MA_Needs_Assessment_93
MEMORANDUM TO: F. DALE ROBERTSON, CHIEF, FS
FROM: Mike Espy
Secretary
SUBJECT: Approval of Massachusetts Assessment of Need,
Eligibility Criteria and Five Forest Legacy
Areas under the Forest Legacy Program.
Pursuant to Section 1217 of Title XII of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law
101-624:104 stat. 3359), I hereby approve the establishment of a Forest Legacy Program in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The Assessment of Need approved by the State Lead Agency, the Bureau of Forest Development of the
Division of Forests and Parks of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management, is hereby
approved as fulfilling the requirements set forth in the Law and implementation guidelines.
The Eligibility Criteria for forest lands qualifying for the Forest Legacy Program, as set forth in the
Massachusetts Assessment of Need, are hereby approved.
The five (5) proposed Forest Legacy Areas, as described in the Massachusetts Assessment of Need, are hereby
instituted as approved Forest Legacy Areas. The five (5) areas are: Stockbridge Yokun Ridge Reserve,
Estabrook Woods, Holyoke Range and Western Valley Watersheds Subunits of the Connecticut Valley, Phase I
and Phase II Subunits of the North Quabbin Corridor, and the Nashua River Greenway.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYEER
August 5 1993
DECISION MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY 2
Makes conservation easement and land acquisitions possible utilizing FY 1993
funds and future funds as may be available.
Cons: By adding a new State to the program, there will be increased competition for
acquisition of funds.
Option 2: Disapprove the Massachusetts AON, Eligibility Criteria, and five FLAs.
Pros: None
Cons: Damages Department and Forest Service relationship with State and interest
groups supporting forest Legacy Program in Massachusetts.
May cause concern with Members of Congress that the Forest Legacy Program is
unnecessarily bureaucratic and time-consuming.
Massachusetts may decide not to participate in the Forest Legacy Program rather
than do additional work on their Assessment of Need.
RECOMMENTATION:
Approve the Massachusetts AON, Eligibility Criteria, and five FLAs. Should you agree with this
recommendation, we have enclosed a memorandum which could be used to make the requested designation.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Tony Dorrell, Director, Cooperative Forest Staff of 205-
1389.
DECISION BY THE SECRETARY
Approve __________ Date __________
Disapprove __________
Discuss with me __________
Reviewed by: _________________________________________________________________
Enclosure
____________________________________________________________________
.
Date: MAY 27 1993
DECISION MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY
THRU: James R. Lyons
Assistant Secretary, NRE
FROM: F. Dale Robertson
Chief
SUBJECT: Approval of Massachusetts Forest Legacy Program Assessment of
Need, Eligibility Criteria, and Five Forest Legacy Areas.
ISSUE:
Section 1217 of Title XII of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-
624:104 stat. 3359) authorizes the Secretary to implement the Forest Legacy Program and to select
appropriate areas to include in the program. This law and the Forest Legacy Program Implementation
Guidelines of June 4, 1992, prepared by the Forest Service require the Secretarys approval of a States
assessment of Need (AON), Eligibility Criteria, and designation of Forest Legacy Area(s) (FLA). This
memorandum documents the Secretarys approval of the Massachusetts AON, Eligibility Criteria, and five FLAs
(Stockbridge Yokun Ridge Reserve, Estabrook Woods, Holyoke Range and Western Valley Watersheds
Subunits of the Connecticut Valley, Phase I and Phase II Subunits of the North Quabbin Corridor, and the
Nashua River Greenway).
BACKGROUND:
The Forest Legacy Program began with an Initial Program in the Northern Forest Lands Study States of Maine,
New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. The Initial Program also included Washington and Massachusetts
with the stipulation that they complete an AON. Massachusetts began their AON in 1991 before the Forest
Legacy Program Implementation Guidelines were finalized. They prepared two drafts in 1992 (March and
October) and submitted the final version in May 1993.
OPTIONS:
Option 1: Approve the Massachusetts AON, Eligibility Criteria, and five FLAs.
Pros: Allows another State to participate in the Forest Legacy Program.
Furthers the Forest Legacy Program objectives of preventing environmentally
important forest lands from being converted to nonforest uses.
Fulfills a commitment to Massachuetts and the public.
Caring for the Land and Serving People FS-6200-280(3/92)
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Washington
Office
14th & Independence SW
P.O. Box 96090
Washington, D.C. 20090-6090
PREFACE
Since early times, Massachusetts forests have been a major resource to the Commonwealth,
and have constituted an inter-generational legacy. Today, despite being the third most densely
populated state in the nation, sixty-four percent of Massachusetts remains forested. However,
because of increasing population and demand for land for development, these forests have been
fragmented and are threatened by conversion to non-forest users.
The Forest Legacy Needs Assessment for Massachusetts provides a comprehensive, long range
process to identify and protect privately-owned woodlands that are under threat of fragmentation
and conversion to non-forest uses.
As appropriate, periodic review and revision to this assessment will be made to meet the
future needs of the forest-using citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
_________________________________________
___________________________________
Warren E. Archey, Chief Forester
Bureau of Forest Development
Division of Forests and Parks
Mass. Department of Environmental Management
Date: May 10, 1993____________
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. Massachusetts Forests: Past and Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A. Massachusetts forest history. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1. The first forest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. The Second forest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. The third forest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Forest history preserved. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
B. The forest resource base. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
1. Forest ownership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .4
2. Forest composition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Forest wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Forest wetlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Geology, topography and outstanding geolotic features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
6. Cultural resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
C. Demands on the forest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Recreation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Wood Products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
ii
5. Energy from wood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Maple Syrup. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Christmas trees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Enhancing urban areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Quality of life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Air quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. Mineral resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
III. The future of the Forest Resource: Critical Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
A. Forest Fragmentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
B. Availability of timber to the wood products industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
C. Impacts on wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
D. Sustainable forestry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
E. Conserving the land base. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
IV. The Forest Legacy Program: Addressing the problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
A. Eligibility for Forest Legacy Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Legacy area criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23
2. Evaluation factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
3. Designation requirements for Forest Legacy Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
B. Phase I designation of Forest Legacy Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
C. Public involvement plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
V. Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
V. References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
VI. Appendix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
iii
A. Resource maps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-1
B. Forest Legacy Area evaluation checklist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-1
C. Executive summaries of Forest Legacy Area nominations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
D. Maps and descriptions of Massachusetts Legacy Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
E. Letters of authorization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E-1
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Massachusetts Forest Legacy Committee is greatly indebted to Christina M. Petersen for her
permission to use narrative directly from Forest Resources of Massachusetts in providing the sections
dealing with the history and future of Massachusetts forests. The material proved not only to be
entirely relevant, but also provided insight and vision, thus allowing direct utility of the findings in
development of the assessment.
The committee, too, is greatly indebted to Thomas Quink, Program Manager, Southern New
England Forest Legacy Program, for his untiring assistance and encouragement in program
development, coordination and publication of the assessment document.
Grateful appreciation is also extended to William Rivers, State Lands Management Forester, for
his significant contributions to descriptions and cartographic depiction of Forest Legacy Areas.
v
FOREST LEGACY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
FOR MASSACHUSETTS
I. INTROCUTION
The forests of Massachusetts are an invaluable resource providing an astonishing array of
benefits, including recreational opportunities, clean water, wood products, and thriving wildlife
populations. Our forests and the resources they provide currently face many challenges, including
maintaining a viable forest products industry and sufficient economic incentive for landowners to
retain and manage forest land. For many reasons, it is in the best interests of the Commonwealth to
encourage the conservation and management of its forests.
Prompted by concerns that land development continues to seriously fragment forest land
ownership inurbanized states like Massachusetts, the United States Congress created a Forest
Legacy Program in the 1990 Farm Bill. The programs purpose is to identify and protect
environmentally important privately-owned forest lands threatened with conservation to non-forest
uses, and to authorize federal (U.S.D.A. Forest Service) purchase of conservation easements on
forest land as a way of slowing such conversions. By retaining these lands in traditional forest uses
(timber harvesting, extensive recreation) those lands can yield positive future benefits in economic
stability and employment. Also tourism depends directly on the aesthetics of the Massachusetts
landscape, again relating economic health and the condition of the environment.
To be eligible to participate in the Forest Legacy Program, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts must prepare a statewide assessment of need that: documents the need for a state
Forest Legacy Program, identifies those areas and delineates the boundaries of forest areas meeting
the eligibility requirements for designation as Forest Legacy Areas, and recommends those areas to
the Forest Service for inclusion in the Forest Legacy Program. Meeting these requirements is the
goal of Massachusetts Forest Legacy Committee and objectives include specifically recommended
Forest Legacy Areas for Phase I and a single Legacy Area designation for Fiscal Year 1992. That goal
and those objectives are met by the contents of this document.
1
II. MASSACHUSETTS FORESTS: PAST AND PRESENT
A. Massachusetts Forest History
When one walks in the woodlands of Massachusetts, it is easy to get the feeling that the forest
around you has not changed for centuries. While it is true that forests change very slowly in relation
to our lives, they do make up a dynamic environment. The forests of Massachusetts have been
altered by both natural disturbances and human influences for hundreds of year.
Hurricanes have played a major role in the development of Massachusetts forests. Since
1635, four major hurricanes have swept through the state, leaving a changed forest in their wake.
Before English settlers arrived, native Indian tribes manipulated the forest to meet their needs. They
burned the forest floor to stimulate the brushy growth favored by game species, cleared land around
major lakes and rivers for settlements, and used wood for their primary cooking fuel. Because the
native population was so small, the forests of Massachusetts were largely unaffected by these
practices.
1. The first forest
When European settlers arrived, they found forests dominated by red oak, white pine and
hemlock. Elk, caribou, moose, mountain lion and timber wolves roamed the woodlands. Deer, quail,
skunk, grouse and hare were largely confined to settlement areas or younger forests that had been
affected by natural disturbances.
For the next 200 years, the forests of Massachusetts were cut to establish farms and to
harvest wood for houses, barns, forts, furniture, fuel, charcoal and potash. By the early 1800s, only
20% of the land in Massachusetts was forested. Elk, caribou and mountain lion had disappeared.
Hunting and trapping decimated wild turkey and beaver. The removal of the forest canopy
encouraged small, brush growth favored by deer, grouse and hare.
During the mid 1800s, reports of fertile farmland to the west, the opening of the Erie Canal,
the California Gold Rush, and the offer of free land to Civil War veterans were situations too tempting
to the Massachusetts farmer to refuse. Many abandoned their farms and moved west.
2. The second forest
Trees that had seed capable of beign established in grassy pastures, such as white pine and
grey birch, began to form a forest in Massachusetts. By the early 1900;s, the earliest farmland to be
abandoned had grown into pine stands that were ready to be harvested. The opening of the Panama
Canal and improved railroads expanded the marketplace from New England to the rest of the nation
and the world. Containers were needed to ship commercial goods, and the white pine forests of
Massachusetts provided wood for the manufacture of shipping crates. The stage was set for the
heaviest commercial exploitation of the Commonwealths forests to date. In 1908, at the peak of the
boxboard boom, the sawmills of Massachusetts had produced almost 400 million feet of lumber.
Today, production is less than half of that.
2
After the pine was removed, the young oaks and maples already established grew quickly to
form the next forest. This was a great boon to deer, and in 1910 a century-long deer hunting ban
was lifted. Populations of black bear, wild turkey, beaver and grouse were still in decline.
3. The third forest
During the turn of the century, as Massachusetts second forest was undergoing extensive cutting,
public concern over the fate of the Commonwealths forest resources began to grow. The Trustees
of Reservations and the Massachusetts Forest and Park Association were formed during this time.
Public acquisition of large parcels of land including Mt. Greylock, Middlesex Fells and the Blue Hills
Reservations also began. In 1908, the legislature created the office of the State Forrester. A State
Forest Commission was established and in 1915, the first state forest, the Otter River State Forest in
Winchendon and Templeton, was purchased.
Insects, diseases, and natural disasters played a large role in changing the composition of the
forest at this time. A fungus imported from England introduced the chestnut blight and within 15
years that tree was virtually eliminated. This tree has been one of the primary components of the
Massachusetts forest, providing durable lumber and food for both people and wildlife, especially wild
turkeys, whose population declined afterwards. Dutch Elm disease was also established in the early
1900s, and has slowly killed most American elms, the state tree of Massachusetts. Gypsy moths
reached epidemic proportions at this time, defoliating thousands of acres of white and red oak. The
Great Hurricane of 1938 roared through Massachusetts and blew down 880,000,000 board feet of
timber, almost eight times what is currently harvested annually.
The wood products industry languished during the Depression. Mobilization for the war effort
brought renewed activity for forest industries, but generally this was aperiod of low exploitation of
Massachusetts forests. The hardwood stands that were established after the white pinew as cut
were not yet mature and the abundance of natural gas and oil made cordwood less popular.
During this time, social shifts in our population were taking place that would also affect the
forests. During the 1940s and 1950s, urban dwellers began leaving cities in large numbers.
Suburban developments cut into forest land. As farming became less profitable, many farmers sold
their cropland and forests to developers and urban dwellers looking for a rural experience. Forest
land was chopped into smaller parcels, making management less practical. The new country dweller
had different uses and priorities for forest land and woodlots became more important as sources of
recreation than as income. Since 85% of our commercial forest land is owned by these non-
industrial private owners, this change in outlook and lifestyles has had a significant impact n our
forests and the industries that use them.
The forests of Massachusetts have again reached maturity, providing us with quiet woodlands,
scenic vistas, thriving wildlife populations, a timber resource for our wood industry, and beautiful
recreational opportunities. Managing our woodlands to provide us with all these amenities and a
healthy forest is the challenge that we now face.
3
4. Forest history preserved
No cultural history better documents the three Massachusetts forest areas than the renowned
Fisher Museum at the Harvard Forest in Petersham. Photographic archives, scientific data and other
records provide a rich resource for the forestry research community. Perhaps the best known
resource is the unique Harvard Forest dioramas that depict the impact of European settlers on the
Regions forests over the course of three centuries.
B. The Forest Resource Base
1. Forest Ownership
Although Massachusetts is often thought of as an urban state, 64% of the land, or 3,225,200
acres, is forested. Maps (Appendix A) depict forest distribution, percentages and per capita cover.
Historical data are depicted in figure 1. Of those forested areas, 2.9 million are classified as
timberland, or land that is fertile and accessible enough to produce wood as crop and is not
withdrawn from timber harvesting by regulation. Who owns these 2.9 million acres of land? Eighty-
four percent of timberland is privately owned by individuals, farmers, corporate owners and the forest
industry. Only 16% is publicly owned, by either the state, counties, unicipalities, or the Federal
Government (figure 2).
The number of individual landowners in Massachusetts is increasing dramatically. In 1972 the
Forest Service estimated that there were 103,900 forest landowners in the Commonwealth. By 1984
that number had jumped to 235,200 greater than a two-fold increase! Most of these new
landowners bought parcels ranging in size from one to nine acres. During the same period, 25% of
the parcels ranging insize from 100-199 acres were sold. Thus, many of the larger forested tracts
are being broken up into smaller parcels (figure 3).
Eighty percent of forest landowners in Massachusetts are young professionals, managers,
craftsmen and retired people. The difference in acreage in relation to the numbers of owners is
interesting to note. Although professionals and craftsman make up 50% of forest landowners, they
own only 24% of the acreage. They are included in the large group of owners that has purchased
land in the 1-9 acre category since 1972. A group of owners that have acquired large acreages is
included in other. This group is composed of a mix of business relationships partnerships, trusts
and clubs.
4
Sixteen percent of timberland in Massachusetts is publicly owned. The Department of
Environmental Management, Division of Forests and Parks, is the largest single landholder in the
state, with 263,485 acres in 136 forests, parks, reservations and beaches. In fact, DEMs forest and
park system is the sixth largest in the United States! The Metropolitan District Commission manages
85,000 forested acres surrounding the Quabbin, Wachusett and Sudbury Reservoirs and also
manages ten reservations around the greater Boston area. The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries
and Wildlife manages 64,182 acres of wildlife management areas. Municipalities in the state own
approximately 288,000 acres, including Conservation Commission lands, watershed lands,
recreational lands and town forests.
