Southwick Wildlife Management Area Southwick, Massachusetts

March 2014

BIODIVERSITY INITIATIVE SITE PLAN Sandplain Grassland Restoration Chris Buelow, NHESP Ecological Restoration Program Benjamin Mazzei, Habitat Biologist

Introduction The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW) Biodiversity Initiative plans to maintain and expand fire-adapted sandplain grassland habitat on about 200 acres of the Southwick Wildlife Management Area (WMA) Southwick, MA. Sandplain grasslands have become extremely rare in Massachusetts and are ranked as a critically imperiled natural community (http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dfg/nhesp/natural-communities-facts/priority-natural-commun.pdf). The 2013 state-wide action plan for state listed grassland birds (http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dfg/nhesp/species-and- conservation/grassland-bird-plan-final.pdf) ranked this portion of the Southwick WMA as a top priority site with the highest restoration potential. The majority of this site occurs on dry, sandy soils. The extensive, flat portions of this local landscape were converted to agriculture beginning in the late 1700’s and remained in active agriculture until the beginning of the 21st century. The majority of the property was formerly owned and managed as agricultural land, including intensive tobacco production by the General Cigar Company. The Division purchased the acreage in 2008. The southern boundary of the WMA is the state line between Connecticut and Massachusetts, and the open meadow and grassland habitats extend south into Connecticut uninterrupted for an additional 130-acres of land protected by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP), providing a total of about 330 contiguous acres for management of rare grassland birds between MA and CT (CT DEP began habitat reclamation work in 2012 for grassland and early successional species) The desired future condition for this site is an extensive, open, fire-adapted sandplain grassland community. The Division will maintain approximately 170 acres of existing grassland habitat, and enhance habitat connectivity to support rare grassland birds and other declining native wildlife species by removing encroaching trees around the perimeter of existing fields, and by removing hedgerows of trees between existing fields to expand sightlines throughout the area. Animal species such as the Endangered Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), Threatened Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) and Threatened Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) will benefit from this work.

Background DFW landscape goals for wildlife habitat (Fig. 1) have received broad public support and call for 20-25% of uplands in open habitats (including grassland, shrubland, and young forest) and 75-80% in a full-canopy forest condition, including 10-15% in forest reserves across approximately 2000,000 acres of state WMA’s. These goals are science-based and respond to the state-wide and regional decline in young forest, shrubland, and grassland habitat and associated wildlife caused by direct losses from development and alteration of natural disturbance processes (e.g. flooding, fires, etc.). The DFW Biodiversity Initiative was established in 1996 to maintain and restore native diversity of flora and fauna through active land management, and has brought together Restoration Ecologists from the DFW Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) and University of Massachusetts professors and students along with Wildlife Biologists and Foresters from the DFW Habitat Program to conduct this extensive restoration effort. This effort will help address the decline of wildlife species of greatest conservation need associated with open habitats identified in the Massachusetts Wildlife Action Plan (http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/habitat/cwcs/cwcs_home.htm). The Wildlife Action Plan is a comprehensive strategy for identifying the state’s key species requiring conservation actions and the habitats they occupy. 1 March 2014

Fig. 1. Current and desired upland habitat composition of over 123,800 acres of upland on 152,666 acres owned by Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game as of 2012.

Open habitats such as grasslands, shrublands, and young forest have been a part of the New England landscape for millennia. Prior to European colonization, natural disturbance processes including beaver activity along thousands of streams throughout Massachusetts, and recurrent spring flooding along dozens of river courses generated extensive patches of open habitats across the state. Beaver dams form extensive shallow ponds that typically persist for years or decades until the beaver exhaust local food supplies and abandon the flowage. The abandoned dam soon falls into disrepair and ultimately breaches, allowing the extensive flowage to drain, leaving in its wake an open fertile site that is quickly colonized by herbs and shrubs that provide extremely beneficial wildlife habitat. Likewise, spring flooding following ice-out along major rivers resulted in flowing ice scouring extensive areas along the river banks that were typically colonized by herb and shrub vegetation after floodwaters subsided. In addition, both wildfire and fires set by Native Americans along the coast and rivers (Patterson & Sassaman 1988) and in the uplands adjacent to major river valleys (Byers 1946) contributed additional, extensive open habitats. Windstorms also create patches of open habitat, but most wind events in northeastern forests typically result in small (<0.1 ha) openings (Runkle 1982, Lorimer and White 2003). Hurricanes and tornadoes (like those that devastated portions of several Massachusetts towns in June of 2011) do occur in southern New England, but relatively infrequently. While occasional major windstorms can create extensive patches of open habitat that can periodically bolster local populations of wildlife species that benefit from disturbance, the infrequent occurrence of major wind events typically cannot sustain populations of disturbance-dependent wildlife species over time. Rather, these species historically relied on more routine disturbance events like flooding and fire. However, during the 18th century, beaver were extirpated from Massachusetts by unregulated trapping (Foster et al., 2002), then in the 19th century humans began constructing dams along streams and rivers, eliminating many open habitats that had formerly been provided by spring flooding events along major watercourses. During this same time

