Brooks Woodland Preserve
Management Plan 2006
©
Introduction
Executive Summary
Land Use History
Cultural Resources
Natural Resources
Visitor Experience
Current Management
Land Conservation
Recommended Actions
Implementation
On the Cover:
Immature turkey vulture
Photo by Chris Buelow.
Photo Credits:
Title Pages
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
Section 6
Section 7
Section 8
Section 9
Section 10
Maps:
Photographer
Unknown, from Petersham Historical Society
Unknown, from TTOR archives
R. Hopping, TTOR
E. Dondero, TTOR
E. Dondero, TTOR
R. Hopping, TTOR
R. Hopping, TTOR
R. Hopping, TTOR
Description and Page
Base Map, inside cover
Locus Map, p. 2-1
History of Brooks Woodland Acquisitions, p. 3-14
Cultural Resources of Brooks Woodland, p. 4-2
Regional Open Space, p. 5-3
BioMap and Living Waters Data, p. 5-4
Plant Communities at Brooks Woodland, p. 5-10
Locations of Invasive Plant Species, p.5-23
Critical Lands at Brooks Woodland, p. 8-6
Parcels Comprising Brooks Woodland Preserve, Appendix A
About the Maps Included in the Plan:
Unless otherwise noted, all maps are produced by The Trustees of Reservations’
Geographic Information System. Production of these maps is made possible, in
part, by generous donations from the Stratford Foundation, Environmental
Systems Research Institute, Inc., Data General Corporation, and Hewlett
Packard.
Source data obtained from 1:24,000 scale USGS topographic maps, field surveys,
Global Positioning Systems, and the Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs, Mass GIS. Feature boundaries and locations are
approximate.
All text, maps and photos in this document are property of The Trustees of Reservations.
Any unauthorized use or reproduction is prohibited.
Section 1: Introduction
1.1
Overview of the Planning Process
Since 1891, The Trustees of Reservations has worked to protect special places in
Massachusetts and maintain them to the highest standards. To ensure these standards
are met, a program of careful planning and sound management is essential. While
management of Brooks Woodland is well established, The Trustees felt it was important
to affirm the outstanding characteristics of the property and to review current
management practices with a focus on applying newly understood resource protection
principles to ensure the continued preservation of these special qualities. Thus, during
the winter of 2006, The Trustees embarked on a process to develop a comprehensive
management plan for Brooks Woodland Preserve. The planning process included:
o Describing in detail the site’s natural, scenic, cultural, and historical resources
and identifying management issues related to the protection of those resources.
o Forming a planning committee made up of six members from the local
community, who represent a broad constituency of user groups and brought
various areas of expertise to the process.
o Developing a list of management recommendations and a schedule for
implementing the actions.
1.2 Planning Framework
In order to ensure that the planning process and recommended future management of
its properties support The Trustees’ mission and meet the organization’s high standards
for resource protection and the visitor experience, an established framework is applied
to guide the planning process for each Trustees-owned reservation. This framework
outlines several factors that will guide the management of the property:
First, The Trustees’ mission, as set forth by founder Charles Eliot in 1891:
The Trustees of Reservations preserves, for public use and enjoyment, properties of
exceptional scenic, historic, and ecological value throughout Massachusetts and protects
special places across the state.
Second, management will support initiatives outlined in The Trustees’ Division of Field
Operations’ 2003 strategic plan, Conservation in Action! This plan highlights several
initiatives, including the expansion of The Trustees’ education and interpretation
Introduction
1- 1
program; the elimination of deferred maintenance on all Trustees-owned buildings and
structures; and the protection of plants and animals and their habitats.
Any wishes or restrictions expressed by the original and/or subsequent donors of the
property comprise the third component of the planning framework. In the case of
Brooks Woodland Preserve, these wishes and restrictions are numerous. The original
donors of the reservation articulated the following intent with their gift to The
Trustees:
“To recreate and preserve in perpetuity the granted premises and any further
areas which the Grantee shall add thereto as a natural forest typifying the
landscape of central New England as it existed at the time of the early
settlers….on which the Grantee may maintain trails and roads and engage in
non-commercial forestry operations, construct dams and impoundments and
erect structures, which shall be as inconspicuous as possible, for the feeding and
shelter of wild creatures.”
Further, the donors requested that the following activities be prohibited on the acreage
comprising the original gift: the use of motorized vehicles by the public; the creation of
picnic areas or camp sites; hunting and trapping; and commercial lumbering. (These
restrictions do not apply to subsequent acquisitions added to the original acreage.) In
addition, the property is subject to several conservation restrictions which describe
permitted and prohibited uses on the reservation. Appendix A of this report contains
detailed information on the numerous property interests and restrictions at Brooks
Woodland, all of which comprise the third component of the planning framework.
Finally, several principles will guide The Trustees’ work at Brooks Woodland Preserve.
These guiding principles reflect the general rules that will be applied when carrying out
work at all Trustees’ properties. They are value statements that may also provide a
source of criteria for determining goals and recommended actions.
1. The Trustees will continue to adapt its management based on experience, newly
gained knowledge, and available human and financial resources.
2. We consider resource protection to be The Trustees’ fundamental
responsibility. Only by protecting the significant resources of our properties can
we attain our visitor experience goals – a good visitor experience is derived
from our reservations being in excellent condition.
3. We will apply the best available management practices to preserve Brooks
Woodland’s outstanding features and to ensure a high quality experience for all
visitors.
4. Successful management of the property relies on sound financial management.
To be the best possible stewards of our precious financial and human resources,
we nurture a culture of innovation, financial discipline, and thriftiness.
Introduction
1- 2
5. The Trustees is committed to providing a diversity of visitors a wide range of
opportunities to experience the property. We consider the Brooks Woodland
Preserve as one of our 96 classrooms where visitors can participate in a variety
of enjoyable activities and life-long learning. By engaging a diversity of
constituencies, we will mobilize broad-based support for land and resource
protection in Massachusetts.
6. Through good communication and collaboration, The Trustees will confirm and
strengthen its partnership with the local community, members, volunteers, and
other conservation partners to achieve its long-term goals for the property. We
view ourselves as a community partner, investing in creative initiatives to build
shared values, perspectives and skills among a diverse constituency.
7. The Trustees will employ “green practices” to minimize the impact of its
management on the environment.
8. Because the surrounding landscape may impact our resource protection efforts
and/or visitor services, we will evaluate and address management issues and
opportunities beyond the boundary of Brooks Woodland.
1.3 Acknowledgments
The Trustees are enormously grateful to all of the volunteers, staff, and other
professionals who have worked very hard to produce this management plan. Leading
the way was a Management Planning Committee that consisted of Trustees’ members
and volunteers as well as several staff members. The planning team included:
Staff and Consultants
Edie Dondero, Planner
Chris Ward, Superintendent, Quabbin Management Unit
Russ Hopping, Ecology Program Manager
Chris Rodstrom, Land Protection Specialist
Electa Kane Tritsch, Historical and Cultural Resources Consultant
Volunteers
Candace Anderson
Larry Buell
Bob Clark
David Davis
John O’Keefe, Harvard Forest
Ron Wolanin, Mass Audubon Society
In turn, the committee drew upon the assistance of several other individuals. Special
thanks go to Rob Daniels and Vin Antil of The Trustees’ GIS Staff who prepared the
maps included in the plan; Glenn Motzkin of Harvard Forest who reviewed and provided
input on the Natural Resources chapter; the staff of Harvard Forest, especially John
Introduction
1- 3
O’Keefe, for providing use of their Seminar Room for committee meetings; the
members of the Petersham Local Properties Committee; and Dick O’Brien, Central
Regional Director for The Trustees. Thanks to the thoughtful and tireless participation
of these individuals, and their passionate interest and concern for this unique treasure,
Brooks Woodland will forever remain one of The Commonwealth’s special places.
Introduction
1- 4
Section 2: Executive Summary
2.1
The Significance of Brooks Woodland Preserve
Once home to Nipmuc peoples,
then cleared by settlers for open
farmland, Brooks Woodland
Preserve is today a forest that is
minimally managed in order to
recreate a forest typical of Central
Massachusetts at the time of its
settlement. Old stone walls,
reminders of former agricultural
use, traverse the property and the
remains of six early nineteenthcentury farmsteads can be
rediscovered. The reservation is an
important component of the
extensive network of open space in
Petersham, which includes two
other Trustees’ properties, Harvard
Forest, a Massachusetts Audubon
Preserve and lands owned and
managed by the State. Named for
James Wilson Brooks, who set aside more than 2,000 acres of Petersham’s forests for
conservation purposes, the original acreage of the reservation was a gift to The
Trustees from John and Rosalie Fiske in 1975. Since that time additional lands have
been given to or purchased by The Trustees, bringing the total acreage of the
reservation to 681 acres.
2.2 Significant Management Issues and Challenges
•
•
•
•
•
Deferred trail maintenance has accumulated due to staffing shortfalls within the
Quabbin Management Unit and more pressing needs at other properties.
The primary parking lot serving the reservation is difficult to access and is not
located within the most frequently visited portion of the property.
Illegal hunting during the hunting season conflicts with the donors’ wishes for the
property and poses a threat to visitor safety.
The trail network is difficult to navigate due to the excessive number of trails,
their haphazard layout and poor trail markings.
Invasive plants and pests (e.g., Hemlock Woolly Adelgid) threaten the natural
resources of Brooks Woodland.
Executive Summary
2- 1
2.3 A Vision for the Future
Based on the planning framework described in the preceding chapter and a
comprehensive study of the property’s significant features, a vision for the future of the
reservation emerges. Brooks Woodland Preserve, in ten years, will be:
o A forested landscape that is minimally managed, in the spirit of the original
donors’ wishes, and where natural processes will be the primary factors that
shape the reservation;
o A site where threats to biodiversity will be minimized, whenever possible;
o Recognized, together with North Common Meadow, as an integral part of the
scenic, rural character of Petersham’s town center;
o Recognized, together with North Common Meadow, Swift River Reservation
and other contiguous protected lands, as an important component of
Petersham’s and the region’s extensive open space network and integrated
ecosystem;
o Managed in a way that considers and is respectful of management practices on
adjacent protected lands;
o A site whose history and landscape is actively interpreted for visitors;
o A property that is actively used by local citizens and community groups who, in
turn, help to increase the appreciation, understanding and care of its resources;
o Together with North Common Meadow and Swift River Reservation, a more
frequently visited destination for both local residents and visitors to Petersham
that is easily located and navigated; and
o Fully supported financially, adequately staffed, and enthusiastically supported by
both volunteers and the community to ensure that all aspects of the visitor
experience are of high quality.
2.4 Summary of Management Goals
Section nine of this plan details 38 recommended actions that have been crafted to
achieve the vision for the future of Brooks Woodland as described above. The
following are some of the primary management goals that these recommendations have
been designed to achieve.
•
•
•
•
Utilize the unique cultural resources of the property to interpret the natural and
human histories of the landscape.
Continue to minimally manage and allow natural processes to shape the
reservation’s extensive forest cover.
Increase visitation rates at the property and convert current visitors into
members of The Trustees.
Enhance the visitor experience by making the trail network more welcoming and
easier to navigate.
Executive Summary
2- 2
•
Engage volunteers in property stewardship activities in an effort to instill a
conservation ethic and to leverage existing staff resources.
The total cost of implementing the 38 specific actions over the next ten years (FY20072016) is estimated to be $24,850. Of this amount, an additional $23,300 in new funding
and/or in-kind donations is needed to complete all of the actions proposed. Section ten
of this plan includes a detailed schedule for implementing the recommended actions and
provides a cost and estimation of staff and volunteers hours needed to complete each
task.
Executive Summary
2- 3
Section 3: Land Use History
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
Introduction and Sources
Petersham Prehistory
1733-1875: Settlement in a Market Economy
1880-1912: Transformation
A Natural Postscript
Brooks Woodland Preserve
James W. Brooks with his axe.
Section 3: Land Use History
3.1 Introduction and Sources
The town of Petersham, Massachusetts sits on the western edge of the central highlands,
bordered by New Salem and Athol to the northwest; Phillipston on the northeast; Barre and
Hardwick on the southeast. All the remainder of its nominal south and west border – also the
border where Worcester County meets Hampshire and Franklin – is buried under the waters
of Quabbin Reservoir. Petersham is, according to the state government website, the third
largest town in Massachusetts: 54.24 square miles land area plus another 14 square miles under
water. The population includes 845 registered voters. As of 1938, the town also included 178
documented cellarholes, evidence of entire families who no longer contribute to the population
census. A majority of the cellarholes, foundations, barnyards and ruins indicative of past land
development are more or less hidden within the forested areas that comprise almost 90% of
the present town landscape, including the 53% that is protected open space.
Apart from the Quabbin Reservoir, the town’s dominant water feature is the East Branch of the
Swift River. The river has carved out a number of ponds including Pottapaug Pond, which exists
today as a bay of Quabbin Reservoir. A number of other ponds including Connor’s and Carter’s
Ponds, though altered in historic times by mill dams, were likely to have begun as natural
smaller ponds or wetlands [Johnson and Mahlstedt 1984; 5].
Although there are small valleys bordering the Swift River and its feeder streams, much of
Petersham is characterized by steep sloped uplands covered by glacial till. The severe landscape
would prove to be a major reason that this small highland town never experienced the
economic expansion of other central Massachusetts agricultural communities such as the
Brookfields. Petersham’s narrow riverbeds and low stream rank were essential factors that
prevented local industrial development such as took place in Athol or Ware. The Nipmuc
people who occupied the region had worked this out long before English settlers came,
apparently choosing to concentrate their settlement in the broad valley that underlies the
Quabbin Reservoir. Yet ironically, the town’s topographical shortcomings, together with its
consequent failure to develop, were precisely the factors that made it a prime site for 20th
century recreation and conservation. Petersham was saved, in part, because it failed.
The history of Petersham’s failures and success has been examined from a number of angles by
historians, scientists, and favorite sons, as noted in the accompanying bibliography. The most
useful body of prehistoric information comes from a large artifact collection assembled by
William Ellsworth, a Petersham resident who, in the second half of the 20th century, explored
and collected within a ten-mile radius of his home. A 1984 study of Mr. Ellsworth’s collection by
the state Historical Commission is one of the only information sources on life in the Swift River
Valley before the 1700s.
Land Use History
3- 1
In 2004, the Town of Petersham completed a comprehensive master planning process, and the
resulting reports provide a local framework for the cultural resource management section of
the present report. Additional information, guidance and insights were provided by many
individuals whose contributions deserve special recognition:
Larry Buell, Jim Baird, and Nancy Allen of the Petersham Historical Society
Paula Korstvedt and Jeanne Forand of the Petersham Memorial Library
Bob Clark, Petersham Conservation Commission
Tom Mahlstedt, Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation
Charlie Wyman, Massachusetts Audubon Society
John Burk, Harvard Forest
Clif Read, DCR – Quabbin Reservoir
the Reader Services staff of the American Antiquarian Society
3.2 Petersham Prehistory
Mary Rowlandson, captured in Lancaster during King Phillip’s War, described a campsite she
and her captors occupied in Petersham: We came to a desolate place in the wilderness where there
were no wigwams or inhabitants before; …and no refreshing for man but the cold ground to sit on and
our poor Indian cheer. [Rowlandson, 1676, in Sherman 1931; 9] Rowlandson was traveling with a
raiding party of Nipmuc Indians and their Wampanoag allies, through country that had been
home territory to the Nipmucs’ ancestors for perhaps as long as 12,000 years.
No one knows when the Nipmuc began using that tribal name for themselves – a term
apparently meaning “fresh water” or “pond” Indians – nor does there appear to be any exact
definition of the territory they occupied. In prehistory, just as during the historic period, the
hills of central Massachusetts were sparsely populated and may even have been occupied later
than other, richer areas of New England. Dennis Connole, trying to pin down the historic
Nipmuc occupation area, met with only qualified success, but concluded that the Nipmuc
population primarily occupied river valleys, where natural resources were most diverse.
Consequently, territorial borders between clans loosely coincided with watershed divides.
The little evidence that exists for Native American activity in the Petersham area fits into a
larger framework of New England prehistory. A brief timeline follows.1
11,000 – 9,000 Before Present (BP): Tundra-like environment; food resources associated
with large migratory animals such as mammoths and mastodons. A few diagnostic points have
been collected in the greater Quabbin - Ware River area indicating that there was a Native
American presence here.
9,000 – 2,500 BP (Archaic Period): Mixed conifer-hardwood forest; rivers approximate
current locations; small Native American camps oriented toward seasonally abundant
1
Much of the following contextual information is derived from Barbara Luedtke’s summary tour-de-force, The
Camp at the Bend in the River (1985) and contemporary work by Mahlstedt.
Land Use History
3- 2
resources. Evidence of heavy woodworking (a dugout canoe was found in Pottapaug Pond). The
Swift River / Quabbin area was heavily used, especially during the Late Archaic (6000–2500 BP).
2,500 – 350 BP (BC 450 – AD 1600) (Woodland Period): Tendency to group site
occupation (ie: a number of families, not whole ‘town’), exploitation of riverine resources, as
well as beginning of natural resource management such as controlled burning and horticulture.
Ellsworth located at least five sites in the Quabbin vicinity containing Woodland points and
tools, as well as ceramic shards. By the Late Woodland Period, climate, flora and fauna were
essentially ‘modern.’ Pollen profiles indicate some evidence for progressive forest clearing.
1600 – 1750 AD (Contact Period): Native American groups made regular seasonal changes
of residence, toward larger inland rivers and lakes in summer and upstream in winter;
settlement size varied by season. The first written accounts date to this period, including
Rowlandson’s narrative and records of the Reverend John Eliot concerning his efforts to
establish “praying Indian” towns throughout the Commonwealth. From Eliot we learn that the
native population of the entire Worcester County region was estimated at only 1,150. From
Rowlandson, among other things we learn of the area’s food resources: trout, perch, pike,
pickerel and salmon…. bears, wolves, catamount and deer….Their chief and commonest food was
ground-nuts, also chestnuts and acorns, harty-choaks and other weeds and roots, horses’ guts and ears,
wild birds, bear, venison, beaver, tortoise, frogs, squirrels, dogs, skunks, rattlesnakes, and even the bark
of trees. [quoted in Sherman; 9-10] Rowlandson’s list also includes the corn which, according to
local folklore, was planted on Pottapaug Hill and perhaps in the intervale at the head of
Connor’s Pond.2
3.3 1733-1875: Settlement in a Market Economy
Establishing a Town
The peace signed at the end of Queen Anne’s War between England and France (1713), and a
consequent withdrawal of most Native American survivors well to the north and west, meant
that for the first time, interior borderlands such as the highlands along the Connecticut River
became safe for settlement. There were drawbacks to living in the central highlands. Not only
were there few decent roads to connect settlers with population centers, but the qualities that
made land a good investment were in shorter supply as well. The terrain was more rocky,
steeper sloped in many places, so a man’s proprietary lot in a new town might have less
workable acreage to it than the eastern lots in the old days. Land was, however, always a
preferred investment.
