Bartholomew`s Cobble Management Plan 2005

Transcription

Bartholomew’s Cobble
Management Plan
2005
The Trustees of Reservations
Doyle Conservation Center
464 Abbott Avenue
Leominster, MA 01453
©
Bartholomew’s Cobble – Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Acknowledgments ...........................................................................1
2. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................2
3. Land Use History
3.1 Overview........................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Pre-settlement and Archaeology .................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Settlement ...................................................................................................... 3-2
3.4 Local History ................................................................................................ 3-2
3.5 Conservation: The Trustees’ Era ................................................................... 3-5
3.5 Timeline ......................................................................................................... 3-9
4. Scenic Resources
4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Important Scenic Elements ............................................................................ 4-1
4.3 Summary of Significant Threats ................................................................... 4-6
4.4 Summary of Significant Opportunities ......................................................... 4-7
5. Natural Resources
5.1 Introduction.................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Methods.......................................................................................................... 5-1
5.3 An Overview of the Natural Landscape......................................................... 5-2
5.4 Regional Context and Open Space Setting .................................................... 5-2
5.5 Watershed Setting .......................................................................................... 5-5
5.6 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................... 5-6
5.7 Climate........................................................................................................... 5-7
5.8 Plant Communities......................................................................................... 5-8
5.9 Flora ............................................................................................................. 5-21
5.10 Wildlife ...................................................................................................... 5-23
5.11 Threats........................................................................................................ 5-28
5.12 Summary of Ecological Highlights............................................................ 5-29
5.13 Summary of Significant Threats ................................................................ 5-29
5.14 Summary of Significant Opportunities ...................................................... 5-30
6. Cultural Resources
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Structures ....................................................................................................... 6-1
6.3 Condition and Maintenance ........................................................................... 6-3
6.4 Collections and Archives ............................................................................... 6-7
6.5 Cultural Landscape Features.......................................................................... 6-9
6.6 Summary of Significant Threats .................................................................. 6-10
6.7 Summary of Significant Opportunities ........................................................ 6-11
7. The Visitor Experience
7.1 Introduction.................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Past and Current Use...................................................................................... 7-1
7.3 Visitor Services and Facilities ....................................................................... 7-3
7.3.1 Visitor Center........................................................................................... 7-3
7.3.2 Bailey Museum ........................................................................................ 7-3
7.3.3 Bailey Environmental Center................................................................... 7-4
7.3.4 Trails ........................................................................................................ 7-4
7.4 Education ....................................................................................................... 7-5
7.5 A Summary of the Elements important to the Visitor Experience ............... 7-8
7.6 Summary of Significant Threats and Issues................................................... 7-9
7.7 Summary of Significant Opportunities .......................................................... 7-9
8. Overview of Current Management
8.1 Introduction.................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 Staffing........................................................................................................... 8-1
8.3 Equipment ...................................................................................................... 8-3
8.4 Committees and Volunteers........................................................................... 8-3
8.5 Field Management ......................................................................................... 8-4
8.6 Budget Overview ........................................................................................... 8-4
8.7 Partnerships with other Organizations ........................................................... 8-5
8.8 Property Regulations...................................................................................... 8-5
8.9 Other Regulatory Issues................................................................................. 8-6
9. Land Conservation
9.1 Introduction.................................................................................................... 9-1
9.2 Description and Evaluation............................................................................ 9-1
9.2.1 Present Property Configuration and Description ..................................... 9-2
9.2.2 Restricted Land on Bartholomew’s Cobble............................................. 9-2
9.2.3 Management Considerations.................................................................... 9-3
9.2.4 Roadways and Vehicular Approaches to the Property ............................ 9-3
9.2.5 Views from the Reservation..................................................................... 9-4
9.2.6 Ecological and Landscape Considerations............................................... 9-4
9.3 Critical Lands Inventory, Assessment and Recommended Actions .............. 9-5
10. Recommended Actions
10.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 10-1
10.2 Scenery and Aesthetics .............................................................................. 10-1
10.3 Natural Resource Management.................................................................. 10-3
10.3.1 Rare and Significant Species ............................................................... 10-4
10.3.2 Exotic Invasive Species ....................................................................... 10-5
10.3.3 Grassland Management........................................................................ 10-7
10.3.4 Wetlands Management......................................................................... 10-8
10.3.5 Additional Research............................................................................. 10-9
10.3.6 Forest Management............................................................................ 10-10
10.4 Cultural Resource Management............................................................... 10-11
10.4.1 Collections Management ................................................................... 10-11
10.4.2 Buildings and Structures .................................................................... 10-12
10.4.3 Archeological Resources ................................................................... 10-13
10.5 The Visitor Experience ............................................................................ 10-14
10.5.1 Visitor Access and Services............................................................... 10-15
10.5.2 Educational Programming ................................................................ 10-16
10.6 Land Conservation ................................................................................... 10-17
10.7 Administration: Staffing, Committees, Volunteers and Budget .............. 10-18
11. Implementation
11.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 11-1
11.2 Plan Monitoring and Review ..................................................................... 11-3
11.3 Implementation of Management Recommendations ................................. 11-4
11.4 Implementation of Management Recommendations by phases............... 11-16
12. Appendices
A. Structural resources: Understanding the baseline conditions of Buildings and
Structures Statewide
B. The Trustees’ Collections Management Policy
C. Fully Allocated Budget for FY 2001 - 2004
Map 1
On the Cover:
View of South Cobble and its calcareous outcrops from Weatogue Road
Photo by R. Hopping
Photo Credits:
Figure(s)
1,2,
3,9,11
4,8
5,6
7,10
Photographer
Unknown, TTOR archive
S. Robotham
R. Hopping
J. Garcia
W. Garrison
Map(s)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Description and Page
Base Map – inside cover
Locus pg. 1-1
Land Acquisition pg. 3-7
BioMap pg. 5-3
Living Waters & ACEC pg. 5-4
Protected Open Space pg. 5-5
Vegetation pg. 5-10
Designated & Regulated Areas pg. 8-10
FEMA Floodplain pg. 9-7
Critical Lands pg. 9-9
Landscape Units pg. 10-2
Maps:
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.
In accordance with The Trustees of Reservation’s management planning process, this
plan has been reviewed and accepted by the following staff and/or committees on the
dates noted:
3/16/05
Russell Hopping
Plan Project Manager, on behalf of the
Management Planning Committee
Gordon Clark
Property Superintendent
3/16/05
3/16/05
Steve McMahon
Regional Director
Lisa Vernegaard
Director of Planning and Stewardship
3/16/05
6/17/05
Tom Foster
Director of Field Operations
Section 1: Introduction and Acknowledgements
Since 1891, The Trustees of Reservations has worked to protect special places in
Massachusetts. These protection efforts have relied upon the generosity of private
individuals and the collaborative efforts of volunteers, local committees, professionals,
and other conservation organizations. This management plan for Bartholomew’s Cobble
is the product of just such a partnership.
Map 1: Locus map for Bartholomew’s Cobble
For nearly 60 years The Trustees has worked to protect, maintain and interpret
Bartholomew’s Cobble. This work began in 1946 with the original acquisition of the 30
acres that contain the cobbles, the location of so many of the rare and interesting plants,
especially the ferns that have made the reservation famous among botanists and nature
enthusiasts. Today, the reservation totals more than 329 acres and includes farm fields,
floodplain forest, beaver wetlands and spectacular views of the surrounding mountains
and Housatonic River Valley. Furthermore, over 5,000 people visit annually with more
than 700 taking part in one of the many educational programs offered.
In 2003, a Management Planning Committee was formed that included both staff and
volunteers. This group met many times to review material and reports, foremost was the
1993 management plan, documenting the Cobble’s features and to consider the property’s
future. This planning process has sought to define the property’s essential features and to
articulate goals and guiding principles that will shape future decision-making. By
1 – Introduction and Acknowledgement
1-1
outlining specific objectives, this framework is intended to guide conservation efforts at
Bartholomew’s Cobble for the next 10 years and beyond.
Many people have contributed their valuable time, shared their expertise, and offered
their advice and counsel during this lengthy process. Led by The Trustees’ project
manager Russ Hopping, the Bartholomew’s Cobble Management Planning Committee
worked to develop a comprehensive plan that highlights and protects what is important
about the Cobble. This committee consisted of Trustees’ members and volunteers as well
as several Trustees' staff members. They are:
Volunteers:
Staff:
Dale Abrams
Ann Barrett
John Downie, Chair
Bernard Drew
Rachel Fletcher
Jerry Jenkins
Ann Riou
Russ Hopping, Ecology Program Manager; Project Manager
Gordon Clark, Superintendent – Stockbridge Management Unit
Jose Garcia, Regional Ecologist
Sarah Robotham, Property Manager
Steve McMahon, Regional Director
Will Garrison, Regional Historic Resources Specialist
In turn, the committee drew upon the wisdom and experience of several other staff
members. James Younger, Director of Structural Resources, provided guidance on the
building’s structural integrity and care; Vin Antil, The Trustees’ GIS Manager, and Rob
Daniels, GIS Specialist, prepared the maps included in the report; Wes Ward, Director of
Land Conservation, provided guidance on land protection including critical lands; and
Melanie Ingalls, Director of Education, provided guidance on the future of education and
interpretation at the Cobble.
Thanks to the thoughtful participation of all of these individuals and to their many hours
of work on behalf of the project, Bartholomew’s Cobble will remain a special place for
generations to come.
February, 2005
1 – Introduction and Acknowledgement
1-2
Section 2: Executive Summary
The Significance of Bartholomew’s Cobble
Known for decades by area naturalists for its diversity of ferns and numbers of
wildflowers, the “Cobble”, a series of rocky outcrops in an alluvial floodplain, has been
visited by thousands seeking to connect with the outdoors and the natural history setting
of a meandering river, high meadow scenic pastures and woodland trails.
Recognizing the unique natural resources found at Bartholomew’s Cobble, The Trustees
purchased an initial thirty acres in 1946. Funds for the purpose were raised locally and
supplemented by a grant from the Founder’s Fund of The Garden Club of America.
Since the original purchase, Bartholomew’s Cobble has grown to more than 320 acres.
Within this expanded landscape are trails leading through floodplain forests and past a
state champion tulip-tree, and fields with panoramic views to the north from Hurlburt’s
Hill and to the west across the Ashley Field. Additionally, the Colonel John Ashley
House and the farm fields across Cooper Hill Road were acquired. Both the Cobble and
the Ashley House are linked by a shared history, ecology and trail system.
Hal Borland, New York Times columnist and nature writer wrote the following in
support of the Cobble’s nomination as a National Natural Landmark:
“Bartholomew’s Cobble is an oasis in time and a special atoll in space.
Its ferns and wildflowers are independent of men and its birds and animals
are autonomous. Man is privileged to go there as a spectator, not as a
creator or a despoiler; and he must know, being there, how rich and
varied and complete in itself a wild place can be. Bartholomew’s Cobble
is conservation in action, in being; for it is an ecological unit kept as
nearly intact as protection can keep it.”
May 1970
The Vision
The significant resources found at Bartholomew’s Cobble, including its exceptional
ecological resources and outstanding scenic features, clearly represent a unique and
rewarding experience for the visitor, but also present significant management challenges.
Management, therefore, will be guided by several factors. The first is The Trustees’
mission:
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 also be guided by organizational initiatives. In particular, the
plan will be mindful of goals outlined in Conservation in Action!, the strategic plan for
2 – Executive Summary
2-1
Field Operations. Specifically, The Trustees aspires to be a leader in the conservation
field through exemplary stewardship of the scenic, historic and ecological features
entrusted to our care. Furthermore, The Trustees aspires to convert visitors into members
and stewards of the Massachusetts landscape through inspiring educational programs,
exciting recreational activities, and an outstanding overall experience on its properties.
Guided by the factors above and a comprehensive study of the property, The Trustees
will base the management of Bartholomew’s Cobble on the following vision.
Due to the reservation’s exceptional ecological diversity and
concentration of rare species and community types, coupled with its many
outstanding scenic features, the goal at Bartholomew’s Cobble is to
maintain the reservation’s capability of supporting an outstanding
concentration of native biodiversity while maintaining its scenery. To
further this goal, The Trustees will increase public appreciation of the
resource through an education and interpretation program and build
participation in the reservation’s stewardship by sustaining an active
volunteer program.
In support of this goal the following principles and guidelines have been crafted to help
guide the development of this plan. These guiding principles are similar to those
outlined in the 1993 Master Plan and express the philosophy of the 2004/2005
Management Plan Committee. They have been updated to reflect the ten years of
knowledge gained since the completion of the previous management plan, and were
critical in developing the management recommendations within this plan. These
principles are also intended to be used by future property committees and staff in
weighing management issues and alternatives.
•
Scientific study is critical to understanding, maintaining and restoring, where
applicable, the natural resources of Bartholomew’s Cobble. Therefore, study of
the reservation’s natural features will be encouraged and will contribute to a
greater common knowledge leading to better management and interpretation.
•
Non-compatible activities, those that are detrimental to the reservation’s resources
or to other visitors’ appreciation of the resource, will be discouraged or
prohibited.
•
Volunteerism will be cultivated by articulating volunteer opportunities and by
employing ongoing and creative methods of outreach. Volunteers will have a
clear understanding of expectations and be recognized for their efforts and
contributions.
•
Emphasis will be placed on providing high quality educational and interpretive
programming to enhance visitor appreciation of the property and to help cultivate
a conservation ethic among the public. This emphasis will include efforts to link
2-2
Bartholomew’s Cobble to the community and the larger landscape as well as
increase membership.
•
All reservation lands will be managed to support native biodiversity and to retain
rare species and communities. While some species turnover is expected due to
environmental forces beyond The Trustees’ control (e.g., global warming),
significant species and community types will not be lost due to neglect where
their preservation is within the means of The Trustees’ ability to manage.
•
The reservation’s archaeological sites, historic features, archival and scientific
records, and artifact collections will be preserved. Information, including
scientific reports, will be maintained and organized so as to be accessible to staff,
scholars and where appropriate, the public.
•
Agricultural lands are scenic, provide important habitat and maintain a link to the
community by supporting local agriculture. As such, agricultural lands will be
maintained for these purposes and unwanted ecological impacts will be
minimized.
•
The scenery at Bartholomew’s Cobble is important to the visitor experience. As
such, significant vistas and viewsheds will be maintained, where reasonable,
recognizing viewsheds at the Cobble can include extensive areas beyond the
reservation’s boundary and The Trustees’ control.
•
Natural ecological processes will be allowed to occur except where intervention is
necessary to maintain significant features (e.g., communities, rare species or vista)
and to combat threats (e.g., exotic invasive species).
•
Although Bartholomew’s Cobble and the Ashley House have separate
management plans and goals, their histories are intertwined and their influence on
each other is significant. Therefore, each site will be considered in the other’s
plan to avoid unintended impacts.
•
Management of the Cobble should demonstrate conservation leadership and
stewardship that reflects its designation as a National Natural Landmark.
•
Exotic invasive plants will not be intentionally introduced.
•
Lands beyond the current reservation boundary are important to maintaining the
significance of the Cobble and efforts to protect these lands will be pursued by
The Trustees’ Land Conservation staff and via educational outreach.
2-3
Implementing the Vision
Building on the organization’s mission, initiatives, property goals, and in keeping with
the guiding principles laid out above, The Trustees’ vision for Bartholomew’s Cobble is
that through active and thoughtful management the property and its important features be
preserved and interpreted for the use and enjoyment of current and future generations. In
order to achieve this vision 56 specific recommendations and 30 guidelines have been
developed using the best available information. That being said, it is important to note
that the plan is a work in progress and subject to change with new information. More
important, implementation of the recommendations contained in this plan requires new
resources. Without these new resources some recommendations will not be
implemented. The following represent the significant recommendations.
Scenic Resource management
Expansive views are signature features for the Cobble and are important attractions for
many visitors. In addition to viewsheds, many visitors seek out the many intimate
settings at the Cobble. While many settings and viewsheds will be self-sustaining or will
be maintained as a result of on-going management (e.g., maintaining agricultural lands),
this management will require constant tweaking and vigilance to maintain scenic quality.
•
•
Maintain and restore important vistas and viewsheds by maintaining agricultural
lands, planting trees to screen nearby houses, periodically cutting trees and shrubs
from existing vistas, and restoring one important river view.
Monitoring local media for potential threats, especially communication towers
and wind turbines.
Natural Resource Management will focus on maintaining the ecological integrity and
capacity of the Cobble to support biodiversity by minimizing threats, maintaining
important habitats, and preserving rare species.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Develop strategies for minimizing threats from deer browsing.
Develop a comprehensive plan for controlling invasive species that includes early
detection of new invasions, keeping invasives out of priority areas, avoiding
planting known and potentially invasive species, licensing staff applying
herbicides, incorporating invasive species management into the education
program, and expanding the invasive species internship.
Develop Rare and Significant Species Management Plan that identifies which rare
and significant species require management actions.
Obtain and review any existing Natural Heritage field forms and records for all
rare species at the Cobble and update regularly.
Continue bird nesting box program important for Eastern Bluebirds.
Develop grassland management plan that includes the regular review and update
of agricultural leases to reflect The Trustees’ grassland guidelines and the regular
monitoring of grassland wildlife (e.g., bobolinks).
Work with the town to remedy erosion problems along Weatogue Road that
threatens rare species and their habitat.
2-4
•
•
•
Conduct additional research that documents the biological wealth of the
reservation and any threats. Future surveys will focus on breeding bird, odonates
and vernal pools.
Monitor hemlocks threatened by disease (e.g., Hemlock Woolly Adelgid) and
remove specific trees when dead for public safety.
Allow selected forested areas to develop into old growth forest, a missing habitat
at the Cobble.
Cultural Resource Management will focus on collections care and on building
maintenance.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The acquisition and care of collections will follow The Trustees’ Collections
Management Policy.
Evaluation of environmental conditions where collections are housed.
Assess, inventory, and catalog all collections.
Identification of alternative storage locations.
Identify the role that collections play in the education plan.
Improve interpretive text of collections.
Rotate exhibits to provide a dynamic visitor experience.
Document stone walls and fence lines for education and interpretation.
Perform routine maintenance on buildings as outlined by a maintenance plan.
Update the Bailey Museum as directed by the Education Plan.
Address identified deferred maintenance on the Bailey Museum and Visitors
Center.
Finish construction of the Screen House.
Monitor beaver activity for unwanted impacts on buildings and roadways.
Conduct archeological surveys for both pre-historic and historic sites since little is
known about either.
Visitor Experience
The current management of Bartholomew’s Cobble is intended to facilitate a direct and
personal experience of nature and to foster an appreciation for the Cobble through an
active education program, visitor services (e.g., Visitors Center), a comprehensive trail
system, and good stewardship of resources.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Improve trail conditions and markings at selected locations.
Revise and post regulations to reflect all current prohibitions.
Install fencing at critical locations along trails to prevent trampling of sensitive
vegetation.
Improve access to drinking water by installing an outside water fountain.
Develop property education plan in accordance with the state-wide Education
Plan.
Ensure that all staff attend training offered by Education and Outreach.
2-5
Land Conservation at the Cobble should address critical lands important for maintaining
the integrity (i.e., minimizing fragmentation) of the reservation but, also landscape level
preservation important for maintaining viewsheds and significant ecological features
within the reservation.
•
•
•
•
Encourage owners of critical lands and parcels within the priority viewsheds to
utilize the conservation buyer site on The Trustees Website.
Partner with other conservation organizations working within Sheffield to
promote and facilitate land protection goals in south Sheffield. Partnerships could
include joint sponsorship of the Housatonic River ACEC and joint use of The
Trustees’ conservation buyer program by other organizations.
Conduct a GIS viewshed analysis.
Meet with partner organizations to explore the feasibility of and interest in
pursuing an ACEC designation for the Housatonic River and its floodplain, and
possibly land within the viewshed of Hurlburt’s Hill.
Administration addresses staffing needs, volunteers, committees and budget issues.
Many recommendations focus on providing additional human resources during
bottleneck periods in the spring and fall when it is a challenge to get work done on-theground at the Cobble because of limited staffing resources and high visitor use.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Develop plan to increase seasonal staff housing.
Expand seasonal Ranger/Naturalist position by 15 days.
Recruit volunteers for the weekends and develop a volunteer coordinator position.
Establish separate budgets for the Cobble and the Ashley House.
Create two property subcommittees, one for the Cobble and one for the Ashley
House with specific guidelines that define committee responsibilities.
Set priorities/identify tasks for the Cobble Property Committee.
Develop memorial gift program.
Procure a lawn tractor suitable for mowing trails.
2-6
Section 3: Land Use History
Bartholomew’s Cobble is an oasis in time and a special atoll in space … Man is
privileged to go there as a spectator, not as a creator or despoiler; and he must know,
being there, how rich and varied and complete in itself a wild place can be. 1
3.1 Overview
Over the past 8,000 years, the river banks, woodlands, clearings, and cobbles that make
up today’s Bartholomew’s Cobble Reservation have been transformed again and again.
Members of Algonquian tribes hunted, fished, and farmed here. English settlers began
using the land about 280 years ago, and the pace of change accelerated. Forests were
cleared for farming, domestic use, and to provide charcoal for the iron industry. Fields
were cleared for crops and livestock. Later, some of these fields re-forested as
agriculture waned. In the mid-20th century, The Trustees of Reservations began the
land’s next transformation, creating nature trails, clearing invasive plant species, and
opening the property for the public’s enjoyment.
3.2 Pre-settlement and Archaeology
When Henry Hudson sailed up the Muh-he-con-nuk (later named the Hudson River) in
1609, he was greeted by Mohicans. “The Mohicans were a vigorous Indian nation with a
thousand warriors who…held substantial territory in which hunting, fishing, gathering,
subsistence agriculture, and intertribal trade provided sustenance.”2 Bartholomew’s
Cobble would have been used, at least on an intermittent basis, for fishing, hunting, and
farming. There has never been an archeological survey conducted, but stone artifacts
have been found along the ledges and in nearby fields.
By the 1720s, the situation had changed drastically. Disease and war had decimated the
Mohican tribe. One group of Mohicans, led by Konkapot and Umpachenee, moved to the
eastern edge of the tribe’s traditional territory, along the Housatonic River. Some
Mohicans gathered in what is now southern Berkshire County. By the early 1730s, this
land had been acquired by English settlers. For example, in 1737 Colonel Ashley
purchased 50 acres “on Ironworks River [now known as Konkapot River] at a place
known as Umpachenes Wigwam.”3 This site is probably near the center of Ashley Falls.
In 1735-1737, the Mohicans moved to a land grant of 9,000 acres set out for them by the
Massachusetts General Court. This was located north of Monument Mountain in the
1
Hal Borland, 1970, journalist, Audubon magazine contributing editor, novelist, naturalist, Letter to The
Trustees of Reservations for the 1969 fundraising campaign to add 115 acres.
2
Frazier, Patrick. The Mohicans of Stockbridge. Lincoln, Nebraska: The University of Nebraska Press,
1992. page 2.
3
Berkshire County Registry of Deeds.
3 – Land Use History
3-1
township of Stockbridge. Southern Berkshire County came under the complete control of
settlers.
3.3 Settlement
In the early 18th century, the English colonists considered the Housatonic River Valley a
wilderness ripe for development. As with many new towns in Massachusetts, Sheffield
was created by a group of businessmen, known as “Proprietors.” In 1722, a group of
such businessmen from the Connecticut River towns of Hadley, Springfield,
Northampton, and Westfield paid the General Court of Massachusetts (the governing
body of the colony) for the right to develop two tracts of land along the Housatonic
River.
This area, about 12 miles wide and 18 miles long, includes the present towns of Sheffield,
Great Barrington, Egremont, Mt. Washington, and much of Alford, Stockbridge, West
Stockbridge, and Lee. The Proprietors had the right to divide and sell the land. They
continued to administer the Sheffield land grant until the mid-19th century, making
money both by selling land and by retaining some for themselves. However, the town
governments of the emerging towns were not directly controlled by the Proprietors.
Settlement did not begin in earnest until the early 1730s, after some boundary disputes
with Dutch settlers from New York were resolved.
Captain John Ashley of Westfield was one of the Proprietors and his son, Colonel John
Ashley, was hired as a surveyor.4 Over the next 75 years, the land was divided and
developed. Forests were cut down to create more farmland. Rich iron ore beds just
across the line in Salisbury, Connecticut fed forges and foundries, including one in
Ashley Falls. Remaining trees – usually on steep slopes - were cut down to provide the
vast amounts of charcoal needed to fire the furnaces. Farmers planted crops and raised
livestock, built stone walls, cleared fields, and generally put the land to use to support
their families and to supply local industries. The uses were varied. A surviving account
book from the Ashley family business lists a sawmill, gristmill, ironworks, and potash
works.5 These businesses were clustered on the Konkapot Creek near the center of
Ashley Falls.
3.4 Local History
Agriculture
The land that is now Bartholomew’s Cobble was used as farmland and woodlots to
support farms and businesses located nearby. The extent and variety of agriculture
through the mid 19th century is indicated in Ashley family account books, including:
4
Referred to as “Colonel” John Ashley (1709-1802) even if he had not yet acquired that rank. This
distinguishes him from his father, Captain John Ashley of Westfield (1669-1769) his son, General John
Ashley (1736-1799), and grandson Major John Ashley.
5
Ledger. Kept by Colonel John Ashley from 1768 to 1786. On loan from Joseph C. Hurlburt of Lancaster,
Pennsylvania.
3-2
wool carding, milling grain, haying, making cider, and taking “cows to bull.”6 Both
Colonel John Ashley and his son, General John Ashley, owned slaves. This probably
enabled them to own and work more land than the average farmer in Berkshire County.
Through the 19th century, the farming evolved from subsistence farms growing a wide
variety of crops to a more commercial type of agriculture. Midwestern farmers could
ship many grains and other produce to New York and New England more cheaply than
local farmers. Farmers in Sheffield switched to dairying and stock farms. For example,
on an advertisement titled “Country Produce Wanted,” H. A. Hillyer writes to his Uncle
William Ashley in 1843. Hillyer asks his uncle to assure the Bartholomews that he,
Hillyer, would pay promptly for butter shipped to his store in New York City.7
In the 1880s, George Brewer purchased the old Colonel Ashley house and enough
property to support a large stock farm, the Eureka Stock Farm. A 1904 advertisement
read, “…Eureka Stock Farm…located one and one-half miles West from Ashley Falls.
This is the Best Improved Farm in Southern Berkshire. General Stock Dealer. All kinds
of Stock Bought and Sold. Small Profits and Quick Sales. Drop me a Postal When You
Have Stock For Sale…”8
Property Owners
It is difficult to translate the sketchy descriptions of property boundaries as listed in 18th
and 19th century records, so it is difficult to pinpoint exact pieces of property. Often a
tree was used as a boundary marker. The current 329 acres of Bartholomew’s Cobble
Reservation were used for farming and woodlots that supported adjacent and nearby
properties (e.g., farmyards, mills, foundries).
Only a few buildings are known to have been on the reservation. An 1876 atlas indicates
a dwelling owned by George F. Bartholomew, located in the L-field. A 1904 atlas
indicates the owner as S. H. Collar.9 Between the cobbles, near the riverbank, was a twostory “summer house,” torn down about 1954. The Bailey Museum and the tent
platform, both on the north cobble, were once cabins, perhaps used as summer retreats by
local residents.
Ashleys
Most, if not all, of Bartholomew’s Cobble was owned by the Ashley family until the
early 19th century. First, Captain John Ashley of Westfield soon transferred his Sheffield
properties to his son, Colonel John Ashley. From the mid-1730s to 1800, Colonel Ashley
continued to acquire land, rarely selling any. For example, in November of 1736 he
purchased 300 acres “on West side of Housatonnock River” that likely included parts of
Bartholomew’s Cobble. In May 1738, Colonel Ashley acquired an additional 266 acres
6
Various ledgers. Kept by John and/or William Ashley 1792-1847. On loan from Joseph C. Hurlburt of
Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
7
Letter from H.A. Hillyer to William Ashley, 1843. On loan from Joseph C. Hurlburt of Lancaster,
Pennsylvania
8
Atlas of Berkshire County, 1904
9
Atlas of Berkshire County, Massachusetts, 1876 and Atlas of Berkshire County, 1904.
3-3
described as eight parcels in Sheffield, including his own house lot along the Housatonic
River. The river provided transportation in the years before railroads and good highways.
After Colonel Ashley’s death in 1802, his land was divided amongst many heirs. His
only son, General Ashley, had predeceased him.
Gen. John’s widow, Mary, received 1/3 of the real estate that was
originally devised to Gen. Ashley for use during her lifetime. After her
death it was to be divided among her heirs. She survived until 1827.