2 March 2014 period Native American tribes were decimated by European diseases like small pox and by conflict with European settlers, and fire became far less common in coastal areas and major river corridors. But in what can be seen as a great ecological irony, many native wildlife species associated with these natural disturbance habitats actually increased despite the extirpation of beaver, the damming of streams and rivers, and the substantial reduction in fire because much of Massachusetts’ original forests were cleared for farming and fuelwood, creating a landscape dominated by open habitats where extensive old-growth forest had formerly occurred. These dynamic landscape changes created conditions where wildlife species associated with open habitats such as bobolinks and northern harriers thrived (Cronon 1983, Foster & Aber 2004, Whitney 1994). As Massachusetts agricultural lands were abandoned from the 1850’s into the early 1900’s, and as the use of fuelwood gave way to fossil fuels in the mid-1800’s, fallow fields and abandoned woodlots became very productive wildlife habitat for species such as American woodcock, whip-poor-will, prairie warbler, eastern towhee, field sparrow and New England cottontail. Eventually though, beginning around the 1960’s, abandoned fields and woodlots succeeded to closed-canopy forest, and wildlife species dependant on grasslands, shrublands, and young forest habitats declined dramatically (Hill and Hagan 1991, Litvaitis 1993). This decline, along with limited forest regeneration cutting, and suppression of natural disturbance processes (i.e. flooding and fire) have resulted in a relative scarcity of these habitats in Massachusetts today (USDA 2000). The on-going decline of open habitats in New England is recognized as a serious threat to biodiversity; many wildlife species dependent on these habitat types are in decline (Askins 1998, DeGraaf & Yamasaki 2001, Litvaitis 2003). Native bird population trends show alarming declines for both grassland and shrubland birds, as well as for some forest nesting birds that move from mature forest after nesting to utilize food and cover resources found in open areas (Fig. 2). Consequently, all of the New England states include grassland, shrubland and young forest habitats and many associated wildlife species in their states’ Wildlife Action Plans as species of conservation need (http://www.teaming.com/state_wildlife_strategies.htm).

Figure 2. Bird population trends in the Northeast, 1966-2010.

Beaver returned to Massachusetts in the early 1900’s and with the introduction of trapping regulations their population increased in size. This provided some high quality wildlife habitats, but human land use (primarily urban and suburban development, and road construction) eliminated many sections of low gradient streams from beaver activity (beaver are routinely removed from sections of stream wherever roads cross streams through culverts or under bridges, and beaver are also routinely removed when their flooding activities pose a threat to well fields, septic fields, or other development infrastructure). In short, after beaver were extirpated from Massachusetts, human population increased rapidly, and the same types of places preferred by beaver (relatively flat areas with good access to fresh, flowing water) are also preferred for human development. So, while beaver are once again part of our landscape today, their ability to establish extensive patches of open habitat has been substantially constrained by human development. 3 March 2014

Treatment Area Condition: Prior to the management actions described below, areas within the treatment units contained abandoned farmland and second growth hedgerows. The fields contain a mixture of native warm season grasses and exotic cold season grasses, with sporadic infestations of invasive exotic plants. Forested hedgerows were primarily composed of mixed hardwoods and white pine. The understory of the forested hedgerows includes oak regeneration, huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata) and blueberries (Vaccinium spp.).

Soils: Hinckley loamy sand, Windsor loamy sand, Enfield silt loam.