In the case of Petersham, the colony government granted its six mile square parcel to 71
original proprietors in lieu of combat pay for their service during earlier Indian clashes. Few
influential names appear among Petersham’s proprietors and settlers, but a number of family
names were venerable in 17th century eastern towns including Concord and Sudbury. By 1733
these older towns were feeling the land pressure caused by partible inheritance: there were
only so many times a family could divide even a large land grant among numerous children and
2
The intervale planting field and Pottapaug corn are cited by Larry Buell as traditional knowledge; Pottapaug is
substantiated by artifacts found in the vicinity.
Land Use History
3- 3
still provide a living from the land for the younger generation. The Township3 called Nichewagg
was incorporated twenty years later as the town of Petersham in 1754, at the end of the
French and Indian Wars.
During those first twenty years, sixty-one families arrived in the town. They constructed houses
that were probably small, with many resembling the Spooner-Johnson house on East Street: a
story-and-a-half cape sited on the edge of arable land, facing south. An assortment of barns,
outbuildings and pens would be added over the years, to form a farmstead of the sort
represented by the Eames-Newton farm in the nearby Swift River Reservation.
In 1771, a colony-wide tax valuation took place, providing a rare snapshot of early rural
development and land use. The town’s population included 209 adult males of whom 73 owned
no agricultural land although most paid the poll tax, indicating they were useful members of the
small society. These 209 men (and uncounted women) lived in only 118 houses – an average of
two adult males per household. The town’s 136 farmers (and seven slaves) had cleared, tilled,
planted, fenced and otherwise improved 2478 acres of land in the first twenty years or so of
the town’s existence – nearly an acre per year. The average acreage per category tells a more
complex story:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
English upland and mowing (hayfields): average 7 acres
labor requirements: cut timber; clear underbrush; remove stumps; (plow);
(seed)4; mow twice annually
Pasture: average 6 acres
labor requirements: clear dense underbrush; remove poisonous plants;
eventually fence and remove some/all trees; provide water source
Tillage (planting fields): average 3.2 acres
labor requirements: cut timber; clear underbrush; remove stumps; remove
stones; fence; plow; seed; cultivate 2-4 times per season; harvest.
Fresh meadow (natural grass lands): average 2 acres – but almost half the farmers
have no meadow land at all.
labor requirements: remove undesirable wetland species; ditch lowest areas to
control flooding; mow twice annually.
A serious disadvantage for Petersham farmers was a shortage of fresh meadowland in the town.
While statistics from eastern communities indicate that natural meadow was a prime
component of colonial farm wealth, central highland settlers had to labor to provide fodder for
the cattle and sheep that were already identified as one of the region’s most valuable ‘crops’.
Each year saw an increase of about half an acre of tillage on Petersham farms, and perhaps as
much as an acre of hayfields.
3
technically, a “plantation”
While it was certainly possible to simply encourage the growth of native grasses by clearing patches of land, the
yield for this warm weather crop was only once a year, and lacking in some of the nutrients provided by strains of
English fodder hay. Given the relatively large acreage of upland mowing, however, it is a good guess that
Petersham farmers started with native grass species, only expanding their more labor-intensive English hay acreage
as other land use needs were met.
4
Land Use History
3- 4
The 2478 acres that were valued as improved land in 1771 Petersham constituted approximately
9% of the town’s area. One percent of that 9% was land already open: the fresh meadow. Three
of the 9% was pasture, an unknown portion of which was still open woodland or, as the
detailed 19th century censuses would term it, woods pasture.
Agricultural Heyday
By the end of the Revolution, Petersham was still effectively a frontier town, its many settlers
still functioning within the first or, at most, second generation of land use, development and
inheritance. It was also a town perfectly positioned to take agricultural advantage of
Massachusetts’ rapid commercial and industrial expansion. The town was not alone. Almost all
of Worcester County experienced an agricultural heyday between the 1780s and 1850s.5
Expanding population in seaboard towns presented market opportunities for inland farmers,
especially in commodities such as beef, cheese and pork. By the 1830s, this marketing strategy
shifted to accommodate competition from western farmers. More milk went into butter, rather
than cheese production and more products went to new, inland industrial markets such as
Worcester and Ware. Local farmers again adjusted their growing strategies as rail transport
spread inland. Butter and cheese were replaced by short-distance commodities including
market garden produce, fresh milk, and fruit supplemented by bulk items, especially hay and
beef.
This combination suited Petersham’s agricultural situation well. As long as there were nearby
markets, and sufficient farm labor, it was possible to intensively farm small areas that had the
best soil and microenvironment as market gardens and orchards, while other areas could be
allowed to partially revert, still useful as pasture for the cattle, or as hay fields. The areas of
‘extensive’- rather than intensive – farming were particularly well adapted to Petersham’s sandy,
droughty uplands.
Changes in farm products were reflected in the progress of Petersham’s land clearing. Over the
sixty years following the 1771 census, the amount of tillage doubled, while pasture and mowing
increased tenfold between 1771 and 1831. Later censuses, which recorded woodland as well as
cleared, indicate that every acre added to pasture was subtracted from forested land.
The 1850 federal census provided a snapshot of Petersham’s agricultural heyday. The town was
still overwhelmingly agricultural. One hundred forty-two woodworkers, craftsmen, masons,
laborers, palm-leaf hat makers and professional men worked in Petersham, out of a total male
population of 738.6 Every other working adult male – 314 total – called themselves farmers, and
the 158 farms they worked occupied 19,333 acres of Petersham’s land – likely very close to the
town’s total acreage at the time, since Dana had split off from it in 1801.
Seventy-four percent of all farm land, including woodlands, was improved. Each farm averaged
5
The following summary paragraphs are largely based on research by Andrew Baker and Holly Izard done under
the auspices of Old Sturbridge Village.
6
There was a female population of 788, whose occupations were not noted, although it is safe to say that many of
them may have braided palm leaf or stitched the hats that were finished at Jesse Rogers’ or Phinehas Burr’s
establishments.
Land Use History
3- 5
122 acres worked by two adult males and a yoke of oxen, plus a horse who may or may not
have been a work animal. The 1511 cattle in town included 797 milch cows and 714 other cattle,
and every farmer had a handful of each (5 average). Half of the farms also had a few sheep or
goats, but a few had flocks of 15-40 head. Petersham had no market gardens, and nearly a third
of the farms had no (saleable) orchard produce. Farmers chose to concentrate on either corn
or potatoes. Every farmer produced butter for sale and, most, cheese plus some form of Homemade Manufactures.7
What kinds of living and landscape emerge from these statistics?
ƒ
Petersham farmers were making the most of the land they owned, with three-quarters of
each farm being improved. Eighty years earlier, the figure had been less than ten percent.
This does not mean that every acre was in production in 1850, but it does suggest that
there was not much more room for expansion or betterment on any given farm, except
through painstaking improvement of the soil of those acres already in use.
ƒ
It is quite likely that nearly all of the unimproved land - over 5,000 acres or at least 26% of
the town’s area – was still wooded. This is certainly more than Foster’s 15% estimate and is
only 13% less than had existed in 1831. Surprisingly, the rate of deforestation was also
declining, from 10% per decade in the first part of the century, to slightly over 5% at midcentury, suggesting that Petersham’s land improvement was limited, at least in part, by its
topography and further, that logging had not yet taken hold in any major way.
ƒ
Research models8 of mid-century farms engaged in mixed agriculture, with small herds of
cattle and sheep plus a variety of crops, appropriately characterize Petersham, although
shifting market specialization from beef to cheese to butter to milk by mid-century is not
obvious. On the contrary, Petersham was still solidly invested in cheese and, it would
appear, beef production, based on the universal ownership of dairy and beef cattle. If there
was a “specialization” apparent in the census figures, it was Irish potatoes, a normally
forgiving crop that found a ready market in surrounding industrial towns.
The 1850 census highlights one other way in which Petersham differed from the Worcester
County models: its steep-banked low-stream-rank rivers and brooks supported almost no
substantive manufacturing except the mills that came and went down at Factory Village. A
combination of limited transportation, limited waterpower and limited industrial site availability
made the town less attractive to potential industrial investors than other towns nearby. Athol
had waterpower; Dana and Barre had water and adjacent land; westward lay the transportation
corridor of the Connecticut River and its towns; eastward lay the populous and developed area
surrounding Worcester. Petersham was no one’s first choice for industrial development.
But change was in the wind. A state census twenty-five years later reflected shifts in
7
Typically, the palm-leaf hats mentioned above, as well as shoes and boots. “Chair-painting” was also listed among
the town’s industrial activities in the 1830s – likely a domestic or small-shop activity ancillary to the furniture
production of nearby Templeton and Gardner. Cheese making, although classed as an agricultural activity, was also
clearly a home manufacture for most Petersham farm families, and was another way in which women were
engaged in the market economy.
8
See bibliography for Foster, Raup and Old Sturbridge Village listings.
Land Use History
3- 6
Petersham’s economic base. The number of farms had actually increased from 158 to 218,
although acreage had dropped 22%. On those acres the same number of cows still grazed, but
their milk was made into butter, a likely consequence of fast transport to market centers.
There were signs of other activity as well. The town counted 301 families living in 289 houses,
and its manufactured products were valued at $32,000. Compared to the $166,600 in
agricultural goods, however, manufacturing income was little more than a pittance: 84% of
Petersham’s wealth was still tied to agriculture and 88% of Petersham was still classed as
agricultural property.
Much of this socioeconomic picture would change, quite rapidly, over the next quarter century.
The pre-eminence of agriculture would give way to new forms of land use that were more
profitable for a few, but less supportive of the local population, and far less apt to “husband”
the natural resources of Petersham.
3.4 1880-1912: Transformation
Following the Civil War, farmers found themselves undercut in nearly every market by more
cost-efficient midwestern production. There was little the rocky soils of central Massachusetts
farms could produce to compete, with the exception of upland hay, fresh milk, and one newlydiscovered “crop”: wood products.
As New England agricultural production was declining, commercial logging operations
increased. Raup [1966] estimates that as early as 1870, at least half of the farm land in central
New England had been abandoned: perfect seedbeds and growing conditions for white pine,
which self-seeded and quickly grew into large volunteer stands of marketable timber, were
factors. Newly invented portable saw mills could be transported on site to mill the clear-cut
pine into easily movable and immediately marketable lengths. The process was efficient,
economical, and presented one of few profitable uses for an abandoned agricultural landscape.
By 1875, the state census takers acknowledged the market value of a class of goods not even
enumerated twenty-five years earlier: forest products. More than half of the 2,893 cords of
firewood in Petersham were split for market sale, along with 1,000 bushels of charcoal. Only
Dana and Lunenburg produced more lumber in Worcester County than Petersham. From 1875
to 1880, the value of wood products from Petersham’s saw mills increased a remarkable 70%
and all of their logs came from Petersham.
The agricultural data from 1875 do not seem to show any substantial reduction in farm activity
from mid-century. Population statistics, however, indicate that Petersham had been losing
population since the Civil War. The trend would continue. In 1875 the town had 289 houses
and 310 families. Five years later, housing stock was down to 276. The 1910 census reported
201 houses in town sheltering only 212 families. In 1938, local historian Mabel Cook Coolidge
pinpointed close to two hundred cellarholes around town, most of which she could identify as
being occupied until near the end of the nineteenth century.
Land Use History
3- 7
Hand in hand with population and housing loss, was a rapid increase in the purchase of
Petersham lands by individuals and corporations whose interest was not in maintaining soil
fertility but rather, in reaping a quick profit from forest hardwoods and old field pine stands.
Another transformation was taking place at the same time that commercial timbering was
transforming Petersham’s landscape. Rural land began to be appreciated (primarily by outsiders)
as picturesque, spiritually satisfying, and healthful. “Excursionists” and summer visitors sought
fresh air, exercise, and simplicity in areas than had formerly been considered primarily in terms
of amount-of-work for amount-of-return. Over the course of the century, a large percentage of
central Massachusetts rural land came to be valued as space on which houses could be sited,
rather than as a group of natural resources to be exploited
Ironically, both developments threatened the very pastoral aesthetic that had originally
attracted tourists and new residents to rural areas. This, in turn, gave rise to what was
sometimes pejoratively termed a “conservation mentality.” The establishment of organizations
like The Trustees of Reservations and others during the decades surrounding the turn of the
century was the corporate tip of a large iceberg composed of groups and individuals who,
despite varied agendas, found common ground in a belief that the civilizing hand of man was not
always beneficial to nature. Notable among the individuals was James W. Brooks.
I wish I were in the woods
Born in Petersham in 1833, Brooks began early a routine that would carry through the rest of
his working life: living away but vacationing in his home town. With degrees from Brown
University and Harvard Law School, he served as American Vice Consul in Paris during the Civil
War; engaged in some colorful entrepreneurial activities out west, and finally parlayed a small
manufacturing venture into the highly lucrative and powerful United Shoe Machinery Company.
Brooks and his sister Martha shared a house in Cambridge a few doors from the family of their
other sister Abby, wife of reformer and historian John Fiske.
In 1868 Brooks achieved his first hometown goal: he bought back the house he had grown up
in. By 1880, he was listed as owner of a 181-acre farm in Petersham including 36 acres tillage,
30 acres permanent meadow or pasture and 115 acres of woodland. He raised livestock, grew
corn, potatoes, apples and kept a small market garden. Nevertheless, although his farm showed
all the elements of a viable and well-tended property, its “estimated value of all farm
production” was well below that of much less advantaged neighboring farms. Even more
remarkable, given his sizable woodland and forest holdings, no wood was cut for sale on James
Brooks’ property.
James W. Brooks had strong opinions about both farm abandonment and timber harvesting, In
1904, Brooks spoke nostalgically of the deserted hearthstone and the abandoned farm, where now,
too often, are seen only the open or brush-covered cellar. He then went on to rail at the effect of
timber harvesting on Petersham’s landscape. Ask the pulp and match companies where now are the
pitch pine boards and the picturesque old up-and-down sawmills…. The teeth of their screaming blades
are everywhere tearing through the hearts of our trees and leaving, in their trail, sawdust and scattered
branches to feed the forest fires that leave in ashes, desecration, and desolation the sighing groves,
God’s first temples…. [Brooks 1904; 27 and 22]
Land Use History
3- 8
Instead of logging, Brooks, like other Petersham natives, favored promoting the town for its
appealing recreational and residential qualities. The town had had a tavern on the common
welcoming visitors since the 18th century, and was a frequented summer destination during
James Brooks’ childhood. A disastrous mid-century fire eventually benefited the tourist trade by
transforming the town into a charming Greek Revival village with a larger, elegant hotel, the
Nichewaug House, owned by James and Martha Brooks by 1890.
Two years later another fire destroyed four buildings across the street from the hotel, inspiring
Brooks to buy and level the damaged buildings, creating a golf course for hotel guests and town
inhabitants. By the time an 1897 fire destroyed the Nichewaug, the inn was recognized as a
catalyst for regional economic development, a means of drawing a great many moneyed people to
Petersham … resulting in the purchase of a number of ‘deserted farms’… and the erection of many
elaborate summer residences, according to the Athol Transcript [December 1897].
Within three years, under the supervision of James W. Brooks, the Nichewaug was rebuilt in
the latest Shingle Style as a first-class summer resort, complete with unimpeded views of
Petersham’s rural landscape.
At the same time, Brooks and other residents were transforming their own and other houses
into summer places – simple and low key in comparison with more elegant ‘cottages’ in the
Berkshires and elsewhere, but still with interiors and landscaping a number of notches above
what the properties had been in earlier times.
Over the course of forty-four years but concentrated in the period from 1890 to 1910, Brooks
bought nearly seventy separate parcels of land in Petersham. The purchases were not
haphazard. Many small parcels were lots surrounding the town common, beginning with his
own family home, then spreading to include the Nichewaug Inn, the library and historical
society sites and numerous private homes and businesses. Some of these he maintained or
upgraded and resold; others were demolished or moved.
James Brooks had a second land-buying focus: the newly forested acreage surrounding
abandoned farms. The geographic parameters of his purchases seem to have begun haphazardly,
as tracts of forty to upwards of a hundred acres came on the market in different parts of town.
In later years his buying concentrated on the watershed lands surrounding the East Branch of
the Swift River. During a fifteen or twenty year period he accumulated hundreds of acres of
land, often with worn-out soil or extremely rough topography, apparently without a clear plan
– at least initially – for the parcels’ eventual disposition. What was clear was that his purchases
were designed to protect Petersham’s woodlands, particularly along the Swift River.
By the turn of the century Brooks was becoming cognizant of the fact that land protection was
not a one-man issue, even for a man as determined and wealthy as he. This led him to explore a
number of strategies to preserve landscapes and landscape features that did not require
personal ownership of the tracts involved. Brooks’ creative solutions were not conceived in a
vacuum. He had become an early board member of the Trustees of Public Reservations in 1897,
where Charles Eliot and others were planting revolutionary conservation seeds. For the
Land Use History
3- 9
recreation of those who must remain in town, Eliot asked, why is it not possible to purchase an
attractive and acceptable rural area, comprising woods, fields, streams and ponds, and preserve it
forever in that charming condition which is the product of the natural partnership of man and nature?
[Eliot 1902; 543]
From 1897 until his death in 1912, Brooks attended the Trustees’ annual meetings, read its
reports and heard its philosophy of protecting open space for public enjoyment and respite.
Less eloquent that Eliot, Brooks simply scribbled an 1897 margin note to his sister: I wish I were
in the woods. His own creative solutions began in 1902, when he saved a highly visible swath of
Petersham woodland by purchasing timber rights – rather than the land itself – to a ten foot
wide stretch on each side of the Barre road, thus preserving for the public one of the most beautiful
drives in the country [Athol Transcript, March 1905].
Old Standing Committee reports of The Trustees document another of Brooks’ creative
solutions to the financial challenge of land management and protection. In 1906, at Brooks’
request, a Trustees committee visited his property, reporting that [t]hey comprise some 2,000
acres of woodland of a most varied and interesting character, …not alone of interest in themselves as
woods, but are an essential part of the scenery and picturesque charm of one of the most beautiful of
the New England hill towns. [Trustees 16th Annual Report, 1906; 16]
The Trustees were not about to take on this unendowed property, but discreetly added: it
seems probable that the generous and far-seeing intention of the owner will be in some way realized. It
also seems probable that the organization’s already formidable network of contacts was
engaged in what happened next. The following year’s report described the outcome.
Through the generosity of Mr. John S. Ames of North Easton,9 with the
cooperation of Mr. Brooks and others, 2,000 acres of this woodland, to be
known as the Harvard Forest, is about to be conveyed to the President and
Fellows of Harvard College….Inasmuch as this use is perfectly compatible
with the public enjoyment, under proper restrictions, of the forest, your
committee feels that the outcome of their visit to Petersham has been most
fortunate. [17th Annual Report, 1907; 17-17]
The Trustees’ practice of partnering with other organizations in the interest of expanded land
conservation is clearly not a recent phenomenon.