Bequests of 220 acres of land and 1/3 of all personal estate and ¼ of all
money were made to daughter Jane Dutcher; 470 acres of land and 1/3 of
all personal estate and ¼ of all money to son-in-law Gen. John Fellows;
117 acres to grandson William Bull provided he not contest the will or that
of his father; and an allowance of money to Mrs. Jane Steel, furnishings,
and a right to remain in the southwest room of the house for her natural
life. Colonel Ashley also left money for the care of his three long-time
African servants (former slaves – John, Zack, and Harry) when they are
unable to support themselves any longer. The residue of the estate was
divided among the six surviving children of Gen. John Ashley. In this
division grandson John (IV) received a 4/15 share that included 453 acres
of land, the dwelling house and barn of Colonel John Ashley, and the dam
where the sawmill stood; William Ashley also received a 4/15 share
containing a dwelling house and five acres; 306 acres with the sawmill,
gristmill, ironworks, and three small dwelling houses. The four daughters
shared the remaining 7/15 share of land and buildings. The result of this
division was to divide the holdings prematurely and thus dilute the wealth
of the family. John died in 1823, and by 1838, both the Colonel Ashley
House and Gen. Ashley House, and most of the lands once held by
Colonel John Ashley (II) had been sold out of the family. William Ashley
retained control of the mills, store, and ironworks until his death in 1849,
but did little to expand and pass on the Ashley wealth. With his demise,
the Ashley presence in Sheffield largely disappeared.10
The Colonel John Ashley House Reservation
The history of the Colonel John Ashley House is worth noting, since its owners through
the years also owned the land that is now Bartholomew’s Cobble.
Built in 1735, the house’s original location was on the west bank of the Housatonic
River, just north of the intersection of Rannapo and Cooper Hill Roads (Map 1).
In 1838, Wyllis Bartholomew purchased the Colonel John Ashley House and 5 ¼ acres
from the Ashley family. He owned it until his death in 1846, and likely used it for farm
laborer housing. Wyllis’ son Hiram inherited it, then sold it to his son George in 1852.
10
Myron O. Stachiw, Colonel John Ashley and His Web of Commerce, 1735-1802. A report prepared for
The Trustees of Reservations and funded by the Scholar-in-Residence Program of the Bay State Historical
League and the Massachusetts Humanities Foundation. February, 2003. pages 11-12.
3-4
In 1882, George A. Brewer purchased the old Colonel Ashley House and 220 acres of
farmland. Brewer and his family operated the Eureka Stock Farm for 40 years. The core
of the farm straddled Rannapo Road, with the original Ashley House and its farmyard on
the river side, and Brewer’s own house across the road.
In 1930, it was moved approximately ¼ mile to a 5-acre lot on Cooper Hill Road and
restored by Harry and Mary Brigham. In 1945, Mr. and Mrs. Edward Brewer acquired
the house and continued to furnish it with antiques. In 1960 it was purchased by Colonel
John Ashley House, Inc. and operated as a historic house museum until 1972, when
purchased by The Trustees of Reservations. Its five-acre lot adjoins Bartholomew’s
Cobble Reservation.
Although the Ashley House’s history is closely intertwined with Bartholomew’s Cobble,
its current use and mission will be better served by a separate management plan.
Corbins
According to Gerard Chapman (1975), Joseph and Tamazin Corbin were the first owners
of the land which encompasses the Cobble and its surrounding area, acquiring the rights
from the Proprietors. He cites a deed owned by the Hurlburt family of Ashley Falls that
documented a sale in 1738 to Colonel Ashley. However, an examination of original
deeds11 and public records did not confirm this. A deed recording a sale in 1758 of 17 ½
acres by Jared Eliot to Colonel John Ashley does refer to a bordering property that “was
originally Joseph Corbin’s & Jonathan Westover’s now said Ashley’s…”12 Whatever the
details, this family at one time did own part of Bartholomew’s Cobble, and their family
name survives in Corbin’s Neck.
Bartholomews
In 1825, three generations of the Bartholomews began a gradual acquisition of most of
the former Ashley lands. Wyllis, his son Hiram, and grandson George Bartholomew
embarked on a complicated series of buying and selling land, often to each other and
back again. By the late 1870s, Hiram and George owned enough grazing land to lend
their name to Bartholomew’s Cobble. George Bartholomew owned a house along
Cooper Hill Road, on the property now referred to as the L-field. It is no longer standing.
3.5 Conservation: The Trustees’ Era
Bartholomew’s Cobble has long been recognized as a special place. In the 1930s Walter
Prichard Eaton, an amateur natural scientist, became an advocate for this property. Eaton
included a chapter, “The Cobble,” in his 1936 book, Wild Gardens of New England. His
persistent advocacy over many years ultimately enlisted the support of like-minded
11
Joseph C. Hurlburt of Lancaster, Pennsylvania loaned to The Trustees a number of Ashley family
account books, letters, and deeds. The Hurlburts lived in the William Ashley house in Ashley Falls for
many years.
12
Deed for sale of property, October 4, 1758; recorded by Registrar of Deeds, January 13, 1778 [yes, 20
years later]. Manuscript owned by Joseph C. Hurlburt, on loan to The Trustees of Reservations.
3-5
persons, including Mabel Choate and Rodney Proctor, both of Stockbridge. In a
magazine article written about 1947, Miss Choate stated, “It was considered a place of
secret beauty and a destination of many a picnic or rural expedition…Within the last
year, however, some precautions have been taken against the increasing number of
motorists. Spurred on by these danger signals, the Trustees of Public Reservations of
Massachusetts renewed its efforts to purchase Bartholomew’s Cobble, on which its
longing eyes had been set for 20 years.”
In 1946, The Trustees of Public Reservations purchased the first 30 acres with funds
raised by subscription. Miss Choate, Chairman of the Founders’ Fund Committee of the
Garden Club of America and a supporter of The Trustees (bequeathing Naumkeag to The
Trustees in 1958), induced that organization to contribute substantially in support of the
effort, while the Morgan and Higgins families of Worcester were also most helpful.
In 1963, the area of Bartholomew’s Cobble Reservation was increased by the purchase of
14 acres from the Hurlburt family, comprising the ox-bow meadow peninsula and a 20foot strip along the east bank of the Housatonic River. 1968 saw the addition of eight
acres by purchase, from John A. Howden, on land south of Rannapo Road.
A major increment was the 1969 purchase of 115 acres on Miles Mountain comprising
Hurlburt’s Hill and Hurlburt’s Woods across Weatogue Road from the Cobble and
extending into Connecticut. The Bartholomew’s Cobble – Ashley House Committee, a
group of 40 supporters from three states, led the successful three-year fund drive.
In 1972, two threads of history were rewoven when The Trustees acquired the Colonel
John Ashley House. Colonel Ashley (1709-1802) had counted the land later called
Bartholomew’s Cobble among the thousands of acres he owned in Sheffield and
neighboring Connecticut. His family’s house, built in 1735 next to the Housatonic River,
was moved in August 1930 to its current location on Cooper Hill Road. The Brigham
and Brewer families restored the house, then in 1959 it was sold to a local group, Colonel
Ashley House, Inc. Throughout the 1960s this group of local volunteers kept the house
open to the public as a museum. In 1972, they agreed to sell the house and its five acres
to The Trustees, joining it to Bartholomew’s Cobble. Under the chairmanship of Morgan
G. Bulkeley III of Pittsfield, the campaign to raise $167,500 was successful, with several
foundations and some 800 individual contributors meeting the challenge.
In 1971, The Trustees of Reservations lost two acres to the state by eminent domain to
provide approaches to a new bridge carrying Rannapo Road across the river, so that its
total area in 1975 was 170 acres.
In 1971, the National Park Service designated Bartholomew’s Cobble a National Natural
Landmark. According to a letter dated December 20, 1971 from the National Park
Service to Gordon Abbott (Former Executive Director of The Trustees), Bartholomew’s
Cobble was the 134th site to be included in the Registry of Natural Landmarks. The
Landmark status applies to the lands acquired prior to 1971, but has not extended to
3-6
subsequent acquisitions. See Section 8.9 for more details on the National Natural
Landmark designation.
Map 3: Acquisition History
Year
Acres
1946
1963
1968
1969
1976
1978
1981
1983
1983
1996
2001
30.3
13
8
119
35
33
14.1
21.3
2.38
16.9
35.9
Parcel Name
From
Cobbles
Corbin's Neck
Rannapo Pasture
Hurlburt's Hill
Ashley Field
Spero
West Pasture
L-field
L-field
upper Grumphelt
lower Grumphelt
Charles Conklin
Walter Hurlburt
John A. Howden
Walter Hurlburt
Bertha Newton & June Samuels
Spero-Roman family
Antonio Malnati
Harry Kahn
Alan J. Frisch
Mrs. Ann Grumphelt
Mrs. Ann Grumphelt
Total 328.88
Since 1946, The Trustees have strived to use the latest and best methods to preserve
Bartholomew’s Cobble. In the 1950s, overgrown red cedars were removed to improve
the views of the river. Much of the land has been continuously farmed, preserving the
3-7
history of land use and helping the local agricultural economy. Some of the crops have
changed (for example, the Ashley Field going from corn to hay) to better meet ecological
goals. Exotic invasive species remain a problem, but are being tackled with energy by
staff and volunteers.
Staff and Local Committees:
From 1946 to 1963, the first Warden was S. Waldo Bailey, a self-taught naturalist. He
laid out a system of trails to reveal its treasures to the public and was fiercely protective
of its integrity.
After S. Waldo Bailey’s death in 1963, it was decided to convert the old cabin on the
property to a trailside museum in his honor; Earle Gilligan of Sheffield drew the plans for
the Bailey Museum. It was finished in 1965, displaying collections of objects collected
in the area: butterflies, arrowheads and other Native American artifacts, birds’ eggs and
nests, and photographs. It also contained mounted specimens of fauna and a small
reference library.
Figure 1: Bailey Museum with group of visitors, ca. 1965
Howard T. Bain became the Warden-Naturalist in 1963. Bain learned on the job and in
his eleven years as Warden became familiar with the Cobble’s wildlife. During Bain’s
term the number of visitors tripled to about 8,000 annually. After retiring in 1973, he
wrote the Ledges Interpretive Trail booklet, illustrated by Morgan G. Bulkeley IV.
3-8
After The Trustees acquired the Colonel Ashley House, a succession of WardenNaturalists lived in the staff apartment there. Usually, the Warden’s wife served as “head
hostess” for the Colonel Ashley House, giving tours of the historic house. Both positions
were seasonal. In 1974, Robert W. Carpenter became the third warden, and his wife
Bettlye served as head hostess. They were succeeded by Anthony and Carol Boutard,
then Doug and Debra Cross, and Michael and Sandy Cuoco. In 1989, Ned Swanberg was
hired as Warden-Naturalist and his wife Tory Rhodin hired as House Interpreter. At this
time, the Naturalist position became year-round. Don Reid was hired in 1993, soon
assuming the title of Regional Ecologist. Sarah Robotham is now Property Manager of
Bartholomew’s Cobble.
In 1974, the Local Committee and The Trustees formed an association known as the
Friends of Bartholomew’s Cobble and the Colonel John Ashley House. By the 1990s,
this evolved into the Sheffield Properties Committee.
13
3.6 Timeline
~15,000 BP Deglaciation of area, with post-glacial lake.
12-10,000 BP stream terrace deposits
15-8,000 BP some evidence of Paleo-Culture: a miniature fluted point found that is
similar to an artifact from Shepaug Valley (western Connecticut) dated to 10,000
BP.
8-3,000 BP evidence of Archaic Culture: artifacts in Babb Collection
3,000-600 BP Woodland Period. Artifacts excavated by Gustavus Pope of Taconic, CT
from rock shelter .5 mile north of Reservation. In Babb Collection.
1624 Dutch establish a fur trading post at Fort Orange (now Albany, NY). Subsequent
competition between Mohawk and Mohican tribes leads to the eventual
movement of some Mohicans to Housatonic River Valley.
1676 On July 2, between 45-170 Indian allies of Metacom (“King Philip”) were slain
by John Talcott and English soldiers, at a river ford near Searles in Great
Barrington.
1690 Smallpox epidemic decimates Mohican population.
1692 Dutch settlers arrive in Mt. Washington. Others soon settle in Sheffield.
1700s In the early 1700s the Mohicans (later known as Stockbridge Mohicans) arrive at
Housatonic River Valley in present-day Sheffield and Great Barrington.
1722 Group of Proprietors successfully petition General Court for right to develop land
in southern Berkshire County.
1724 Konkapot, Umpachenee, and other Mohicans sell land (present day Sheffield) to
English settlers.
1726 Sheffield surveyed by Captain John Ashley and Captain Ebenezer Pomeroy.
1731 John Pell and Ezekiel Ashley discover iron at Ore Hill, Salisbury.
1733 Town of Sheffield incorporated.
13
With minor edits and additions, the timeline is copied from the 1993 Bartholomew’s Cobble
Management Plan.
3-9
1734
1735
1737
1738
1739
1754
1771
1771
1776
1781
1833
1858
1878
1893
1906
1908
1922
1929
1930
1936
1938
1946
1946
1949
1952
1953
1954
1958
1960
1961
1963
1964
1965
1968
1969
1969
1969
1970
1971
Joint-stock company formed to operate Ore Hill mine (until 1923). There are
three forges, at Sheffield, Lakeville, and Great Barrington.
Colonel John Ashley House built.
John Sergeant establishes a mission for the Mohicans.
Colonel John Ashley acquires land that probably includes Reservation.
First local iron forge established in Great Barrington.
French and Indian War begins.
General John Ashley house built.
Town of Sheffield offers bounty on wolves.
Sheffield votes to support Continental Congress during Revolution.
Brom and Bet vs. Ashley court case – frees enslaved African-Americans.
Wyllis Bartholomew acquires land that probably includes Reservation.
Mention of structure on L-field, another possibly on Ashley Field [need to track
down these references]
Town votes to purchase materials for “Bartholomew’s Bridge.”
Conklins acquire Cobble from Jemima Kirby.
Scott’s spleenwort found at Cobble.
Dam in Canaan (CT Light and Power Co.) floods fields around and north of the
Reservation.
Ralph Hoffman publishes Flora of Berkshire County, mentioning Cobble.
General Electric begins discharging PCBs and PCDFs into the Housatonic River.
Colonel Ashley House moved from bank of Housatonic to current location on
Cooper Hill Road.
Walter Pritchard Eaton writes Wild Gardens of New England, mentioning Cobble.
Canaan dam washed out by hurricane and not replaced.
S. Waldo Bailey hired as first Warden.
On October 21, first part of the Reservation purchased by The Trustees. The
30.31 acres included three structures and two farm roads.
Major flood in January.
Catherine Andrus Trail completed over South Cobble Summer House on South
Cobble removed.
Rail fence replaced barbed wire on Weatogue Road. Grazing ends on cobble
outcrops.
First cutting of red cedars to open the view to the Housatonic River.
Herbert J. Arnold and S. Waldo Bailey write Bartholomew’s Cobble.
Large map placed at entrance, and geology and botanical signs placed by trails.
S. Waldo Bailey writes Birds of the Cobble.
On January 13, 13 acres purchased from Hurlburt family (Corbin’s Neck).
Great horned owl nest blown from pine on South Cobble.
On May 22, remodeled cabin dedicated as Bailey Museum.
On December 31, 8 acres purchased from Howdens (Rannapo Pasture).
On December 31, 115 acres purchased from Hurlburts (Hurlburt’s Hill).
Howard Bain writes Ledges Interpretive Trail; illustrated by Morgan Bulkeley IV.
Oxshoe Spring Trail and Bailey Trail in existence.
Bailey Museum expanded to both rooms.
Designated National Natural Landmark.
3-10
1971 Two acres lost to new Rannapo bridge approach.
1972 Ashley House and five acres purchased.
1972 On October 14, ceremony for Landmark status and presentation of The Trustees’
Conservation Award to Morgan Bulkeley III.
1972 Boulder Trail, Tulip Tree Trail, and West Fence Trail open.
1972 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act passed.
1972 Clean Water Act passed.
1974 Robert W. Carpenter hired as Warden-Naturalist; Bettyle Carpenter hired as
Guide at Colonel Ashley House (to 1977).
1975 Colonel Ashley House placed on the National Register of Historic Places.
1976 On February 10, Ashley Field purchased from Sameuls and Newton, 35 acres.
1977 Commercial license denied to Canaan, CT airport.
1977 General Electric stops discharging PCBs into Housatonic River following federal
Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
1978 Anthony Boutard hired as Warden-Naturalist; Carol Boutard hired as House
Hostess (to 1981).
1978 On June 9, 30.8 and 2.6 acres donated by Spero and Roman families.
1981 On December 9, purchase of West Pasture from Malnatis, 14.1 acres.
1981 Consent agreement between General Electric and EPA and Mass DEP to study
contamination of Housatonic River with PCBs.
1982 Doug Cross hired as Warden-Naturalist; Debra Cross hired as House Hostess (to
1987).
1983 On March 10, L-field (21.26 acres) donated via trade land given by Harry Kahn,
and hedgerow (2.38 acres) purchased from Frischs.
1986 In March, Sheffield Town Meeting designates Weatogue Road a “Scenic Road.”
1987 On December 15, Harrison Salisbury donates conservation restriction on 433
acres adjacent to Reservation.
1988 Michael Cuoco hired as Warden-Naturalist and Sandy Couco hired as House
Interpreter (to 1988).
1989 Ned Swanberg hired as Warden-Naturalist and Tory Rhodin hired as House
Interpreter (to 1993). Position becomes year-round.
1989 In April, Ashley Falls Historic District approved.
1989 On December 19, James Spero donates conservation restriction on 57 acres
adjacent to reservation.
1989 Sheffield Land Trust incorporated.
1990 August 10, 1990 Mt. Washington and Sheffield adopt Schenob Brook ACEC.
1993 Don Reid hired as Naturalist (to 2002).
1995 Visitors Center open to public.
1996 Upper Grumpelt lot (16.9 acres) given by Mrs. Ann Grumpelt.
1996 Massachusetts Rivers Protection Act (an amendment of Wetlands Protection Act)
passed.
1998 GE agrees to pay $200 million to clean Housatonic River of PCBs Sept 24, 1998.
2000 Upper Housatonic National Heritage Area Study Act.
2001 Lower Grumpelt lot (35.9 acres) given by Mrs. Ann Grumpelt.
2001 Bailey Museum renovated.
2003 Upper Housatonic National Heritage Area Act passed.
3-11
Section 4: Scenic Resources
Bartholomew’s Cobble is an unusual piece of land regarded as outstanding long
before its scientific value was recognized. It was considered a place of secret beauty
and was the destination of many a picnic and rural expedition. From its top can be
seen a panoramic stretch of the Taconic Range to the West and to the East the lovely
winding serenity of the Housatonic River and its meadows. 1
4.1 Introduction
The greatest asset of Bartholomew’s Cobble may be its diversity – diversity of flora,
fauna and natural community types, but also diversity of landscape. Scenic features at the
Cobble include pastoral views of river and field and panoramic views of the valley and
surrounding mountains, as well as those of a more intimate type - of sculpted rock, trees
and plants of unusual variety and form, and an array of seasonal and resident wildlife.
This diverse scenery has the added effect of making the reservation feel much larger than
its actual 329 acres. It also appeals to the mood and the aesthetic of a wide cross-section
of visitors.
4.2 Important Scenic Elements
Expansive Views
Hurlburt’s Hill
A moderate, less than one mile hike to the top of Hurlburt’s Hill rewards visitors with a
sweeping, 180-degree view of the Berkshire Hills and the Taconic Mountains. This view
may well be the best return for the smallest investment in all of western Massachusetts.
From the summit looking northward, a patchwork of farm and woodlands blanket the
Housatonic River Valley. On a clear day, Mt. Greylock, the highest peak in
Massachusetts may be seen on the horizon. To the west is a dramatic view of the Taconic
Range dominated by Mt. Everett, the second tallest peak in the state.
The 17-acre hayfield at the summit of Hurlburt’s Hill provides an unobscured view of the
valley and distant hills, as well as habitat for bobolinks, tree swallows, bluebirds and
other grassland species nesting on the ground and in the nest boxes bordering the trail.
1
Mabel Choate, 1946, Director, Founder’s Fund, Garden Club of America, Letter to The Trustees of
Reservations for the 1969 fundraising campaign to add 115 acres.
4 – Scenic Resources
4-1
Hurlburt’s Hill is a favorite destination of many Cobble visitors - equally as important an
attraction as the Ledges Trail - especially in the sultry summer months, when high heat
and humidity and abundant mosquitoes concentrate at lower elevations.
Figure 2: View from Hurlburt’s Hill
Mt. Everett and West Pasture
A dramatic and previously obscured view of Mt. Everett was revealed when the
hedgerow between Ashley Field and the West Pasture was removed in 2003. The demise
of the hedgerow and the subsequent shifting of Hal Borland Trail from the field to the
pasture have greatly improved the scenic value of this trail. Where views from the trail
were once limited to Ashley Field looking east, visitors now enjoy views in every
direction, as well as variety in the texture of the landscape: the manicured hayfield, the
rough pasture, the forest and the distant view of Mt. Everett. Visual access to the West
Pasture also enhances wildlife viewing opportunities, as the pasture serves as a staging
area for migrating birds, including post-nesting bobolinks from Ashley Field.
The visual appeal of this area will quickly degrade if invasive plant species are allowed to
recolonize the existing fencerow and the old hedgerow. Likewise, scenic value will
decline if Ashley Field is not maintained as a hayfield, or if the privately owned fields
across Cooper Hill Road succumb to development.
The dual objectives of managing Ashley Field and Hurlburt’s high pasture for both
grassland bird species and a quality hay crop may be incompatible. While delaying the
first cut until July 15 protects ground-nesting birds, it yields hay that is nutritionally
4-2
inferior, coarse and unpalatable for livestock. Options for resolving this conflict between
ecological and agricultural values will be addressed in the grassland management plan.
Canaan Mountain
The southern end of Spero Trail opens onto an unexpected view across a swath of
agricultural fields to Canaan Mountain in the distance. This mountain view is a bonus,
after walking through low elevation landscapes stretching along the river. The fields in
the foreground are owned by farmer, John Botass, who also maintains Ashley Field and
the Spero fields, and leases the West Pasture and the two Grumpelt parcels.
Another view of Canaan Mountain may be had from the bench on Eaton Trail, with the
meandering Housatonic River and Corbin’s Neck in the foreground. Periodic cutting is
required to maintain this view.
Figure 3: View of Canaan Mountain from Spero Trail
Pastoral Scenes
The soothing green and gentle swales of the pastures and fields on the reservation add
greatly to both the quality and the diversity of the landscape. The openness provided by
the pastures and fields make distant views possible. Highlights include:
4-3
Ashley Field, directly across from the Visitors Center, a 22-acre hayfield against a
backdrop of the West Pasture and the Taconic Mountains.
Figure 4: View of Ashley Field looking west.
The Spero Fields, a series of hay meadows in the floodplain, with views of the Cobble
across the river to the northwest, and views of the river and cornfields to the east.
Half River Meadow, a field adjacent to the floodplain forest, with an interesting
collection of herbs and at least three rare sedges.
Corbin’s Neck and Rannapo Pasture, remnants of an agricultural past and a constant
reminder of the changing river.
Tulip Tree Pasture, an opening in the woods with robust populations of Great Blue
Lobelia and Pendulous Bulrush.
Upper Grumpelt Pasture, south-facing wet meadow, lush in late summer and fall with
abundant Fringed Gentian and a view of Hurlburt’s Hill.
The L-Field, on the north side of Cooper Hill Road, an agricultural field that assures the
Colonel Ashley House will remain in its current rural setting. This field also provides a
visual link to the stately General Ashley House (the Colonel’s son, now a private
residence) at the intersection of Cooper Hill and Rannapo Roads.
4-4
River Views
Several vantage points offer views of the Housatonic River, including the bench on Eaton
Trail, and various spots along Ledges, Bailey, and Spero Trails. Most of the year the
river meanders gracefully alongside ledges, fields and forest, but spring flooding brings
dramatic change; in some years, all of Corbin’s Neck, Rannapo Pasture, and the
neighboring cornfields disappear beneath an ephemeral lake. Corbin’s Neck gets
narrower every year due to the force of seasonal floodwaters. In contrast to the spring
flood, the August river is muddy and low, and scores of shorebirds work the mudflats
preparing for their long-distance migrations. Before the ice comes in, pintails,
mergansers, bufflehead, teal and many other species come and go.
Most of the significant river views are the result of either maintaining the viewshed
through periodic cutting, or maintaining existing hayfields and pastures.
Figure 5: View over Corbin’s Neck from the North Cobble.
Forests
Floodplain Forest
4-5
With its high canopy, virtually no mid-story, and a sea of ostrich fern below, this rare
forest type is a treat for the discerning visitor. At the edge of the floodplain forest stands
the tallest cottonwood tree in the state, at a height of 127 feet and a girth of 18 ½ feet.
Hemlock Forest
The deeply shaded hemlock forest on the South Cobble, with mature trees generously
spaced, punctuated with outcrops of marble and quartz, heavy with mosses and ferns, has
an ethereal quality. Ledges, caves, and passages make this a magical, mystical place.
The hemlock wooly adelgid is present in these trees and poses an imminent threat, should
attempts at biological control fail. Also present is the elongated hemlock scale, a threat
on par with the adelgid.
Rich Mesic Forest
Also on the south Cobble, amid the weathered rock outcrops is a diverse and unusual
plant community featuring the greatest concentration of spring ephemerals on the
property. Many other rare or unusual trees, shrubs, ferns and herbs also grow here. This,
and the hemlock forest listed above are the “natural rock garden” referred to in Cobble
literature.
The Cobble
“The Cobble” rises abruptly from the river and surrounding topography. This dramatic
difference in terrain has immediate visual appeal, especially evident on Ledges Trail,
with vertical rock on one side and the steep slope to the river on the other.
The Colonel John Ashley House
This classic 18th century colonial, built in 1735, is visible from the Hal Borland Trail
across the beaver marsh at the edge of Ashley Field.
Weatogue Road
According to Town Administrator Bob Weitz, Weatogue Road has been identified by the
Town of Sheffield as a Scenic Road. Scenic Road status provides a measure of protection
in that proposed “improvements” to the road, such as widening, paving, tree cutting, or
removing stonewalls must undergo a review process and be approved at a public hearing.
4.3 Summary of Significant Threats
•
Development within the viewshed: Two new houses are visible from
Hurlburt’s Hill, and there is potential for further development.
4-6
•
Communication towers and/or wind turbines: The landscape is
currently free of these, but if one or several were placed within the
viewshed, the scenic value of the view from Hurlburt’s Hill would be
diminished.
•
Understory of invasive species in some wooded areas interrupts views
through the woods and threatens native plants. Recent work clearly
demonstrates the visual benefits of clearing invasives. For example, in the
spring of 2003, a thicket of buckthorn and honeysuckle choked the
southwest knoll of the South Cobble. Clearing the area of invasives
revealed views through the cedar forest, and a nice assemblage of native
herbs and grasses on the forest floor. Prior to the removal of invasives, this
place was inaccessible, both visually and physically.
•
Mortality of hemlock trees due to the hemlock woolly adelgid or other
exotic pest, such as the elongated hemlock scale. There are several stands
of hemlock on the property, as well as individual trees in mixed forests. In
most cases, if these trees were to succumb we could absorb the loss and
find value in observing ecological processes in the aftermath. The loss of
hemlock forest on the South Cobble, however, would have a substantial
aesthetic, ecological, and emotional impact.
4.4 Summary of Significant Opportunities
•
Opportunity to work with Trustees’ Land Conservation staff, the state,
town, county, other land trusts and land owners to identify and protect
critical lands, particularly those within the Hurlburt’s Hill viewshed.
•
Opportunity to continue, and possibly to expand on, invasive plant control
program that addresses scenic as well as ecological values.
•
Opportunity to work with farmers to maintain grasslands to high scenic
and ecological standards. In the case of Ashley Field and Hurlburt’s high
pasture these two objectives may be mutually exclusive and a compromise
may need to be struck. These issues will be addressed in the grassland
management plan.
•
Opportunities that minimize the impact of existing development should be
identified and explored (i.e., planting trees to screen large houses in
viewshed).
4-7
Section 5: Natural Resources
The great distinction of Bartholomew’s Cobble is its natural garden of rock ferns.
With the single exception of slender cliff-brake, all the species which inhabit
limestone in the latitude of Massachusetts are here represented. 1
5.1 Introduction
Bartholomew’s Cobble has long been recognized as a place of outstanding ecological,
scenic, and recreational value. It is probably best known among naturalists for the rare
calcium-loving plants found in the reservation. However, in addition to these plants and
the specialized habitats they require, the Cobble is also ecologically important because of
the diversity of its natural communities, and for the resulting biological diversity in its
flora and fauna. This ecological significance has been recognized by the National Park
Service, which designated Bartholomew’s Cobble a National Natural Landmark in
November 1971.
5.2 Methods
The description of natural resources provided in this section is largely based on some
extensive sources on the natural history of Bartholomew’s Cobble. The sources for the
information presented here are, in chronological order:
•
•
•
•
•
The 1982 Rare Species Preservation Plan by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage
and Endangered Species Program (MNHESP).
The 1993 Master Plan – information on geology and soils, watershed and
hydrology, and most importantly, detailed plant community descriptions (based
mostly on 1991 field data) and plant species lists.
Additional information which is included in the 1993 Master Plan, but which is a
summary of data accumulated by various Bartholomew’s Cobble warden /
naturalists and/or outside investigators. This information includes species lists on:
fungi, lichens, bryophytes, mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and Housatonic
River fish. Existing wildlife information for the Cobble is mostly limited to these
lists, and to the following source:
The 1995 Trustees’ publication “Bartholomew’s Cobble – A Checklist of the
Birds”, compiled by Don Reid, from his and previous records.