Private, non-profit organizations own 132,051 acres of forest land in Massachusetts. The
Trustees of Reservations, The Nature Conservancy, the Massachusetts Audubon Society, Land
Conservation Trusts, and Boy Scout, Girl Scout and 4-H camps are some of the groups that make up
this non-profit sector.
2. Forest composition
Massachusetts forests lie in a transition zone between the pure coniferous woodlands of the
north and the mixed deciduous woodlands of the mid-Atlantic states. A long growing season, well-
distributed rainfall and fertile soils have resulted in forests that contain a rich mixture of many
species. White pine, hemlock, oak, red maple and hickory occur throughout the Commonwealth,
while birch and sugar maple are concentrated in the fertile soils of western Massachusetts. There are
pockets of red spruce at high elevations in the Berkshire mountains. Pitch pine grows with oaks on
the dry, sandy soils of Cape Cod and the Islands.
5
Forest Service surveys have revealed substantial increases in timber growth since 1972,
especially in the sawtimber size class (trees greater than eight inches in diameter. Volume in the
sawtimber size class nearly doubled for softwoods (wood produced by coniferous trees) and more
than doubled for hardwoods (wood produced by deciduous trees). Thus, our forests not only have
greater volume, but it is in larger trees. This indicates that we have been conservative in harvesting
our timber resource. Indeed, the Forest Service survey found that removal by harvesting is
extremely conservative in Massachusetts. Growth in our forests exceed removals by 3 to 1!
Unfortunately, the Forest Service found that the volume increase is in lower-value species and
lower quality trees. For example, red maple, considered a low-value species, jumped from 7% of the
total board foot volume in 1972 to 13% in 1984. During that same time, the quality of red maple
sawlogs declined, leading to speculation that the best trees are being removed from the forests,
leaving poor growing stock behind.
Of the 3.2 million acres of forests in Massachusetts, nearly 2.2 million acres (66.9%) are
classified as prime. These prime woodlands have excellent to good potential for profitable forest
management. Classification of potential productivity, when coupled with other relevant information,
enables landowners and resource professionals to make judicious land use decisions. The system
may be used in determining the relative timber value for forest land investment and management
decisions in Forest Legacy Areas.
6
3. Forest wildlife
Most fluctuations inwildlife populations can be traced to habitat change. As the forests of the
Commonwealth shifted to open farmland and to a forest containing all ages of trees, wildlife
populations have changed with it. Due to the variety of coastal, inland, farm and woodland habitats
and rich mixcture of woodland special, Massachusetts has a diverse array of wildlife.
Massachusetts forest lands provide habitat for at least 169 species of birds. The northern
hardwood forest provides an abundant and varied habitat for approximately 80-100 breeding species,
while the pine and oak forests contain fewer species. Wooded wetlands also support a diverse
birdlife, especially if they contain water courses with brushy or marshy edges.
The varied terrain of thickets, woods and abandoned fields in the Commonwealth provide an
ideal habitat for mammals. More than 50 species of terrestrial mammals regularly occur in
Massachusetts. Our largest resident mammal, the black bear, has become abundant during the last
5 to 10 years, adapting to populated regions west of the Connecticut river. The eastern coyote and
beaver have also become common in recent times, inhabiting the brushy edges of fields, hardwood
forests and wetlands. Other species of wildlife in the Commonwealth who are affected by changes in
forest land include amphibians, reptiles, and freshwater fish.
7
4. Forested wetlands
Forested wetland occupy poorly drained areas that are subject to flooding during periods of
high rainfall. These areas are often overlooked because they lack surface water for much of the
year. Forested wetlands provide important functions such as flood and sediment control, ground an
surface water purification, and fish and wildlife habitat.
Red maple swamps are common throughout the Commonwealth. Other types of forested
wetlands in Massachusetts include floodplain forests found along major rivers and streams, black
spruce bogs, Atlantic white-cedar swamps and vernal pools. Vernal pools are small, temporary
bodies of freshwater, filled during wet spring and autumn months, and dry during the summer.
Wildlife that favor forested wetlands include the red-shouldered hawk, wood duck, spotted
salamander, black bear, white-tailed deer and the beaver. Forested wetlands with a permanent
source of water such as a small brook or stream provide ideal conditions for beavers who create an
entire new habitat of dead trees and marshland. This habitat, in turn, will support a rich variety of
wildlife.
5. Geology, topography and outstanding geologic features
The topography of Massachusetts was formed by glacial action that occurred 10 to 15
thousand years ago. As the glacier advanced and retreated it scraped away at existing land forms in
some areas and deposited earth materials in others. Throughout Massachusetts there are numerous
examples of landforms shaped by moving ice. Some features, such as drumlins and terminal and
recessional moraines, were formed by glacial deposits. Other features, such as lakes, swamps and
waterfalls were formed by debris that clogged valleys and dammed streams as the glacier retreated
(examples in Appendix C).
According to information contained in the 1973 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan (SCORP), Massachusetts is divided into nine major physiographic provinces ranging from the
Taconic Mountains in the west to the Boston Basin and Coastal Lowlands in the east. The Taconic
Mountains form a mountain border with New York State. Elevations range from 1200 to 2800 feet.
Mount Greylock, the states highest peak (3491 feet) is located in the northeastern part of the
Taconic province. The Taconics, although classified as hills, comprise the states only mountainous
region.
The Berkshire Valley, a long narrow lowland running north and south between the Taconic
Mountains and the Berkshire Hills, includes both the Hoosic and Housatonic River valleys. The area,
underlain by less resistant rock than surrounding regions, has eroded to provide a striking contrast
with bordering hills.
The Western Highlands (Berkshire Hills), lie between the Berkshire and Connecticut valleys.
The topography is rugged; elevations, which range from 700 to 2000 feet, are highest in the
northwestern part of the province. The eastern section is dissected by major rivers which flow east
and south to the Connecticut River.
8
The Connecticut Valley Lowland is a wedge shaped area extending north and south from southern
Vermont to the Connecticut border. The lowland, about 20 miles wide at its greatest width, is
located in a large geologic fault bordered by an escarpment on either side of the Valley. The
topography is generally flat to rolling, except for a few ridges, such as Mt. Holyoke and Mt. Tom,
which rise above the valley and are notable landmarks.
The Central Highlands are comprised of the eroded plateau east of the Connecticut Valley
Lowland. The topography is generally rugged but more subdued than that of the Western Highlands.
Elevations range from 700 to 1200 feet, except for monadnocks like Mt. Wachusett (2006 feet). The
eastern part of the Highlands is bounded by an escarpment that slopes down to join the Coastal Hills.
The Coastal Hills region is the larges physiographic province in the state. Its low-lying plateau
(elevations 200 to 700 feet) surrounds the Boston and Narragansett basins and borders the Coastal
Lowlands. Best known of the Coastal Hills are the Blue Hills which rise to the south of Boston and
dominate the skyline for miles around.
The Boston Basin is a very distinct topographic feature of the Massachusetts coast. Its
lowlands (up to 150 feet in elevation) are surrounded by hills which rise abruptly from a ring around
the entire basin. The major relief within the lowlands area is provided by a series of more than 50
drumlins.
The Narragansett Basin, similar to the Boston Basin, is a lowland (up to 200 feet in elevation)
surrounded by the eastern uplands of the Coastal Hills.
The Coastal Lowlands include a narrow strip in the northeastern part of the state and all land
south of Narragansett Basin, Cape Cod and the island of Nantucket sound. The landscape is flat to
rolling and elevations range from sea level to 200 feet. Much of Cape Cod is still in the process of
change; wind and wave action work to change the shape of the present landscape.
6. Cultural resources
Cultural resources include the remains of sites, structures or objects used by humans in the
past and are protected in Massachusetts by the State Antiquities Act (M.G.L. Ch. 9, Sec. 26-27C).
this Act, administered by the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), established the State
Register of Historic Places and Procedures to Protect the Historic and Archaeological Resources of the
Commonwealth (950 CMR 71:00). According to the MHC, settlement has existed in Massachusetts
for 11,000 years and patterns of use, abandonment and reuse, characterize the landscape.
Throughout all settlement periods, including prehistoric times, the most densely populated
areas in the state have been the three lowland regions; the coastal lowlands, the Connecticut River
Valley and the Housatonic Valley. The central and western uplands have consistently been less
densely settled according to the MHC. While trade and industrial technology grew and flourished in
the market centers and cities of the core lowland areas, agricultural activities dominated the upland
areas. Settlers cleared the land for crops and pastures and depleted much of the forest across the
state. Wood was valued for timber and fuel; white pine was especially prized for ship masts.
9
By the early to mid-1800s however, farming was no longer profitable and a period of farm
abandonment ensued. With the decline of farming and logging, the abandoned fields reverted to
forests and enfolded the stone walls and homesteads that dotted the landscape and now form part of
our cultural heritage and record.
Many cultural resource sites are fragile and subject to a variety of negative impacts from
diverse sources. Particularly vulnerable are sub-surface cultural resource sites that can be destroyed
or damaged by soil mixing, compaction or erosion. Timber harvesting is recognized as a land
disturbing activity that can cause these types of impacts. Primary impact mitigation strategies
emphasize site identification, evaluation, avoidance and protection. While Chapter 132 forest cutting
regulations do not specifically address cultural resources, they do include soil compaction and erosion
measures which will help protect cultural resources during timber harvesting operations. More
stringent and direct requirements, however, are included in the DEM cultural resource policy that
affects forest management activities in the state forest and park system.
C. Demands on the Forest
The citizens of Massachusetts place great demands on our forest resources. We expect the
forests to supply recreational opportunities, clean water, wildlife habitat and a healthy forest industry.
The key to good land management is to meet these diverse needs on a sustained basis without
sacrificing the integrity and the productive capacity of the resource base. Much work has been done
to gather information on the forest resource, to assess our impacts on them and to prioritize policies
and actions for resource conservation. These efforts will guide future conservation efforts in the
state.
1. Recreation
Recreation on private and public land is the dominant use of Massachusetts forest land. Many
private landowners permit the use of their land for hiking, nature study, horseback riding, corss-
country skiing, snowmobiling, fishing and hunting. The Department of Environmental Management,
Division of Forests and Parks, is the largest land manager of recreation in the state with 202 forests,
parks, reservations and beaches covering 266,792 forested acres. During the 1988 season, over 12.9
million people used these areas, generating over $6.6 million in user fees. DEM manages state parks
on a multiple-use basis. Many trails on our state forests are adjacent to past or active logging
operations. Protected open space is depicted and long distance hiking trails are identified on maps in
Appendix A.
Tourism is a two billion dollar industry in Massachusetts and much of the activities are related
to our forests. According to the Office of Massachusetts Travel and Tourism, over 1.2 million
travelers attend attractions in the fall in Massachusetts to view the colorful foliage. In the spring, a
large number of tourists are drawn to the maple sugarhouses to watch the boiling of sap.
2. Water
The forest land of Massachusetts protects our water resources. The purity of water reaching a
stream, its total amount, and the regularity of flow are all affected by the conditions of the
surrounding forest, the soils in that forest, and other plant cover. Because trees also take up water,
10
available water from municipal watersheds in Massachusetts can be increased by decreasing the
forest cover to a compatible balance of open and forested land. Harvesting timber from municipal
watersheds also provides income to towns.
There are 150,000 acres of municipal water supply forest lands in Massachusetts. Since 1977,
the University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension has worked with 36 communities in the
Commonwealth to establish 55,000 acres of municipal watershed under forest management. The
participating communities have realized and additional water yield of approximately one billion
gallons, valued at $235,000 annually, and have also benefited from timber sale income collectively in
excess of $3.6 million. The Metropolitan District Commission, the agency responsible for meeting
municipal Bostons water needs, also harvests timber from the 85,000 acres it controls. Proper
harvesting methods insure clean water on all watersheds, while limited recreation facilities are
maintained for the public. These areas are truly managed for multiple uses.
An Atlas of Massachusetts River Systems presents date and maps of Massachusetts river basins,
depicting protected lands, man-made riverine features, canoe ratings and built-up areas. Prominent
ecological features are also described for each river system. Dividing the landscape along
physiographic boundaries, this publication represents a powerful tool for resource evaluation by
natural delineation of ecosystemic influences. Appendix A contains maps delimiting major
watersheds, wellhead protection areas and aquifiers.
3. Wildlife
Traditionally, wildlife managers have focused their attention on these species considered
consumptive, or those that are hunted or fished. To a large extent, wildlife managers in
Massachusetts still focus primarily on these game species which include black bear, white-tailed deer,
wild turkey, small mammals, ruffed grouse, waterfowl, and freshwater and marine fisheries, but
increasing emphasis is being placed on management of non-game species and particularly on rare,
threatened and endangered species and their habitat. Appendix A contains maps documenting
occurrences of rare plants and animals.
During the 1985 hunting and fishing season, 469,200 people purchased licenses, permits,
stamps and tags in the state, contributing over $12 million directly to the economy. The United
States Fish and Wildlife Service estimated the value of fish and wildlife resources in Massachusetts in
1985 at approximately $550 million, based on expenditures for equipment, bait, guides, lodging,
food, transportation and privilege fees.
It is difficult to assess the importance of more passive human activities associated with game
and non-game wildlife species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service defines these activities as
observing, photographing, or feeding wildlife. In 1985, over 2.7 million people participated in these
activities in the Commonwealth. That means that over 50% of our population participated in wildlife
activities during 1985!
The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife is expanding acquisition of critical habitats
to lands having high value for sustaining indigenous species biodiversity. This emphasis will serve
not only the traditional hunting and fishing interests, but also a much broader spectrum of the
recreating and environmentally concerned public.
11
Wildlife populations are entirely dependent on their habitat, so the link between wildlife and
forests is a crucial one. Forests can be managed to enhance a certain wildlife species, such as the
ruffed grouse or the white-tailed deer. Like most wildlife, these species prefer a variety of plant life
that can provide food and cover. Planning a timber harvest with this diversity in mind can greatly
enhance wildlife habitat. Some landowners harvest wood products from their woodlots to create
specific wildlife habitat. By dong this, they are realizing multiple amenities from their forest
increased income and enhanced wildlife populations.
There are 338 inland wildlife species featured in New England Wildlife: Habitat, Natural History
and Distribution. Regional range maps and species occurrence and use by habitat for each listed
species allow the evaluation of potential habitat for native species.
4. Wood Products
In 1983, forest products industries employed 38,000 people in Massachusetts, representing
6% of manufacturing employment, and an annual payroll of $686 million. Paper and allied products
manufacturing make up the largest segment of forest products industries in Massachusetts. Since
these companies import pulp primarily from Canada and are not aligned with the forest resource base
in Massachusetts, this discussion will focus on the primary and secondary sectors of the industry.
The primary industry includes all parties that participating in getting trees cut and milled into rough
lumber. The secondary industry is composed of those individuals who manufacture rough lumber
into usable products. Total employment in both sectors is approximately 14,375 in Massachusetts.
The primary industry is composed of foresters, loggers and sawmillers. This sector of the
industry is totally dependent on the public and private woodlands of Massachusetts for its resource.
There are approximately 186 professional foresters, 214 timber harvesters and 101 sawmills in the
Commonwealth, concentrated in the western part of the state, annually working together to produce
approximately 114 million board feet of lumber, primarily from private lands. This sector is
characterized by small, privately owned companies, employing three to five workers.
The secondary industry is made up of 782 companies which produce a variety of products for
consumer and industrial markets, principally cabinets, custom furniture, architectural millwork, and
grade lumber. This sector of the industry is concentrated in the Gardner area and northern
Worcester County, where wood industry employment exceeds 20 percent.
Industry growth remains stable following a decline in the 1970s. Massachusetts is a significant
regional manufacturer of wood products, with $302 million of value added manufacturing in 1982.
Fifty-five percent of the value added in furniture manufacturing in New England is generated in
Massachusetts thats more than the contribution from the state of Maine!
5. Energy from Wood
The oil crisis during the 1970s generated much interest in fuelwood as a source of home
heating. One million cords of wood were used in Massachusetts during the 1981-1982 season. Since
1985, fuelwood burning has decreased dramatically, but that could change with another oil shortage.
