masters_paper_final

BERSHIRE COUNTY GIS LAND CONSERVATION: SUMMER INTERNSHIP WITH

THE BERKSHIRE NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL

Timothy Charles Liponis

May 2014

A MASTER’S PROJECT

Submitted to the faculty of Clark University, Worcester,

Massachusetts, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of Master of Science in the department of International Development,

Community, and Environment

And accepted on the recommendation of

Yelena Ogneva-Himmelberger, Chief Instructor

ABSTRACT

BERKSHIRE COUNTY GIS LAND CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT

Timothy Charles Liponis

This report details my experience as a summer intern for the Berkshire Natural

Resources Council (BNRC) from June to August 2013. During my time at BNRC, I

worked under the supervision of President Tad Ames, who advised me on project specifics

and goals. It was my responsibility to create a base map that would be incorporated with a

recreational, open-space project that BRNC was planning. My main project during the

summer was a conservation assessment that served as an exploratory conservation GIS

analysis for BNRC. This paper outlines the overall structure of BRNC, my responsibilities

as the GIS intern and my assessment of the internship.

My experience at BNRC was truly rewarding. I learned about fundamental

approaches to conservation while applying my GIS expertise, specifically multi-criteria

evaluation and raster spatial analysis to complete the conservation assessment. My

experience at BNRC has reinforced my passion to become a conservation GIS

professional.

________________________________

Yelena Ogneva-Himmelberger, Ph.D.

Chief Instructor

ACADEMIC HISTORY

Name: Timothy Charles Liponis Date: May, 2014

Baccalaureate Degree: B.S., Conservation Biology

Source: Saint Lawrence University Date: May, 2012

iii

DEDICATION

I dedicate this master’s paper to my girlfriend Catherine Shi, my parents Mark and Siobhan

and my siblings Matt and Brenna. Thanks to all of you for your continued support during

my graduate studies at Clark University.

iv

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

I would like to personally thank my academic advisor, Yelena Ogneva-Himmelberger, who

has graciously guided me through this whole process. To John Rogan, who has inspired me

to continue working within the field of remote sensing. To Tad Ames, who gave me the

opportunity to work with BNRC this summer, thank you for your help and guidance.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Illustrations ................................................................................................................ vi

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... vii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE ORGANIZATION ................................................ 3

Mission and Organizational Structure ......................................................................... 3

Conservation Options .................................................................................................. 7

GIS and Mapping ....................................................................................................... 10

Organization Strengths and Weaknesses ................................................................... 11

CHAPTER 3: INTERNSHIP DESCRIPTION .................................................................... 12

Conservation Base Map ............................................................................................. 13

Conservation Assessment and Prioritization System ................................................. 14

CHAPTER 4: INTERNSHIP ASSESSMENT .................................................................... 19

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 21

BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................ 22

vi

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1. Berlin Mountain Recreational Area Base Map………………………………..24

Figure 2. CAPS Landscape Community Metrics………………………………………..25

Figure 3. Berkshire County IEI Final Results…………………………………………...26

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. CAPS Ecological Settings Variables…………………………………………….27

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

During my undergraduate career at St. Lawrence University, I had the opportunity

to take an introduction to Geographical Information Science (GIS) course in my last year.

Although I had been previously exposed to GIS on an informal basis through a basic

mapping project my freshman year, the course allowed me to develop a more fundamental

background in GIS and encouraged me to apply for graduate degree at Clark University.

My experience in the GISDE program has been monumental in furthering my career goals.

The new skills and spatial applications of GIS have allowed me to pursue conservation

biology in a different light that I did not know was possible before. My summer internship,

taken as part of the requirements for the M.S. of GISDE, at the Berkshire Natural

Resources Council (BNRC) in Pittsfield, MA, was an eye-opening experience that will

help define my future career path.

My time at BNRC during the summer of 2013 exposed me to elements of

conservation GIS in addition to other non-GIS issues related specifically to land

conservation practices. My work at BNRC enabled me to apply GIS skills including the

creation of weighted overlay raster maps through raster map algebra tools. I had the

privilege to also engage with notable land conservation advocates, who have widespread

personal connections in conservation organizations. I look forward to their continued

support as I determine my niche in landscape ecology/conservation biology.

The internship report is divided into three sections. The first section will detail the

organizational structure and mission of BNRC as a non-profit land conservation charity.

2

The second section will detail my specific role as a GIS intern, which was to create a

conservation assessment map in addition to other maps needed for land conservation

projects. The third section will detail my reflections on the internship and future

recommendations.