“A Botanical Survey of Bartholomew’s Cobble”, during the 2002 season, by
Jerry Jenkins and Sue Williams. This excellent survey and report focused on the
1
C. A. Weatherby, 1947, Director of the Gray Herbarium, Harvard University, Letter to The Trustees of
5 – Natural Resources
5-1
status of state-listed and significant plant species at Bartholomew’s Cobble, and in
particular, on existing threats (such as invasive species) to these populations.
5.3 An Overview of the Natural Landscape
A visitor need not be a botanical expert to recognize, or to be intrigued and charmed by
the variety, complexity, and beauty of the natural settings in and around the reservation.
Half a day of leisurely walks along the trails in the reservation will reward the visitor
with this great variety.
From the Visitor Center, the Eaton, Ledges and Craggy Knoll Trails encircle the two low,
rounded hills for which Bartholomew’s Cobble is legendary – the North and South
Cobbles, which, because of their quartz-marble bedrock and outcrops, are host to the rare
calcium-loving plant species. But more than that, the two cobbles offer in a small space a
rich variety of unusual outcrop, cliff, and forest communities. A walk around the Ledges
and Craggy Knoll Trails offers views of shady rock ledges overhanging with delicate
ferns and herbs; forest slopes carpeted by ephemeral wildflowers in May; a cow pasture
along the Housatonic River; dry, open, vertical cliff faces with plants growing in tiny
pockets of soil; a wildflower meadow; a patch of old oaks and other hardwoods in a dry
calcareous forest traversed by long, low, limy outcrops.
South of the cobbles, the beginning of the Spero Trail is marked by a huge cottonwood at
the edge of a mature floodplain forest, heavy in mid-summer with an almost tropical
atmosphere of humidity and mosquitoes. The trail continues along an oxbow pond, an
old field and wet meadow, hay fields, and eventually loops back through a beautiful stand
of mature hardwoods, white pine and hemlock.
From here the Tulip Tree Trail crosses Weatogue Road and begins the gradual climb of
Hurlburt’s Hill, through another deeply shaded stand of old hardwoods and hemlock, past
the impressive tulip tree after which this trail is named. After several old pastures, the
trail turns left for a long gradual climb through a hay field where bobolinks sing and nest
from May into July. This field ends at the top of Hurlburt’s Hill, from which there is a
spectacular view of the Taconic Ridge and Mt. Everett to the west, of the southern
Berkshire Valley to the north, and of the Berkshire Highlands to the east.
Finally, a walk down from Hurlburt’s Hill along the Woods Road and Hal Borland Trail
brings the visitor to the agricultural landscape, beaver ponds, marsh, and swamp
surrounding the Ashley House.
5.4 Regional Context and Open Space Setting
Bartholomew’s Cobble is at the southern edge of Berkshire County on the Connecticut
border. The reservation is located within the Western New England Marble Valleys
ecoregion2. The ecological communities within this ecoregion are influenced by the
2
From MASSGIS ecoregions data layer.
5-2
underlying limestone and marble bedrock. The rich soils that derive from this bedrock
support an extremely diverse flora and fauna, with many species not found elsewhere in
Massachusetts. This ecoregion, among the thirteen ecoregions in the state, is second only
to the Cape Cod and Islands ecoregion in terms of the density of state-listed species
observations recorded by the Natural Heritage Program.
Map 4: BioMap and Connecticut Natural Heritage Map
Therefore, Bartholomew’s Cobble is an important ecological resource, not only because
of the rare species and natural communities within the reservation, but also because of its
location in the midst of landscape which is in itself ecologically important. Specifically,
large areas of land surrounding the reservation in southern Berkshire County, between the
Taconic Range and the Housatonic River, have been identified as important by
MNHESP, through one or more of several designations3:
•
•
3
BioMap Core and Supporting Natural Landscape (SNL) Regions: these identify
the most viable rare species habitats and natural communities and include large,
minimally fragmented areas that safeguard the Core Habitat (see Map 4).
Rare Species Priority Habitat: for each rare species observation in MNHESP
records, the estimated habitat surrounding those observations.
From corresponding MASSGIS data layers.
5-3
•
•
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC): areas worthy of conservation
priority because of a combination of historical, scenic, and ecological values (see
Map 5).
Living Waters Core and Supporting Watersheds: similar to the BioMap Core and
SNL designations, but for flagging biological importance of freshwater streams,
ponds, and rivers, and surrounding watersheds (see Map 5).
The overlap of these designations results in a large, contiguous block of land considered
ecologically important according to one or more of these measures. This block runs
uninterrupted from the Taconic Ridge to the west (including Mt. Washington State
Forest, Mt. Everett Reservation, and the focus of the Nature Conservancy’s Taconic /
Berkshire Landscape initiative); running through the Schenob Brook area, extending for
about three miles to the west and north of the Cobble and including the Housatonic River
floodplain immediately to the east of the Cobble.
Map 5: Living Waters and ACEC map
Although Connecticut does not have comparable designations, Heritage data from this
state indicates the northwest corner, including areas directly adjacent to the Cobble,
contain numerous rare species.
While no protected open space directly abuts the Cobble in Massachusetts, lands
restricted by agricultural preservation restrictions (APR) and conservation restrictions
5-4
(CR), as well as lands protected by other land trusts occur nearby (Map 6). In addition,
while our knowledge of protected lands is incomplete for Connecticut, The Trustees
holds conservation restrictions on more than 400 acres adjacent to Bartholomew’s Cobble
in Connecticut.
Map 6: Protected Open Space
5.5 Watershed Setting
Bartholomew’s Cobble is entirely within the watershed of the Housatonic River, which
drains the southern two-thirds of Berkshire County, and flows South into the Long Island
Sound estuary. The watershed landscape in the vicinity of the reservation is still a largely
rural landscape, with a mix of fields, woodlands, and farm and suburban houses. The
town of Sheffield is 12% wetlands. Low areas along the river itself result in marshes and
swamps, and there are also shallow basin marshes, headwaters swamps, fens, and
marshes associated with lake margins.4
On the reservation itself, the eastern portion of Hurlburt’s Hill drains directly into the
Housatonic River via intermittent streams, gullies, and groundwater flow. The western
4
Pamela Weatherbee, “The Flora of Berkshire County”, The Berkshire Museum, 1996.
5-5
(and larger) portion of the reservation South of Cooper Hill Road drains toward the east
into the south branch of Stony Brook which, after joining its north branch near Cooper
Hill Road, flows east and enters the reservation near the Ashley House, before continuing
on its way to the Housatonic. Stony Brook has been dammed by beavers to the east of
the Ashley House for the last 15-20 years.
Most of the reservation north of Cooper Hill Road drains into an unnamed brook (called
North Brook in the 1993 Master Plan) which flows through the Shrub Swamp at the north
boundary of the reservation, and flows east into the Housatonic.
The Housatonic River is a slow-moving river with a wide floodplain as it flows through
the reservation. The low gradient is due to the course of the river across low-lying
marble bedrock, a post-glacial lake bed, and more recent alluvial deposits. In the
Southeast portion of the reservation and near the river, there is an oxbow pond named
Half River, and several shallow temporary ponds.
5.6 Geology and Soils
The rocks of Bartholomew’s Cobble were laid down as sediment under the sea during
that part of the earth’s history known as the Cambrian and Ordovician Periods about
500 million years ago – the limestone, when the water was deep and far from land; the
sandstone, when the sea was shallower and the shore-line closer. These rocks have been
greatly changed, or metamorphosed to marble and quartzite respectively, by heat and
pressure accompanying deep burial by other sediments, followed by folding of the earth’s
crust by the Taconic revolution (400 million years ago) and by the Appalachian
revolution (200 million years ago). Subsequent glaciation and erosion have exposed the
Cobble in its wondrous forms of today.5
The most important bedrock features at the Cobble are6:
•
•
5
6
The Bow Wow Road fault, running northwest to southeast. This fault is a typical
low-angle thrust fault, which has allowed easterly rocks to move upward and
westward relative to rocks west of the fault. In the reservation, the North and
South Cobbles, one-third of Ashley Field, and the L-Field are east of the fault; the
rest of the reservation is west of the fault.
The outcrops of the Stockbridge marble formation in the North and South
Cobbles, which formed from a combination of sand and reef deposits in the
continental shelf of Laurentia, in the lower Ordovician to lower Cambrian
Periods. After metamorphosis, these deposits eventually became the current
bedrock of the cobbles, consisting of a matrix of quartzite with marble pockets.
This bedrock results in the calcareous soil conditions that support so many
calcium-loving species.
Herbert J. Arnold, 1957, Professor of Natural Sciences, Columbia University.
These paragraphs are a summary of a corresponding section in the 1993 plan.
5-6
•
The outcrops of Walloomsac schist in the southeastern of the reservation
(Triangle Ledge, Rockland, and Spero Knoll areas), which also formed from
continental shelf deposits of Laurentia, but dating from the upper and middle
Ordovician Periods. These outcrops result in more typically acidic conditions.
The surficial geology features at Bartholomew’s Cobble date from the most recent
(Wisconsin) glaciation, and from a post-glacial lake which formed behind a rock dam at
Falls Village, CT. Around the reservation, the lake level would have been around the 660
foot contour, covering all riverside habitats and the Ashley House Wetland, with
lakeshores somewhere around the L-Field and Ashley Field. The most significant
surficial geology features (and soils) at the Cobble are:
•
•
•
The calcareous glacial till and resulting soils (ranging from very stony silt loam,
stony silt loam, gravely silt loam, to deep well-drained loam) covering Hurlburt’s
Hill.
Stream terrace deposits (mostly fine sandy loam or silt loam underlain by gravel)
of the L-Field, West Pasture, and Ashley Field.
Alluvium deposits (mostly deep silt loam) along the Housatonic River.
5.7 Climate
The climate of Berkshire County is typical of inland New England, with cold winters, hot
summers, and an adequate amount of precipitation for plant growth. The following
figures are from records for the town of Stockbridge (17 miles to the North), for the
period of 1951-1974.7 Although slight changes may have occurred in the area’s climate
over the last 30-50 years, this summary is believed to represent current conditions.
In July, the average daily temperature is 68°F, with an average daily maximum of 80°F.
In January, the average daily temperature is 22°F, with an average daily minimum of
12°F.
Precipitation averages 43” per year, and is evenly distributed across the 12 months of the
year (at least 30 inches, evenly distributed, is sufficient yearly precipitation to support
closed canopy cover). Thunderstorms occur on average, 27 days each year, mostly in the
summer. Snow occurs frequently and, on average, 42 days of the winter have at least 1
inch of snow on the ground. The average seasonal snowfall is 71 inches.
The average relative humidity in mid-afternoon is 55% and the average at dawn is 80%.
The sun shines 60% of the possible time in summer and 40% of the possible time in
winter. The prevailing wind is from the south and the average wind speed is highest in
spring (11 miles/hour).
7
Soil Survey of Berkshire County Massachusetts, 1988, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S.
Dept. of Agriculture.
5-7
The growing season for natural vegetation extends from March (e.g., willow catkins,
skunk cabbage) past early frosts into late October (e.g., asters, fringed gentian, witch
hazel).
The average climate produces conditions that result (in the uplands) in closed canopy
deciduous and needled-leaved evergreen temperate forest, but severe weather events and
other sources of disturbance result in a mosaic of various successional communities.
5.8 Plant Communities
Plants usually, but not always, occur in associations which are recognizable. These
associations, or communities, occur in response to a variety of 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 (what seed source is available at a given time) are
also important factors
The plant community names used in this section are based on the names used in
“Classification of the Natural Communities of Massachusetts” by MNHESP or in “Flora
of Berkshire County” by Weatherbee, with a few simplifications.
The term “significant species” follows its usage in the Jenkins and Williams report, and it
includes either rare species state-listed in MA as endangered, threatened, of special
concern, or watch-listed; or unlisted species considered uncommon and/or “interesting”
by Jenkins and Williams. Significant species are shown in bold font where they first
appear in a subsection. Plants are named only by their common name where that is
unambiguous. Both scientific and common names are given for sedges, grasses, and
rushes, and in a few other cases.
MNHESP uses a “state rank” (SRANK) to indicate level of rarity and threat of plant
communities. This section includes the state rank for communities that have SRANK
values of S1 through S3 (ranks of S4 and S5 indicate communities which are apparently
or demonstrably secure in MA):
• S1 = Typically 5 or fewer occurrences in the state. Especially vulnerable to
extirpation.
• S2 = Typically 6-20 occurrences. Very vulnerable to extirpation.
• S3 = Typically 21-100 occurrences. Vernal pools are given this rank because of
the limited acreage that they represent.
Of the plant communities described in this section (Map 6), 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 of significant species or total species
diversity:
•
Open Calcareous Rock Outcrop/Cliff Community (S2/S3)
5-8
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Shady Calcareous Rock Outcrop/Cliff Community (S2/S3)
Dry calcareous Forest (S2)
The more mature stands of Mixed Hardwoods-Hemlock-White Pine Forest
Rich Mesic Forest (S3)
Floodplain Forest (S2)
Low-water Shores of Housatonic River and Half-River Pond (S2-S4)
Rich Wet Meadow
Grasslands
Vernal Pools (S3)
ROCK SUBSTRATE COMMUNITIES
The rock substrate community classifications by MNHESP and Weatherbee define
separate communities based on “outcrop (flat)” and “cliff (steep)” conditions, with each
one of those communities encompassing both “open” and “shady” conditions. At
Bartholomew’s Cobble there is a clear difference between open and shady communities,
with respect to both locations and characteristic species, and little difference based on
outcrop vs. cliff conditions, with respect to characteristic species. Therefore, in this
section, open and shady conditions were used as the basis for the distinction of the two
communities with outcrop and cliff conditions being treated together.
Open Calcareous Rock Outcrop/Cliff Community
MNHESP Name: Calcareous Rocky Summit/Rock Outcrop Community, Calcareous
Rock Cliff Community (more open, drier portions thereof).
Weatherbee Name: Southern Calcareous Rocky Summit Community, Southern
Calcareous Cliff Community (more open, drier portions thereof).
SRANK: S2/S3.
Examples: Open outcrops and cliff faces in the south half of the North and South
Cobbles (most locations are on the South Cobble).
Description: This community occurs at the Cobble in small patches, both on relatively
flat outcrops and steep cliff faces, often with a southern (SE, S, and SW) orientation, and
in places that receive full sun or are only slightly shaded (or in some cases are becoming
too shady). The characteristic vegetation consists of herbs and ferns that can grow in
relatively shallow soil pockets in open, dry conditions. Some of the species of Rich
Mesic Forest and Dry Calcareous Forest also occur here, but the hallmark of this
community is the abundance of rare lime- and sun-loving ferns and allies, such as:
Purple-stemmed Cliffbrake, Wall-rue, Blunt-lobed Woodsia, and Rock Spikemoss.
Maidenhair Spleenwort, which is quite shade-tolerant, also occurs in these places.
Discussion: These outcrops and cliffs are surrounded by changing forest communities
and, therefore, ongoing monitoring and control of shading and competition from both
trees and shrubs (particularly invasive species) will be necessary. The populations on
vertical cliff faces are safe from trampling, but the relatively flat outcrops are pleasant,
inviting places for exploring, sitting, and taking a nap – and therefore, fragile rare plants
in these
5-9
Map 7
5-10
outcrops are vulnerable to trampling. Furthermore, this plant community contains the
rare ferns for which the Cobble is well-known, and the possibility of specimen collecting
is always a potential threat. Fortunately, most known populations are off-trail, but the
cobbles are small, easily accessible places and, therefore, the location of rare plant
populations should not be disclosed through interpretive programs and brochures.
Shady Calcareous Rock Outcrop/Cliff Community
MNHESP Name: Calcareous Rocky Summit/Rock Outcrop Community, Calcareous
Rock Cliff Community (more shady, moist portions thereof).
Weatherbee Name: Southern Calcareous Rocky Summit Community, Southern
Calcareous Cliff Community (more shady, moist portions thereof).
SRANK: S2/S3.
Examples: Outcrops and cliff faces in the north part of the Ledges Trail.
Description: For a naturalist who is only familiar with the typical acid-soil flora of most
of Massachusetts, the short walk from the Visitors Center to the north end of the Ledges
Trail is an experience that will always be remembered – a cool, shady trail with glimpses
of the Housatonic River on one side, and on the other, a stunning view of rock walls
totally covered with ferns, some species probably seen for the first time. Maidenhair
Spleenwort, certainly one of the most delicate and beautiful of all ferns, occurs here (and
elsewhere in the cobbles in more open conditions) in numbers which, according to Jerry
Jenkins, exceed any other population he has seen in New England or New York.
Walking Fern, probably the strangest of all ferns in form and behavior, is here also and
covers a cliff face near the east end (and being less tolerant of full sun and partial to
north-facing walls most of its population in the reservation is in this section of trail).
Bulblet Fern and Fragile Fern, characteristic ferns of this community, and Filmy Fern,
a very rare fern, are also found here.
Discussion: Hemlocks are a significant component of the canopy in this north section of
the Ledges Trail. If these hemlocks were killed by the hemlock woolly adelgid, there
would be a drastic change in sunlight which might adversely affect these ferns (Walking
Fern the most?). On the other hand, if that were to occur, new habitat would be created
which would be suitable for some of the species of the open rock substrate community.
Nevertheless, the aesthetic change (loss) of such an event would be dramatic.
FORESTS
Dry Calcareous Forest
MNHESP Name: Yellow Oak Dry Calcareous Forest.
Weatherbee Name: Dry Calcareous Oak/Conifer Forest.
SRANK: S2.
Examples: On South Cobble around its south summit, and along the northern half of
Craggy Knoll Trail.
5-11
Description: This is a rare forest community characterized predominantly by Yellow
Oak, which occurs with a mix of other hardwoods. Characteristic shrubs are Bladdernut
and Prickly-ash. The herb/fern layer is rich in species, including Harebell, Round-leaved
Hepatica, and Wild Columbine. The stand along the Craggy Trail is the most mature,
with several Yellow Oaks and other hardwoods that are around four feet in diameter.
This is an open forest with a somewhat patchy canopy; a sparse shrub layer; dry, rich
soil; and long, low, limy outcrops. Other significant species found in this community at
the Cobble are Scarlet Oak, Variable Sedge (Carex albicans), Silvery Sedge (Carex
argyranthra), Four-leaved Milkweed, Elm-leaved Goldenrod, and Veined
Hawkweed.
Discussion: The open nature of these forests and their rich soil makes them vulnerable to
colonization by invasive species. Portions of the south summit of the South Cobble have
significant but still manageable numbers of Common Buckthorn. Invasives’ monitoring
and control in these forest stands is important because of the rarity of this forest
community, the currently low numbers of invasives, and the vulnerability of this
community to future invasives’ colonization.
Mixed Hardwoods-Hemlock-White Pine Forest
MNHESP Name: Northern Hardwoods-Hemlock-White Pine Forest.
Weatherbee Name: Mesic Northern Hardwoods Forest
Examples: North half of South Cobble, Tulip Tree Woods, south Bailey Woods,
Rockland.
Description: The canopy in these mature stands is tall, quite dense, and varies from a
mix of hardwoods and conifers to pure patches of hemlock. Typical canopy species
include Hemlock, Sugar Maple, Red Oak, White Ash, and White Pine. The forest at
Bartholomew’s Cobble is more “Southern” than a typical “Northern Hardwoods” forest
at higher elevations, or further north (e.g., having more Red Oak and much less Yellow
Birch). The shrub layer is sparse giving these places a pleasant, open look at ground
level, with a high, enclosing canopy far above – the unmistakable look of forests that
have not been disturbed much in the recent past. Common shrubs include Witch Hazel,
Low Bush Blueberry, Alternate-leaved Dogwood, and Nannyberry. The ground layer is
patchy and variable, and it is very sparse in stands dominated by Hemlock. Teaberry,
Partridgeberry, Hay-scented Fern, New York Fern, Christmas Fern, and Shining
Clubmoss are common. The Tulip Tree Woods, South Bailey Woods, and Rockland
have the tallest canopies and largest trees. The north end of the South Cobble is almost
all hemlock, and the north half of the Craggy Knoll Trail has a beautiful, mature stand of
mixed hardwoods.
Discussion: These forest stands contain significant plant species (e.g., Broad Beech
Fern), but in most cases they are usually found in local pockets of rich forest soil or near
limy boulders or outcrops (i.e., in “Rich Mesic Forest” patches – see discussion in
corresponding section). These areas are largely free of invasives or have only very
5-12
localized invasive populations – usually along trails, in canopy openings, or along
boundaries with younger, more disturbed habitats. As such they provide local habitats
for forest herbs and ferns (particularly in the enclosed pockets of Rich Mesic Forest)
which are not available in the younger, more highly invaded successional woods.
Invasive control in these more mature forest stands, therefore, can be achieved with a
higher payback and lower cost than attempting the same task in the younger woods.
Furthermore, the older patches of this forest represent potential future old growth if
minimally managed. Old growth is currently a missing habitat at the Cobble
Rich Mesic Forest
MNHESP and Weatherbee Names: Rich Mesic Forest.
SRANK: S3.
Examples: Northeast quadrant of South Cobble, and patches throughout the Tulip Tree
Woods and the south part of South Bailey Woods.
Description: This kind of forest occurs in smaller, discontinuous places within the Mixed
Hardwoods-Hemlock-White Pine Forest, in patches of rich forest soil, and often near
limy boulders and outcrops. The distinguishing characteristic of Rich Mesic Forest is in
the ground cover – in the species diversity and abundance of wildflowers (many spring
ephemerals) and ferns. Although there are a few characteristic trees and shrubs, such as
Basswood, Bladdernut, and Prickly-ash, the canopy and shrub layers are not readily
distinguished from those in Mixed Hardwoods-Hemlock-White Pine Forest. The ground
cover can have extensive patches of species such as Blue Cohosh, Dutchman’s Breeches,
Miterwort, Sweet Cicely, Cut-leaf Toothwort, Foamflower, Wild Ginger, Maidenhair
Spleenwort, Silvery Spleenwort.
Discussion: Rich Mesic Forests are the destination of many “spring wildflower” walks
and nature programs. They are the first places where the browns and grays of winter are
replaced by the rich palette of spring ephemerals. State-listed species at Bartholomew’s
Cobble include Goldie’s Fern, Glade Fern, Black Maple, Hitchcock’s Sedge, Narrowleaved Spring Beauty, Andrew’s Gentian, and May Apple. Other significant species
include: Trifoliate Sanicle, Bladdernut, and Broad Beech Fern. Some of the
significant species are quite shade-tolerant, and/or adapted to flowering in early spring
conditions (i.e., when there is more sun and less competition); these species will likely
persist in a shady forest, provided they are not crowded out by invasives. However, other
species – like the Andrew’s Gentian -- require partial sunlight, and will therefore need
some ongoing attention with respect to canopy shade management. The patches of Rich
Mesic Forest, occurring as they do within older stands of Mixed Hardwoods-HemlockWhite Pine Forest, are also largely – but not entirely – free of invasives and, therefore,
attention to invasives control will be required in the vicinity of populations of significant
species.
5-13
Young Successional Woods and Thickets
MNHESP Name: none applicable.
Weatherbee Name: none applicable.
Examples: North Cobble, southwest slopes of South Cobble, western two-thirds of
Hurlburt’s Hill (West Woods, Lenox Woods, White Ash Woods).
Description: These wooded areas are much younger and more disturbed than those
described as Mixed Hardwoods-Hemlock-White Pine Forest. Many of the species found
in the latter community are also found here, but their relative abundance and the structure
of the forest is quite different. The canopy is not as tall, it is more patchy, and has a
higher percentage of White Ash. The shrub layer is heavily colonized by invasive shrubs,
particularly by Japanese Barberry, which forms extensive, impenetrable tangles on
Hurlburt’s Hill, and Common Buckthorn on the North Cobble and southwest slopes of
the South Cobble. Multiflora Rose is scattered throughout the young woods on
Hurlburt’s Hill. The herb/fern layer is, in general, sparse and totally absent in large
patches of heavy shrub invasion.
Discussion: Control of invasive shrubs in these young woodlands is generally of lower
priority than in the more established forest communities at the Cobble because these
heavily invaded areas would require a large-scale control effort involving herbicides
and/or power equipment; and second, because these areas do not support populations of
significant species. However, invasives control in more mature forest communities that
are adjacent to these younger woodlands should be a high priority, with particular
attention being given to common boundaries and trails.
FORESTED WETLANDS
Floodplain Forest
MNHESP Name: Major-river Floodplain Forest.
Weatherbee Name: Floodplain Forest.
SRANK: S2.
Examples: Forest along the northern part of Spero Trail and the northern portion of Half
River Pond.
Description: The floodplain forest between the Half-River Pond and the Housatonic
River is a fairly mature example of this plant community. Although this forest in midsummer is a beautiful, intriguing place with a near-tropical, lush atmosphere, a visitor
may have trouble enjoying a contemplative experience because of the unrelenting clouds
of mosquitoes. There are relatively few species of trees in the canopy, which is
dominated by Silver Maple and Green Ash. The herb/fern layer is lush, and although
dominated by Wood Nettle and Ostrich Fern, it also has a number of significant species
such as Davis’ Sedge (Carex davisii), Gray’s Sedge (Carex grayi), Narrow-leaved
5-14
Spring Beauty, and Clustered Sanicle. Significant shrub/vine species include
American Currant, Bladdernut, Hackberry, and Moonseed.
Discussion: This is a relatively stable community, but the presence of several significant
species will require continuing monitoring and possibly control of canopy shading and
invasive species. See also the discussion in the next section.
Floodplain Successional Woods and Thickets
MNHESP Name: none applicable.
Examples: Woods and thickets along Bailey Trail.
Description: The narrow strip of land between the Bailey Trail and the Housatonic River
to the east, are a mosaic of younger floodplain woods, glades and thickets, and small
seepage wetlands. In comparison to the more mature floodplain forest to the south, the
canopy here is much less developed, not as tall, and more patchy. The shrub layer is
fairly dense, and there are significant numbers of invasives, such as Barberry, Multiflora
Rose, Morrow Honeysuckle, and Oriental Bittersweet. There are also non-woody
invasives: Garlic Mustard, Purple Loosestrife, Phragmites, Yellow Iris, and Japanese
Knotweed. In spite of this, the diversity of native herbs and ferns is high, particularly in
the more open glades. Most of the significant species of the more mature forest also
occur here.
Discussion: In the short term, control of the non-woody invasives is important and
feasible, because they still occur in small populations, and because they are known to be
highly invasive. Monitoring and control of invasive shrubs and of canopy shading can be
done selectively, as needed, in the vicinity of significant species populations (e.g., control
of Barberry around populations of Narrow-leaved Spring Beauty south of Half-River
Pond has been done recently).
OTHER WETLANDS
Low-water Shores of Housatonic River and Half-River (Oxbow) Pond
MNHESP Name: Mud Flat, Calcareous Pondshore.
SRANK: S2 (Calcareous Pondshore) -S4 (Mud Flat)
Examples: Housatonic River shores at Rannapo Pasture, Corbin’s Neck; Half-River
Pond shores.
Description: These could probably be considered two separate communities (river vs.
pond shores), but they share some of the same significant species, and the specialized
habitat shares a similar condition: both the Housatonic River and the Half-River Pond
have low-water shorelines which in late summer get exposed as mud flats. Specialized
5-15
species (many annual), both native and exotic, grow in the exposed mud. Some of these
species are uncommon or rare. The Half-River Pond shores have a greater diversity of
species than the Housatonic River shores, but they share some significant species: Water
Hemp, Awned Flatsedge (Cyperus squarrosus), and Redroot Flatsedge (Cyperus
erythrorhizos). The Half-River Pond also has Northern Arrowhead and White Water
Buttercup. The Housatonic River also has Mudflat Spike-sedge (Eleocharis
intermedia) and Frank’s Lovegrass (Eragrostis frankii).
Discussion: The annual species in the unstable habitat of the Housatonic River shores are
known to come and go from specific locations, so their persistence in one spot is
uncertain even though they have been around for quite a while. The low-water shores of
the Half-River Pond should be a somewhat more stable habitat, but the current silting of
this pond (from culverts which drain Weatogue Road and adjacent driveways) is an issue
that might affect the persistence these species.
Rich Wet Meadow (patches in both upland and alluvial fields)
MNHESP Name: Wet Meadow (Calcareous variant).
Weatherbee Name: Sloping Graminoid Fen.
Examples: Southwest corner of West Pasture, margins of Tulip Tree Trail Fields, West
Grumpelt Parcel, Half-River Meadow.
Description: This plant community description captures the patches of rich, wet soil that
occur in hay fields, pastures, and non-woody old fields in both upland and alluvial fields.
At the Cobble, these patches contain some, but not many of the species which are usually
indicators of “calcareous wet meadows” (Pendulous Bullsedge [Scirpus pendulus],
Great Lobelia, and Fringed Gentian), or “alluvial meadows” (Foxtail Sedge [Carex
alopecoidea], Davis’ Sedge [Carex davisii], and Germander).
Discussion: These rich, wet patches occur within larger hay fields, pastures, and nonwoody old fields and, therefore, mowing schedules in those places must accommodate a
variety of goals depending on what species (including invasive shrubs, or birds) are
present:
•
•
•
•
•
Pendulous Bullsedge (Scirpus pendulus) in an old field may be fruiting in the
second half of July.
Fringed Gentian in a pasture may be flowering in September and early October.