12
The development of smaller power production facilities which utilize renewable resources to generate
electricity is specifically encouraged by both federal and state law. Utility rates in New Hampshire,
Maine and Connecticut have led to the establishment or proposed establishment of a number of
wood-fired power facilities in those states. There is a great abundance of wood in Massachusetts
that could easily support electric power generation. For a variety of reasons, there have been no
large wood-fired generating plants proposed in Massachusetts for a number of years. Again, that
could change with another shortage of oil.
6. Maple Syrup
Maple syrup producers in Massachusetts produce approximately 40,000 gallons annually, with
a retail value of over $1.6 million. This income is a vital source of farm income in the rural part of
the Commonwealth. The maple industry also represents and important tourist attraction, which
generates considerable economic spin-off benefits to rural communities.
7. Christmas Trees
There are over 400 Christmas tree growers in Massachusetts, most of whom are part-time
producers. Over 50,000 Christmas trees are harvested in Massachusetts annually, with a retail value
to the growers of over $1.5 million. Good markets exist for these trees in southern New England, on
a retail and wholesale level. The potential exists to produce over one million trees annually in
Massachusetts.
8. Enhancing Urban Areas
The trees, soil, water and wildlife in our communities make up the urban forest. City trees are
intermingled with buildings, streets, sidewalks, overhead and underground utilities, parking lots, cars,
parks and people. This unnatural environment makes growing conditions difficult for trees and other
plants. Special care is needed to plan for and to maintain the urban forests of our towns and cities.
Twenty-two communities in Massachusetts have been commended for the high quality of
management given to their urban forests and have been recognized as members of the Tree City,
USA group, sponsored by the American Forestry Association. Proper management of street
plantings provides these communities with amenities such as reduced noise pollution, cleaner air,
more moderate temperatures, windbreaks, habitats for wildlife, increased property values, and a
more aesthetically pleasing environment.
9. Quality of Life
Forest land provides strong economic, ecological, and aesthetic benefits for citizens of the
Commonwealth. The open space provided by our forests has contributed to the economic boom
Massachusetts has experienced during the 1980s. Businesses assessing relocation consider the
quality of life, including scenic surroundings, open land, and clean water, to be more important than
factors such as taxes and land costs. Three hundred and thirty communities in Massachusetts (out of
351) associated the quality of life in their communities with the presence of natural areas,
panoramic vistas, rural atmosphere, traditional town centers and historic buildings. Amenities such
as these are vitally linked to the forest land and urban forests of the Commonwealth.
13
The tourism industry, worth an estimated $2 billion a nnually to Massachusetts, is largely
dependent on the maintenance of the existing character of the forest. Therefore, any activity,
private or public, which may profoundly impact the landscape and affects the forested ambiance,
directly affects the citizens of the state as well its attractiveness for tourism. The Massachusetts
Landscape Inventory map delineates distinctive and noteworthy landscapes (Appendix A).
The forest industry is one of the oldest in Massachusetts, beginning with the first sawmills that
were present in every village. It is an agricultural industry with roots in every small town, providing
local jobs and often a source of native lumber. A healthy forest industry prevents the loss of rural
character and agricultural heritage and helps to preserve the local rural economy.
10. Air quality
Forest cover affects air quality in many ways. The forest filters particulates from the air,
shades and cools forest interiors, through evapotranspiration, and reduces wind and consequent
drying. It is also becoming widely recognized that forest may play an important part in helping to
mitigate the effects of global warming.
The 1990 report of the NASF Global Warming Committee suggests that, second to reducing
our worldwide consumption of fossil fuel energy, increasing the sequestration of carbon in trees and
wood products is of utmost importance in helping to mitigate the buildup of atmospheric carbon and
the resultant greenhouse effect. Improved forest management and wood utilization can increase the
amount of carbon absorbed by forest stands, as well as effectively delaying the release of carbon
dioxide through long-term storage in wood products.
11. Mineral resources
There are a variety of mineral resources in Massachusetts but relatively few are of commercial
quantity or quality. Historically, many of the minerals listed below were commercially exploited, but
now only sand and gravel, limestone, traprock and granite remain commercially significant. Non-
metallic minerals present in Massachusetts include: alum, asbestos, barite, clay, coal, corundum and
emery, cyanite, feldspar, garnet, graphite, lime, lithium compounds, mica, novaculite; precious stones
of beryl, chiastolite, jasper, rhodonite, spinel and tourmaline; sand and gravel, silica; stone including
granite, limestone and marble, sandstone, traprock, talc and sandstone. Metallic minerals include:
copper, gold, iron, lead, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, silver, tin and zinc.
Sand and gravel are ubiquitous in Massachusetts and result from glacial deposition. Especially
prevalent in major river basins, these deposits serve as groundwater aquifers. Extensive outwash
plans in Plymouth County, Cape Cod, Nantucket and Marthas Vineyard are substantial areas of sand
and gravel and constitute the stratum for water supply in those areas. Commercial exploitation of
sand and gravel constitutes the greatest competitive use of the forest from the standpoint of mineral
extraction. Limestone is confined to Berkshire County, in the western part of the state and through
prevalent is mined significantly in two quarries. Thus, in terms of area, limestone mining has little
effect on the forest resource, except in a localized way. Traprock is mined as well with major
quarries located in the Connecticut River Valley.
14
III. THE FUTURE OF THE FOREST RESOURCE: CRITICAL ISSUES
A. Forest Fragmentation
The overall acreage and species composition of the Massachusetts forest are becoming far less
of a concern for forest planners than the pattern of forest ownership and the impacts that this
pattern will have on community land use in the future. Of he 2.9 million acres of Massachusetts
forest, 84% is in the private ownership of individuals, corporations, farmers and the forest industry.
The balance, or the remaining 16%, is in public control of sate, county, municipal or federal
government. Despite an increase of about three percent in the amount of privately owned forest
land in Massachusetts, the actual number of individual owners has increased over two-fold during the
period between the Forest Service studies in 1972 and 1984. A large number of these landowners
purchased land in the one to nine acre size category.
The division and sale of large forested tracts in southern New England threatens the integral
value of forest ecosystems. Parcelization of woodland in Massachusetts is corroborated by the
results of the Forest Services landowner surveys of 1972 and 1984. In 1972, there wer 103,900
private forest owners who collectively owned 2,432,300 acres for an average of 23.4 acres per
owner. Twelve years later (1984) the number of owners increased to 235,200, but the forest-base
remained nearly the same (2,499,100 acres). The average woodland tract in private ownership is
now 10.5 acres per owner. A 1988 newsletter of the Massachusetts Forestry Association reveals that
25% of all forested parcels between 100 and 199 acres in size that were sold between 1972 and
1984, the average size of the forest parcel is declining. In many cases, the fragmentation of forest
ownership into smaller holdings precedes conversion of that forest land to non-forest uses. The
speed of that conversion is also cause for alarm between 1950 and 1970, an estimated 350,000
acres of farm and forest were converted to urban development slightly less t han half of all
estimated land consumption since colonial times. Over 112,000 acres of this open space, or just
under one third of the thirty-year total, were converted during the first five years of the 1980s alone.
A conservative projection shows over two million acres, or 40% of Massachusetts open space to be
converted to other uses during the next 40 years with 80% of that as residential development. Since
only 5.3% of that open space exists as crop or pasture land the bulk of that projected change will
result in forest land conversion to non-forest uses.
These small parcels usually are uneconomical to manage and may lad to forced sales to the
highest bidder, a developer or speculator with little intent to keep the property in its natural state.
Though the tract may not be developed or subdivided immediately, its speculative ownership
removes it from the roster of lands managed for future productivity and open space. With the
shrinking acreage of contiguous ownership, management and productivity of forest lands will be
increasingly difficult and less cost-effective. The future of the regions already weak forest products
industry is at stake, while clean air/water, recreation, wildlife, and aesthetic values of the states
woodland are threatened.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts provides tax incentives to forest landowners which
enable landowners to keep forested parcels intact, through three current use state laws: the Forest
Taxation and Classification Act (MGL Ch. 61), the Massachusetts Agricultural-Horticultural Law
15
(MGL CH.61A) and the Recreational Land Use Assessment (MGL CH. 61B). Chapters 61 and 61A
allow substantial property tax deferment for woodland owners who follow and approved forest
resources management plan. Through Chapter 61B also avails forest landowners tax relief, no
management plan is required.
According to the 1990 Statistical Report, prepared by the Bureau of Forest Development,
Department of Environmental Management, the number of plans and acreage under chapters 61 and
61A continues to increase. Collectively, these two programs in clued over 270,000 acres.
B. Availability of Timber to the Wood Products Industry
Increasing fragmentation of the resource base, combined with a shorter tenure of ownership
of forest land, have had a great impact on the timber industry in the Commonwealth. Loggers and
sawmillers face difficulties in obtaining timber from smaller parcels of land with an increasing number
of landowners. Escalating operating costs, including expensive machinery, fuel and labor expenses,
as well as a shrinking labor pool, have accompanied a rise in what the harvester must pay to buy
standing timber.
Many landowners are not aware of the value of the timber on their woodlands and those that
are may be reluctant to harvest timber. These perceptions may be changing. A survey conducted by
the Forest Service, The Forest Landowners of Southern New England (Draft) in 1989 reveals some
interesting patterns of timberland ownership attitudes in Massachusetts. The survey indicated that
those inclined to harvest in the near or indefinite future outnumbered those opposed to harvesting by
2 to 1. Furthermore, those who would harvest sometime in the future owned almost four time sthe
amount of acreage as those who would never harvest.
The primary reason for owning land is as p art of residence, reflecting the small acreage
development in recent years. Other reasons include recreational use, timber investment, and part
of an estate. This other group includes only 6% of owners, but retains 25% of the acreage.
The largest percentage of owners own their land for aesthetic enjoyment and are reluctant to
conduct a timber harvest if the scenery would be ruined. The wood industry must do a better job of
assuring landowners that a timber harvest can be completed without extensive damage to the
remaining trees and can actually enhance the aesthetics of the woodlot by providing better access
roads and more scenic vistas.
C. Impacts on Wildlife
Although stable population of much of our wildlife, including wild turkey, black bear and white-
tailed deer have been reestablished, many species still need our protection. A number of programs
have been established to do this in the Commonwealth. Since 1983, Massachusetts residents have
made contributions from income tax refunds to the Nongame Wildlife Fund. This money is used to
preserve and manage non-game wildlife.
The Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program was initiated to inventory all threatened and
endangered species in Massachusetts, identifying site locations, populations, and status of each listed
16
species. The inventory provides a central place for planners, developers, and conservationists to find
geographical information on the Commonwealths rare species and natural communities for use in
environmental impact assessment, natural resource development, natural area protection and
research.
The variety, frequency, distribution and health of Massachusetts wildlife depends directly on
the size, species and distribution of forest trees, but also contiguity and connectivity are important
ecosystem requirements. Wildlife biologists are questioning the utility of setting aside relatively
small, unconnected preserves to protect wildlife, such as state parks and forests. They are
advocating a system of linkages or corridors between these preserves so they may continue as
biologically diverse ecological systems in an increasingly fragmented and urbanized land base.
Protecting existing riverside corridors, an infrastructure upon which wildlife is vitally dependent, is a
beginning. The Massachusetts Riverways Project was initiated to achieve that goal.
D. Sustainable Forestry
Sustainable forestry focuses on the retention, conservation and health of forest land in the
face of increasing development so that our forests continue to provide the multiple benefits that
citizens of the Commonwealth expect. This includes maintaining a viable forest products industry,
sufficient economic incentive for landowners to retain and manage forest land, and attention to the
protection and management of Massachusetts wildlife. It also involves education of the 235,000
landowners who control the fate of our forests.
Cooperation between the diverse groups who use the forest resource is vitally important to the
goal of sustainable forestry. These groups include the forest industry, passive recreation users,
wildlife managers and observers, watershed managers, foresters, forest landowners, hunters,
anglers, local land trusts and any other group who has an interest in maintaining a viable, healthy
and productive forest for all users. The Department of Environmental Management was successful in
bringing these groups together to develop the Massachusetts Forest Resources Plan. Published in
1985, the Plan identifies the challenges and opportunities for Massachusetts forests and makes
extensive recommendations towards resolution of some of the problems addressed in this booklet.
These groups continue to work together to address the numerous recommendations in the Plan.
Forest landowners need improved techniques for realizing timer, wildlife and recreational
benefits from the same piece of forest land. Charging hunting and recreation fees to users is an
option that is popular elsewhere in the eastern United States. Favorable tax programs for
landowners who practice wildlife management is another option. A reassessment of current forest
land tax laws would be useful in addressing the problem of under-enrollment.
Few landowners will practice forestry if it is not economical. At present, there are few
favorable markets for lower quality wood and this acts as a disincentive to forest management. A
recent government study identified products from low quality wood in Massachusetts that have a
high potential for success in local, regional and national markets. Not it is up to either the private
sector or a combination of the private/public sector to respond.
17
E. Conserving the Land Base
The problems caused by fragmentation of forest land must be addressed. Most forest
landowners in Massachusetts retain ownership of their property for less than ten years and the goals
of each successive landowner often differ. In monetary terms, the development potential of forest
land in Massachusetts almost always exceeds is value for forestry uses. These factors make
preservation of our forest land a difficult task. An important part of the solution are two tools
currently being used in the Commonwealth: conservation restrictions and the Chapter 61 programs,
the current use property tax law.
Land Conservation Trusts (LCTs) are non-profit entities than can acquire property through a
conservation restriction or easement, purchase, or donation o n the part of a local landowner. In
some cases, LCTs have assembled development packages for properties which include a lease to the
original landowner for farming or timber production and a limited cluster development on a corner of
the farm acreage so that the landowner can realize some income from the property. They also
purchase lands on occasions when rare or unique features are at stake and the possibility of a gift of
the land or an easement does not exist. Many will hold land for purchase by a governmental entity.
As of 1991, over 31,000 acres have been protected with conservation restrictions (Table 1).
Generally, LCTs have as on of their ultimate stewardship goals the use and management of
land for the public benefits to be derived from open space and natural area protection. The kinds of
features of interest to LCTs include, but are not limited to, areas which contain unique wildlife, high
quality wildlife habitat, rare plants or unusual plant communities, interesting or unusual geologic or
archaeological features or particularly large open space areas unbroken by development. Size of the
areas for consideration is usually less important than quality and defensibility against disturbance.
Woodland owners enrolled in Chapter 61 series of programs have made a long-term
commitment to managing their forest resources. All parcels that fall within lands classified under this
legislation may be initially identified as potential willing sellers. Too, the management plans
associated with those parcels are easily amended to include Stewardship goals as the Chapter 61
format was retained as the basis for the Stewardship Plans. Figure 4 depicts Chapter 61 enrollees
and acreage by County in Massachusetts.
18
New and innovative approaches to keeping forest land in an undeveloped and productive state
are gaining popularity in the Commonwealth. A healthy forest industry with profitable markets is a
vital part of this picture.
19
20
IV. THE FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM: ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM
The forests of Massachusetts contribute greatly to our economy and provide the ecological
systems and visual landscapes essential to our quality of life. Historically, demands for raw materials
(wood, land for development) have competed with the need to protect and conserve natural
resources (water supply, recreation areas, wildlife). Meeting these diverse needs on a sustained
basis without sacrificing the integrity and the productive capacity of the resource base is the
challenge that we face in the Commonwealth.
In recent years, several social and economic trends have significantly affected the balance of
natural resource utilization and protection in the Commonwealth. Increasing residential and
commercial pressures have caused the development of substantial areas of previously open or
forested land, raising questions of water supply protection and altering the visual landscape to which
communities are accustomed. Development pressures are compounded by faltering agricultural and
wood products industries which cannot provide competing economic incentives for land ownership.
Also documented above is the presence of a strong network of local LCTs which, over the last
two decades especially, have demonstrated a sound record of land conservation. Through their
collective efforts, these organizations have cultivated a landowner public that is knowledgeable of,
and receptive to, the concept of conservation easements.
It followed then, that LCTs could play a key role in the Massachusetts Forest Legacy Program.
In the fall of 1991, a committee was convened to implement the Forest Legacy Program in
Massachusetts composed of state resource management professional and private sector
representative os LCTs and watershed associations those organizations that already have a
constituency and could be counted on to develop public support and program accountability.