Habitat Management Goals: DFW wants to increase the amount (patch size) and the quality of warm season grasslands to support declining native wildlife and plant species. Some grassland bird species which are experiencing alarming declines (Upland Sandpiper, Grasshopper Sparrow) require large patches of grassland habitat with unobstructed sightlines (O’Leary and Nyberg, 2000). Hedgerows will be removed from the grassland as well as converting second growth forest back into shrubland and grassland to increase the overall area of early-successional habitat. Since the vegetation within the Sandplain Grassland community type has evolved with regular fire events, prescribe fire will be used on portions of the grasslands every year conditions permit. This habitat is fire-dependent, and fire suppression activities over the last century have degraded habitat for associated native species. In recent decades, many bird species found in early successional habitat have shown alarming declines in New England (Sauer et al, 2004). Research has shown that these declines are primarily a result of habitat loss (Schlossberg and King, 2007). Large open habitat patches occurred naturally prior to European colonization from beaver activity in low gradient sites (which are now largely developed for human use), and from frequent ice-scouring along major stream and river courses during spring flood events (dam construction has largely curtailed this type of natural disturbance) (Chandler et al, 2009, Jones and Vickery, 1997). Wind and fire also contributed to the creation of open patches of shrubby habitat but are also now altered (wind by human development) or controlled (fire by suppression). Ironically, the human restriction of natural disturbance processes does not appear to have adversely impacted terrestrial wildlife species associated with extensive patches of early successional habitats during the 1800’s and early 1900’s due to the abundance of active, then abandoned agricultural lands throughout the state. However, now that forest has fully reclaimed most remaining abandoned agricultural lands, human restrictions on natural disturbance processes are keenly felt by the terrestrial wildlife species associated with extensive patches of early successional habitats.

In order to maintain the native biodiversity originally found in Massachusetts early successional habitats’, active management today needs to replace the natural events that created large open habitat patches in the past (Litvaitis, 1993, King et al, 2009). In order to provide the highest quality habitat for Massachusetts early successional birds, habitat patches should be at a minimum two acres with larger patch sizes providing better habitat for a larger number of species (Degraff and Yamasaki, 2003, Schlossberg and King, 2007). Management should also take into account the range of preferred vegetation characteristics that the different species of birds use for food, nesting, and cover; habitat patches should have a range of low vegetation consisting of grasses and forbs as well as areas of taller vegetation consisting of abundant shrub cover (Schlossberg et al, 2010).

Grassland birds in North America and particularly in the Northeast have been showing steep and dramatic declines due to both a loss of contiguous habitat and the continuing decline in the quality of habitat (Askins 1993, Knopf, 1994, Noss et al., 1995). The Breeding Bird Survey results from 1966 to 1994 also point to alarming declines for many grassland bird species in the Northeast. Part of the difficulty in maintaining grassland bird species is that many of them are area sensitive, requiring minimum areas of >15 acres (Vickery et al., 1994). Creating larger grassland habitat patches and concentrating them in one portion of a landscape provides resources not only for edge and non-area dependent species (e.g., ruffed grouse, gray catbirds, bobolinks, and eastern meadowlarks), but also the more area dependent species which also tend to be more rare (e.g., grasshopper sparrows, northern harrier, Henslow’s sparrow) (Herkert 1994, Herkert et al. 1993, Reese and Ratti 1988). It also helps minimize the deleterious impacts associated with edge and fragmented habitats such as predation on ground-nesting birds and reptiles by edge-associated predators (Andrén and Anglestam 1988).

4 March 2014 Habitat Management Objectives and Strategy: (1) Expand, enhance, and maintain existing grassland habitats to support viable populations of rare and declining species of conservation need through reclaiming abandoned agricultural fields, and converting adjacent isolated upland forest units to open habitat (Table 1). (2) Establish a gradual edge between open grassland habitat and adjacent 70-90 year old mixed hardwood forest by thinning adjacent forest within 50 m of grassland edge, with heaviest thinning at the grassland/forest interface. (3) Increase structural diversity and hard/soft mast production within thinned adjacent forest by retaining large crowned hardwood (primarily black cherry, hickory, and white/red oak), scattered wild apple, and native shrubs (e.g., blueberry, raspberry, dogwoods, and viburnum spp.). (4) Maintain a high percent cover of native flora by treating invasive exotic plant species.

