HomeMy WebLinkAboutWright Farm Land Management and Design Plan 11.2021
LAND MANAGEMENT AND DESIGN PLAN FOR
WRIGHT FARM
IN
LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Bill Giezentanner
Mass Audubon Ecological Extension Service
November 2021
Mass Audubon protects more than 40,000 acres of land throughout Massachusetts, saving birds and
other wildlife, and making nature accessible to all. As Massachusetts’ largest nature conservation
nonprofit, we welcome more than a half million visitors a year to our wildlife sanctuaries and 20 nature
centers. We believe in protecting our state’s natural treasures for wildlife and for all people—a vision
shared in 1896 by our founders, two extraordinary Boston women. Today, Mass Audubon is a nationally
recognized environmental education leader, offering thousands of camp, school, and adult programs
that get over 225,000 kids and adults outdoors every year. With more than 135,000 members and
supporters, we advocate on Beacon Hill and beyond, and conduct conservation research to preserve the
natural heritage of our beautiful state for today’s and future generations.
Mass Audubon’s Ecological Extension Service (EES) assists cities and towns, land trusts, state and federal
agencies, and other conservation partners with natural resource inventories, habitat restoration and
management planning, and conservation planning. Through EES we can share the experience we have
gained in managing our own network of wildlife sanctuaries across the commonwealth.
Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
Land Acknowledgement ...................................................................................................................... 1
Setting of Wright Farm Conservation Area ........................................................................................... 2
General Goals for the Use and Management of Lexington’s Conservation Land ....................................... 2
Site Goals and Challenges .................................................................................................................... 3
Property Description ............................................................................................................................... 3
Physical Features ................................................................................................................................. 3
Ecological Features .............................................................................................................................. 5
Cultural Features ................................................................................................................................. 6
Future Uses ............................................................................................................................................. 7
Summary of Mass Audubon Education Department Report ................................................................. 7
Summary of Wright Farm Barn Needs and Feasibility Study ................................................................. 8
Current Uses ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Conservation Commission Use Regulations ........................................................................................ 10
Safety ................................................................................................................................................ 10
Threats and Opportunities ................................................................................................................. 11
Public Access ..................................................................................................................................... 11
General Management Recommendations .............................................................................................. 11
Management of Natural Areas in a Time of Changing Climate ............................................................ 12
Management for Resilience and Managing Change ........................................................................ 13
Wright Farm Management Recommendations .................................................................................. 14
Improve Access .............................................................................................................................. 14
Field Management ......................................................................................................................... 15
Forest Management ...................................................................................................................... 16
Community Gardens ...................................................................................................................... 17
Fencing Stonewalls and Boundary .................................................................................................. 17
Horse Sheds ................................................................................................................................... 17
Wildlife Enhancement Management Recommendations .................................................................... 18
Invasives Management .................................................................................................................. 19
Schedule of Maintenance Activity ...................................................................................................... 20
Yearly Ongoing Activities ............................................................................................................... 20
Short Term Projects ....................................................................................................................... 20
Long Term Projects ........................................................................................................................ 21
Priorities and Cost Estimates for Recommended Projects .............................................................. 21
Appendix A – Invasive Species Management.......................................................................................... A1
1
Introduction
The Massachusetts Audubon Ecological Extension Service prepared a draft land management and design
plan for Wright Farm in 2014. As that draft was about to be completed the Town exercised its right to
acquire the farmhouse and barn. At that time, it was decided to delay the completion of the
management plan until the future of this acquisition of additional land was finalized and its uses
determined. Since then, the farmhouse was turned over to the Lexington Housing Assistance Board
(LexHAB) and is now occupied by residents. In addition, the Town contracted with the Mass Audubon
Education Department to develop an educational program for the site and an architectural firm (Colin
Smith Architecture) to study the feasibility and cost of renovating the barn as an environmental
education center. This report will build on those completed efforts.
Land Acknowledgement
The land sustains us in many ways. A few examples of what it provides:
• The air we breathe
• The water we drink
• The food we eat
• Sequestration of carbon
• Climate moderation
• Protection from flooding
• Recreation that renews our spirits
• The lumber we use to build our shelters
• Filtration and decomposition of our wastes
• Habitats for a diversity of plants and animals
The land at Wright Farm
is also part of the
ancestral territory of the
Massachusetts Nation of
Native Americans. The
land sustained them for
thousands of years
before its occupation by
Europeans. How we
care for the land will
determine how well it
will be able to sustain
our descendants.