Purchase of conservation easements under the Forest Legacy Program from willing owners of
adjacent parcels would protect in perpetuity valuable woodland from conversion to non-forest uses.
Moreover, since easement requires a Forest Stewardship Plan that addresses traditional forest uses
and public values, privately-owned working forests would be insured, as well as protection of
environmental values and contributions toward rural economies.
A. Eligibility for Forest Legacy Areas
Eligible areas are catalogued in Appendix C and represent a rich and varied assortment of
forest lands. Many forest lands across Massachusetts will meet the Forest Service eligibility criteria
for the Forest Legacy Program. To determine the outstanding ones, each area, in addition to
documentation of important values within its boundaries, will be evaluated within its regional context.
Floodplains, extensive wetlands, high elevation forests with characteristic vegetation, threatened and
endangered species habitats, coastal plain aquifers, riverine and coastal shorelines all constitute
distinctive regionally occurring natural resources in Massachusetts. An Alas of Massachusetts River
Systems: Environmental Designs for the Future makes the case for the regional context utilizing river
basins as a physiographic means of delineating natural systems. Those values may be expressed in
terms of regionally distinctive geologic or ecologic occurrence (for example, habitat corridors or
21
riparian linkages especially suited to endangered/threatened species protection). Ideally, nominated
Forest Legacy Areas would embody multiple and regional public values, be acquirable and enjoy
public support for that purpose, be threatened with conversion in the short-term, abut existing public
open space blocks and corridors, and be delineated by natural boundaries (physiographic, geologic,
hydrologic/riparian) and contribute to bio-diversity. Too, the regional values may be expressed as
societal benefits.
In early 1992, LCTs and other conservation organizations across the state were invited to
submit potential Forest Legacy Areas that would meet Forest Service eligibility criteria listed below:
1. Legacy area criteria
For inclusion in the Forest Legacy Program lands must:
a. Be threatened by present or future conversion to non-forest uses
b. Contain one or more of the following important public values:
(1). Scenic Resources
(2). Public recreation opportunities
(3). Riparian/hydrologic areas
(4). Fish and wildlife habitat
(5). Known threatened and endangered species
(6). Known cultural/historic areas, and/or
(7). Other ecological values
c. Provide opportunities for continuation of traditional forest uses
d. Reflect important regional values
2. Evaluation factors
The nominator of a proposed Forest Legacy Area may quantify and qualify the information
which utilizing these evaluation factors, and provide a persuasive argument for the nominated area.
This list is provided as a guideline for nominations and the essential items are repeated in checklist
form in Appendix B.
22
a. Threat by conversion to non-forest uses:
(1). Type and level of threat
There are various kinds and degrees of threat to valuable forested areas, such as encroaching
housing development, improved town roads, sewer line and power line extensions into undeveloped
areas, fragmentation of land ownership in smaller, less manageable parcels. In determining the
threat to an area, factors to consider include the following:
- Area is in danger of conversion to non-forest use within 5 years.
- Area may remain wooded, but will become further fragmented.
- Area is currently on the open market/listed by realtors.
- Loss of one tract would open the area to further development.
- Area is remote, but vulnerable; percable, frontage on town road.
- Area is not under Ch. 61 or other forest management program.
- Area may remain wooded, but is in danger of being over-harvested.
(2). Factors affecting acquirability
Even if a forested area is threatened with conversion to non-forest use, protecting it under
the Forest Legacy program can only be accomplished if certain conditions exist w hich favor
implementation. In determining the prospects for a successful effort under the Forest Legacy
Program, factors to consider include the following.
- Area is owned by willing seller(s).
- Owner understands conservation restriction/easement concept.
- A 25% cost share match is available (town, state or land trust).
- Area may be available at below fair market value (bargain).
b. Contain one or more important values:
(1). Scenic resources
The scenic aspects of a natural resource area may often by subjective, but there are several
means of measuring the special qualities that make a given area stand out. The criteria set out in
DEMs Scenic Landscape Inventory and the Mass. Scen ic Roads Acts provide a means of citing scenic
qualities. In identifying scenic amenities of a Forest Legacy area, these factors must be considered.
- Area is listed in the DEMs 1985 Mass. Landscape Inventory as Distincitive or Noteworthy.
- Area includes locally important panoramic views and/or exceptional short views.
- Area is situated along a designated scenic road.
(3). Riparian Areas
In an urbanizing state such as Massachusetts, one of the most important forest products
may be water. Proper management of forest lands through institution of a Forest Legacy Area can
23
increase the quality and quantity of water for the residents of the Commonwealth. Factors to be
included in determining the value of riparian areas:
- Area is situated on major river or stream recognized by Mass. DEM Scenic Rivers Inventories
or Mass. DFWELE Adopt-a-Stream programs.
- Area has extensive (over 300) river or wetland shoreline.
- Area includes floodplain and natural valley storage components (Use USGS Atlas; FEMA flood
hazard maps)
- Area contains a minimum 80 strip of native trees and shrubs as a natural buffer and sediment
filter, per USFS guidelines outlined in Riparian Forest Buffers.
- Area contributes to public or private drinking water supply (DEP Zone 2).
- Area contains important wetlands; especially isolated wetlands and/or vernal pool.s
(4). Fish and wildlife habitat
Preventing the fragmentation of forest tracts into smaller units is crucial to maintaining viable
populations of particular wildlife species. Factors to be considered:
- Area contains outstanding habitat, as evaluated per Mass. DPW guidelines, and other
ecologically recognized criteria for one or more species that include:
• Forest interior nesting birds
• Significant populations of resident species
• Neo-tropical migrant species
• Areas for resting and feeding of migratory species
• Forest inhabiting mammals, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates.
. - Area exhibits connective habitats, corridors, habitat linkages and areas that reduce biological
isolation.
- Known threatened and endangered species.
As urbanized and fragmentation of forest lands continues, the need to give special attention to
threatened species of fish, wildlife and plants increases. Areas nominated for the Forest Legacy
Program should be inventoried for such natural habitats that may contain imperiled species,
considering the following factors:
- Area contains plant or animal species on Mass. State list as Endangered, Threatened or of
Special Concern (consult Mass. Natural Heritage Program at Mass. Division of Fisheries and
Wildlife).
(5). Known cultural resources
Material evidence of the earlier human occupation in Mass. Comprises a unique and
irreplaceable resource, as do historic feature sand vernacular landscapes. Factors to consider:
24
- Area contains recorded archeological site; e.g. burial, midden, fire pit, or artifacts of Contact,
Woodland or Archaic periods.
- Area includes historic features; e.g. charcoal kilns, church or village sites, battle sites, historic
roads, paths or lookouts.
(6). Productive soils
Of the 3.2 million acres of forests in Mass., nearly 67% are classified as prime, based on the
productive soils upon which they grow. This classification system is useful in determining the
importance of individual tracts within a Forest Legacy Area:
- Area contains soils of Prime, or State or Local significance for agriculture.
- Area contains soils of Prime, or State or Local significance for forestry.
(7). Other ecological values
In addition to the characteristics already outlined, an area may exhibit additional or
exceptional conditions that are important and add to the quality of the nominated Forest Legacy
Area, such as:
- Area provides a mix of ecological communities (bio-diversity).
- Area includes ecological communities which are dwindling in Mass., such as vernal pools,
mature riparian floodplain forest, pine barrens.
- Area contains old growth of forest (natural area).
- Area provides immediate watershed/water supply protection.
c. Provide opportunities for continuation of traditional forest uses.
Maintaining traditional forest uses is important in a Forest Legacy Area in that it permits
owners to remain on the land without requiring high-cost services (schools, street clearing and
repair) by the town. Positive factors which reinforce this include:
- Area will remain available for sugar bush operation, cord wood or timber management under a
Stewardship Plan.
- Area will continue to serve watershed and water filtration role.
- Area will continue to provide outdoor recreation opportunities.
d. Regional values
Through careful selection, Forest Legacy Areas should provide units that have regional, not
just local significance. The feature sand functions of these units should include:
- Linkages for recreational values, such as trails, especially along river greenbelts, mountain
ridges and parcels which connect existing publicly-owned lands.
25
- Public access to boating and swimming relative to the needs of local population centers and
the effects of projected land use change.
- Public or private drinking water supply protection (ground or surface water).
- Scenic qualities having their basis in the traditional New England natural and cultural
landscape.
It should be noted that a Forest Legacy Area nomination is a brief written narrative utilizing
elements in Basic Criteria as listed below and as in the executive summary format contained in
Appendix C. Other pertinent items may be included, but the points listed under Basic Criteria (below)
must be included.
3. Designation Requirements for Forest Legacy Areas
(a). Basic Criteria
For an area to be designated a Forest Legacy Area the following are required:
- Designation of each geographic area on a topographic map.
- Description of each important forest area.
- Summary of the important environmental values and how they will be protected and
conserved in each Forest Legacy Area.
- List of public values that will be derived from establishing each Forest Legacy Area.
- Identification of the governmental entity or entities that may be assigned management
responsibilities for the lands enrolled in the program.
- Documentation of the analysis and the public involvement process.
(b). Memoranda of Understanding
After Forest Service and Secretary of Agriculture review and approval, two kinds of
memoranda of understanding will be required for designation of Forest Legacy Areas. The first is a
memorandum between the Massachusetts Division of Forests and Parks, Department of
Environmental Management (DFP) and the Forest Service, developed upon establishment of the
Massachusetts Forest Legacy Program, for the purpose of specifying roles and responsibilities for
implementing the program. The second type of memorandum is tract-specific, between DFP, Forest
Service and participating entities, negotiated whenever interests in lands within a Forest Legacy Area
are required, for the purpose of identifying roles and responsibilities for management and monitoring,
and cost-share matches.
(1). The umbrella memorandum of understanding
The umbrella memorandum will address the following items:
* Costs and funding
* Identify direct and indirect costs expected to be incurred in establishing the
Forest Legacy Program, and acquiring and administering interests in lands
During the first five years of the program. Revise or renew these cost
estimates as appropriate.
26
* Identify and propose sources of cost-share matches.
* Planning
* Estimate the amount of work needed to complete the Assessment of Need and
Identification of Forest Legacy Areas.
* Define a process for revising landowner Stewardship Management Plans.
* Identify how specific tract-by-track acquisition needs and priorities will be
established.
* Identify how broad baseline data needs will be accomplished.
* Acquisition
* Identify who is responsible for title work, appraisals, surveys, and similar
Pre-acquisition work.
* Define a process for determining the value of donated interests in lands.
* Identify the circumstances requiring the assembly of baseline data and the
format for such data.
* Management
* Define responsibilities for management for interests in land acquired or
dedicated to the program.
* Identify possible activities needed to enhance, restore or maintain resources to
meet the intent of the program and general responsibilities in carrying out
such activities.
* Administration
* Estimate the staff work to implement the program.
* Define responsibilities for processing applications to the Forest Legacy Program
* Establish procedure for monitoring the terms of easements and identify who
will be responsible.
* Identify responsibilities for periodic reports summarizing the achievement of
Forest Legacy goals in Massachusetts.
27
* Determine the frequency of periodic program statements by DFP, for the
Forest Service providing specific detailed information about work to be
performed.
(2). The tract-specific memoranda of understanding
Tract-specific memoranda of understanding between DFP, the Forest Service and participating
entities, negotiated whenever interests in lands within a Forest Legacy Area are acquired, for the
purpose of identifying roles and responsibilities for management and monitoring, and cost-share
matches.
The above list should also be used in developing tract-specific memoranda, although many of
the planning and administrative items will not apply. While the umbrella memorandum will identify
general responsibilities and provide estimates of the costs and work to be performed, the tract-
specific memorandum will document the cost-share match, monitoring the interests in lands. In
addition to the Forest Service and DFP other participating entities, such as land trusts or citizen
groups, may be parties to the tract-specific memoranda.
B. Phase I Designation of Forest Legacy Areas
The Massachusetts Forest Legacy Committee solicited statewide nominations of potential
Forest Legacy Areas from regional land conservation trusts. The responses are contained in
Appendix C and are in the order listed below. The following constitute those initial eligible
nominations by sponsor and Forest Legacy Area name and keyed to the map (Appendix D) by
number:
* Belchertown Conservation Commission
1. Jabish Brook Watershed
* Berkshire County Land Trust
2. Stockbridge Yokun Ridge Reserve
* Concord Land Conservation Trust
3. Estabrook Woods
* Essex County Greenbelt Association
4. Cape Ann Forest Legacy Area
* Hilltown Land Trust
5. Kinne Brook Valley
* Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management
6. Connecticut Valley Forest Legacy Area (Holyoke Range sub-unit)
7. East Branch, Westfield River
28
* Mount Grace Land Conservation Trust
8. North Quabbin Corridor
* Nashua River Watershed Association
9. Nashua River Greenway
* New England Forestry Foundation
10. Charles River Area
* Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
11. Westfield River
* Sheffield Land Trust
12. Mount Race/Jug End
* Sudbury Valley Trustees
13. Cedar Swamp
* The Compact of Cape Cod Conservation Trusts
14. Punkhorn Parklands
15. Lookout Ridge
16. Pine Barrens and Quashnet River Woodlands
Additionally, the committee selected five of the nominations for recommendation to the Forest
Service and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for Phase I. Characteristically, the
nominations represented great variety and were well documented, well distributed across the state,
from ridge tops to river valleys to the coastal plain; possessed a high degree of threat to conversion;
were submitted by organizations which had a demonstrated track record, and could move quickly to
the acquisition stage; and especially important, had substantial local support. Those
recommendations are designated on the map (Appendix D) by number and include:
- Stockbridge Yokun Ridge Reserve (#2)
- Estabrook Woods (#3)
- Connecticut Valley Forest Legacy Area (#6)
- North Quabbin Corridor (#8)
- Nashua River Greenway (#9)
Those recommendations include 12,823 acres to be purchased and will be part of five Forest
Legacy Areas totaling approximately 37,000 acres. The committee believes it is realistic to complete
these in three years at a total cost of $12.7 million with $5 million requested in the first year.
Additionally, the committee was asked to select from the above list of five, a Legacy Area
which could move quickly on a parcel or parcels if limited funding became available. The Stockbridge
Yokun Ridge Reserve was chosen (#2 on Appendix D) because a willing seller was available, the
Berkshire County Land Trust (the sponsor) could move quickly and the Legacy Area was one which
clearly embodied the intent of the Forest Legacy Program. If problems with landowner negotiations
29
should occur with the Yokun Ridge parcel, the Forest Legacy subcommittee selected the Western
Connecticut Valley Water Supply Unit as the next priority.
C. Public involvement plan
The responsibility for Forest Legacy implementation is through the Forest Legacy
Subcommittee as authorized by the Forest Stewardship Committee. The subcommittee was designed
to provide open space acquisition expertise and was appointed by the Chief Forester, Bureau of
Forest Development, Division of Forests and Parks, Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Management. Those committees, broadly representing the many facets of the Massachusetts
forestry community, constituted the initial phase of public participation.
As previously discussed, the task of the Subcommittee was to develop the assessment which
would make the case for the Forest Legacy Program in Massachusetts, representing its various
constituencies. Further, the Subcommittee took nominations for Forest Legacy Areas and chose
those areas to be eligible for initial funding. Public notification of the process is the responsibility of
the Subcommittee and its tasks are to:
- Develop with the Forest Service a paid legal notice to local and statewide newspapers
including: executive summary, news releases, Forest Service brochure on the Forest Legacy
Program.
- Notify units of local government and landowners of Forest Legacy Program where Forest
Legacy Areas are proposed through news releases.
- Notification of congressional delegation requesting support.
- Preparation of a news release when program is approved.
- On-going public involvement by Forest Legacy Area sponsor.
- Review, comment and approval by Stewardship Committee which includes 28 members
diversely representing the forestry community.
- Notification of regional land trusts community land trusts, watershed associations, and units of
state and local government soliciting Forest Legacy Area nominations.
- Upon approval of the assessment each Forest Legacy Area sponsor will organize an
informational meeting to discuss specific acquisition strategies of proposed Forest Legacy
Areas.
- Production of a video tape explaining the Forest Legacy Program in cooperation with
Connecticut and Rhode Island.