Similarly, what Brooks did with the $55,000 he received for his woodlands echoes another land
protection practice more familiar in recent years. Payment for the property, even at cut rate
prices, provided him with capital to continue his private land purchases. In 1907, presumably
with his new-found money, Brooks purchased the historic 173 acre Blanchard farm that lay due
west of Connor’s Pond.10 He then convinced Charles Choate Jr. to buy the property. The
Brooks-to-Choate transfer included a reservation reminiscent of Brooks’ ten foot timber rights
purchase from 1902.
9
another Trustees’ board member
Its buildings are at the end of Choate Lane.
10
Land Use History
3- 10
Grantor [Brooks] reserves for himself and his assigns of adjacent land the
right to prevent the cutting of trees upon that part of said farm which lies
between said river and a line parallel with and fifty feet westerly of the
westerly side of said old river road crossing as aforesaid the part of said
farm which borders on said river. [WD 1870:289]
The old river road mentioned in the deed parallels the west bank of the Swift River between The
Trustees’ Slab City and Nichewaug Tracts of Swift River Reservation, over land currently
owned by Charles Ames. Brooks protected the river bank and its immediate drainage, as well
as the scenic and fishing values of the waterway, by controlling timber removal from a swath at
least fifty feet wide along the river.
Five years later in 1912, apparently Brooks and Choate together convinced John Hall, Choate’s
Boston law partner, to buy a 55 acre parcel of land off Quaker Drive – the first parcel of what
is now a 600 acre tract of land. The net effect of James Brooks’ forty years of real estate
manipulation was to protect all the land now included in Brooks Woodland and the Harvard
Forest, as well as the parcels east of Choate Lane and south of Hall Road, against commercial
development. Only the east side of Connors Pond remained unprotected at the time of his
death, although this too was later conserved by the Massachusetts Audubon Society. Brooks
had also built an invaluable conservation-minded constituency within his home town.
In 1912 James W. Brooks died. He was eulogized as a man who invested in his home town,
encouraged its economy, and built up its civic infrastructure. Reporters wrote of his quiet,
unassuming ways, courteous dignity, and scholarly attainments [Transcript 1905 article]. It was not
until later years, and the involvement of a second family generation, that the magnitude of
Brooks’ environmental legacy became apparent.
3.5 A Natural Postscript
James Brooks notwithstanding, the two twentieth century events with the most impact on
Petersham’s landscape as a whole were not cultural at all. The infamous hurricane that
devastated New England in 1938 wiped out much of the old growth forest in Petersham,
transforming the mature woodlands that surrounded abandoned farmsteads into oversized
timber heaps, and later, following region-wide clearing and logging efforts, into scarred and
deforested wastelands. As a result of this one storm, almost all the woodland growth now
standing in Petersham postdates 1938, with the exception of small sheltered areas on
northwest slopes.
The second 20th century cataclysmic event to affect Petersham’s landscape was the Worcester
tornado of 1953. The tornado funnel is thought to have built over Quabbin Reservoir, then
swept eastward, touching down in Petersham, Barre and Rutland before causing widespread
damage in Worcester [J. Burk pers. comm.]. Petersham’s losses were light compared to the
hurricane damage two decades earlier, but a swath of trees was knocked over, three or four
houses damaged beyond repair, and half of the dam at Connor’s Pond – already in poor
condition – was completely destroyed along with the trees and shrubs along the north bank.
For the first time in over two centuries the pond reverted to swamp land, not to be
Land Use History
3- 11
reconstructed until 1969.
Despite natural setbacks and disasters, the land protection effort begun by James Brooks in the
19th century came to fruition in the twentieth. Apart from his transfer of 2000 acres of
woodland to Harvard College, Brooks left most of his land to his sister Martha. After Martha’s
death in 1924 the property was inherited by great-niece and -nephew Margaret G. Fiske and
John Fiske. In 1964 the woodland portions of the property were preserved, initially as the James
W. Brooks Wildlife Sanctuary. A decade later Brooks’ village improvement efforts received
similar protection, when twenty-two acres of Brooks family land became the North Common
Meadow reservation.
3.6 Brooks Woodland Preserve
Among the [permanently protected] holdings are properties originally
purchased by James Brooks and deeded by his heirs, John and Rosalie Fiske
and John Fiske Jr., to The Trustees of Reservations in 1974. At that time, the
Fiskes provided the Trustees with the 360 acres known as the James W.
Brooks Wildlife Sanctuary, but changed the sanctuary’s name to the James
W. Brooks Woodland Preserve, to better reflect the Sanctuary’s historic
orientation and the enlarged concept for its future (TTOR files, ca 1974).
The …Preserve has subsequently grown, and today includes approximately
600 acres of rolling woodlands, rivers, streams and beaver ponds, wetlands,
open meadows, and scenic vistas.11 [Yale 1995;7]
The woodlands, open meadows, scenic vistas and wetlands were the working landscapes of three
farms, a homestead and timbering operations during the nineteenth century, and a preferred
venue for pleasure outings by the early twentieth century. Of the farms – all of which are
described in the cultural resources inventory in Section 4 – only the Dudley Farm off Quaker
Drive survived for more than a hundred years, but each of the archeological sites that remain in
Brooks Woodland offers interesting evidence for the evolution of rural land use in central
Massachusetts.
Surprisingly, the historic orientation cited as a major element in the Fiske family’s vision for the
woodlands did not apply to human history at all, but rather the history of the forest growth
itself. By the time the Fiske family transferred their land to The Trustees in 1975, even the farm
fields were woodland, their only recent improvements being maintenance of numerous trails
and fire roads through the property. The open fields mentioned in the Yale report were later
restorations accomplished under Trustees management.
The Sanctuary land came to The Trustees with a modest endowment. It also came with a land
use restriction, which summarized both the heirs’ own values and their vision of the ‘best and
highest use’ for the woodlands they had inherited. John Fiske’s, Rosalie Fiske’s, and John Fiske
Jr.’s goal is spelled out in their deed of gift [WD 5662:137; 1975].
11
Since the Yale report, another 65 acres, the Ganson parcel, has been added to the Preserve, bringing its total
acreage to approximately 665 acres.
Land Use History
3- 12
To re-create and preserve in perpetuity the granted premises and any
further areas which the Grantee shall add thereto12 as a natural forest
typifying the landscape of central New England as it existed at the time of
the early settlers, to serve as a laboratory for research and education, to
constitute a living museum for the education and edification of the present
and future generations, and a refuge and sanctuary for all living things,
including human beings who wish to observe and study and find refreshment
of the spirit in unspoiled surroundings, on which the Grantee may maintain
trails and roads and engage in non-commercial forestry operations,
construct dams and impoundments and erect structures, which shall be as
inconspicuous as possible, for the feeding and shelter of wild creatures.
The vision of recreating a natural forest…as it existed at the time of the early settlers echoed
ongoing research at Harvard Forest and that organization’s mid-century conclusion, voiced by
director Hugh Raup in his articles. Raup concluded that all of man’s cultural impositions and
changes on the land were of only fleeting significance and that, given enough time without
further human disturbance, the landscape would revert to its ‘primeval’ state.13
During this same period, Harvard Forest was working under a policy of controlled
experimentation and management on its own land. As the Fiskes contemplated donation of the
Brooks Wildlife Sanctuary to The Trustees, they viewed their parcel as a natural – an
unmanipulated – foil to Harvard’s lands, an equally important laboratory for research and
education that would complement the extremely controlled research being done beyond its
borders. Herbert Pratt, president of the Massachusetts Forest and Park Association, visited the
Fiskes in early 1974, and commented on their approach.
At first, I was apprehensive that your family do not plan to practice any
sustained yield forestry methods, but I think your explanation is reasonable
that your land will be used to contrast these methods of land utilization
(now practiced by Harvard Forest) so following generations can see exactly
the merits of both – I think this philosophy is not au courant at the moment,
but who knows, maybe both points of view will be something to be proud
about in the years ahead. [March 1974 Pratt to Fiske letter; Trustees files]
In 1975, the 366 acres of land that constituted the James W. Brooks Woodland Preserve
became The Trustees’ 58th reservation. Subsequent donations of land by Fiske family members,
including ones in 1978, 1980 and 2004, raised the total acreage to 600, with an additional 65
acre parcel acquired from the Gansons in 2005.
12
This clause has important ramifications for management planning on the whole Brooks Woodland Preserve. By
2004, The Trustees were qualifying their acceptance of another gift of land from the Fiskes, to limit the
organization’s commitment to attempt to recreate a natural forest. [letter from F. Winthrop to J. Fiske Jr.; Trustees’
files]
13
David Foster’s more recent work indicates a longer-term – possibly permanent – impact than Raup had
predicted. Thus the concept of ‘recreating’ becomes muddied, and is currently considered to be close to
impossible.
Land Use History
3- 13
Map 3-1: History of Brooks Woodland Acquisitions
Land Use History
3- 14
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES
Aikenhead, Ellen, Rachel Byard et al, “Land Use, Biophysical and Sociological Information on the
James W. Brooks Woodland Preserve.” Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
report for The Trustees of Reservations, May 1995.
Baker, Andrew H. and Holly V. Izard, “New England Farmers and the Marketplace 1780-1865,
A Case Study,” Old Sturbridge Village Research Paper, Doc. #893 (no date).
Brooks, James W., Historical Address for Petersham’s 150th anniversary, 1904.
Connole, Dennis A., “Land Occupied by the Nipmuck Indians of Central New England 16001700,” Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society. [May] 1976, pp.14-19.
Conuel, Thomas, Quabbin: The Accidental Wilderness. Brattleboro Vt: The Stephen Greene Press,
1981.
Coolidge, Mabel Cook, History of Petersham 1637-1947. Petersham Historical Society, 1948.
Coolidge, Ruth M., “Petersham’s Soldiers in the French and Indian Wars” (at Petersham
Memorial Library)
Eliot, Charles W., Charles Eliot: Landscape Architect. Boston: Houghton, Miffline & Co., 1902.
Foster, David R. “Land-use history (1730-1990) and vegetation dynamics in central New
England, USA.” Journal of Ecology, no. 80, pp. 753-772.
, “Land-use History and Forest Transformations in Central New England,” pp.
91-110 in Humans as Components of Ecosystems, Mark J. McDonnell and Steward T.A.
Pickett, eds. New York: Springer-Verlag Inc., 1993.
Horr, George W., “Petersham” in History of Worcester County. Boston: C. F. Jewett and Co.,
1879.
Jameson, E.O., The Choates in America 1643-1896. Boston: Alfred Mudge & Son Printers, 1896.
Johnson, Eric S. and Thomas F. Mahlstedt, Prehistoric Collections of Massachusetts: The William
Ellsworth Collection, Petersham Mass. Massachusetts Historical Commission, 1984.
Lincoln, John W., “Farming in Worcester County, Massachusetts” in Report of the Commissioner
of Patents for the Year 1850, Part II: Agriculture.Washington DC: Office of the Printers to the
House of Representatives, 1851.
Land Use History
3- 15
Luedtke, Barbara E., The Camp at the Bend in the River: Prehistory at the Shattuck Farm Site.
Boston: Massachusetts Historical Commission Occasional Publications in Archaeology and
History, December 1985.
Massachusetts Historical Commission, Historic and Archaeological Resources of Central
Massachusetts. Boston: Office of the Secretary of State, 1985.
“Petersham Historic District Study Committee Report” (on file at Massachusetts Historical
Commission)
Petersham, Town of, Final Master Plan and Final Open Space & Recreation Plan. 2004.
Pruitt, Bettye Hobbs, ed., The Massachusetts Tax Valuation List of 1771. Boston: G.K. Hall & Co.,
1978
Raup, Hugh M., “The View from John Sanderson’s Farm: A Perspective for the Use of the
Land.” Forest History, 10:1, April 1966.
Sherman, Julie, The Old Road Through Pirate Valley. privately printed, 1931.
Skehan, James W., Roadside Geology of Massachusetts. Missoula MT: Mountain Press Publishing
Co., 2001.
Trustees of Public Reservations, Annual Reports 1897-1912. (on file at Long Hill Reservation)
200th Anniversary Petersham Mass. 1754-1954. (anniversary booklet; Petersham Memorial
Library)
Whitney, Peter, History of the County of Worcester in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with a
Perticular Account of Every Town from its first Settlement to the present Time; … Together with a
Geographical Description of the Same . . . . Worcester MA: Isaiah Thomas, 1793.
Wilder, Charles K., comp, Sketches of Petersham Natives and Adopted Citizens. (written by J.B.
Howe and published 1886-1887 in the Athol Transcript, plus later additions) 1915.
Woolsey, John Munro, Address Delivered on July 4, 1929, on the 175th Anniversary of the
Incorporation of the Town of Petersham, Worcester County, Massachusetts. New York: Pandick
Press, 1929.
Other Sources
ƒ
ƒ
Archives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Worcester County Probate Records;
1795, 1830, 1938 (WPA) town plan series)
Federal Records Center, Waltham MA (federal census data for Massachusetts, 1790-1930,
including some 19th century agricultural and industrial schedules)
Land Use History
3- 16
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Harvard Forest Archives (maps, photographs, and administrative files)
Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston MA (files and reports on Petersham historic
and prehistoric sites)
Petersham Historical Society (photograph and records collections)
Petersham Memorial Library (town reports and local history materials)
The Trustees of Reservations (reservation maps and plans; regional and organizational
administrative files)
Worcester County Registry of Deeds (land transfer record)
Land Use History
3- 17
Section 4: Cultural Resources
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
Introduction and Definitions
Cultural Resource Inventory
Areas with Prehistoric Site Potential
Conclusion
Summary of Significant Threats
Summary of Significant Opportunities
Fiske family members at the Cabbage Pine.
Section 4: Cultural Resources
[Note: The references in this chapter correspond to the Bibliography following
“Section 3: Land Use History.”]
4.1 Introduction and Definitions
Stone walls, foundations, wood roads, re-cut forest and re-cleared fields characterize
the cultural landscape of The Trustees’ Petersham reservations. Excerpts from a National
Park Service publication [Birnbaum 1994] elucidate this term.
ƒ a cultural landscape is a geographic area, including both cultural and natural
resources,… associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting
other cultural or aesthetic values.
Within this broad category, Brooks Woodland is classed as historic vernacular landscape:
ƒ a landscape that evolved through use by the people whose activities or
occupancy shaped that landscape….the landscape reflects the physical,
biological, and cultural character of those everyday lives. Function plays a
significant role in vernacular landscapes…. Examples include rural villages,
industrial complexes, and agricultural landscapes.
The Preserve is made up of a number of distinct agricultural landscapes. The National
Park Service has spelled out the planning process recommended for cultural landscapes
in detail, and that process is being followed for the Petersham properties. The process
includes:
ƒ historical research
ƒ resource inventory and documentation of existing conditions
ƒ evaluation of integrity and significance
Subsequently, a preservation approach, a management plan and a maintenance strategy
are worked out, with arrangements for keeping a record of treatment and future
research recommendations.
4.2 Cultural Resource Inventory
HA = historic archeological site
HL = historic landscape
HLF = historic landscape feature
TTOR # refers to trail markers shown on The Trustees’ Petersham properties map
[NOTE: The Cultural Resources are numbered to correlate with sites marked on Map 4.1. See
the full Petersham landscape history report for detailed site documentation.]
Cultural Resources
4- 1
Map 4.1- Cultural Resources of Brooks Woodland Preserve
Cultural Resources
4- 2
A.
Spooner-Johnson Farm (HA; HL)
In 1759 Daniel Spooner deeds 60 acres to son Ruggles. The land is lost in a mortgage
foreclosure (no mention of buildings). In 1816 Robert Goddard Jr. buys property – 100
acres – and subsequently builds house and barn. The property is described in 1849 as
my homestead farm…about one half mile easterly of the centre…100 acres on north and
south sides of the road. It remains in the Goddard family from 1816 to 1870. 18701898(?) the farm is owned by David Johnson and heirs, then sold to James W. Brooks. In
1931 or 1932 the house was taken down and rebuilt for Mr. and Mrs. Robert Douthit
on the south side of West Street.
Field survey: The remains of the house with ell, barn and another outbuilding’s
foundations are in very good condition although the front doorstep has been removed
and a number of large boulders have been dumped into the south end of the barn
foundation.
Significance: This building-and-yard complex is an excellent example of an agrarian
landscape, shaped and expanded over time. It is easily accessible and has surprising
elements like the tall stone pillars that are today free standing, but originally served as
supports for the barn’s second floor. The brookside stone wall and other stonework
are good examples of adapting standard farmstead elements to an uneven natural
landscape in order that the more level, upland parcels across the street could be
dedicated to agriculture. The Spooner-Johnson farm would be a worthwhile study
pairing with the Dudley Farm described below.
B.
Water impoundment, Roaring Brook (HA)
Field survey: Located just north of East Street on Roaring Brook. Heavily built curved
stone walling may have been part of dam or retaining wall for pond associated with
fulling mill or tannery. A rectangular depression on the downstream side of the wall may
be remnants of a building foundation [field survey]. No deed documentation yet found.
No cartographic evidence.
Significance: Worth further documentary investigation.
C.
Stone slab bridge (HLF)
Location: across Roaring Brook south of TTOR marker #25. No further information
known.
Cultural Resources
4- 3
D.
East Street field (HL)
Location: top of rise east of Browns Pond.
Significance: the tossed stone wall that surrounds it is evidence of the field’s historic use
as tillage.
E.
Roadway (HL) – TTOR #40-42
Not indicated on maps until 1898, when it is shown running south from Brown’s Pond
to the Marsh-Dudley house. The surrounding property was purchased by James W.
Brooks who improved the road as one of many driveways through his forest lands
mentioned by Wilder [1915]
Field survey: a varied and easily accessible historic landscape which also has numerous
interesting natural features including parallel Swift River, beaver activity, glacial
(moraine?) with unusual geological features (cf: large quartz boulders).
Significance: the roadway offers views of recent logging activity and evidence of earlier
logging; its stone slab bridge was built to bear the weight of heavy logging equipment;
flanking but non-contiguous stone walls define pasture areas, and the route itself
(although now extended southward) was apparently constructed for access to one backcountry farmstead.
F.
Rosalie Fiske Memorial Bench
Location: Swift River Tract, just east of trail marker #22.
Significance: Installed in 2002, the bench is a memorial to Rosalie Fiske who, along with
her husband John Fiske, donated the reservation to The Trustees. The granite bench,
furnished from the remnant stairs of a building on another Trustees’ property, is
inscribed with quotations from the works of Thoreau and is surrounded by native
plantings.
G.
Marsh-Dudley House (HA)
Built by Moses Marsh ca. 1793. Owned by Simon and Charles F. Dudley from 1811 to
the late 19th century. Purchased from the Bigelow brothers (lumbermen) about 1900 by
James W. Brooks, who took down the buildings.
