there is no minimum acreage required for hunting, hunters must observe a 500 foot safety zone around occupied buildings and a 150 foot safety zone near public roads (Chapter 321, section 58 of Massachusetts State Law).

Restricting hunting to archery has become popular due to the arrows’ short range and because it is a relatively quiet activity, decreasing the likelihood of disturbing neighbors in residential areas (Hanson, 2014).

OBJECTIVES: BARKERVILLE CONSERVATION AREA | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Brattlebrook Park

Figure 16: Brattlebrook Park in context. Brattlebrook is located in the residential neighborhood of Lakewood, which is southeast of downtown Pittsfield. The property is comprised of several parcels. An Eversource easement divides the property. A parking lot is located in the center of the property off of Longview Terrace Extension.

Former GE Facility er

t sa

u Ho

nic

Riv

Goodrich Pond

tle

Longview Terrace Ext

Eversource Easement

Elm

Str

Legend

t Williams Street

Brattlebrook Park Railroad P

Pond or Lake Parking Lot

Public Entrance

0.25

0.5

CONTEXT Location Brattlebrook Park is a property of approximately 258 acres located in a relatively dense residential area southeast of downtown Pittsfield. The property is in the Lakewood neighborhood which extends to Pittsfield’s western border. This neighborhood lies north of Elm and Williams Streets. Brattle Brook, a perennial stream, runs along the northeast boundary and discharges into the East Branch of the Housatonic River, which passes to the north of the parcel. The entire site lies within the East Branch sub-basin of the Housatonic River Watershed.

Longview Terrace Extension is a bumpy north-south gravel road which bisects the property and serves as the public 38

River or Stream

Miles 1 entrance to the site. A power line right of way managed by Eversource divides the parcel to the south. Residential properties closely abut the majority of the parcel. History Brattlebrook Park operated as the Allessio Brothers Dairy Farm for approximately 70 years. The dairy farm’s cows were not set out to pasture but were kept in the barn and feed was brought to them. This allowed the Allessios to increase the land’s productivity, growing corn and hay on a large portion of the property and even reclaiming 30 acres of wetland on the farm for crops. When harvest time came, they hired local youth in the neighborhood to the help with baling hay (A. Bertelli, personal communication, 4 Mar 2016). As the economic climate changed and as the brothers grew older, they decided to sell the property. The

A VISION FOR PITTFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | SITE ANALYSIS: BRATTLEBROOK PARK

A local farmer maintains 50 acres of hay within Brattlebrook Park. Photo credit: Miranda Feldmann.

City had an interest in the property and chose to exercise eminent domain. They compensated the Alessios with $148,000. The City took hold of the property in 1969 for the purpose of “a public park, public recreation area and conservation purposes” (Pittsfield City Council, 1969). Since the 1970s, the City has purchased additional parcels that have added to the original footprint of Brattlebrook Farm. Fifty acres of the property remain under hay production. The City has maintained a relationship with local farmer, who usually harvests the hay once a year in late July or early August (G. Noble, personal communication, 22 Mar 2016).

Brattlebrook Park is situated south of the former General Electric transformer facility (Figure 16). General Electric has a documented history of providing PCB contaminated fill to the City and to residential homeowners from the 1940s to the 1980s. Contamination from this fill has been identified throughout the city, but it is most heavily concentrated in the Lakewood neighborhood (Donn, 1997). Brattlebrook Park has a demonstrated history of volunteer participation. Approximately 15 years ago, a volunteerrun sub-committee developed and proposed rules and regulations for the park. Today, volunteers mow around Longview Terrace Extension’s guardrails and maintain a temporary soccer field and a runway for model plane flying (D. Miraglia, personal communication, 26 Jan 2016).

HUMAN USE Infrastructure & Access The built features on the property consist of a gravel road (Longview Terrace Extension), which leads to a gravel parking lot that can hold approximately a dozen cars. The parking lot is located in the interior of the property. The road is bordered by metal guardrails to discourage ATV access.

Public access is from both ends of Longview Terrace Extension. There is one newly designed City sign, identifying the conservation area, located in the parking lot. Additional informal access is from abutting residential properties and from dead end streets within the Lakewood neighborhood. An extension of the regional bike path, the Ashuwillticook Rail Trail, is proposed to pass through Brattlebrook Park.

Circulation Patterns/Use Brattlebook has an official conservation area sign and posted rules of use at Longview Terrace Extension. Older regulation signs are also posted at various points along the parcel’s permeable boundary. Uses of the property include fishing, hunting (US Fish and Wildlife Service stocks birds), dogwalking, walking, bird watching, snowshoeing, cross country skiing, and picnicking. The Berkshire R/C Flying Club flies model airplanes on the site, and a high school soccer team practices on a temporary field. Unsanctioned activities include mountain biking and ATV use, and the parking lot is often the site of late night partying.

SITE ANALYSIS: BRATTLEBROOK PARK | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

ECOLOGY Natural Communities Brattlebrook Park contains a grassland/forest edge habitat, or ecotone, providing high quality, underrepresented wildlife habitat within Pittsfield. The property is comprised of 64% wetlands (54% wooded), 55% canopy cover and 23% herbaceous cover with some acreage in hay (Figure 17). The Berkshire R/C Flying Club is a frequent user group of Brattlebrook Park, where they mow a landing strip. Photo credit: Brad Lorenz.

Goodrich Pond is a popular destination within Brattlebrook Park. Photo credit: Miranda Feldmann.

10,000’

Legend Shrub Swamp Mixed Forest

Deciduous Forest

Longview Terrace Extension, a dirt road bisecting the property, leads visitors to the parking lot. Photo credit: Miranda Feldmann.

Coniferous Forest

Herbaceous Wetland Open Water

Figure 17: Natural Communities. Brattlebrook Park’s combination of wooded, wetland, and herbaceous natural communities enhances the conservation area’s edge habitat, which is important to maintaining biodiversity.

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | SITE ANALYSIS: BRATTLEBROOK PARK

Core Habitat & Critical Natural Landscape for Conservation Species of Concern According to BioMap2, 115.31 acres, or approximately 45%, of Brattlebrook Park is composed of aquatic core habitat for species of conservation concern. The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) describes aquatic core as “intact river corridors within which important physical and ecological processes of the river or stream occur” (NHESP, 2012). Brattlebrook’s large acreage of aquatic core habitat contributes to the high water quality of its wetlands and makes it a valuable habitat for aquatic and semi-aquatic wildlife.

Brattlebrook has 146.16 acres of Critical Natural Landscape, which makes up approximately 57% of the conservation area’s total land area. Critical Natural Landscapes are large blocks of intact natural vegetation which support the species of concern found in areas of Core Habitat. Brattlebrook’s Critical Natural Landscape is composed of wooded buffers located upland of the site’s Miles 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 aquatic core habitat. These buffers were delineated by mapping surrounding unfragmented habitats adjacent Legend habitat was given to the aquatic core. Unfragmented Legend preference over developed areasDeep inMarsh order to identify buffers Marsh or Fen which will support the habitats Shallow and functionality of the Deep Marsh Legend Shrub Swamp core habitat. Brattlebrook’s upland buffers are important Deep Marsh Swamp Deciduous Shallow Marsh or Fen as they provide room for speciesWooded to move between habitat Shallow Marsh or Fen Wooded Swamp Mixed Trees types as part of their lifecycle. Shrub Swamp River or Stream Shrub Swamp

Pond or Lake

The property has been identifiedBioMap2 as habitat for the Core Habitat American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), a bird identified BioMap2 Critical Natural Landscape as an endangered species under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act. The American bittern can be found in freshwater marshes, meadows, and fens or bogs that are dominated by emergent vegetation like cattails, sedges and grasses.

0.125

0.25

Miles 0.5

Wooded Swamp Deciduous

Wooded Swamp Mixed Trees River or Stream Pond or Lake

Wooded Swamp Mixed Trees

BioMap2 Core Habitat

River or Stream

BioMap2 Critical Natural Landscape

Pond or Lake

BioMap2 Core Habitat

BioMap2 Critical Natural Landscape

Figure 18: BioMap2 in Brattlebrook Park. Brattlebrook Park’s aquatic habitat and critical natural landscape support the American bittern, a MESA endangered species.

SITE ANALYSIS: BRATTLEBROOK PARK | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Farmland Soils Perhaps unsurpisingly, given its agricultural history, 80% of Brattlebrook’s land area is designated as farmland soils of importance (Figure 19). The conservation area has 29 acres of prime farmland soil, specifically categorized as Hero loam. Hero loam is moderately well drained, with a seasonal high water table. This soil type is often cultivated for crops, hay, and pasture. Thirty-two acres of the site’s soils are considered to be of statewide importance. These acres are in Hinckley gravelly sandy loam, which are excessively well drained and commonly used for hay, pasture, and silage corn. If allowed to go idle, cleared land with Hinckley loam can support low bush blueberry.

Brattlebrook also features 147 acres of farmland soil of unique importance: Palms and Carlisle mucks. These level areas are very deep and very poorly drained. They are often located along floodplains, and can be drained for vegetable or hay production. These soils have earned the title of “unique importance” as they have a unique combination of characteristics neededLegend to produce sustained high yields of a specific crop, such as cranberries. Further assessment Perennial Stream would be necessary to determine specific crops appropriate for these soils in Brattlebrook. Pond or Lake Legend Wetland

As Brattlebrook has a history of agricultural use and Perennial Stream Designation continues to produce hayFarmland on 50 acres, this conservation Prime or Lakeincreasing area is an excellent location toPond explore agricultural production in conservation areas. Further Statewide Importance Wetland study will be needed toFarmland determine the optimal crops and Designation Unique Importance locations for expanded agricultural use, while minimizing Prime Slope Soil Type any potential effects on the local &ecological systems. Hero loam, 0-3% Statewide Importance

Environmental Challenges Unique Hinckley gravelly sandy loam, 0-3% Importance Historical PCB contamination remains an environmental Soil Type Palms & Slope and Carlisle mucks, 0-1% challenge today. Studies have found that after remediation Hero loam, 0-3% efforts and subsequent mandated testing, the average Hinckley gravelly sandy loam, PCB contamination in both the top foot of soil and in 0-3% the subsurface soils in the vicinity of Goodrich Pond Palms and Carlisle mucks, 0-1% was below 2ppm (General Electric Company, 2005). The Massachusetts Contingency Plan, which provides for the protection of health, safety, public welfare and the environment by establishing requirements and procedures for the activities and cleanup of oil or hazardous materials, sets a threshold of PCB concentrations of no more than an average of 2ppm for residential properties. 42

¯ ¯

Legend 0

0.125

0.25

Miles 0.5

Perennial Stream Pond or Lake Wetland

Farmland Designation Prime

Statewide Importance Unique Importance

Soil Type & Slope

Hero loam, 0-3%

Hinckley gravelly sandy loam, 0-3% Palms and Carlisle mucks, 0-1%

Figure 19: Farmland Soils. Eighty percent of Brattlebrook Park’s soils are of prime, statewide, or unique importance.