News releases and coverage of local meetings held by land trusts have not generated
comments specific to the notion of the Forest Legacy Program as a method of land acquisition. The
lack of comment may have its basis in the fact that the public land acquisition in Massachusetts has a
long history of public support which precedes the Forest Legacy Program. Too, the preferred method
of protection, conservation restrictions, are familiar instruments in that undertaking.
Public notification and participation items specific to Forest Legacy Area nominations are
contained in the executive summaries (Appendix C). Additionally, all documents submitted to the
Forest Legacy Subcommittee supporting Forest Legacy Area nominations, are public records and
available through the Massachusetts Stewardship Committee.
30
V. SUMMARY
Massachusetts has a long and consistent record of supporting open space conservation and
protection of traditional forest-based activities. The Forest Services Forest Legacy Program will
provide another important tool to be used in conjunction with existing state and private programs in
order to preserve critically threatened scenic landscapes, working forests, and outdoor recreation
opportunities.
The state of Massachusetts is unparalleled in its efforts to protect open space. Capital budgets
passed by the Massachusetts legislature in 1983 and 1987 have provided over $750 million for open
space acquisition. Even in these difficult economic times, Governor Weld has strongly supported
open space programs by authorizing $20 million for land acquisition in FY 92. Secretary of
Environmental Affairs, Susan Tierney, has made the protection of forest resources one of her top
priorities for land protection.
The citizens of Massachusetts have echoed this concern for protecting forest resources. The
1988-1993 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) details conservation goals
and actions to be taken by state, municipal and private organizations. The SCORP was developed
with extensive public participation involving hundreds of citizens and interest groups. The SCORP
singled out conservation of forest resources as on of the high priority goals for cooperative public and
private efforts. The SCORP also calls for action to protect wildlife habitat, to enhance trail-based
recreation, and to protect water resources. The Forest Legacy Program could provide much needed
financial support for each of these priorities.
The Forest Legacy Programs goals and techniques are particularly well suited for
Massachusetts. As the landscape becomes increasingly fragmented by residential development, the
focus of conservation efforts is on preserving the last large tracts of land providing multiple public
benefits; recreation, wildlife habitat, protection of water resources, and which support traditional
economic activities of forestry and farming. State and private land protection programs are already
actively working to protect these critical areas. With development pressure comes high land prices,
and both state and private organizations have found the purchase of development rights to be an
efficient and cost-effective tool. The Department of Food and Agricultures Agricultural Preservation
Restriction Program ahs preserved 28,500 acres on 295 farms since 1980, by acquiring the
development rights to these farms. Similarly, municipalities and private conservation organizations
have purchased development rights using a recorded Conservation Restriction thereby protecting
over 31,500 acres in 1,021 tracts since 1970.
The Forest Legacy Program will significantly enhance an existing network of governmental and
private organizations working together, employing sophisticated techniques, to protect the most
special and most threatened resources in Massachusetts. Perhaps no other state iss o well poised to
make effective use of the Forest Legacy Program.
The Massachusetts Forest Legacy Committee believes this document clearly shows the vital
need for the Forest Legacy Program in the Commonwealth and substantiates the ability and
readiness of that committee to effectively deliver a successful program in a timely manner.
31
Authorization for conducting the Forest Legacy Program in Massachusetts was effected by
Governor William F. Weld in a letter dated October 3, 1991 and is contained in Appendix E.
Additionally, the Stewardship Committee minutes of August 27, 1991, authorizing the establishment
of a Forest Legacy Program Subcommittee, are in Appendix E.
32
VI. REFERENCES
Bacher, D. 1991. National Directory of Conservation Land Trusts. Land Trust Alliance, Washington,
DC.
Bickford, W.E. and U.J. Dymon. 1990. An Atlas of Massachusetts River Systems Environmental
Designs for the Future. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst.
Birch, T.W. 1989. The Forest Landowners of Southern New England (Draft). U.S.D.A. Forest Service.
Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Rador, PA.
Bond, R.S. 1989. Forest Landowners of Massachusetts in 1984 in Massachusetts Forestry
Association LETTER, Petersham. Vol. 19, No. 3.
Crosby, I.B. 1932. Report on the Mineral Resources of Massachusetts A Survey of the Literature.
Massachusetts Industrial and Development Commission, Boston.
DeGraff, R.M. and D.D. Rudis. Revised 1987. New England Wildlife: Habitat, Natural History and
Distribution. Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Broomall, PA. General
Technical Report NE-108.
Dickson, D.R. and C.L. McAfee. 1988. Forest Statistics for Massachusetts 1972 and 1985.
Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Broomall, PA Resource Bulletin NE-
106.
Dupree, T.A. 1991. Rhode Island Stewardship Directory. Division of Forest Environment, North
Scituate, RI.
Greenbaum, D.S. and A. ODonnell. 1987. Losing Ground: The Case for Land Conservation in
Massachusetts. Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln.
MacConnell, W.P. et al. 1985. Prime Forest Land Classification for Forest Productivity in
Massachusetts. Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst. Res. Bul. No. 705.
MacConnell, W.P. et al. 1985. Forest Producivity Mapping of Massachusetts.. Massachusetts
Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Res. Bul. No. 735.
Massachusetts Executive Office of Communities and Development and Pioneer Valley Planning
Commission. 1988. The Growth Management Workbook. Boston.
Michaels, P.J. 1989. The Greenhouse Effect: Chicken Little and Our Response to Global Warming.
Journal of Forestry, Vol. 87, No. 7.
33
More, M.E. 1985. Massachusetts Forest Resources A Working Guide to Action. Division of Forests
and Parks, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management, Boston.
National Association of State Foresters. 1990. Global Warming and Forestry in the United States.
Washington, DC.
Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. 1991. Atlas of Estimated Habitats of State-
Listed Rare Wetlands Wildlife. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Boston.
Office of Planning. 1981. The Massachusetts Landscape Inventory. Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Management. Boston.
Persen, C.M. 1989. Forest Resources of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Cooperative Extension,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Sedjo, R.J. 1989. Forests to Offset the Greenhouse Effect. Journal of Forestry, Vol. 87, No. 7.
Smith, k.J. et al. 1988. For Our Common Good Open Space and Outdoor Recreation in
Massachusetts. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management, Boston. Volumes One
and Two.
Soper, J.W. 1992. Final GEIR Forestland Management. Division of Forests and Parks, Department
of Environmental Management, Boston.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1992. Forest Legacy Program Final Guidelines. Washington, DC.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1991. New York New Jersey Highlands Regional Study-Draft Report .
Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry, Radnor, PA.
Welsch, D.J. 1991. Riparian Forest Buffers: Function and Design for Protection and Enhancement of
Water Resources. Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Radnor, PA.
Bul. No. NA-PR-07-91.
Westover, P. and D. Litterer. 1989. Conservation Areas of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Society of
Municipal Conservation Professionals.
34
VII. APPENDIX
35
Appendix A
RESOURCE MAPS
A-1
Appendix B
FOREST LEGACY AREA EVALUATION CHECKLIST
B-1
Massachusetts Forest Legacy Area Evaluation Checklist
Area: _________________________________________________
Location: _____________________________ Acres: ___________
parcels entire
1. THREATENED BY CONVERSTION TO NON-FOREST #1 #2 #3 Legacy area
a. Type of threat
danger of conversion in less than 5 years
wooded, but may become further fragmented
currently on the open market/listed by realtors
security of 1+ sites now will stem further development.
remote, but frontage on town road w/good perc. Rate
not under Ch. 61 or other forest use provisions
wooded, but danger of high-grading
other
SUBTOTAL
b. Factors affecting acquirability
owned by willing seller(s)
owner(s) understands less-than-fee acquisitions
25% match available (town/state/land trust)
may be available at below FMV (bargain)
SUBTOTAL
2. CONTAINS ONE OR MORE PUBLIC VALUES
a. Scenic resource
in MA Landscape inventory as "distinctive" or "noteworthy"
locally impt. panoramic/shore views
along designated scenic road
SUBTOTAL
b. Public recreation opportunities
water-based recr: boat/swim/fish/raft/canoe
trail-based/day use recr: hike/picnic/horseback ride/skate/x-c ski
nat. res.-based recr: camp/hunt/nature tour
adjacent land protected (note acreage)
SUBTOTAL
c. Riparian/hydrologic resources
on major river/stream in DEM inventory or DFWELE Adopt-a-Stream
extensive (over 300’) river shoreline
flood plain/natural valley (groundwater storage/recharge)
80’ min. of trees/shrubs as natural buffer & sediment filter
contributes to drinking water supply
wetlands
SUBTOTAL
d. Fish and wildlife habitat
outstanding habitat for one or more ssp. that inlcude:
forest interior nesting birds
signif. Pupulations of resident spp.
neo-tropical migrant spp.
resting/feeding areas for migratory spp.
forest inhabiting mamms./repts./amphibs./inverts.
connective habitats: corridors/linkages/reduces biological isolation
SUBTOTAL
B-2
parcels entire
#1 #2 #3 Legacy area
e. Known threatened and endangered species
plant/animal spp. On MA state list as E.T or Special Concern
federally listed plant/animal spp.
connective habitats: corridors/linkages/reduces biological isolation
SUBTOTAL
f. Known cultural resources
recorded archeological site
historic features
SUBTOTAL
g. Productive soils (US-SCS Techn. Guide)
productive agricultural soils
productive forest soils
SUBTOTAL
h. Geology/physiography
unique features: Holyoke Range, etc.
mineral
SUBTOTAL
i. Other ecological values
provides a complex of ecological communities (bio-diversity)
includes contracting area of ecological communities
has old-growth forest
provides immediate watershed/water supply protection
SUBTOTAL
3. PROVIDE FOR TRADITIONAL FOREST USES
continued sugarbush/cordwd/timber mgmt. under Stewardship Plan
continued watershed/water filtration role
continued outdoor recr. Opport.
SUBTOTAL
4. REGIONAL VALUES
linkeages for recr., especially connecting public lands
public access to boating/swimming
public/private drinking water supply protection
traditional scenic qualities
SUBTOTAL
5. OTHER PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS
public visibility
public support
first year cost
five year cost
parcels #1 - #2 - #3
lead organization’s ability to deliver
GRAND TOTAL
B-3
Appendix C
EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES
OF
FOREST LEGACY AREA NOMINATIONS
C-1
Executive Summary
For
Proposed Massachusetts Forest Legacy Area:
Stockbridge Yokun Ridge Reserve
I. MAP
Rever to map and boundary description on pp. D-3 and D-4 of the Assessment of Need.
II DESCRIPTION OF EACH IMPORTANT FOREST AREA
The important forest area constitutes what is locally known as Yokun Ridge. The forested
ridge runs in a north-south direction from Pittsfield in the north to West Stockbridge in the
south and includes the Lenox and West Stockbridge Mountains. One key feature is Stevens
Glen, a steep and angled cleft surrounded by immense hemlocks. The forested slopes of the
ridge are steep and fragile. A second notable hemlock glen lies in the slopes directly behind
the Tanglewood Music Festival. This Shadowbrook Glen was given its name by Nathaniel
Hawthorne.
III SUMAMRY OF IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES AND HOW (TYPE OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT) THEY WILL BE PROTECTED AND CONSERVED.
A. The ridge frames the best views in Berkshire County and the forests provide a green
background for the entire region. The Massachusetts Turnpike skirts the southern
tip of the proposed Forest Legacy Area and the ridge serves as a huge gate to
Massachusetts from New York. A conservation easement athat acquired
development rights would assure that the scenic beauty is retained. In some
instances where timber harvesting is feasible, the easements may need to include
constraints on harvesting that minimize visual impact while maintaining the use of
this resource for forest products.
B. The mountains provide passive recreation to a growing number of people There are
opportunities for hiking, horseback riding, cross country skiing, snowshoeing,
picnicking, and nature study. It also constitutes a large block of forested land for
wildlife habitat. A conservation easement should include public access, particularly
along the top of the ridge where scenic trails could be located. A trail system is
possible that would connect this area with other trails, such as those in the Pleasant
Valley Audubon Sanctuary. One leg of this trail, from the West Stockbridge
Mountain overlook above Shadowbrook Glen, to the Legacy Areas southern
terminus, is currently in planning stages and the easy access loop on this part of
the mountain will be constructed in Summer 1993. Acquisitions should consider
possible trails when tract-specific management plans and MOUs are prepared.
C. The ridge encompasses important watersheds, wildlife habitats and plant
communities. Two municipal water supply watersheds and many private water
supplies are located on the slopes. A conservation easement on lands that include
these watersheds should include development rights and any other rights required
to preserve the watersheds and quality of water emanating from them.
C-2
D. Conservation Easements for Tracts should address:
1. Development Rights
2. No motorized access, except that necessary for trail construction and/or
maintenance, wildlife habitat improvements and management of rights
retained by owners.
3. No excavation of soil or mineral acquire mineral (hard and common) rights.
4. Possible acquisition of rights limiting timber harvesting practices.
IV. LIST OF PUBLIC BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED
A. Scenic quality
B. Public access for recreation
C. Protection and conservation of wildlife habitat
D. Protection of public water supplies
E. Continuation of traditional forest uses.
V. IDENTIFICATION OF GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY OR ENTITIES THAT MAY BE ASSIGNED
MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY
A. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Management, Division of
Forest and Parks
B. Berkshire County
C. Towns of:
Lenox Stockbridge
Richmond West Stockbridge
VI. DOCUMENTATION OF THE ANALYSIS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMEN TPROCESS
A. Discussions and support of the Forest Legacy Program with the following groups and public
officials:
1. Stockbridge Land Trust
2. Stockbridge Board of Selectmen
3. Richmond Land Trust
4. West Stockbridge Conservation Commission
5. Board of Selectmen of the Town of Lenox
6. State Representative Christopher Hodgkins
7. State Senator Jane Swift
8. Congressman Chester Atkins
B. Public support for the Yokun Forest Reserve shown by:
1. Acquisitions by Town of Lenox and Stockbridge for watershed protection.
2. 1,150 acre preserve established by the Massachusetts Audubon Society
3. Acquisitions over the past 20 years by the Berkshire County Land Trust and
Conservation Fund, including fee simple and conservation easements, totaling 435
acres.
4. 350 acre acquisition, Kennedy Park, by the Town of Lenox.
C-3
5. Letter of support from Governor William F. Weld.
6. Active congressional support by Congressman Chester atkins that resulted in
authorization of Forest Legacy funds to the State of Massachusetts in the FY 1992.
Appropriations upon completion of the AON and approval by the U.S. Secretary of
Agriculture
C. Public announcements
1. Article by Robert Braile on Mass. Forests to include in US preservation program in
The Boston Globe, Saturday, November 9, 1991 specifically mentioned Yokun Ridge
Forest Reserve as a proposed Forest Legacy Area.
2. Press release by Congressman Atkins to newspapers throughout Massachusetts on
October 30, 1991, announcing that Massachusetts was eligible for Forest Legacy
funds upon completion of the Assessment of Need.
3. Article by Lori Thompson on $900,000 in federal forestry funds to protect Yokun
Ridge Reserve in The Advocate-South, March 17, 1993, specifically focused on the
Forest Legacy Program.
4. article by Derk Gentile on U.S. to spend up to $1 million to protect ridge in The
Berkshire Eagle, March 21, 1993 talks about protecting the 6,500 acre Yokun Ridge
Reserve with Forest Legacy dollars.
5. Editorial, Protecting Yokun Ridge, in The Berkshire Eagle, March 21, 1993 supports
protection through a federal preservation program [Forest Legacy].
D. This proposed Forest Legacy Area meets the eligibility criteria for a Forest Legacy Area as
follows:
1. Forests are threatened by immediate and future conversion to non-forest, house
lots.
2. Individual landowners have been approached about selling conservation easements
and are interested in selling easements.
3. Scenic resources are recognized as distinctive and include a well-traveled entrance-
way into the state the Massachusetts Turnpike.
4. Public has traditionally utilized the area for recreation and there are opportunities to
develop a trail system that would like up with other trails in the area.
5. Two public water supplies lie within the Area as well as many private water sources
protection of water supply sources.
6. Forested ridge has served as an important wildlife habitat in that it is relatively
undisturbed large block of forest land.
7. The soils on the slopes of the ridge are fragile and physical disturbance would result
in adverse environmental impacts such as soil erosion.
8. The large hemlocks surrounding Stevens Glen and Shadowbrook Glen are unique
and warrant preservation and management.