3

CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE ORGANIZATION

Mission and Organizational Structure

The Berkshire Natural Resources Council (BNRC) represents a non-profit

conservation organization that seeks “to protect and preserve the natural beauty and

ecological integrity of the Berkshires for public benefit and enjoyment” (BNRC 2013a).

BNRC is located in Pittsfield, MA, in the heart of Berkshire County, which is the western

most county in Massachusetts. Pittsfield is 20 minutes east from the NY state line and 35

minutes South from Vermont. Founded as a conservation land trust in 1967, BNRC has

worked with hundreds of private land owners looking to protect and preserve properties

through direct acquisition and subsequent management of the property or through

conservation restrictions. In over their 50 years of existence, BNRC has obtained 7,999

acres, which they manage for conservation and recreational purposes, in addition to the

10,011 acres protected under conservation restrictions (BNRC 2013a). As a conservation

organization focused upon the preservation of threatened lands, BNRC places high priority

to protect local farms, forests, streams, and ridgelines that are critical in delivering

ecological benefits for our survival and comfort. Such landscapes contribute clean water,

fresh air, local produce, healthy wildlife and outstanding recreational opportunities (BNRC

2013a).

As mentioned previously, BNRC is a non-profit organization, as defined by the

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code 501(c)(3) (BNRC 2013b). Specifically, BNRC is a

charitable public organization that is dependent largely upon the donations of individuals

4

or other charitable organizations. Organizations qualifying for non-profit corporation status

as outlined through 501(c)(3) are exempt from federal taxes and donations made to such

organizations are recognized as taxable deductions, within the regulations outlined in

501(c)(3) non-profit law (IRS 2013). In supporting BNRC, individuals can obtain

membership status if they contribute more than $25 every year. Members receive benefits

for their financial support as delineated below:

Yokun Ridge Trail, Mount Greylock, and South Taconic Range trail

guides and maps

Additional maps in the upcoming Green Series

The newsletter “Resources Report” and invitations to special events

(BNRC 2013c).

The hereby mentioned “Resources Report”, the newsletter of BNRC, allows for engaged

interaction between BNRC and its members. The newsletter is released once per season

(fall, winter, spring, summer), which details updates regarding current projects and

describes interesting local conservation related stories. Additionally, BNRC produces an

annual report that summarizes the work BNRC did over the year while thanking those

members who have made year milestones exemplifying their continued unwavering

support for BNRC (40+ years, 30+ years and 20+ years) (BNRC 2013d).

Within BNRC, the conservation group has a board of directors composed of 16

people. Walter Cliff is the current Chairman, Tad Ames, President, Michael Belknap, Vice

Chairman, Tom Curtin, Treasurer and Kelton Burbank as Secretary (BNRC 2013e). BNRC

is supported by six other primary staff members: Narain Schroeder, Director of Land

Conservation, Doug Bruce, Stewardship Manager, Amanda L’Etoile, Trails and Outreach

Coordinator, Sally Cornwell, Office Manager, Peter Tucker, Consulting Forester and Kim

5

Burbank, Counsel. While George Wislocki originally founded BNRC in 1967 with Donald

B. Miller, he longer is an active staff member, retiring in 2001 (BNRC 2013f). Karen Ross,

while not a staff member, is acknowledged for her long-standing support of BNRC as a

stewardship volunteer.

As the current president of BNRC, Tad Ames oversees the land conservation

operations of the Resource Council. Tad began his work for BNRC under the previous

President, George Wislocki, in 1990 after Graduating from Yale University as English

major. Before joining the Resource Council, Ames was a reporter journalist at Middleton

Press in Central Connecticut and an editor at the Berkshire Eagle. During his tenure at the

Berkshire Eagle 1986 until his arrival at BNRC, Tad quickly developed a deep passion for

the Berkshires. His decision to join BNRC was sparked by a “desire to do something

instead of just write about it” (Bergman 2001). George Wislocki, the original founder of

BNRC, was just the man to help initiate the action Tad Ames sought. It was Wislocki, a

conservation pioneer, who imparted the conservation philosophy of BNRC to Ames. While

George Wislocki created and maintained the conservation culture of the Berkshire Natural

Resources Council from its founding in 1967 to 2001, since then it has been under the

careful guidance of Tad Ames, who recognizes the important lessons learned from his

predecessor:

“I consider myself an heir to a great tradition in Berkshire County, of

people working very hard to preserve the identity and character of the

region. George always called it ‘Preserving the greater glories of the

Berkshires.’ I think the concepts of these glories may differ from person to

person, but there is an essence and much of it is tied to the landscape”

(Bergman 2001)

6

Since BNRC acts as a “liaison between private individuals and government agencies”

(Berkshire Web 2013), it is Tad’s responsibility to use his expertise in communication

skills to engage with landowners to develop and convey a plan to recycle their land that

meets their needs and goals. In other words, the Resource Council advises “landowners on

land conservation techniques” and also fights “for progressive land-use legislation”

(Berkshire Web 2013) to advance purposes of land conservation within Berkshire County.