Table 1. Vegetation Management Units at the Southwick WMA UNITS Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Desired 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Habitat Burn: Unit 01 Burn: S/F Sp/F Burn: Grassland- Inv.control Sp/F Meadow Unit 02 Inv.control Mow: Sp Burn: Sp Mow: Sp Meadow Unit 03 Inv.control Burn: Burn: Woodland- Sp/F Mow: F Sp/F Meadow Unit 04 Inv.control Burn: Burn: Cut: Su Woodland Mow: F Sp/F Sp/F Unit 05 Inv.control Burn: Burn: Early Cut: Su Sp/F Mow: F Sp/F Succession Inv.control Burn: S/F Unit 06 Burn: Cut: Su Meadow Sp/F Inv.control Burn: Unit 07 Sp/F Burn: Meadow Sp/F

Unit 08 Inv.control Burn: Burn: Mow: F Woodland Sp/F Sp/F Unit 09 Inv.control Mow: Sp Cut: Su Burn: Sp Mow: Sp Meadow Inv.control Burn: Burn: Sp/F Unit 10 Sp/F Meadow

Inv.control Burn: Burn: Burn: Unit 11 Sp/F Sp/F Sp/F Grassland

Unit 12 Inv.control Burn: Burn: Cut: Su Mow: F Savannah Sp/F Sp/F Unit 13 Inv.control Burn: Cut: Su Woodland Sp/F

The timing of all management actions (prescribed fire, mowing, tree clearing, stumping, seeding, and invasive plant control) will include consultation with NHESP to ensure that the activities benefit species of conservation need. The conservation strategy also involves biological monitoring of plant and wildlife community composition, controlling illegal ORV use that currently degrades portions of this habitat, additional land protection, and cooperation with CT DEP.

Vegetation management will be implemented in phases, likely beginning in the winter of 2013 and 2014. The first phase will involve the removal of wooded hedgerows and isolated tree islands by a combination of tree shear and 5 March 2014 excavator mounted mulcher (brontosaurus), and thinning of adjacent rolling oak woodlands using a mechanical harvester and forwarder. This will be followed by a rotational employment of prescribed fire in all units and off season mowing in the meadow and grassland Units. Maintenance of Units will occur on a frequency dependent upon the response of target and non-target grassland and shrubland species.

Historical/Cultural Resources DFW consults with the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) regarding potential for pre-historic Native American sites on all managed properties, and for the Frances Crane WMA, MHC has determined that there is no likely impact on pre-historic artifacts at this site. DFW applies Best Management Practices (BMPs) to conserve both potential historic (e.g. Native American encampment areas) and visible cultural resources (e.g., stone piles, stone walls and cellar holes) at all sites by mapping cultural resources with GPS, by using existing roads whenever possible, by establishing landing areas on previously utilized roadside sites, and by preventing heavy machinery from crossing stone walls and foundations, and by restricting machinery to operating under dry or frozen conditions to minimize disruption of any historical artifacts that may lie beneath the soil surface.

Environmental Permitting Management activities on DFW and other state-owned land in Massachusetts are subject to a variety of Federal and Massachusetts laws and regulations. Many of these regulations focus on preventing damage to water and wetland resources, while others protect endangered species and cultural resources, or prevent accidental fire damage. The full text of Massachusetts General Laws is available at www.state.ma.us/legis/legis.htm).

DFW habitat restoration projects comply with permit requirements of the Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Chapter 132, The Forest Cutting Practices Act (when applicable), and specific components of MGL Chapter 131, The Wetlands Protection Act which requires Forest Cutting Plan or Site Plan review by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage& Endangered Species Section staff for any management activities that coincide with estimated or priority habitat for rare species. DFW management activities that do not fall within estimated or priority habitats are still reviewed by Natural Heritage for potential element occurrences (EO’s) of rare species that are not reflected in the estimated or priority datalayers. Mitigation procedures, if necessary, recommended by Natural Heritage to conserve rare species are implemented.

Rare Species: Southwick WMA contains priority habitats for grasshopper sparrow as designated by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP 2008 http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/species_info/nhfacts/ammodramus_savannarum.pdf). This population was first observed in 2006 and has remained at approximately 10 pairs through 2012. The grasshopper sparrows have been observed in the little bluestem grasslands on the WMA (Unit 1 on Fig. 7). Reliable, but still anecdotal reports of breeding vesper sparrow at Southwick WMA occurred between 2000-2007 and 2012, and are awaiting confirmation by NHESP staff. These reports were made by competent observers in habitat that is appropriate for vesper sparrow.