No objections were received from the local communities and the individuals following Congressional
news releases, newspaper articles or when queried about the establishment of the Yokun Ridge
Forest Reserve as a Forest Legacy Area.
C-4
Executive Summary
For
Proposed Massachusetts Forest Legacy Area:
Estabrook Woods
I. MAP
Refer to map and boundary description on pp. D-5 and D-6 in the Assessment of Need.
II. DESCRIPTION OF EACH IMPORTANT FOREST AREA.
This important forest area is known locally and historically as The Estabrook Woods. It is a
suburban forest about 19 miles northwest of Boston and lies within the two historic towns of
Concord and Carlisle. Its 2,000 forested acres are a green island amidst a sea of development
probably its most important feature. Estabrook Woods is zoned principally for residential use
and the exploding population of greater Boston poses an immediate threat of permanently
converting Estabrook Woods to non-forest uses. These woods are eloquently described by
Henry David Thoreau in his Journals of 1857.
III. SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES AND HOW (TYPE OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT) THEY WILL BE PROTECTED AND CONSERVED.
A. The Estabrook Woods have visual value to scores of local commuters who commute daily
into and around greater Boston. Conservation restrictions would go a long way toward
assisting in the protection of woodlands, fields and indigenous wildlife. These restrictions
and resulting forest management programs may need to be carefully tailored to enhance
these biotic and abiotic resources.
B. Many archaeological and historic resources associated with the Revolutionary war are
found therein. The protection of these resources will undoubtedly have to be considered in
both conservation easements and the Stewardship Plan. Access to these will also have to
be addressed in easement negotiations, since they are of interst to national and
international tourists and contribut to the areas economy.
C. The Estabrook Woods has much ecological significance. It lies entirely within the Concord
River watershed which also includes the nearby Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge.
Several ponds and extensive wetlands are located within the natural boundaries of the
Woods. In addition, Sawmill Brook, one of Concords purest, originates within the Woods.
The Estabrook Woods supports a diversity of rare and endangered plants and animals
identified by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program. Conservation easements will
need to address the protection and management of these threatened habitats.
C-5
D. Harvard Universitys Museum of Comparative Zoology owns approximately 675 acres of
forest land in the core of the Woods. Traditionally, this land has been used for biological
teaching and research, yet it has no legal or permanent protection from development of
conversion to non-forest use. At the same time easements from adjacent, private
landowners are being pursued, Harvard will be approached regarding their long term
intentions for the Woods. Forest Legacy monies would be well spent by setting
appropriate examples of responsible land stewardship through protection efforts with
adjacent landowners, thereby encouraging Harvard to do the same.
E. Conservation Easements for tracts should address:
1. Development rights.
2. Controlled public access to archaeological and historic sites and cultural resources.
3. No motorized access, except that necessary for trail construction and/or
maintenance, wildlife habitat improvements and management of rights retained by
owners.
4. No excavation of minerals including sand, gravel and stone.
5. Possible acquisition of rights to practice extensive rather than intensive forest
management.
6. Possible acquisition of rights to protect the aesthetics of the Forest Legacy Area.
IV. LIST OF PUBLIC BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED
A. Permanent protection for this significant mass of existing contiguous, open space which to
date, has been largely preserved in its original state.
B. Aesthetics and scenic quality.
C. Public access for passive recreation
D. Protection and conservation of wildlife habitat including rare and endangered species
habitat.
E. Protection of water quality.
F. Continuation of limited traditional forest uses.
G. Continuation of environmental education and research programs through local public and
private schools.
V. IDENTIFICATION OF GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY OR ENTITIES THAT MAY BE ASSIGNED
MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY.
A. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Management, Division of
Forests and Parks.
B. Towns of Concord and Carlisle
C. Middlesex County
C-6
VI. DOCUMENTATION OF THE ANALYSIS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS.
A. Discussions and support of the Forest Legacy Program with the following groups:
1. Concord Land Conservation Trust
2. Town of Concord Natural Resources Commission
3. Town of Concord Conservation Commission
4. Town of Carlisle Conservation Commission
5. Harvard University Museum of Comparative Zoology
6. Middlesex School (private high school)
7. Town of Concord Board of Selectmen
8. Town of Carlisle Board of Selectmen
9. Former Congressman Chester Atkins
10. Thoreau Country Conservation Alliance
11. Walden Woods Project
B. Public support for Estabrook Woods shown by:
1. Within the Town of Concord, the Concord Land Conservation Trust owns in fee and
manages 480 acres, and holds conservation restrictions on an additional 220 acres.
These holdings include approximately 46 acres within Estabrook Woods.
2. The Concord Open Land Foundation, the land acquisition arm of the Land Trust, is
pursuing protection of the Woods with major adjacent landowners. Having
completed a 13.5 acre project in 1989, this group is currently pursuing three
additional projects on the periphery of the Woods.
3. Both the towns of Concord and Carlisle own significant tracts within the confines of
the Woods. Between the two towns, approximately 185 acres are either held in fee
or protected through conservation restrictions.
4. Town of Carlisle, Board of Selectmen and the Conservation Commissioners.
5. Carlisle Land Trust.
6. Town of Concord, Board of Selectmen.
7. Harvard University, Concord Field Station, owns 675 acres in the center of the
proposed Estabrook Woods Forest Legacy Area and supports protection.
8. Letter from Scott T. Evans for the Evans (family) Farm comprising 50 acres of
developable land in the Estabrook Woods FLA supports Legacy.
9. Letter from Charles Wyman of the Massachusetts Trustees of Reservations to
Massachusetts Land Conservation Trusts.
10. Letter from Susan S. Tierney, then Secretary, Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs, to Congressman Chester G. Atkins.
C. Public Announcements
1. News article by Robert Braile, Mass. Forests to be included in U.S. preservation
program, The Boston Globe, November 9, 1991 highlights the Forest Legacy
Program.
C-6
2. News release by Congressman Chester Atkins, New Forest Preservation Initiative
Begun; Atkins Wins Funds for Massachusetts, October 30, 1991 talks about Forest
Legacy Program.
3. News release by Congressman Chet Atkins, Atkins insures conservation of forest
resources, March 10, 1992, addresses the need to conserve the 16 proposed areas
under the Forest Legacy Program including Estabrook Woods.
4. Editorial by Perry R. Hagenstein, Past President of American Forestry Association
and an eastern Mass. Resident, Get behind the Forest Legacy program, in
American Forests magazine, December 1991.
5. News article by Owen Andrews, Estabrook Woods may be included in federal
program, in the Carlisle Mosquito (weekly newspaper), June 5, 1992, emphasizes
the support of Carlisle Selectmen for conserving Estabrook Woods through the
Forest Legacy Program.
6. News article by Dona Eaton, Estabrook Woods denied funding this time around, in
the Carlisle Mosquito, June 26, 1992 discusses the $84,000 Forest Legacy allocation
to the western Mass. FLAs.
D. This proposed Forest Legacy Area meets the eligibility criteria for a Forest Legacy Area as
follows:
1. Forests are threatened by immediate and future conservation to non-forest, house
lots.
2. Individual landowners, like the Evans family, have been approached about selling
conservation easements and are interested in selling easements.
3. Scenic resources are recognized by the State of Massachusetts as distinctive and
include well-traveled commuter routes.
4. Public has traditionally utilized the area for passive recreation and there are
opportunities to maintain existing trail systems.
5. Private wells and water sources lie within the Area protection of water supply
sources.
6. Contains several wetlands that are habitat to rare plant species.
7. The Woods has the remains of many farmhouses, outbuildings, mills, a limestone
quarry and other historic sites. The historic line of march for many of the
Revolutionary War Minutemen in 1775 lay throughout these woods.
E. Immediate Threats to Estabrook Woods:
Following the failure of the Estabrook Woods to secure monies in the first round of the
Forest Legacy Program, several situations which threaten the integrity of the woods have
emerged.
1. Middlesex School has begun plans to extend its campus further into previous
undeveloped portions of the Woods. Discussions regarding permanent protection of
this land between the Town of Concord, local conservation groups and the school
are ongoing.
C-7
2. The Evans (Farm), our primary acquisition target in the first round have proceeded
to make plans to develop their property. Their land has been shown to several
developers and various bids have been discussed. Their current plan calls for two
phases of development. Phase 1 consists of carving our four 2.5 acre house-lots
which would be sited on the interior of the property. Phase 2 calls for further such
discussions regarding construction of a 30 unit condo/apartment complex along the
southern boundary of the property. This phase is particularly disturbing as the
project would be located directly adjacent to the Harvard holdings the very heart
of the Woods. Despite these plans, the Evans eagerly await non-development
alternatives (such as Forest Legacy) however, the opportunity to save this critical
parcel may be short lived.
No objections were received from the local communities and individuals following Congressional news
releases, newspaper articles or when queried on establishing Estabrook Woods as a Forest Legacy
Area.
C-8
Executive Summary
For
Proposed Massachusetts Forest Legacy Area:
Connecticut Valley Forest Legacy Area
I. MAP
Refer to map and boundary descriptions on pp. D-7 and D-8 of the Assessment of Need.
II. DESCRIPTION OF EACH IMPORTANT FOREST AREA
Two important forest areas are within this proposed FLA and are locally known as the
Holyoke Range and the Western Valley Watersheds.
A. The Holyoke Range is one of the few mountain ranges in the world that runs in an east-
west direction. The proposed legacy area includes the Holyoke Range State Park under
the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management. Key
features include scenic resources, public recreation and extensive wildlife habitat including
vernal pools, breeding areas for rare and endangered amphibians.
B. A water-rich forested area, the Western Va lley Watersheds, contains aquifer recharge
zones and watersheds for two public water supplies. It also has a black bear population of
statewide significance, vernal pools and a number of perennial brooks. The entire area is
classified as prime or state-important forestland soils for white pine and red oak.
III. SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES AND HOW (TYPE OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT) THEY WILL BE PROTECTED AND CONSERVED.
A. Within the Holyoke Range subunit of the Holyoke Range State Park provides a core of
protected land along the mountain range with state and town ownership amounting to
about 3500 acres. However, it is something of a biological island in that it does not
connect with the Connecticut River, and its edges in many instances are vulnerable to
fragmentation and intrusion by development. Currently available for Forest Legacy Area
status are four tracts comprising 156 acres. These tracts connect to the River to the park
(i.e. link foot trails and secure wildlife corridors), provide protection to woodland and
archeological artifacts, and enlarge the amount of riparian and floodplain forest under
protection (habitat for about 120 species of songbirds).
B. The Western Valley Watershed unit lies approximately three miles west of the Connecticut
River and comprises a north-south trending area from Whately to Northampton. It
includes the sole-source surface water supply area for the town of Hatfield, and is the
primary supply for the city of Northampton at its Mt. Street Reservoir. The area is also one
of the most significant black bear habitats in the state, due to good oak stands, and
numerous interspersed wetlands. Approximately 800 acres of the area are already
protected by both communities. Hatfield has entered into a contract to conduct a
shelterwood harvest on its 300 acre watershed which is estimated to bring in $80,000
C-9
C. earmarked by the town for acquisition/protection of several highly vulnerable parcels,
including one which forms part of the reservoir headwaters. Northamptons reservoir (the
two are not far apart) has recently benefited from a 150 acre conservation restriction (CR)
secured by the Hilltown Land Trust and more CRs are probable. Overall, this proposed
Forest Legacy Area might comprise over 3000 acres, but the acquisition of a few key tracts
at this time would prevent severe intrusive development by consolidating protection for the
watershed.
D. Conservation Easements for tracts should address:
1. Development Rights
2. No motorized access, except that necessary for trail construction and/or
maintenance, wildlife habitat improvements and management of rights retained by
owners.
3. No excavation of minerals including sand, gravel and stone
4. Public access for passive recreation and to riparian areas.
5. Possible acquisition of rights to protect the aesthetics of the FLA.
6. Possible acquisition of rights to practice forest management that enhances potable
water and wildlife habitats.
7. Continuation of traditional forest uses.
8. Protection of forested watersheds
IV. LIST OF PUBLIC BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED
A. Scenic quality
B. Public access for recreation
C. Protection and conservation of wildlife habitat
D. Protection of public water supplies
E. Continuation of traditional forest uses.
V. IDENTIFICATION OF GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY OR ENTITIES THAT MAY BE ASSIGNED
MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY
A. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Management, Division of
Forest and Parks.
B. Hampshire and Hampden Counties
C. Towns of:
Hatfield Hadley
Northampton South Hadley
Amherst
VI. DOCUMENTATION OF THE ANALYSIS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS
A. Discussions with and support for the Forest Legacy Program with following groups:
C-10
1. Mass. DEM land acquisition staff
2. Connecticut River Watershed Council
3. Valley Land Fund
4. Town of Hatfield: Selectmen and Water Commissioners
5. Town of Amherst Conservation Commission
6. Town of S. Hadley Conservation Commission
7. Mass. Audubon Society
8. U.S.D.I. Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Univ. of MA, Amherst
9. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
10. The Hilltown Land Trust
11. The Appalachian Mountain Club
B. Public support for the two proposed Forest Legacy subunits shown by:
1. Acquisition by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Depart of Environmental
Management of 300 acres for extensive recreation.
2. Acquisition by the towns of Hatfield and Northampton for watershed/water supply
protection.
3. Letter of support from Governor William F. Weld.
4. Congressional support from Congressman John Olver (D-Amherst).
5. Active congressional support by Congressman Chet Atkins that resulted in
authorization of Forest Legacy funds to the State of Massachusetts in the FY 1992.
Appropriations upon completion of the AON and approval by the U.S. Secretary of
Agriculture.
6. Request (memo) from The Valley Land Fund to Congressman John Olver requesting
his support for the Forest Legacy Program.
C. Public Announcements
1. News article by Stan Feeman on Fragmentation of forest land threatens quality of
resources in the Springfield Union-News, September 13, 1991 promotes woodland
retention.
2. News article by Fred Contrada on Forest preservation program may reverse states
loss of woodlands in the Springfield Sunday Republican, January 5, 1992, talks
about the Forest Legacy Program and the two sub-units in question.
3. The Mass. DEM and The Valley Land Fund initiated public participation in the
selection and nomination of Forest Legacy Areas in the Connecticut River Valley.
a. In the Holyoke Range unit, individuals and officials from the towns of South
Hadley, Amherst and Hadley recommended particular areas and indicated
support; individual landowners requested that their properties be considered.
C-11
b. In the Western Valley Watersheds unit, which involves towns of Northampton
and Hatfield, the planning and conservation commissions were involved in
recommending priority sites. Hatfield Water Commissioners stated that they
desire to increase the size of their watershed that is in the proposed Forest
Legacy unit. Willing sellers of CRs have been forthcoming in their desire to
participate.
C. The proposed Forest legacy Sub-units meet the eligibility criteria for a Forest Legacy Area
as follows:
1. Forests are threatened by immediate and future conversion to non-forest, house
lots.
2. Individual landowners have been approached about selling conservation easements
and are interested in selling easements.
3. Scenic resources in both units are recognized as distinctive and are visible from the
well-traveled route I-91.
4. Public has traditionally utilized both areas for recreation and there are opportunities
to extend development of trail systems, especially in the Holyoke Range.
5. Private wells and water sources lie within both units protection of water supply
sources.
6. Contain habitat for black bears and migratory songbirds.
No objections were received from the local communities and individuals following Congressional news
releases, newspaper articles, public information meetings or when queried on establishing Holyoke
Range and Western Valley Watersheds as Forest Legacy Areas.
C-12
Executive Summary
For
Proposed Massachusetts Forest Legacy Area:
North Quabbin Corridor Forest Legacy Area
I. MAP
Refer to maps and boundary descriptions on pp. D-9 through D-12 of the Assessment of Need.
II. DESCRIPTION OF EACH IMPORTANT FOREST AREA
Two important contiguous forest areas are within this proposed FLA and are locally knowna s
the North Quabbin Corridor. Both areas (Phases I and II) are part of a 50-mile corridor of
protected land that spans 10 towns and 80,000 acres. Forest products are imported to the economy
of these areas since most of the people of this region are employed directly or indirectly in forest-
based industries.