Field survey: A distinct cellarhole in good condition is located on a terrace at the edge
of wetland. Evidence remains of two brick chimneys, stone steps down to a back yard
with day lilies, plus two or three indistinct outbuildings and a possible well. All of the
Cultural Resources
4- 4
buildings are associated with extensive stone-walled enclosures, and the walls also
define edges of the roads or paths that intersect at the farm.
Significance: although the remains of the Marsh-Dudley farm are difficult to decipher, the
farm is significant as being among the earliest cultural resources on Trustees’ Petersham
land. The siting of farm buildings is a particularly interesting example of historic land use
choices and considerations, with the house situated on the edge of wetlands but
surrounded by workable upland fields. Access from East Street was direct and relatively
level, while fresh meadow was located a short distance north of the farm at ‘Sackett’s
Harbor’ on the Swift River – an open area that shows evidence of past ditching for
drainage (and consequent encouragement of meadow grass growth).
A note on the “Indian Grinding Stones”: This interesting geological feature is a result of
water action on a massive, now split, boulder downslope from the Marsh-Dudley house in the
Moccasin Brook watershed. It is not immediately apparent whether the water action took place
prior to or after the boulder’s glacial deposition on site. The only indication of its having been
used for grinding of corn, acorns or other foodstuffs by Native Americans is persistent local
folklore.
H.
Cornell House and Barn (HA)
Earliest record date for this property is a Petersham Historical Society photo label that
reads Dr. Lemuel Hodges 1850. The 33-acre property was owned by the Cornell family
(widow and three children) between 1871 and ca. 1910, then bought by James W.
Brooks. The abandoned house was still standing in the 1940s.
Field survey: The site includes house and small barn foundations in good condition, on
the immediate edge of the trail known as Sackett’s Harbor Road.
Significance: Even for a professional man in 1850, this was a marginal occupation site. Its
magnificent view down to the Swift River must always have been balanced against the
constant runoff from the road through the cellar downslope. The land would appear
nearly useless for agriculture except as grazing land.
I.
John Fiske Memorial Stone and Bridge
Location: At the foot of the bridge crossing Moccasin Brook in the Swift River Tract.
Significance: The memorial stone and bridge were dedicated in September 1985, on the
occasion of John Fiske’s eighty-fifth birthday, to commemorate John who, along with his
wife Rosalie, donated Brooks Woodland to The Trustees. The plaque reads, “Through
his foresight and perseverance and his love of this place these fields and woods will
forever remain a haven for wild things and a refuge for those who seek refreshment of
the spirit in unspoiled surroundings.” The original footbridge is currently undergoing
replacement.
Cultural Resources
4- 5
J.
Dudley Farm (HA; HL)
First house and barn (12A and B) at this site built about 1795; owned as part of a 150acre farm by the Dudley family (Francis and Joseph) from 1800 through the mid-19th
century. Second house (12C) built ca. 1825. Before 1857, a sawmill (12D) was added to
the property along Swift River, which operated for about two decades. In two purchases
(1881 and 1911) James W. Brooks acquired the property. Second house (and barn?)
burned down in 1933.
Field survey: Features include foundations of two houses and a large barn, plus barn
yard, two wells, pasture lot, orchard remnant, farm tracks and public roadway. The
exact sawmill site was not located during field surveys, although evidence of stonework
and channeling exists at a number of points along the river. Condition of remains is
good to very good although the site is largely overgrown, with the exception of Burns
Pasture and the immediate parking area, which are maintained.
Significance: The Dudley Farm is among the most interesting of The Trustees’ cultural
landscapes due to a number of factors. The proximity and easy identification of so many
associated cultural features present a rare landscape survival. The two houses, built by
family members for similar purposes – but a generation apart – reflect changing tastes
and preferences. The Dudley family’s isolation from Petersham center, and their later
involvement with saw milling, offer examples of the ways in which second- and later
generation settlers made do with less desirable land parcels and adapted their
agricultural economy to changing market demands – in this case, by adding lumbering as
a new way to generate income and offset the reduced farm productivity caused by soil
depletion.
K.
Saw Mill
Location: The exact location of this site is uncertain but is likely on Harvard Forest land
where the Swift River crosses under Quaker Drive; field surveys were inconclusive as to
location.
Significance: According to Sherman [1931], Reuben Stone’s house was moved from his
site to Moccasin Brook and used as a mill. This was apparently done by Joseph Dudley
before 1857.
L.
“Grandfather Pine” or “Cabbage Pine” (HLF)
Location: near TTOR #51. A massive and old multi-trunk white pine on a steep hillside
west of Moccasin Brook.
Significance: According to local lore, the tree was discovered by John Fiske immediately
after the hurricane of 1938 when the stand of white pines surrounding it was blown
down. The tree has been the scene of weddings and other gatherings, according to L.
Buell. [See photo on cover page of this section for Fiske family photograph.]
Cultural Resources
4- 6
M.
Reuben Stone House (HA)
A house was built by Reuben Stone about 1768 at the core of a farmstead which
included 27 improved acres and an unknown quantity of woodland. The farm passed
through a number of owners. About 1850 the house was moved to the Dudley Farm
and reused as a sawmill. In 1911 the land and site were bought by James W. Brooks.
Field survey: Reuben Stone’s cellarhole sits at the top of a rise near TTOR marker #64.
It is nearly invisible from the trail. The foundation is in deteriorated condition, some of
it having been destroyed by the large pine tree that is still disintegrating around it.
Limited field survey did not expose any sign of barn, yard fencing (walling) or well.
Significance: This is the earliest dated site in Brooks Woodland Preserve, and notable
for its distance from the village center. The location of the house indicates defensive
siting, with long views on all sides, including down a gentle slope to the head of
Connors’ Pond.
N.
Road by Reuben Stone house (HL)
Location: TTOR #63-69 to terminus of roadway east of Connor’s Pond. Coolidge [p.
72] refers to the discontinued Road from the Quaker Road to the east side of Connor’s Mill
Pond. It is indicated on the 1938 WPA map as a public road but earlier Petersham maps
(1855, 1857; 1898) do not indicate it.
Significance: This present-day trail has likely been used as a wood road since Reuben
Stone settled in the vicinity, and was probably improved and maintained by J. W.
Brooks’ heir John Fiske.
4.3 Areas with Prehistoric Site Potential
Little formal archeological research has been conducted in Petersham except in the
vicinity of the Quabbin Reservoir, but the finds of amateur investigators make it clear
that the area supported at least occasional occupation by Native Americans over a long
period of prehistory. One drawback of amateur investigations, however, is their
tendency to lack specific locational information: areas that may have been camp sites or
specialized resource procurement sites can only be vaguely identified. Consequently,
only a few probable prehistoric resource areas within The Trustees’ properties can be
identified, through a combination of artifact collectors’ reminiscences, and location of
clustered landscape features that are correlates of Native American occupation.
The likelihood of occupation of a particular area increases with the range and richness
of its natural resources. Petersham’s topography and environment, with the exception
Cultural Resources
4- 7
of the river valley that is now Quabbin Reservoir, suggest that few locations would ever
have served as long-term or large-scale prehistoric camp sites, although artifactual
evidence does confirm at least occasional occupation and land use. Based on these
considerations, the following locations should be considered as having moderate to high
potential for the presence of prehistoric cultural resources, and management of the
areas should be planned with appropriate caution.
ƒ
Swift River Tract: vicinity of ‘Indian Grinding Stones’; recorded as Massachusetts
Historical Commission site #396; labeled ‘winter camp’ on Petersham Historical
Society Map.
ƒ
Connor’s Pond Tract: Sherman writes: the boys in the valley often found stone
arrowheads when they were working in the fields….[1931; 57]
ƒ
Connor’s Pond Tract: area surrounding confluence Moccasin Brook & Swift River
(meets predictive criteria)
ƒ
Connor’s Pond Tract: north end of pond, especially south of Quaker Road (meets
predictive criteria). Bill Ellsworth located a camp, identified by hearths (and
artifacts?), in vicinity of TTOR #70 – 71. [Buell]
4.4 Conclusion
Even today, the town of Petersham is notable for the extent to which it has preserved
agrarian landscapes throughout the town. Most of these are in private hands –
maintained as open space, but not generally available for public use and enjoyment.
The Trustees of Reservations’ properties are obvious exceptions, offering the potential
for interpretation of this rare survival – the vernacular agrarian landscape – to a broad
public, together with evidence of the homes and barns that sheltered its creators.
Interpretive suggestions are discussed further in the management recommendations
(Section 9). Briefly, the Brooks Woodland cultural landscape offers significant
opportunities to engage:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
casual visitors via trail design, signage and interpretive literature.
organized groups from surrounding communities including Barre, Hardwick, Athol,
Worcester, and others through educational programming.
scholars and special interest groups via publications and field trips.
In conclusion, based on the historical research reported at length in the accompanying
Petersham land use history report, the cultural resources described above constitute a
rare, undeveloped agricultural landscape survival. In Secretary of the Interior (NPS)
terms:
Cultural Resources
4- 8
The Brooks Woodland Preserve historic resource area has a
high level of cultural significance at the local and regional
level, affording insight into early historic settlement
patterns, agricultural practices, and natural resource
manipulation and management. It shows excellent site
integrity and may be eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places.
4.5 Summary of Significant Threats
The extensive stone walls that criss-cross Brooks Woodland, together with the remains
of at least thirteen buildings, are the major features that provide evidence of man’s
impact on the area. The walls and foundations have proven remarkably stable over the
course of two hundred years. This can be attributed partially to a limited palette of land
uses and land ownership within the borders of the Preserve. It can also be partially
attributed to the simplicity with which they were assembled in the first place.
Most of the stone walls are what Thorson has termed “tossed walls”: not meticulously
constructed to support a structure or as a stand-alone barrier to livestock, but rather
to sketch ownership boundaries and provide a base for wooden (or later barbed wire)
fencing. The deepest of the building foundations is less than six feet, and they are
generally supported by the soil around them, or by boulder-reinforced terracing. The
dry laid foundations were constructed with stability, rather than style in mind, with the
exception of cut-granite finish courses on later houses such as Joseph Dudley’s.
Significantly, it is the finish work, including door steps, that show the most disturbance,
either from natural shifting or vandalism.
Certain threats are of general concern to Brooks Woodland stonework.
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
The most common threat is frost upheaval. This is less of a problem in thin-soiled,
well-drained areas than when rocks sit on a loam base.
Arborial and shrubby growth in wall lines eventually dislodges stones or whole
sections of the structure by root action, trunk expansion or the collapse of decaying
trees.
“Soil creep” – the process of earth moving downhill over long periods of time – will
eventually push over a sidehill wall.
Animal (accidental) and human (purposeful) interference will knock down or remove
wall components of varying sizes.
Human curiosity presents a particularly significant threat to archeological sites and to all
of the cultural resources of Brooks Woodland.
ƒ
Casual investigation of cellarholes can endanger both the visitor and the stability of
foundation stonework.
Cultural Resources
4- 9
ƒ
Looting of archeological sites in search of bottles, shards and other ‘treasures’
obviously results in ground disturbance and unsightly exploratory pits. Less
obviously, this uncontrolled excavation disturbs the cultural context of the site and
destroys vital information.
Another defining cultural feature of Brooks Woodland is its network of trails, woods
roads, and James Brooks’ driveways. Natural threats to the trails including erosion and
overgrowth are addressed elsewhere in this report. Human (cultural) threats include
vandalism and unauthorized use both as dumping sites and by recreational vehicles.
4.6 Summary of Significant Opportunities
•
Document the archeological and historic landscape. Completing and filing
inventory forms with both the Massachusetts Historical Commission and the
Petersham Historical Commission would make information available for local,
regional and statewide planning purposes, for educational initiatives, and as research
tools.
•
Interpret the property’s history and cultural resources to visitors. A
handful of the cultural resource sites found on the property are in difficult locations
or poor states of preservation, and are thus not recommended for specific
interpretive treatment or maintenance schedules (e.g., the Reuben Stone House).
Sites in good to very good condition which, together with the documentary
information that is known about them, offer excellent opportunities for
interpretation include the Spooner-Johnson Farm, the Marsh-Dudley House, and the
Dudley Farm. Interpretation of these sites can occur in various forms. One such
example is to develop a “quest” that highlights the different cultural and natural
resources in association with each other and guides the visitor in understanding
archeological sites and land use choices. The quest could be expanded beyond the
borders of Brooks Woodland, to also incorporate the other Trustees’ properties in
Petersham.
Cultural Resources
4- 10
Section 5: Natural Resources
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
Introduction
Methods
An Overview of the Natural Landscape
Regional Context and Open Space Setting
Watershed Setting
Geology and Soils
Plants and Community Types
Wildlife
Summary of Significant Natural Resources
Significant Threats
Significant Opportunities
Section 5: Natural Resources
5.1 Introduction
Brooks Woodland Preserve contains significant natural resources. These resources are
summarized in the following section and both their significance and any associated
threats highlighted to provide guidance for management recommendations. In addition
to existing reports, including documentation of the reservation’s land use history,
natural resource inventories were conducted to provide the basis for this description
and analysis. However, much additional work is needed to thoroughly document and
assess all the natural resources for Brooks Woodland.
5.2 Methods
Inventories to document breeding birds, plants, community types, and exotic invasive
plants were conducted by Trustees’ staff and volunteers in 2004. These inventories
supplemented existing information on natural resources collected and compiled in 1995
by students from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.1, 2 Other
sources of information include the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered
Species Program (MNHESP), Natural Resources and Conservation Services (NRCS),
MassGIS, and local experts familiar with Brooks Woodland and the surrounding area.
5.3 An Overview of the Natural Landscape
At more than 600 acres, Brooks Woodland Preserve is the largest Trustees’ property in
the Central Region. The landscape is representative of north central Massachusetts,
defined by rolling hills and river valleys that support a post-agricultural, second growth
forest dominated by oaks, white pine and hemlock. Typically, oak and white pine occur
together, but large areas of successional white pine cover much of the southern half of
the reservation while oak is especially dominant on the Roaring Brook Tract to the
north. Hemlock is common throughout, especially in the understory, but also occurs in
nearly pure stands, some composed of mature trees, on steep slopes in the Swift River
Tract. Several rare or unusual community types occur as smaller patches within the
overall forest matrix and include vernal pools, forest seeps, rich, mesic forest, and
hickory-hop hornbeam forest. Several small early successional openings are maintained
throughout the Swift River Tract as is the occasional small, roadside pasture and hay
field.
Aikenhead, E., R. Byard, G. Dicum, E. Galli-Noble, J. Mehta and L. Olander. 1995. Management Strategies for the
James W. Brooks Woodland Preserve. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies..
2 Aikenhead, E., R. Byard, G. Dicum, E. Galli-Noble, J. Mehta and L. Olander. 1995. Land use, biophysical, and
sociological information on the James W. Brooks Woodland Preserve. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies. 89 pages.
1
Natural Resources
5-1
A primary feature of the reservation is the East Branch of the Swift River. The Swift
River flows north to south through Brooks Woodland, bisecting the reservation.
Roaring Brook and Moccasin Brook, significant tributaries of the Swift River, drain the
northern and southern parts, respectively, of the reservation. Beavers are active along
rivers creating a dynamic network of wetland and aquatic habitats, including stands of
dead trees resulting from recent flooding. Beaver ponds and flowages create important
habitat for numerous wildlife and plants, including state-listed species. Where old
beaver dams have been abandoned or breached, rivers become shallow and meander
through open meadows.
5.4 Regional Context and Open Space Setting
Petersham and the surrounding communities are mostly rural with extensive forests;
open and agricultural lands are less common. Brooks Woodland is part of the Quabbin
Reservoir watershed. The Quabbin is the largest and deepest waterbody in
Massachusetts and, together with its protected watershed, represents the largest
protected area in Massachusetts (Map 5-1). Created in the 1930s as a municipal water
supply for Boston and associated municipalities, it has become an “accidental
wilderness” and one of the state’s most important areas for biodiversity preservation.
The Quabbin and the associated mosaic of protected conservation lands, including
Brooks Woodland Preserve, total more than 100,000 acres.
Other ecological designations include:
• Quabbin Reservoir Important Bird Area (IBA): The Massachusetts Audubon Society
has identified the Quabbin Reservoir and adjacent protected lands as an IBA.
Many rare and area-dependent species depend on the Quabbin, and its extensive
forests provide some of the best habitat for species dependent on interior
forests, especially neotropical migrants.3
3
•
Living Waters Core Habitat: All of the Swift River as it flows through the
reservation, Moccasin Brook as it flows through Brooks Woodland, and part of
Rutland Brook – including Connor’s and Mill Ponds- have been designated as
Core Habitat (see Map 5-2). Virtually all of the reservation and much of the
surrounding area has been designated as Supporting Watershed, area important
for maintaining the Core Habitat.
•
BioMap Core Habitat: All of reservation south of East Street and most of the
adjacent Swift River Reservation just downstream have been designated Core
Habitat (see Map 5-2). This designation is part of the largest Core Habitat
polygon in the state.
•
Priority Habitat: The reservation includes priority habitat for several rare species
important for statewide biodiversity protection.
Dave Small, personal communication
Natural Resources
5-2
Map 5-1: Regional Open Space
Natural Resources
5-3
Map 5-2: BioMap and Living Waters Data
Natural Resources
5-4
5.5 Watershed Setting
Brooks Woodland is entirely within the watershed of the East Branch of the Swift River,
the primary tributary of the Quabbin Reservoir. The watershed is mostly undeveloped
with forests covering most of the landscape and farms and residential development
scattered throughout. Much of the Swift River Tract is drained directly by the Swift
River which roughly bisects the reservation. The Roaring Brook Tract drains into the
Swift River via Roaring Brook while the southern part of the Swift River Tract is drained
by Moccasin Brook. A very small area of the reservation, mostly the Connor’s Pond
Tract, is drained by Rutland Brook before it empties into Connor’s Pond and the Swift
River. The Swift River then continues through the Swift River Reservation and on to
the Quabbin Reservoir downstream.
5.6 Geology and Soils4
Brooks Woodland is located within the Worcester/Monadnock Plateau Ecoregion.5
This area is very hilly and typically higher in elevation, and thus cooler, than the rest of
Central Massachusetts. As a result, species that are typically more northern in
distribution can be common. Elevations range from 500 feet to more than 1,400 feet
above sea level. Mt. Wachusett, at 2006 feet, is the highest point in this region.
Hardwick granite underlies all of Brooks Woodland and its surrounding area. This
granite formed during the Devonian age more than 360 million years ago when the
super continent of Laurentia collided with parts of Gondwana, resulting in the Acadian
mountain building event that created grand mountains similar to the modern European
Alps in central Massachusetts.6 With time and weathering, these mountains eventually
eroded. During the last glacial period, the Wisconsin ice sheet moved southeast across
what is now central Massachusetts exposing bedrock and depositing till, up to 15 feet
thick. Runnoff and erosion stratified these deposits as layers of sand and gravel (i.e.,
outwash) in the river valleys.