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | SITE ANALYSIS: BRATTLEBROOK PARK

0.12

Despite the residential standard applied to this recreational property, residents expressed concern about possible contamination in the conservation area. In addition, the EPA’s most recent waterbody assessment in 2012 identified Goodrich Pond as an impaired waterbody due to high levels of PCBs in the fish.

The largest area of floodplain within Pittsfield is in the area adjacent to Brattle Brook and its unnamed tributary located north of the Elm Street/Williams Street junction. Nearly all of Brattlebrook Park is within the 100 year floodplain (BSC Group, 2007). Therefore climate change and an increase in the frequency of intense storms may pose a challenge to the area. There is no inventory of invasive plant species on the property, but given the close proximity to residential properties, and the presence of invasive plants on other study parcels, the potential is present.

SITE SUMMARY: ASSETS & CHALLENGES Assets Brattlebrook Park is the largest City-owned conservation area in Pittsfield with over 258 acres of protected natural open space. Over half of the property has canopy cover, which is a valuable indicator of water quality for local streams and wetlands. Brattlebrook Park also contains meadows and edge habitat that is relatively rare within Pittsfield making it an important habitat for wildlife. The property is a beloved place for many nearby residents and provides a wealth of opportunities to connect people in the neighborhood with nature. The neighboring communities have a demonstrated history of volunteerism. The parcel has a long history of agricultural use and represents the value of agriculture in Pittsfield’s development and growth. Challenges Located in an area of dense residential development, Brattlebrook faces challenges related to human use. There are concerns over Longview Terrace Extension, which is not a City road but a road operated by the Conservation Commission and maintained by the Pittsfield Highway Department. Local residents complain that the road is in poor repair, kicks up dust, and has no enforced speed limit. Many residents are opposed to closing it to public use, as they use it as a convenient cut-through and as a secondary route when other roads are affected by flooding. Brattlebrook faces regular trespassing by ATVs, many of which enter the parcel from abutting backyards. Illegal dumping and illicit partying are also issues, as is backyard

encroachment by neighboring residents who extend their mowing and lawn care regimes into the conservation area. A temporary soccer field was permitted to allow the high school soccer team to practice when the playing fields in the nearby City parks are in use. The volunteer-mowed soccer field is controversial, as many conservation area users and the Conservation Commission have stated a preference that conservation areas be used for passive recreation only. There is general agreement that activities like organized sports have a detrimental effect on the experience of conservation spaces which are considered to be more wild in nature, unlike neighborhood parks.

Goodrich Pond, a popular destination, has been identified as an impaired water body by the EPA due to high levels of PCBs in the fish, which are unsafe for human consumption. While studies have concluded that average soil levels of PCBs are in a range that is safe for human residential use, citizens remain concerned about the contamination. In addition, contamination levels would need to be reassessed within the context of allowing different activities on the property such as agricultural food production. Summary As Brattlebrook Park provides habitat for four Species of Concervation Concern and exhibits ecotone habitat otherwise underrepresented within Pittsfield, its management plan will need to balance the uses of a dense residential neighborhood with conservation values.

An EPA sign indicates that fish and waterfowl within Goodrich Pond are unsafe to eat due to high levels of PCBs. Photo credit: Miranda Feldmann.

SITE ANALYSIS: BRATTLEBROOK PARK | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Brattlebrook Park: Specific Objectives OBJECTIVES Objective: Protect, preserve, and maintain Brattlebrook Park’s natural resources. Strategy 1: Based on the preceding site analysis, develop a management plan for Brattlebrook Park that encourages proper patterns of use. (See call out box, opposite). Strategy 2: Work with Eversource to develop an organic, ecologically sound management regime of their powerline easements. Promote early and midsuccessional habitat within these right of ways as an extension of Brattlebrook Park’s meadow habitat. Objective: Enhance human access to Brattlebrook Park. Strategy 1: Identify priority areas where human activity should be restricted due to sensitive ecological resources, cultural significance (e.g potential archaeological sites), or risk to human health. A. Explore alternative access points from abutting neighborhoods. Consult the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles (“The Four Principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design” on page 66). Strategy 2: Enhance connectivity between downtown Pittsfield and Brattlebrook with expanded multi-modal transit options, such as routing the Ashuwillticook Rail Trail through Brattlebrook. Strategy 3: Ensure consistent maintenance and safe access to Brattlebrook Park. A. Explore the possibility of employing seasonal volunteers or park rangers to open/ close community gates and patrol until a friends group can be established. B. Determine feasibility of City’s Department of Public Works taking over maintenance of Longview Terrace Extension in order to ensure proper maintenance and enforcement of speed limits. C. Incorporate a Park Watch group (“Park Watch” on page 68) to report and help reduce illegal activities on conservation areas, promote safe use, and recruit nearby neighbors.

EXPLORING ALTERNATIVES FOR APPROPRIATE USE AT BRATTLEBROOK PARK Option 1: No intervention. Allow unguided use of site. Benefits: No strain on budget. Will not attract more visitors to site, who could potentially impact site ecology. Constraints: Unguided use is damaging to site ecology, with visitors treading over understory in wooded communities, through meadows, and into wetlands.

Option 2: Prioritize access while minimizing ecological degradation. Explore locations for a formal trail to curb ecological degradation. Benefits: Directs visitors to areas of concentrated use and discourages exploration on the ground. Indication of care and maintenance could discourage misuse. Constraints: Increased interest in the site may attract more visitors, leading to increased ecological disruption. Potential for budgetary strain, unless there is a concerted effort to rely on donated materials and volunteer labor. Option 3: Prioritize biodiversity and health of the ecotone habitat. Restrict recreational access to the meadows. Implement meadow maintenance techniques and mowing timelines that promote the health of meadow associated flora and fauna. Benefits: Decreased foot traffic could lead to increased ecological integrity. A mowing schedule timed with ecological cycles, such bird nesting season or pollinator lifecycles, would increase the habitat value of the meadow. Constraints: Restricts recreational access to the grasslands, upon which many hobby groups rely. Optimal meadow mowing regimes conflict with agricultural calendar. Reduced economic viability of haying the site could result in decreased volunteer mowing. Option 4: Prioritize field for organic farming. Perform an environmental assessment for the safety of farming on the property. Explore opportunities for community farm leasing. Benefits: Continues historical legacy of agriculture within the park. Facilitates production of local food (if vegetable farming). Generate small budgetary income from lease. Constraints: Agricultural production could disturb grassland and meadow habitat. Coordinating with leasees could generate extra staffing needs.

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | OBJECTIVES: BRATTLEBROOK PARK

Objective: Increase opportunities for environmental education and community outreach. Strategy 1: Promote Brattlebrook Park for educational and outdoor physical fitness opportunities to nearby schools, non-profit groups and senior centers. Strategy 2: Educate abutters as to how their property management can affect Brattlebrook Park’s ecological integrity. Supply resources regarding ecologically sound landscape management practices. Strategy 3: Erect kiosks and/or interpretive signs with information highlighting Brattlebrook’s natural and social history and a notice board for communicating changes in policy or advertising events. Objective: Develop adequate staffing and funding sources for Brattlebrook Park’s management. Strategy 1: Encourage the establishment of a Friends of Brattlebrook Park group or pursue partnerships with other nonprofit groups to help with maintenance and infrastructure upkeep at the conservation area. Strategy 2: Foster partnerships with local groups and organizations to aid with site maintenance and education. Strategy 3: Pursue corporate sponsorship for Brattlebrook Park. Sponsors could be listed on new wayfinding signs. Objective: Foster communication and address gaps in information. Strategy 1: Establish, implement, and publicize general rules, management policies and/or unsafe areas. Define Brattlebrook Park’s boundaries and clearly post signs. Strategy 2: Increase accessibility of information by posting signs at all public entrances and erecting an informational kiosk. Signs and kiosks should have contact information for reporting misuse or safety issues, communicating events, and promoting educational programs. Strategy 3: Enhance visibility of signs at Goodrich Pond clearly labeling it as an impaired water body to discourage fishing for consumption and encourage catch and release. Determine if any additional environmental testing is warranted.

CURBING MOTOR VEHICLE USE ON CONSERVATION LANDS Off-road vehicles (ORVs), including all-terrain vehicles and motorbikes, are a popular pastime. Between 1972 and 2004 there was a 920% increase in ORV ownership across the country. ORVs can have a huge impact on the ecology of protected lands and the experience of other users. Wildlands CPR works to protect wild lands from the damaging effects of ORV use and recommend the following actions in their 2006 report Six Strategies for Success: Effective Enforcement of Off-Road Vehicle Use on Public Lands to successfully deter ORV use on conservation property:

Do not tolerate damage from ORVs and engage in visible response. Ignoring the problem makes it more difficult to resolve. Take action when new trails are discovered by posting signs in the location indicating ORV use is prohibited and directing riders to obtain permits to use nearby routes at Pittsfield State Forest, October Mountain State Forest, and Beartown State Forest instead. Create opportunities for citizen reporting. Enlisting the help of visitors and Friend Groups puts more eyes on the property to deter violations. Give people the tools to report misuse. The Massachusetts Environmental Police have a 24-hour hotline to report ORV use on conservation lands in the state. Hot Line: 800-632-8075. Promote a culture shift among peers. Building relationships among different recreation users promotes peer enforcement. Media campaigns and public outreach can focus on shared values including healthy wildlife and habitat, respect, fun, safety and stewardship. Offer volunteer opportunities to engage the community in repair and maintenance at the conservation lands and include an invitation to local and regional off-road clubs to encourage peer enforcement.

OBJECTIVES: BRATTLEBROOK PARK | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

David J. Tierney, Sr. Wildlife Refuge Onota Lake

Sherwood Drive

Figure 20: David J. Tierney, Sr. Wildlife Refuge in context. Tierney is located in a residential neighborhood west of downtown Pittsfield. The entrance and a small parking area is off of Jason Street. An informal path leads visitors west from the parking lot, but tapers off as it gets further into the property.