A. Phase I focuses on corridor protection and traditional forest uses that support the local
rural economy. This forested area abuts the 85,000 acre Quabbin Reservation
surrounding the reservoir that supplies drinking water to 2.5 million people in 45
Metropolitan Boston cities and towns.
B. Phase II continues the corridor by connecting various publicly (federal and state) and
privately protected lands. This area fosters the more traditional forest uses summer
and winter outdoor/recreational activities. It also harbors aquifer recharge zones.
III. SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES AND HOW (TYPE OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT) THEY WILL BE PROTECTED AND CONSERVED.
A. Within the Phase I subunit, Harvard Forest (Harvard University) serves as a long-term
ecological research station for forest research with worldwide impacts. Most private
woodlands are classified under Massachusetts Forest Taxation Law (M.G.L. Ch.61).
These forested tracts are managed for forest products under a 10-year plan approved
by the State Forester. Protection of this area will facilitate recreational uses and insure
water quality, particularly since its ponds and streams drain into the Quabbin Reservoir.
Furthermore, most private tracts are linkages to publicly protected properties.
Currently available for Forest Legacy Area status are nearly 2,000 wooded acres. These
tracts connect the Route 2 (Mohawk Trail) corridor through Harvard Forest, and provide
protection to woodlands, productive forest soils and historic sites of the famous Shays
Rebellion.
B. Forty percent of Phase II is compromised of larger tracts of permanently protected
public and private lands are in traditional forest uses with 30-40 percent classified under
M.G.L. Ch. 61.
C-13
Further protection of woodland in this area under the Forest Legacy Program ensures
continued availability of the goods and services which bolster this areas rural economy.
Both Phases contain rare and endangered species of plants and animals, plus about
10,000 acres of presently protected land.
D. Conservation Easements for tracts should address:
1. Limited development for industrial, commercial and residential uses.
2. Limited motorized access, except that necessary for trail construction and/or
maintenance, wildlife habitat improvements and management of rights retained by
owners.
3. Limited excavation of soil or minerals, including sand, gravel and stone.
4. Public access for recreation.
5. Acquisition of rights to protect the aesthetics of the FLA
6. Acquisition of rights to practice forest management.
7. Continuation and enhancement of traditional forest uses and protection of forest
types.
8. Protection of forested watersheds.
9. Protection of rare and endangered species and habitats.
IV. LIST OF PUBLIC BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED
A. Continuation of traditional forest uses.
B. Protection of public water supplies.
C. Protection and conservation of wildlife habitat.
D. Protection of rare and endangered plants and animals.
E. Public access for recreation (hiking trails).
F. Scenic quality (Route 2 The Mohawk Trail)
G. Ecological research.
V. IDENTIFICATION OF GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY OR ENTITIES THAT MAY BE ASSIGNED
MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY
A. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
B. Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Division of Forest and Parks; Division of Fisheries and
Wildlife; Metropolitan District Commission
C. Franklin and Worcester Counties
D. Towns of:
Petersham Phillipston Orange
New Salem Royalston Warwick
Athol Templeton Winchendon
VI. DOCUMENTATION OF THE ANALYSIS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS
A. Discussions with and support for Forest Legacy with the following groups:
1. Mass DEM land acquisition staff
C-14
2. Millers River Watershed Council
3. Mt. Grace Land Conservation Trust
4. Town of Athol Conservation Commission
5. Town of Warick Conservation Commission
6. Town of Orange Conservation Commission
7. Town of Petersham Conservation Commission
8. Town of Phillipston Conservation Commission
9. Massachusetts Div. of Fisheries and Wildlife
10. Metropolitan District Commission
11. The Harvard Forest
12. Mass. Audubon Society
13. The Monadnock Conservancy (N.H.)
14. The Friends of Pisgah (Pisgah State Park, N.H.)
15. Metacomet Monadnock Trail Committee
B. Public Support for the two proposed Forest Legacy subunits shown by:
1. Acquisition by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Div. of Fisheries and Wildlife of
about 1,000 acres for wildlife habitat protection and public access.
2. Pre-acquisitions by Mt. Grace Land Conservation Trust for Mass. State agencies.
3. Letter of Support from Governor William F. Weld.
4. Congressional support from Congressman John Olver (D-Amherst).
5. Active congressional support by Congressman Chester Atkins that resulted in
authorization of Forest Legacy funds to the State of Massachusetts in FY 1992.
Appropriations upon completion of the AON and approval by the U.S. Secretary of
Agriculture.
6. Request from Mt. Grace Land Conservation Trust to Congressman Chester Atkins
requesting his support for Forest Legacy.
7. Letter (3-10-92) from Mt. Grace Land Conservation Trust to Congressman Sidney
Yates, Char-House Appropriations, Interior Subcommittee, for his support in funding
the Forest Legacy Program.
8. Letter from Mr. Ted Hutchinson, forest owner in Phase I, requesting consideration
for inclusion in FLP.
9. Personal communication of woodland owner, Don Wilson, with Congressman Atkins
thanking him for his strong support for Forest Legacy and his successful effort in
making Massachusetts eligible for FY 92 Legacy monies.
10. Continued negotiations by Mt. Grace Land Conservation Trust with Harvard Forest
for a conservation restriction on its entire 2,000 acres.
C. Public announcements
1. News article by Stan Freeman on Fragmentation of forest land threatens quality of
resources in the Springfield Union-News, September 13, 1991, promotes woodland
retention.
C-15
2. News article by Fred Contrada on Forest preservation program may reverse states
loss of woodlands in the Springfield Sunday Republican, January 5, 1992, talks
about the forest Legacy Program in western Massachusetts.
3. News article by Bradford Miner on Green corridor: doors opening in the Worcester
(MA) Telegram and Gazette, March 23, 1992, talks about a greenway connecting the
Quabbin Reservation (MA) with Mt. Monadnock (NH).
4. Mt. Grace LCT Newsletter (Spring 93) features an article on the proposed North
Quabbin Corridor Forest Legacy Area.
5. Article by Robert Braile on Mass. Forests to be included in US preservation
program in The Boston Globe, Saturday, November 9, 1991, specifically mentioned
the Forest Legacy Program.
6. Press release by Congressman Atkins to newspapers throughout Massachusetts on
October 30, 1991, announcing that Massachusetts was eligible for Forest Legacy
funds upon completion of the Assessment of Need.
7. Editorial by Perry R. Hagenstein, Past President of American Forestry Association
and Mass. Resident, Get behind the Forest Legacy program, in American Forest
magazine, December 1991.
8. Historical patterns of land protection in north central Massachusetts: The
emergence of a greenway, by Alisa Dian Gollodetz, discusses patterns of land
protection that developed into the North Quabbin Corridor (a Harvard University
February 1993 Bachelors thesis).
D. This proposed Forest Legacy Area meets the eligibility criteria for a Forest Legacy Area as
follows:
1. Forests are threatened by immediate and future conversion to nonforest house lots.
2. Individual landowners have been approached about selling conservation easements
and are interested in selling easements; three are committed to sell 1,350 acres.
3. Scenic resources are important to tourism along the Mohawk Trail (Route 2).
4. Public has traditionally used landsin the corridor for recreation and there are
opportunities to extend development of trail systems, especially the Metacomet
Monadnock Trail from Metacomet Mountain in Connecticut to Mt. Monadnock in New
Hampshire.
5. Private wells and water sources lie within both Phases protection of water supply
resources.
6. Contain habitat for bobcats, black bear, blad eagles and several rare and
endangered flora and fauna.
7. Both Phases, part particularly Phase I is important to protecting the drinking water
supply for Greater Boston.
8. Long-term ecological research at Harvard Forest will benefit the earth and humanity.
E. Threats to the North Quabbin Corridor
1. The area had undergone tremendous developmental pressure during the
development boom of the last decade.
C-16
2. Close proximity to Route 2 enhances commuter access and the town of Petersham
remains a particularly desirable area for housing.
No objections were received from local communities and individuals following Congressional news
releases, newspaper articles, discussions with town officials or when queried on establishing the
North Quabbin Corridor as a Forest Legacy Area. In fact, several inquiries were made by interested
and willing landowners.
C-16
Executive Summary
For
Proposed Massachusetts Forest Legacy Area:
Nashua River Greenway Forest Legacy Area
I. MAP
Refer to maps and boundary descriptions on pp. D-13 through D-18 of the Assessment of
Need.
II. DESCRIPTION OF EACH IMPORTANT FOREST AREA
A. Three important forest areas are within this proposed Forest Legacy Area (FLA) that is
known as the Nashua River Greenway. The three sections are the North Nashua/Cook
Conservation FLA (Section I), Pepperell-Dunstable FLA (Section II) and Squannacook
Confluence FLA (Section III).
B. These three sections were chosen because presently they are three of the largest
unprotected forested areas in the Greenway, a part of the 538 square mile Nashua River
Watershed of which 450 square miles are in the Bay State.
C. The Nashua River, one of the major rivers in the Commonwealth, rises in the Wachusett
Reservoir in Clinton/Boylston, and flows north where it joins the Merrimack River in Nashua,
NH. The Merrimack River is a focus of attention by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
D. The goal of the Greenway is to permanently protect the natural resource values and
beauty of the Nashua River and its major tributaries, the Squannacook, Nissitssit and Stillwater
Rivers. Over the past two decades, more tan 84 miles of riverbanks have been conserved,
compromising over 7,400 acres of land. People are encouraged to quietly enjoy these
beautiful lands.
III. SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES AND HOW (TYPE OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT) THEY WILL BE PROTECTED AND CONSERVED.
A. Section 1: North Nashua/Cook Conservation Forest Legacy Area: expands the protected
riparian corridor; links existing protected greenway lands or other protected lands such as the
Leominster and Lancaster State Forests and the Cook Conservation Area; addresses habitat
fragmentation and enlarges the acreage of protected riparian and floodplain forest; maintains
open-space in an area with high development potential because of its close proximity to the
cities of Leominster and Fitchburg; abuts area targed for potential expansion of the Oxbow
National Wildlife Refuge.
B. Section 2: Pepperell-Dunstable Forest Legacy Area is the northern-most link of the
Greenway between protected areas to the south in the town of Groton and those extending to
the New Hampshire state line. It includes the Mass. Dept. of Environmental Management
C-17
(DEM) protected rail corridor used for recreation. The ecologically sensitive land between the
Nissitissit River and its confluence with the Nashua River is a focus of protection of activities
because it is flood plain and ideal wildlife habitat. Section II contains Estimated Habitats of
rare wetlands wildlife, so designated by the Mass. Natural Heritage Endangered Species
Program.
C. Section 3: Squannacook Confluence Forest Legacy Area harbors the Squannacook River,
one of the best trout streams in Eastern Mass. The Mass. Div. of Fisheries and Wildlife is
focusing much of its limited economic resources here. The entire length of the river is listed in
the Massachusetts Atlas of Estimated Habitats of State-Listed Rare Wetland Wildlife.
Additional purchases of conservation easements would help insure the protectiono f this scenic
and sensitive area. Furthermore, it would help to complete the linkage between the protected
Groton conservation land and DEMs J. Harry Rich State Forest. Section 3 protects the
riparian forest and is part of the public water supply watershed for the town of Shirley. Also it
is used extensively for recreation by the public.
E. Conservation Easements for tracts should address:
1. Development Rights.
2. Limited motorized access for trail construction and/or maintenance, wildlife habitat
improvements and management of rights retained by owners.
3. Limited excavation of soil or minerals including sand and gravel.
4. Public access for passive recreation and to the river banks.
5. Possible acquisition of rights to protect the aesthetics of the FLA.
6. Possible acquisition of rights to practice forest management that enhances potable
water and wildlife habitats.
7. Continuation of traditional forest and agricultural uses.
8. Protection of forested watershed.
IV. LIST OF PUBLIC BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED
A. Scenic Quality
B. Public Access for recreation.
C. Protection and conservation of fish and wildlife habitat.
D. Protection of public and private water supplies and recharge areas.
E. Continuation of traditional forest uses extensive rather than intensive management.
F. Floodwater storage
G. Filtering of runoff to protect water quality.
V. IDENTIFICATION OF GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY OR ENTITIES THAT MAY BE ASSIGNED
MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY
A. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
B. Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Division of Forest and Parks; Division of Fisheries and
Wildlife
C. Worcester and Middlesex Counties
C-18
D. Towns of:
Dunstable Pepperell Harvard
Groton Lancaster Shirley
VI. DOCUMENTATION OF THE ANALYSIS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS
A. Discussions and support of forest Legacy with the following groups:
1. Mass DEM land acquisition staff and Div. of Forests and Parks
2. Nashua River Watershed Association
3. Greenway Committees for the towns of Dunstable, Pepperell, Groton and Lancaster
4. Mass. Div. of Fisheries and Wildlife
5. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
6. Fish and Wildlife Foundation (national)
7. Massachusetts Correctional Institution
B. Public support for the three Forest Legacy Sections shown by:
1. Acquisition by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Dept. of Environmental
Management of: 506 acres as the J. Harry Rich State Forest and abutting 11 mile-
long abandoned railroad bed as a recreation trail; 220 acres as the Lane-Cornerford
Conservation Area.
2. Acquisition by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Fisheries and
Wildlife of: 725 acres as the Squannacook Wildlife Management Area; 923 acres as
the Bolton Flats Wildlife Management Ara.
3. Acquisition by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the 662 acres as the Oxbow
Wildlife Refuge. .
4. Presently there is active Congressional and local support to expand the Oxbow
Wildlife Refuge by about 4,800 acres.
5. Acquisition of the Massachusetts Correctional Institution through a conservation
easement of over one mile of riverbank trail.
6. Acquisition by the Town of Lancaster of 412 acres as the Cook Conservation Area.
7. Letter of Support from Governor William F. Weld.
8. Active congressional support by Congressman Chester Atkins that resulted in
authorization of Forest Legacy funds to the State of in the FY 1992 Appropriations
upon completion of the AON and approved by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.
C. Public Announcements
1. News article by Stan Feeman on Fragmentation of forest land threatens quality of
resources in the Springfield Union-News, September 13, 1991, promotes woodland
retention.
2. News article by Fred Contrada on Forest preservation program may reverse states
loss of woodlands in the Springfield Sunday Republican, January 5, 1992, talks
about the Forest Legacy Program in Massachusetts.
C-19
3. Open space plans for the Greenway were developed by the Nashua River Watershed
Association, local Greenway Committees and municipal Conservation Commissions
with public input. The Greenway is named as a Conservation Goal in open space
plans of the river communities of Fitchburg, Leominster, Lancaster, Clinton, Bolton,
Harvard, Shirley, Groton and Pepperell.
4. The Nashua River Greenway management Plan was completed in 1984, and served
as a basis for the designation of the Nashua River as a Community Scenic River. In
order to attain this Scenic River status, it was necessary for the governing bodies of
the riverfront communities to approve the goals for the Nashua River Greenway
Management Plan. Local approval was gained through a series of public meetings
held by the Selectmen of each river town.
5. Riverfront communities established local Greenway Committees that are official town
bodies, approved by Selectmen. Greenway Committees conduct pubic meetings and
publish an annual report.
6. Article, Nashua River Greenway is Legacy Finalist published in Nashua River
Watershed Associations (NRWA) Spring 1992 newsletter, (Watershed) talks about
the Greenway being selected as a Massachusetts pilot Forest Legacy Area.
7. In updating its Management Plan for the Greenway during 1993, NRWA will solicit
extensive public input by having the Greenway Committees conduct formal and
informational hearings, informational meetings and write news releases.
D. The proposed Forest Legacy sections meet the eligibility criteria for a Forest Legacy Area as
follows:
1. Forests are threatened by immediate and future conversions to non-forest, house
lots.
2. Individual landowners have been approached about selling conservation easements
and are interested in selling easements.
3. Scenic resources in all three units are recognized as distinctive.
4. Public has traditionally utilized the three areas for recreation and these are
opportunities to extend the existing greenway systems.
5. Numerous private wells, six public water supply wells, and designated zone 2
drinking water protection areas lie within the sections protection of the water
supply sources.
6. Riparian habitat for fish, waterfowl and migratory songbirds, and associated forested
wetland plants and animals.