Peripherally, NHESP has designated the southern end of nearby Provin Mountain, which is northeast of the WMA, and its associated lowlands as habitat for the state-listed (Special Concern) eastern box turtle. This habitat is less that 0.6 miles east of Southwick WMA and separated only by Longyard Road. Southwick WMA and Huckleberry Mountain are appropriate eastern box turtle habitat and the exclusion of Southwick WMA as priority habitat is likely a result of a lack of survey and not an absence of the species.

Biological Monitoring: To establish a baseline by which to measure success of management actions, consulting or staff biologists have conducted systematic bird point counts during the breeding season. Breeding bird surveys were started in 2009 and have been completed annually through 2012. Additionally, evening display surveys for American woodcock will be conducted in the spring, and nighttime whip-poor-will surveys will be conducted in May and June. These surveys will be repeated following management actions, and will continue indefinitely to monitor long-term population trends of target species on

6 March 2014 the site. After the habitat reclamation work is complete, photo documentation will be conducted every two years within the treatment area. For associated scientific names from Table 2 please see http://www.aou.org/checklist/north/index.php.

Table 2. Bird species present at Southwick WMA

Species Present (+) or Absent (-) during bird survey year

Target Species recorded during surveys

2009 2010 2011 2012 Alder Flycatcher* + - - - American Goldfinch** + + + + Blue-winged Warbler*** + - + + Bobolink* - - - + Brown Thrasher*** + + + + Cedar Waxwing** + + + + Common Yellowthroat*** + + + + Eastern Meadowlark* + - - - Eastern Towhee*** + + + + Field Sparrow*** + + + + Grasshopper Sparrow* + + + + Gray Catbird** + + + + Indigo Bunting*** + + + + Northern Cardinal** + + + + Northern Mockingbird** + - + - Prairie Warbler*** + + + + Savannah Sparrow** - - - + Song Sparrow*** + + + + Tree Swallow* + + + + Willow Flycatcher *** + + + + Yellow-breasted Chat** + - - - Yellow Warbler** + + + + Additional non-target species recorded during surveys American Crow + + + + American Kestrel - + + + American Redstart + - - - American Robin + + + + Baltimore Oriole + + + + Bank Swallow - - - + Barn Swallow + + + - Belted Kingfisher - + - + Black-and-white Warbler - + + - Black-capped Chickadee + + + + Black-throated Blue Warbler - - + + Blue-gray Gnatcatcher - - + - Blue Jay + + + + Brown-headed Cowbird + + + - Canada Goose - + + + Chimney Swift + + + + Common grackle + + + + Chipping Sparrow + + + + Cooper’s Hawk - + + - Downy Woodpecker + + - + 7 March 2014 Eastern Bluebird + + + + Eastern Kingbird + + - + Eastern Phoebe + + - - Eastern Wood-Pewee + + + + Eastern tufted Titmouse + + + + European starling + + - + Fish Crow - + + - Great Blue Heron + - - + Great Crested Flycatcher + + + + House Finch + - - - House wren - - + + Mallard - + + - Mourning Dove + + + + Northern Flicker + + + + Orchard Oriole - + + + Ovenbird + + + + Pileated Woodpecker + + + + Red-bellied Woodpecker + + + + Red-breasted Nuthatch - + - - Red-eyed Vireo + + + + Red-tailed Hawk + + + + Red-winged Blackbird + + + + Ring-necked Pheasant - - - + Rock Dove - + + - Scarlet Tanager + + + + Turkey Vulture - + + - Veery + + + + Warbling Vireo - + + + White-breasted Nuthatch + + + + Wild Turkey + + + - Wood Thrush + + + + Yellow-billed cuckoo - - - + Yellow-throated Vireo + + + +

* Species present in Massachusetts Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, ** Species present in Schlossberg and King 2007, *** Species present in both lists.