Photo 1 - Aerial view
2
Setting of Wright Farm Conservation Area
Wright Farm (at 247 Grove Street) is a 13-acre conservation property in the northwest corner of
Lexington (bordering both Bedford and Burlington) that was initially acquired by the Conservation
Commission in 2012. The lot including the house and barn was acquired in 2016 by the Town. Wright
Farm includes open fields, a wet meadow, a forested wetland, and mixed forest. Although the site itself
is small, it has value both as wildlife habitat and as a site for passive recreation and environmental
education. It adjoins a narrow strip of wooded Lexington conservation land, which itself adjoins the
Burlington Landlocked Forest, a 250-acre area of mostly forested open space in Burlington with a large
trail system used extensively by mountain bikers. Together, these open spaces provide an important
wildlife corridor and passive recreational area.
This master plan has been developed by Mass Audubon’s Ecological Extension Service, working closely
with the Lexington Conservation Commission, Conservation Office staff, and Volunteer Stewards, to
identify goals for the site and specific management actions necessary to maximize the ecological,
educational, and recreational potential of the property.
General Goals for the Use and Management of Lexington’s Conservation
Land
Given that the Conservation Commission desires to maximize public enjoyment of town conservation
land through passive recreation while protecting the important natural, cultural, and historic resources
of the land, the following general principles will be used to consider management of the properties.
1. Public access to town-owned conservation lands for passive recreational uses will be
encouraged where it would not be detrimental to protection of the property’s natural, historic,
and cultural resources.
2. Approved public uses will be expressed through Conservation Commissions rules and
regulations for conservation lands, property-specific regulations, use specific regulations, and
on-site signage.
3. Alterations to conservation land necessary to accommodate public access, such as vegetation
management, trail building, and installation of appropriately sized parking lots, bridges, and
boardwalks, will be considered favorably as long as they are:
a) determined to be necessary to accommodate public access,
b) demonstrated to be the best option for achieving public access, and
c) demonstrated to have minimal impact on known natural, cultural, or historic resources.
4. Visitor safety will be a top priority in planning and implementing property management, public
access improvement projects, and land use regulations.
5. The Commission, staff, and volunteers will strive to maximize the natural resource values of
each conservation parcel. Specifically, they will manage properties to:
a) protect habitat for rare and sensitive species,
b) enhance habitat for nesting and migrating birds,
3
c) protect uncommon and exemplary natural communities and maximize habitat value for
dependent species,
d) maintain and extend wildlife corridors across conservation land,
e) maintain ecosystem services such as pollination, natural flood control, groundwater
recharge, carbon sequestration, and food production, and
f) control invasive species.
6. Cultural and historic resources will be recognized, celebrated, and protected on conservation
lands to the extent practicable. Specifically:
a) all identified historic resources will be protected from disturbance,
b) where appropriate, conservation land will accommodate agricultural uses traditional to
the site or as identified as a community need (such as community gardens), and
c) sites will be managed to maintain traditional landscapes and vistas, especially those that
contribute to community character.
Site Goals and Challenges
Goals for the management of Wright Farm include:
• Improved public access including parking and trail system
• Exemplary stewardship of the site’s natural and cultural values
• Use for environmental education (schools, adults, special events, etc.)
• Wright Farm can also be an important new entry point to the large area of open space – the
Burlington Landlocked Forest
• Easy connections can be made to the 69-acre Old Reservoir conservation land in Bedford, as
well. This geographic serendipity opens possibilities for regional trail connections
Challenges include:
• Ongoing discussion of the appropriate uses for the site, especially given its relatively small size
• The peripheral location of the site – away from the center of town
• The expense involved in making the site more accessible and developing the facilities for
making the site more suitable for environmental education
Property Description
Physical Features
Wright Farm is a 13.2-acre property at the very
northern tip of Lexington, located on the east side of
Grove Street on the Bedford and the Burlington town
lines (Figure 1). The structures on the property are a
large barn dating to the 1840s (with alterations in
the 1900s), a garage, and two 3-sided sheds,
Photo 2 - Sign along Grove Street
4
5
formerly used to shelter horses, and roughly 1,000 feet of fencing. There is a wooden sign at the
southern end of the property, along Grove Street, identifying the parcel as a Lexington conservation
area.
The southwest side of the property abuts Grove Street. Land to the southeast includes a small house lot
directly on Grove Street and a new residential development that has a trail system that connects to
Wright Farm. To the northeast lies the Burlington town line and Burlington’s Landlocked Forest, a 250-
acre parcel which, while not formally protected, offers a buffer to and recreational connection from
Wright Farm. The northwest boundary runs along back yards of houses on Avon Road in Bedford. The
Lexington Greenways Corridor Committee has proposed a trail linking Wright Farm to Burlington's Landlocked Forest/Paint
Mine and Simonds Brook. The trail would cross Grove Street and connect to Bedford’s Old Reservoir conservation land.