Topography generally influences the location of soil types at Brooks Woodland. Soils
located on drumlins include the Peru-Marlow Association, Peru fine sandy loam, Marlow
Loam, and Paxton fine sandy loam on gentle slopes, the Woodbridge-Paxton Association
on gentle to steep slopes, the Charlton-Paxton Association and Berkshire-Marlow
Association on steep slopes and the Charlton-Chatfield-Hollis Associations on the tops
of drumlins.7 These soils are derived from till and are typically well drained and support
forests of oaks, white pine and hemlock. However, some areas support hardpan that
NRCS. Soil Survey for Worcester County, MA Northwest Part, advance copy.
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, S.M. Pierson and C.W. Kiilsgaard. 1994. The Massachusetts ecological regions project.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory. Corvallis, OR. No. 17587-74-70.
6 Skehan, J.W. 2001. Roadside Geology of Massachusetts. Mountain Press Publishing Co. Missoula, MT.
7 Aikenhead, E., R. Byard, G. Dicum, E. Galli-Noble, J. Mehta and L. Olander. 1995. Land use, biophysical, and
sociological information on the James W. Brooks Woodland Preserve. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies. 89 pages.
4
5
Natural Resources
5-5
restricts water from penetrating much below the surface. Where hardpan occurs on
moderate to steep slopes, water generally can run off quickly. On gently sloping or flat
areas water can accumulate at or near the surface forming seeps or wetland conditions.
Although these poorly drained areas can occur on gently sloping “drumlin” soils, they
more commonly occur on the Ridgebury-Whitman Association in shallow drainages and
concave areas and can support a mix of upland and wetland species. Where fine
material and organic matter has accumulated, for example behind beaver dams and on
level areas along streams, Bucksport and Wonsqueak muck soils have accumulated and
support forested wetlands and open marshes. Finally, outwash, stratified sand and
gravel deposits formed directly from glacial meltwater, are found near the Swift River on
level areas and slopes less than 10%. These well drained soils with little to no organic
top soil and no hardpan typically support forests of successional white pine and
hemlock.
5.7 Plants and Community Types
Preliminary botanical investigations documented 184 plant species at Brooks Woodland
(see Appendix C). Future and more thorough investigations will add to this list. No
rare plants were observed and none are reported by the Massachusetts Natural
Heritage and Endangered Species Program (MNHESP) from within the reservation.
However, several rare plants are possible based on MNHESP records for the area
including climbing fumitory (T), climbing fern (SC), purple clematis (SC), and
muskflower (E). These species are possible where appropriate habitat exists at
Brooks Woodland and future surveys for these species may be beneficial. Several
unusual species of botanical interest have been observed and are discussed within the
community descriptions below.
Plants usually, but not always, occur in associations which are recognizable. These
associations, or communities, occur in response to a variety of physical and
environmental factors, such as underlying bedrock and surficial geology; topography
(e.g., slope gradient and orientation) or drainage patterns; altitude; latitude; light;
temperature; and the overall effect of any such factors on soil structure, moisture, and
richness. Disturbance patterns, including land use history, and chance are also
important factors. The proximity of seed sources, productivity within a given year,
predators, disease, browsing pressures, weather conditions (e.g. drought) and natural
disturbance (e.g. beavers and storm events) all influence what species colonize, survive
and even prosper in a given area over the short and long term.
The plant community names used in this section are based on the names used in
“Classification of the Natural Communities of Massachusetts” by MNHESP with some
modifications to reflect the uniqueness of Brooks Woodland and communities that fall
outside the scope of “natural” as defined by MNHESP.
MNHESP uses a “state rank” (SRANK) to indicate level of rarity and threat of plant
communities. Communities with a SRANK of S1-S3 are considered Priority Natural
Community Types (i.e., rare). The SRANKS are as follows:
Natural Resources
5-6
•
•
•
•
•
S1 = Typically 5 or fewer occurrences, very few remaining acres or miles of
stream, or especially vulnerable to extirpation.
S2 = Typically 6-20 occurrences, few remaining acres or miles of stream, or very
vulnerable to extirpation.
S3 = Typically 21-100 occurrences, limited acreage or miles of stream. Vernal
pools are given this rank because of the limited acreage that they represent.
S4 = Apparently secure.
S5 = Demonstrably secure.
While all of the factors described above have and continue to influence plant
communities at Brooks Woodland, land use has had one of the greatest and most visible
influences. Stone walls outline much of the property while internal walls, old roads, and
foundations are common. By the late 1700s and early 1800s, farmsteads dotted the
landscape and mills were established along the Swift River. At least five farmsteads and
one mill once occurred within the boundaries of the current reservation, with many
more occurring on adjacent parcels.8 Now abandoned, these farms and mills once
depended on cleared lands for agriculture and woodlots for building materials and fuel;
little, if any, lands went unaltered. A map from the 1830s indicates little to no forest
occurred within the area of what is today Brooks Woodland Preserve. With the
decline of agriculture and the advent of alternative fuels (e.g., coal), the landscape
reverted back to forest and by the 1930s much of what is Brooks Woodland today was
classified as merchantable or potentially merchantable timber.9 Assuming the trees
were at least pole-sized, this suggests much of the area was abandoned around the turn
of the 20th century or sooner.
The patchwork of historical land ownership coupled with changing land use over time
(e.g., non-synchronous farm abandonment and forest cutting) has produced a mosaic of
forest community types in various stages of development and species composition.
Therefore, classifying this mosaic can be as much an art as it is science and, in some
cases, classification represents a “best fit” with the MNHESP classifications.
Of the communities described in this section the following are the most ecologically
significant because of either the rare or uncommon nature of the community itself,
and/or because of the presence (documented and potential) of rare and unusual species:
• Hickory-Hop Hornbeam Forest (S2)
• Rich, Mesic Forest (S3) and Circumneutral Talus Forest/Woodland (S3)
• Vernal Pools (S3)
• Networks of rivers and beaver ponds and their associated mosaic of aquatic and
wetland habitats include:
o Deep Emergent Marsh (S4)
o Shallow Emergent Marsh (S4)
Tritsch, E.K. 2005. I wish I were in the woods: The Historic Landscapes of Brooks Woodland Preserve, North
Common Meadow, Swift River Reservation, Petersham, Massachusetts. The Trustees of Reservations: Leominster,
MA.
9 1938 WPA land classification map.
8
Natural Resources
5-7
o Wet Meadow (S4)
o Low Energy Riverbank (S4)
o Shrub Swamp (S5)
Many, but not all, community types at Brooks Woodland match those described by the
Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (MNHESP).10 In some
cases, the match is based primarily on the concept and environmental setting with
species descriptions varying from those described by MNHESP. Rare and unusual
species are shown in bold font where they first appear in this subsection. Plants are
named only by their common name where that is unambiguous. Where scientific names
are used to avoid confusion, they follow the nomenclature of Sorrie and Somers.11 See
Map 5-3 for plant community locations.
5.7.1 Forests
Rich, Mesic Forest (S3)/ Circumneutral Talus Forest/Woodland (S3)
These priority community types occur together on the east and south facing slopes of
the Tumbledown, an impressive rock outcrop near the middle of the reservation.
Slopes are steep, up to 45 degrees, and covered in rocks, large boulders and talus. This
area includes elements that closely resemble Circumneutral Talus Forest/Woodland
(S3), especially the mid- to upper slopes where vines and ferns are abundant, growing
over and between rocks, but also areas of Rich, Mesic Forest characterized by a dense
herbaceous cover of rich “indicator” species (e.g., blue cohosh). Although these
communities cover a relatively small area, their distinguishing characteristic is their
diversity of plants, especially herbaceous species, that are uncommon or absent
elsewhere in Brooks Woodland. Although no rare species were observed, state-listed
species documented from nearby areas (e.g., purple clematis and climbing
fumitory) are possible. Deer browse is abundant and may threaten the long-term
viability of plant diversity. Past agricultural use of this area is unlikely due to the steep
slopes and abundant, large boulders. As a result, this area may have served as a refugia
for many plants, helping to explain the unusual diversity of this community.
The canopy and shrub layers are variable. Trees are typically straight and tall, up to 100
feet. Characteristic species include white ash, sugar maple, yellow birch and basswood
but also butternut and shagbarck hickories. Some trees are quite large, suggesting
infrequent cutting. Witch-hazel, ironwood and hop hornbeam are occasional in the
understory. Shrubs are uncommon and include maple-leaved viburnum and common
elderberry. Japanese barberry is beginning to colonize. Vines and low creeping shrubs
are common. Skunk currant, poison ivy, Virginia creeper and purple-flowering
raspberry form dense patches between and on boulders. The ground cover of herbs is
both very diverse and dense (80 – 100%), setting this community apart from others at
Brooks Woodland. Species diversity is high and includes blue cohosh, spikenard, white
and red baneberry, maidenhair fern, columbine, Jack-in-the-pulpit, bottlebrush-grass,
Swain, P.C. and J.B. Kearsley. 2000. Classifications of the natural communities of Massachusetts. Natural Heritage
& Endangered Species Program, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Westborough, MA.
11 Sorrie, B.A. and P. Somers. 1999. The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist. Massachusetts
Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program.
10
Natural Resources
5-8
blunt-lobed hepatica, foamflower, red trillium, lance-leaved wild licorice, fringed
bindweed, broad-leaved woodland sedge (Carex platyphylla), early saxifrage, fragile fern,
and violets. Many of these species are rich indicators suggesting the exposed bedrock
and/or groundwater at this location may be calcareous.
Hickory-Hop Hornbeam Forest (S2)
A small patch of this priority community type occurs on a south facing slope adjacent to
the Tumbledown. Canopy species are variable and include shagbark hickory, red and
sugar maples, and white ash. Hop hornbeam is common in the understory and shrubs
are mostly absent, giving this community an open, park-like feel. Sedges and other lowgrowing herbs carpet the ground. Pennsylvania sedge and hay-scented fern are the
dominant species. Other species include wild sarsaparilla, Virginia creeper, bottlebrush
grass and other sedges. Violets, including downy yellow and dog, are visible in spring.
This community blends into the adjacent Rich, Mesic Forest. Stonewalls and rock piles
occur just upslope of this community, suggesting past agricultural use (e.g., pasture).
Although no rare species were observed, this community type is known to support rare
species and future botanical surveys at the reservation may result in their discovery.
Successional White Pine Forest (S5)
This is perhaps the most common community type at Brooks Woodland. Successional
White Pine Forest covers much of the reservation south of East Street and east of the
Swift River. Other patches occur on the Roaring Brook Tract north of East Street.
This community is best developed on well-drained sandy soils and areas that were likely
cultivated at one time. White pine is dominant and trees are even-aged with multipletrunked trees common, likely the result of white pine weevil damage when trees were
young. Trees are closely spaced and although occasional individuals exceed 24 inches in
diameter, 12 inches is more typical. Hardwoods, including red oak, black cherry, beech,
red and sugar maples, are scattered throughout. The understory is typically sparse but
hemlock, black birch and red maple are establishing in places. Balsam fir and red spruce
are present in the understory in the area just east of the cemetery on the Roaring
Brook Tract, likely pioneers from trees planted in the cemetery. Hazelnut, highbush
blueberry and maple-leaved viburnum are variable throughout with low blueberry
occurring in drier locations. Herbs and groundcovers are sparse and patchy (<25%).
Wintergreen, Canada mayflower, partridge berry, wild sarsaparilla, hay-scented fern,
clubmosses, dwarf dogwood, trailing arbutus, wood-ferns (Dryopteris spp.), wild oats,
bracken fern, star flower, and woodgrass (Brachyelytrum) are common plants.
A plantation of red and white pine occurs along the northern edge of the reservation.
This plantation is similar to the Successional White Pine Forest in both structure and
species composition. The primary differences are that trees were planted in rows and
red pine is a dominant species. Although native to the region, red pine is not growing
naturally at Brooks Woodland and is not reproducing. Understory and ground layers
are sparse but include species found throughout the Successional White Pine Forest.
Exotic, invasive shrubs including Japanese barberry, burning bush and Asiatic bittersweet
are common in the plantation understory.
Natural Resources
5-9
Map 5-3: Plant Communities at Brooks Woodland
Natural Resources
5-10
Oak-Hickory Forest (S4)
This community is variable and includes areas where hickories are mostly absent. OakHickory Forest is common on well-drained hillsides throughout Brooks Woodland. It
covers much of the Roaring Brook Tract and smaller areas occur on the Swift River
Tract. Rock outcrops are common, suggesting these areas may have served as
woodlots or pastures in the past. Stumps, probably white pine since few hardwoods are
multiple-trunked, are present in most areas indicating that forest cutting has occurred.
Although species composition is variable, red oak is usually the dominant species with
white oak and shagbark hickory less common. A few red maples, black birch and beech
are scattered throughout. White pines, some very large and in excess of 40 inches in
diameter, are occasional and emergent above the oak canopy. Species in the subcanopy
and understory vary but typically red maple, black birch and white pine are the most
common. In some locations hickory is common. Hemlock and beech are uncommon.
Chestnut is typically present and characteristic of this community type, indicating these
areas were likely forested before the chestnut blight swept through the region in the
early 1900s, effectively reducing chestnut to an understory shrub and occasional canopy
species. Shrubs are sparse and include hazelnut, highbush blueberry, maple-leaf
viburnum, patches of low blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolia and V. pallidum) and saplings of
canopy species. Mountain laurel is occasional. Ground cover is highly variable and
includes species typical of acidic forests. Many species are common to other
communities at Brooks Woodland, especially the Successional White Pine Forest.
Common species include Canada Mayflower, Pennsylvania sedge, partridgeberry, wild
sarsaparilla, hay-scented fern, wintergreen, bracken fern, Indian cucumber root,
woodgrass (Brachyelytrum), dewberry, wild oats, Indian pipe, pink lady slipper and various
sedges. Hay-scented fern, in particular, can form dense patches that exclude other
species.
Oak-Hemlock-White Pine Forest (S5)
This community occurs along riparian areas and on west- and north-facing hillsides on
the Swift River Tract. The canopy is closed and trees are typically mature and larger
than those in surrounding communities. The largest trees occur along river terraces,
likely reflecting the excellent growing conditions rather than age. Many of the oaks are
multiple-trunked, indicating past disturbance such as forest cutting or storm damage
(e.g., 1938 hurricane).
White pine and hemlock are the dominant canopy species and red oak is common.
Both black and white birch are occasional. Trees are tall, up to 100 feet, with diameters
of more than 30 inches common. Hemlock can occur in nearly pure stands within this
community but more typically as a component. It is typically the only subcanopy and
understory species with the exception of the occasional black birch. Due to the dense
shade from the canopy, shrubs and herbaceous plants are sparse. The few understory
plants that do occur include wood-ferns (Dryopteris spp.), Christmas fern, wild
sarsaparilla, Canada mayflower, clubmosses, and goldthread.
Natural Resources
5-11
Red Oak-Sugar Maple Transition Forest (S4)
This is a poorly defined community at Brooks Woodland that includes a mix of
hardwoods. Oaks and maples typically dominate but species composition varies
between sites and includes a variety of other hardwoods and softwoods, especially
white pine. The canopy is generally closed and trees are even-aged. The largest
example of this community type occurs on the western half of the Swift River Tract on
fairly flat terrain and a north-facing slope. Smaller areas occur along Quaker Drive and
throughout the reservation but as patches typically too small and too poorly defined to
map.
At Brooks Woodland, sugar maple is generally not a dominant canopy species. Instead,
red maple is typically dominant along with red oak and black birch. White pine is
common. Other occasional canopy species include white ash, basswood and shagbark
hickory. Sub-canopies typically include canopy species, especially red maple and black
birch, but also white pine. Shade-tolerant hemlock and beech are occasional. The
understory is variable and typically includes species of the canopy but also patches of
ericaceous shrubs and the occasional chestnut. Balsam fir is occasional in the
understory on north-facing slopes. Ground cover is variable but typically greater than
50% and includes large patches of hay-scented fern as well as clubmosses, Canada
mayflower, wintergreen, Pennsylvania sedge, and a host of common forest species.
Mesic Forest (Not described by MNHESP)
This community grades between drier Oak-Hickory Forest and wetter Red Maple
Swamp along broad drainages on the Roaring Brook Tract. This community is
essentially a transition zone on moderately drained soils and may be described as seepy
woods. Groundwater may be near or at the surface seasonally due to fragipan soils (i.e.,
hardpan). The canopy and shrub layers can be similar to the Red Maple Swamp but
species diversity is higher; white ash, red oak and yellow birch are more common here
than in the Red Maple Swamp. White pine is uncommon and hemlock absent.
Winterberry, highbush blueberry and witch-hazel are sparse throughout. Low
ericaceous shrubs are absent. Japanese barberry is particularly abundant in this
community, especially on the northernmost section of the Roaring Brook Tract.
Understory species are more reflective of upland. Common species include hay-scented
fern, woodgrass (Brachyelytrum), wild oats, Canada mayflower, wild sarsaparilla, woodferns (Dryopteris spp.), New York fern and both cinnamon and sensitive ferns where
conditions are wetter.
Natural Resources
5-12
5.7.2 Wetlands
Red Maple Swamp (S5)
This is a highly variable community at Brooks Woodland occurring in isolated
depressions where groundwater is at or near the surface seasonally and along
intermittent and perennial drainages. Although not specifically mapped, very narrow red
maple swamps can be expected wherever streams occur. The larger streams and rivers
more frequently support well-defined banks that support upland vegetation, except
where beaver ponds occur. Red maple is dominant in the canopy and white pine can be
common, especially where slightly higher ground occurs within the swamp. Elm, white
ash and other hardwoods are occasional associates, especially along drainages and
swamp margins. Witch-hazel can be common in the understory and shrubs include
highbush blueberry, wild raisin, arrowwood, winterberry and mountain-holly.
Herbaceous cover is typically dense and includes swamp saxifrage, hellebore, jewelweed,
sensitive fern, lady fern, cinnamon fern, cowslip, marsh violet, goldthread, and marsh
fern; sphagnum is common in depressions. Cinnamon fern is frequently common,
forming dense stands. Dewdrop (Dalibarda repens) is uncommon, growing in the trail
near the northern end of the swamp on the west side of the Swift River Tract.
Although fairly common in Petersham and northern Worcester County,12 dewdrop is
considered rare in Connecticut and Rhode Island.13 Vernal pools are occasional in
depressions within Red Maple Swamps. Red Maple Swamp grades into the mesic forest
community along drainages, especially on the Roaring Brook Tract.
Forest Seep Community (S4)
Seeps occur throughout Brooks Woodland, especially on the Connor’s Pond Tract,
where groundwater breaks the surface, sometimes forming intermittent streams but
more commonly, seasonal wet areas. Seeps provide potential habitat for muskflower
(E) and four-toed salamander (SC), rare species documented at nearby areas.