All of the progressive land preservation would not be possible without the work of legal

counsel and advisor, Kim Burbank.

Mr. Burbank was the voice of the legal advice as the counsel of BNRC for over 40

years, from the founding of the Resource Council in 1967 to 2012. It was Burbank who

helped legally establish the Berkshire Natural Resources Council as an organization when

he prepared the papers in 1967 (Berkshire Eagle 2012). BNRC owes its deepest

appreciation to Mr. Burbank for the “thousands of pro bono legal service to BNRC and

other civic and charitable enterprises” (Berkshire Eagle 2012). Mr. Burbank is described as

having a community-minded spirit, who through his generous time and work made sure

“that the defining qualities of the Berkshires whether natural, cultural, social or historic

remain healthy, vibrant and intact” (Berkshire Eagle 2012). In order to recognize the

service of Kim Burbank, the Council dedicated a trail in his honor on Yokun Ridge in

Lenox, MA on May 22, 1999. “The Council has had the good fortune to protect over 8,500

acres around the Berkshires. Every one of those acres has passed under Kim’s eyes on its

way to the Registry of Deeds” (BNRC 2013f). Although he is no longer actively working

as Counsel for BNRC, Kim Burbank currently is on the board of directors as secretary.

7

Conservation Options

While BNRC provides an opportunity for private landowners in Berkshire County

with the ability to preserve their property, there are several conservation possibilities

depending upon the wishes of the individual or family and financial estate-planning

objectives (BNRC 2013g). These options are conservation restriction agreements (CR’s),

Gifts in Fee Simple, Pre-acquisitions, Remainder Interests and Bequests, Chapter 61

Enrollment and assessing other conservation options for the landholder.

Conservation Restriction Agreements

Conservation Restrictions, or conservation easements, is a legal-binding voluntary

agreement between a qualified conservation organization, such as BNRC, or a

governmental agency and private landowners. As CR’s intend to preserve the quality of

property, they are implemented to limit the use of the parcel of land. While BNRC, as a

qualified, eligible legal holder of CR’s, monitors and upholds the terms of agreement, each

conservation restriction “is tailored to the special features of the land and to the specific

wishes of the donor” (Sudbury Valley Trustees 2013). Though the specific nature of CR’s

varies, they usually prohibit development to some degree and can allow for other uses

including recreational and non-recreational (Sudbury Valley Trustees 2013). Conservation

restrictions do lower property value, as development is restricted or entirely prohibited, but

can result in tax benefits. The beauty of CR’s is that the landowner still retains full

ownership of the property. However, the restriction is permanently tied to the land and the

agreement remains valid regardless of ownership changes (BNRC 2013g). It is important

8

to note that for Massachusetts, lawful CR’s must be authorized at the municipality and

state government levels (Sudbury Valley Trustees 2013).

Gifts in Fee Simple

In cases where the landowner wishes to donate property to a charitable

organization, gifts in fee simple may be an appropriate option. Donations must first be

approved by the land trust and if accepted, preserved and managed by the charitable

organization. BNRC has the capability to preserve property when the current landowner is

over-burdened or no longer wants the responsibility of maintaining the parcel. In some

cases, BNRC may convey the property to a state conservation agency, on condition that the

landowner allows the transfer. In the rare circumstance that a landowner wishes to gift land

not intended for conservation, BNRC will accept “trade lands” where property sales result

in proceeds used for conservation purposes (BNRC 2013g).

Pre acquisitions

When land transfers between state agencies and individuals are nearly finalized, the

financial gap between the landowners’ asking price and the state’s funding could

potentially prevent such transfer from occurring. In this instance, pre-acquisitions through

BNRC can allow for continued protection of the parcel. BNRC would buy the property,

“pre-acquired” for the state agency, and will sell the property when the agency has the

appropriate funds. The benefit of pre-acquisitions is that it “provides a financial bridge that

helps families meet immediate needs, and at the same time assures protection of the

property” (BNRC 2013g).