Wright Farm features gently rolling topography with an overall slope to the east and ranging in height
from 275 feet above mean sea level at the very southern point to 216 feet at the very eastern corner.
Water drains to the east over most of the property except for the very western corner which drains
towards Grove Street. The property is underlain by ~425-million-year-old Quincy Granite bedrock of the
Milford-Dedham Zone. While bedrock appears to have little direct influence on the vegetation and land
use of the property, it does influence the topography of the site. There are no streams or permanent
standing water bodies on the property, but runoff and groundwater do migrate to the lower ground in
the eastern corner of the property.
Surficial geology, unlike the bedrock, plays an important role in site conditions. The dominant surficial
material is glacial till, a mix of clay, silt, sand, cobbles, and stones deposited by the melting glacier
roughly 15,000 years ago. Till is generally well-drained and tends to weather to an acidic soil in eastern
Massachusetts. Wright Farm soils are uniformly fine sandy loams, including Scituate, Canton, Montauk,
and Whitman fine sandy loams. These standard types, which are named and described by the Natural
Resource Conservation Service, vary only modestly in depth, chemical makeup, and color. Whitman
soils are found in low-lying areas that tend to collect water and so are relatively poorly drained. Except
for the extent of stones, the Scituate, Canton, and Montauk soils are suitable for crop production.
Ecological Features
The property is nearly evenly split between fields and woodland. The fields are dominated by grasses
with typical hayfield herbaceous species including Queen Anne’s lace and asters. In 2014, the field north
and east of the house lot was thoroughly infested with Japanese stiltgrass, an aggressive invasive species
that is relatively new to Massachusetts, but a concerted effort by the Conservation Commission and
volunteers has largely eradicated it. The wooded stands include a White Pine-Mixed Oak forest along
the eastern boundary and continuing into Burlington’s Landlocked Forest, and a section of white ashes
in the southeast quadrant of the property. The ashes are generally in decline even though they are not
particularly old. Many white ashes in our area are in a similar condition due to a disease generically
called Ash Dieback.
The mammalian wildlife of Wright Farm will include suburban generalists such as white-tailed deer,
coyote, red fox, gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, opossum, eastern cottontail, eastern chipmunk, and
6
gray squirrel. Red squirrel can be found in the forested areas; and meadow vole, short-tailed shrew,
star-nosed mole, white-footed mouse, and groundhog are probable in the fields. Fisher likely visit the
property and mink may occasionally explore wetlands that link through Landlocked Forest. While still
uncommon in eastern Massachusetts, a spring dispersing black bear could find its way to the property.
Bats likely roost in the barn and hunt over the meadows.
The variety of habitat at Wright Farm likely attracts a diverse group of birds throughout the year.
Scrubby field edges are ideal for sparrows through the fall, the forested area likely hosts owls in the
winter, and the treetops and meadow edges will attract migratory warblers and other species in the
Spring and Fall. The site is a bit more limited in terms of breeding habitat in that it does not have one
large area of any habitat type. The fields are not big enough to attract grassland specialists, nor does
the small wetland area have the structure or size to attract wetland breeders. But several species are
drawn to the edges found on Wright Farm including indigo bunting, eastern phoebe, eastern bluebird,
and Baltimore oriole. The forested area, while small on the farm parcel, does buffer and connect with
more forest on the adjacent parcel and likely hosts forest breeders such as wood thrush, hermit thrush,
and scarlet tanager. The barn and sheds may also provide nesting habitat for barn swallows. A visitor
has reported seeing a bald eagle on at least one occasion. Other raptors are likely to hunt the fields
from time to time.
As mentioned above, vernal pool species that breed in nearby pools may venture into the forested
sections of Wright Farm during the non-breeding period. American toads may use smaller pools within
the wet section of the property for breeding. Spring peepers and gray tree frogs are likely in the
shrubby habitat east of the meadows. A wide variety of invertebrates, including butterflies and
dragonflies make use of the meadows throughout the growing season.