Canopies are similar to those of surrounding forests but frequently white ash, red
maple, basswood, or yellow birch occur along the margins. Understories are very
different from adjacent uplands and support many wetland species. Shrubs include
arrowwood, winterberry, ironwood and American mountain-ash. Groundcover and
herbaceous species that characterize these wetlands include sphagnum, sensitive fern,
Jack-in-the-pulpit, jewelweed, golden ragwort, lady fern, goldthread, marsh violet,
Pennsylvania bittercress, swamp pennywort, swamp saxifrage, cowslip, foamflower,
water avens, crested wood-fern, spinulose wood-fern and several grasses and sedges.
Dewdrop (Dalibarda repens) occasionally occurs along seep margins.
Vernal Pools (S3)
The classic vernal pool, characterized by an isolated water-filled depression free of
vegetation and surrounded by upland forest, is uncommon at Brooks Woodland.
Where they do occur, vernal pools, or rather vernal pool habitat, typically occurs within
forested wetlands confined to basins where deeper water accumulates. These swamps
typically have red maple in the canopy and wetland shrubs in various densities. A very
Glenn Motzkin, personal communication
Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Field Guide in Southern New England. Southern New England Forest
Consortium, Inc. Chepachet, RI.
12
13
Natural Resources
5-13
informal and incomplete survey of potential vernal pool habitat in the spring of 2004
identified Spotted Salamander (WL) and/or Wood Frog egg masses in these pools,
indicating they function as important habitat for amphibians. During “wet years”
additional areas subject to flooding may serve as vernal pool habitat. However, although
these areas may temporarily hold water and attract obligate species (e.g., spotted
salamanders), the ephemeral nature of these flooded areas may not provide viable
vernal pool habitat even during wet years. For example, in 2005, a wet year, desiccated
amphibian egg masses were observed in several dried-up areas that had been flooded
earlier.
Beaver Ponds and Meadows
These areas include a dynamic mosaic of Deep Emergent Marsh (S4), Shallow Emergent
Marsh (S4), Wet Meadow (S4), Low Energy Riverbank (S4), Shrub Swamp (S5) and
recently inundated areas of upland and forested swamps. These communities grade into
each other depending upon hydrology and time of the last flooding. Rivers typically
meander through “meadows” creating gravel bars, shallow pools, riffle habitat and a
variety of additional micro-habitats important for aquatic wildlife, including fresh water
mussels. Beavers are the most dynamic and recent influence on this mosaic and new
ponds are actively created while older ponds are abandoned. A “log jam” at the
Sackett’s Harbor Bridge resulted in flooding that killed many trees just upstream and
created additional “meadow.” These areas are important wildlife habitat, especially for
invertebrates including rare dragonflies. Beaver ponds and meadows also provide
potential habitat for rare marsh birds such as American bittern (E).
Where beavers are currently creating ponds, Deep Emergent Marsh often occurs,
especially around the margins of these ponds. This most developed community of this
type is located around the pond on the Roaring Brook Tract where a dense band of
cattails and water lilies grow. Flooded, forested wetlands and adjacent uplands support
standing snags and wetland shrubs such as meadowsweet, elderberry, alder, arrowwood
and sweet gale in association with emergent herbaceous plants. Tussock sedge,
meadowsweet and arrowwood are dominant in specific locations (e.g., Rutland Brook).
Broad, Shallow Emergent Marsh or “meadows” occur along the Swift River and
Moccasin Brook, the result of past flooding from beavers and where dams have been
breeched or abandoned, allowing water levels to recede. A diverse mixture of grasses
and wildflowers characterize these areas. Common species include boneset, beggarticks, cardinal flower, tearthumb, jewelweed, asters, goldenrods (especially grass-leaved
goldenrod), monkey flower, Joe-Pye-weeds, royal fern, swamp candles, blue vervain,
marsh St. John’s-wort, and graminoids including rice cut-grass, Canada bluejoint, sedges
and rushes. Bur-reed, arrowhead and pond weeds (Potamogeton spp.) typically grow in
adjacent areas of shallow standing water and along riverbanks. Exotic, invasives are rare
and virtually absent. A few glossy buckthorns (Rhamnus fragula) are growing on beaver
dams but, amazingly, purple loosestrife appears to be absent.
Natural Resources
5-14
5.7.3 Non-Forested Communities
Cultural Grassland (No SRank)
These areas are small and differ from the Early Successional/Old Field areas in that they
are actively maintained through agriculture (grazing and haying) and are dominated by
cool-season grasses. Like the early successional areas, these grasslands provide habitat
that is essentially missing from the rest of the reservation. However, larger and more
significant grassland habitat occurs on adjacent lands (e.g., North Common Meadow).
Nevertheless, these fields provide habitat for invertebrates and other wildlife, as well as
habitat for plants that require abundant light and frequent disturbance.
Exotic, cool-season grasses (e.g., orchard grass) are common and mostly dominant.
Herbs include asters (e.g., New England, New York and bushy asters), plantains,
goldenrods, clovers, hawkweeds, spreading dogbane, bedstraws and common milkweed.
Invasives are absent although one autumn olive bush was observed growing in the
middle of the small pasture at the intersection of East and Oliver Streets. This bush was
severely browsed by cattle.
Early Successional/Old Field (Not described by MNHESP)
This community is highly variable at Brooks Woodland and is perhaps better thought of
as a habitat. These early successional areas are maintained through infrequent
mowing/brush-hogging. Examples of this community include the farmstead and entrance
area off Quaker Drive, Surprise Meadow and Burns Pasture. These areas are small,
typically less than one acre, but provide habitat that is rare at Brooks Woodland.
Although too small to provide habitat for grassland nesting birds, butterflies can be
common and some plants are unique to these areas.
Species composition differs from site to site. Trees are mostly absent although a few
trees, including apple trees, have been selectively maintained throughout the Quaker
Drive entrance opening. The infrequent mowing of these areas has allowed shrubs and
forbs to dominate, unlike the Cultural Grasslands where grasses dominate. Common
shrubs include low blueberry, chokecherry, blackberries, poison ivy, meadowsweet, and
saplings of various trees including black cherry, aspen, white pine and oaks.
Meadowsweet is particularly abundant at Burns Pasture where it covers more than 20%
of the field; low blueberry is especially abundant at Surprise Meadow. Exotic, invasive
species including Morrow’s honeysuckle and common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica)
are limited to the entrance area off Quaker Drive. Herbaceous cover can be dense and
include goldenrods, asters, clovers, common milkweed and grasses including little
bluestem and poverty grass (Dantonia spicata). Some species (e.g., downy goldenrod)
are limited to these early successional openings.
Natural Resources
5-15
5.8 Wildlife
Brooks Woodland is located within the Quabbin Region, one of the least developed
regions in the state, and includes an impressive network of protected lands, including
the Quabbin Reservoir, Massachusetts’ largest contiguous area of protected land.
Because Brooks Woodland is part of this network, it helps support populations of large
and wide-ranging species including, bear, moose and bobcat. Furthermore, the
reservation, like the region, supports extensive forest habitat important for a variety of
forest species, especially many Neotropical migrant birds, and buffers many lakes and
rivers, especially the Swift River, allowing for excellent water quality and pristine habitat
for aquatic and wetland species. Documented and potential rare species14 appear in
bold font as they first appear in the text.
5.8.1 Birds
Brooks Woodland Preserve provides habitat for many breeding and migrating species of
birds, especially those dependent on forest habitats. Nearly 60 species were recorded
at the reservation during a breeding bird survey in 2004 (Table 5-1).15 Forest dependent
species are the most abundant and include many Neotropical migrants, a group thought
to be declining globally. Wetland species are also common due to the many rivers and
beaver ponds on the property. Several area-dependent species were observed,
indicating the reservation’s more than 600 acres help to support area populations of
these species. Of particular note is the possibility that turkey vultures breed at the
reservation. Turkey vultures were routinely observed at the Tumbledown, an area of
large boulders and rock outcrops, throughout 2004 and immature vultures have been
observed at this location in previous years.16 No state-listed, rare species were
observed but three watch-listed species were recorded – common raven (WL), least
flycatcher (WL) and red-shouldered hawk (WL). American bittern (E) is a
potential breeder since the appropriate habitat exists on the reservation.
Many additional species have been observed at the property over the years.17 Although
the status of these species at Brooks Woodland is unknown, as no specific data has
been collected, many of these species are migrants (e.g., Wilson’s warbler) passing
through on their way north or south. Others, however, are likely breeding and
assumptions on their status can be made based on existing habitat and regional
population trends. For example, both American woodcock and barred owl should be
present and breeding even though they were not recorded during the breeding bird
survey. These species are generally common where habitat exists but are typically
crepuscular or nocturnal. Thus, surveys need to be conducted when these species are
active or they can be easily overlooked.
14 Rare species include those listed by the state as Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern as well as WatchListed species.
15 Buelow, C. and R. Hopping. 2004. Brooks Woodland Preserve: Breeding Bird Survey, Petersham, MA. The
Trustees of Reservations.
16 Chris Buelow, personal communication.
17 Aikenhead, E., R. Byard, G. Dicum, E. Galli-Noble, J. Mehta and L. Olander. 1995. Land use, biophysical, and
sociological information on the James W. Brooks Woodland Preserve. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies. 89 pages.
Natural Resources
5-16
The reservation occurs at the junction of two Partners in Flight (PIF)18 physiographic
areas, Northern New England and Southern New England.19 Many of the documented
species are PIF priority species; these species, which appear in bold face in Table 5.1,
represent species needing conservation action within physiographic regions. While
these are typically species which are perceived to be vulnerable based on their
population levels (i.e., rare species), they can also be species for which Massachusetts
represents important breeding habitat range-wide.20 Three such species include wood
thrush, black-throated blue warbler and Canada warbler; all require dense understory as
preferred habitat. The blackburnian warbler requires mature mixed or coniferous
forests and the abundance of these habitats explains why this warbler is common at
Brooks Woodland.
In some cases, species recorded at Brooks Woodland have specific habitat
requirements. For example, chestnut-sided warbler requires early successional habitat,
an uncommon habitat at Brooks Woodland and one that typically requires active
management to create and maintain. The absence of this habitat at Brooks Woodland
explains why only one chestnut-sided warbler was observed during the 2004 survey.
Overall, however, the majority of priority species documented at Brooks Woodland are
dependent on forest habitat, especially mature forest or forests with dense understories
suggesting early successional habitat should not be a management objective at Brooks
Woodland. Little to no active management is needed to maintain forest habitats at the
reservation.
Rare species found at Brooks Woodland have some habitat preferences. Least
flycatchers prefer open deciduous woods and early successional habitats.21 Deep forest
habitat, especially with dense understory, is not typically occupied. Least flycatchers
were observed occasionally on the eastern side of the Roaring Brook Tract in open
deciduous forest during 2004. This species can be locally common in the Petersham
area.22 Common ravens were also occasionally observed at Brooks Woodland
throughout 2004. They are increasing in abundance in Massachusetts and may be
breeding nearby, if not at Brooks Woodland. Ravens prefer cliffs and ledges, habitat
missing at Brooks Woodland, but also nest in mature treetops. Red-shouldered hawks
were rarely observed at Brooks Woodland in 2004. However, after April, this species
becomes very quiet and secretive, making it difficult to detect. Secluded swamps and
18 PIF is a collaborative of federal, state, and local agencies, philanthropic foundations, professional organizations,
conservation groups, industry, the academic community, and private individuals engaged in bird conservation.
19 http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/pifplans.htm
20 Blodget, B.G. 1995. Overview of Mass. Priority NTMB Species. Memorandum to Mass. Partners in Flight Working
Group.
21 Blodget, B. G. in Petersen, W.R. and W.R. Meservey, Eds. 2003. Massachusetts Breeding Bird Atlas. Massachusetts
Audubon Society, University of Massachusetts Press. Amherst, MA. 441 pages.
22 Glenn Motzkin, personal communication.
Natural Resources
5-17
Table 5-1: Results from 2004 Breeding Bird Survey
(Bold species are PIF priority species; capitalized species represent PIF focus species)
Total
Individuals
88
29
28
26
17
12
11
10
10
10
9
9
9
Relative
Abun.
3.14
1.04
1.00
0.93
0.61
0.43
0.39
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.32
0.32
0.32
Common Grackle
Yellow-rumped Warbler
American Robin
Red-breasted Nuthatch
Song Sparrow
Tufted Titmouse
Black and White Warbler
Eastern Wood Pewee
Hermit Thrush
Swamp Sparrow
BLACK-TH. BLUE
WARB.
8
8
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
0.29
0.29
0.25
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
4
0.14
Common Yellowthroat
Hairy Woodpecker
Mourning Dove
4
4
4
0.14
0.14
0.14
Yellow Warbler
American Crow
CANADA WARBLER
Chipping Sparrow
4
3
3
3
0.14
0.11
0.11
0.11
Species
Ovenbird
Red-eyed Vireo
Black-throated Gr. Warbler
Veery
BLACKBURNIAN WARB.
Black-capped Chickadee
Scarlet Tanager
Blue-headed Vireo
Blue jay
Red-winged Blackbird
Brown Creeper
White-breasted Nuthatch
WOOD THRUSH
Natural Resources
Species
Gray Catbird
Broad-winged Hawk
Cedar Waxwing
Downey Woodpecker
Pileated Woodpecker
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Winter Wren
Yellow-throated Vireo
Alder Flycatcher
American Goldfinch
American Redstart
Br.-headed Cowbird
Common Raven (WL)
CHESTNUT-SIDED
WARB.
Eastern Kingbird
Eastern Phoebe
House Wren
Northern Cardinal
Pine Warbler
Ruffed Grouse
Tree Swallow
Warbling Vireo
Total
Individuals
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Relative
Abun.
0.11
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
Additional Species
Observed
Belted Kingfisher
Least Flycatcher (WL)
Red-shouldered Hawk
(WL)
Turkey Vulture
Yellow-b. Sapsucker
5-18
lowland forest, as well as beaver ponds, are preferred habitat.23 Red-shouldered hawks
are likely breeding on the reservation. American bitterns (E) are confirmed breeders in
Petersham.24 The larger marshes along the Swift River and Moccasin Brook as well as
beaver ponds with dense emergent marsh plants may provide habitat for these secretive
birds. Pied-billed grebe, another secretive, endangered marsh bird, prefers a mix of
dense marsh and open water. Habitat for grebes may exist at the beaver pond on the
Roaring Brook Tract.
The abundance and density (i.e., relative abundance) of forest-dependent species at
Brooks Woodland, along with the presence of wide-ranging species, indicates the
reservation provides important habitat for birds. The importance of this forest habitat
has resulted in an Important Bird Area (IBA) designation.25 This designation was made,
in part, because the extensive forest habitat of which Brooks Woodland is a part,
provides important habitat for many species, particularly Neotropical migrants that
require interior forest habitat.26
Threats to existing breeding birds at Brooks Woodland are minimal since most species
are associated with forest habitat or wetlands, habitats that appear to be reasonably
secure both within and adjacent to the reservation. However, hemlock woolly adelgid,
an exotic insect that can be lethal to hemlocks, has the potential to dramatically alter
forest habitat and bird species composition at the reservation in the future. Species
most at risk include black-throated green and blackburnian warblers, species that prefer
mature hemlock as habitat and two of the most abundant breeding species at Brooks
Woodland. Threats from forest habitat fragmentation are minimal due to the extent of
protected land adjacent to Brooks Woodland. Harvard Forest, Massachusetts Audubon
Society and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR)
maintain forest cover as management priorities.
5.8.2 Invertebrates
Not much is known about invertebrates at Brooks Woodland. Habitat for butterflies is
limited since the reservation is predominately forested. Important habitats for
butterflies include the few small fields and, more important, the large shallow emergent
marshes and wet meadows along the Swift River and Moccasin Brook. These areas
support abundant grasses, sedges and wildflowers important to butterflies as larval host
plants and as nectar sources. At least eight species of butterflies, all common to the
region, were observed on the property in 2004. Additional species should be expected
but rarities are unlikely given the existing habitats.
The extensive network of rivers, streams and wetlands on the reservation has been
designated as Living Waters Core Habitat by MNHESP because it contains exemplary
MacDonald, J. in Petersen, W.R. and W.R. Meservey, Eds. 2003. Massachusetts Breeding Bird Atlas. Massachusetts
Audubon Society, University of Massachusetts Press. Amherst, MA. 441 pages. in office.
24 MNHESP data.
25 MAS IBA webite: http://www.massaudubon.org/Birds_&_Beyond/IBAs/sites.php
26 Dave Small, personal communication.
23
Natural Resources
5-19
aquatic habitat, indicative of an ecosystem with few negative human-caused impacts.
The extensive undeveloped and protected lands along the Swift River and Moccasin
Brook allow for high-quality freshwater habitats that support a diversity of aquatic
invertebrates including ecologically-sensitive aquatic insects (e.g., mayflies, stoneflies and
caddisflies), rare dragonflies and fresh water mussels.
Odonates (dragonflies and damselflies) are common in wetlands and along trails at
Brooks Woodland. At least 15 species were observed in 2004.27 The Swift River and
its tributaries provide critical habitat for the state-listed harpoon clubtail (E) and
beaverpond clubtail (SC). Five fresh water mussel species are known from the Swift
River including the state-listed Eastern pearshell (E), triangle floater (SC) and
creeper (SC).28 The cool, clean water of the Swift River, together with its diverse river
habitats explain this abundance of mussels. Some species prefer fast flowing sections of
river with gravel substrates while others prefer slower moving waters where silt
accumulates. Water quality is a critical factor for mussel diversity since some of the fish
host species require cool, clean waters (e.g., trout).
5.8.3 Amphibians and Reptiles
Eight species of amphibians and three species of reptiles were observed during 2004 at
Brooks Woodland. Additional species common to central Massachusetts should be
expected. Observed amphibians include American toad, gray tree frog, spring peeper,
green frog, wood frog, red-backed salamander, red-spotted newt and spotted
salamander (WL). Red efts, the terrestrial form of the red-spotted newt, are
frequently encountered along trails, especially after rain. Both spotted salamanders and
wood frogs are vernal pool obligates. Vernal pools are uncommon at Brooks
Woodland and, thus, obligate species are not likely to be common. Little or no
management is needed for vernal pool species other than protecting the pools from
disturbance and maintaining surrounding forest habitat.
Painted turtle, Northern brown snake and garter snake were the only reptile species
observed in 2004. The brown snake was observed in the Hickory-Hop Hornbean
Forest. A wood turtle (SC) was observed at Burns Pasture in June of 2005.29 Wood
turtles prefer slower moving perennial streams with sandy bottoms and heavily
vegetated banks, while well-drained areas are used for nesting.30 Box turtle (SC) has
been reported from adjacent lands and should be expected at Brooks Woodland. Box
turtles use a variety of habitats including deciduous woodlands, marshy meadows and
old fields. The loss of habitat to development and habitat fragmentation from roads is
the greatest threats to box turtle populations.31 Suitable habitat exists for both turtles
at Brooks Woodland. Blue-spotted Salamander (SC) and four-toed salamander
(SC) possibly occur at Brooks Woodland. Blue-spotted salamanders require vernal pool
Odonates reported by Chris Buelow.