Great Blue Lobelia in an old field may be flowering in late August and
September.
Nesting Bobolinks in a hay field require a first mowing no earlier than mid-July.
Invasive shrub control in an old field may require more than an annual mowing in
late fall; an early-season mowing to control invasives would ideally take into
account the previous goals.
5-16
Vernal Pools (including Half-River Pond)
MNHESP Name: Woodland Vernal Pool.
Weatherbee Name: name.
SRANK: S3.
Examples: Vernal pools in floodplain near Half River Pond, eastern edge of Corbin’s
Neck.
Description: In addition to the Half River Pond, there are several temporary pools in its
vicinity, plus another one at the western edge of Corbin’s Neck. A very informal and
incomplete survey in 2003 yielded Spotted Salamander and/or Wood Frog egg masses
in all of these ponds. White Water Buttercup is found in great numbers at Half-River
Pond and Northern Arrowhead has been found (not in 2003) at Half-River Pond and a
small pond north of it. The low-water shores of Half-River Pond also support significant
species as described in the section for that plant community.
Discussion: The most significant issue in these ponds is the heavy level of silting taking
place in the Half-River Pond. The sources of silting are several culverts on Weatogue
Road, particularly those that drain the Conklin property driveway.
Ashley House Wetland
(a mosaic of communities)
Examples: Ashley House Wetland.
Description: This is a diverse mosaic of Beaver Impoundments, Emergent Marsh, and
Circumneutral Shrub and Hardwood Swamps. It was formerly a wet meadow that has
been impounded by beavers in the last twenty years. The impoundments are largest in
the eastern part of the wetland, but they now extend southwest of the Ashley House. The
open pools are bordered by deep and shallow emergent marsh (Cattail, Bullsedge
[Scirpus ssp.], Sedges [Carex ssp.], Mannagrass [Glyceria ssp.], Water Hemlock). The
edges of the area, particularly the southern edge, are a mosaic of the Circumneutral Shrub
and Hardwood Swamp communities (Green Ash, Spicebush, Rough-leaved Goldenrod,
Shrubby Cinquefoil, Alder-leaved Buckthorn, Brome-like Sedge [Carex bromoides],
Wood Horsetail, Pussy Willow, Shining Willow, Silky Willow, Red-osier Dogwood,
Swamp Milkweed, Swamp Buttercup).
Discussion: The wetland area grades into a drier non-woody old field condition directly
east of the mowed area around the Ashley House. Showy Goldenrod, a watch-listed
species, occurs here near the edge of the mowed area. The water level from the beaver
impoundments has gone up since the 1991 inventories when the area south of the Ashley
House was described as a wet meadow (parts of it are now impounded, and elsewhere it
is better described as a shallow marsh than a wet meadow). Around the mowed area,
cattails grow within a couple of feet of the edge. If the water level keeps going up, the
septic system at the Ashley House may be affected, and there may be a need to regulate
the water level, preferably through some water flow device such as a “beaver baffler”,
5-17
which would not cause a dramatic change in the wetland. American Bittern,
endangered in Massachusetts, have been seen and heard in this wetland in 2000, 2001,
and 2002 during breeding season. Any significant changes to this wetland should
therefore be avoided.
FIELDS
Grassland habitats are a significant component of New England’s landscape, and they
have historical, ecological, and scenic value. Unfortunately, as a result of the continuing
decline of agriculture in New England since the 19th century, grasslands have been
disappearing from our landscape, with a corresponding decline of plants and animals
which depend on these habitats. As farms disappear, conservation land plays an
increasingly important role in keeping these habitats in the landscape.
Grassland habitats vary in accordance with different kinds of land use, and historically,
these habitats have included hay fields, pastures, wet meadows, and transitional fields
resulting from rotational farming regimes or field abandonment.
Bartholomew’s Cobble has a mix of grasslands which provide important ecological and
scenic values. Of the 329 acres in the reservation, fields add up to 138 acres (42% of the
reservation). There are hay fields (67 acres), pastures (62.5 acres), non-woody old fields
with a mix of grasses and herbs (8.3 acres), and patches of wet meadow within larger
field units – a mix which results in a significant diversity of habitats for wildlife and
plants.
It is worth noting that field management at Bartholomew’s Cobble typically depends on
local farmers and that this kind of arrangement is likely to become increasingly difficult
as farming viability in the area wanes. Because of our current dependence on local
farmers, compromises in management regimes have been, and may continue to be,
necessary in specific instances – e.g., which seed mix a farmer uses (percentages of grass,
alfalfa, clover), mowing schedules, grazing regimes, and/or the use of chemical
fertilizers.
Hay Field
Examples: Ashley Field, L-Field, Hurlburt’s High Field, north part of East Grumpelt
Parcel, Southeast Corner Field (3.4 acres), and Lower (3.3 acres) and Upper (1.2
acres) Spero Fields.
Description: These are typical hay fields dominated by a characteristic mix of European
hay/pasture grasses such as Sweet Vernal Grass, Kentucky Bluegrass, Timothy, Orchard
Grass, and Redtop, and other hay species such as Alfalfa and Clover. There is also a mix
of other weedy herbs such as Hawkweed, Clover, Plantain, Chickweed, Milkweed, and
Queen Anne’s Lace.
5-18
Discussion: All hay fields at Bartholomew’s Cobble are being maintained (fertilizing,
seeding, mowing) by local farmers.
The Ashley Field (19.8 acres) and Hurlburt’s High Field (15.6 acres) are planted with a
mix of grasses. The first mowing is based on the end of bobolink nesting, no earlier than
July 15th. There is a second mowing which can be as late as early October. Chemical
fertilizer is used.
The L-Field (17.2 acres) is planted with alfalfa. It is cut three times per year, with no
schedule restrictions, usually in June, early August, and late September. Chemical
fertilizer is used. It should be noted that – as mentioned below – nesting bobolinks were
observed in this field in early June and they were displaced by subsequent mowing.
The Lower (3.3 acres) and Upper (1.2 acres) Spero Fields and the Southeast Corner Field
are planted with a mix of grasses. They are cut twice a year with no schedule restrictions
(these fields are too small for grassland birds). Manure is used as fertilizer. These fields
are adjacent to the Housatonic River and, therefore, there is the potential for nutrient
runoff into the river.
The north part of the East Grumpelt Parcel is planted with a mix of grasses. They are cut
twice a year, with no schedule restrictions. Chemical fertilizer is used. It should be
noted that this field is big enough to support bobolink nesting.
The Cobble hay fields (totaling 60.5 acres) are an important ecological resource. In
2003, Bobolinks nested in these fields. A simple count of territorial males in early June
resulted in the following numbers: Ashley Field (8-11), L-Field (3-5; later displaced by
mowing), and Hurlburt’s High Field (4-6). In recent years Savannah Sparrow has been
reported to nest and Vesper Sparrow has been observed once, in the Ashley Field.
Besides the mowing considerations for the upland portions of these fields, it should be
noted that some of these fields have patches of rich wet meadow and, therefore, the
mowing dates should also take into account any significant plant species present, as
mentioned in the section for Rich Wet Meadow. However, historical mowing and
grazing patterns are important to understand since these patterns may be responsible for
maintaining habitat for rare species. Great Blue Lobelia occurs in the south end of
Ashley Field.
Pasture
Examples: Corbin’s Neck, Rannapo Pasture, West Pasture, West Grumpelt Parcel, and
South part of the East Grumpelt Parcel.
Description: The pastures are similar in species content to the hay fields, but there is a
higher proportion of non-grassy herbs and of native and invasive woody species. In
general, grazing keeps the grasses shorter than in the hay fields. Corbin’s Neck is the
5-19
only one of these pastures accessible to the public. Its pastoral setting makes it an
extremely attractive place for a walk.
Discussion: There is currently no rotational grazing at the Cobble. Pastures do not show
evidence of overgrazing – there are no bare patches and in some pastures grasses grow
quite tall.
All the pastures at Bartholomew’s Cobble have required frequent brush cutting by The
Trustees’ staff in order to control invasive shrubs, particularly Multiflora Rose and
Barberry. Corbin’s Neck and Rannapo Pasture have been cut yearly or nearly so. In
2001, a major clearing operation – using a Brush Brute to uproot the shrubs – was done in
the West Pasture and in the West Grumpelt Parcel, since they had been heavily colonized
by invasives. The goal since then has been to do brush cutting yearly in all the pastures.
Corbin’s Neck (8.1 acres) and Rannapo Pasture (7.8 acres) each have 4-6 Holstein dry
cows or bred heifers from May to late September. Grasses grow quite tall in these
pastures.
The West Pasture (16.1 acres owned by The Trustees, but contiguous with unknown
acreage in Boyette property to the west, and not separated from this parcel by a fence),
the West Grumpelt Parcel (23 acres of open pasture, separated by brushy/wooded areas,
within an unfenced parcel of 36.4 acres), and the south part of the East Grumpelt Parcel
(7.5 acres) all have Hereford and Black Angus beef cattle (heifers or steer) from
April/May to early September.
The number of cattle in the previous three pastures is roughly: West Pasture (20), West
Grumpelt Parcel (30), South part of East Grumpelt Parcel (6-10). Grasses are kept fairly
low, but without bare patches. Brush cutting has recently been done less than yearly
(once every two or three years).
As noted, these pastures require periodic brush cutting to control invasive shrubs,
particularly Multiflora Rose, and any early-season cutting should be worked around any
existing significant plant or bird species.
Grassland birds have used the Cobble pastures as follows. In 2003, Bobolinks (3-4
males counted) nested in Corbin’s Neck and the West Pasture was used as a gathering
and foraging area. Eastern Meadowlarks have nested in Corbin’s Neck in 2000 (3
pairs) and in 2001 (2 pairs).
Mowing considerations regarding any patches of rich wet meadow are the same as for
those in hay fields. Specifically, Fringed Gentian occurs in wet meadow conditions in
the pasture in the West Grumpelt Parcel and Great Blue Lobelia occurs in the south end
of the West Pasture.
5-20
Old Field (non-woody)
Examples: Half-River Meadow (2.3 acres), South Cobble Wildflower Meadow (1 acre),
Tulip Tree Trail Fields (0.5, 1, and 0.4 acres), Hurlburt’s Hill First (1 acre) and
Second (1.4 acres) Fields.
Description: At Bartholomew’s Cobble, these are former agricultural fields that are
being maintained, through yearly mowing in the fall by The Trustees’ staff, in a postgraminoid, non-woody state, with a mix of mostly perennial herbs. These places can be
appropriately called “wildflower meadows” and are great places to study butterflies and
odonates in the summer.
Discussion: Mowing considerations regarding any patches of rich wet meadow are
similar to those discussed for hay fields and pastures. Great Blue Lobelia occurs in two
of the Tulip Tree Trail Fields. Foxtail Sedge (Carex alopecoidea), Davis’ Sedge (Carex
davisii), and Germander occur in the Half-River Meadow.
PARCEL NORTH OF L-FIELD
This area was not explored in 2003 and should be visited in the future. The stream that
separates this parcel from the L-Field to the south was very deep and in places formed
wide pools as a result of beaver impoundments in what used to be a shrub swamp (now
beaver ponds) to the east. Therefore, access from the L-Field was difficult and other
access routes would have required permission to cross private land.
The 1991 inventory described three units in this parcel (observation from L-Field through
binoculars):
•
•
•
North Pine Grove – a near-pure stand of White Pine dating to the 1940s. This still
looks as described in 1991, with very sparse shrub and herb layers. Of special
note, Great Blue Lobelia was listed here in 1991.
Old Field – This is now at the stage of a very old field or young woodland, with a
very open/patchy canopy and shrub thickets. Barberry was listed here in 1991,
and it is quite probable that several invasive shrub species are now wellestablished. Of special note, Rock Spikemoss was listed here in 1991, and one of
the recommendations for this unit was to “periodically cut shrubs and trees” in
order to maintain “southwest exposure for spikemoss population”.
Shrub Swamp – Most or all of this area is now a group of beaver impoundments.
5.9 Flora (Plant Species Lists)
A number of species lists for various groups of plants have been compiled for the Cobble
over the years. Vascular plants (trees, shrubs, herbs, ferns and allies) typically have been
studied much more than other groups of plants – e.g., bryophytes (mosses and
liverworts), fungi, and lichens. The most important and/or current of these species lists
5-21
are mentioned in the following paragraphs, and their source is referenced (these other
sources are known from their inclusion in the 1993 Master Plan, and not from original
documentation).
VASCULAR PLANTS
The most recent and complete list of
vascular plants for Bartholomew’s
Cobble is included in the report by
Jenkins and Williams. This report
includes a list of 731 species. Of these,
403 were recorded by the authors in the
2002 season; the remaining 323 species
are from an undated list by Boutard and
VanWart which was updated in 1999 by
Weatherbee and Reid. The total number
of species reflects the diversity of plant
communities found at the Cobble. To
further illustrate the importance of
Bartholomew’s Cobble, at least 30 rare
plant species have been documented,
including the Great Blue Lobelia, a
signature plant at the Cobble because it
grows at very few other locations in the
state.
Figure 6: Great Blue Lobelia
BRYOPHYTES
Mosses and liverworts have not received as much attention at Bartholomew’s Cobble, as
is true in general. Not enough is known about bryophytes to even say, in many cases,
which species are rare. The Jenkins and Williams report lists 145 moss and 24 liverwort
species. Of these, 115 moss and 20 liverwort species were recorded by the authors in
2002 and the remaining species were recorded by Mischler in 1981. It should be noted
that of the species found by Jenkins and Williams, ten are new county records, and three
are new state records.
FUNGI
The 1993 Master Plan includes a list with143 species. This list is a compilation of other
lists from various sources from 1965, 1977, 1978, and 1981.
LICHENS
The 1993 Master Plan includes a list with 79 species. This list is a compilation of other
lists from 1965 and 1981.
5-22
5.10 Wildlife
Most of the known wildlife information for Bartholomew’s Cobble is limited to the
species lists included in the 1993 Master Plan, and to the 1995 Trustees’ publication
“Bartholomew’s Cobble – A Checklist of the Birds”. No original documentation has
been found for most of this information, and some of the species lists are quite dated.
This information, therefore, should be considered only a starting baseline, and not
necessarily current. Some additional information has been gathered by Trustees’ staff
through informal surveys and incidental observations in 2003 (vernal pools and
amphibians, nesting grassland birds, other bird species, and odonates). The
recommendations section will list the areas that could most benefit from additional study.
BIRDS
The 1993 Master Plan includes a species list that combines several sources dating back to
1950. In addition, there is the 1995 Trustees’ publication “Bartholomew’s Cobble – A
Checklist of the Birds” compiled by Don Reid from his and from known previous
records. These various lists show a significant diversity of bird species, as is to be
expected from the diversity of habitats at the Cobble.
According to the 1995 checklist, “over 240 species have been recorded … since 1946,
with nearly 100 of these nesting species.” This checklist is, therefore, a good cumulative
record of bird observations at the Cobble; but as stated earlier, it is not necessarily an upto-date list of species, nesting and otherwise. A few examples of species whose nesting
status should be verified with new observations are American Black Duck, Cooper’s
Hawk, Northern Goshawk, Common Snipe, Whip-Poor-Will, Alder Flycatcher, and Cliff
Swallow. On the other hand, there might be a few species missing from the list, or not
shown as nesting species. For example, American Bittern, listed as endangered in MA,
has been recorded in the Ashley House Wetland in the summer of 2000, 2001, and 2002.
The species list in the 1993 Plan combines six sources from 1950 through 1991. In
particular, this document also summarizes a bird census that was conducted monthly
from 10/90 through 12/91, with 24 survey points and 3-minute observation/listening
periods. The detailed records for that census have not been found. A total of 126 species
were recorded, with monthly counts of individuals ranging from a low of 279 (8/91), to a
high of 3136 (interestingly, in 11/91, after fall migration).
Resumption of regular bird surveys at Bartholomew’s Cobble could be used both to
verify the current status of bird species at the Cobble, and to document long-term
population trends.
Discussion
The following discussion focuses on a relatively small number of species that are worth
keeping in mind when compiling future observations. These should be considered to be
5-23
significant bird species, in most cases either because they are state-listed in MA, or
because they are considered priority species in a Partners in Flight Conservation Plan8.
Grassland, Old Field, and Hedgerow Species
These species – because they nest in the more highly-managed habitats – need the most
attention with respect to mowing, grazing, or brush-cutting activities (as compared with
most of the species in the next subsection, which for the most part are forest-nesting
species). In general, fields and hedgerows should be monitored from early May through
June for possible nesting activity. The following is the small amount of information
available on these species at the Cobble:
Grassland Species
•
•
•
•
•
Bobolink has been, and currently is, a regular nester at Bartholomew’s Cobble.
In 2003, Bobolinks nested in the Ashley Field (8-11 males on 6/3), the L-Field (35 males on 6/3), the Hurlburt’s Hill (4-6 males on 6/3), and Corbin’s Neck (3-4
males in 2003). The West Pasture appears to be a gathering and foraging area
after nesting.
Eastern Meadowlark nested in Corbin’s Neck in 2000 (3 pairs) and in 2001 (2
pairs).
Savannah Sparrow has been reported to nest in the Ashley Field, but there is no
specific data on this.
A Vesper Sparrow was observed in the Ashley Field in 2002 during nesting
season. It is not shown as a nester in the 1995 checklist.
Eastern Bluebird has nested in bluebird boxes at Bartholomew’s Cobble.
Detailed nesting records are available since 1998. There has been a decline in
nesting success with two nesting successes in 1998, 1999, and 2000; no successes
in 2001; one success in 2002; and not even a nesting attempt in 2003. In 2000,
the number of boxes at the Cobble was reduced from 34 boxes placed back-toback, to 10 boxes placed separately
Old Field and Hedgerow Species
•
•
•
A Brown Thrasher was observed on June 3, 2003 in the hedgerow at the west
end of the L-Field. It is shown as a nester in the 1995 checklist.
Field Sparrow nests in old fields with a mix of graminoids, perennials, and
shrubs. It is shown as a nester in the 1995 checklist, but there are no recent,
specific observations. The Half-River Meadow and the Tulip Tree Trail Fields
are good habitat for this species.
Eastern Towhee nests in shrubby old fields, as well as in open, dry forests. It is
shown as a nester in the 1995 checklist, but there are no recent, specific
8
Partners in Flight is a cooperative effort involving partnerships among federal, state, and local
government agencies, philanthropic foundations, professional organizations, conservation groups, industry,
the academic community, and private individuals interested in conserving bird populations in the western
hemisphere.
5-24
observations. The young woodland in the North Cobble is a good habitat for this
species.
Priority species in Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plans
There are 29 species listed in the 1995 checklist for Bartholomew’s Cobble that are
identified as priority species in the Partners in Flight (PIF) Bird Conservation Plans for
Northern New England (NNE, Area 27), and/or for Southern New England (SNE, Area
09). Because Bartholomew’s Cobble is near the junction of these two areas, the
conservation plans for both of these areas are relevant to this reservation. The PIF
rankings are as follows.
•
•
•
•
•
Tier I (A, B) – High Continental Priority: a species is of high conservation
concern throughout its range.
Tier II (A, B, C) – High Regional Priority: a species may be only of moderate
continental concern, but e.g. the local region is important for its overall
conservation.
Tier III – US Watch List: a species which is on the national US Watch List, and
for which the local region is important.
Tier IV – Federally Listed: any species listed under the US Endangered Species
Act, and therefore receiving conservation attention anywhere.
Tier V – State Listed: any species listed on state lists within the region. These are
often species on the periphery of their range.
As a result of these tier definitions, many species that are not state-listed in
Massachusetts appear under the PIF system as priority species (e.g., Scarlet Tanager).
For the purposes of Bartholomew’s Cobble ecological management, most of these species
will not require specific management attention (with the exception of American Bittern
– see Ashley House Wetland discussion – and the previously listed grassland or old field
species). However, accumulating long-term population trends for these species at the
Cobble might be of regional interest in support of PIF efforts. The species are listed in
typical checklist order:
5-25
Species
NNE Tier
SNE Tier
American Bittern (MA – Endangered)
American Black Duck
Northern Harrier (MA – Threatened)
Sharp-shinned Hawk (MA – Special Concern)
Black-billed Cuckoo
Whip-Poor-Will
Hairy Woodpecker
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Least Flycatcher
Veery
Wood Thrush
Gray Catbird
Blue-winged Warbler
Chestnut-sided Warbler
Black-throated Blue Warbler
Blackburnian Warbler
Black-and-white Warbler
Ovenbird
Louisiana Waterthrush
Canada Warbler
Scarlet Tanager
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Eastern Towhee
Vesper Sparrow (MA – Threatened)
Savannah Sparrow
Bobolink
Eastern Meadowlark
Northern Oriole
Purple Finch
V
III
V
V
V
IIC
V
V
IA
V
IIA
IIA
IIC
IIA
IIA
IIB
IA
IIA
III
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IB
IC
IIA
IIB
IA
IIA
IIA
V
IIC
V
IIA
IA
IIC
IA
IIA
IIA
V
V
III
V
IA
IIA
BUTTERFLIES AND ODONATES
Butterflies and odonates (dragonflies and damselflies) are the most visible and popularly
studied orders among the huge world of insects. The most productive habitats for
observing these insects at the Cobble are its fields, particularly some of the non-woody
old fields with a mix of perennial wildflowers, such as the Wildflower Meadow at the
south end of the South Cobble, or the Half-River Meadow.
5-26
Comprehensive species lists for butterflies and odonates (i.e., reflecting an accumulation
of observations over a period of years) do not exist for the Cobble. Local nature clubs
probably have lists for specific field trips and there is the possibility of gathering and
compiling some of this information, past and future.
There is a distinct possibility that Bartholomew’s Cobble (and the Housatonic River) may
support rare odonate species. MNHESP identifies 14 state-listed rare species associated
with “Major-River Floodplain Forests” (i.e., the plant community along the Bailey Trail
in the vicinity of the Half-River oxbow pond). For example, the Blue-fronted Dancer (an
uncommon, but not state-listed species associated with slow-moving rivers) is one of the
commonly-found damselflies in the Wildflower Meadow in summer.
AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES
The 1993 Master Plan lists 24 species of amphibians and reptiles for Bartholomew’s
Cobble based on observations from 1981, 1989, 1990, and 1991. Included in that list,
and also in MNHESP records for the Cobble, are Wood Turtle and Spotted Turtle. The
exact location for those records is not known yet, but is probably available from
MNHESP. Suitable habitat for one or both of these species is found in the floodplain
forest around the Half-River Pond, in the Half-River Meadow, in the Ashley House
Wetland.
There are several vernal pools in Bartholomew’s Cobble – one at the west end of
Corbin’s Neck, and the rest in the floodplain near Half-River. Spotted Salamander
and/or Wood Frog egg masses were found during informal surveys in 2003 in all of
these ponds. Jefferson Salamander is also a possibility.
FISH
The 1993 Master Plan lists 21 species from the Housatonic River; it is not clear whether
these were from records in the vicinity of the Cobble. Two of these species, the Bridle
Shiner (Notropis bifrenatus) and the Longnose Sucker (Catostomus catostomus), are
species of special concern in MA. The MNHESP fact sheets for these two species show
records for Sheffield. Current status of these species around the Cobble is unknown.
MAMMALS
The species list in the 1993 Master Plan includes 23 mammalian species. Most of these
species are to be expected given the mix of habitats (forests, fields, hedgerows, wetlands)
provided by Bartholomew’s Cobble. Of the species listed, the Rock Shrew (Sorex
dispar) is a species of special concern in Massachusetts (the MNHESP fact sheet shows a
recent record in the distribution map in what is probably Sheffield). Its habitat is
described as cold, deep, damp coniferous forests with hemlock or spruce in depressions
of moist moss-covered logs, in crevices of mossy rock piles. Possibilities at the Cobble
include the north end of the Ledges Trail in the South Cobble, the Tulip Tree Woods, and
the Rockland Woods.
5-27
Of the wide-ranging mammals, Black Bear and Bobcat are included in the 1993 list.
These animals depend on large tracts of forest for breeding habitat and, therefore, the
Cobble and its agricultural surroundings would provide at most some value as open space
corridors. The White-tailed Deer is significant because of its potential for ecological
impact – specifically, its threat to small populations of rare herbaceous plants through
browsing.
CRUSTACEANS
There is a MNHESP record for Northern Spring Amphipod (Gammarus
pseudolimnaeus) in one of the small streams feeding into the Housatonic River near the
Half-River Meadow. The status of this population is unknown.
SNAILS
In its community description for “Major-River Floodplain Forest” MNHESP mentions an
associated rare snail, the Riverbank Looping Snail or Slender Walker (Pomatiopsis
lapidaria). There are no records for this species at Bartholomew’s Cobble. It is an
interesting possibility.
5.11 Threats
The following are the significant threats to the natural resources at Bartholomew’s
Cobble:
•
•
•
•
Invasive (exotic) species. The most troublesome species at the Cobble include
several herbs (e.g., Garlic Mustard, Purple Loosestrife), several shrubs (e.g.,
Common Buckthorn, European and Japanese Barberry, Multiflora Rose, Morrow
Honeysuckle), a couple of vines (Oriental Bittersweet and Black Swallowwort),
and an insect (Hemlock Wooly Adelgid). Specific threats from these species
include competition with rare and uncommon species populations; degradation of
relatively pristine plant communities; and in the case of the adelgid, loss of
hemlock stands in the reservation.
Plant Succession. Many of the significant species at the Cobble require open or
partially shaded conditions. The natural process of forest succession in
surrounding stands would, in many cases, result in overshading of these
significant species populations. Also, field habitats are continually encroached by
woody growth, particularly along field edges and hedgerows.
Erosion and Silting. This problem is particularly severe east of Weatogue Road
and south of the cobbles, because of drainage culverts which flow east from
Weatogue Road, resulting in large erosion gullies. The worst of these are causing
significant silting into the Half River Pond, which contains significant species.
Deer. Some of the Cobble’s significant plant species occur in very few and small
populations and deer browsing has been observed in some of these populations.
5-28
•
•
Mowing Schedules for Fields. It will be necessary (and not always easy) to
define, monitor, and adjust mowing schedules so that they work around the
breeding / flowering / fruiting periods for significant bird and plant species, while
also being effective for controlling invasive and woody species and for hay
production.
Visitation Impact (present, future) on significant species. The main threats
resulting from visitation are collecting of rare species by botanical collectors and
inadvertent trampling of small herb/fern populations. Fortunately, both of these
threats are reduced by the fact that most significant species populations occur offtrail. Therefore, explicitly advertising the location of rare species during
interpretive programs or in brochures my result in both collecting and trampling.
5.12 Summary of Ecological Highlights
•
•
•
A large number of significant plant species (48), of which 29 are in one of the
MNHESP lists of rare species and the other 19 are interesting and/or uncommon
species. This large number of rare or uncommon species occurs within a number
of (also rare or uncommon) plant communities that are associated with rich, limy
soils.
A number of significant animal species including birds, amphibians, reptiles,
mammals, fish, crustaceans, and potential habitat for riverine odonates
(dragonflies and damselfies).
A significant diversity of plant communities, some rare or uncommon, including:
o Open Calcareous Rock Outcrop/Cliff Community
o Shady Calcareous Rock Outcrop/Cliff Community
o Dry calcareous Forest
o Mature Hemlock/Hardwoods Forest
o Rich Mesic Forest
o Floodplain Forest
o Low-water Shores of Housatonic River and Half-River Pond
o Rich Wet Meadow
o Grasslands
o Vernal Pools
Ecological threats, in general, are those factors which affect the integrity and biodiversity
of plant and animal communities or, most importantly, the persistence of significant
species populations. Ecological threats at Bartholomew’s Cobble include:
•
•
•
•
•
Competition from invasive species.
Shading from surrounding forest canopy.
Erosion from culverts, and silting at Half River Pond.
Rare plant collection and trampling.
Deer browsing.
5-29
•
Multiple constraints and goals in mowing schedules, with respect to existing
populations of significant plant and animal species.
The Trustees is privileged to be the steward for Bartholomew’s Cobble – a very special
place that has been treasured by many people for its biological diversity and for its
populations of rare and uncommon species. Many of these species are found only in a
few other places in Massachusetts and many of them occur in small numbers at
Bartholomew’s Cobble. Preserving these rare species at the Cobble will require careful,
long-term monitoring and management. This is a difficult task, but it is also a great
opportunity for The Trustees to demonstrate skills, leadership, and commitment in the
preservation of biological diversity.
5-30
Section 6: Cultural Resources
The beauty of this museum is greatly enhanced by a setting of wooded hills, wide
meadows, winding river and a backdrop of high-walled mountains. 1
6.1 Introduction
Bartholomew’s Cobble, famous for its scenic and ecological wonders, also contains a
wide variety of cultural resources. The most obvious are the two existing buildings, but
fences, fields, and farm roads also demonstrate a long history of people interacting with
the natural surroundings. Collections of animal specimens, insects, minerals,
archeological evidence of indigenous peoples, research materials, photographs, and
institutional archives help illustrate, record and teach about Bartholomew’s Cobble.
6.2 Structures
Background
In 1946, Bartholomew’s Cobble Reservation came with several buildings, including a
structure referred to as a two-story summer house, located between the cobbles above the
river. Previous owner Walter Hurlburt tore it down in the early 1950s. In The Trustees
of Reservations’ Annual Report of 1954, the Local Committee reported, “Happily, the old
building on the south bluff, long an eyesore, was at last torn down by the owner, and
carted off. Where it stood is now one of the most attractive spots on the Cobble, and
invites the visitor to sit down in the shade and contemplate the river view.”