There is no evidence of rare or unusual species or natural communities on the property. The site is not
identified by Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program as either Priority Habitat for Rare Species or
Estimate Habitat for Rare Wildlife. Neither is the site identified as BioMap2 Core Habitat or Critical
Natural Landscape. There are three Certified Vernal Pools located at least 800 feet to the east of the
parcel, on the Landlocked Forest, and a fourth Certified Vernal Pool roughly 800 feet to the south on a
privately owned parcel. The forested sections of Wright Farm may serve as non-breeding habitat for
salamander and frog species reliant on these vernal pools.
Most of the property has a typical load of invasive species for fields and forest in a suburban setting.
The field edges include multiflora rose, oriental bittersweet, and glossy buckthorn with some common
buckthorn and Japanese barberry. A potentially invasive vine has also been noted – Fortune’s spindle
(Euonymus fortune) – growing up a tree in the field to the north of the barn.
Cultural Features
The property has been a farm for nearly two centuries, leading to a significant portion of the land being
open fields. The conservation area includes a large barn, originally built in the 1840s for livestock that
was converted for use for poultry in 1936. It consists of three interconnected structures and is listed in
the Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System (MACRIS – LEX 749). Also included on the site
7
is a two-car garage – now being used
for a program space with interpretive
information about the site’s natural
and cultural history – and two 3-sided
sheds that were built to shelter
horses. At an informal hearing with
the Lexington Historical Commission
(HC) on March 21, 2018 there was a
consensus that the barn be preserved
to the fullest extent possible.
Future Uses
Considerable effort has gone into defining the potential future uses of the site. In 2017, the Town
engaged Massachusetts Audubon’s Education Department “to design opportunities for Lexington
residents to connect with the natural and cultural resources at Wright Farm and adjacent landscapes”.
Working with stakeholders and representatives of the community that effort included:
• Development of an education plan for Wright Farm – with potential programs, audiences,
and coordination
• Exploration of different program coordination and delivery models, including fee-based
programming
• Recommendations for a phased progression for developing educational resources and
designing and delivering educational programming
Summary of Mass Audubon Education Department Report
The report was submitted in 2019. Major recommendations included (See full report for more detail):
• Phased Approach for Educational Program
o Phase 1 A – Early Programs and Initial Site Improvements (2017 to 2020)
▪ minimal facilities (signage, trails, some picnic tables, and a tent)
▪ rented port-a-potty for part of year
▪ scheduled programs and events (bird walks, nature walks, Spring Celebrations)
▪ community gardens
▪ site improvements done by volunteers
▪ parking (DPW)
▪ estimated costs, $50,000 - parking
o Phase 1 B – Additional Programs and Events, Initial Private Function Rentals (2020 -
2025)
Photo 3 - Barn
8
▪ the expanded parking area, picnic tables, signage, and seasonal port-a-potty and
tent, public programs and community events can continue to expand including
school programs, high school community service projects, etc.
▪ additional community events (with live music, and food trucks)
▪ initial private functions for a fee
▪ possible construction of a “pavilion” ($125,000)
▪ barn stabilization (see cost estimate below - $122,250)
o Phase 2 – Expanded Programs and Events, Expanded Private Function Rentals
▪ in addition to the programs developed in phase 1, accommodate an expanded
level of private function rentals with the use of the tent and pavilion
▪ a paid part-time employee to coordinate the function rentals
▪ begin fundraising to convert barn into a community conservation center
(estimated cost $4,275,000 in 2019 dollars)
o Phase 3 – A New Community Conservation Center – Educational programs, office space
for the town’s Conservation Department, a gathering-meeting place for local
conservation leaders and volunteers, a scenic and historic setting to rent for private
functions, and a place for Lexington residents to come learn, connect, and spend time in
nature while also learning how to protect the environment.
Summary of Wright Farm Barn Needs and Feasibility Study
At the same time the firm of Colin Smith Architecture was engaged to evaluate the barn and develop a
plan for its conversion into an environment education center. The effort included three major aspects:
Structural Stability Analysis, Educational Needs Assessment, and Architectural Design Concept Plans.
Their report was submitted in April of 2018. Major findings were (See the full report for details):
Figure 2 - Site Plan
9
• Structural Stability Analysis
o the existing structure is not adequate or safe for use as it exists, nearly all framing
members will require reinforcing, including floors, roof, and walls.
o extensive replacement, reinforcing would be required for re-use
o the structure is not properly braced laterally for wind and seismic loads, additional
interior shear walls would be required
o it would cost at least $122,250 to stabilize and “mothball” the structure
• Educational Needs Assessment (defers to the Mass Audubon Education Department effort)
• Architectural Design Concept Plans
o report describes a detailed reuse plan for the barn and a site plan
o it would cost at least $4,275,000 to implement the concept plan
Figure 3 - Bird's eye view of Community Conservation Center
Current Uses
Permitted uses should include all forms of passive recreation consistent with the future uses as
envisioned. The site has potential as a trailhead for reaching Burlington’s Landlocked Forest. There is a
potential that the site will become popular with mountain bikers. Some mountain bikers are currently
using the site to access the trails in the Landlocked Forest. This could interfere with the educational and
program uses for Wright Farm. Guiding bikers to a more appropriate access is recommended.