MNHESP. Revised 2005. BioMap and Living Waters, Core Habitats of Petersham.
29 Chris Ward, Property Superintendent, personal communication.
30 Fowle, S. 2001. Guidelines for Protecting Wood Turtles and their Habitats in Massachusetts. MNHESP.
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.
31 MNHESP fact sheet.
27
28
Natural Resources
5-20
habitat while four-toed salamanders require wetlands with abundant sphagnum, seeps
and areas within swamps. Neither habitat is at risk on the reservation.
5.8.4 Mammals
Many species of mammals have been observed at Brooks Woodland and all the common
species should be expected. Tracking surveys conducted during February 2003
documented 11 species.32 An additional 13 species are listed as being observed at the
reservation in a 1995 Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies report.33
Beaver are active throughout the reservation. Beaver ponds/flowages are prominent
along the Swift River, Moccasin Brook, Rutland Brook where it enters Connor’s Pond,
and the southern part of the Roaring Brook Tract. The activity of this keystone species
is very beneficial to other wildlife (e.g., turtles and marsh-nesting birds). The large area
of Brooks Woodland coupled with the extensive, adjacent protected lands help to
support populations of wide-ranging species dependent on large areas of habitat and
include otter, bobcat, fisher, coyote, moose and black bear. Water shrews (SC) have
been documented in the area and may occur at Brooks Woodland. This species, the
largest of shrews in Massachusetts, prefers fast moving, rocky streams with adjacent
woodland.34 Habitat for the water shrew is common at Brooks Woodland and should be
secure as long as forest cover and water quality is maintained.
5.9
Summary of Significant Natural Resources
Brooks Woodland supports the following important natural resources and ecological
functions:
• Contains extensive forest habitat important for wide-ranging species and species
dependent on forest interior habitat, especially Neotropical migrant birds, many
of which are priority species for conservation.
• Much of the reservation is designated Living Waters and BioMap Core Habitat
or Supporting Natural Landscape and Watershed.
• Provides watershed protection for the Quabbin Reservoir.
• The reservation is large enough to accommodate natural processes (e.g., beaver
activity and storm damage) important for sustaining biodiversity.
• Contains several uncommon and priority community types (i.e., Rich, Mesic
Forest, Hickory-Hop Hornbeam Forest, and Woodland Vernal Pools).
• Contains a network of high-quality aquatic and wetland habitats important for
sustaining viable populations of non area-dependent wildlife (e.g., invertebrates)
and rare species.
• The reservation contains important habitat for rare species.
Eismen, C. 2003. Mammal Track Surveys of Brooks Woodland Preserve.
Aikenhead, E., R. Byard, G. Dicum, E. Galli-Noble, J. Mehta and L. Olander. 1995. Land use, biophysical, and
sociological information on the James W. Brooks Woodland Preserve. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies. 89 pages.
34 MNHESP fact sheet.
32
33
Natural Resources
5-21
5.10 Significant Threats
Ecological threats are those factors that diminish the capacity of Brooks Woodland
Preserve to support biodiversity or that threaten existing important resources.
Specifically, this includes anything that threatens the integrity of plant and animal
communities, the persistence of significant species’ populations, or impedes natural
processes including disturbance patterns. The following are the significant threats to the
natural resources at Brooks Woodland:
35
36
•
Hemlock Woolly Adelgid (HWA). Hemlock is a common tree throughout
the reservation. Although no HWA has yet been observed, this exotic pest
represents a future threat to hemlocks at Brooks Woodland and the habitat they
provide. HWA has been documented on adjacent Harvard Forest lands and may
be present at Brooks Woodland.35 Certain species will likely decline or be
eliminated from within the reservation as hemlock declines. Water quality may
also be impacted. The dense shade from hemlocks currently helps keep waters
cool, an important function for species dependent on cold water habitat (e.g.,
trout). Monitoring for HWA will allow managers to assess this exotic pest’s
impact and what, if any, management options exist.
•
Exotic Invasive Plants. At least eight species of exotic invasive plants are
present on the reservation. Invasive plants threaten biodiversity through
competition with native plants. These plants are aggressive and alter habitat for
wildlife and rare species. At present, invasive plants mostly occur in low
numbers and are typically limited to areas around old homesteads and drainages;
Japanese barberry is the exception (Map 5-4). This status is not likely to
continue without intervention to control and/or eradicate these species.
Invasive species at Brooks Woodland include but are not limited to Japanese
barberry, bush honeysuckle (e.g., Morrow’s honeysuckle), Asiatic bittersweet,
and common buckthorn. Garlic mustard, a species not observed within the
reservation, is spreading on adjacent and nearby lands.36 Potential habitat exists
at Brooks Woodland and garlic mustard should be considered a serious threat.
•
Land use and conversion on adjacent parcels, especially those containing
critical watersheds. While much of the land adjacent to Brooks Woodland is
protected, significant lands remain unprotected along the northeast boundaryareas containing upstream portions of the Swift River and Moccasin Brook.
Conversion of these lands to residential development or agriculture will
fragment interior forest habitat and could degrade water quality and threaten
rare species within Brooks Woodland.
Glenn Motzkin, Personal communication.
Glenn Motzkin, Personal communication.
Natural Resources
5-22
Map 5-4: Locations of Invasive Plant Species
Natural Resources
5-23
5.11 Significant Opportunities
•
Minimize the threat from exotic invasive plants. Although invasive plants
are common at Brooks Woodland, they tend to be clustered and associated with
old farmsteads. Control and eradication of invasives at select sites could result
in much of Brooks Woodland being invasive-free; early intervention should be a
goal. Monitoring and ongoing control will prevent these problematic plants from
spreading to areas currently free of invasives, thereby helping to maintain native
biodiversity and the “natural” forest envisioned by the donors.
Natural Resources
5-24
Section 6: The Visitor Experience
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
Introduction
Demographics
Past and Current Use
The Visitor Experience
Visitor Services
Access and Circulation
Scenery and Aesthetics
Visitor Rules and Regulations
Education and Interpretation
Summary of Elements Important to the Visitor Experience
Significant Threats to the Quality of the Visitor Experience
Opportunities to Enhance the Visitor Experience
Section 6: The Visitor Experience
6.1 Introduction
Providing a high quality visitor experience is at the core of The Trustees’ goals for
Brooks Woodland Preserve. Because the property does not experience a high level of
visitation, a survey to assess the current level of visitor satisfaction could not be
administered as part of the planning process, however. Thus, the information in this
chapter is generalized, based on staff and volunteer observations.
This chapter will describe visitor use at Brooks Woodland Preserve and identify any
issues that may be harming the visitor experience and any opportunities to enhance that
experience. Together, these issues and opportunities set the stage for the management
recommendations outlined in Section Nine.
6.2 Demographics
Petersham is located in Worcester County, a mostly rural area of Massachusetts, about
two hours west of Boston, and forty-five minutes north of Worcester. Petersham,
along with the towns of Athol, Erving, New Salem, Orange, Phillipston, Royalston,
Warwick, and Wendell, make up the North Quabbin Region. The largest nearby
populations are within Athol and Gardner. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the
population of Petersham is 1,181 and is estimated to rise to 1,264 by 2004. The
community is 97% white and 96% English-speaking. Sixty-eight percent of residents live
in a family household and 60% are married and have children under the age of 18.
Twenty-two percent of the population is under the age of 18, 46% of which are in
grades 1-8. Forty-six percent of the population over the age of 25 has a bachelor’s
degree or higher. This percentage is the highest of the North Quabbin towns and well
above state (33.2%) and national (24.4%) averages.
“Petersham stands out in another census statistic: it has the highest percentage in the
North Quabbin of people age 65 and up: 17.6%, compared to the regional average of
11.8% and the state average of 13.5%.”1
A few other interesting numbers from the 2000 U.S. Census were:
• Eighty-two percent (82%) of the homes are owner occupied;
• Sixty-seven percent (67%) of the population are in the work force; and
• About six percent (5.8%) of the population is below the poverty level.
Another interesting fact is that “Petersham gained considerable land area when the
Quabbin Reservoir was created in the 1930s…as a result of the massive gains in
1 Young, Allen. 2003. North of Quabbin Revisited. Athol: Highland Press. p. 248.
The Visitor Experience
6- 1
watershed territory, Petersham ranks third in the state in size, with 68.18 square miles.
Only Middleborough and Plymouth are larger.”2 Fourteen square miles of land
constituting part of Petersham lies under the waters of the Quabbin Reservoir.
6.3 Past and Current Use
Brooks Woodland Preserve receives a low level of use by hikers, snowshoers, crosscountry skiers, mountain bikers and horseback riders. Although no visitor survey was
completed for Brooks Woodland Preserve, it is probably safe to assume that visitors
come for the following experiences:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
to spend time with family and friends,
to enjoy the reservation’s scenery,
to relax,
to explore natural and cultural features,
to observe flora and fauna and the progression of natural events,
to get exercise,
to meditate,
to find peace and quiet, and/or
to explore a new place.
There are many possible reasons for the low visitation rates at Brooks Woodland.
First, the reservation is not very well publicized locally. Many people may think that the
reservation is simply a part of Harvard Forest and do not recognize it as a separate
property that is open to the public for recreational use. Second, Petersham is a fairly
remote location and not very close to a significant population center. Currently, there
are few other attractions or destinations in the vicinity that encourage a travel audience.
Third, Petersham and the greater Quabbin area contain a significant amount of open
space. Thus, Brooks Woodland is one of many places where local residents can
recreate. Finally, there is no one particular attraction on the reservation such as a
waterfall or a unique vista that would, in itself, attract visitors. The landscape on the
reservation is much like that of the rest of Petersham and the North Quabbin region.
6.4 The Visitor Experience
To a discerning eye, the criss-crossed maze of old woods roads and trails that meander
through Brooks Woodland Preserve capture a microcosm of life in early 1800s
Petersham, offering the visitor an enchanting glimpse of a time long ago. Foundations,
cellar holes and stone walls delineate former homesteads and evoke the landscape’s
history.
2 Young, p. 252.
The Visitor Experience
6- 2
To many, Brooks Woodland feels like a vast, remote landscape. Because of the size of
the property and its low rates of visitation, it offers the visitor an opportunity for
solitude. It is often possible to walk several miles of trail within the property and not
encounter other visitors. This experience makes quiet reflection and meditation
possible and is a key element of the visitor experience.
The size and undisturbed nature of the property affords the visitor the opportunity- or
sometimes merely the expectation- to encounter wildlife. This, too, is an important
highlight of the visitor experience.
6.5 Visitor Services
Due to Brooks Woodland Preserve’s low levels of visitation, there are few visitor
services provided other than the parking areas and trails described in the following
section. Two bulletin boards can be found on the property: one at the parking area on
Quaker Drive and a smaller one near the East Street pull-off area. Each board displays a
map and basic information on the reservation as well as information about The Trustees
of Reservations. Both boards offer take-away property brochures that include a map
and descriptions of The Trustees’ three properties in Petersham (Brooks Woodland
Preserve, North Common Meadow and Swift River Reservation).
6.6 Access and Circulation
6.6.1 Parking
Brooks Woodland Preserve has two formal entrances that are marked with the
traditional Trustees’ hanging entrance signs and bulletin boards.
The first parking area provides direct access to the Swift River Tract and is located on
Quaker Drive, trail marker (TM) 54. This parking area is a grassy lot in what was
formerly a portion of the Dudley Farm. It is plowed in winter and suitable for three to
four cars. A large 4’x 6’ bulletin board with orientation information is present. Visitors
can also access the Connor’s Pond Tract from this location by parking and walking a
short distance southwest on Quaker Drive. Although the Quaker Drive lot is the
primary parking area for the reservation, it is very difficult for vehicles without high
clearance or 4-wheel drive to access, particularly when muddy conditions prevail. Thus,
many cars are forced to park along the side of the road rather than in the lot itself.
The second parking area is a pull-off suitable for one or two cars along East Street. The
pull-off is unpaved and is not plowed during the winter. The trail from the parking area
leads north past a small 4’x 4’ bulletin board into the Roaring Brook Tract of the
reservation. On the opposite side of East Street a right-of-way exists across private
property that accesses the Swift River Tract of the reservation.
The Visitor Experience
6- 3
6.6.2 Trails
Brooks Woodland Preserve is broken down into three tracts and contains 14.1 miles of
old woods roads and single track trails (see Base Map in Section One). There is no one
highlighted loop trail and visitors are left to configure their own route.
Swift River Tract
The Swift River Tract appears to be the most popular of the three tracts comprising the
reservation. This is most likely because it has the most numerous and diversified trails,
two aesthetic/scenic points of interest and the best parking area available.
In general, most of the trails on the Swift River Tract receive a low level of use and are
currently in need of routine trail maintenance. A few trails are not used at all and have
grown in completely. Occasionally, a few of the trails experience seasonal wetness but
this is not a major problem on this portion of the reservation.
The tract has two major bridge crossings: Sackett’s Harbor Bridge crosses the East
Branch of the Swift River and Fiske Bridge crosses Moccasin Brook. The Sackett’s
Harbor Bridge is currently unsafe to cross and is scheduled for repair/replacement in
FY07 through an approved capital project. The Fiske Bridge was formerly a foot bridge
in desperate need of replacement. The replacement began during FY06 through funding
provided by the property’s operating budget. The new bridge, to be completed in FY07,
will be ten feet wide and constructed of steel girders and pressure treated lumber.
Upon completion, it will be able to support periodic vehicular use.
Roaring Brook Tract
The Roaring Brook Tract has three trails that intersect it in an east-west direction.
There are also two trails that run north-south and link the three east-west trails. The
northernmost east-west trail is an old woods road which, until the addition of the
Ganson parcel, served as the property’s boundary. The trail experiences seasonal
wetness due to the hydrology of the property. The southernmost trail now dead ends
into a beaver pond and is impassable. For all intents and purposes, the trail has been
abandoned. The middle trail is passable although it also experiences seasonal wetness.
It does not appear these trails receive much use during the spring, summer or fall,
probably the result of a poorly situated parking area and wet conditions. Increased
visitation may occur during the winter for the purposes of cross-country skiing when
condition of the trail surfaces is not as critical to the experience.
In 2005, the parcel known as the “Ganson parcel” was added to the acreage of the
Roaring Brook Tract. No designated trails have been laid out on this parcel.
Connor’s Pond Tract
The trail system on this tract is comprised of a series of north-south trails originating on
Quaker Drive and ending at an east-west trail that follows the edge of Rutland Brook
and Connor’s Pond. It receives very little use. The easternmost trail provides access to
the Massachusetts Audubon Society property on the southern side of Rutland Brook via
a bridge crossing. The MAS property contains Sherman Hill, which has the highest
The Visitor Experience
6- 4
elevation in Petersham at 1,209 feet above sea level. All of the trails are in need of
routine maintenance, including tractor mowing. The foot trail that accesses the “finger”
that protrudes into Connor’s Pond is impassable due to flooding by beavers and has
been abandoned in accordance with The Trustees’ organizational guidelines for beaver
management.3
The following table highlights the property’s acreage and trail miles.
Property / Tract
Swift River Tract
Roaring Brook Tract
(including Ganson Parcel)
Connor’s Pond Tract
Brooks Woodland Preserve
Area Acres
415.4
217.5
Trail Miles
9.2
2.8
60.4
693.3
2.1
14.1
6.6.3 Universal Access
Brooks Woodland Preserve is a rural property with minimal visitor services. Currently,
no facilities or universally accessible trails exist for visitors with physical limitations.
Due to the property’s remote location and low visitation rates, there are likely better
locations in the region to explore for potential universal access. North Common
Meadow, adjacent to Brooks Woodland on Main Street (Route 32), is one such
possibility.
6.7 Scenery and Aesthetics
Visitors to Brooks Woodland Preserve are presented with a multitude of trails that
meander through a wide array of forests and wetlands and pass by the remnants of
several old homesteads. The sound of running water from several quick flowing streams
and brooks adds to the tranquility of the property.
A huge multi-trunk white pine (known informally as the “cabbage pine” or “grandfather
pine”), a survivor of the 1938 hurricane, is a popular spot for reflection and meditation,
as is the sole ridgetop vista at Tumbledown. The Tumbledown is perhaps the most
interesting portion of the reservation, in terms of both ecology and scenery.
The Indian Grinding Stones, also located on the Swift River Tract, are a popular
attraction for visitors. The features are not actually grinding stones but the “result of
water action… The only indication of its having been used for grinding corn, acorns and
other foodstuffs by Native Americans is persistent local folklore.”4
The Trustees of Reservations. Beaver Management at The Trustees of Reservations. 2005. Leominster, MA: The
Trustees of Reservations.
4 Tritsch, Electa Kane. 2005. I wish I were in the Woods: The Historic Landscapes of Brooks Woodland Preserve,
North Common Meadow and Swift River Reservation, Petersham, MA. The Trustees of Reservations. p. 45.
3
The Visitor Experience
6- 5
Although the vast majority of the reservation is forested, there also some open areas
that offer a refreshing change of scenery. The broad, open meadows are vistas in and of
themselves, especially looking north from both Sackett’s Harbor Bridge and Moccasin
Brook Meadows. Surprise Meadow and Burns Pasture are both interesting scenically, as
are the numerous beaver wetlands scattered throughout the reservation.
6.8 Visitor Rules and Regulations
The following rules and regulations have been developed to enhance the visitor
experience and to respect the donors’ wishes at the property.
• Alcoholic beverages, fires, camping and littering are prohibited.
• Hunting, trapping and firearms are prohibited.
• Motorized vehicles are prohibited on this Reservation except for purposes
related to its management.
• Horseback riders should walk horses and avoid muddy areas on trails.
• Disturbing, removing, defacing, cutting or otherwise causing damage to the
natural features, sign, poster, barrier, vegetation or other property on the
Reservation is prohibited.
• Dogs are prohibited except under the control of the owner.
• Conduct which disturbs the tranquility of the Reservation or its enjoyment by
others is prohibited.
• The Reservation closes at sunset. Entering or remaining on the Reservation
after that time is prohibited.
6.9 Education and Interpretation
Currently there is no formal interpretive programming taking place at Brooks
Woodland. The only interpretive materials present are the two bulletin boards and a
property brochure, both of which contain a map and a brief narrative about the
property. Opportunities for interpretive programming abound, particularly in regard to
the reservation’s natural and human histories and how the two have influenced and been
influenced by each other. Any future educational or interpretive programming planned
for the property should also include the other Trustees’ properties in Petersham, as the
three reservations are very near one another in location and have similar land use and
cultural histories.
The Visitor Experience
6- 6
6.10 Summary of Elements Important to the Visitor
Experience
•
Opportunity for solitude. The vast size of Brooks Woodland and its low rate
of visitation provide visitors with an opportunity for solitude. One can walk the
trails for hours without encountering another visitor, offering opportunities for
quiet reflection and meditation.