The property also came with two small cabins on the North Cobble, presumably
associated with the summer house. The larger of the two cabins was converted to the
Bailey Museum in 1965. The second cabin, located down the riverbank from the Bailey
Museum, was remodeled to serve as outdoor pit toilets. These were removed in 1994
because of health regulations and replaced by modern toilets in the Visitors Center. In its
place a simple platform was built to hold a future screen house for education space.
The Trustees’ Colonel John Ashley House, with its five acres, is located next to
Bartholomew’s Cobble to the northwest. Until 1930, it was located on the west bank of
the Housatonic River next to Rannapo Road, a short distance north of the intersection
with Cooper Hill Road. The Ashley House is linked by history to the Cobble, as Col.
Ashley and his descendents owned the land that is now Bartholomew’s Cobble. The
Ashley House will have its own Management Plan. However, due to its significance,
management at the Cobble will consider any impact on this historical house and its
setting.
1
John H. Storer, 1970, ecologist, author, President of Florida Audubon Society, Letter to The Trustees of
6 – Cultural Resources
6-1
Existing Buildings
The Bailey Museum
This small, rustic structure of unknown age was originally a summer cabin. After
Bartholomew’s Cobble Reservation was created in 1946, Waldo Bailey used the cabin to
greet visitors and to keep out of the rain. In 1964-1965, it was converted to a museum,
opening to the public on May 22, 1965. According to The Trustees’ Annual Report of
1965, the exhibits included framed photographs taken by Bailey of all the wild orchids of
Massachusetts, a collection of 100 archeological artifacts collected near the Reservation,
rocks and minerals, moths and butterflies, and two original Audubon prints. A reference
library started with the gift of a complete Peterson Field Guide series. In 1970, the
museum was expanded into two rooms to display a collection of photographs of Cobble
wildflowers taken by Howard Bain. The fieldstone chimney near the center of the
building has the National Natural Landmark plaque set into it.
Figure 7: The Bailey Museum in 2004.
By the early 1990s, the building was out-dated and falling into disrepair. Measuring just
15’x30’, it was too small for demonstrations or lectures. Located up a slope, it was
inaccessible to some visitors. The objects on display, suffering from exposure to light
and humidity are now stored in the Visitors Center or at the Western Region office in
Stockbridge. There was no running water, and the only facilities were nearby pit toilets.
In 2001, the Bailey Museum was repaired by maintenance staff and volunteers to provide
a space for educational programs. A new roof, better electrical service, and wall and
foundation repairs made it usable again. Some programs are now held in the museum.
But it turned out that, being very hot in the summer and very cold in the winter, the
building is not consistently useable for more than an hour or two at a time.
6-2
The Bailey Museum is a significant part of the cultural heritage of Bartholomew’s
Cobble. It serves as both a reminder of early 20th century land use (a summer cabin) and
the early history of Bartholomew’s Cobble. Its role as the first “visitors center” and
museum was integral to the development of the reservation. Today, it also represents an
important opportunity to expand educational programming (see Section 7.3.3).
Visitors Center
In 1994, staff and volunteers constructed a new Visitors Center, located on Weatogue
Road. Most of the construction was done in late August as a timber framing workshop
led by Jack Sobon of Windsor, Massachusetts. The large timbers were cut at Notchview
Reservation. The building, designed by architect Terry Hallock, measures 24’x40’ and is
one and one-half stories with a full basement. It contains an office, bathrooms, exhibit,
and lecture space. In 2003, UV filters were installed on windows to protect taxidermy
specimens and other artifacts from damaging ultraviolet light.
Figure 8: Visitors Center in spring 2004 showing universal access ramp.
6.3 Condition and Maintenance (Methodology)
In order to develop a meaningful management plan, it is important to include an
understanding of the baseline condition of our buildings and structures. This is
accomplished in two phases; the first phase consists of a brief systematic review of the
building systems classifying their condition as excellent, good, fair, or poor. Such a
classification provides a snapshot of the current health of the building while modeling the
immediate needs to achieve renewal of building systems. The excellent, good, fair, or
poor ratings are indications of a building systems’ useful life. An excellent rating
indicates greater than 75% of a system’s useful life remains, a good rating falls between
50 and 75%, fair falls between 25 and 50% and poor indicates that less than 25% of a
building system’s useful life remains. Predicting useful life is not an exact science and
6-3
this first phase of review is meant to create a generalized assessment of building health
while relating this assessment to the health of other structures across the state. All
information gathered during this initial assessment is stored and updated on the structural
resources web site (www.structural-resources.org), allowing access remotely from all
corners of the state.
Once the initial assessment is complete, identifiable deficiencies which make up the
analysis of renewal need can be categorized as projects. These will help to identify costs
associated with routine maintenance, deferred maintenance, capital renewal and capital
improvements2. Once again the web-based database is used to store project information
which can help identify immediate and future needs.
The following tables represent updated information on current conditions:
Bailey Museum Systems Conditions
Building
System
Roof
Rating
Excellent
Age
Less than 3
years old
Description
Chimney
Poor
Less than
25% of its
useful life
remains.
The chimney needs to be repointed and re-flashed.
Walls
Structure
Good
The building appears to be structurally sound, no apparent structural work is needed.
Walls Interior
Poor
The interior of the building needs new paint and some patching.
Drainage
(gutters)
Excellent
Foundation
(exterior)
Poor
Foundation
(interior)
Good
Windows
Doors
Fair
Floor
Fair
Electrical
Good
Heating
NA
A new electrical service was installed less than three years ago but no upgrades of the
existing circuitry or outlets have been performed.
There is no heating system in this building.
Plumbing
NA
There are no plumbing systems in this building.
Less than
3 years old
The gutters were replaced recently to protect the building from moisture related
problems.
Ventilation is poor; this building is extremely hot in the summer time and if it is to be
used as an interpretive center ventilation needs to be improved.
Visitors Center Systems Conditions
2
Appendix A – Understanding the baseline condition of Structural Resources Statewide. August 25, 2003
6-4
Building
System
Roof
Rating
Excellent
Age
Less than 5
years old
Chimney
NA
.
Walls
Structure
Excellent
Walls Interior
Excellent
Drainage
(gutters)
Good
Foundation
(exterior)
Excellent
The footings for the porch and steps have shifted creating the need to reframe the stairs
to eliminate the slant.
Foundation
(interior)
Good
The basement needs a dehumidifier; no standing water in the basement.
Windows
Doors
Excellent
Floor
Excellent
Electrical
Excellent
Heating
Excellent
Plumbing
Excellent
Description
The roof was replaced in 1999.
.
Routine Maintenance
Until the systems of the Cobble’s buildings are upgraded substantially, identifying all the
routine maintenance needs will be extremely important to guard against the creation of
deferred maintenance and the rapid deterioration of building systems; a sample list of
Routine Maintenance follows. The time and labor or outsourced costs are an important
consideration when considering resources required in carrying out a management plan.
As part of the implementation of the management plan, a routine maintenance schedule
will be produced specific to the Cobble’s building needs.
Building System
Roof, gutters
Interval
spring, fall,
winter
Description
Clean out gutters, repair gutters if needed, remove any build-up of organic material (leaves, fungus).
In winter watch for signs of ice damming, protect roof from heavy snow loads.
Chimney
fall
Have chimneys cleaned regularly; check mortar joints for excessive wear and deterioration.
Exterior
eight to ten
years
Complete exterior paint job, clean all surfaces, provide surface prep and paint. If painting is needed
more frequently look for moisture and ventilation issues.
Walls Interior
winter,
spring,
summer,
fall
Interior surfaces should be cleaned regularly with a major cleaning in each of the four seasons.
Interior renewal, painting and wallpaper can follow an eight to fifteen year cycle.
Foundation
(exterior)
annually
Inspect mortar joints annually, watch for moisture problems related to improper drainage, high water
tables, seasonal flooding. Make sure foundation is vented properly, dry air is best.
Windows
Doors
spring and
fall
Prior to heating and cooling seasons, make sure all weather-stripping, storm windows and doors, and
insulation, is properly installed. All storm combinations are to be positioned properly to guard
against unwanted water infiltration.
6-5
Floors
periodically
Floors should be cleaned periodically reducing excessive build-up of dirt and dust. Renewal
generally occurs in five to ten years depending on the materials.
Electrical
winter,
spring,
summer,
and fall
Check all smoke detectors to make sure they are active. Make sure access to electric panels and
sub-panels remain unobstructed.
Heating
spring and
fall
Heating systems should be maintained using a service contract. All filters should be replaced as
recommended. Oil tanks should have containment underneath; any apparent leaks are to be reported
immediately.
Plumbing
annually
Water softening equipment and pump house equipment to be serviced annually by a qualified
professional.
Pest Control
annually
Regular pest control should be assessed and serviced by an outside contractor.
Site
annually
Vegetation around the building perimeter is to be cleared away annually.
Deferred Maintenance
Existing conditions at the Cobble need to be assessed for deferred maintenance projects.
These projects will be prioritized. Some of these projects will impact recommendations
and the creation of the implementation plan. However, due to the Visitors Center being
less than 10 years old, its condition is considered to be excellent. However, the steps are
sloping due to settling and need to be repaired. The Bailey Museum is significantly
older, but recent improvements have eliminated most deferred maintenance needs. The
one exception is that the chimney needs to be repaired to prevent rain water from leaking
into the interior.
Capital Renewal
When creating a management plan it is important to proactively plan for the renewal of
building systems. The rule of thumb for building a reserve to pay for renewal needs is to
set aside 2% of the building replacement value for renewal needs. In the case of the
Bailey Museum, using a building replacement cost of $75/sf and 480 sf habitable space,
the annual renewal reserve should be $720 (replacement cost = $36,000 = $75/sf x 480
sf). The annual renewal reserve for the Visitors Center should be $1,440 (replacement
cost = $72,000 = $120/sf x 600 sf). These renewal figures assume that all building
systems were recently renewed. Funds should be adjusted in the management budget to
care for the backlog of renewal needs.
Capital Improvement
Potential Uses
The current vision that has been driving recent improvements to the Bailey Museum has
been to use it, together with the screened house, as a center for education at the Cobble
that would be called the Bailey Environmental Education Center. This concept remains a
viable option but has not been developed yet due to the need for additional improvements
to the structures, demands on staff time, and uncertainty as to the demand for such a
center. Until an education plan is developed for the Cobble that identifies how these
structures will be used, needed improvements that support this vision (e.g., lighting,
ceiling fans, etc.) cannot be identified, let alone implemented. Exceptions include
deferred maintenance needs that are necessary to maintain the integrity of the buildings.
For more discussion on the Bailey Environmental Education Center vision see Section 7.
6-6
6.4 Collections and Archives
Overview
Since 1946, Warden/Naturalists and volunteers have gathered many objects, animal
specimens, and research materials (collectively referred to as the “collections”).
Additional objects have been donated to the Reservation over the years. Many of the
collections were displayed or stored at the Bailey Museum from 1965-1994, then moved
to the new Visitors Center in 1995. The collections continue to grow, so that by 2004,
the Visitors Center displays a wide variety of artifacts, specimens, prints, and
photographs. Other artifacts, some removed from the poor environmental conditions in
the Bailey Museum, are now in storage in the Visitors Center.
Over the Reservation’s 58-year history, a great deal of institutional archives have
accumulated, including research notes, maps, brochures and booklets, memos, etc. These
are located in the Western Regional office in Stockbridge, at the Visitors Center in
Ashley Falls, Long Hill Reservation in Beverly and the Doyle Conservation Center in
Leominster.
There are some important artifacts (e.g., animal specimens, watercolors, drawings), but
they have been acquired on an ad hoc basis. Refining the education mission of
Bartholomew’s Cobble will help determine what artifacts to keep, what ones to
deaccession, and what needs to be collected. Other challenges include creating a
systematic inventory of the collections, improving display and storage conditions, and
making them more accessible to staff and the public.
Photographs and Prints
Bartholomew’s Cobble has been a favorite place for photographers. The Trustees have
accumulated a number of photographs, including color photographs by Howard Bain, the
Cobble’s second Warden-Naturalist. There is also a collection of late 19th and early 20th
century photographic prints by local photographer Edwin Hale Lincoln. There are large
numbers of 35mm slides and prints taken by staff and volunteers over the history of the
Reservation.
Rex Brasher
There is a large uncatalogued collection of hand-colored prints by Rex Brasher.
According to The Connecticut State Museum of Natural History at the University of
Connecticut, which holds the Brasher archives:
Rex Brasher (1869-1960) was one of America's greatest bird painters. He painted
almost twice as many North American birds as Louis Aggasiz Fuertes or John
James Audubon. He painted a total of 875 water color paintings of 1200 species
or subspecies of birds in their natural habitats, based on American Ornithologists
Union Checklist of North American Birds.
6-7
All 875 were painted between 1911 and 1924 by Rex Brasher at his farm,
Chickadee Valley, in Kent, Connecticut. Rather than sell paintings individually,
Brasher struggled financially all his life to keep the collection intact. In 1929, he
attempted to take his painting to the public by publishing in one book all 875
paintings at the Meriden Gravure Company.
Unfortunately, the stock market crash and resulting Depression almost destroyed
his project. The books were printed in black-and-white. Over a three year period
from 1929 till 1932, Brasher personally hand-colored nearly 90,000 reproductions
-- every bird in every print -- to make 100 complete 12-volume sets. Today these
books, or prints from the books, are highly prized by collectors.3
Figure 9: Rex Brasher print of Goshawk and Ruffed Grouse displayed in Visitors Center.
Laura Louise Foster
Artist Laura Louise Foster created the illustrations for A Field Guide to the Ferns and
Their Related Families of Northeastern and Central North America, by Boughton Cobb
(first published in 1956 and still in print). The original drawings are now held in the
Visitors Center many of which are on display.
Animal Specimens and Minerals
Many specimens including bird eggs, Lepidoptera (i.e., butterflies and moths), songbirds,
raptors (i.e., hawks and owls), mammals, and reptiles are on display in the Visitors
Center. A collection of minerals collected at the Reservation is also on display, and
others are in storage.
3
From “Rex Brasher Online,” from the website of The Connecticut State Museum of Natural History at the
University of Connecticut. http://www.mnh.uconn.edu/brasher.htm
6-8
Figure 10: Bobcat mount in Visitors Center
Archeological Objects
The fertile floodplain, an abundance of game, and the sheltering cliffs and woodlands all
point to extensive use of this area by indigenous peoples for thousands of years. Indeed,
over the years, staff, volunteers, and visitors have collected artifacts made by indigenous
peoples, usually by spotting the items in plowed fields. These include some pottery
shards and many projectile points. Although intrinsically interesting, the fact that they
were collected haphazardly lessens their usefulness. Similarly, the 18th and 19th century
artifacts such as buttons and pipe stems found in the L-Field and Ashley Field are
intriguing, but inconclusive.
Archives
The Bartholomew’s Cobble Reservation archives record the history of The Trustees’
stewardship of the property from 1946 to the present. The materials are wide-ranging:
deeds and other legal documents, maps, newspaper clippings, photographs, lists of
animals and plants, brochures and booklets, financial reports, etc.
6.5 Cultural Landscape Features
Overview
For thousands of years, the land was used by indigenous peoples for farming, fishing, and
hunting. Since the 1730s, the 329 acres of Bartholomew’s Cobble continued to be used
for farming and woodlots, but now by European settlers.
6-9
Buildings, Foundations, Fields and Fences
Stone walls and fences were and are the most obvious landscape features, except for the
fields themselves. In addition to the 20th century buildings listed in Section 6.2, there
was, according to some records, a dwelling in the western edge of the L-field, near
Cooper Hill Road. There may be some indication of a cellar hole there.
There are no other obvious cellar holes or other foundations on the reservation. The
“summer house,” removed in 1954 from the North Cobble, may have left traces. A house
once on the L-field, may have also left traces.
As the land grant was divided up in the 1730s, Anglo-European settlers cleared more land
and farmed it more intensively, growing wheat and other grains, flax, hay, and many
other crops. Over the subsequent centuries several fields, such as the Ashley Field, the Lfield, Corbin’s Neck, and Hurlburt’s Hill, have been farmed continuously. Some fields,
and the cobbles themselves, have re-forested in the 20th century.
Fences show how farmers managed their land – stone walls to mark boundaries and as a
place to put rocks taken from tilled fields, and wire fences to hold cattle. Fences and
walls also serve as clues to ecological changes – for example, whether or not an area was
grazed might explain certain invasive species. Fences also show the historical boundaries
of real estate parcels.
Other features
Farm roads provided access to distant fields. One still leads to the top of Hurlburt’s Hill
and another skirts the edge of the South Cobble, leading to Corbin’s Neck. In the 1950s,
according to a member of the Hurlburt family4, the gravel and earthen ramp was built
down the slope to Corbin’s Neck to allow farm equipment easier access.
•
•
•
As with all buildings and structures, the lack of proper stewardship is their most
significant threat. The current field operations plan, Conservation in Action!, has
proclaimed the elimination of deferred maintenance as one of its goals. In order
to move toward this goal, it is important that adequate operations funds are
allocated to Bartholomew’s Cobble for routine maintenance. Funds spent to
support routine maintenance will protect the creation of deferred maintenance.
Funds should also be identified for building renewal to ensure the updating of
antiquated building systems.
Potential loss or damage to the collections because of sporadic management.
(e.g., dispersal of reference books from the collection before listing items;
archives not organized).
Inadequate space to house reference books.
4
Telephone conversation with Joseph Hurlburt, January 16, 2004. As a boy, Mr. Hurlburt helped his
father, Walter Hurlburt, farm this land.
6-10
•
•
•
Security of artifact collections, including handling of animal specimens by
visitors.
Agents of deterioration (light, humidity, pests, improper storage and handling)
affecting artifacts.
Illegal digging of archeological artifacts.
•
•
•
•
Learn more about our own collections through inventory and cataloguing.
Provide greater access for staff, researchers, and the public to the collections
(books, photographs, prints).
Conduct archeological investigations to learn more about pre-historic and historic
uses of land.
The uses listed above in Section 6.3 and 6.4 provide the opportunity to advance
the health of the structures while performing important Trustees mission-related
activities in all areas of resource protection. Specifically, the Bailey Museum
may serve as a trailside museum and/or environmental center.
6-11
Section 7: Visitor Experience
Bartholomew’s Cobble … is a choice alcove of quiet beauty above the Housatonic
River. The limestone rocks scarred only by time, the grasses entwined with flowers,
the sound of wind in trees, the ferns, lichens, and moss among the weathered rocks,
are rewards for those who walk slowly. 1
7.1 Introduction
More than 5,000 people come to Bartholomew’s Cobble each year to visit the museum
and walk the trails, or to attend events and interpretive programs. Visitors have
registered a high level of satisfaction with the property in comments to staff, in the
museum log, and in the 2000 Bartholomew’s Cobble Visitor’s Survey.
7.2 Past and Current Use
As noted in the 2000 Bartholomew’s Cobble Visitor’s Survey, approximately 75% of
visitors come from New York, New Jersey or New England (see Table 1, below). The
proximity of the Cobble to New York and Connecticut probably accounts for
significantly higher numbers of visitors originating from those states compared with other
reservations surveyed. The higher number of visitors from states outside of the
northeastern US or from other countries is probably attributable to the notoriety of the
Cobble as an important ecological site and as a National Natural Landmark.
Table 1. Points of Origin of Cobble Visitors
Zip Codes
Massachusetts
Connecticut
other New England states
New York
New Jersey
other states
outside US or no response
Bartholomew's All Parks and
Cobble
Wildlands
44.6%
78.0%
9.1
2.4
4.1
2.0
15.7
4.5
1.7
1.6
13.2
5.6
11.6
6.0
While Bartholomew’s Cobble has a loyal local constituency, reservation records from
2002 and 2003 and the 2000 Survey found that only about 25% of general admission
visitors are members of The Trustees (see Table 2), while fewer than half (43.0%) are
1
W. O. Douglas, 1970, Justice of the US Supreme Court, author, Letter to The Trustees of Reservations for
the 1969 fundraising campaign to add 115 acres.
.
7 – Visitor Experience
7-1
repeat visitors.2 The comparatively low number of repeat visitors (43.0% versus 64.6%
for other reservations surveyed) probably relates to the finding that the Cobble attracts
visitors from a relatively wide demographic area; the further away people live, the less
likely there are to return. Also, the Landmark listing in many guidebooks probably
makes the Cobble an obligatory stop for many tourists, but does not necessarily attract
the type of visitor that is likely to return or become a member.
Table 2. 2003-04 Visitation at Bartholomew’s Cobble
Member
Adult
Member
Child
Non-mem Non-mem Resident
Adult
Child
Program Groups
Attendees
Total
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
76
95
96
110
159
41
165
34
7
12
17
13
20
18
15
18
37
9
25
9
0
1
0
3
252
497
238
526
587
136
494
84
48
6
10
51
51
59
36
67
112
10
55
4
21
2
1
2
2
6
8
16
22
0
12
12
3
3
0
5
43
33
69
169
166
180
42
13
0
0
0
0
18
61
80
124
23
40
28
0
0
0
0
0
462
769
542
1030
1106
416
821
156
79
24
28
74
Total
825
155
2929
420
89
715
374
5507
Annual visitation over the past decade ranges between 7600 and 4500 with a median of
5700 people.
Those surveyed in 2000 reveal that the most important reasons to come to Bartholomew’s
Cobble are to enjoy the scenery (89%), to experience peace and quiet (81%) and to
explore and learn about natural features and wildlife (80%). The extent to which visitors
value the opportunity to study wildlife, plants and other natural features is also noted in
the Survey, where nature study is reported to be twice as important to Cobble visitors as
to those visiting other reservations.3 That Cobble visitors value learning about natural
history is evident by the number of botanical and birding groups who come each year, by
the interest generated from ongoing natural history programming, and by the nature of the
comments and questions directed to the staff. These preferred visitor activities are
consistent with the report in the 1993 Master Plan. Then, as now, visitors are most
interested in walking and hiking, nature study and picnicking.
2
3
BC 2000 Visitor Survey
2000Visitor Survey, pg. 8
7-2
7.3 Visitor Services and Facilities
7.3.1 Visitors Center
The Visitors Center was built in 1995 to meet a need for improved visitor services
identified in the 1993 Master Plan. It functions well as a Visitors Center and
administrative center. It houses an office and a small natural history museum with
exhibits on local flora and fauna. A collection of natural history books is currently
warehoused in the attic due to the lack of space. Here, staff greet visitors and orient
them to the property. The museum and two restrooms on the first floor are wheelchairaccessible. The cellar and attic are used to store tools and supplies. Canoes are stored
outside behind the building.
Visitors register many positive comments about the museum building and exhibits.
Original hand-colored lithographs by Rex Brasher (donated by Morgan Bulkeley III) and
original pen and ink illustrations of ferns by Laura Louise Foster attract particular
attention. The butterfly collection was freshened with new specimens in 2003, and the
collection of mounted wildlife specimens is added to periodically. While the items on
display are attractive and educational, the exhibits could benefit from better interpretive
text and signage. This is especially true of the collection of Native American
arrowheads and scrapers. On this, one visitor in 2003 recorded in the museum log,
“Nice information in the building, but … we need to know [the style of the artifacts],
probable tribe(s), as well as dating so that we can know the chronology.”
The lack of an adequate source for drinking water is an issue for visitors. Twenty-six
percent of those surveyed in 2000 cited this as a shortcoming.
Some visitors request items for sale: bug repellent, maps, posters, etc. Currently, we
offer only framed photographs for sale.
7.3.2 Bailey Museum
The Bailey Museum was the original natural history museum at the Cobble. The
building was on the property when The Trustees acquired the first 30.31 acres of the
reservation. It was later renovated in 1965 and remodeled in 1971 and again in 2001.
Recent repairs were funded by a grant from The Housatonic River Restoration. These
include new roofing, sill plates, siding, interior painting, exterior stain and upgrades to
electrical service.
The building was restored to serve as a laboratory/classroom for educational programs
apart from the Visitors Center, which is very busy on weekends. There is no other
dedicated classroom facility on the property. The restored Bailey Museum provides
options for augmenting the current field-based programming with more in-depth study in
a laboratory setting, and has been used as such on a number of occasions. A 2002 grant
from the Berkshire Environmental Fund provided for the purchase of four dissecting
7-3
microscopes and two compound microscopes. These are used for looking closely at
plants, insects and pond life. The building has also been used as a retreat for literary
workshops. However, most of the current programming is field-based and does not
employ the building. The opportunity to expand education at the Cobble to include more
programming with a laboratory component could be realized if relatively minor
improvements to the Bailey Museum are undertaken.
Drawbacks to the Bailey Museum include plenty of mice (who make a mess of the
inside), lack of electrical outlets, and a lack of interior furnishings and décor. The field
stone chimney is also in need of repair. Poor ventilation makes it unsuitable for use on
most summer days.
7.3.3 Bailey Environmental Education Center
In 2001, the Berkshire Environmental Fund awarded a grant to Bartholomew’s Cobble to
build and furnish a screened house on an existing platform near the Bailey Museum.
The grant also covered funds for educational equipment and supplies, such as the
microscopes mentioned above. The vision was to use the Bailey Museum and the
screened house as a center for education at the Cobble. This complex was to be called
the Bailey Environmental Education Center. This concept remains a viable option but
has not come to fruition for the following reasons:
•
•
•
•
The Bailey Building needs further improvement.
The screened house has not been completed.
Ongoing property maintenance and programming demands nearly all
available staff time, and takes away from special projects. For the past
two summers, emphasis has been placed on invasive species removal
rather than developing new educational programs and facilities.
Demand for in-depth educational programming has not been fully
assessed. The first program offering of this type was an all-day workshop
on lichens, held in the Bailey Museum, in which most of the time was
spent dissecting lichens and using chemical dyes to identify species. The
workshop attracted only four participants despite a considerable marketing
effort. The fee paid by program participants covered the cost of hiring an
expert to conduct the workshop but did not cover other associated costs. If
the need for this type of programming exists and if it is prioritized, then
more time and resources will need to be devoted to establish
Bartholomew’s Cobble as a known entity in this arena, to develop
programs, and to equip and maintain the Center.
7.3.4 Trails
A 5-mile network of trails leads visitors to the principal scenic areas on the property
(Map 1). Most trails are in good shape and, in general, visitors appreciate the current
standard of maintenance. However, the Tulip Tree Trail suffers from erosion and could
7-4
be improved by rerouting closer to contour lines. Signage could be improved in some
areas, as indicated by the 2000 Visitor’s Survey. A laminated map at the intersection of
Bailey and Spero Trails and another at the intersection of Tulip Tree and Boulder Trails
would alleviate some confusion.
The addition of a wheel chair-accessible trail was contemplated in 2000, at which time
there was only one other trail in Berkshire County giving access to people with
disabilities. This trail is located in Pittsfield State Forest. The proposed trail for the
Cobble was to depart from the Visitors Center, skirt the northern edge of Ashley Field,
and culminate at a wildlife hide overlooking the beaver marsh between Ashley Field and
Cooper Hill Road. The trail was never built because a grant proposal submitted to the
DEM’s Recreational Trails Program was declined. Internally, the technical and
maintenance problems associated with constructing a hard pack trail through the hayfield
were never fully resolved. Whether or not a trail of this type is desirable and practical
remains a topic for discussion.
7.4 Education
Since its inception in 1946, Bartholomew’s Cobble has employed a staff naturalist. The
first, S. Waldo Bailey (1946-1963), now legendary among naturalists, was intimate with
the property, its flora and fauna, and imparted this knowledge to visitors informally and
through scheduled bird and flower walks. With the passing of Bailey in 1963, it was
decided to convert the old cabin on the property into a trailside museum in his memory.
The Bailey Natural History Museum displayed many of the collections now on view in
the Visitors Center. The second warden/naturalist, Howard T. Bain (1963-1973), was
said to know “every tree and plant [at the Cobble] as intimately as most of us know the
shrubbery in our own dooryard,”4 and “he developed a host of friends through his
enthusiastic and lucid explanations of the Cobble’s treasures.”5 Bain authored the Ledges
Interpretive Trail Guide, and documented 50 wildflowers at the Cobble in color
photographs, some of which are displayed in the current Visitors Center. Several other
warden/naturalists followed Bailey and Bain, all dedicated to their roles as conservators
and interpreters.
In 1986, Warden Mike Cuocos and a committee of volunteers recommended developing
an environmental education program for the Cobble, since prior to this time, education at
the Cobble had been limited to “a series of events … which included the annual
wildflower and fern walk.”6 Cuocos also noted that, as the property had grown from its
original 35 acres to 277, staff time had been diverted away from natural history
interpretation to meet an increased demand for trail maintenance and administrative
work.
4
Hal Borland, as quoted in an essay by Gerard Chapman, 1975
Gerard Chapman, June 1975
6
M. Cuocos, notes, 1986
5
7-5
In 1991, the position of Warden/Naturalist was elevated to full-time, and more programs
were offered on a year-round basis. Still, in 2000, 18% of those surveyed said they
would like to see more educational materials and programs. Since the 2000 survey, the
number of programs offered has increased. In the 2003 season, Bartholomew’s Cobble
hosted 68 interpretive programs, tours, lectures and events, with a total of 715 people
attending.