Table 3. Vegetation (Unit 4 see Fig. 3) White Pine, Pinus strobus Huckleberry, Gaylussacia baccata Red Oak, Quercus rubra Blueberry, Vaccinium angustifolium White Oak, Quercus alba Blueberry, Vaccinium palidium White birch, Betula papyrifera Maple-leaved Viburunum, Viburnum acerifolium Red Maple, Acer rubrum Scrub Oak, Quercus ilicifolia Black Cherry, Prunus serotina Sassafras, Sassafras albidium Hickory spp., Carya spp. Pipsissewa, Chimaphila maculata Pitch pine, Pinus rigida Princess Pine, Lycopodium obscurum Hemlock, Tsuga canadensis Sedge spp., Carax spp. Scarlett Oak, Quercus coccinea Wintergreen, Gaultheria procumbens Witchhazel, Hamamelis virginiana Pink ladyslipper, Cypripedium spacaule

8 March 2014 Table 4. Vegetation (Unit 8, see Fig. 3) White Pine, Pinus strobus Huckleberry, Gaylussacia baccata Red Oak, Quercus rubra Blueberry, Vaccinium angustifolium White Oak, Quercus alba Blueberry, Vaccinium palidium White birch, Betula papyrifera Maple-leaved Viburunum, Viburnum acerifolium Red Maple, Acer rubrum Scrub Oak, Quercus ilicifolia Black Cherry, Prunus serotina Northern Bayberry, Myrica pensylvanica Hickory spp., Carya spp. Pipsissewa, Chimaphila maculata Black Oack, Quercus velutina Hawkweed, Hieracium spp. Scarlett Oak, Quercus coccinea Violet, Viola spp.

Table 5. Meadow, Grassland vegetation (Units 1,2,6,7,9-12) see Fig. 3) Gama Grass, Poaceae sp. Blueberry, Vaccinium spp. Little bluestem, Schizachyrium Timothy Grass, Phleum pratense Meadowsweet, Spirea spp. Black-eyed susan, Rudbecki spp. Rye Grass Binweed sp. Stiff aster, Aster linarifolius Orchard Grass, Dactylis glomerata Vetch sp. Fleabane, Erigeron spp. Staghorn sumac, Rhus typhina Oriental bittersweet, Celastrus orbiculatus Goldenrod, Solidago sp. Rasberrry, Rubus spp. Muliflora Rose, Rosa multiflora Wild carrot, Daucus carota Hawthorne sp. Autumn Olive, Elaeagnus umbellata Tussock grass, Deshampsia spp. Common Milkweed, Asclepias syriaca Spotted Knapweed, Centaurea stoebe Red cover, Trifolium pratense

Target species as identified by the Massachusetts Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan that are expected to benefit from planned management include:

Grasshopper Sparrow Whip-poor-Will Brown Thrasher Vesper Sparrow American Woodcock Eastern Meadowlark Field Sparrow Prairie Warbler Barn Owl Northern Harrier American Kestrel Eastern Box Turtle Upland Sandpiper Eastern Towhee Purple Tiger Beetle

Invasive Exotic Species Control: In late summer 2013, licensed pesticide applicators treated approximately 200 acres of invasive exotic plants spread throughout the treatment area. Applicators are licensed under the Pesticide Control Act administrated by the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (DAR). All herbicides used are approved for use in sensitive areas. “Sensitive area” herbicides are approved through an additional detailed review of toxicity and environmental impacts beyond the typical two-tiered process of federal review by the Environmental Protection Agency and standard state review by the Massachusetts Pesticide Bureau (http://www.mass.gov/agr/pesticides/rightofway/Sensitive_Area_Materials.htm).

9 March 2014 Figure 1. Southwick Grassland Map.

10 March 2014 Figure 2, Southwick Management Units Map.

11 March 2014 Figure 3. Southwick Photographs

MassWildlife photo A. Abandoned agricultural land with 30-40 year-old with hardwood island in the background. Invasive plants in the foreground include (honey suckle, multiflora rose). The hardwood island will be removed and invasive plants will be treated.

MassWildlife Photo B. Abandoned agricultural land with 30-40 year-old with hardwood hedgerows in the background. In order to increase the overall site line and quality of the grassland the hedgerows will be removed. 12 March 2014

MassWildlife Photo C. Old abandoned tobacco netting (photo taken approximately 5 years post abandonment).

MassWildlife Photo D. Old field habitat approximately 5-10 years post abandonment. Notice the strong response of the white pine and gray birch, most of which will be removed.