The Mass Audubon Education Department Education Plan outlines a phased approach to future uses of
the site. Current uses are consistent with Phase 1 A of the Education Plan. The Wright Farm Barn Needs
and Feasibility Study shows how the area around the barn and entrance will be used if/when Phase 3 is
implemented (See Figure 3).
10
Conservation Commission Use Regulations
The Conservation Commission regulations include the following:
Without permission of the Conservation Commission, it is forbidden to:
• Be in or on conservation land between the hours of 1/2 hour after sunset and 1/2 hour before
sunrise.
• Commit any disorderly action, or disturb the peace, or conduct oneself in such manner as to
interfere with the rightful enjoyment of the public upon these grounds.
• Hunt, trap or shoot
• Remove, cut, or damage any flowers, plants, shrubs, trees or rocks.
• Operate a motor vehicle (the term "motor vehicle" includes, without limiting the generality of
the same, any car, truck, bus, motorcycle, motorbike, or snowmobile) on conservation lands.
• Make a fire except in designated fireplaces with permission of the Fire Department.
• Discard litter except in designated receptacles or post, paint, affix or display any sign, notice,
placard, or advertising device.
• Dump materials of any kind.
• Build any structures.
• Dam any stream.
• Park a motor vehicle except in designated parking areas.
• Possess, be in control of, or be responsible for more than 2 dogs per person.
• Possess, be in control of, or be responsible for any dog or dogs unless carrying a waste bag for
each dog and properly disposing of each dog’s waste. Waste may be disposed of by placing the
bagged waste in a designated trash or waste receptacle in the conservation land or by removing
the waste from the conservation land for disposal.
• Possess, be in control of, or be responsible for any dog or dogs unless carrying a leash for each
dog.
• Possess, be in control of, or be responsible for any dog or dogs unless such dog(s) are under
immediate restraint and control of a responsible person (hereafter “the guardian”), either by
leash, or by sight and voice command. Sight and voice command means that dog(s):
o are always within the guardian’s sight
o come to the guardian immediately when called
o stay at the guardian’s command
o do not charge or chase any person, dog, or wildlife, nor engage in any aggressive
behavior
o do not cause damage to any conservation land, or any land used to gain access to
conservation land.
Safety
There are no pressing safety concerns at the site. Several large white ash trees on the north side of the
barn are in decline and may present the hazard of falling limbs in the future. Large trees along the
11
proposed trail route should be assessed by an arborist and large dead limbs pruned. There can be
emergency vehicle access to the site by the drive next to the garage.
Threats and Opportunities
Invasive species of exotic plants are the most obvious threat. A concerted effort to remove Japanese
stiltgrass appears to have been successful but continuing to monitor for its reappearance is warranted.
Appendix A includes information on controlling this species should it recur. Other invasive species
include oriental bittersweet and multiflora rose as well as some others included in the Appendix.
Fortune’s spindle (Euonymus fortuni) a potentially invasive evergreen vine has also been found climbing
trees along the trail near the middle of the field.
The greatest opportunities lie in the potential to create the program uses envisioned in the education
plan. This will entail improving the parking area, developing trails connecting to the extensive trail
network on Burlington’s Landlocked Forest and conservation land in Bedford, and developing
community gardens (if that use continues to be desired), and ultimately renovating the barn as a
community conservation center. Immediate improvement to access and parking and improved
connections to adjacent conservation land would contribute to greatly increasing public use and
enjoyment of this property.
Public Access
There is currently parking for about six cars near the garage. The existing trail system includes a trail
along the north western boundary that crosses a wet meadow. Public access improvements should
focus on establishing an entrance and parking area and developing trail connections with adjacent
conservation areas and trail networks. Trail planning guidelines will be discussed below.
• Parking – The area around the barn and directly adjacent to Grove Street has been identified as
a public entrance and parking lot (See Figure 3). The site plan indicates the area can hold 19
cars. Program use in combination with the community garden may represent more demand
than there is capacity on this small site, especially if event rentals are part of the future. The
DPW is working to evaluate sight lines for pulling out into traffic. Several (3-6) medium-sized
white ash trees would
need to be removed to
maximize parking. These
trees appear to be dead,
dying, or in decline, as
are many white ashes in
eastern Massachusetts.