9

Remainder Interests and Bequests

Some land donations to BNRC come as a result of remainder interests or bequests.

Remainder interests allow for the individual, and other associated property tenants, to

designate the amount of time to live on the property before the land is transferred or until

death of the donor. At the time of transfer, the tenants are no longer responsible for taxes

and maintenance when BNRC attains full ownership (BNRC 2013g). Bequests allow

property-owners to will land to BNRC, which designates full ownership to the Resource

Council after death.

Chapter 61 Enrollment

Although not a strict land conservation method, Massachusetts provides the

possibility for tax reduction incentives in exchange for legal obligations to not develop on

the property. Three sections are available (61, 61A and 61B) that distinguish separate

property uses – forestry (Chapter 61), agriculture and horticulture (Chapter 61A) and

recreational (Chapter 61B). While each chapter outlines legal specifications that must be

met, there are several commonalities for each land use type:

Definition of minimum qualified size

Definition of the land use

Quantification of the reduced land tax rate

Penalties incurred if development occurs or land use guidelines not met

(Commonwealth of Massachusetts 2013)

Though only available through municipalities, landowners can utilize the unique position

of BNRC as an expert in land conservation in Berkshire County to assist in the process of

10

chapter 61 enrollment by providing free consultation before seeking professional legal

advice (BNRC 2013g)

Assessing Landowner Conservation Options

Landowners wishing to sell land or conservation restrictions to a state agency to

ensure continued proper management of the property can be difficult. BNRC, with their

expert knowledge of the state agencies, can “help families navigate the bureaucratic

shoals” of the land transfer process.

BNRC only strengthens its position as a land conservation charity in Berkshire

County, MA due to the relationship the Resources Council has with other land trusts and

environmental organizations. Together, a network of conservation is possible as BNRC

“actively partners” with other local conservation groups (BNRC 2013g). Through the

outstanding work of BNRC, among other land trusts in Berkshire County, the Council has

ensured a high standard of living remains possible and sustainable for future generations of

Berkshire County residents.

GIS and Mapping

The expertise of BNRC is in land conservation, and thus, the extent of GIS and

mapping is limited. When a landowner is interested in preserving their property, a profile

of the property is created by mapping out the boundary of the property using available land

parcel data from MassGIS with a topography layer to establish the basic premise of the

conservation project. This map allows for the creation of a baseline, from which the

property condition is inspected. This report is included in the overall assessment of the

property and included with pictures of the property. Trail maps and guides are also created

11

for user purposes. In order for this to occur, trails must be surveyed and incorporated into a

topographic map via GIS, which are then printed and distributed.

Organization Strengths and Weaknesses

The Berkshire Natural Resources Council does a tremendous job at engaging with

local land holders to assist them in their land conservation goals. Although the extent of

GIS is limited and fairly basic, it suits the needs of establishing conservation plans that are

appropriate for BNRC and the landowner. In that manner, I would say that communication

and networking are two of the biggest strengths of BNRC. I would like for them to put

greater emphasis into the valuation of property. Although there are prices placed on a

particular parcel, it tends to be generally associated with the size and location of the

property. While the property may have unique features that increase the asking price, their

methods are largely related strictly to economics. As the GIS intern, I found that BNRC

had a disorganized GIS database containing multiple copies of shapefiles in different

folders, which made the creation of future maps more difficult. However, overall BNRC

does an incredible job in accomplishing its mission. For a small non-profit land

conservation organization, the Berkshire Natural Resources Council has had a tremendous

impact in “protect[ing] and preserv[ing] the natural beauty and ecological integrity of the

Berkshires for public benefit and enjoyment” (BNRC 2013a).

12

CHAPTER 3: INTERNSHIP DESCRIPTION

When I met BNRC president Tad Ames and stewardship manager Doug Bruce in

early June 2013 prior to the official start of my internship, we spoke of the projects that

could intersect the mapping needs of BNRC and my GIS expertise. We came to the

conclusion that a conservation assessment that incorporated a needed base map would help

fulfill both the goals and mission of BNRC in addition to enhancing my GIS experience.

As a GIS graduate intern at BNRC, I represented the only GIS specific personnel within

the organization. In that regard, my work at BNRC was done largely independently, but

under the supervision of Tad Ames.