13 March 2014

MassWildlife Photo E. Pre-management pictures of the wooded hedgerows which bisect the grassland footprint.

MassWildlife Photo F. Pre-management pictures of the wooded hedgerows which bisect the grassland footprint.

14 March 2014

MassWildlife Photo G. Abandoned agricultural land with 30-40 year-old with hardwood hedgerow in the background. In order to increase the overall site line and quality of the grassland the hedgerows will be removed.

MassWildlife Photo H. Abandoned agricultural land which shows the large expanse of the grassland.

15 March 2014

MassWildlife Photo I. Abandoned agricultural land that was mowed to help control pioneer tree species establishment and invasive plant spread.

MassWildlife Photo J. Abandoned agricultural land that was mowed to help control pioneer tree species establishment and invasive plant spread.

16 March 2014

MassWildlife Photo K. Abandoned agricultural land that was mowed to help control pioneer tree species establishment and invasive plant spread. Notice the wooded hedgerow that bisects the grasslands which will be removed in future management actions.

L O

MassWildlife Photo L. Grassland photo showing the old tobacco barns which straddle the CT and MA borders. 17 March 2014

MassWildlife Photo M. Notice the heavy use on the sand roads that was caused by illegal vehicle use. The illegal ATV access is being addressed jointly through efforts of the Environmental Police and MassWildlife.

18 March 2014

LITERATURE CITED

Askins, RA. 1998. Restoring forest disturbances to sustain populations of shrubland birds. Restoration & Management Notes 16(2):166-172.

Batáry, P and A Báldi. 2004. Evidence of an edge effect on avian nest success. Conservation Biology 18(2):389-400.

Chalfoun, AD, FR Thompson, and MJ Ratnaswamy. 2002. Nest predators and fragmentation: a review and meta-analysis. Conservation Biology 16(2):306-318.

Chandler, R.B., King, D.I., Destefano, S. 2009. Scrub-Shrub Bird Habitat Associations at Multiple Spatial Scales in Massachusetts Beaver Meadows. The Auk 126(1):186-197.

Clark, K. H. and W .A. Patterson III. 2003. Fire management plan for Montague Plain Wildlife Management Area. Dept. of Nat. Res. Cons. PO Box 34210, Amherst MA. 51pp.

Cronon, W. 1983. Changes in the land: Indians, colonists, and the ecology of New England. Hill and Wang 241pp.

Davis, S. 2004. Area sensitivity in grassland passerines: effects of patch size, patch shape, and vegetation structure of bird abundance and occurrence in Southern Saskatchewan. The Auk. 121(4). pp. 1130-1145.

Degraff, R.M. and Yamasaki, M. 2003. Options for managing early-successional forest and shrubland bird habitats in the northeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management. 185. pp. 179-191.

DeGraaf, RM and M Yamasaki. 2001. New England Wildlife. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH. 482pp.

DFW. 2006. 2005 Massachusetts Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Draft plan. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, Department of Fish and Game, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Westborough, MA.

Duveneck, M. J. 2005. Characterizing canopy fuels as they affect fire behavior in pitch Pine (Pinus rigida). M.S. Thesis. Dept. of Natural Res. Cons. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 83 p.

Foster, DR and JD Aber. 2004. Forests in Time. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 477 pp.

Foster, D.R., Motzkin, G., Bernardos, D. and Cardoza, J. 2002. Wildlife dynamics in the changing New England landscape. Journal of Biogeography 100 (10/11): 1337 – 1357.

Helzer, C.J. and Jelinski, D.E. 1999. The relative importance of patch area and perimeter-area ratio to grassland breeding birds. Ecological Applications 9(4). pp. 1448-1458.

Hill, NP and JM Hagan III. 1991. Population trends of some northeastern North American landbirds: a half-century of data. Wilson Bulletin 103:165-182.

Hobbs, RJ. 2000. Land-use changes and invasions. Pp 55-64 in: Mooney, HA and Hobbs, RJ (eds.), Invasive Species in a Changing World, Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Hobbs, RJ and LF Huenneke. 1992. Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: implications for conservation. Conservation Biology 6(3):324-337.