Current Programming
Over the past four years interpretive programming at the Cobble has included:
• Weekly canoe trips on the Housatonic River from June through mid-October
• Bird walks – spring and fall series
• Vernal pool exploration and certification workshops
• Botanical walks with a focus on wildflowers and ferns
• Catch and release insect programs
• Reptile and amphibian programs
• Tracking – winter and summer
• Butterflies, dragonflies and damselflies
• Map and compass work
• Beaver marsh ecology
• Pond and stream exploration
• Fall foliage
• Hawk watches
• Owl programs
• Waterfowl programs
Guest naturalists and artists delivered programs on the following topics:
• Local geology
• Fungi
• Woody plants
• Bats – identification, ecology and conservation
• Canoe building
• Nature photography
• Nature journaling
• Lichens
• Wild edibles
• Old growth forests and trees
In addition to the above on-site programming, the Cobble staff has traveled to day care
centers and the local community center to conduct insect and pond programs.
7-6
All programs begin with an introduction to the property and The Trustees. Some include
a slide show, lecture or laboratory component, but most are exclusively field-based and
hands-on utilizing hand lenses, sweep nets, pond nets, etc. All are intended to facilitate a
direct and personal experience of nature and to foster an appreciation for the Cobble.
Group size ranges from 2 to 25 people. For larger groups, the format necessarily shifts
from an experiential to a lecture mode. The former is undoubtedly a much more effective
way for visitors to gain an appreciation of the property and its outstanding natural
resources. Smaller groups are preferable also because they have less of an impact on the
fragile environment.
Organized Groups
School Groups
In the spring and fall, dozens of students from schools in Massachusetts, Connecticut and
New York tour the Cobble, often in combination with the Ashley House. These groups
range from 3rd graders to college age. Group size ranges from 10 to 25 students per tour.
In the spring of 2004, 191 students toured the Cobble. The combined tour of the Cobble
and the Ashley House offers many opportunities to link the human history of the
Sheffield area with the natural history of the Cobble and surrounds. But, as noted above,
it is difficult for large groups (more than 10 people) to experience the property in a
meaningful way, and they do exact a toll on trailside vegetation.
Other Groups
In addition to school groups, numerous garden clubs, botanical groups, conservation
groups, hiking clubs, and private parties attend canoe tours or natural history tours of the
Cobble by special arrangement.
Self-guided Tour
As an alternative to attending organized programs, visitors may take a self-guided tour of
the Ledges Trail with the revised Ledges Interpretive Trail Guide, available at the
Visitors Center for a small fee.
Events
The Cobble also hosts a few spectator events each year. These have included an annual
concert on Hurlburt’s Hill, a spring lecture and slide show, and presentations featuring
live birds of prey.
Opportunities
A market for expanding the existing educational programming beyond the current level
may exist, particularly in July and August when tourism in the Berkshires is at its height.
Current programs generate significant interest, especially canoe trips and those geared for
families. Additionally, Bartholomew’s Cobble is the only facility offering natural
history-based programming within a 30-mile radius. The nearest similar facilities are the
Sharon Audubon Center in Sharon, CT and MassAudubon’s Pleasant Valley Sanctuary in
Lenox, MA.
7-7
As noted in Section 7.2, completing the screened house and the necessary improvements
to the Bailey Museum would create the opportunity for expanding or enhancing existing
programs. Completion of the screened house would also enhance the visitor experience
by providing a picnic and rest area for visitors when not in use for programs.
In 2000-01, the idea of a summer day camp for children, based at the Bailey
Environmental Center, was contemplated but the lack of water and restroom facilities
proved to be an obstacle (state regulations require two toilets for each sex). Additionally,
abundant poison ivy, ticks and mosquitoes were a noted detraction.
In the spring, summer and fall the Cobble staff is at capacity delivering the current
schedule of programs and events while also attending to trail maintenance, administrative
responsibilities and invasive species control. Any proposal to expand existing
educational programming would require hiring additional staff or recruiting reliable
volunteers. It should be noted, however, that while volunteers can increase productivity
they do not simply lift the burden from staff – they also require an investment of staff
time in the form of training and supervision.
7.5 Summary of Elements Important to the Visitor Experience
Visitors appreciate and expect:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Diverse scenery
Biological diversity
Opportunities for nature-study
A range of quality program offerings
Well-maintained and well-marked trails
Neatly kept fields (and woodlands?)
A good map
Quality museum exhibits
Clean restrooms
Friendly and informed staff
Two comments in the 2003 museum log are representative of many:
10/25 “Our first time here –very nice- can’t wait to see it again in late spring/early
summer. Thanks for all your trail work. - Visitor from Bristol, CT
10/30 “What a sacred place! The silence is filled with ancient message. I will certainly
return. Thank you for caring for this magical wonder.” - Visitor from West Hartford, CT
7-8
7.6 Summary of Significant Threats and Issues
•
Potential for loss or damage of rare plants from collection and trampling
Because the Cobble is well-known for botanical diversity, especially for ferns,
this is a matter of concern. Each year during fern season new trails appear at the
base of the ledges. The presumed culprits are “fern hunters” searching for
rarities. Most of these people are just curious, wanting a closer look, but some
collection has and probably still does occur.
•
Overcrowding on summer weekends may be an issue. The only significant
problems identified by visitors in the 2000 survey were “trails poorly marked”
and “too crowded.”
•
Pests, particularly mosquitoes and ticks, can be a nuisance at any reservation.
However, due to the extensive floodplain habitats, these pests are particularly
abundant at the Cobble. Personal prevention (e.g., tucking pants into socks and
applying bug repellent) is perhaps the most effective solution. Offering insect
repellent to the public at the Visitors Center, free of charge, helps to alleviate
complaints.
•
Opportunity to evaluate educational and interpretive programming and to assess
needs for the future. This needs assessment will help refine and guide other
aspects of management at the Cobble, including staffing and collections issues.
•
Opportunity to make minor improvements to the Visitor Center, Bailey Museum
and trails with significant benefits to the visitor experience (e.g., improve drinking
water source, museum interpretive text, trail signage).
7-9
Section 8: Overview of Current Management
In 1948, I had the honor of leading a week-end field trip of the Torrey Botanical Club
of New York City to Bartholomew’s Cobble. It is in their annals as one of the most
rewarding and memorable field trips ever taken by that authoritative botanical
organization. Since then, I have returned repeatedly and at every opportunity – and
always to rejoice that the Cobble is preserved in all its beauty for the future. 1
8.1 Introduction
Bartholomew’s Cobble is one of eleven properties within the Stockbridge Management
Unit of The Trustees’ Western Region. Because of its geologic history, its diverse
assemblage of flora and fauna, and its several distinct habitat types, the Cobble is
recognized as an important ecological site and as a National Natural Landmark.
Landmark status and the outstanding ecological features of the Cobble present both
challenges and opportunities with respect to management. Challenges arise from the
need to maintain the ecological integrity of the reservation while opportunities - for
improving educational and interpretive programming, for enhancing the visitor
experience, and for promoting the larger goals of The Trustees - derive from the special
qualities inherent to the Cobble that we seek to protect through proper stewardship.
In this section, we attempt to articulate the structure of current management. By this we
mean not what we do on a daily basis, but how we are structured to facilitate operations
in the field.
8.2 Staffing
Bartholomew’s Cobble is staffed by a full-time, year-round Property Manager (formerly
the Warden/Naturalist) and a full-time, seasonal Ranger/Naturalist. A part-time seasonal
Invasive Species Intern was added to the staff in 2003.
The Property Manager is responsible for the daily operations of the reservation, including
administrative work; developing and managing the budget; developing, scheduling and
staffing interpretive programs; maintaining a 5-mile network of trails; hiring and
overseeing seasonal staff; recruiting and working with volunteers; greeting the public and
cultivating membership; maintaining the Visitors Center and museum exhibits; and
working with the Regional Ecologist to monitor and conserve rare species. The Property
Manager also maintains a familiarity with the natural history of the site and interprets the
property to visitors.
1
Rutherford Platt, 1970, author, naturalist, Letter to The Trustees of Reservations for the 1969 fundraising
campaign to add 115 acres.
.
8 – Current Management
8-1
The seasonal Ranger/Naturalist assists the Property Manager in greeting visitors,
maintaining the trails, interpreting the property through programs and conversation, and
working with the intern and volunteers to remove invasive species and conserve rare
species. The Ranger/Naturalist works full-time during June, July and August, and 16
hours per week in April, September and October.
The part-time seasonal intern works with the Property Manager, the Ranger/Naturalist
and volunteers to remove invasive species. The Intern is budgeted to work two days per
week for 13 weeks.
The Stockbridge Management Unit (SMU) attends to building maintenance and repairs,
annual mowing of pastures and fields, tree felling, snow plowing, road and parking lot
maintenance, and projects requiring extra labor and/or heavy equipment. The Property
Manager coordinates with the Superintendent of the SMU to identify and execute
additional maintenance needs outside the scope of the routine operations outlined above.
Comments/Issues:
•
Seasonally understaffed, given the need to address the invasive species
problem, and the ongoing maintenance, educational and administrative
demands of the property: The current budget allows 1,088 hours, or 136 days
for seasonal staff. Of these, 110 days are allocated for the Ranger/Naturalist and
26 are allocated for the Intern. In 2004, the Property Manager shifted 8 of the 26
days allotted for the Intern to the Ranger/Naturalist in order to fully staff the
property during May, one of the busiest months at the Cobble. April, September
and October are also busy. During these months, the weekends are adequately
staffed but the weekdays are not. Therefore, no significant on-the-ground
management takes place during these months. This is unfortunate, since the need
is great and these months are ideal for outdoor work.
During June, July and August, the ongoing maintenance, educational and
administrative demands of the property allow only a few hours per week to be
devoted to invasive species control and special projects. The addition of an Intern
in 2003 helps to address this shortfall, but progress would be swifter if the
internship was a full-time, seasonal position.
•
Limited housing for seasonal staff is a potential problem: Housing is often the
perk that overcomes the relatively low wage paid to seasonal employees. Space is
available for one person at the carriage house in Stockbridge. Since the Cobble
has two seasonal employees, one must either live locally, or secure his or her own
housing, while the other must commute from Stockbridge. If the seasonal Intern
position becomes full-time, housing for seasonal staff will likely become a more
serious issue.
8-2
8.3 Equipment
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4-wheel drive pickup
Canoe trailer (capacity 6 canoes)
8 canoes (2 stored in cellar)
Lawn tractor for trail maintenance
String trimmer
Small chain saw
Miscellaneous hand tools
Equipment from the Stockbridge Management Unit as needed
Comments/Issues:
•
Most of the above equipment is adequate to meet current and anticipated future
needs but, for the past three years, the lawn tractor used for mowing trails has not
been reliable.
8.4 Committees and Volunteers
The Sheffield Area Properties Committee is comprised of 18 people, 6-10 of whom
meet once or twice annually to comment on a variety of management issues pertaining to
the Cobble and the Ashley House.
A small group of volunteers (3-5 people) help staff the office, mow the lawn and monitor
bird boxes. Another group of volunteers (1-3) meet with staff weekly during the growing
season to clear invasive species. Once or twice a year, larger groups of volunteers (1530) participate in organized workdays. Occasionally, organizations with an interest in
community service will volunteer for a day, or for a specific task. A team from
Landmark Volunteers came to the Cobble in 2004.
Comments/Issues:
•
Sheffield Properties Committee
o More could be done to recruit volunteers, especially those who are
aligned with The Trustees’ mission and committed, long-term, to the
Cobble and the tasks at hand. Although new volunteers are always
welcome, regular volunteers are most valued, and most difficult to come
by.
o Difficult to define role/identify tasks for committee: We have seen very
effective committee work at properties where there is an annual event on
which to focus. There is no such event at the Cobble - rather, the
8-3
necessary work at the Cobble is ongoing and open-ended, as in the case of
invasive species control, and far-reaching, as in the case of land protection
in viewsheds and adjacent areas.
o Few committee members attend meetings/become engaged: This may
be due, in part, to a failure by The Trustees to engage the committee in
meaningful work, or there may be other reasons.
•
Other Volunteers
o Volunteers require an investment of staff time and training: While
volunteers are welcome and appreciated, they do require a substantial
input of staff time. The Property Manager must weigh the costs and the
benefits of engaging volunteers on specific tasks.
8.5 Field Management
As of 2005 the vast majority of the fields and pastures are leased to two local farmers,
John Bottass and Robert Kilmer free of charge in return for the service of maintaining the
fields and pastures for their scenic and ecological values. Leased agricultural lands
represent approximately 40% or 132 acres of the Cobble. Leases specify that leased
lands are to be used in a manor that supports local agriculture while minimizing negative
ecological impacts. Crop type, maintenance requirements, cutting regimes, and
compensation are also stipulated. Leases are renewed every two years.
Comments/Issues:
•
Leases should be updated regularly to insure management goals and objectives
are being met. Current leases need to be modified to better reflect the desired
management of the fields as put forth in The Trustees’ grassland guidelines and
this management plan. For example, corn has been mostly phased out as a crop at
the Cobble due to its minimal habitat value and dependence on herbicides and
pesticides, however, growing corn on some of the smaller fields currently remains
an option. Also, the current lease language does not specify any conditions for
pastures (e.g., stocking rates or the timing and duration of grazing).
8.6 Budget Overview
The budget for Bartholomew’s Cobble is developed by the Property Manager and
reviewed by the Superintendent of the Stockbridge Management Unit (SMU). The
budget also includes the Ashley House. Beginning in 2003, admission receipts from the
Ashley House were separated from Cobble receipts, but expenses for the two properties
remain intertwined.
The FY2004 annual income for the combined Bartholomew’s Cobble/Ashley House
budget was $105,316 and the annual expenses were $150,453. The annual deficit is off8 – Current Management
8-4
set from other areas of the organizations’ general operating income. Additional expenses
associated with the Cobble and the Ashley House, but not allocated in the budget, are
incurred from work done by the SMU. These are included in the SMU budget, and
include staff hours, vehicle expense, contracted labor, and a portion of the overhead
required to operate the western regional office. A fully allocated budget for the last four
years is included as an appendix.
Comments/Issues:
•
Combined budgets for Ashley House and Cobble lack clarity: Intertwined
budgets make it hard to assess expenses and income for each property while
reviewing budget updates.
8.7 Partnerships with Other Organizations
Currently, no formal partnerships exist between the Cobble and other organizations. An
informal arrangement with the Hoffman Bird Club provides for free admission for club
members in exchange for leading bird walks and conducting informal surveys during the
breeding season. More needs to be done to coordinate programming and data collection
with the club.
Comments/Issues:
•
Partnerships with other conservation organizations, such as the Sheffield Land
Trust, MassAudubon or The Nature Conservancy might be fruitful in identifying
and protecting critical lands.
8.8 Property Regulations
The following regulations are posted on the property:
1) Cutting or removing vegetation or rocks is prohibited. Trees, shrubs, wildflowers
and rocks are of scientific interest – all are part of the beauty of the landscape.
2) All fires are prohibited. The density of surrounding woodlands, and the generally
dry condition of the forest floor make the use of fire hazardous.
3) Littering is prohibited.
4) Disturbing, removing, cutting or otherwise causing damage to a natural feature,
sign, poster, barrier, building or other property on the reservation is prohibited.
5) All motorized vehicles are prohibited except in parking areas.
6) Camping is prohibited for public health reasons.
7) Firearms are prohibited on the reservation.
8) Pets are prohibited at all times for the protection of plants and wildlife.
8-5
9) Conduct which disturbs the tranquility of the reservation or its enjoyment by
others is prohibited.
10) Horseback riding, which creates problems with erosion of trail surfaces and is
generally inconsistent with family use of the area, is prohibited.
The above list does not mention, but should, a prohibition on mountain biking and rock
climbing.
The prohibition on pets was instituted April 1, 2004, after repeated and prolonged noncompliance with the leash regulation, and out of concern for the many rare species on the
property and the interests of most visitors. A flyer explaining the policy change was
circulated for several months prior and is available at the Visitors Center. The text of the
flyer is as follows:
Bartholomew’s Cobble, a National Natural Landmark, is widely recognized as an
area of outstanding ecological significance. The 329-acre reservation supports
hundreds of species of plants, including dozens of rarities. More than 250 species
of resident and migratory birds, as well as many mammals, reptiles and
amphibians make Bartholomew’s Cobble their home. Our mission is to protect
these natural resources for their own sake and for the enjoyment of our visitors.
Toward this end, The Trustees of Reservations, together with our local citizen
advisory committee, have reviewed our existing policy and concluded that pets at
Bartholomew’s Cobble adversely impact wildlife, may be detrimental to isolated
populations of rare plants, and interfere with the quiet enjoyment of nature sought
by the majority of our visitors.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
Alternative sites for walking with pets are listed on the reverse side of the flyer.
8.9 Other Regulatory Issues
There are many designations and regulations that influence the appearance of the Cobble
and its management. It is important for staff to understand the potential impact of these
designations and regulations on the Cobble.
National Natural Landmark
In 1971, the National Park Service designated Bartholomew’s Cobble a National Natural
Landmark, in recognition of the outstanding natural features of the property and its
wealth of biological diversity.
8-6
“In my opinion, Bartholomew’s Cobble is indeed nationally significant in
illustrating the natural heritage of the United States in that here, concentrated
within a very small acreage of quite diversified habitats, is found a remarkable
assemblage of plants and animals… I know of no other area quite like
Bartholomew’s Cobble. The closest I can come to compare it with is the 70,000
acres of Mount Desert Island, Maine and the vicinity which also has a remarkable
variety of plant and animal life but which includes the additional coastal and
artic and sub-arctic species. To compare, 70,000 acres of Mount Desert versus
167 acres of Bartholomew’s Cobble, Mt. Desert has 32 species of ferns plus 5
varieties as against 43 and 1. For flowering plants, Mt. Desert has about 860
forms against nearly 600 for the Cobble. For birds, Mt. Desert has about 315 as
against 235, but the Cobble is inland. The mammals list is very even between the
two. Bartholomew’s Cobble is an outstanding, unspoiled example of nature… I
enthusiastically recommend this status for it.”
Landmark designation does not place any restrictions on The Trustees’ management of
Bartholomew’s Cobble. The following excerpts from the Department of the Interior,
National Park Service publication 36 CFR Part 62, National Natural Landmarks Program;
Final Rule, dated May 12, 1999 explain the designation and associated benefits and
responsibilities: “The National Natural Landmarks Program identifies and preserves
natural areas that best illustrate the biological and geological character of the United
States, enhances the scientific and educational values of preserved areas, strengthens
public appreciation of natural history, and fosters a greater concern for the conservation
of the nation’s natural heritage.”
“Designation of an area by the Secretary as a national natural landmark is not a land
withdrawal, does not change the ownership of an area, and does not dictate any activity.
However, Federal agencies consider the unique properties of designated national natural
landmarks… and there may be State or local planning or land use implications.
Designation as a national natural landmark does not require or mandate under Federal
law any further State or local planning, zoning or other land-use action or decision.
Owners who agree to have their lands designated as a national natural landmark do not
give up under Federal law any legal rights and privileges of ownership or use of the
area.”
8-7
Figure 11: National Natural Landmark plague on chimney inside the Bailey Museum
“The field offices of the NPS maintain periodic contacts with the owners of designated
national natural landmarks to determine whether the landmarks retain the values that
qualified them for landmark designation and to update administrative records on the
areas… The Secretary, through the NPS, prepares an annual report to the Congress on all
designated national natural landmarks with known or anticipated damage or threats to one
or more of the resources that made them nationally significant… A landmark is included
in this report if it is in imminent danger of losing all or part of its natural character to
such a degree that one or more of the values that made it nationally significant are or will
be destroyed.”
Education, Possession and Salvage Permits for Collection of Specimens
Both State and Federal permits are required to salvage dead animal specimens for
educational purposes. Three permits are currently held by The Trustees: 1) Federal
Education and Possession - Dead Specimens; 2) Federal Migratory Bird – Special
Purpose Salvage; and 3) Massachusetts Salvage Permit. These permits are required for
salvaging and mounting new specimens only. They are not required for possession of preexisting mounts.
Ashley Falls Historic District:2
Bartholomew’s Cobble and the Ashley House are within the boundaries of the Ashley
Falls Historic District. The purpose of the historic district is to “promote the educational,
cultural, economic and general welfare of the distinctive characteristics of the buildings
2
Excerpt on the Ashley Falls Historic District from the 2004 Sheffield Master Plan.
8-8
and places significant in the history of Ashley Falls or significant for their architecture,
and the maintenance and improvement of settings for such buildings and places, and the
encouragement of design compatible therewith.”
“The Historic District Commission and building inspector approve demolition,
construction, alteration, fencing, change of color and other work on buildings and
grounds in the district. Applications for Certificates of Non-applicability (interior work
etc.), Certificate of Hardship or Certificate of Appropriateness are reviewed by the
Commission at a public hearing.”
Scenic Roadway
Weatogue Road is designated by the Town of Sheffield as a Scenic Road. This
designation confers a modicum of protection. No widening, cutting, paving, or removal
of stonewalls make take place along the roadway without a public hearing.
Map 8: Designated and regulated areas for the Cobble.
Wetlands Protection Act and Rivers Protection Act
These acts regulate activity within 100 feet from all jurisdictional wetlands and 200 feet
from perennial streams and rivers. Thus, work within these areas may require a permit
from the local Conservation Commission.
8-9
Flood Management
While areas along the Housatonic River at the Cobble are prone to flooding (e.g.,
Corbin’s Neck), this flooding typically does not present management issues since roads
and structures are not affected. However, flooding along Stony Brook due to beavers is a
potential threat along Cooper Hill and Rannapo Roads and to the Ashley House (e.g.,
septic system). Flooding control due to beavers is regulated by the local Board of Health,
Conservation Commission or the state through the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.
The removal of a beaver dam or the installation of a water level control device (beaver
deceiver) would require the approval of one or more of the above authorities. This issue
is further complicated by the presence of state-listed rare species in and along Stony
Brook that are covered by the Massachusetts Endangered Species Protection Act
(MEPA). Flood control at this location would likely include approval from the Natural
Heritage and Endangered Species Program.
Rare species
In addition to the issues associated with rare species discussed above under flood
management, all state-listed rare species are protected by the Massachusetts Endangered
Species Act. Due to the unusual high number of rare species at the Cobble, all
management at the Cobble should consider its potential impact on rare species. In
addition, any active management intended to benefit rare species should be coordinated
with the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program.
8-10
Section 9: Land Conservation
I go as often as I can to walk the paths of Bartholomew’s Cobble, or to sit on its
benches and look out across the gentle river whose curves it dominates. It is an
experience that cannot be had elsewhere in this part of the world and at this turn of
time. 1
9.1 Introduction
The Trustees of Reservations supports an innovative land conservation program using a
variety of tools for preserving ecological, scenic and historic landscapes that are
threatened by inappropriate development. A primary focus of the land protection
program is to acquire or protect by other means (such as a conservation restriction)
important, privately owned inholdings or other threatened properties adjacent to existing
reservations.
The Trustees also supports a program of establishing greenways or wildlife corridors that
link up several areas of protected land, not necessarily owned by The Trustees. Beyond
the aspect of ecological benefits, greenways also preserve scenic and recreational
corridors.
9.2 Description and Evaluation
Why is it important for The Trustees to preserve land surrounding Bartholomew’s
Cobble?
Bartholomew’s Cobble is a National Natural Landmark, known for its unique geology
and its diverse collection of flowering plants, ferns, fern allies and mosses. Bordering the
Housatonic River in the southwest corner of Massachusetts, the Cobble serves as an
undeveloped buffer to one of the region’s most important water resources and supports a
variety of aquatic wildlife, migratory birds and other species dependent upon or
benefiting from a wetland environment.
1
Mark Van Doren, 1970, Professor emeritus, Columbia University, Pulitzer Prize winning poet, author,
and critic.
2
Conserving Our Commonwealth – A Vision for the Massachusetts Landscape, The Trustees of
Reservations, June 1999 p. 15.
9 – Land Conservation
9-1
How can Bartholomew’s Cobble be protected?
In 1999, The Trustees’ stressed the importance of protecting land in Western
Massachusetts, especially lands in Southern Berkshire County, and its commitment to do
so through partnerships.2:
“Building upon our past success, The Trustees of Reservations hopes to work in
partnership with local land trusts and state agencies to increase land protection
efforts throughout Western Massachusetts. We anticipate focusing our land
conservation efforts to protect exceptional landscapes, such as unique ecological
communities and scenic lands in the Southern Berkshires and Housatonic River
watershed.”
9.2.1 Present Property Configuration and Description
At Bartholomew’s Cobble, most of the adjacent land is undeveloped and each segment
has some interest or impact on the management of the reservation. Of particular note are
the lands to the west and south of Hurlburt’s Hill. Other important parcels include those
that form a greenway along the Housatonic River and the open acreage between the
Cobble leading west to the Schenob Brook Area of Critical Environmental Concern
(ACEC) and the wooded acreage of Mount Everett.
Bartholomew’s Cobble presently contains 329 acres. Recent gifts of two parcels of land,
one of 17 acres and the other of 36 acres have increased the Cobble’s size, while at the
same time, created inholdings of undeveloped land between the western boundary of
Hurlburt’s Hill and the Grumpelt parcel at the top of Silver Street. To the north, the
Cobble is bounded by land of Chan, to the east by Rannapo Road and the Housatonic
River, to the west by land of Frisch on the north side of Cooper Hill Road and by land of
Rand on the south side of Cooper Hill Road. Finally, to the south the Cobble is bordered
by land of Boyette, Conklin, Haase, Spero, Chazen and Botass (west to east).
9.2.2 Restricted Land on Bartholomew’s Cobble
Bartholomew’s Cobble was designated by the National Park Service as a National
Natural Landmark (NNL) in 1971. The NNL program recognizes and encourages the
conservation of outstanding examples of biological and geological features in both public
and private ownership. The National Park Service administers the NNL Program, and if
requested, assists NNL owners and managers with the conservation of these important
sites. However, this designation imposes no new restrictions that were not in effect
before the designation. Participation in the NNL Program involves a voluntary
commitment on the part of the landowner to retain the integrity of the NNL property as it
was when designated.
2
Conserving Our Commonwealth – A Vision for the Massachusetts Landscape, The Trustees of
Reservations, June 1999 p. 15.
9-2
National Park Service representatives periodically verify the condition of the NNL and
maintain contact with landowners. The regional NPS contact for Bartholomew’s Cobble
is Deborah DiQuinzo, National Park Service, 15 State Street, Boston, MA 02109-3572.
The entire Cobble, exclusive of the Grumpelt and Spero parcels, is included as part of the
Ashley Falls Historic District (Map 8). There are guidelines and restrictions that are part
of the District designation. However, these restrictions do not prohibit development, but
rather control the exterior appearance of buildings. As a result, this designation will help
maintain, in part, the scenic and historic setting around Bartholomew’s Cobble, especially
along the approaches to the reservation.
9.2.3 Management Considerations
Many of the fields at the Cobble are managed for agriculture (e.g., hay) by local farmers.
Continuing a working partnership with local farmers achieves many goals. By growing
hay, a local farmer can economically keep large areas of land open. This helps to
maintain vistas across open fields, which encourages both the use by wildlife (e.g.,
grassland birds) and the appreciation of that wildlife by visitors. It also keeps portions of
the property in agriculture, which is part of its historical use, and contributes to the
historical landscape setting of the Ashley House. Because the land is leased at favorable
rates, such a partnership also helps to sustain the local farming economy. At the same
time, the loss of a farmer partnership would mean that Trustees staff would have to
assume the management of open fields through mowing which would add considerable
labor costs. More importantly, the loss of local farming adjacent to the Cobble, would
create land speculation and development. This would immediately affect the visual
aspects of the area and irreparably fragment the ecology of the remaining landscape.
Protection of abutting land in order to protect the integrity of the viewsheds and
important habitats of Bartholomew’s Cobble may from time to time, require fundraising
efforts within the community and from The Trustees’ regional membership base. These
efforts may, in turn, affect other local projects on the property and in the area.
Cooperation and communication with local boards is critical to land protection and
fundraising success. Any land acquisitions will also increase Field Operations’
responsibilities in maintaining the open nature of abutting fields for viewsheds and
creating and maintaining trails linking new parcels to the Cobble.
Finally, maintenance of the southern fields on the reservation requires crossing land
owned by Botass. The Trustees currently is allowed to cross this land, but this agreement
is vulnerable due to land owner turnover or other reasons. Securing long-term access
through this land would be beneficial in that it would allow long-term maintenance of
fields.
9.2.4 Roadways and Vehicular Approaches to the Property
There are few roadways that can be used to get to Bartholomew’s Cobble. Rannapo
Road, which leaves the village of Ashley Falls at Route 7-A and travels north, rejoins
9-3
Route 7-A after crossing the railroad tracks. Weatogue Road intersects with Rannapo
Road on the west side of the Housatonic River and travels south until it enters
Connecticut. Bartholomew’s Cobble abuts both sides of Weatogue Road in
Massachusetts, except for parcels of land owned by Downie at the north end and Conklin
and Haase at the southern end.