•
Unmanaged appearance of the landscape. Because the forests and fields
at Brooks are minimally managed, the reservation has a very “natural”
appearance. Since beaver activity is unimpeded and natural processes shape the
reservation’s forests, for example, the landscape does not have a neat and tidy
feel. Further, there is little intrusion into the landscape from signs or other
structures.
•
A variety of uses are accommodated. Hiking, cross-country skiing,
snowshoeing, mountain biking and horseback riding are all permitted uses,
thereby offering visitors a variety of ways to experience the property.
6.11 Significant Threats to the Quality of the Visitor
Experience
•
Deferred trail maintenance. The Trustees strive to provide exemplary
stewardship on all of its properties in the Commonwealth. However, in recent
years, a backlog of routine maintenance has piled up at several of properties in
the Central Region, including Brooks Woodland Preserve. Failure to keep the
trails safe from hazards (e.g., falling or downed trees), well maintained and clearly
marked for easy navigation could diminish the quality of the visitor experience.
•
Excessive number of trails. There are currently over 14 miles of trails
throughout the reservation. The trail network is difficult to navigate and visitors
are frequently frustrated by its intricacy. Further, the amount of maintenance
resulting form this excessive trail mileage is a burden to property staff; deferred
maintenance of trails has become an issue in some areas.
•
Poorly designed trails. The siting and design of many of the existing trails is
poor. Wet and muddy conditions are consistent and pervasive making certain
trails, particularly those in the Roaring Brook Tract, impassable during much of
the year.
•
Illegal hunting. Though hunting is prohibited on the property and signs are
posted advising the public of this policy, hunting still occurs during the season.
Staff patrols the reservation boundaries during the hunting season to detect any
The Visitor Experience
6- 7
illegal hunting, but it is believed that hunters are entering the property from
abutting lands, perhaps via Harvard Forest, where hunting is permitted.
•
Parking along roadsides. Though The Trustees maintain several parking
areas at Brooks Woodland, vehicles parked along roadsides is a common
occurrence. This poses a serious safety issue for visitors. The problem occurs
most frequently along East Street, east of the Roaring Brook Tract.
6.12 Opportunities to Enhance the Visitor Experience
•
Increase educational and interpretive programming and/or materials.
Opportunities exist for guided hikes and self-guided explorations that highlight
the site’s natural resources and utilize the remnant foundations and stone walls
to interpret the cultural landscape and history of the property. Opportunities
for education and interpretation at Brooks Woodland should be considered in
conjunction with the nearby Swift River Reservation and North Common
Meadow.
•
Preserve significant scenic and cultural features. Enhance and maintain,
where possible, the existing scenic features of the property including the
“cabbage pine,” the outlook at Tumbledown, and Burns Pasture, as well as the
reservation’s numerous cultural resources.
•
Reduce the number of trails on the property. Reducing the number of
trails on the property will ease navigation for visitors, ease the maintenance
burden on staff and reduce habitat fragmentation. The creation of a loop trail
that is easily located and navigated by visitors would be a significant asset.
•
Improve trail conditions or close trails. Due to poor layout and design,
there are many sections of trail that are consistently wet and very muddy,
particularly in the Roaring Brook Tract. These trails should be either be
improved to allow better access by visitors or closed permanently.
•
Improve the existing parking areas. The parking lot on Quaker Drive
should be made accessible by all vehicles. Currently, only high-clearance or fourwheel drive vehicles can enter and exit the lot safely. The pull-off on East Street
should be plowed during the winter months to allow access by visitors wishing
to snowshoe or cross-country ski.
•
Create a new or expanded parking area along East Street. Providing
more parking for the Roaring Brook Tract would eliminate the need to park
vehicles along roadways, especially East Street. This would alleviate a serious
safety issue threatening property visitors.
The Visitor Experience
6- 8
Section 7: Current Management
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
Introduction
Description of Current Management Program
Capacity to Meet Current Management Goals
Partnerships with Other Organizations
Summary of Capacity Analysis
Section 7: Current Management
7.1 Introduction
Current management of Brooks Woodland Preserve embraces the wishes of the
original donors of the reservation which focus on preserving the timeless feel of the
property in the midst of an ever evolving landscape. The management of Brooks
Woodland Preserve encourages passive recreational uses, such as hiking, snowshoeing,
cross-country skiing, nature photography, and wildlife viewing, and permits more active
uses including mountain biking and horseback riding. Hunting, motorized vehicle use
(e.g., ATVs and snowmobiles), camping, fires, and commercial logging are all prohibited
at this time.
This section will provide an overview of the current routine management performed at
the property and then assess, based on current available information, whether or not
this management program is successfully being met. This assessment will consider all of
the resources available to the management unit including staffing, equipment and
financial resources, committees and volunteers, and membership. Section Ten of this
plan will describe a new prescribed routine management program that will, if
implemented fully, demonstrate an appropriate level of care for Brooks Woodland
Preserve.
7.2 Description of Current Management Program
Despite its nearly 700 acres, Brooks Woodland Preserve requires less attention than
other Trustees’ properties. This is in large part due to the donors’ vision of, “recreating
and preserving a natural forest typical of the New England landscape as it existed at the time
of the early settlers.1” Although this vision permits non-commercial forestry activities to
occur, The Trustees have chosen not to engage in active forest management at the
property, feeling this is the best method of achieving the donors’ vision. Additionally,
because the property has no major structures (e.g., buildings), it requires a less constant
maintenance presence. As such, much of the routine management consists of trail
mowing and clearing, annual field mowing, and maintaining the property’s bulletin
boards, signage and bridges. Nevertheless, a backlog of trail maintenance has developed
as a result of limited staff resources in the management unit and more pressing needs at
other properties.
The following table highlights the management tasks currently performed at the
property.
1
Deed of gift from John and Rosalie Fiske to The Trustees of Reservations [WD 5662:137; 1975].
Current Management
7- 1
Table 7.1- Current Routine Management Program
Task
Type2
Frequency
Season3
Annual
Hours
Invested
Is this the
Correct
Task?
Notes
Mow Quaker St.
entrance and Burns
Pasture trail.
Stock brochures at
bulletin boards.
VM
Weekly
S, Su, F
30
Yes
Should also be mowing
Barkentin Pasture trail.
VM
Monthly
All
12
Yes
Patrol trail network to
assess maintenance
needs.
VM
Annually
S
20
Yes
Clear select trails of
downed trees as
needed.
VM
Ongoing
All
15
Yes
Plow Quaker St. parking
lot and Burns Pasture
gate.
Mow Burns Pasture.
VM
As Needed
W
No
SM
Annually
Su
5
(.5 hours
each time)
6
Mow Surprise Meadow.
SM
Annually
Su
0
No
Mow Barkentin pasture.
SM
Annually
Su
Yes
Inspect and maintain
structures.
SR
Annually
S or F
Vol.
hours
40
Though staff strives to stock
brochures monthly, this is not
always achieved.
Currently only about 70% of
total network is patrolled
annually, though some areas are
patrolled multiple times.
On average, about 50% of trails
are covered each year. Ideally,
clearing should occur twice per
year.
Based on visitor use patterns,
should be plowing Burns pasture
gate and East Street pull-off.
Recommend frequency of
mowing be changed to
biennially.
Has not been done in several
years. Staff recommends that
maintenance of the meadow
cease, as it has no significant
ecological value and minimal
aesthetic value. Meadow should
be allowed to succeed naturally.
This mowing is done annually by
a neighbor.
Includes 3 bridges; 2 bulletin
boards; 2 entrance signs; one
bench; and 10 gates.
Post warning signs about
hunting.
Manage Local Properties
Committee.
Host one annual
Volunteer Work Day.
GM
Annually
F
4
Yes
GM
Ongoing
All
32
Yes
GM
Annually
S or F
16
Yes
TOTAL
No
Yes
180 hrs
VM= Visitor management; SM= Scenic resource management; SR= Structural resource management; GM= General
property management
2
3
S= spring; Su= summer; F= fall; W= winter
Current Management
7- 2
The following bullets highlight larger projects currently underway that are of a periodic
or one-time nature and, thus, not categorized as routine:
•
•
•
Fiske Bridge replacement – The failed, existing pedestrian bridge is being replaced
with a 10-foot wide steel-girder bridge suitable for vehicular traffic, which will
provide better access to the property for management and emergency needs.
Viewshed clearing project – A forest clearing project initiated in 2003 on a
property on East Street subject to a conservation restriction held by The
Trustees. Though this work is occurring on land outside of Brooks Woodland
Preserve proper, it is a project that demands a considerable amount of staff
hours. Over the last two fiscal years (FY05 and FY06) the project has
necessitated 150 hours of labor from the Superintendent and 16 hours each
from four additional staff members, for a total of 214 hours of staff time. Work
is scheduled to continue through FY07.
Sackett’s Harbor Bridge Repair – Work will begin in Fiscal Year 2007 (April 2006March 2007) and will be completed by a private contractor.
7.3 Capacity to Meet Current Management Goals
Successfully addressing stewardship needs at the property level is highly dependent on
the efficiency of and resources available to property managers. The following
subsections describe and assess the available staffing, equipment, financial, volunteer and
membership resources.
7.3.1 Staffing Resources
Management of Brooks Woodland Preserve is undertaken by the Field Operations staff
of The Trustees’ Central Region. On-the-ground management (stewardship), including
protection of cultural and natural resources, enforcement of rules and regulations,
visitor services, and interpretation of the property, is the primary responsibility of the
Quabbin Management Unit (QMU). Currently, the management unit is comprised of
eight properties totaling nearly 2,000 acres of land and 32 miles of trail; the Tully Trail,
an additional 18-22 miles of trail; and Peaked Mountain Reservation and the Tully Lake
Campground. The following charts show the percentage of time the Superintendent has
spent at each property over the last two fiscal years.
Current Management
7- 3
Fiscal Year 2005 (3/04-3/05)
6%
Doane's/Tully
33%
Brooks Woodland
Swift River
31%
North Common Meadow
Elliott Laurel & Bear's Den
Royalston Falls & Jacobs Hill
Peaked Mountain
QMU
6%
WMU
4%
15%
1%
4%
0%
Fiscal Year 2006 (3/05-3/06)
1%
27%
Doane's/Tully
Brooks Woodland
35%
Swift River
North Common Meadow
Elliott Laurel & Bear's Den
Royalston Falls & Jacobs Hill
8%
Peaked Mountain
QMU
WMU
5%
18%
4%
1%
1%
*Note: WMU refers to time spent assisting staff in the Wachusett Management Unit.
Staffing for the QMU consists of one full-time Superintendent and four to five seasonal
staff designated to Doane’s Falls/Tully Lake Campground. The QMU also has funds for a
16-week seasonal maintenance technician position; however, in recent years, this
funding has been redirected to supplement staffing at the Tully Lake Campground. As
an active enterprise, the campground’s operational needs, particularity staffing levels,
must be met. Unfortunately the operating budget has come up short in addressing
these needs. As a result, for the last two fiscal years, funding for a QMU maintenance
technician has been redirected to the Campground to supplement existing staffing levels
in order to meet the actual staffing needs of the operation. This has eliminated the
Current Management
7- 4
management unit’s technician position and leads to two major areas of concern for the
management of Brooks Woodland Preserve and the Quabbin Management Unit, in
general:
Safety
The Superintendent works in the field alone and without a cell phone. (The
latter is due to poor coverage in most of the region.) Because the nature of
work at Brooks Woodland Preserve and the other properties in the unit require
the use of tools such as chainsaws, tractors and mowing equipment, this poses
serious safety concerns. Adequate funding at the Campground for FY07 has
allowed for the reinstitution of the seasonal maintenance technician position
during the busiest fieldwork season of the year, May 15 – September 1, and
should significantly improve the overall safety within the management unit by
providing the Superintendent with a partner in the field.
Backlog of Maintenance
Accomplishing the routine maintenance needs of all the QMU properties is not
possible for a single staff member. As a result, routine maintenance tasks are
prioritized in a “reactive” mentality which delays corrective action. This
negatively affects the visitor experience and creates potentially hazardous
situations on the trails (e.g., “widow makers,” snags, unsafe bridges and
crossings). For example, under the current conditions, the removal of a downed
tree across a trail is not considered a priority unless an upcoming event intends
to use that portion of the trail. This “put out fires” approach does not bode
well toward the Trustees’ goals of practicing exemplary stewardship and
providing high quality visitor experiences as highlighted in Conservation in Action!,
the strategic plan for The Trustees’ Department of Field Operations. The
following bullets highlight the routine maintenance needs going unmet:
o Missing or damaged boundary signs have not been replaced in many years;
o All trails are not patrolled annually to identify maintenance needs (e.g., clearing
downed trees) and, therefore, needs are not being addressed; and
o Cultural resources (e.g., cellarholes and foundations) are not maintained.
The entrances, parking areas and trails within Brooks Woodland Preserve are in need of
attention. The resource most crucial to making this aggressive push is manpower and
good old “sweat equity.” The management unit will continue to use volunteers to meet
this end but additional staff is needed to address the day-to-day stewardship needs of
the property over the long term. Reinstitution of the seasonal maintenance technician
for the summer of 2006 should greatly increase the amount of time available for staff to
address stewardship needs and proactively identify threats.
Current Management
7- 5
7.3.2 Equipment Resources
Equipment and tools used to manage and maintain Brooks Woodland Preserve are
stored at Tully Lake Campground and the Doyle Conservation Center. These include
the typical woods, landscaping and carpentry tools, a 15-hp walk-behind mower, and a
4x4 Ford F-250 pickup truck with utility trailer. The QMU also has access to the
Central Region’s 45-hp tractor/backhoe, 6-inch capacity wood chipper, 7-foot deck
mower, and a 1-ton dump truck with dual-axle, 12-ton trailer.
The Quabbin Management Unit has all of the necessary equipment to meet current
property management goals. It would, however, be extremely useful to have a small
utility vehicle (e.g., ATV) for conducting trail work, particularly on the more remote
portions of the property. At present, staff is responsible for maintaining 14 miles of
trail, a significant portion of which can only be accessed by foot. This is a lot of ground
to walk while carrying a chainsaw, personal protection equipment, fuel and other
equipment. The management plan that was recently completed for the Doane’s
Falls/Tully Lake Campground includes the recommendation to purchase a small utility
vehicle which could be used at all properties within the Central Region. Thus, the
recommendation will not be duplicated in this management plan.
7.3.3 Financial Resources
The property produces $10,027 in total income annually: $9,437 in investment income
and $590 in membership income.
Typically, $1,300 - $1,500 is designated to the Maintenance & Repair or Property
Services accounts for upkeep at the property. During FY06, for example, most of these
funds went toward the replacement of the Fiske Bridge. The bulk of annual expenses
cover staff salaries and fringe benefits and organizational overhead. In FY06, total
expenses were $27, 827 which produced a deficit of $17,800 for the property.
7.3.4 Committees and Volunteers
Brooks Woodland Preserve is served by the Petersham Area Properties Committee, a
volunteer advisory committee. The committee, which serves North Common Meadow,
Swift River Reservation, Elliott Laurel and Bear’s Den in addition to Brooks Woodland
Preserve, meets two to four times annually to advise and assist with property
management and local fundraising. The committee is currently made up of twelve
individuals:
Tom and Candace (Chairperson) Anderson
Will Kirousis
Bob Clark
Don and Christina Eaton
Barbara Corey
Jim and Annette Ermini
Alan and Debra Bachrach
Jim Baird
The group has expressed an interest in soliciting new members for the coming year in
an effort to revitalize the committee.
Current Management
7- 6
Effectively utilizing volunteer labor can be a way for property managers to complete
projects which they might not otherwise be able to accomplish with existing resources.
Currently, opportunities for volunteers to participate in hands-on stewardship activities
at Brooks Woodland occur via organized volunteer work days. These events provide
the chance for interested individuals to become more directly involved in conservation
projects. Work day projects typically involve trail maintenance and repair and are an
opportunity for the Superintendent to address some of the deferred property
maintenance.
Volunteers are, at present, an underutilized resource within the management unit,
including at Brooks Woodland Preserve. Additional opportunities for volunteers to
assist in achieving property goals should be identified. Potential opportunities might
include recruiting a qualified volunteer to offer periodic interpretive programs or guided
walks or utilizing volunteers to periodically patrol and monitor trails and report any
maintenance needs to the Superintendent.
7.3.5 Membership
There was no visitor survey conducted for Brooks Woodland Preserve to determine
how many Trustees’ members are visiting the property. However, some basic
information on Petersham, in general, exists. There are currently 35 active memberships
in Petersham, of which nine designate their membership dues to the benefit of Brooks
Woodland Preserve. The chart below highlights the makeup of that number.
Membership Type
Individual
Family
Contributing
Supporting
Charles Elliot Society
Number of
Members
17
12
3
1
2
Designated to
Brooks
Woodland
Preserve
1
7
1
0
0
As demonstrated in the chart above, local membership levels are very low. Increasing
annual memberships within the Town of Petersham and requesting that new members
designate their dues to Brooks Woodland, would provide additional revenue to the
property’s operational budget. Further, it would cultivate a pool of potential volunteers
who could become more active in hands-on stewardship projects at the property.
During 2005, the property committee began working on a membership mailing in
coordination with The Trustees’ Membership Department. The goal of the mailing is
for active members to encourage their friends and neighbors to support the
organization by purchasing annual memberships. The mailing will be completed and
distributed during 2006.
Current Management
7- 7
7.4 Partnerships with other Organizations
When The Trustees acquired the Swift River Reservation in 1983, it took over the role
of the Worcester Natural Historical Society on the Swift River Valley Trust. The Trust,
which also includes the Massachusetts Audubon Society and Harvard Forest, was
created to manage the Connor’s Pond area and to cooperate on joint conservation
projects in the Petersham area. The Trust met formally during the summer of 2005 for
the first time in more than 15 years. No management decisions were made but the
group agreed to continue to communicate and coordinate as necessary.
7.5 Summary of Capacity Analysis
•
Staffing resources are inadequate to meet the routine management needs of the
properties within the Quabbin Management Unit. As a result, the current
management goals of Brooks Woodland Preserve are not being met and a backlog of
deferred trail and property maintenance is accumulating. Since the management unit
is, at present, staffed by only one year-round employee, the reallocation of duties
and priorities is not an option in alleviating this problem. Thus, additional staffing
resources are a necessity. At the very least, funding for the seasonal maintenance
technician position should be restored. [NOTE: Since the original drafting of this
section of the plan, the seasonal maintenance technician position was restored for the
summer of 2006.]
•
The equipment available to the QMU is adequate to meet property management
goals.
•
Financial resources available to Brooks Woodland Preserve are limited and
consistently result in a deficit each fiscal year. Increasing the number of Trustees’
members in the region who designate their contributions to the property is one
possible method of producing more revenue for the property.
•
Volunteers are an underutilized resource at Brooks Woodland and within the
management unit, in general. Identifying additional volunteer opportunities and
recruiting interested individuals to assist in fundraising or stewardship projects
would augment the deficient staffing resources and, more important, advance the
Trustees’ initiative to engage volunteers in conservation work.
Current Management
7- 8