• Trails – A short-term
solution for creating trails
has been implemented
by volunteers. A few
Figure 4 - Existing Trails
12
trails have been added since this drawing was prepared.
General Management Recommendations
Recent past management of the Wright Farm conservation area appears to have been limited to grazing
or mowing the meadows to keep them in an open condition. An area north of the barn has been used,
at least recently, as a garden plot. The stand of white ashes was formerly maintained as an orchard.
Historic aerial photos show it growing in by the late 1960s and that most of the old apple trees were
removed by the 1990s.
The property is generally in good condition given its former use. The top priorities for remediation,
maintenance, and improvement projects focus on, improving public access, maintaining the open fields,
wildlife habitat enhancement, and invasives management. Other management issues like community
gardens, stone walls and fences, and potential reuse of the horse sheds are also included.
Management of Natural Areas in a Time of Changing Climate
The management of natural resources has largely assumed a stable climatic background. Now there is
widespread agreement among scientists that the climate is changing because of human activities –
largely attributed to the burning of fossil fuels resulting in the production of carbon dioxide.
Massachusetts is already experiencing the effects of climate change, from hotter Summers, warmer
Winters with less snow cover, rising sea levels, more frequent severe weather events, and inland
flooding.
Climate impacts that may affect open spaces are predicted to:
• increase the number of extremely hot days and degrade air quality
• compromise infrastructure like trails (e.g., more erosion, blowdowns, and flooding)
• increase the risks from extreme storm events
• increase non-native plants and pests
• increase vector-borne illnesses (like West Nile and Lyme disease).
Some of these impacts are likely to affect the future management of conservation lands in complex
ways. Manomet Center for Conservation Science and the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and
Wildlife have published a study1 promoting two primary objectives for the management of sites and
habitats – managing resilience and managing change. The report does not address the management of
grasslands and shrublands. Still, the concepts of resilience and managing change may be useful to keep
in mind.
1 Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences & Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Habitat
Management, April 2010 (https://www.manomet.org/wp-content/uploads/old-
files/Climate%20Change%20and%20Massachusetts%20Fisheries%20and%20Wildlife%20Reports,%20Vol.%203%20
April%202010.pdf)
13
Management for Resilience and Managing Change
Bob Wilber, Mass Audubon’s Director of Land Protection, recently articulated four principles for
increasing the resilience of conservation land2.
1. Reduce Non-climate Stressors – for example, controlling invasive plants and pests.
2. Restore Form and Function – for example, removing a dam to promote spawning of
anadromous fishes.
3. Increase Complexity – for example, increasing diversity and microclimates.
4. Create Linkages – for example connecting to adjacent land and creating corridors.
The previously mentioned Manomet report does make recommendations for forests and freshwater
wetlands that are relevant for the Wright Farm Conservation Area.
Forested Habitats
• Diversify the age structure and species composition of the forested landscape in advance of
climate change could increase resilience of forested ecosystems and overall resistance to the
impacts of a changing climate.
• Control of white-tailed deer densities. High levels of browsing by white-tailed deer have
adversely affected the structure, composition, and functioning of Massachusetts forested
ecosystems, particularly through the elimination of preferred food species such as Red Oak, and
thereby reduced their diversity and resilience. Also, overgrazing by deer has opened the way for
increased rates of infestation by non-native plants.
• Control invasive species and pests. Damage caused by non-native plants and insect pests will
become more serious under climate change. Forest managers will need to:
o detect and track infestations and outbreaks in their early stages, and
o take aggressive actions to eliminate these problems before they escape control.
• Manage change. Past management has been primarily guided by the concept of preserving
natural habitats and associated species. Adaptive management is recognizing that preserving
the status quo may not always be possible. When preservation of a habitat or species is no
longer feasible, how do we adapt management practices to guide change? One answer may be
to think about planting more southern species that will help maintain diversity or other
ecological values. The science of adaptive change is underway, with the beginning of many
studies, still much needs to be done.
Freshwater Wetlands
The main threats to freshwater wetlands in Massachusetts are likely to be impaired hydrology and
habitat loss, and ecological injuries caused by non-native pest species, the same threats that currently
affect wetland quality and function. The regulations that currently protect wetlands have been
extraordinarily successful. However, climate change may require us to rethink how these regulations are
applied. Active management of wetlands may be an important tool under climate change. For example,
it may become beneficial to alter wetland hydrology, or expand their boundaries. If such management is
2 Massachusetts Land Conference, Resilient Lands Webinar, May 5, 2020.
14
impeded by the way some regulations are currently applied, they may have to be modified to reflect
changing circumstances.