7. Contain rare and endangered flora and fauna.
8. Provide river access to all types of passive recreation including fishing.
9. Contain significant historic sites and potential sites of archeologic importance.
10. Have highly productive floodplain soils for forestry and agriculture.
D. Degree of Threat
1. The Nashua River watershed is surrounded by growing cities of Worcester, Lowell,
Fitchburg/Leominster, and Nashua, New Hampshire. Relatively modest land and
housing costs, coupled with an excellent highway system, also makes the watershed
C-20
2. attractive to commuters to metropolitan Boston, only 30 miles away. The Nashua
Valley is expected to experience accelerated urabanization in the 1990s.
No objections were received from the local communities and individuals following Congressional news
releases, newspaper articles, public information meetings or when queried on establishing the three
sections of the Nashua River Greenway as a Forest Legacy Area.
C-21
Appendix D
MAPS AND DESCRIPTIONS OF
MASSACHUSERTTS FOREST LEGACY AREAS
D-1
Legacy Area Sponsor
Jabish Brook Watershed 1 Belchertown Conservation Commission
*Stockbridge Yokun Ridge Reserve 2 Berkshire County Land Trust
*Estabrook Woods 3 Concord Land Conservation Trust
Cape Ann Forest Legacy Area 4 Essex County Greenbelt Association
Kinne Brook Valley 5 Hilltown Land Trust
*Connecticut Valley Forest Legacy Area 6 MA Department of Environmental Management
East Branch, Westfield River 7 MA Department of Environmental Management
*North Quabbin Corridor 8 Mt. Grace Land Conservation Trust
*Nashua River Greenway 9 Nashua River Watershed Association
Charles River Area 10 New England Forestry Foundation
Westfield River 11 Pioneer Valley Planning commission
Mount Race / Jug End 12 Sheffield Land Trust
Cedar Swamp 13 Sudbury Valley Trustees
Punkhorn Parklands 14 Compact of Cape Cod Conservation Trusts
Lockout Ridge 15 Compact of Cape Cod Conservation Trusts
Pine Barrens / Quashnet River Woodlands 16 Compact of of Cape Cod Conservation Trusts
* Denotes Pilot Forest Legacy Areas
D-2
MASSACHUSETTS
DESCRIPTION: Stockbridge Yokun Ridge Forest Legacy Area Berkshire County
Beginning in the Town of Stockbridge at the Massachusetts Turnpike (I-90) underpass (bridge #319)
of Route 12.
Thence, westerly along the Massachusetts Turnpike to the Route 102 overpass; a distance of 0.9
miles.
Thence, northerly along Lenox Street, crossing into the Town of Richmond, to Carey Corner and its
junction with Swamp Road; a distance of 3.6 miles.
Thence, northerly along Swamp Road to Stevens Corner and its junction with Pittsfield Road; a
distance of 2.0 miles.
Thence, north-easterly along Pittsfield Road and Barker Road, crossing the City of Pittsfield boundary
line, to Barkerville and its junction with Tamarack Road; a distance of 2.1 miles.
Thence, easterly, then northerly along Tamarack Road to its junction with South Mountain Road; a
distance of 2.4 miles.
Thence, easterly along South Mountain Road to its junction with Route 7 and 20; a distance of 0.5
miles.
Thence, southerly along Route 7 and 20 crossing into the Town of Lenox to its junction with Route
7A; a distance of 4.0 miles.
Thence, southerly along Route 7A to its junction with Greenwood Street; a distance of 0.8 miles.
Thence westerly along Greenwood Street to its junction with Cliffwood Street; a distance of 0.1 miles.
Thence, westerly along and then southerly along Under Mountain Road to its junction with Route
183; a distance of 2.2 miles.
Thence, southerly along Route 183, crossing into the Town of Stockbridge, to the junction of the
Massachusetts Turnpike (bridge #266); a distance of 2.5 miles.
Thence, westerly along the west-bound lane of the Massachusetts Turnpike to the point of beginning;
a distance of 0.5 miles.
(USGS Quadrangles: Stockbridge and Pittsfield West)
D-3
MASSACHUSETTS
DESCRIPTION: Estabrook Woods Forest Legacy Area
Beginning in the center of the town of Carlisle, Massachusetts at the intersection of Lowell Street and
Route 225.
Thence, south-easterly along Route 225 to its junction with River road, a distance of 1.8 miles.
Thence, south-westerly along River Road, crossing the town line between the towns of Carlisle and
Concord and into the town of Concord, at which point it becomes Monument Street, to its junction
with Liberty Street, a distance of 3.6 miles.
Thence, southwesterly along Liberty Street to its junction with Barnes Hill Road, a distance of 0.2
miles.
Thence, north-westerly along Barnes Hill Road to its junction with Barretts Mill Road and Lowell
Street, a distance of 0.6 miles.
Thence, westerly along Barrets Mill Road to its junction with Strawberry Hill Road, a distance of 1.1
miles.
Thence, north-westerly along Strawberry Hill Road to its intersection with Pope Road, a distance of
1.0 miles.
Thence, north-easterly along Pope Road to its intersection with West Street in the town of Carlisle, a
distance of 0.1 miles.
Thence, northerly along West Street to its intersection with Acton Street, a distance of 1.6 miles.
Thence, easterly along Acton Street to its intersection with Route 225, a distance of 0.8 miles.
Thence, easterly along Route 225 to Carlisle center, its junction with Lowell Street and the point of
beginning, a distance of 1.4 miles.
(USGS Quadrangles: Billerica and Maynard)
D-5
MASSACHUSETTS
DESCRIPTION: Connecticut Valley Forest Legacy Area Western Valley Subunit
Beginning at a point at the junction of the county line between Franklin and Hampshire Counties and Pantry Road in the
town of Hatfield, MA.
Thence, southerly along Pantry Road to its intersection with Route 5 and 10; a distance of 1.5 miles.
Thence, southerly along Route 5 and 10 to the village of West Hatfield; a distance of 1.5 miles.
Thence, north-westerly on Linseed Road, to its junction with Coles Meadow Road; a distance of 0.4 miles.
Thence, southerly and westerly along Coles Meadow Road to its intersection with Route 5 and 10; a distance of 1.8
miles.
Thence, southerly on 5 and 10 to its intersection with Hatfield Street; a distance of 0.8 miles
Thence, southerly and westerly on Hatfield Street to its intersection with Bridge Road; a distance of 0.6 miles.
Thence, westerly on Bridge Road to its intersection with North Farms Road; a distance of 1.1 miles.
Thence, northerly on North Farms Road to its junction with Mountain Street; a distance of 3.2 miles.
Thence, northerly on Mountain Street to its intersection with the Franklin-Hampshire County line; a distance of 1.8 miles.
Thence, easterly along the county line to the point of beginning; a distance of 2.1 m iles.
(USGS Quadrangles: Williamsburg and Easthampton)
DESCRIPTION: Connecticut Valley Forest Legacy area Holyoke Range Subunit
Beginning at the point at the junction of Bay Road and Route 116 in the tow of Amherst, Massachusetts;
Thence, south along Route 116 to the point known as Moody Corner and the junction with Pearl Street; a distance of 3.6
miles.
Thence, westerly on Pearl Street to the intersection with Route 47; a distance of 1.8 miles.
Thence, westerly and northerly along Route 47 to the town line between Hadley and South Hadley; a distance of 0.6
miles.
Thence, easterly along said town line to the center of the Connecticut River; a distance of 0.4 miles.
Thence, northerly along the town line in the Center of the Connecticut River to the confluence of the Fort River and the
Connecticut River; a distance of 3.6 miles.
Thence, easterly and northerly upstream along the Fort River to a point where it crosses Bay Road; a distance of 0.8
miles.
Thence, southerly along Bay Road to its intersection with Hockanum Road; a distance of 0.1 miles.
Thence, southerly along Hockanum Road to its intersection with Chmura Road; a distance of 1.2 miles.
Thence, easterly along Chmura Road to its end at a cul-de-sac; a distance of 1.2 miles.
Thence, northerly along a line from the cul-de-sac to the intersection of Maple Street and Bay Road; a distance of 0.4
miles.
Thence, easterly along Bay Road to the point of beginning; a distance of 1.1 miles.
(USGS Quadrangle: Mt. Holyoke)
D-7
MASSACHUSETTS
DESCRIPTION: North Quabbin Corridor Forest Legacy Area Phase 1
Beginning at the intersection of Route 2 and South Athol Road in the town of Athol, Massachusetts;
Thence, easterly along Route 2 to the intersection in Phillipston Four Corners of Route 2 and its junction with
Route 2A; a distance of 6.3 miles.
Thence, southerly along Route 2A to its intersection with Baldwinville Road; a distance of 0.2 miles.
Thence, easterly along Baldwinville Road to the center of Phillipston; a distance of 1.4 miles.
Thence, southerly along Barre Road to its intersection with Searle Hill Road; a distance of 0.2 miles.
Thence, southerly along Searle Hill Road to its intersection with Route 101; a distance of 1.2 miles.
Thence, south-westerly along Route 101 to its intersection with Route 32; a distance of 3.6 miles.
Thence, southerly on Route 32 to its intersection with West Street in Petersham Center; a distance of 1.1
miles.
Thence, westerly along West Street to its intersection with Hardwick Road; a distance of 0.4 miles.
Thence, south on Hardwick Road, crossing Route 122 and continuing southerly on Hardwick Road (also known
as Route 32A) to its intersection with Dugway Road; a distance of 1.6 miles.
Thence, westerly along Dugway Road to its intersection with power lines; a distance of 1.2 miles.
Thence, north-westerly along the power line to its junction with Blackington Road; a distance of 4.0 miles.
Thence, northerly along Blackington Road to the junction with Route 122; a distance of 1.5 miles.
Thence, easterly along Route 122 to its junction with Rice Road; a distance of 0.6 miles.
Thence, north-easterly along Rice Road to its junction with South Athol Road; a distance of 0.3 miles.
Thence, northerly along South Athol Road to its junction with Route 2 and the point of beginning; a distance
of 3.5 miles.
(USGS Quadrangles: Athol, Barre, Orange and Shutesbury)
D-9
MASSACHUSETTS
DESCRIPTION: North Quabbin Corridor Forest Legacy Area Phase 1
Beginning at the intersection of Old Winchester Road and the New Hampshire and Massachusetts state line, in
the town of Warwick, Massachusetts.
Thence, easterly along the MA/NH State line, along the northern border of the towns of Warwick, Royalston,
and Winchendon to the Intersection of the state line and Tarbell Brook in the town of Winchendon; a distance
of 13.3 miles.
Thence, southerly along Tarbell Brook to its intersection with the Millers River; a distance of 2.4 miles
Thence, southerly along the Millers River to its intersection with the Otter River; a distance of 5.2 miles.
Thence, southerly along the Otter River to its intersection with Route 202 in Baldwinville; a distance of 3.4
miles.
Thence, southerly along Route 202 to its intersection with Route 2 in Phillipston Four Corners; a distance of
3.7 miles.
Thence, westerly along Route 2 to its intersection with Route 32; a distance of 3.8 miles.
Thence, northerly along Route 32 through parts of the town of Athol, crossing the Millers River, to its
intersection with Chestnut Hill Avenue; a distance of 2.4 miles.
Thence, north-easterly along Chestnut Hill Avenue to its intersection with Old Keene Road; a distance of 0.5
miles.
Thence, northerly along Old Keen Road to its intersection with Adams Drive; a distance of 1.0 miles.
Thence, westerly on Adams Drive to its intersection with Route 32 (Silver Lake Street); a distance of 0.4 miles.
Thence, southerly along Route 32 to its intersection with Pinedale Street; a distance of 0.1 miles.
Thence, westerly along Pinedale Street to its intersection with Tully Road; a distance of 0.6 miles.
Thence, northerly along Tully Road to its intersection with the east branch of the Tully River and the Franklin-
Worcester county line, beging one and the same; a distance of 0.1 miles.
Thence, westerly along the county line and the east branch of the Tully River, through the intersection of the
west branch and the east branch, and continuing along the county line to its intersection with Lower Road; a
distance of 0.5 miles.
Thence, northerly along Lower Road to its intersection with Athol Road; a distance of 0.8 miles.
Thence, northerly along Athol Road to the village of North Orange; a distance of 1.0 miles.
Thence, north-westerly along North Orange Road to its intersection with the Gale Road, at the town line
between Orange and Warwick; a distance of 2.4 miles.
Thence, northerly along the Gale road to its intersection with the Athol Road; a distance of 2.5 miles.
Thence, westerly along the Athol Road to its intersection with the Old Winchester Road; a distance of 0.4
miles.
Thence, northerly along the Old Winchester Road to the point of beginning; a distance of 2.9 miles.
(USGS Quadrangles: Athol, Orange, Northfield and Winchendon)
D-11
MASSACHUSETTS
DESCRIPTION: Nashua River Greenway Forest Legacy Area
Section 1: North Nashua/Cook Conservation Forest Legacy Area
Beginning in the Town of Lancaster, Massachusetts at the intersection of Route 70 (Lunenberg Road) and
Route 117 (North Main Street).
Thence, north-westerly along Route 117 to its junction with Interstate Route 190; a distance of 2.8 miles.
Thence, northerly along Route I-190 crossing into the Town of Leominster to its junction with route 2; a
distance of 2.0 miles.
Thence, easterly along Route 2 to its intersection with Route 70; a distance of 1.6 miles.
Thence, southerly along Route 70 to its intersection with Route 117 at the point of beginning; a distance of
3.6 miles.
(USGS Quadrangles: Hudson and Ayer)
D-13
MASSACHUSETTS
DESCRIPTION: Nashua River Greenway Forest Legacy Area
Section 2: Pepperell-Dunstable Forest Legacy Area
Beginning in the Town of Pepperell, Massachusetts at the junction of the east bank of the Nashua River and
the Massachusetts-New Hampshire border.
Thence, crossing the Nashua River easterly along the Massachusetts-New Hampshire border to the junction
with the Boston and Maine railroad tracks in the Town of Dunstable; a distance of 0.1 miles.
Thence, south-westerly along the Boston & Maine railroad tracks to their junction with Route 113; a distance
of 2.9 miles.
Thence, westerly along Route 113 to its intersection with Groton Street in the Village of East Pepperell; a
distance of 0.2 miles.
Thence, northerly along Groton Street to its junction with the east bank of the Nashua River at the covered
bridge; a distance of 0.1 miles.
Thence, northerly and easterly along the east bank of the Nashua River in the Town of Pepperell to the point
of beginning; a distance of 3.3 miles.
(USGS Quadrangle: Townsend)
D-15
MASSACHUSETTS
DESCRIPTION: Nashua River Greenway Forest Legacy Area
Section 3: Squannacook Confluence Legacy Area
Beginning in the Town of Ayer, Massachusetts at the intersection of Route 2A and the west bank of the
Nashua River.
Thence, northerly along the west bank of the Nashua River to its confluence with the Squannacook River; a
distance of 0.2 miles.
Thence, north-westerly along the east bank of the Squannacook River to its intersection with Route 225 in the
Village of West Groton; a distance of 2.4 miles.
Thence, easterly along Route 225 to its intersection with Hill Road; a distance of 1.4 miles.
Thence, north-westerly along Hill Road to its intersection with Maple Avenue; a distance of 0.7 miles.
Thence, northerly along Maple Avenue to its intersection with Pepperell Road; a distance of 0.9 miles.
Thence, northerly along Pepperell Road to its junction with Fitchs Bridge Road; a distance of 0.3 miles.
Thence, easterly along Fitchs Bridge Road to its intersection with Gratuity Road; a distance of 0.4 miles.
Thence, south-easterly along Gratuity Road to its junction with Mill Street in the Village of Groton; a distance
of 1.1 miles.
Thence, southerly along Mill Street to its junction with Route 111; a distance of 0.9 miles.
Thence, southerly along Route 111 to its intersection with Groton-Shirley Road; a distance of 2.2 miles.
Thence, westerly along Gronton-Sherley Road to its intersectionwith Route 2A; a distance of 1.0 miles.
Thence, easterly along Route 2A; a distance of 1.0 miles.
Thence, easterly along Route 2A to the west bank of the Nashua River in the Town of Groton and the point of
beginning; a distance of 0.1 miles.
(USGS: Quadrangle: Ayer)
D-17
Appendix E
LETTERS OF AUTHORIZATION
E-1