I initially focused on the establishment of the base map prior to the conservation

assessment. This base map entailed selected parcels and trails in Williamstown, MA and

Berlin County, NY to enable the establishment of a larger project envisioned by Tad

Ames. His goal was to use the base map to convince property owners in the region of the

need to have continuous land protection to allow for outdoor recreation of nearby trails and

parks. He also planned on utilizing the map to show the existing trail network and to

suggest areas where trails could be connected and other trails that require better

preservation.

The second, and primary, project of the summer emphasized land conservation

prioritization. Although I had graduated with a B.S. in Conservation Biology and was

familiar with general land prioritization based upon ecological diversity mostly in terms of

species diversity, I was unaware of a conservation scheme devised by a team from the

13

University of Massachusetts (UMass). The scheme is known as the Conservation

Assessment and Prioritization System (CAPS) and was created by Dr. Kevin McGarical,

Dr. Scott Jackson and Brad Compton. I utilized CAPS to conduct an assessment on

property in northern Berkshire County, MA in the following towns: Cheshire, Hancock,

Lanesboro, New Ashford and Williamstown. The goal of the project was to provide BNRC

with a general inquiry of the conservation potential of the region such that if BNRC would

like to protect additional properties under conservation restrictions, the resource council

would know which areas would be most advantageous and worthwhile to protect. The

analysis, therefore, was more exploratory in nature to show the possibility of incorporating

GIS to make conservation planning strategies.

Conservation Base Map

At the start of my internship, I was asked to produce a base map detailing property

parcels in Berkshire County, MA and Berlin County, NY (Figure 1) along with trails in the

region. Much of the data for the map was already in the existing GIS database at BNRC,

including the parcels for Williamstown and the trails. This data was originally downloaded

from MassGIS, which has state-wide parcel and trail data. Other trail data originated from

BNRC. However, details pertaining to parcels in Berlin County, NY had to be retrieved

from the NY state GIS clearinghouse (NYSGIS).

Technically, the map was not complicated to produce and involved the digitizing of

non-existing trails, including the Williams Ski Trail and Berlin Pass Trail and compiling of

parcel data into the map. The digitizing was done from approximating spatial location of

the trails by ‘eyeballing’ them on paper maps that contained the trails. In hindsight, it

14

would have been better to scan the paper maps into the GIS and digitize the shapefiles in

that fashion. However, for the Tad Ames’ purposes, he did not need super precise trail

locations, but rather the approximate trail location.

During the process of creating the map, the biggest challenge was determining the

names of some of the trails in the area. People with expert knowledge were consulted and

they had little information that pertained to their exact names. After much discussion, the

trail names were settled following repeated consultation with Tad Ames and Leslie Reed-

Evens, the executive director of the Williamstown Rural Lands Foundation, who is

familiar with the region. Following final trail editing that included corrections to trail

connectivity and extent, the base map was completed.

Conservation Assessment and Prioritization System (CAPS)

The main project that I focused on during my internship was the conservation

assessment of northern Berkshire County, MA. The Conservation Assessment and

Prioritization System (CAPS) was created “to aid land and natural resource managers

become better ecosystem

stewards” (McGarical, Personal Statement), as CAPS is intended to help improve

conservation planning efforts. CAPS can be viewed as a tool to evaluate the overall

importance of conserving particular geographic locations. Through an ecosystem-based

evaluative approach to prioritizing conservation, CAPS is capable of broad-scale spatial

analysis.

As a computer modeling technique, CAPS first requires land cover characterization

that distinguishes developed from undeveloped land type. This is important because

15

developed land is determined to not have any ecological integrity (value = 0). Ecological

integrity refers to the ability of an area to support biodiversity and ecosystem services that

are crucial to sustain biodiversity indefinitely (UMass CAPS). The second phase of CAPS

involves the evaluation of landscape-based variables, or ‘metrics’, that are applied to the

study region. The landscape metrics are then weighted linearly for each community type

(i.e. forest, wetlands, etc) and combined into a final index of ecological integrity (IEI)

(UMass CAPS). It is important to note that CAPS determines IEI over a raster grid that

covers the entire landscape. IEI is determined for each cell within the grid. Many of the

landscape metrics are indicators of human-induced stress on the ecosystem, such as habitat

loss (habloss) and road salt intensity (salt) (Figure 2). Figure 2 also indicates how the each

metric is weighted for a particular community. One of the most important indicators of

ecological integrity is the idea of connectedness.