Jason Street

West Street

Friar Dr

Charisma Drive

Maloy

Brook

Legend

Riv

David J. Tierney, Sr. Wildlife

CONTEXT

0.125

0.25

Location Totalling approximately 60 acres, the David J. Tierney, Sr. Wildlife Refuge is located in a residential area to the west of downtown Pittsfield. Residential single family detached units abut the conservation area to the west, north, and east, and a CSX railroad marks the southern boundary. The official entrance is along Jason Street to the east.

History The earliest known owner of the land was William C. Allen who built a residence in 1856 north of the present day property boundaries called the Taconic Lodge. Allen’s heirs sold the property to a manufacturing tycoon known as Henry C. Valentine, who eventually named the property Valentine Farm. The land included the present day parcel and continued north to the shores of Onota Lake (Berkshire Health Systems, 1987). Historically, Tierney’s wetlands were underlain with drainage tiles, and the site was farmed as a wheat field. By the 1920s, silt filled the drainage 46

Miles 0.5

Public Entrance and Parking Informal Path

tiles and the area reverted to wetlands and open water (personal communication, M. Makes, 19 Jan 2016).

David J. Tierney, Sr. purchased approximately 100 acres of land in October 1929, with a plan to expand his adjacent dairy farm. However, the stock market crash caused the price of milk to fall, so he held onto the land until residential development became a viable opportunity to sell developable portions of the property in the 1940s. Residential development continued slowly, but steadily, with Sherwood and Friar Drives added in 1959. In 1973, groundwork was laid for Charisma Drive.

In the early 1970s, the Tierney family donated the wetlands and their wooded buffer to the City as a wildlife preserve. The relatively dense residential properties, abutting Tierney’s prime wetland habitat, were built in the late 1990s as the last portion of Charisma Drive was completed.

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | SITE ANALYSIS: DAVID J. TIERNEY, SR. WILDLIFE REFUGE

Wetlands at the David J. Tierney, Sr. Wildlife Refuge cover approximately 43% of the property. Photo credit: Miranda Feldmann.

HUMAN USE Access A dirt parking area, with room for approximately three vehicles, is located at the unmarked entrance off of Jason Street. No sign identifies the conservation area. Visitors explore the site following an informal path through a white pine forest which gradually opens up to reveal the wetland. Additional informal access is from abutting residential properties. Circulation Patterns/Use Other than the informal path, no other trails exist on site. Permitted uses include birdwatching, walking, and dogwalking. The Conservation Commission has found evidence of bonfires and an illegal hunting blind on the property. Local residents report illicit partying in the refuge’s wooded perimeters.

An informal path leads from Tierney’s public entrance to its wetland core. Photo credit: Miranda Feldmann.

SITE ANALYSIS: DAVID J. TIERNEY, SR. WILDLIFE REFUGE | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

ECOLOGY Natural Communities Tierney has a wetland core with an exterior of mixed deciduous/coniferous woodland communities. The site’s 60 acres are composed of approximately 56% wetlands (19% wooded); 30% forests; and 12% herbaceous and scrub communities. The refuge has 60% canopy cover (Figure 21).

Core Habitat and Critical Natural Landscape for Species of Conservation Concern According to BioMap2, 39.75 acres, or 66%, of Tierney is comprised of aquatic core habitat for species of conservation concern. The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) describes aquatic core as “intact river corridors within which important physical and ecological processes of the river or stream occur” (2012).

Tierney has 49.2 acres of Critical Natural Landscape, which makes up approximately 82% of the conservation area’s total land area. Critical Natural Landscape are the large blocks of intact natural vegetation which support the species of concern found in areas of Core Habitat. Tierney’s Critical Natural Landscape includes wooded buffers located upland of the site’s aquatic core habitat. These buffers were delineated by mapping surrounding unfragmented habitats adjacent to the aquatic core and provide room for species that move between habitat types as part of their lifecycle.

Tierney is home to populations of four conservation species of concern, all of which are waterfowl: • The American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), an endangered species under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA), can be found in freshwater marshes, meadows, and in fens or bogs that are dominated by emergent vegetation such as cattails, sedges and grasses.

10,000’

Legend Scrub/Shrub

Shrub Swamp Mixed Forest

Deciduous Forest

Coniferous Forest

Herbaceous Wetland

Seasonal Open Water

Figure 21: Natural Communities. Tierney’s forested peripheries surround a wetland core.

• The common moorhen (Gallinula chloropus), a species of special concern under MESA, prefers brackish or freshwater marshes. The common moorhen nests in areas of thick vegetation adjacent to open water. • The pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), listed as endangered under MESA, nests in wetlands and open bodies of water with an abundant supply of vegetated cover.

• The king rail (Rallus elegans), which is at the northern edge of its range in Massachusetts, is listed as threatened by MESA. Like the three other waterfowl of conservation concern nesting in Tierney, the king rail prefers aquatic habitat with a dense supply of vegetation within which it takes cover and builds nests.

The greatest threat to all four of these waterfowl comes from habitat degradation due to encroaching development, fragmentation, and invasive species.

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | SITE ANALYSIS: DAVID J. TIERNEY, SR. WILDLIFE REFUGE

¯ River or Stream

0.05

Deep Marsh

Pond or Lake

Shrub Swamp

Deep Marsh

Shrub Swamp

Wooded Swamp Deciduous BioMap2 Core Habitat

Legend

Perennial Stream Wooded Swamp Deciduous Pond or Lake

Wetland

0 0.05 0.1 Farmland Designation

Farmland Designation Statewide importance

Farmland Designation

StatewideLandscape importance BioMap2 Critical Natural Unique importance

Amenia silt loam, 8-15% Nellis loam, 8-15%

Palms and Carlisle mucks, 0-1% Pittsfield loam, 3-8%

Figure 22: BioMap2 in Soil Tierney. The health of Tierney’s Type & Slope loam, 8-15% aquatic core relies on its forested buffers, which Pittsfield slow, sink, Amenia silt loam, 8-15% and filter stormwater runoff and pollutants. Nellis loam, 8-15%

Palms and Carlisle mucks, 0-1% Pittsfield loam, 3-8%

Pittsfield loam, 8-15%

Farmland Soils Most of Tierney’s farmland soils of statewide importance are clustered to the site’s western and southwestern edges (Figure 23). Totaling 16 acres, these farmland soils are comprised of Nellis loam, Armenia silt loam, and Pittsfield loam. Amernia loam is poorly drained and often used for pasture, while Pittsfield and Nellis loams are both well drained and used for pasture or cropland. Nellis loam is also used for hay, corn, grains, and some vegetable crops. The remainder of Tierney’s farmland soils are of unique importance. Palms and Carlisle mucks are very poorly drained and are often used for unique specialty crops.

0.05

0.1

Miles 0.2

Statewide importance Unique importance

Soil Type & Slope

Wetland BioMap2 Core Habitat

BioMap2 Critical Natural Landscape

Wetland

Unique importance

0.1

Pond or Lake

Legend Perennial Stream

Perennial Stream

Miles 0.2

0.1

Pond or Lake

River or Stream

0.05

Legend

Miles 0.2

Amenia silt loam, 8-15% Nellis loam, 8-15%

Palms and Carlisle mucks, 0-1% Pittsfield loam, 3-8%

Pittsfield loam, 8-15%

Figure 23: Farmland Soils. Although Tierney has a substantial amount of soil with farmland importance, the site would have to be cleared and drained before it could support agricultural production.

Despite Tierney’s deposits of important farmland soils, it is unlikely that the benefits of agricultural production would outweigh the resources and effort required to convert the land to agricultural use. Such use would heavily alter the ecological function of Tierney’s wetlands, and the Massachusetts’ Wetland Protect Act (WPA) would require extensive mitigation for any disturbance within a 100-foot buffer of the vegetated wetlands which make up 56% of the refuge. With two-thirds of Tierney’s land area identified as core habitat for Species of Conservation Concern, agricultural use within the site is likely to damage the health of the wetland ecology.

SITE ANALYSIS: DAVID J. TIERNEY, SR. WILDLIFE REFUGE | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Environmental Challenges Tierney’s lack of a formal trail results in visitor foot traffic spreading throughout the site instead of being concentrated into designated areas. Depending on the level and nature of Tierney’s visitors, foot traffic and visitor activities could impact the herbaceous and understory layers of the site. As Tierney’s wetlands lie at the lowest point within the conservation area, the site’s nearby residential neighbors can impact the health of Tierney’s natural communities and water quality. Lawn chemicals and fertilizers can enter Tierney via stormwater runoff and run into the wetlands. Aggressive ornamental species, planted in abutting gardens, have the potential to colonize Tierney’s interior,

threatening the integrity of the aquatic core upon which Tierney’s species of concern rely. Some of the abutting properties, in addition to a portion of the adjacent railroad track, lie within the lie within the site’s 100-foot wetland buffer; a distance determined by the WPA as being of critical impact to wetland health. Non-native ornamentals are present within the property’s public entrance, presumably from neighboring residential properties. These include barberry, pachysandra, and other groundcovers.

Legend

River or Stream

Legend

0.05

0.1

Miles 0.2

Figure 24: Proximity abutters to Tierney’s 0 of0.05 0.1 wetlands. Stormwater runoff has the potential to carry pollutants and debris from the neighboring properties and railroad track into the conservation area and affect the health of its wetland habitats. The WPA considers areas within the 100-foot wetland buffer to be critical to wetland health.

Miles 0.2

Pond or Lake

River or Stream Pond or Lake

Wetland Buffer 100 ft

Wetland Buffer 100 ft Deep Marsh

Shrub Swamp

Deep Marsh

Wooded Swamp Deciduous

Shrub Swamp

Abutting Property Lines

Wooded Swamp Deciduous Abutting Property Lines

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | SITE ANALYSIS: DAVID J. TIERNEY, SR. WILDLIFE REFUGE

SITE SUMMARY: ASSETS & CHALLENGES Assets The majority of the site is mapped as either core habitat or Critical Natural Landscape for four avian species of concern, and the property is highly valuable for the habitat it provides. Surrounded by residential development, the property provides an opportunity for local city residents to experience a variety of natural communities close to their own backyards.

Challenges The railroad to the south and wetlands throughout the site constrain access to the west and north sides from the public entrance in the east, limiting public use to the white pine forest. This may or may not be viewed as a challenge as limiting human use of most of the parcel may have positive benefits to the area’s ecological health. However, the limited access inhibits the Conservation Commission’s ability to effectively monitor the site.

