David Brown's Wildlife Services P.O. Box 112, Athol, MA 01331 978 249 3929 E-mail: info@dbwildlife.com __________________________________________________

To: Ellen Mass, President, Friends of Alewife Reservation

Subject: Requested comment on proposed trail extension

Date: November 12, 2006

Ref: (1) Mammal Tracking Survey 2002 Alewife Reservation
       (2) Migrant and Breeding Bird Survey 2002 Alewife Reservation

Dear Ellen,

Below is the response to your request for comment on the proposed "conservation trail" extension from the mouth of the Little River at Little Pond, along the east shore of the pond and then westward along the north end to the suburban district in Belmont on the pond's northwest side.

While I have in the past recommended against any trail along the north bank of Little River, I recognize the political realities. The trail as it is now laid out ends at the mouth of the river at Little Pond. As a dead end trail it is unlikely to draw a great deal of human and pet traffic.

A through-trail, on the other hand, will inevitably attract several groups of visitors: people using it as a short-cut to the Alewife Station, dog walkers from the Belmont end of the pond, active recreationists such as joggers and mountain bikers as well as children from the housing at the Belmont end.

The east shore of Little Pond is, at present, one of the most difficult places on the reservation to negotiate on foot. As a result it receives very little human/dog visitation. Subsequent to the mammal tracking survey, several "rolling sites" of river otter were found along this shore. A "rolling site" is a place where otters come ashore to urinate/defecate and scratch themselves on the ground. It is the only location on the pond secluded enough for them to do so. The frequent passage of people, dogs, mountain bikes and so forth will almost certainly interfere with this activity.

The mouth of the Little River at Little Pond is a favorite perching spot for herons, both black-crowned and great blue. Only here is the water shallow enough to allow these wading birds to hunt effectively. Any human/dog activity in this area is apt to disturb this function. As a dead-end trail ending at this spot, this disturbance will be intermittent and perhaps manageable. As a through-trail, however, with its inevitable increase in the passage of humans and pets, it is likely that use by these two heron species of this critical location will decline significantly.

The proposed trail extension along the east shore of Little Pond will also cross the mouth of a small but isolated cattail marsh, the only one on the border of the pond. If wood ducks ever nest in the park it will likely be in old trees adjacent to this marsh, whose margin is shallow enough to afford the sort of emergent vegetation upon which this attractive species depends. Other waterfowl, such as black ducks and mallards, are also attracted to such marshes. Although no rails, bitterns, or marsh wrens were discovered during the survey, hope of attracting these species to the park will be diminished by a trail across the mouth of this marsh.

It is frequently suggested in these discussions that signage will prevent unauthorized use of trails in metropolitan parks. Such signage, in the absence of rigorous enforcement, has never had, to my knowledge, nor is it likely to have much lasting effect. And neither the MDC nor DCR has ever seemed enthusiastic about rigorous enforcement of park rules. Government agencies try to please people where they can, including dog lovers and mountain bikers, etc., and few managers see any real problem with these activities other than as possible public safety issues. Wildlife values are seldom even on their screen.

A through-trail, whether or not it is signed as a "conservation trail", will have other wildlife ramifications. The north bank of the little river downstream to the former ADL facility has always been quite wild, with lots of thorny brambles to protect it from disturbance by all but the most determined visitor. Along this shore muskrat, mink, beaver and otter sign has been observed in the past. Canada geese form flocks here and nest in its more inaccessible stretches. Evidence of Eastern coyote predation on these geese was found during the mammal tracking survey. In the fields abutting the river deer sign was located along with rabbit and meadow vole evidence. These fields are also display areas for American woodcock, a species in decline in Massachusetts. These areas will be opened up to increased human/pet visitation by the planned and now partially existing dead-end trail, but a through-trail to Belmont promises to greatly increase visitation with a consequent decrease in wildlife activity. With a decrease in this activity comes a decrease in both the educational and esthetic value of the reservation as an "urban wild".

It is well understood that DCR is a government agency and must necessarily attune itself to please the largest number of people. However, doing so in this instance may alter the character of Alewife Reservation away from an "urban wild" and toward a city park.

A better use of Alewife Reservation, rather than just another city park, is to celebrate its value as an "urban wild". This is a place where organized school groups and docent led walks as well as individuals seeking the serenity of a wild area in the city or a wildlife experience can come, intrude on the wildness of the place for short periods of time, experience it and then leave. Such intermittent visitation results in momentary disturbance that is easily healed by nature itself. Disturbances that come and go are acceptable to wildlife; disturbances that come and stay are not. Such disturbances become facilities, trails included, and facilities and wildlife are seldom compatible.

The concept of an "urban wild" as an alternative to a manicured urban park may be an original concept formed right here in Cambridge, perhaps to be copied by other cities through the land. The current wildness of Alewife owes itself to neglect, but in this case for the most part "benign neglect." The better aspects of that neglect might be encouraged to continue as "designed neglect" as both a higher use for the reservation and not incidentally as a much cheaper policy than active management for maximum public accommodation. Often for wildlife values less management is more.

In the interests of brevity may I draw attention to two parts of the 2002 bird and mammal surveys: the pages on "significant habitats" and "management recommendations". These sections pertain directly to the management of Alewife Reservation as an "urban wild", and I recommend they be taken into account in the approval and siting of future human-introduced features.

Respectfully submitted

David W. Brown