Cooper Hill Road also intersects Rannapo Road just north of the Weatogue Road
intersection and travels west until it intersects with Silver Street. Bartholomew’s Cobble
lies on both sides of Cooper Hill Road for its first half-mile, with additional acreage from
the two Grumpelt acquisitions having frontage on the south side of Cooper Hill Road and
the south side of Silver Street, just before the Connecticut state line.
Parking for Bartholomew’s Cobble is located at the Visitors Center on the east side of
Weatogue Road; parking for the Colonel Ashley House is located on the south side of
Cooper Hill Road (Map 1). No additional land is being considered for parking or access
at this time.
9.2.5 Views from the Reservation
Scenic resources, as identified in Section 4.2, are identified as those panoramic views to
the north from Hurlburt’s Hill and southeast from the Cobbles and Spero Knoll across the
Housatonic floodplain. Development along Cooper Hill Road, particularly to the north,
would impact the view from Hurlburt’s Hill, and any subdivision development in the
valley to the north would also impact the view from the summit. Similarly, development
of the lands on either bank of the Housatonic River north or south of the Cobble would
impact the visual experience from the Eaton or Spero Trail overlooks and canoeists’
views from the river.
9.2.6 Ecological and Landscape Considerations
The overall ecology of Bartholomew’s Cobble can be enhanced through the protection of
abutting property, especially those parcels that buffer critical habitat or minimize habitat
fragmentation. If, however, abutting lands are developed to their highest short-term
economic potential, the ecology of the area will suffer irreparable harm as the landscape
becomes more fragmented. Furthermore, the visitor experience would be compromised
as homes and vehicles become increasingly visible and audible from the trails and
viewsheds, particularly on the ridge to the northwest and flat lands to the north as seen
from Hurlburt’s Hill, and the land directly to the south of Hurlburt’s Hill.
9-4
9.3 Critical Lands Inventory, Assessment, and Recommended Actions
The Trustees has developed criteria for assessing adjacent and nearby lands that may be
important for maintaining a reservation’s integrity and special character. These lands are
ranked according to the impact, both positive and negative, they have on existing
resources on the reservation and by the potential impact to the reservation if they were to
be developed or their land use changed. The critical lands for the Cobble have been
ranked using the following criteria:
Critical: Parcels whose preservation is essential to the protection and integrity of
key features on the reservation, such as wetland and aquifer recharge areas,
hilltops and other unique landforms, scenic roads or road frontages, special
vegetative features, rare species habitat or scenic views seen from the
reservations. They also include parcels that eliminate inholdings.
Significant: Parcels whose preservation would add significantly to the
reservation, but whose loss would not detract significantly from the character
and quality of the reservation.
Valuable: Parcels whose preservation would add to the scenic, historic or
ecological value of the reservation or would contribute to its efficient
management, but are not considered critical or significant (e.g., contiguous
parcels of land without unique features). Valuable parcels at the Cobble
would include those that support an open space or biotic corridor.
Specific parcels and an assessment of their preservation value on Bartholomew’s Cobble
are identified below and on Map 10. However, this assessment is not intended to suggest
that other adjacent and nearby parcels not identified here are of no conservation value.
Instead, the following parcels are thought to represent the most important lands from a
long list of neighboring parcels. By limiting this assessment to the parcels below, land
protection efforts will be more focused and, therefore, successful. This assessment is
meant as a guideline to future acquisitions. As new information and opportunities arise,
land protection priorities may change.
Critical
1. Parcel 2-7, land owned by Robert Boyette directly abutting the western boundary of
Hurlburt’s Hill. This 75-acre parcel is critical to maintaining the view from Hulburt’s
Hill and contains critical habitat (i.e., calcareous wetland and a hawk nesting site). It
has also been identified by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage program as rare
species priority habitat.
Recommended Action:
9-5
Work with the current landowner and continue discussions towards a possible
acquisition but, at a minimum, work to obtain a conservation restriction (CR) to
minimize the impacts of any future development on the identified values above.
2. Parcel 2-8A, land owned by Curtis Rand to the west and upstream of the abovementioned Boyette parcel. This parcel is 72 acres, identified on the state’s Biomap as
core habitat, includes calcareous wetlands, and would connect the Boyette parcel to
both of the Grumpelt acquisitions.
Recommended action:
Work with the current landowner to protect this parcel from development or to
minimize the impacts of development by obtaining a conservation restriction.
3. Parcel 2-10, land owned by Curtis Rand to the southwest of, and abutting, parcel 28A. This small parcel contains a calcareous fen that likely provides habitat for rare
species. It also connects the larger Grumpelt parcel to the Boyette CR over the state
line in Connecticut.
Recommended action:
Work with the current landowner to protect this parcel. While this parcel may not be
well suited to development, management may be needed to maintain its habitat value.
4. Parcel 25-15 (Salisbury), land owned by John Botass. Currently used as hayfield to
support Shady Maples Farm, development of this parcel would impact the view south
from Spero Knoll. This parcel also provides the access to the southern fields on the
reservation. This access is critical for long-term maintenance of the fields. These 36
acres have also been identified by CT Natural Heritage as rare species habitat.
Recommended action:
Monitor ownership and encourage Agricultural Preservation Restriction (APR) and
CR opportunities that include securing an easement for long-term legal access to the
southern fields on the reservation.
Significant
1. Parcel 25-10 (Salisbury), land owned now by Robert Boyette and previously owned
by Wasilus and Vanasse. Its protection would create a protected open space and
biotic corridor between Bartholomew’s Cobble and other land owned by Boyette, to
the west and east, currently under a CR and with land of McEver to the south, also
under a CR.
Recommended action:
Work with the current landowner to protect this parcel from development or to
minimize the impacts of development At a minimum, secure a trail easement across
this parcel to land of McEver.
9-6
2. Parcel 4-5, land owned by Lo-Yi Chan. This parcel on the east side of Weatogue
Road contains the original house site for the Colonel Ashley House. Protection of
this parcel would preserve the archeological integrity of this site. Although included
here as part of the Cobble’s critical lands, this parcel is more significant to the
Colonel Ashley House and, therefore, recommended actions for conserving this
parcel will be included in the Ashley House management plan.
Valuable
1. Parcel 3-8, land owned by Alan Frisch. The protection of this 76-acre parcel would
help to preserve the view from Hurlburt’s Hill and maintain a corridor to
Bartholomew’s Cobble for wildlife.
Recommended action:
Contact the family about considering a conservation restriction or agricultural
preservation restriction.
2. Parcels in the floodplain of the Housatonic River in the vicinity of Bartholomew's
Cobble are ecologically important (they are in Biomap Core Regions, they often
include Rare Species Priority Habitats, and the floodplain is a significant migratory
bird corridor). These parcels are scenic in that they provide long views over fields
and floodplain and also allow views to distant mountains. They are especially
important for the view of the Housatonic River from the North Cobble. Examples of
these parcels include the parcels owned by Robert Kilmer (Sheffield Map 1-1, 1-3, 14, 4-7). These parcels are listed as valuable (instead of significant or critical) only
because they have some measure of protection under the Commonwealth’s Rivers
and Wetlands Protection Acts and building regulations within floodplains. Map 9
illustrates the extensive floodplain area along the Housatonic River where building is
prohibited by Sheffield zoning regulations near Bartholomew’s Cobble.
Recommended action:
Monitor ownership and encourage
APR and CR opportunities.
Protection of these parcels would
not necessarily require them to be
maintained in agricultural
production. When farms are no
longer viable, allowing fields to
return to floodplain forest would
restore this rare and important
habitat type.
Map 9: 100 year floodplain as defined by FEMA
9-7
3. Parcel 2-1, land owned by Haase. This inholding is restricted to one house lot by the
local Planning Board. Siting of a building envelope would protect rare plant species
and avoid erosion and silting along Weatogue Road.
Recommended action:
Inform landowner of current issues relating to silting and erosion and work
cooperatively to locate a house site away from rare plant species.
4. Other parcels of land owned by Boyette and others on the north side of Cooper Hill
Road (Sheffield Map 3 – Lots 6, 7, 8C, 8D, 8I). These parcels are part of a drainage
pattern that forms the northern branch of a stream leading into Stony Brook. Some of
this land is Core Habitat and the siltation of the stream would impact rare species
habitat downstream, as well as impact the viewshed from Hurlburt’s Hill.
Recommended action:
Monitor ownership and report on parcels placed on the market for sale and pursue
protection through CR or acquisition.
9-8
Map 10
9-9
Section 10: Recommended Actions
10.1 Introduction
Directed by The Trustees' mission and by the goals and guiding principles set forth in the
Executive Summary, this management plan provides a blueprint for action at Bartholomew’s
Cobble. The plan specifically addresses the issues and opportunities identified in Sections 3
through 9, and directs efforts to protect the integrity of the property's resources while
providing visitors with a high quality experience.
The analysis of the property's resources identified what is special about Bartholomew’s
Cobble and the planning committee concluded unanimously that the Cobble is a unique and
very special natural resource important for maintaining biodiversity at the local and regional
scales. Furthermore, the committee confirmed and stressed the importance of education and
interpretation at the Cobble, the magnitude and complexity of which requires the
development of a separate and comprehensive education plan (Section 10.5.2), to be guided
by the philosophy outlined and detailed herein, as well as the newly articulated education
initiative for the organization.
The Trustees will apply the best practices and current knowledge to protect the property’s
resources while promoting its ecological significance. A map of Landscape Units (Map 11)
has been developed and included in this section for reference to help facilitate the planning
and implementation for recommendations included within Section 10 as well as future
recommendations developed due to action steps in this plan (e.g., targeted invasive control as
part of the comprehensive invasive species plan). Landscape units were defined using
obvious natural changes in vegetation (e.g., field vs. forest), major natural features such as
the Housatonic River, roads and trails, as well as common established place names.
10.2 Scenery and Aesthetics
Many views await the visitor at Bartholomew’s Cobble. Several provide visitors with the
opportunity to view landscapes well beyond the reservation boundary. These expansive
views are signature features for the Cobble and are important attractions for many visitors
and, thus, are critical to maintain. Many of these views are the result of open agricultural
land on the Cobble. Since management goals for the Cobble include maintaining these lands
for agricultural and ecological values, these views are expected to remain and will require
little to no additional action. River views from along trails have mostly been created by
cutting trees and shrubs and will require ongoing maintenance. However, many parcels of
land beyond the reservation boundary are critical to the property’s scenic character and it will
be important to protect the scenic values of these lands. These actions are addressed in
Section 10.6.
10-Recommended Actions
10-1
Map 11
10-2
In addition to viewsheds, many visitors seek out the many intimate settings at the Cobble
such as the fern covered outcrops, carpets of spring ephemeral wildflowers or a shaded glen.
These aesthetic elements are often equally important to the visitor as the expansive views,
but typically are more difficult to identify and manage due to individual likes and dislikes.
However, many of these “settings” will be self-sustaining or will be maintained as a result of
management addressed in other sections. For example, keeping invasive plants from
overrunning the Cobbles will maintain the carpets of wildflowers and ferns that attract so
many people to the Cobble. As a result, issues and recommendations discussed under
Section 10.5 will also be important for maintaining the Cobble’s aesthetics.
Scenic and Aesthetic Resource Management Goals:
•
•
Maintain and/or improve views and aesthetics important to the visitor experience by
minimizing threats identified in Sections 4, 7 and 9.
Maintain scenic vistas and important settings within the reservation in a manner that
is compatible with, and guided by, ecological goals and principles identified in
Section 2.
Guidelines:
• Monitor local media and town boards for potential threats, especially communication
towers and wind turbines being built within important viewsheds.
Recommended Actions:
Plant trees along the property line between
the East Grumpelt Pasture and the Malnatti
parcel as well as on the north edge of
Hurlburt’s High Field to screen the existing
houses from view from Hulbert’s Hill vista.
Description/Rationale:
These houses are one of the few signs of
residential development within this significant
vista. It is possible that within 10 years or so these
trees would be tall enough to begin screening.
Periodically cut trees and shrubs to
maintain existing important river views
along the Eaton, Ledges, Bailey, and Spero
Trails.
Several important river views are the result of
active management. Without periodic cutting of
trees and shrubs these views would quickly
disappear.
Restore view on lower east slope of North
Cobble to river.
This view has become overgrown in recent years.
Its restoration would provide an additional
significant river vista
10.3 Natural Resource Management
Section 5 in this plan identifies the significant natural resources at Bartholomew’s Cobble as
well as the threats and opportunities associated with these. The following goals, guidelines
and recommendations are designed to address these threats and opportunities.
10-3
Natural Resource Management Goals:
•
•
•
Ecological integrity of the Cobble will be maintained by minimizing threats,
maintaining important habitats and allowing natural processes to occur where they do
not compromise other significant features of the property.
Management will strive to preserve rare species and their habitats.
The Trustees will demonstrate leadership and commitment in its preservation of
biological diversity at Bartholomew’s Cobble.
10.3.1 Rare and Significant Species
Bartholomew’s Cobble is synonymous to many with rare species. The Cobble supports an
unusually high number of rare and significant species, a good number of which require
ongoing monitoring and periodic management. Populations of these species occur in forests,
fields, and wetlands – quite literally, they occur almost everywhere on the reservation –
highlighting the significance of Bartholomew’s Cobble to rare species. Many of the
property’s rare species occur in habitats that are managed to meet additional goals, such as
agricultural preservation, adding complexity to an already challenging task. Furthermore,
threats such as shading and exotic invasives, are abundant throughout the property and across
habitat types. Because of the large number of rare and significant species and the complexity
involved in protecting them at Bartholomew’s Cobble, the development of a separate Rare
and Significant Species Management Plan will be necessary. This subsequent plan will be
based on the following guidelines.
Guidelines:
• Due to the abundance and distribution of rare species at the Cobble, evaluate potential
impacts to rare species before any management is implemented.
• If propagation of rare plants is necessary for their preservation at the Cobble it should
be done in consultation with Natural Heritage and other botanical experts.
• Use discretion when disclosing rare species locations to avoid trampling by curiosity
seekers or theft by collectors. It may be desirable to disclose rare species location for
research or education.
• Existing conditions will be assessed and specific management needs identified for
each rare species and population at the Cobble.
• Rare species management will be guided by the best available information on species
ecology and management strategies.
• Frequent monitoring of species status will be required to provide managers with
feedback for adaptive management and program success.
Develop Rare and Significant Species
Management Plan that identifies which rare
and significant species require management
actions.
Due to the extraordinary number of rare and
significant species found at the Cobble and the
complexity of management needs, a
comprehensive plan will be developed that
identifies – what, where, why and how often
particular management and monitoring occurs.
10-4
Obtain and review any existing MNHESP
field forms and records for all rare species
at the Cobble and update regularly.
Monitor suitable habitats for any species not
previously searched for. This will primarily
include animal species since all rare plants tracked
by Heritage at the Cobble were searched for in
2002 and 2003. Reassess management needs at
that point. Actions will be incorporated into the
Rare and Significant Species Management Plan.
Field forms should be submitted regularly for
monitored species and for new species occurrences
to keep Heritage records updated.
Continue bird nesting box program.
This volunteer program maintains and monitors all
the nesting boxes at the Cobble. Target species
include eastern bluebirds which are state watchlisted, but boxes also benefit tree swallows and
house wrens. Any changes/additions to the
program will be based on a review of the current
program by the Regional Ecologist.
Extend Natural Landmark boundaries to
the south, to include more of the floodplain
forest, including the area surrounding the
Half-River Pond.
This area was not part of the reservation when the
original Landmark status was designated. Since
the area contains a number of populations of
significant species and rare community types its
inclusion within the current Landmark boundary
would be in keeping with the original designation
and highlight the special importance of this area.
Deer browsing has been identified as a significant
threat to rare plant species at the Cobble. Because
of the threat posed by deer on rare plants,
observations of deer browse should be recorded as
part of the monitoring program for rare and
significant species. Evaluate the threat of deer
browsing on an ongoing basis, explore control
options, and study deer population if necessary.
Develop strategies for minimizing threats
from deer browsing.
10.3.2 Exotic Invasive Species
Currently, invasives represent the greatest threat to rare and significant plant species at the
Cobble. They are ubiquitous and include more than 15 species. Many of these species have
the potential to dramatically alter the species composition of community types and the
Cobble overall. Rare species are particularly vulnerable since they occur in small numbers,
sometimes as only a few individuals. While the specific threats that invasives represent will
be assessed and included as part of the Rare and Significant Species Management Plan,
specific objectives, priorities, and strategies related to invasive management at the Cobble
10-5
will be highlighted below. Several actions below speak to increasing capacity to control
exotic invasive species.
Exotic Invasive Species Goals:
• Keep invasives out of areas supporting high priority native species and natural
communities.
• Detect and remove new infestations of invasive species before they become
established and spread to other parts of the reservation.
• Train all staff and volunteers on identifying invasives and on the proper use of control
options.
Guidelines:
• Do NOT plant exotic species known to be invasive. See IPANE1 list for species to
avoid. The introduction of some exotic plants that are not considered invasive may be
desirable (e.g., agricultural crops)
Develop a comprehensive invasive species
management plan as part of the Rare and
Significant Species Management Plan
Because invasives are ubiquitous at the Cobble
their control is an enormous but critical task if we
are to achieve our natural resource management
goals. To facilitate this task, control of invasives
will need to be prioritized. Prioritization will be
based on the threat to rare and significant species
as well as priority community types (typically
areas that support rare species). Therefore,
invasive control will be identified within the Rare
and Significant Species Management Plan.
Priority Communities include the South Cobble,
North Cobble and the Floodplain forest.
Develop organizational guidelines for
herbicide/pesticide use and modify as
needed for Bartholomew’s Cobble.
Guidelines should reduce and where possible
eliminate unwanted environmental impacts and
specifically prevent impacts to the Housatonic
River and rare species. Guidelines should include:
• The IPM process
• Application of herbicide will be performed
by licensed applicators only
• Preference for methods that minimize
herbicide amounts (e.g., cut and paint
method vs. foliar spraying)
• Agricultural lands
1
Invasive Plant Atlas of New England. http://invasives.eeb.uconn.edu/ipane/
10-6
License staff applying herbicide.
As required by state law, all individuals applying
herbicides on The Trustees’ properties MUST be
licensed. Licensing facilitates proper use and
handling.
Incorporate exotic invasive species control
into the education and interpretation
program at the Cobble.
Volunteers are critical to the existing control
efforts and will undoubtedly play a major role in
any expanded effort to control invasives.
Education programming on invasives will likely
attract additional volunteers for control work at the
Cobble.
Expand invasive species internship by 39
days.
Expanding the seasonal intern position to a fulltime summer position will facilitate invasive
species removal.
See discussion regarding expanding the seasonal
ranger/naturalist position, Section 10.7
10.3.3 Grassland Management
Bartholomew’s Cobble contains significant grassland habitat. More than 40% of the
reservation is maintained as pasture, hayfield, old field or wet meadow. This diversity of
grassland habitats supports many species that would not otherwise occur at the Cobble.
Many of these species are dependent on grasslands and are becoming increasingly
uncommon, even rare, as grassland habitat declines throughout the northeast. The fields and
pastures at the Cobble present an important opportunity to help preserve these species as
valuable components of the states’ biodiversity and for visitors’ enjoyment.
The grasslands at the Cobble also represent historic as well as an active example of a
working agricultural landscape. More important, since fields are leased to adjacent farmers
they help maintain open space adjacent to the reservation by adding to the viability of these
farms. In addition, this partnership with local farmers maintains important habitat at the
Cobble that staff may not be able to maintain due to limited time and resources. Due to the
above values and the importance of grasslands to scenery, as well as the presence of rare and
significant species, grasslands management at the Cobble is a complex challenge.
Grassland Management Goals:
• Maintain and improve habitat for grassland wildlife
• Minimize impacts to wildlife from agriculture
• Encourage use of fields by local farmers as long as this use is compatible with
grassland wildlife
Guidelines:
• Follow The Trustees’ Grassland Guidelines
10-7
Review and revise, as
necessary, agricultural
leases to ensure resource
protection (See Section 5.8).
The review of agricultural leases with local farmers by staff with
respect to seed mixes, use of chemical fertilizers and herbicides,
compliance with The Trustees’ grassland guidelines, cutting dates
and grazing regimes – e.g., evaluate long-term plans for L-field,
which has nesting attempts by bobolinks, and an alfalfa crop that
is cut three times a year.
If maintenance standards are viewed as hardship by farmers then
fees may be renegotiated or dropped.
Develop grassland
management plan as part of
the Rare and Significant
Species Management Plan.
All grasslands require active management. In many cases, due to
multiple conservation targets (e.g., rare or significant species) and
farmer’s individual needs, each field or pasture may require a
unique prescription. In addition to recommendations for existing
resources, opportunities that would improve grassland habitat at
the Cobble should also be identified (e.g., hedgerow removal).
Monitor grassland birds
annually.
Monitoring the number of grassland birds can indicate habitat
quality; monitoring will help inform future management.
10.3.4 Wetlands Management
Wetlands management at the Cobble will focus on water quality and quantity, rare species
protection, and potentially beaver management if significant infrastructure or public safety is
threatened. Erosion and sedimentation issues are primarily associated with Weatogue Road
and its maintenance. As a result, it is anticipated that The Trustees will need to work closely
with the town of Sheffield to rectify these issues.
Guidelines:
• Adhere to the state regulations, town bylaws and The Trustees guidelines when
working in or around wetlands.
Work with the town to identify and fix
erosion and sedimentation problems
associated with Weatogue Road
maintenance. Specific issues may include
cleaning culverts and catch basins as well
as identifying the main sources of erosion.
The Trustees will work with the town to identify
sources of erosion and sediment and work on
remedies. This is an on-going problem and
without annual maintenance culverts and catch
basins along Weatogue Road become full,
allowing erosion to occur and sediment to
accumulate at Half River that threatens rare species
and their habitat. In the short term, the catch
basins should be emptied. In the long term, The
Trustees should work with the town on a
10-8
maintenance schedule that maintains the basins in
good working order and study whether additional
improvements are needed to prevent erosion.
10.3.5 Additional Research
Although we know much about certain aspects of the natural resources at the Cobble (e.g.,
rare plants), others we know little more than presence or absence (e.g., birds), and some we
know virtually nothing about (e.g., invertebrates). Typically, the first step in good ecological
stewardship is knowing what is present on the reservation. We must look first before we can
manage. The following recommendations focus on gathering baseline documentation that
may prove important for identifying and informing future management needs and
opportunities that support The Trustees’ goal of demonstrating leadership and commitment in
the preservation of biological diversity at Bartholomew’s Cobble. Additional surveys will
highlight the significance of the Cobble and support educational programs.
Guidelines:
• Document research in a manner consistent with perpetuating and retrieving
information. This can be accomplished by generating reports or entering data into a
Trustees’ database which is available to other staff.
• Follow The Trustees Research Guidelines.
Gather baseline ecological information for
parcel north of L-Field.
This area was not explored in 2003 and should be
visited in the future.
Conduct a breeding bird survey.
Breeding birds can be good indicators of habitat
quality. For the PIF Priority bird species – gather
long-term trend data, possibly engaging selected
members of local bird clubs as volunteers.
Conduct an odonate (dragonfly and
damselfly) survey.
Compile an informal list of odonates from local
nature clubs and augment with surveys; e.g.,
survey the banks of the Housatonic for odonate
exuviae, and enlist (hire?) biologists with odonate
larvae expertise to see if state-listed riverine
species are present. Specific species needs can
inform property management. As time and
resources allow, expand surveys to include other
taxa (e.g., butterflies and moths).
Survey and monitor vernal pools.
Continue monitoring the vernal pools for other
possible state-listed species, e.g., Jefferson
salamander and intricate fairy shrimp.
10-9
10.3.6 Forest Management
Forest management at the Cobble will focus on maintaining biological diversity and visitor
safety by targeting threats to native biota (e.g., invasive plants and shading), rare species
protection, and trail and safety management. This targeted approach will allow old growth
forest, rare in the region, to develop with time.
Guidelines:
•
Follow The Trustees’ guidelines for Forest Management.
Monitor habitat and species changes along
the Ledges Trail area if hemlocks are killed
by the adelgid or other exotic pest.
In the likely event that hemlocks are killed in the
Ledges Trail area, monitor habitat changes with
respect to invasives and new niches for rare sunloving species.
Remove selected dead hemlock trees killed Both HWA and hemlock scale are present, but
by hemlock woolly adelgid or other disease mortality of trees within the life of this plan is
uncertain due to biological control and variable
(e.g., hemlock scale) for public safety.
weather patterns including the potential for cold
This includes chipping and burning.
winter weather patterns to persist. As these trees
die from disease they present safety hazards along
trails as branches and trucks fall to the ground.
Allow mature forest to develop into old
growth forest habitat.
Old growth is the product of complex ecological
processes and relationships which we understand
only incompletely, and which we do not imitate
very well in highly-managed forests. While all
forests at the Cobble may not be managed for
future old growth, the mature forest stands located
in the following landscape units should be: South
Spero Woods, Tulip Tree Woods, Rockland, South
Bailey Woods, Floodplain Forest, Small patches
on the South Cobble.
Monitor and selectively remove any trees
that threaten the Open Calcareous Rock
Outcrop/Cliff Community as a result of
shading.
This rare community type supports many rare and
state-listed plant species. Without human
intervention that maintains open conditions, forest
succession will soon reclaim this area, threatening
the many sun-loving rare species.
10-10
10.4 Cultural Resource Management
10.4.1 Collections Management
The artifacts, specimens, archives, art, and research materials (the “Collections”) at
Bartholomew’s Cobble require preservation and management. The intent is to both preserve
the collections (both natural and human-made), and to use them to teach the public, scholars,
and staff about the property and region. For example, the field forms and records mentioned
in section 10.3.1 need to be organized and preserved in such a way that ecologists can use
them years from now. The Visitors Center, in addition to its administrative functions, will
have a variety of exhibits and hands-on activities that advance the educational goals of
Bartholomew’s Cobble. However, because of space limitations, the Visitors Center will not
serve as a storage facility for artifacts, specimens, or art. Staff will find more appropriate
storage areas for collections that need long-term preservation.
Collections management will be addressed by an ad hoc task force, which will include the
Bartholomew’s Cobble Property Manager, the Western Region Historic Resources Manager,
and other interested staff and volunteers. They will be guided by the Bartholomew’s Cobble
Mission Statement and The Trustees of Reservations’ Collections Management Policy
(2003). New education initiatives of The Trustees will also be considered as they are
developed. They will take the following steps to inform their decisions.
Guidelines:
• Collections care and management will follow those outlined in The Trustees
Collection Management Policy. A copy is included in the Appendices.
•
Follow The Trustees’ Collections Management Policy for acquiring archival
materials and other collections associated with the Site.
Assess, inventory and catalog all
collections.
Staff and volunteers will follow The Trustees of
Reservations’ Collections Management Policy and
written procedures for evaluating and listing
artifacts and archives. They will list the historic
objects, specimens, books, and research materials,
briefly noting the item’s physical condition and
location. The provenance (history of ownership)
of each item will be investigated. The resulting list
will provide the basis for full cataloguing and help
make decisions about appropriate storage/display
and interpretive uses.
10-11
Evaluate the environmental conditions and
security of the Visitors Center and Bailey
Museum.
A conservator, perhaps funded by the Institute of
Museum and Library Services’ Conservation
Assessment Program, would examine current
conditions and make recommendations for display
techniques, object treatments and environmental
controls.
Identify other places where collections
could be stored, exhibited, or used.
For example, the Brasher prints could be placed on
long-term loan to another institution for public
viewing and appreciation. Or, a partnership with a
local library could make reference materials more
accessible.
Determine the role of collections at the
Cobble, existing and future, especially to
educational programs.
For example, would an emphasis on hands-on
activities and lectures at the Visitors Center require
removal of exhibits? Or, is there a need for more
exhibits, with activities moved elsewhere? This
task will be undertaken during the development of
an education plan (Section 10.5.2).
Improve interpretive text and exhibits.
Many of the current collections do not have labels
or information is limited. Visitor comments
suggest more and complete labeling is desirable.
Rotate exhibits of prints and photographs.
Space to display the collections are limited. By
rotating exhibits visitors will have the opportunity
to view more of the collections. Rotation will
create a more dynamic Visitors Center and
experience.
10.4.2 Buildings and Structures
Guidelines:
• Conduct routine maintenance of buildings and structures as outlined in Section 6.3.
• Follow the Secretary of the Interior's Stands for the Treatment of Historic Properties.2
• Monitor beaver activity in Stony Brook for impacts to the Ashley House, its septic
system and to roads, and implement control as necessary following The Trustees
guidelines.
2
Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating Restoring & Reconstructing
Historic Buildings. Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1995.
10-12
Document stone walls and fences.
Stone walls and fences are part of the cultural
history of the property and their locations help
explain some ecological developments. They
should be recorded and mapped.
Finish building the Screen House.
The Screen House platform is complete and the
materials needed to finish the structure are on
site. Completing the Screen House will provide
mosquito-free outdoor space for educational
programming and offer an alternative, together
with the improved Bailey Museum, to the
Visitors Center on busy summer weekends.
Develop routine maintenance program for
all buildings.
The property manager and Director of Structural
Resources together with the Stockbridge
Management Unit Superintendent will develop a
maintenance program for all buildings to
facilitate their care.
Develop a plan, with costs, for improving
the Bailey Museum as informed by the
education plan.
The Bailey Museum currently needs
improvement to make it usable for education.