Invasive species and aggressive exotic ornamentals, like this Pachysandra found along Tierney’s entrance, have the potential to displace native species within the conservation area. Photo credit: Corrin Meise-Munns

Misuse of the parcel, including unguided foot traffic, illegal dumping, and illicit partying, are reported issues that have aesthetic and ecological implications. Tierney has an unmarked entrance, which obscures the parcel’s designation as an official conservation area. This anonymity likely discourages would-be visitors and contributes to the potential for misuse. Tierney faces threats from invasive species and aggressive ornamentals such as barberry and pachysandra, and ecologically harmful landscaping practices of abutting residential neighbors.

Summary A management plan for Tierney will need focus on protecting the water quality of its wetlands. A major part of this plan could involve enhancing its woodland communities, which function to slow and cleanse stormwater and runoff from neighboring properties before it degrades Tierney’s wetlands.

Tierney’s public entrance lacks an established parking area and a formal sign indicating the visitor’s arrival to a City owned conservation area. Photo credit: Google Earth, 2016.

SITE ANALYSIS: DAVID J. TIERNEY, SR. WILDLIFE REFUGE | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Specific Objectives: Tierney, Sr. Wildlife Refuge OBJECTIVES Objective: Preserve and protect Tierney’s aquatic core and forested buffer. Strategy 1: Based on the preceding site analysis, develop a management plan for Tierney that encourages proper patterns of use. (See call out box, right).

Objective: Enhance human access to Tierney. Strategy 1: Provide adequate parking for conservation area visitors, including handicap spaces, if appropriate. Strategy 2: Install official conservation area sign and post rules of use. Objective: Promote educational opportunities regarding the site’s wetland ecology. Strategy 1: Educate abutters regarding healthy landscape management practices and the ecological function of wetlands. Strategy 2: Promote Tierney as a prime educational site for researching wetland ecosystems to City grade schools and Berkshire Community College. Strategy 3: Erect a kiosk and/or interpretive signs with information highlighting Tierney’s natural and social history and a notice board for communicating changes in policy, upcoming events, and contact information for reporting misuse or safety issues. Objective: Develop adequate staffing and funding sources for the Tierney’s management Strategy 1: Encourage the establishment of a Friends group or pursue partnerships with other nonprofit groups to help with monitoring projects, maintenance and infrastructure upkeep. Strategy 2: Pursue corporate sponsorship and/or volunteer assistance to establish a formal trail or boardwalk with viewing platform at Tierney.

EXPLORING ALTERNATIVES FOR APPROPRIATE USE AT THE DAVID J. TIERNEY, SR. WILDLIFE REFUGE Option 1: No intervention. Allow unguided use of site. Do not install formal trails. Benefits: No strain on budget. Will not attract more visitors to site, who could potentially impact site ecology. Constraints: Unguided use is damaging to site ecology, with visitors treading over understory in wooded communities and into wetlands. Does not further goal of attracting more visitors to conservation areas. Unmaintained aesthetic does not indicate that the property is cared for, which can encourage misuse.

Option 2: Prioritize access while minimizing ecological degradation. Install a universally accessible trail and boardwalk with a viewing platform overlooking the wetlands. Such a destination would allow visitors to experience sites of interest while keeping them dry and off the ground (see case study, opposite). Benefits: Promotes universal access to conservation area. Allows for trail improvements with minimal impact on wetland storage capacity and vegetative communities. Directs visitors to areas of concentrated use and discourages exploration on the ground. Indication of care and maintenance could discourage misuse. Constraints: Increased interest in site may attract more visitors, which may mean more ecological disruption. Requires a budgetary investment, which can be mitigated by a concerted effort to rely on donated materials and volunteer labor. Option 3: Prioritize ecological health. Close site to visitors. Benefits: Decreased visitorship could lead to increased ecological integrity. Constraints: Does not further goal of attracting more visitors to site. Decreases “eyes on site” who can help monitor illegal activities.

In the case that the Conservation Commission decides to proceed with Option 3 (prioritize ecological health), then no other objectives apply.

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | OBJECTIVES: DAVID J. TIERNEY, SR. WILDLIFE REFUGE

UNIVERSALLY ACCESSIBLE WETLANDS BOARDWALK AT THE SILVIO O. CONTE NATIONAL FISH & WILDLIFE REFUGE Andrew French, Wildlife Refuge Manager at the Silvio O. Conte National Fish & Wildlife Refuge in Hadley, MA, had a problem on his hands. He wanted to build a universally accessible trail to allow visitors of any ability level to explore the refuge, but he was short on funds and labor. Additionally, much of the refuge encompassed vegetative wetlands, protected under the Massachusetts WPA. French would need to compensate for any disturbance to the wetland’s vegetation or ability to store water, which made building a trail difficult. Luckily, French is a trail design enthusiast and was up to the challenge. Deciding on permeable crushed stone for the terrestrial portions of the trail, he adapted the concept of a bog bridge, or “floating boardwalk,” for the wetlands. French designed the boardwalk to require no digging. The boardwalk rests on top of the soil, so no compensatory storage was needed (see photos, right).

In order to maximize accessibility, he designed for a bench or viewing platform every 300 to 450 feet to allow for sitting and resting. As the boardwalk meanders through multiple natural communities, he was able to site these features in visually interesting areas.

As French had a limited budget and no staff to help build the trail, he relied on donated materials and volunteer labor. He calls the trail a community project, “built a bit at a time.” He held community work days, hosted high school service groups, and applied for AmeriCorps interns. The project took approximately a year and a half to complete. Ultimately, what made the Silvio O. Conte trail such a success was how French involved the community from day one. (A. French, personal communication, 11 Mar 2016).

Built for universal accessibility and ecological health. The height and orientation of the structure allows sunlight to pass underneath the boardwalk, sustaining the layer of herbaceous wetland vegetation underneath. The boardwalk rests on the surface of the ground, and required no digging of the wetland soils.

Photo credit: Miranda Feldmann (top, left).

OBJECTIVES: DAVID J. TIERNEY, SR. WILDLIFE REFUGE | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Wild Acres Conservation Area

South Mountain Road

Farmland in life estate

ic un M rt eld po sfi Air itt

Figure 25: Wild Acres Conservation Area in context. Wild Acres is located southwest of downtown Pittsfield and adjacent to the municipal airport. The property is accessible from South Mountain Road.

Fishing Pond

Wildlife Pond

Legend Wild Acres Conservation Area

Barkerville Conservation Area

Tamarac

k Road

0.125

0.25

Miles 0.5

River or Stream Pond or Lake Parking Lot

Public Entrance Formal Trails Dams Viewing Tower

CONTEXT Location Wild Acres is an 112.5-acre conservation area to the southwest of Pittsfield’s urban center. Wild Acres is accessible from South Mountain Road, which runs to the north of the parcel, and is bounded by Tamarack Road to the south. To the southeast of Wild Acres’ public entrance, the property is abutted by an agricultural parcel of approximately 7.5 acres. This agricultural land is part of the life estate of a local farmer and will eventually be incorporated into the conservation area.

On the west, Wild Acres is adjacent to the recently expanded Pittsfield Municipal Airport, which has a campus of over 575 acres. In 2015, the airport was base to 37 aircraft (Pittsfield Municipal Airport, 2016), and in 2012 54

saw a total operations of 33,000 flights (Federal Aviation Administration, 2012).

Wild Acres lies within a half-mile from the 74-acre Barkerville Conservation Area. Wild Acres has the potential to form part of a network of protected open space through the southwestern portion of Pittsfield, serving as a link between Pittsfield State Forest on the far west side and October Mountain State Forest, the Pittsfield Watershed Area, and Kirvin Park on Pittsfield’s eastern boundary. Wild Acres Brook flows into the Southwest Branch of the Housatonic River. Surface water flows north through the site along with Wild Acres Brook before entering the river.

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | SITE ANALYSIS: WILD ACRES

Wild Acres’ wetlands provide habitat for many species, including Conservation Species of Concern. Photo credit: Jim McGrath

History The property was once owned by a Shaker community, which built its ponds with stone dams. After about 75 years of ownership, the Shakers sold the property to a private owner who added log cabins and concrete dams to the ponds. In 1930, the Pittsfield Chapter of the Isaac Walton League purchased the property and opened a private outdoor recreation and sportsman’s club four years later. Membership reached a peak of more than 500 in the late 1930s. It was during this time that the first fishing tournaments were held, the dams were modernized and improved, and the property managers deepened the pond to increase fishing capacity. In 1965, Wild Acres was donated to the City of Pittsfield under the control of the Conservation Commission. The Conservation Commission continued to develop the site, adding a dam to form a wildlife pond, two miles of trails, and various sporting fields and structures. The City also continued to stock fish and game. The site’s popularity with the residents of Pittsfield is evident by the City’s construction of two softball fields, forty picnic tables, two parking lots, and an updated road to accommodate two lanes of traffic.

After three years of limited access during the expansion of the adjacent Pittsfield Municipal Airport, Wild Acres reopened in 2014 with a significantly different size and shape. Because the airport expanded into Wild Acres’ previously protected wetlands, the City added a compensatory 29.5 acres of wetlands to the conservation area’s deed, bringing Wild Acres’ total area to 112.5 acres.

While no longer the site of sporting fields, Wild Acres still maintains more built attractions than any of the other conservation areas in Pittsfield.

HUMAN USE Infrastructure & Access Wild Acres is the only of the four study parcels to feature visitor facilities such as restrooms, an education center, a fishing hut, and a picnic pavilion. It has two miles of formal trails, two dams, and an observation tower. There is a need for an ADA compliant path from the parking area to the eastern shore of the fishing pond.

Wild Acres is a popular gathering place with amenities such as the picnic pavilion and public restrooms pictured here. Photo credit: Jim McGrath

SITE ANALYSIS: WILD ACRES | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Public access for Wild Acres exists at an unmarked entrance off of South Mountain Road. A small sign is located on South Mountain Road to the east of the parcel announcing the conservation area’s proximity, and an official conservation sign, listing hours of operation, is mounted along the drive to the parking area. The official sign, located over a tenth of a mile from South Mountain Road, is not visible to passersby traveling along the road. Due to a lack of public transportation to the property and few nearby residential properties, visitorship is limited to those who drive to Wild Acres. Circulation Patterns/Use Permitted activities at Wild Acres include youth fishing, trail walking, and dogwalking. Local schools use the conservation area for field trips. Wild Acres suffers from late night illicit partying and vandalism if gates are left open after dusk.

ECOLOGY Natural Communities Wild Acres encompasses several distinct natural communities, including 37% woodlands, 44% various wetland types (26% of which are wooded), two damimpounded ponds, and an old field reverting to forest (Figure 26). The old field grassland provides a small amount of otherwise underrepresented early- and midsuccessional habitat within Wild Acres. The conservation area has 60% canopy cover.