Within the CAPS model framework, connectedness is stressed as a fundamental

component of the final IEI calculation. As seen in Figure 2, the landscape metrics

representing connectivity, connectedness (connect) and aquatic connectedness (aqconnect)

are weighted heavily for each community. As iterated from McGarical et al. (2010), the

connectedness metric determines the extent to which the landscape is connected by

specifically panning through the scene using a resistant kernel to assess local cell

connectivity. The degree of connectivity is determined by comparing relative ecological

distance. Ecological distance is calculated by using ecological settings variables (Table 1)

that help determine the environmental parameters, which characterize each community. In

16

this work, the ecological settings variable were not individually calculated as they are

included in the connect and aqconnect metrics.

In order to calculate the IEI for northern Berkshire County, MA, I had to utilize the

landscape metrics as part of a weighted raster. Initially, I attempted to calculate each metric

from scratch, but realized that after a few weeks of working through the massive amounts

of data layers that was necessary to formulate the variables that it was not possible to

individually determine each metric. I had collected the data layers described for each

metric from MassGIS, but many data layers were edited to address specific deficiencies in

the data structure. Therefore, I elected to use the weighted metrics available from the

UMass CAPS site. Although the CAPS model utilized the MassGIS land cover map from

2005, I thought that this decision was not up-to-date and elected to retrieve a land cover

product from the Human-Environment Regional Observatory (HERO) program, which had

developed a 16 class land cover map of Massachusetts as of 2010 using available Landsat

data. Using the data from the community metric model (Figure 2) as a premise for the

calculation of IEI, I combined each landscape metric for the respective community, with

the difference in excluding the coastal metrics, as these metrics did not apply to my study

region in Berkshire County. This only pertained to the tidal restriction (tr) metric as the

other land cover types (i.e. sea cliff and tidal flat) are not present in Berkshire County.

Therefore, I had to adjust some of the weighted values to reflect the changes in the metrics

used for each community. In some cases the weight of the metrics did not add up to 100,

and therefore modifications had to be made. For instance, I changed the forested wetland

17

habitat loss (habloss) weight from 9 to 10 and made similar adjustments for all

communities that included the tr metric as part of the final combined weights.

The final calculation of the IEI for northern Berkshire County involved the

weighted linear combination of all the community metrics. Initially, I wanted to do this in

IDRISI using the Multi-criteria Evaluation (MCE), but had unexpected errors in the

process. Therefore, I utilized the ArcGIS raster map algebra tool to linearly combine all

community metrics. The difficulty in accurately portraying the linear combination was

determining the proportion of each landscape metric to the land cover class. I had wanted

to figure out precisely how each land cover type was influenced by each community

metric, as the open land community metric can relate to multiple land cover types such as

grass land, agriculture, or barren. I had attempted to determine this by intersecting each

community metric with the land cover type, but found that there was a great deal of

overlap. Therefore, I decided to use the proportion of land cover type present in the study

area to determine the weight of each community metric. In doing so, the results are biased

towards the forest community metric as it overwhelmingly dominates the land cover in this

region. Due to the extensive overlap of some communities within the model, I elected to

use those communities that best represented the land cover of northern Berkshire County.

The final weighted combination of communities used in the analysis was forest, open land,

shrubs, the 5th

stream (as it was the most extensive of the stream communities), pond, lake,

vernal, and forested wetlands. The final results can be seen in Figure 3. The beauty of

CAPS is that through this analysis, we can see the relative importance of conserving the

landscape. The robust nature of CAPS is that it “combines many complex spatial

18

relationships in the landscape that drive ecological processes, including population

persistence and community dynamics” (UMass CAPS).

The CAPS project, although more exploratory in nature, supported the overall

mission of BNRC as the resource council aims to preserve the ecological integrity of the

Berkshires. CAPS is able to determine a rough estimate of the overall ecological integrity

of an area, which can help BNRC to determine where they should focus their land

conservation efforts. This is particularly important as the Berkshire Natural Resources

Council is a non-profit organization and does not have the financial means to fund every

project. CAPS is designed to help conservation managers and I would include BNRC

within that category.

.

19

CHAPTER 4: INTERNSHIP ASSESSMENT

Overall, I was very pleased with my experience at the Berkshire Natural Resources

Council. My previous GIS work had been done exclusively in a classroom setting with

assigned group projects and it was good to be able to develop and execute a project alone.

While this may not directly apply to the reality of GIS work in my future career, it made

me realize the extent that I can apply GIS without much external guidance. Any problems I

came across, I had to figure it out myself, and despite the occasional frustration as part of

the process, I became a better professional through these experiences. There are going to

be times when assigned a project and you run into difficulties that at times will frustrate

you, but with a little patience the solution comes.