Control of Invasives. It is likely that the problems that are currently posed by invasive plant species to
wetlands will be exacerbated by the higher levels of environmental stress introduced by climate change
(droughts, extreme events, etc.). To continue to protect valued wetlands will require three things:
• More active monitoring. It will be essential to detect pest outbreaks in their earlier stages,
rather than later when they have secured a foothold. This can only be accomplished if
active detection and monitoring schemes are implemented.
• Aggressive control activities. More resources will be needed to eliminate or control
outbreaks of pests in their early stages.
• Education on and enforcement of best management practices. Many pests are transported
from site to site by humans. To reduce this hazard, it will be necessary to educate users of
wetland resources (e.g., anglers, hunters, nature viewers) about the dangers posed and to
provide them with guidance and facilities to reduce off-site transport.
Watershed Protection. Wetlands are impacted by what happens within the entire watershed. The nexus
of expanding human populations, land-use change, and climate change requires that we adopt a
watershed focus when considering how to protect wetlands. Land protection within the watershed is
also watershed protection.
Wright Farm Management Recommendations
The following sections are specific management recommendations for the future stewardship of Wright
Farm. These recommendations are based on the educational program plan and the Wright Farm barn
feasibility plan (see the summaries of those plans on pages 7 and 8).
Improve Access
Improving access can be an incremental process, but each step should contribute to the eventual
implementation of the plan.
Parking. The Colin Smith feasibility study identified an area for parking 19 cars. An incremental step
would be to develop an entrance drive and a smaller number of parking spaces in the same general
location. The Lexington DPW has been asked to evaluate the parking situation and make a
recommendation.
Trails. It is beyond the scope of this management plan to develop a specific trail plan. Some general
trail layout recommendations include:
• Climate change is having an impact on trails causing more erosion, more wet areas, and more
fallen trees and branches
• Sustainable trails will
o Withstand the impacts of normal use
o Cause negligible soil loss
15
o Encourage users to stay on trails
o Not adversely affect area’s natural or cultural resources
o Require minimal maintenance
• To protect habitat trails should
o Preserve large areas of habitat
o Avoid habitat fragmentation
o Protect wetlands and sensitive areas
o Reduce or eliminate trails especially in sensitive areas
• Design trails to match the users’ capabilities and needs
• Trails should connect people to nature in ways that maintain the natural resources
• A trail system for a site should include
o A starting point with a map for orientation
o Loops
o Destinations (like interesting natural features/views), activity areas (like a place to
gather a group), quiet/contemplative areas
o Avoid adjacent development
• The trail’s average grade should be maintained at 10% or less (short areas can exceed 10%)
There are several interesting features that a
well-designed trail system could include.
There are some impressive stone piles and an
intermittent brook that winds through the
forest that could add interest to the trail
layout.
Much of the existing “preliminary” trail system
is located along the developed perimeter of
the site. This generally does not work well for
either the site’s visitors or the neighbors, who
would probably rather not have visitors
walking along their backyard. The field just behind the barn has such a boundary trail that is nicely
screened from the neighbors by hemlocks that are badly infested with woolly adelgid and likely to die.
We recommend avoiding boundary trails in most cases.
Field Management
The currently open fields and prior pasture areas should be mown at least once annually to maintain
grassland habitat and the pastoral character of the property. The one exception is the low wet area of
the field at the northwest corner of the site. The effects of climate change are likely to cause this area
to be wetter and stay wet longer. It may be interesting to let this area go without mowing for a couple
of years and let it go through a process of succession. Likely it will begin to brush in with red maple,
alder, and other wetland species. It would also need to be monitored for invasive species.
Photo 5 - Rock Pile
16
The fields at Wright Farm are not large
enough to function as grassland bird breeding
habitat rather, they can be managed as
hayfields if any local farmer were interested.
Such management would likely involve
mowing in late June. If no farmer is
interested in haying the site, the fields should
be mown annually in late summer or early fall
to maintain an attractive mix of grasses and
flowering herbaceous species that will benefit
pollinators. Brush should be cleared from the
stone walls alongside the fields to prevent
encroachment and for aesthetics. Particular attention should be paid to the stone wall along Grove
Street and efforts continued to remove glossy buckthorn there and to maintain the attractive view from
the road.
Forest Management
The site includes seven acres of forest that is connected to the 250-acre Burlington Land-locked Forest.