Wild Acres Brook flows into the Southwest Branch of the Housatonic River from the open wetlands in the south of the property through two constructed ponds. The lower pond is stocked with trout for youth fishing derbies, while the upper pond serves as a wildlife feature. Beavers consistently build dams within the upper pond.

Core Habitat and Critical Natural Landscape for Species of Conservation Concern According to BioMap2, 79.24 acres, or 70%, of Wild Acres is composed of aquatic core habitat for species of conservation concern (Figure 27). NHESP describes aquatic core as “intact river corridors within which important physical and ecological processes of the river or stream occur” (NHESP, 2012). Wild Acres has 84.19 acres of Critical Natural Landscape, which makes up approximately 75% of the conservation area’s total land area. Critical Natural Landscape are the large blocks of intact natural vegetation which support the species of concern found in areas of Core Habitat. Wild Acres’ Critical Natural Landscape includes wooded buffers located upland of the site’s aquatic core habitat. These buffers were delineated by mapping surrounding unfragmented habitats adjacent to the aquatic core, and provide room for species that move between habitat types as part of their lifecycle. Wild Acres is home to populations of four vegetative species of conservation concern:

• Chestnut-colored sedge (Carex castanea), listed by MESA as endangered in Massachusetts, is a perennial sedge of calcareous seeps, fens, and wet meadows, deciduous or mixed forests, and along river and pond shores. Tolerating disturbance, the sedge is often found in transitional habitats, such as in forest edges next to open land. Chestnut-colored sedge occupies areas along the shoreline of the upper pond (personal communication, R. Christensen, 11 Feb 2016).

• Crooked-stem aster (Symphyotrichum prenanthoides), a MESA listed species of special concern, is a wildflower which inhabits moist, rich, river- or stream-associated forests, thickets, banks, and meadows. • Barren strawberry (Geum fragerioides), is a lowgrowing, yellow woodland wildflower. Listed by MESA as a species of special concern, it makes its home in a variety of habitats including alluvial or calcareous wooded wetlands, rich mesic forests, and old fields.

• Hill’s pondweed (Potamogeton hillii), also listed as a species of special concern in Massachusetts, is a submersed aquatic plant which can grow in cold water, slow moving streams and rivers.

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | SITE ANALYSIS: WILD ACRES

Farmland in life estate (old field grassland)

Legend Legend Scrub/Shrub

Legend

10,000’

Deep Marsh

Shrub Swamp

Legend Herbaceous Wetland

Deciduous Shrub ForestSwamp Open Water Wooded Deciduous Swamp River or Stream Pond or Lake

BioMap2 Core Habitat

BioMap2 Critical Natural Landscape

0.075 0.15

Miles 0.3

Deep Marsh

Coniferous Forest

Shallow Marsh or Fen

Deep Marsh

Shallow Marsh or Fen Shrub Swamp

Wooded Deciduous Swamp

Shallow Marsh or Fen Shrub Swamp

River or Stream Pond or Lake

Wooded Deciduous Swamp River or Stream Pond or Lake

BioMap2 Core Habitat

BioMap2 Critical Natural Landscape

Core Habitat Figure 26: Natural Communities. Wild Acres is home BioMap2 Figure 27: BioMap2 in Wild Acres. A majority of Wild to a rich mix of natural communities, providing multipleBioMap2 Acres’ land is designated Critical Natural Landscape as being critical to supporting four habitat types for local flora and fauna. vegetative Conservation Species of Concern.

SITE ANALYSIS: WILD ACRES | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Farmland Soils Wild Acres has two acres of prime farmland soils: Stockbridge gravelly silt loam (Figure 28). These calcareous, well drained soils are commonly used for silage corn, hay, pasture, and orchards.

The conservation area’s soils of statewide importance cover 31 acres of the site. Like Stockbridge loam, Pittsfield loam is calcareous and well drained. Pittsfield loam is frequently used for cropland and pasture, although soil slopes above eight percent may be too steep for farming. Used primarily for producing hay, small grains, and corn, Armenia loam is poorly drained.

Farmland in life estate (Stockbridge gravelly silt loam, 3-8%)

Wild Acres’ 17 acres of soils of unique farmland importance are composed of Palms and Carlisle mucks, which are very poorly drained and can be used for hay or unique specialty crops. A significant portion of these soils overlap with vegetative wetlands at Wild Acres, prohibiting disturbance as per the Massachusetts WPA. The most fortuitous location for exploring agricultural use within Wild Acres would likely be within the life estate adjacent to the property. This relatively level location, already in farm production with Stockbridge gravelly silt loam, would require little input in terms of clearing and readying the land. Focusing agricultural production to this location would also have very little, if any, effect on the existing ecological conditions within the conservation area.

Environmental Challenges Stands of ash trees have been seriously affected by emerald ash borer (EAB). The standing dead trees are hazardous to visitors where they occur near trails or other areas of Legend human activity. There is concern that the EAB could spread Legend Perennial to nearby standsStream of ash outside of Wild Acres. A statewide quarantine is in effect for Massachusetts, which restricts Pond or Lake Perennial Stream the movement of ash material (including living and dead, Wetland Pond or Lake smaller than half an inch in diameter). cut or fallen, unless Farmland Designation Wetland

With such a long history of recreational use, the parcel Prime Farmland Designation has a reputation more fitting a park (managed for human use), than a conservation area. Longtime visitors are used Statewide importance Prime to treating the parcel as home, which is a testament to the importance Statewide importance parcel’sUnique place in the heart of Pittsfield, but also poses a threat to its ecological integrity. In its most extreme case, Soil Type & Slope Unique importance this can take the form of a frequent dog walker burying Amenia siltthe loam, 3-8%in its most common case, it Soil &pet Slope theirType dead in forest; can involve large groups of families Palms mucks, 0-1%and school children Ameniaand siltCarlisle loam, 3-8% exploring off path. Pittsfield loam, 3-8%

and Carlisle mucks, 0-1% Figure Palms 28: Farmland Soils. Wild Acres exhibits a variety of soil types of agricultural importance. The best of these are Pittsfield loam, 8-15% 3-8% adjacent to the farmland life estate.

Stockbridge gravelly silt loam, 3-8% Pittsfield loam, 8-15%

¯¯

Legend

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.2

Perennial Stream Pond or Lake Wetland

Farmland Designation Prime

Statewide importance Unique importance

Soil Type & Slope

Amenia silt loam, 3-8%

Palms and Carlisle mucks, 0-1% Pittsfield loam, 3-8%

Pittsfield loam, 8-15%

Stockbridge gravelly silt loam, 3-8%

gravelly silt loam, 3-8% AStockbridge VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | SITE ANALYSIS: WILD ACRES

Miles 0.4 Miles 0.4

SITE SUMMARY: ASSETS & CHALLENGES Assets With its long history of recreational use, Wild Acres holds a special place in the heart of the many Pittsfield residents who make frequent use of its facilities, trails, and events. The conservation area is the site of many types of natural communities and the ecotone/edge habitat which accompanies this diversity in ecosystems. Wild Acres shelters four species of conservation concern. With the promise of additional adjacent farmland, Wild Acres has the potential to include alternative conservation methods to its management regime. Challenges The communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s passion for Wild Acres make it a location of concentrated recreational use and group gatherings, which could be damaging to its ecology. The same facilities that attract visitors have been vandalized many times in the two years since they were unveiled. If the gate at the entrance to the parcel is left open, the picnic pavilion and education center become the site of late night illicit partying.

An impromptu pet grave, while well meaning, poses a risk of tripping to passers-by and is testament to the ecological disturbance some visitors can cause. Photo credit: Jim McGrath.

The southern, or upper, dam, impounding the wildlife pond, is in need of maintenance, an impending concern to the Conservation Commission. Summary The Conservation Commission and the community at large will need to balance social tradition and recreation with ecological protection and education in the Wild Acres management plan.

School groups make use of the site for environmental education field trips, which both encourage stewardship of the conservation areas while potentially contributing to ecological disturbance by off-trail foot traffic. Photo credit: Tom Lewis.

SITE ANALYSIS: WILD ACRES | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S CONSERVATION AREAS

Wild Acres Conservation Area: Specific Objectives OBJECTIVES Objective: Protect, preserve, and maintain Wild Acres’ natural resources. Strategy 1: Preserve diversity of natural communities and enhance edge/ecotone habitat. A. Reclaim grassland from reverting to woody scrub/woodlands through periodic brush hogging. B. Explore keeping life-estate farmland in production with a small-scale, organic, diversified farm. Strategy 2: Address the site’s emerald ash borer infestation in an ecologically sound fashion. A. Work with an experienced forester to determine best management practices and levels of threat to uninfected trees. B. As infected emerald ash borer infested trees die, replace gaps in canopy with locally appropriate natives in order to fill the gap before invasives do. C. Explore alternatives to cutting and selling the trees as firewood. Although it is legal to move emerald ash borer infested firewood within state lines, borers do not respect political boundaries and can easily cross from one border town to another. Strategy 3: Concentrate human use to decrease ecological disturbance. A. Focus activities in areas which already receive concentrated use, such as near the facilities at the site entrance, the observation tower, and the fishing pond hut. B. Incorporate visual cues (such as signs) to indicate designated gathering locations and to encourage visitors to keep to formal trail Strategy 4: Address issue of dam maintenance and damimpounded wildlife pond. A. Coordinate with NRCS regarding maintenance parameters and possibility of removing dam.

If dam removal is a possibility, then: A. Perform a cost/benefit analysis of dam removal versus dam maintenance. Research grant funding for dam removal (Massachusetts Department of Ecological Restoration, American Rivers, Trout Unlimited). B. Test quality and quantity of sediment under pond. C. Inventory species within wildlife pond. Coordinate with NHESP to see if they value the Chestnut Colored Sedge population that may 60

reside within the pond, and if relocation is acceptable. Objective: Enhance human access to Wild Acres. Strategy 1: Ensure consistent maintenance and safe access to Wild Acres. A. Discourage vandalism and misuse by installing out-of-reach, yet visible, motionsensing lights and false surveillance cameras in strategic areas around the facilities. B. Quickly repair acts of vandalism to instill a sense of care and maintenance around the site. C. Close gates during off hours and seasons. D. Remove dead or dying Ash trees/limbs as they become hazards to trail walkers. Strategy 2: Explore the possibility of employing seasonal park rangers or volunteers to open/close gates and patrol until a friends group can be established. Strategy 3: Pursue the design and development of an ADA accessible pathway and platform from the Wild Acres parking lot to the fishing pond. Strategy 4: Post a sign to the east of the South Mountain Road entrance notifying drivers that the conservation area is ahead.