While at BNRC, I learned mostly about land conservation and the particular

practices that are done in order to preserve private property. Since I was the only GIS

‘expert’ in the room, I did not formally learn any other GIS skills, but rather learned of the

overall management of GIS projects. I learned informally of the complexity surrounding

conservation GIS and the necessary components to model ecological integrity. Most

rewardingly, I became familiar with the CAPS model. I feel that this type of ecosystem

modeling will be useful in the future. CAPS has been applied at larger scales for

organizations such as Massachusetts Audubon Society. I expect that future work will

involve modeling using GIS as an analytical tool to present explicit spatial analysis of

varying environmental and ecological issues. In that regard, this experience was excellent.

This is fitting for my future professional career in conservation GIS. Although I expect to

20

use more remote sensing in my future professional endeavors, such work is not possible

without the use of models and the CAPS model represents the potential use of GIS in the

field of conservation.

Coming as a graduate student from Clark University, I was fully prepared for the

tasks at BNRC. Overall mapping skills were necessary to be able to intersect and create

appropriate color schemes for visually interpretable maps. My knowledge of raster creation

in ArcGIS through the raster map algebra tool was incredibly useful in the creation of the

CAPS IEI. Through my coursework at Clark, I was also able to produce accurate

proportions of land cover using IDRISI, which was crucial in determining the final IEI.

The internship with BNRC was rewarding. Although I did enjoy my time working

for the resource council, I would not recommend this internship for other IDCE students,

as there was a general lack of structure in the formulation of projects in the organization.

The existing GIS database was slightly disorganized, which made it difficult to find data at

times. Although I learned a lot in handling the project alone, it would have been nice to

have had someone else who could have assisted me with the specific GIS analysis.

21

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

I was pleased to have the opportunity to work with BNRC during the summer. I

learned about an existing GIS-based spatial model that is capable of determining the

ecological integrity of a landscape comprehensively. CAPS represents a significant future

tool in the realm of landscape ecology and conservation biology, as I see myself doing

professionally after Clark University. This exposure to conservation GIS work firsthand

was incredible. Although the particular methodology of creating the model is still beyond

my expertise, having worked with the CAPS model was an influential and positive

learning experience. My supervisor and President of BNRC, Tad Ames, is a remarkable

person and I had the pleasure of meeting him. He has a vast professional network of

notable conservation enthusiasts that I can utilize to further my professional career in

conservation GIS. The potential to apply CAPS for non-profits such as BNRC will be a

valuable asset to determine where land conservation efforts should be emphasized. I am

hopeful that BNRC will continue to expand the use of GIS as an analytical tool to

determine conservation value and prioritization of land preservation. Such models can also

be useful to determine the effectiveness of existing conservation efforts over time.

22

Bibliography

Bergman P. 2001. Preserving the identity and character of the Berkshires. New England

Newspapers[online]. Available from:

http://extras.berkshireeagle.com/nebe/vip/vip2002/default.asp?filename=VIP23TadAmes&

adfile=ads5.

Berkshire Natural Resources Council, 2013a. About Us [online]. Available from:

http://www.bnrc.net/about-us/ [Accessed 24 November 2013]

Berkshire Natural Resources Council, 2013b. Donation Policies [online]. Available from:

http://www.bnrc.net/about-us/policies/ [Accessed 24 November 2013]

Berkshire Natural Resources Council, 2013c. Support BNRC [online]. Available from:

http://www.bnrc.net/join-us/ [Accessed 24 November 2013]

Berkshire Natural Resources Council, 2013d. Annual Report [online]. Available from:

http://www.bnrc.net/media/2012/01/BNRC_AnnReport2010_web.pdf [Accessed 24

November 2013]

Berkshire Natural Resources Council, 2013e. Board of Directors [online]. Available from:

http://www.bnrc.net/board-of-directors/ [Accessed 24 November 2013]

Berkshire Natural Resources Council, 2013f. Who we are [online]. Available from:

http://www.bnrc.net/category/whoweare/ [Accessed 24 November 2013]

Berkshire Natural Resources Council, 2013f. Who we are [online]. Available from:

http://www.bnrc.net/category/whoweare/ [Accessed 24 November 2013]

23

Berkshire Natural Resources Council, 2013g. Conservation Options [online]. Available

from: http://www.bnrc.net/conservation-options/ [Accessed 24 November 2013]

McGarical K. Personal Statement. University of Massachusetts [online]. Available from:

http://www.umass.edu/landeco/people/kmpersonal.pdf [Accessed 24 November

2013

McGarical K., Jackson S.D, Compton B.W. 2010. Critical Linkages – Evaluating

Landscape Connectivity in Massachusetts: Amendment for BioMap2 Analyses.