However, this building, as envisioned, offers
good alternative space for programming during
summer weekends when the Visitors Center is
very busy. Long term use and improvements will
be guided, in part, by the future education and
interpretation needs as well as the education plan
that will be developed separately from this plan.
Repair the Bailey Museum chimney.
This repair has been identified as “deferred
maintenance.” Currently there is rain water
leaking in to the museum from around the
chimney.
Repair the Visitors Center steps.
This repair has been identified as “deferred
maintenance.” The steps to the Visitors Center
are sloping due to settling.
10.4.3 Archeological Resources
Section 4 of this plan highlights the fact that little is known about prehistoric resources and
sites at Bartholomew’s Cobble. The historic and pre-historic fabric of Bartholomew’s
Cobble is an important part of the sites’ cultural landscape.
10-13
Cultural Resource Management Guidelines:
As a framework for the treatment of historic buildings and cultural resources, The Trustees
has adopted the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic
Structures and follows similar guidelines for the management of Cultural Landscapes.3
Because staff may encounter archaeological sites that have been exposed by erosion,
guidelines for archaeological resource protection are highlighted here. Specifically, staff will
work with The Trustees’ Director of Historic Resources to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Report archaeological sites to the Massachusetts Historical Commission.
Maintain sites in their natural condition and work to protect them from inadvertent
destruction.
Keep records of any finds, noting, where possible, the exact horizontal and vertical
location.
Deposit archaeological artifacts in The Trustees’ Collection Center.
Prohibit any digging that has not been approved and report any unauthorized excavation
to the State Archaeologist.
Discourage vandalism by not marking archaeological sites.
Minimize risk to archaeological sites by not constructing trails or other facilities in the
immediate vicinity of a site.
Do NOT publicize pre-historic or historic site locations.
Conduct scientific archaeological surveys
for both pre-historic and historic sites.
Scientific archaeological surveys for both prehistoric and historic sites will expand our
knowledge of the earlier uses of the property.
10.5 The Visitor Experience
As described in Section 10.2 many factors influence the visitor experience. The current
management of Bartholomew’s Cobble is intended to facilitate a direct and personal
experience of nature and to foster an appreciation for the Cobble. This is done through an
active education program, but also through encouraging self-paced exploration by providing
visitors with a quiet place where they can reflect on the many ecological and scenic treasures
of this extraordinary place. Furthermore, the appearance of the reservation, especially the
structures and trails, influence visitor perceptions. The challenge will be to provide good
stewardship that protects the natural, cultural and scenic resources while meeting the needs of
visitors.
3
Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating Restoring & Reconstructing
Historic Buildings. Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1995.
10-14
10.5.1 Visitor Access and Services
In addition to education, which is treated separately below in Section 10.5.2, visitor services
at the Cobble primarily include trails and the services associated within the Visitors Center
(collections, bathrooms, and staff). Bartholomew’s Cobble is easily accessed. Off-street
parking is available and more than five miles of trails access virtually all the property and its
many scenic and ecological features. Currently, no universal access trail exists, although the
Visitors Center is accessible. While it is unclear as to whether Bartholomew’s Cobble can
provide a suitable universal access trail, this will be further explored in 2006 with a universal
needs assessment as called for in the Field Operations Strategic Plan.
Guidelines
• Do not expand parking lot since it is believed that on many weekends the property is
at carrying capacity. Increasing visitation on weekends will overburden trails,
facilities and staff and lead to crowding that degrades the visitor experience.
Improve trail conditions at selected
locations as identified in Section 7.
In general the trails are in good shape, but Tulip
Tree Trail and Boulder Trail suffer from erosion
and should be rerouted to more closely follow
contour lines and a few other locations need minor
improvement to address wet spots.
Procure a lawn tractor suitable for mowing
trails.
The lawn tractor used for mowing trails has not
been reliable for many years and a replacement is
needed.
Improve trail marking to facilitate visitor
navigation and to avoid confusion.
According to the visitor survey some trails need to
be better marked to facilitate visitor navigation of
the property. Placing a laminated (“You are here”)
map at two key intersections – at Bailey and Tulip
Tree and at Tulip Tree and Boulder - would
alleviate the problem.
Revise current regulations to include a
prohibition on mountain biking and rock
climbing and post at entrance.
Install fencing in key spots to keep people
on the trails to prevent trampling of
sensitive and rare plants.
Current regulations prohibit mountain bikes and
dogs but these are not identified on the current list
of regulations.
Staff have identified trampling of plants as an issue
where visitors frequently leave trails to get a closer
look at features. This is most obvious on the
Cobbles. Installing sections of split rail fence in
key spots would help keep people on the trails.
Large groups (groups of more than 10 people)
should be limited or discouraged.
10-15
Provide visitors with source of drinking
water.
About 26% of visitors identified the need for more
drinking water. The Trustees should install a
seasonal fountain outside the Visitors Center.
Water has been tested and is good quality.
10.5.2 Educational Programming
Educational programming has long been a tradition at the Cobble and is a major focus for the
staff, occupying much of their time. It is expected that the current level of educational
programming and the content of that programming, described in Section 7, will continue.
However, in light of the new education initiative launched by The Trustees in 2004, and with
the option to develop a dedicated education facility, we are now at a crossroads. How do we
envision the future of education at the Cobble? Is the current level appropriate or do we want
to expand? Do we want to include a classroom element to more programs – or is the informal
style currently employed preferable? Do we want to attract more families, school groups,
professionals, tourists? Who are we striving to reach and what are the messages we want
them to go away with?
To answer these and many other questions, a planning effort that focuses specifically on
education at the Cobble will be necessary. This plan will be guided by organizational goals
and strategies designed to implement The Trustees’ statewide education initiative, including:

A focus on ‘reading’ the landscape—its ecology and the natural forces which created
it and the ways it has been shaped by people over hundreds, if not thousands, of
years;
Place-based education techniques which engage visitors in hands-on activities on our
properties that support our management and understanding of the property.
An emphasis on converting visitors to members and ultimately, stewards, of the
Massachusetts landscape.
Furthermore, an education plan should also be guided by educational needs and opportunities
of the surrounding community and the chance for The Trustees to become a community
partner. As a result, this plan calls for a separate needs assessment to be conducted that will
help inform future decisions regarding education at the Cobble.
Develop property education plan in
accordance with the state-wide Education
Plan.
This plan should identify the goals and objectives
for a comprehensive education and interpretation
program, guided by the goals and strategies of The
Trustees' new, statewide education initiative. This
plan should prioritize audiences, describe specific
program strategies and identify any new costs
associated with them.
10-16
Certify staff who provide education and
interpretive programs through the National
Association for Interpretation (NAI) as
Certified Interpretive Guides (CIG).
Certifying and training our education and
interpretive program staff increases our capacity to
develop and deliver professional, effective, and
enjoyable thematic tours that highlight the property
and organization for visitors to Bartholomew's
Cobble and provide the most meaningful
interpretation for our visitors that move them
toward stewardship.
10.6 Land Conservation
In addition to the recommendations for specific parcels in Section 9, the following
recommendations are intended to address landscape level preservation at the Cobble,
particularly the protection of lands important for maintaining viewsheds and significant
ecological features within the reservation. Additional recommendations related to protecting
scenic resources are addressed in Section 10.2 above.
Guidelines:
• Encourage owners of critical lands and parcels within the priority viewsheds to utilize
the conservation buyer site on The Trustees Website.
• Partner with other conservation organizations working within Sheffield to promote
and facilitate land protection goals in south Sheffield. Partnerships could include joint
sponsorship of the Housatonic River ACEC and joint use of The Trustees’
conservation buyer program by other organizations.
Conduct a GIS viewshed analysis.
A GIS viewshed analysis will help prioritize the
most important areas within the broader landscape
of the Housatonic River and within the Hurlburt's
Hill panorama. The areas identified should then be
cross referenced with ownership information and
prioritized. This analysis should also be used as an
outreach tool.
Meet with partner organizations to explore
the feasibility of and interest in pursuing an
ACEC designation for the Housatonic
River and its floodplain, and possibly land
within the viewshed of Hurlburt’s Hill.
Designation would add an additional layer of
regulatory oversight, but more important, focus
attention on this important ecological and scenic
resource as well as the Cobble. Work with Land
Conservation staff and regional conservationists to
pursue this designation.
10-17
10.7 Administration: Staffing, Committees, Volunteers and Budget
Several recommendations below are intended to provide additional human resources during
bottleneck periods in the spring and fall when it is a challenge to get work done on-theground at the Cobble because of limited staffing resources.
Develop plan to increase seasonal staff
housing.
Attracting seasonal help has been hampered due to
the high cost and lack of seasonal housing in the
Sheffield area. However, seasonal staff is critical
to managing the Cobble. In addition to the
existing seasonal housing for one staff at the
Carriage House in Stockbridge, options may
include converting the Visitors Center attic to
living space or using the Ashley House apartment,
but all potential options need to consider other uses
and needs as well as constraints. For example,
problems with the Ashley House septic system
currently prohibits occupation of the apartment.
Expand seasonal Ranger/Naturalist position Current conditions require the Property Manager to
concentrate on administrative and programming
by 15 days.
responsibilities instead of property management in
the spring and fall – ideal seasons for productive
property management (e.g., invasive control).
Expanding the seasonal ranger position to include
these seasons would greatly benefit property
management and goals. Furthermore, recruiting
volunteers and a volunteer coordinator for
weekdays in the spring and fall would increase
management capacity as well. The volunteer
coordinator and/or Ranger/Naturalist would
supervise fieldwork, particularly in the spring,
allowing
Recruit volunteers for the weekends.
Develop a volunteer coordinator position.
4
See above. This recommendation and the
following one support The Trustees volunteer
initiative.4
See above. Note, this is a volunteer position.
2003, Conservation in Action! The Field Operations Strategic Plan: 2003-2008, The Trustees of Reservations.
10-18
Establish separate budgets for the Cobble
and the Ashley House.
Budget planning and analysis would benefit if each
property had its own budget. The current budget
that includes both the Ashley House and the
Cobble is confusing and does not allow for
separate analysis for the Cobble.
Create two property subcommittees, one
for the Cobble and one for the Ashley
House with specific guidelines that define
committee responsibilities.
The current committee is largely divided, with
members having a particular interest in either the
Ashley House or the Cobble. By creating a
committee for each property while preserving their
linkage, the work of each might be better served.
One committee member and a representative from
The Trustees’ staff should serve as liaisons
between the committees.
Committee members don’t fully understand their
role, nor have The Trustees defined it. Term limits
might be beneficial by defining a timeline for
accomplishing a task, providing a period of rest for
“revolving” committee members, a bringing new
blood and energy into the process. The committee
should work in tandem with The Trustees in
creating a new structure.
Set priorities/identify tasks for the Cobble
Property Committee.
These might include: Fundraising to sponsor the
seasonal internship and/or a winter lecture series;
Recruiting and coordinating volunteers; Pursuing
ACEC (Area of Critical Environmental Concern)
designation for critical lands within the viewsheds;
and others.
Develop memorial gift program.
A list of memorial gift opportunities that follows
Organizational Guidelines on Memorial Gifts will
allow The Trustees to better manage memorial
gifts to ensure they meet our property management
goals and potential donor expectations.
10-19
Section 11: Implementation
11.1 Introduction
Section 10 of this report describes the recommended actions needed to meet the goals and
objectives for protecting Bartholomew’s Cobble natural, cultural and scenic resources while at
the same time providing visitors with a high quality experience. This section identifies how
recommended actions will be implemented. Financial resources permitting, these actions will be
implemented over a 9-year period, broken into three 3-year phases with phase one beginning in
2005. Failure to secure funding or additional staff will result in certain recommendations not
being implemented. This management plan will guide staff work plans, volunteer efforts, annual
capital and operational budgeting, as well as fundraising.
The Implementation Table found in Section 11.3 lists all of the recommended actions and their
assigned phase, and identifies the resources that will be needed to implement the action steps.
Several other guidelines were used to construct the implementation table, including:
1. Only items requiring new financial resources have been assigned a cost; costs are shown
in 2004 dollars. Some ongoing recommendations do not represent new costs and,
therefore, have not been assigned costs.
2. Several actions represent potential future needs due to the likely, but unpredictable
timing of particular events or problems. Examples include mitigating flooding from
beavers or reducing deer browsing. These issues are problematic to address in a
management plan with specific actions and costs due to their unpredictable timing – costs
may not be incurred within the life of this plan. Therefore, dollar costs have been
estimated as placeholders within the notes/discussion rather than identified within the
table and cost totals. In this way the plan recognizes there may be additional significant
dollar costs over time if these issues ultimately materialize within the life of the plan.
3. Each recommended action was assigned a priority rating, defined here:
Critical actions will address:
• Urgent safety issues
• Threats that are causing serious damage to significant resources
• Issues that are seriously degrading the visitor experience
• Regulatory requirements
Needed actions will address:
• Threats to resources that are not causing an imminent threat to their integrity
• Key Trustees’ initiatives (such as expanded educational and interpretive
programming)
• Basic improvements to visitor services
11 – Implementation
11-1
Desired actions will address:
• Enhancements that optimize the visitor’s experience or the Cobble’s resources
4. Typically, these priority rankings coincide with phases 1, 2, and 3. However, there are
many instances where “needed” or “desired” actions can be addressed earlier in the
process. Some of these actions may be “quick and cheap” fixes that advance our goals
with little effort; some may be done sooner because of funding or volunteer opportunities.
5. All recommendations requiring out-of-pocket expenses for materials, outside labor, or
additional staffing are assigned a cost. Those items assigned to the operating budget can
be covered by the existing operating budget for Bartholomew’s Cobble; those items
whose funding will come from either the supplemental or capital budget will require new
funds, which may be accomplished through a variety of means, including fundraising,
grants, and donations of volunteer or in-kind work.
Table 11-1: Summary of Implementation Costs
by Targeted Budget Type
(2005 – 2013)
Targeted Budget Type
Dollars
Operating
3,150
Supplemental
42,946
Capital
29,000
Total
75,096
Thus, the total dollar cost of implementing this plan over the next 9 years is $75,096 (see
paragraph 6 below for an important caveat). Of this total, we will need to find an
additional $71,946 in new funding and/or in-kind donations to complete all of the
recommended actions (total minus operating).
6. The costs for implementing some major recommendations are unknown. Therefore the
estimated total for implementing this plan will undoubtedly be higher than indicated here.
In particular, improvements to the Bailey Museum as called for by the education plan,
costs for remedying the erosion problems with Weatogue Road, and the need to address
the lack of staff housing will likely have additional costs. These numbers are not
included in the tally below.
Table 11.2: Summary of Implementation Costs by Phases
Additional
Additional
Phase
New $ Costs
Volunteer Hours
Staff Hours
1
35,227
1,476
2
16,722
992
3
23,147
1025
Total
75,096
2871
3,493
11-2
7. Finally, it is important to note that neither the Stockbridge Management Unit (SMU) nor
the Cobble staff can absorb additional work at the Cobble during summer or fall due to
existing demands on staff at these times. However, winter hours are more flexible, and
there are many projects outlined in the management plan that could take place in the
winter. Most work allocated to the SMU, however, would take place during the
spring/summer/fall, therefore, decisions on how staff spend their time will need to
address priorities identified in this plan. Moreover, this plan identifies volunteer,
consultant, and additional staff resources that help to increase the capacity to implement
recommendations needing to be addressed during non-winter seasons.
11.2 Plan Monitoring and Review
This management plan will inform the development of annual work plans for the staff that are
responsible for managing Bartholomew’s Cobble. Likewise, this plan gives direction to the
Property Advisory Committee as to how it can best assist staff with implementation and progress
towards achieving management goals by identifying areas of focus. It is anticipated that both
staff and the local Property Advisory Committee will work together annually to review their
respective progress on recommendations and will summarize progress and revisions within an
annual supplement to this plan.
11-3
April 8, 2004
Appendix A
Structural resources
Understanding the baseline conditions of Buildings and Structures Statewide
Basic Terminology
Before we can begin the voyage to effectively understand the financial needs of The
Trustees of Reservations physical assets (buildings and structures), we need to introduce
terminology to be applied during the analysis. Note: the concepts behind the terminology
are supported by two organizations the National Association of College and University
Business Officers (NACUBO) and the Association of Physical Plant Administrators
(APPA).
Routine Maintenance
Funded with operating monies, routine maintenance includes systematic day-to-day
planned preventive maintenance, examples include grounds keeping, inspection and
cleaning of gutters, and replacement of filters on mechanical building systems.
Using the family car as a useful analogy, routine maintenance is like the periodic tune-up
of the engine and replacement of disposable parts such as motor oil and transmission
fluid, oil and air filters, and spark plugs. These expenditures are important to keep the car
running smoothly and safely and to minimize wear. The manufacturer provides optimum
schedules for these services. If money is tight, however, you are tempted to postpone
them, at least for a while. But deferring these maintenance expenditures does not stop
(and may even accelerate) continuing deterioration. The oil gets grittier and grittier, for
instance, leaving the engine without adequate lubrication.
Deferred Maintenance
Deferred Maintenance consists of the backlog of projects that were not included in the
maintenance process because of a perceived lower priority status than those funded
within available funding. There are two categories of unfunded maintenance: first, the
lack of which does not cause the facility to deteriorate further and, second, the lack of
which does result in a progressive deterioration of the facility for the current function.
This is an important distinction.
If you bought a poorly maintained used car, you probably need to do some catch-up
maintenance/deferred maintenance before using it extensively. In fact, depending on the
degree of need you may opt to renew systems or even buy a new car.
Capital Renewal
Capital renewal includes expenditures required to keep physical assets in reliable
operating condition for their present use. These expenditures are over and above routine
maintenance and are for items with a life cycle in excess of one year. Examples of these
costs include the replacement of a roof, furnace, or any other system that has reached the
Page1of2
April 8, 2004
end of its useful life. The funding of these renewal projects is usually addressed in the
capital budget.
Using the example of a family car again, renewal expenditures such as replacing the tires,
brake shoes, transmission, or even the engine may be needed, even with good routine
maintenance. Renewal expenses should also normally be met out of current year funds,
though a family might use short-term borrowing (credit cards). Depending on their
magnitude, funds for use changes and for standards changes might come either from
current year funds or from borrowing. If the cost is high enough, however, the car owner
might consider replacement of the car, in which case borrowing is probably inevitable.
Capital Improvements
Although the categories above can be viewed as capital improvements, it is important to
make a distinction. Projects in this category involve a form of “Adaption”, this may be
changes in the use of the asset or changes to the standards to which it must adhere.
Current examples of this include conversion of the Driscoll House on the Doyle
Reservation from a residential use to an office use or projects such as lead abatement in a
Marshfield staff house which have been undertaken to comply with state regulations
regarding lead paint removal. As the mission of the organization evolves, the number of
projects in this category may grow to meet the programmatic changes. The rise in the
number of visitor centers across the state is related to the drive to increase membership
and highlight the visitor’s experience.
Page2of2
Appendix B
Board of Directors
Committee Policy
2003-2004
Committee: Historic Resources
Policy Title: Collections Management
Date Presented to Board:
January 21, 2004
Date of Board Approval:
Definition of Collections: Among The Trustees' holdings there are significant historic resources
including buildings, structures, gardens, parks, objects including collections of fine and
decorative arts, archaeological sites and artifacts, and archival collections comprising a rich
legacy of Massachusetts history.
Mission Statement: The Trustees of Reservations preserves for public use and enjoyment
properties of exceptional scenic, historic and ecological value in Massachusetts and works to
protect special places across the state.
There will be a property statement of purpose and an acquisition policy for each historic
property, and these policies will be reviewed by the Historic Resources Committee.
Acquisition Policy
Objects may be added to the collection by means of gift, bequest, purchase, exchange, bargain
sale, field collecting, or any other transaction by which title to the object passes to The Trustees.
No objects shall be accepted or acquired which are known to have been illegally imported into,
or illegally collected in the United States contrary to state and federal, and international laws,
regulation, treaty, and convention. As a general policy, all rights, title, and interest shall be
obtained by The Trustees for all acquisitions, without restrictions or limiting conditions.
Exceptions will be by vote of the Historic Resources Committee.
Objects acquired for office or utilitarian use will not be accessioned into the permanent
collection but will be listed in an inventory. Similarly, objects from the permanent collections
will not be used as office furniture or in a utilitarian manner.
Criteria for acquiring objects for the permanent collection:
• The present owner must have clear title.
• The object must, if possible, be documented as to provenance by the donor.
• The object must be consistent with the reservation's goals and The Trustees' collecting goals.
• The Trustees must be able to care for the object properly and in accordance with accepted
museum standards.
• The object will not result in future expenses unreasonable in scope given The Trustees'
financial resources
• The object will be used for display, research or educational purposes. Objects and materials
acquired for the permanent collections will not be used for office or function purposes.
• The object should be free of donor imposed restrictions.
• If a purchase is recommended, a fair market value for the proposed object must be
determined between the parties.
-1-
Appendix B
Board of Directors
•
•
Committee Policy
2003-2004
Objects should be in a condition that permits their use for exhibition or study.
Objects should have interpretive value consistent with the property’s statement of purpose.
•
Regional Historic Resources Managers, with the approval of the Director of Historic
Resources and the Chairman of the Historic Resources Committee, shall have the
authority to accept donations to the collections.
•
The Board will have the final decision regarding the acceptance of all gifts valued at
$100,000 or over or that constitute a unique situation for The Trustees.
Accessioning Procedure: All information and correspondence relating to an object shall be on
file with the Historic Resources Manager/Site Administrator
• A deed of gift will be filled out at the time a donor presents an object to the organization at a
specific property. This deed of gift will be signed by the donor and appropriate staff person,
i.e. Historic Resources Manager.
• The Historic Resources Manager shall write a personal letter of acknowledgement to each
donor on behalf of The Trustees. The Director of Development shall be notified of all gifts.
Headquarters staff will further acknowledge the gift.
• Objects accepted as part of the permanent collection to be accessioned will have a number
assigned. The number will be promptly and permanently affixed to the object according to
standard museum procedures. Each accession will be recorded in an accessions register. A
registration worksheet including the accession number, the name of the object, the method of
acquisition, the donor information and the date of acquisition will be completed for each
object. The object will be photographed.
• A catalogue card or database entry including the above information as well as the
dimensions, provenance, brief description, and condition will be completed for each object.
In addition, the information will be entered into the Trustees collections database. There will
be an exhibition and conservation history of the object when applicable. A duplicate set of
records will be stored in the office of the Director of Historic Resources.
• To avoid conflict of interest and to conform to tax laws, The Trustees staff will not appraise
objects proposed as gifts to the organization. Appraisals must be secured by a donor prior to
making the gift.
Deaccessioning Policy: The deacessioning process will be a thoughtful and cautious one. At
least one of the following criteria must be met prior to deaccessioning an object from the
collection.
• The object no longer meets the mission of The Trustees or the statement of purpose for the
property
.• The Trustees is not able to conserve the object properly and/or it has deteriorated beyond
usefulness.
• The object is a duplicate.
Deaccessions will be recommended by the Historic Resources staff in consultation with the local
property committee. Final approval of the deaccession will come from The Trustees’ Board of
-2-
Appendix B
Board of Directors
Committee Policy
2003-2004
Directors upon recommendation of the Director of Historic Resources and the Historic
Resources Committee. The votes of both bodies must be unanimous.
No accessioned items will be sold or otherwise disposed of to a staff member, a member of the
Historic Resources Committee, a member of the Board of Directors, a member of the local
property committee, or their representatives.
Funds from deaccessioned items will be placed in a restricted fund for the purchase of other
objects for that site or for conservation of objects in the collections at that site. The funds
will not be used to meet general operating expenses.
Reasonable attempt shall be made to inform the donor or the donor's heirs prior to
disposition.
Deaccessioning Procedure: Once approval for deaccessioning is granted, the object may be
removed from the collection by the following means:
• by sale, exchange or gift to another museum or non-profit organization
• by public auction
• by sale to a private dealer in accordance with current AAM standards
• by discarding
• for transfer to The Trustees’ “education collection”*
A complete file of the object will be retained by The Trustees of Reservations.
*The Trustees may maintain an “education collection” consisting of deaccessioned objects,
duplicates or reproductions for use in education programs.
Collections Care: The collections of The Trustees will be maintained in the best condition
possible, and the staff will apply current knowledge and conservation standards to ensure the
longevity of the collections, taking into consideration available resources and the particular
conditions of operating a historic house museum. Collections on exhibition or in storage must be
adequately protected against fire, theft, vandalism, vermin, and natural disaster. Inspection and
recommendations for conservation of collections will be on an annual basis.
Placement of objects: No collection object shall be removed from the Trustees’ premises,
except on a temporary basis for conservation, exhibition, loan or storage. Permission for
removal of objects will be granted by the Historic Resources Manager upon approval by the
Director of Historic Resources. The use and placement of objects will be based on thorough
research and in consideration of the unique conservation and maintenance requirements for each
object. If an item is determined to be missing by a staff member, he/she should contact the
Historic Resources Manager immediately. The Historic Resources Manager will record all
pertinent information about the missing object and notify the proper authorities and headquarters
staff. If the object is not recovered, the loss shall be recorded on the inventory record and in the
object file.
Storage: All objects and archival materials that are part of a property’s collection but are not on
display will be stored at the site or at a central storage facility. A storage facility will include an
area for research, exhibition preparation, photography, and in-house conservation. Inventory
-3-
Appendix B
Board of Directors
Committee Policy
2003-2004
will be conducted on the storage collection in alternate years. Every attempt will be made to
protect stored collections from natural light in a facility with controlled temperature and
humidity and in accordance with accepted museum standards. Acid free materials will be used
to house collections in storage areas. Access to collection storage areas will be limited to The
Trustees staff who are responsible for collections care and management.
Loans: Objects from The Trustees' house museums will be considered for loan for the
purposes of exhibition or conservation. Research conducted on collections must be on site.
Loans for exhibition purposes will be approved when it is determined that the object will not
be endangered in any way and that it will benefit the public more through loan than
remaining on The Trustees' property. Loans to individuals will not be considered. When a
loan request is granted, a loan form will be completed; one copy will remain on file with The
Trustees and a second copy will be issued to the borrowing institution. In the case of
exhibition, the borrowing institution will be responsible for insuring the items wall-to-wall.
A certificate of insurance is required. Packing and shipping of objects from The Trustees'
property shall be by methods recommended by the Historic Resources Manager in
accordance with standard museum procedures. Loans will have specified periods of time not
to exceed a year. Loans are renewable. Procedures are in place for loans between Trustees’
properties. The Trustees may also borrow from other institutions. The loan agreement will
include the following information:
• Name and address of borrowing institution
• Purpose of the loan
• Dates of loan
• Itemized list of items
• Condition report
• Insurance values
• Packing and shipping specifications
• Credit line for The Trustees, and printed materials pertaining to the exhibition
• Photographic rights
The borrowing institution must submit a Facilities Report to be reviewed by the Historic
Resources Manager and the Director of Historic Resources. If possible, a Historic Resources
staff member will visit the site of the borrowing institution before the loan is executed.
Copies of loan forms will be on file in the office of the Director of Historic Resources. Staff
will inform the Historic Resources Committee of all loans.
Conservation: The Trustees will maintain a conscientious program of good housekeeping for
its collections, including a regular maintenance schedule for collection storage areas. Any
conservation treatment of objects will be recorded on the registration worksheet, catalogue card
or collections database. The conservation schedule and budget for objects in The Trustees'
collections will be recommended by the Historic Resources Manager within each region.
Conservation priorities will be determined through consultation with the Regional Director, the
Director of Historic Resources, and the Historic Resources Committee. The following guidelines
will be followed in conserving the collections:
-4-
Appendix B
Board of Directors
Committee Policy
2003-2004
• Conservators who meet the highest professional standards will be selected after consultation
between the Historic Resources Manager and the Director of Historic Resources. Qualified
conservators within a reasonable radius of the property will be given preference.
•The Historic Resources Manager will require that no techniques or materials are used by a
conservator that will result in an irreversible change to an object. A list of the materials used,
techniques employed, photographs and a written description of an object before, during, and after
conservation will be required as part of the contract with the conservator. All information will
be filed in an object file.
Conservation surveys will be undertaken as deemed necessary by the Historic Resources
Manager setting out short and long term goals for the individual collections. Professional
conservation surveys will be used in conjunction with the Long-Range Conservation Plan
adopted by The Trustees.
Research and Documentation: The Historic Resources Manager will undertake research
programs to confirm the provenance and authenticity of objects, and to determine how to use
them effectively and accurately. All objects acquired by The Trustees should have a
provenance provided by the donor.
Illustrations or photographs of objects and copies of archival materials will be supplied by
The Trustees to borrowing institutions, recognized authors and scholars, and periodicals as
appropriate when requested. The Trustees must be acknowledged in such instances.
Photographic reproduction fees may apply.
Access to the Collections: The collections will be available to the public for research,
education, exhibition, and loan provided that the object or archival materials will not be
jeopardized by such use. Researchers will be required to arrange research visits with the
Historic Resources staff at least two weeks in advance, if possible. All researchers must be
accompanied by a staff member at all times. No researchers will be allowed access to the
collections without prior arrangement with the Historic Resources staff.
This policy will be reviewed by the Director of Historic Resources and the Historic
Resources Committee every five years.
Date of acceptance: May 22, 1998
Revised draft: October 2003 and December 2003
-5-