Objective: Provide environmental education and ecological interpretation of the landscape. Strategy 1: Incorporate interpretative signs communicating ecological processes and management choices and values, such as explaining the emerald ash borer infestation or the beaver water control device. Strategy 2: Explore a partnership with Massachusetts Audubon Society regarding education center programming. Strategy 3: Post information regarding the dead ash trees and the EAB at the Wild Acres kiosk and highlight what management is doing in response. Objective: Develop adequate staffing and funding sources for Wild Acres’ management. Strategy 1: Encourage the establishment of a Friends of Wild Acres group and/or pursue partnerships with nonprofit groups to help with maintenance and infrastructure upkeep. Strategy 2: Pursue corporate sponsorships for marketing, volunteers, and post-event cleanup for community wide events such as the fishing derby.

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | OBJECTIVES: WILD ACRES

One of Wild Acres’ highlights is the view over the wetland. Photo credit: Miranda Feldmann

OBJECTIVES: WILD ACRES | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Summary Site Analysis SUMMARY SITE ANALYSIS The four conservation areas of interest have unique characteristics that make each of them an asset to the Pittsfield Conservation Commission and the community. Barkerville is characterized by hilly forests, babbling streams, and overlooks of the South West Branch of the Housatonic River. Brattlebrook’s vistas of meadows, edge habitat, and Goodrich Pond are enjoyed by many residents in the Lakewood Community. Residents use the area to walk their dogs, fly model planes, birdwatch, and play sports. Tierney’s secluded wetland and lake offers an immersive nature experience just a few hundred feet from the entrance. Wild Acres is a beloved property with a long history of recreational use that offers an annual fishing derby; the property also has amenities, which make it convenient for family and group picnics.

Across the four areas are examples of beautiful waterways and wetlands, and natural landscapes that support Species of Conservation Concern. The conservation areas attract visitors who are passionate about these natural spaces and want to protect them.

The city is situated at the crossroads of five major highways, providing easy access to conservation areas by car. However, these areas are not easily accessible by public or multi-modal methods of transportation. While Brattlebrook is located within a densely residential neighborhood and is in the vicinity of environmental justice populations, the other three parcels are located in less densely populated areas of the city; most visitors drive to these areas. Lastly, none of the trails within the parcels are accessible to people with disabilities, limiting access for visitors with special needs. In addition to the site specific objectives provided within each parcel’s site analysis, this plan includes recommendations in the following section to address management on a broader scale.

Community members have identified patterns of conflict and areas for improvement across the properties. Informal paths on all properties prompt unguided use that can damage the fragile ecosystems. Illegal motor vehicle recreation harms ecological integrity and is difficult to monitor given the numerous abutting properties and isolation of the sites from main roads. Contamination from historical industrial waste and/ or illegal dumping are concerns at all of the study sites. Dumping and contamination pose a risk to human health and compromise ecological integrity and aesthetics. Illegal dumping, allowed to remain on site for any length of time, gives visitors the impression that the properties are not being cared for and can encourage more dumping. The four properties have many issues regarding access. Tierney has no sign and is the least known of the properties. Brattlebrook Park and Wild Acres have public entrances that can be difficult to find for newcomers. Although well marked, Barkerville’s gate is located 50 feet from the road, and Wild Acres’ parking area is one-fifth of a mile from the nearest road. Unmonitored entrances, invisible from well-trafficked streets, encourage misuse. Encroachment by abutters is another common threat to ecological integrity.

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | SUMMARY SITE ANALYSIS

The dense wetland vegetation around Goodrich Pond is an example of the aquatic habitat upon which so many of Pittsfield’s Species of Conservation Concern rely. Photo credit: Miranda Feldmann.

SUMMARY SITE ANALYSIS | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Objectives for Pittsfield’s Conservation Areas The following recommended objectives incorporate the goals articulated by the Pittsfield Conservation Commission, the priorities set by the City’s Master Plan, and feedback from community members who participated in outreach efforts. All three sources emphasize protecting natural resources, enhancing quality of life for Pittsfield’s residents, and determining economically feasible ways to manage the properties given a limited budget. More specifically, the recommendations offer ways to improve access for all citizens, attract residents and tourists to the conservation areas, demonstrate replicable sustainable management practices, and leverage volunteers and nonprofit groups to help in stewardship of conservation lands. The unique characteristics of each conservation area need to be considered to identify areas that should be off-limits, areas to highlight and celebrate, and activities to prohibit or encourage at each location.

Without adequate funding and support from the community, many of these goals would be unachievable. In order to facilitate the success of the following objectives, the plan includes at least one suggestion for a relevant partnership within each objective. Appropriate local, state, and federal partners can help the Conservation Commission find and acquire funding for parcel acquisition and maintenance, develop and host educational programs on site and with conservation area abutters, enhance connectivity between conservation areas, and increase site security and safety. Partnerships with local organizations and with neighboring communities could curb misuse, enhance the feeling of safety, and encourage neighborhood stewardship of parcels.

OBJECTIVES

Objective I: Protect, preserve, and maintain the city’s natural and cultural resources. Strategy 1: Prepare management plans for each conservation parcel to preserve and protect their unique resources. A. Complete an ecological assessment of each site. Identify existing natural communities; populations of species of concern; key or interesting site features. B. Develop a range of permitted uses at each conservation area that take advantage of the site’s unique characteristics while protecting fragile areas from abuse or overuse.

Strategy 2: Move toward organic land management methods for City parks; encourage sustainable practices within other City agencies such as Department of Public Works and on City-owned properties to reduce pollutants, chemical runoff, and invasive species migration.

Strategy 3: Hire a forester to work with the Pittsfield Conservation Commission to identify and assess at-risk or infected sites within conservation areas and determine appropriate management strategies for forest resources.

Strategy 4: Prioritize criteria for expansion of conservation land network to increase opportunities for ecological connectivity. A. Identify and prioritize areas with tactical importance to link established open space and reduce habitat fragmentation. This includes properties within strategic greenways envisioned by the Pittsfield Master Plan, such as the proposed greenway from Wahconah Park to Clapp Park, or the ring of open space surrounding the city. B. Identify and protect areas that feature habitat which is underrepresented in existing conservation areas or of local concern, including NHESP priority communities; core habitat and critical natural landscape identified in BioMap2. C. Prioritize for protection those areas of high ecological integrity and areas at risk of development. D. Prioritize acquisition of properties with frontage along waterbodies and riverways in order to protect water quality. E. Partner with local citizens and non-profit land conservation organizations, such as Berkshire Natural Resources Council, to enhance the ecological value of privately-held conservation restrictions. 64

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | OBJECTIVES FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Strategy 6: Renew the Pittsfield Open Space and Recreation plan. Prioritize objectives for: A. protecting, preserving and maintaining the city’s natural resources, B. enhancing access to conservation areas, C. increasing opportunities for environmental education and community outreach, D. developing adequate staffing and funding for conservation management, and E. fostering communication and addressing gaps in information.

Objective II: Enhance access to conservation areas. In order to reap the benefits to quality of life that Pittsfield’s conservation areas provide, the City’s residents must be able to travel to, locate, and traverse the parcels themselves. Access to the conservation areas needs to be considered within the context of fragile ecological systems and sites of historical contamination. Special attention should be directed toward the challenges which face underserved communities, such as environmental justice populations or the disabled community, in accessing conservation areas. Strategy 1: Identify priority areas where entrances could be further defined or where access should be restricted. A. Inventory points of informal entrance to conservation areas or official public entrances that currently lack signs or adequate identification. B. Inventory and identify areas where access should be evaluated, such as those with sensitive ecological resources, cultural significance (e.g potential archaeological sites), or risks to human health.

Strategy 2: Enhance connectivity between the conservation areas, downtown Pittsfield, and regional open space resources with expanded multi-modal transit options. A. Explore opportunities to connect the proposed Ashuwillticook Rail Trail to conservation areas and provide bike racks FOREST SERVICE TRAIL ACCESSIBILITY at those sites. GUIDELINES B. Research a public-private partnership for a shuttle or extension of public transit The Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines to one or more conservation areas in the (FSTAG) and the Outdoor Recreation Accessibility prime recreational season. Guidelines (FSORAG) are the legal standards for Strategy 3: Offer recreational opportunities for visitors of various ability levels. A. Establish and identify formal trails using the Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines (FSTAG). B. Identify one or more locations to implement a trail following Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. C. Provide seating opportunities at various points in conservation areas to allow visitors to rest. D. Partner with the Committee on Disabilities to develop engaging features and activities at the conservation areas, such as sensory trails or signs with Braille.

developing routes and facilities in lands managed by the United State Forest Service. “FSTAG provides guidance for maximizing the accessibility of trails whle protecting the unique characteristics and natural setting of the area” (Snodgrass, 2015). The guidelines are not required outside of the National Forest System, but they offer present criteria for recreational trails and generally encourage designing trails in sustainable locations, which results in less maintenance while still providing high quality trail experiences. Key design aspects for FSTAG include trail grade and cross slope, tread surface, clear tread width, resting intervals and passing spaces. The guidelines offer provisions to reduce or change technical requirements due to possible harm to cultural, historic or natural features or if the requirements are impractical due to terrain. Ultimately FSTAG offer a way to consider accessibility in the design of new trails (Demrow, 2007).

OBJECTIVES FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Strategy 4: Ensure consistent and safe access to conservation areas A. Explore the possibility of flexible staffing options such as employing seasonal park rangers to open/close community gates and patrol until a Friends group can be established. B. When designing or enhancing conservation area entrances or gathering spaces, follow the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (see yellow call out box, below).

Strategy 5: Foster partnerships with local school groups and volunteer organizations to aid with site maintenance. These organizations could help with sign installation, trail maintenance and marking, structure maintenance, routine site cleanups, volunteering for events, and completion of special projects. A. Look into partnering with organizations such as local Boy Scouts and Girls Scouts troops, local grade schools, and Berkshire Community College. B. Encourage local neighborhood groups to form an informal (or formal) coalition to help maintain sites.

THE FOUR PRINCIPLES OF CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN Principle #1: Natural Surveillance “A person is less likely to commit a crime if they think someone will see them do it. Lighting and landscape play an important role in Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.”

Principle #2: Natural Access Control Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guides people and vehicles by using walkways, fences, lighting, signage, and landscape to direct them to areas of proper use. The goal is not necessarily to keep intruders out, but to direct the flow of people while decreasing the opportunity for crime.