Hobbs, RJ and SE Humphries. 1995. An integrated approach to the ecology and management of plant invasions. Conservation Biology 9(4):761-770. 19 March 2014

Johnson, DH and LD Igl. 2001. Area requirements of grassland birds: a regional perspective. Auk 118(1):24-34.

Jones, A. Vickery, P. 1997. Conserving Grassland Birds. Printed Booklet. Grassland Conservation Program, Massachusetts Audubon Society. http://www.massaudubon.org/Birds_and_Birding/grassland

King, D. I., R. B. Chandler, S. Schlossberg, and C C. Chandler. 2009. Habitat use and nest success of scrub-shrub birds in wildlife and silvicultural openings in western Massachusetts, U.S.A. Forest Ecology and Management 257:421- 426.

Ledig, FT. 1992. Human impacts on genetic diversity in forest ecosystems. Oikos 63:87-108.

Litvaitis, JA. 1993. Response of early-successional vertebrates to historic changes in land use. Conservation Biology 7(4):866-873.

Litvaitis, JA. 2003. Shrublands and early-successional forests: critical habitats dependent on disturbance in the northeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 185:1-4.

Mack, RN, D Simberloff, WM Lonsdale, H Evans, M Clout, and F Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Issues in Ecology 5.

Massachusetts Historical Commission State Survey Team. 2007. Historic & Archaeological Resources of Central Massachusetts: A Framework for Preservation Decisions. The Massachusetts Historical Commission, 434 p.

Motzkin, G, D.Foster, A. A. Allen, J. Harrod and R. Boone. 1996. Controlling site to evaluate history: vegetation patterns of a New England sand plain. Ecol. Mon. 66(3)345-365.

Motzkin, G., W.A. Patterson III and D.R. Foster. 1999. A historical perspective on pitch pine-scrub oak communities in the Connecticut Valley of Massachusetts. Ecosystems (1999)2:255-273.

NHESP. 1990. Pitch Pine Scrub Oak Community Fact Sheet. Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Westborough, MA.

[OTA] Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. Harmful non-indigenous species in the United States. Office of Technology Assessment, US Congress, Washington D.C.

Pimentel, D, R Zuniga, and D Morrison. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien- invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics 52:273-88.

Rochelle, JA, LA Lehmann, and J Wisniewski. 1999. Forest fragmentation: wildlife and management implications. Brill Academic Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands. 301p.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2004. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2003. Version 2004.1. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD

Schlossberg, S. and King, D. 2007. Postlogging Succession and Habitat Usage of Shrubland Birds. Journal of Wildlife Management. 73(2). Pp. 226-231.

Schlossberg, S. and King, D. 2007. Ecology and Management of Scrub-shrub Birds in New England: A Comprehensive Review. Submitted to the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Resource Inventory and Assessment Division. pp. 6-10.

Schlossberg, S., D. I. King, R. B. Chandler, & B. A. Mazzei. 2010. Regional synthesis of habitat relationships in shrubland birds. Journal of Wildlife Management. 74(7):1513-1522. 20 March 2014

Taylor, W. H., Charles, F. H., United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service., and Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station. 1998. Soil Survey of Worcester County, Massachusetts, Northeastern Part. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, 143 p.

Stephens, SE, DN Koons, JJ Rotella, and DW Willey. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on avian nesting success: a review of the evidence at multiple spatial scales. Biological Conservation 115:101-110.

Weldon, A.J. and Haddad, N.M. (2005) The effects of patch shape on Indigo Buntings: Evidence for an ecological trap. Ecology: 86(6). pp. 1422-1431

Whitney, GG. 1994. From coastal wilderness to fruited plain: a history of environmental change in temperate North America from 1500 to the present. Cambridge University Press. 451pp.

Wilcove, DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, and E Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48(8):607-609.

Wilcox, BA and DD Murphy. 1985. Conservation strategy: the effects of fragmentation on extinction. American Naturalist 125:879-887.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1989. Soil Survey for Franklin County, Massachusetts. 1967.http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/ssur_data.html.

Wilson, EO. 1992. The Diversity of Life. Belknap Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Wilson, JM. 2006. Managing abandoned orchards and apple trees for wildlife. Pp. 51-57 in: Oehler, JD et al (eds.), Managing Grasslands, Shrublands, and Young Forest Habitats for Wildlife: a guide for the Northeast, Northeast Upland Habitat Technical Committee and Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, Westborough.