1. 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
2. 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
3. ACADEMIC HISTORY
Name: Timothy Charles Liponis Date: May, 2014
Baccalaureate Degree: B.S., Conservation Biology
Source: Saint Lawrence University Date: May, 2012
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
7. 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
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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)
14. 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.
15. 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
16. 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).
17. 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
18. 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
19. 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).
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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.
.
27. 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
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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]
31. 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
32. 24
FIGURES
Figure 1. Base map of 'Berlin Mountain Recreation Area.' Map displays property parcels and trails in
the region.
33. 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
34. 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.
35. 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
36. 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)