Principle #3: Territorial Reinforcement Emphasizing property boundaries with the use of signs or other physical design clearly distinguishes public land from private. Principle #4: Maintenance “The ‘Broken Window Theory’ suggests that one ‘broken window’ or nuisance, if allowed to exist, will lead to others and ultimately to the decline of an entire neighborhood. Neglected and poorly maintained properties are breeding grounds for criminal activity.” (CPTED Security, “CPTED Design Guidelines”, 2016)

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | OBJECTIVES FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Objective III: Increase opportunities for environmental education and community outreach. The Pittsfield conservation areas offer a wealth of ecological habitats and historical aspects that could be highlighted in educational programming. In the online surveys, the community frequently expressed a desire to participate in educational programming. Respondents indicated interest in both formal and informal programs for youth and adults. An opportunity exists to promote the conservation areas as a resource for both educational and outdoor fitness opportunities.

COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT (CPA) Monies obtained from the CPA can be used for parks, recreation, open space, affordable housing, or historic preservation. As of 2012, communities may also use funding to upgrade recreational facilities, even if those facilities were not initially funded by CPA.

Strategy 1: Foster partnerships with local schools, educational foundations, and community groups to enhance educational and outdoor fitness opportunities. Possible partners include local schools, Berkshire Community College, Massachusetts Audubon Society for hosting and developing children’s and adult educational programs, local Boy Scouts and Girl Scout troops, summer camps, senior centers, and the Gladys Allen Brigham Community Center.

Strategy 2: Provide educational outreach to conservation area abutters regarding ecological property management. Offer resources such as printed or online materials and/or workshops to neighboring residential and commercial property owners to reduce quantity of pollutants and aggressive plant species entering the conservation areas. Strategy 3: Provide on-site environmental education in the form of kiosks and/or interpretative signs with information on the natural and social history of each conservation area. Objective IV: Develop adequate staffing and funding sources for management of conservation areas. The Pittsfield Conservation Commission is currently understaffed and underfunded. Staffing and financial support of short-term projects, long-term maintenance, and expansion of conservation lands should be addressed in a capital improvement plan.

Strategy 1: Pursue partnerships with non-profit groups or local businesses to assist with maintenance and infrastructure upkeep at the conservation areas. Strategy 2: Research options to hire additional support for implementation of recommendations and management of conservation area lands. Options could include full-time or part-time staff, interns through AmeriCorps, or work-study students for the summer.

Strategy 3: Explore ways to increase financial support. A. Encourage Pittsfield to adopt the Community Preservation Act. B. Advocate for increased funding for the Parks Maintenance and Operations budget. C. Partner with nonprofit groups to apply for funding and grants. D. Develop a fund that can be used to purchase additional lands as they become available, to serve as a source of matching funds as is required by many grant programs, and to promote long-term stewardship of the parcels. Alternatively, develop targeted campaigns to acquire specific, high priority parcels. E. Determine viability of corporate sponsors to fund different aspects of the conservation lands based on the goals and priorities as set forth by the Pittsfield Conservation Commission (e.g., adopt a trail, adopt a conservation area, or adopt a bench). Strategy 4: Aggregate soft costs such as potential environmental assessment, clean up costs and invasive species removal into acquisition costs of new conservation lands.

OBJECTIVES FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Strategy 5: Encourage the formation of a Friends Group for the conservation parcels. Friends Groups are generally defined as nonprofit, 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations established primarily to support a specific park area or a group of parks. A. Assist Friends groups to define the role of the groups: conduct fundraising efforts, provide volunteer services, assist with resource management and preservation, or publicize important issues. B. Encourage Friends groups to secure funding for conservation goals and acquisition, such as through Land & Recreation Grants and Loans, the Fields Pond Foundation, The Norcross Wildlife Fund, or a Conservation Partnership Grant. Strategy 6: Incorporate a Park Watch group to help reduce illegal activities on conservation areas and promote safe use.

PARK WATCH

“Park Watch is a statewide program designed to protect public open space by promoting safe and environmentally sound use of local parkland. Concerned volunteers work cooperatively with park rangers and police to recognize and report suspicious activity in and around park areas. Volunteers provide useful information to park managers and local law enforcement agencies by serving as additional ‘eyes and ears.’ Members of Park Watch report any illegal or suspicious activity to [park rangers or City police]. Illegal or suspicious behavior can include: • vandalism • ground fires • dogs off leash • illegal dumping • hunting and trapping • consumption of alcohol • collecting plants or animals • motorized vehicles on trails • camping or park use after dusk.”

Strategy 1: Clearly define what is expected of management and of visitors using the conservation lands. A. Establish, implement, and publicize general rules and management policies that apply to the conservation area lands at large, and specify any exceptions. B. Develop clear and consistent language to distinguish conservation areas from public parks. The formal name of a conservation parcel could be listed as “conservation land,” “conservation area,” or “wildlife refuge.” The language should try to avoid the word “park” whenever possible. C. Define and clearly post conservation area boundaries for each parcel.

Strategy 2: Foster communication and accessibility of information. A. Design and install consistent and cohesive signage, post signs at all public entrances, and erect a kiosk at each parcel. Signs and kiosks should have contact information for visitors to report misuse or safety issues, and should be used to communicate information about events, educational programs, and pertinent dates (e.g. hunting season where appropriate). The kiosk could also provide updates on management choices (e.g. beaver water-level control device, ash tree management) B. Post signs that clearly indicate the rules of the parcel with accepted activities listed first and prohibited activities listed below. C. Expand the online presence of conservation areas, and make available the same information posted at a parcel’s kiosk including rules, street address, and permitted activities at each of the parcels.

(Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, 2016)

Objective V: Foster communication and address gaps in information. A large majority of Pittsfield residents are unfamiliar with one or more of the conservation areas, suggesting that the locations of the parcels may be obscure. This anonymity is further confused by a lack of consistency in branding and signage across the conservation areas. Develop a baseline of information for each conservation area for easy reference to address inquiries from the public and to access information for grant proposals. In addition, create a more robust online presence for the conservation areas to make information publicly accessible.

PITTSFIELD CONSERVATION AREA VISIONING PLAN | OBJECTIVES FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Strategy 3: Identify benchmarks and gather useful information for future grant proposals and funding requests. A. Compile information on each conservation area and update data as new or historical information becomes available. This can include, but is not limited to, aggregation of parcels into a single parcel, establishing a street address, determining the size of the entire parcel, date of parcel acquisitions, requirements/ commitments as part of acquisition agreements, and information that becomes available. B. Develop a program to annually document and assess visitorship and visitors’ impact on the conservation parcels. C. Translate goals into measurable parameters. The metrics can be quantified as use/activity, number of events, increased health statistics, increased tree canopy numbers, or any method that allows for comparison over time.

LANGUAGE IS KEY FOR SUCCESSFUL SIGNS Visitors often spend eight seconds or less reading a sign. This gives conservation area managers little time to encourage pro-environmental behavior through signs at their sites (Park, et al, 2008). Studies show that the specific word choice for signs can affect the likelihood of visitors to comply with desired actions, such as placing trash in garbage bins. The signs that are most effective at deterring unwanted behavior include signs that: • Elicit a social norm. “Join your fellow citizens in helping to save the environment.” • Reference benefit to future generations. “Help save resources for future generations.”

• Provide a meaningful reason to deter a behavior. “Please Stay on the Paved Trail or Bedrock. Protect Sensitive Plants and Soil.”

In conservation management, it is important to determine problem behaviors and identify barriers to compliance. Visitors may not follow rules for a variety of reasons. For instance, some people might go off trail to reach scenic vistas. In cases like this, management can assist visitors in choosing appropriate behaviors by creating formal loop or spur trails to key points of interest and posting signs to highlight the availability of these areas for photo opportunities. For more information on strategies to promote the appropriate use of conservation areas and design successful signs, visit the Environmental Intervention Handbook for Resource Managers (2007).

OBJECTIVES FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

An expansive view and lush fields welcome visitors to Wild Acres Conservation Area. Photo: Miranda Feldmann.

Afterword Conservation areas are dynamic living systems which do not adhere to predetermined political boundaries, and their protection is fraught with challenges on a local, regional and global scale. Given the Pittsfield Conservation Commission’s limited staffing and inadequate budget, engagement with the local community is critical to the long-term success of its management efforts. A management plan is never truly “finished.” It is an iterative process that includes benchmarking, setting goals, measuring outcomes, and reevaluating goals to direct results.

As the Conservation Commission begins to expand the profile of the conservation areas, visitorship to these parcels is likely to increase. While increased foot traffic could pose a threat to a conservation area’s natural resources, it is also possible that increased visitorship could instill a culture of caring for natural spaces within the Pittsfield community. Either way, the crucial role of management is to be adaptable to what the future holds.

AFTERWORD | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Selected References

Selected References Alliance for Community Trees. (Aug 2011). Benefits of Trees and Urban Forests: A Research List. Retrieved 20Jan 2016, from http://www.actrees.org/files/Research/benefits_of_trees.pdf

American Psychological Association. (20Oct 2005). Shaping Pro -Environment Behaviors. Retrieved from www.apa.org/research/action/shaping.aspx

Berkshire Health Systems. (1987). Hillcrest Hospital...a History. Retrieved from https://www. berkshirehealthsystems.org/documents/BMC%20History/Hillcrest%20Hospital%20History.pdf Blanck, H.i M., Allen, D., Bashir, Z., Gordon, N.,Goodman, A., Merriam, D. & Rutt, C. (Oct 2012). Let’s Go to the Park Today: The Role of Parks in Obesity Prevention and Improving the Public’s Health. Childhood Obesity, Vol 8, No. 5. Boltwood, Edward. (1915). The History of Pittsfield Massachusetts From the Year 1876 to the year 1916. Pittsfield, MA: Eagle Printing & Binding.

Bureau of Census. (Dec 1981). 1980 Census of Population - Characteristics of the Population, Number of Inhabitants Massachusetts. United States Department of Commerce. PC 80-1-A23 Mass. Retrieved from http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1980a_maABC-01.pdf Bureau of Census. (2010). QuickFacts Pittsfield City, Massachusetts. Retrieved 20Feb 2016 from http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/2553960,00#flag-js-X

Burn, S.M. (2007). Environmental Intervention Handbook for Resource Managers: A Tool for Proenvironmental Behavior Change (#PSW-96-0024). Riverside, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. Center for Watershed Protection. (Mar 2003). Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems. Watershed Protection Research, Monograph No. 1. Elliott City, MD: Author. Chawla, L. (2006). Learning to Love the Natural World Enough to Protect It. Barn. 2006b; 2.