The Nature Conservancy. [online] Available from:

http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/linkages.pdf [Accessed 24 November

2013]

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. General Laws [online]. Available from:

https://malegislature.gov/(X(1)S(qrnukq454nz5loj0nlrwz3jw)A(JhIZ50y0zAEkAA

AAMDA3NmNmNTMtYWIyYS00YzFhLTljNDAtNWUwMjAwMmI3MDcyh1q

6qQcrf5-fAtsKWQVIpaGhb_c1))/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleIX/Chapter61

[Accessed 24 November 2013

The Berkshire Web. 2013. Berkshire Natural Resources Council [online]. Available from:

http://www.berkshireweb.com/bnrc/ [Accessed 24 November 2013]

University of Massachusetts (UMass). Conservation Assessment and Prioritization System

(CAPS) [online]. Available from: http://umasscaps.org/index.html

24

FIGURES

Figure 1. Base map of 'Berlin Mountain Recreation Area.' Map displays property parcels and trails in

the region.

25

Figure 2. Illustrates the weighted linear combination of landscape metrics by community type (i.e. forest, openland, etc.). Blank spaces indicate the metric is

not considered an important aspect of ecological integrity for that community. For more details regarding each metric visit: http://umasscaps.org/pdf/CAPS-Landscape-Metrics.pdf.

Figure key: Development & roads Hydrological alterations habloss = habitat loss imperv = imperviousness whabloss = watershed habitat loss damint = dams traffic = road traffic mowplow = mowing and plowing Resiliency (integrity metrics) edges = microclimate alterations connect = connectedness aqconnect = aquatic connectedness Pollution sim = similarity salt = road salt sediment = road sediment Coastal nutrients = nutrient enrichment ditches = salt marsh ditching jetties = coastal structures Biotic alterations beachped = beach pedestrians cats = domestic predators beachORVs = beach ORVs edgepred = edge predators tr = tidal restrictions badplants = invasive plants worms = invasive earthworms

26

Figure 3. Final IEI results for nothern Berkshire County. White indicates high IEI, whereas dark green is low. The urban

areas have been masked out in this analysis as they have been determined to not have ecological integrity.

27

TABLES

Table 1. The ecological settings variables used as part of the calculation of ecological distance in relation to the

connectedness and aquatic connectedness landscape metrics.

Biophysical

Attribute

Biophysical

variable

Description

Temperature Growing season

degree-days

Degree-days is calculated by taking the sum of

daily temperatures above a threshold (10ᴼC).

Temperatures above an upper threshold are

excluded.

Minimum winter

temperature

The minimum temperature (ᴼC) reached in the

winter

Solar energy Incident solar

radiation

Solar radiation based on slope, aspect, and

topographical shading.

Chemical & physical

substrate

Soil pH Soil pH

Soil depth Soil depth (cm)

Soil texture Soil texture based on USDA-NRCS classification

Water Salinity Salinity (ppt) in coastal settings in three broad

classes: fresh, brackish, and saltwater

CaCO3 content Calcium carbonate content based on the

composition of the soil and underlying bedrock

Physical disturbance Wind exposure Wind exposure based on the mean sustained wind

speeds at 30 m above ground level using a 200 m

resolution model

Wave exposure Direct exposure to ocean waves

Steep slopes The propensity for gravity-induced physical

disturbance

Moisture Wetness Soil moisture (in a gradient from xeric to hydric)

based on a topographic wetness index

Hydrology Flow gradient Gradient (percent slope) of a stream approximated

by categories such as step-pool, riffle, run, cascade

and flat water

Flow volume

(watershed size)

The absolute size of a stream or river

Tidal regime In coastal areas, degree of tidal influence

Vegetation Vegetative structure Coarse vegetation structure, from unvegetated

through shrubland through closed canopy forest

28

Development Developed Whether a cell can be considered largely developed

or undeveloped

Traffic rate A scaled measure of traffic volume on roads and

highways

Impervious Percent of impervious surfaces

Terrestrial barriers Degree to which a cell constitutes a barrier to

terrestrial organisms

Aquatic barriers Degree to which a cell constitutes a barrier to

aquatic organisms Source: McGarical et al. (2010)