City of Pittsfield. (Mar 2009). Planning to Thrive: City of Pittsfield Master Plan. Pittsfield, MA: Author.

City of Pittsfield. (26Jun 1969). An Order for Taking for Public Park and Recreation and Conservation Purposes the Land Belonging to Eugine M. Allessio, Ferdinance E. Allessio and Michael J. Allessio (City of Pittsfield Massachusetts City Council Order# 136694) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. (2005). About page. Retrieved 15Jan 2016 from http://cptedsecurity.com/cpted_design_guidelines.htm Demrow, C. C. (2007). Increasing Opportunities for Access on the Appalachian Trail: A Design Guide. West Topsham, VT: Appalachian Trail Conservancy and National Parks Service.

Donn, Jeff. (2Sept 1997). GE city tainted, bitter over chemical giveaway. SouthCoast Today. Retrieved from http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/19970902/news/309029965

Federal Aviation Administration. Airport Master Record for Pittsfield Municipal Airport. (2012). FAA Site# 09203.*A. Retrieved from http://www.gcr1.com/5010ReportRouter/PSF.pdf Frumhoff, P.C., McCarthy, J. J., Melillo, J. M., Moser, S. C. & Wuebbles, D. J. (Jul 2007). Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast: Science, Impacts, and Solutions. Synthesis report of the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment (NECIA). Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists. 74

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | REFERENCES

General Electric Company. (11Mar 2015). Additional Soil Investigation Summary Report Parcel K9-12 Brattle Brook Park, Pittsfield, Massachusetts MDEP Site No. GEACOllO; RTN 1-1233. Pittsfield, MA. Hanson, Fred. (22Jul 2014). Hingham considers restrictions for bow hunters. Needham Times. Retrieved needham.wickedlocal.com/article/20140722/NEWS/140729351

Jacobi, C. National Park Service. (Feb 2003). A Census of Vehicles and Visitors to Cadillac Mountain, Acadia National Park, August 1, 2002. Acadia National Park Natural Resource Report 2002-05. Kuo, Frances E. (Ming). (2010). Parks and Other Green Environments: Essential Components of a Healthy Human Habitat. Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. (Mar 2010). MassDEP Hydrography (1:25,000) data layer from Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, MassIT.

Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP). (2012). BioMap2: Conserving the Biodiversity of Massachusetts in a Changing World, Pittsfield Town Report. Concord. 2012. Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, Division of Fisheries and Wildlife and The Nature Conservancy. Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation. (2016). Massachusetts Park Watch. Retrieved January 15, 2016 from http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dcr/massparks/regionboston/massachusetts-park-watch.html Massachusetts SubCouncil, Housatonic River Natural Resource Trustees. (n.d.). Housatonic River Natural Resource Restoration Background. Stantec Consulting Services. Retrieved 7Mar2016 from http://www.ma-housatonicrestoration.org/background.htm

Mawdsley, J. R., O’Malley, R., & Ojim, D. S. (2009). A Review of Climate-Change Adaptation Strategies for Wildlife Management and Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation Biology. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01264.x

McConnachie, M. M., Cowling, R. M., van Wilgen, B. W., & McConnachie, D. A. (2012). Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of invasive alien plant clearing: A case study from South Africa. Biological Conservation, 155 (2012) 128–135. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.06.006 MetroWest Daily News. (28Sept 2014). Public land open to deer hunting. Gatehouse Media. Retreived 18Feb2015 from http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/article/20140928/ News/140926721/?Start=1.

Park, L. O, Manning, R. E., Marion, J. L, Lawson, S. R, & Jacobi, C. (Spring 2008). Managing Visitor Impacts in Parks: A Multi-Method Study of the Effectiveness of Alternative Management Practices. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 26, 1, p 97-121.

Peters, J. & Dineen, D. (31Oct 2012). Sudbury Conservation Lands Bow Hunting Program begins its 13th Season. Conservation Office, Sudbury, MA. Retrieved 18Feb2015 from https://sudbury. ma.us/conservation/ Google Earth (2016). Pittsfield, MA. Traffic counts data layer. Viewed 15Jan. 2016.

REFERENCES | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Pittsfield Municipal Airport. (2016). Pittsfield Municipal Airport FY 2015 Annual Report. Retrieved February 25, 2016, from http://www.cityofpittsfield.org/city_hall/airport/uploads/2015_ Annual_Report.pdf

Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (2016). Recognized Environmental Condition- REC. Retrieved March 01, 2016, from http://www.partneresi.com/resources/rec.php Snodgrass, K. (Oct 2015). Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines (FSTAG) Pocket Version (USDA publication #1523–2812–MTDC). Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service National Technology and Development Program.

Stromberg, Joseph. (16Jan 2014.) Moving to An Area With More Green Space Can Improve Your Mental Health for Years. Smithosonian Magazine. Retreived 10Mar 2016 from http://www. smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/moving-area-with-more-green-space-can-improve-yourmental-health-years-180949348/?no-ist

Sullivan, Brian. (2Sept 2013). Allessio story one of family, work -- and pride. The Berkshire Eagle News. http://www.berkshireeagle.com/news/ci_23996883/allessio-story-one-family-work-andpride Trust for Public Land. (Sept 2013). The Return on Investment in Parks and Open Space in Massachusetts. Retrieved from http://www.massland.org/files/benefitsMA_roi_report.pdf

United States Department of Environmental Protection Agency. (1Sept 2011). Watershed Recovery Potential Indicator Reference Sheet for Watershed Percent Impervious Cover. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/rp2wshedimperv1109.pdf

United States Department of Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Waterbody Quality Assessment Report - 2012 Waterbody Report for Goodrich Pond.Retrieved 7Feb 2016 from https://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_waterbody.control?p_au_id=MA21042&p_cycle=2012 United States Department of Environmental Protection Agency. (17Feb 2016). Cleaning up the Housatonic. EPA Cleanups: GE-Pittsfield/Housatonic River Site Retrieved 7Mar 2016 from https://www.epa.gov/ge-housatonic

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (17Feb 2009). Managing Invasive Plants: Concepts, Principles and Practices. Retrieved 13Mar2016 from http://www.fws.gov/invasives/staffTrainingModule/ assessing/review.html Wildlands CPR. (2007). Six Strategies for Success: Effective Enforcement for Off-Road Vehicle Use on Public Lands. Missoula, Montana: Author.

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS | REFERENCES

Data Layer References

Data used in the production of the maps in this report comes from several sources as outlined below. In several instances, certain layers have been processed and combined in various way through the analysis process.

DATA SOURCES: Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Information Technology Division: Mass DOT Roads; EOT Roads (177); Datalayers from the 2010 US Census; Tax Parcels (M236), Community Boundaries (Towns) from Survey Points; MassDEP Hydrography (1:25,000); Trains; Building Structures (2-D, from Ortho Imagery); Shaded Relief; Impervious Surface; DCR Roads and Trails; Long Distance Trails; Protected and Recreational Open Space; BioMap2; NHESP Natural Communities; NRCS SSURGO-Certified Soils; Priority Natural Vegetation Communities; U.S. EPA Ecoregions; Drainage Sub-basins; Major Drainage Basins; MassDEP Wetlands (1:12,000); Level 3 Assessors’ Parcels (M236) Geospatial Data Gateway: 2011 National Land Cover Data Set (NLCD)

Streaming Data Layer Sources: ESRI World Light Grey Canvas Base; ESRI National Geographic World Map Town of Pittsfield Custom Layers: Conservation Land; Level 3 Assessors’ Parcel Ownership

Housatonic River Watershed Map: Musser, Karl. (n.d.). Housatonic River Watershed in New England. Wikipedia. Retrieved 21 Feb. 2016. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housatonic_River

DATA LAYER REFERENCES | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELD’S CONSERVATION AREAS

Appendix

Community Surveys

The Pittsfield Conservation Commission is developing a Master Plan for this city property and we want your input! Get out your phone and help us by taking this short survey

Thanks! Enjoy your visit and please come back 80

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S CONSERVATION AREAS | APPENDIX: COMMUNITY SURVEYS

Pittsfield Conservation Properties Plan Input Help us by taking this short survey! We're developing a Master Plan for this and other conservation properties in the City. Your input is needed to help guide how this property is managed / improved in the future. 1. Which Property are you at right now?

2. Which below best represents your age? Under 18 Twenty / Thirty something Middle Aged Senior

3. How often do you visit this property?

4. What activity(s) do you engage in while at this property? Hiking Nature study Dog Walking Other (please specify)

5. Briefly tell us what you love about this property.

6. Briefly tell use what would you like to see improved.

7. On Thursday February 4th at 7pm (City Hall) there will be a Community Input Meeting to discuss the future of conservation properties. Think you might attend? Yes No

Done APPENDIX: COMMUNITY SURVEYS | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S CONSERVATION AREAS

Pittsfield Conservation Properties Master Plan web survey Please take a few minutes and complete this important survey. This survey is intended to gather input from the public to help guide the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s conservation properties Master Plan. It is only the first step in forming the goals and priorities for this plan, and further public outreach will be conducted through follow-up surveys and focus groups. This feedback is a valuable resource for the master plan and will play a major role in determining the future of public land preservation and improvement in Pittsfield. 1. The Plan we're developing focuses on the 4 largest City-owned conservation properties. How often do you use the following large City-owned conservation areas? Often

Sometimes Rarely

Never

I didn't even know this existed

Barkerville Conservation Area Brattlebrook Park Tierney Conservation Area Wild Acres 2. Please tell us which activity(s) you primarily engage in while at these properties. Walking / Hiking Dog walking Nature study Jogging / Running / Exercising Fishing / Hunting Other (please specify)

3. Please rank your thoughts on what the City should be doing with regards to stewardship of these 4 properties. Promoting ecological protection and enhancement Promoting better recreational opportunities within the properties Promoting environmental education / outreach

A VISION FOR PITTSFIELDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S CONSERVATION AREAS | APPENDIX: COMMUNITY SURVEYS

4. On average, how many accompany you on your visits? None, I go alone 1 to 2 3 to 4 More than 5 5. Pittsfield conservation properties are well maintained and offer a wide diversity of interest. Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree 6. Briefly tell us what you love about Pittsfield conservation properties.

7. Briefly tell us what you would change about Pittsfield conservation properties.

8. Please provide any other comments that you feel would be helpful to us as we develop our long range plan for these 4 properties.

9. I plan to attend the conservation plan Public Input Meeting at City Hall on Thursday, February 4th beginning at 7 pm. Yes No Done

APPENDIX: COMMUNITY SURVEYS | A VISION FOR PITTSFIELDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S CONSERVATION AREAS