The 7 acres includes considerable variety, the University of Massachusetts Department of Natural
Resources Conservation has classified forest stands in terms of their productivity and Wright Farm
includes small areas of Prime 1, 2, and 3; and Statewide and Local importance; and small areas of wet
forest of Statewide and Local importance as shown in Figure 5. This is not to imply that the forest
should be managed for timber, but to indicate the ecological richness of these forest stands and their
capability to sequester carbon and help reduce the effects of climate change.
Figure 5 - Prime Forest Land
Red oaks, a few white oaks, and white pines predominate, with a few scattered beeches, red maples,
and other species. Several of the older trees in these stands are nearing their senescence and will likely
Photo 6 - Wet Area
17
die. Such old or dead trees are wonderful for wildlife but may also be hazards if they fall onto trails.
Monitoring and periodic clean-up are recommended.
As noted in the section on Forested Habitats on page 13, browse by white tailed deer has adversely
affected the structure, composition, and functioning of Massachusetts forested ecosystems. Deer
prefer eating red oak saplings, so efforts to control deer populations will benefit the forest of Wright
Farm.
Community Gardens
The area designated for a community garden is to the north of the barn and measures approximately
6,500 square feet and could be expanded to more than 20,000 square feet (See Figure 2, #7,9). The
Idylwilde community garden is approximately 34,000 square feet. There are 110 plots. Garden plots are
20’ by 20’ with some half plots (10’ by 20’). The smaller community garden area at Wright Farm would
accommodate 15 such plots and the expanded area could accommodate another 40 plots. Water would
need to be piped from the road. Parking for gardeners may compete with the limited number of spaces
for program participants, trail users, and events. Gardeners bring 50-pound bags of compost and trays
of seedlings in the Spring and would want to park as close to their plot as possible. It has been
suggested that they have an unloading area near the garden plots and then park on the adjacent
neighborhood streets if no spaces are available in the on-site parking area. Two questions arise with this
plan, has anyone cleared this idea with the residents living on those streets, and who will enforce
moving the vehicles from the unloading zone?
Fencing Stonewalls and Boundary
Existing 3-rail fencing should remain in place alongside Oak Street to
maintain the historic character of this stretch. New 3-rail fencing
has been placed around the residence. Most of the other fencing
can be removed as it serves no purpose. Some of it could be reused
to replace rails and posts along Oak Street or to incorporate into the
site plan. For example, to delimit the parking area.
The stonewalls are an attractive feature of the site. Several of them
are overgrown with bittersweet and other invasives and should be
kept cleared.
Horse Sheds
The existing horse sheds could be removed or could be repurposed
for use on the site. One shed could be used as part of a community
garden, for tool storage or other needs. The sheds could remain as potential nesting habitat for barn
swallows and could even be enhanced to welcome barn swallows and possibly cliff swallows. Barn
Photo 7 - Stonewall
18
swallows nest from late April till August3. If deemed to be unnecessary for planned use of the
conservation land and determined not to host breeding swallows, the sheds should be removed.
Ash Trees
The ash trees on the site are in decline. Some are already a potential hazard and should be taken down.
As trees are removed there may be opportunities to replace some with trees that will be adaptable to
climate change. It is probably wise to not plant a single species as replacements. Some species that are
being considered as “climate smart” are red maple, white oak, American hornbeam, Serviceberry, and
tulip tree.
Wildlife Enhancement Management Recommendations
There are several actions that can enhance wildlife habitat quality and make the Wright Farm
conservation area a more interesting destination.
Brush piles
Strategically placed piles of brush in the forested areas or at the edges of the fields can be assembled to
provide resting/escape cover and den sites for wildlife. Brush piles are used for cover by eastern
cottontails and other small mammals. Songbirds may use brush piles for perch sites, especially if the
piles are located near feeding or nest sites. Also, if brush piles are adjacent to a water source,
amphibians and reptiles may use them for breeding, feeding, or resting. See
https://extension.psu.edu/management-practices-for-enhancing-wildlife-habitat for more information
on steps for enhancing wildlife habitat.
Snags
Leaving dead or partially dead standing trees provide several important benefits to a variety of wildlife.
Snags provide cavities for nesting and resting, perches for hunting and displaying, and an abundant
supply of food for insect eaters. There are numerous species of birds and mammals that use snags at
some point in their life cycles. The best method to provide snags for wildlife is to retain existing snags in
places where they will not create a dangerous situation for people using the nearby area for outdoor
activities.
Nest boxes
Nest boxes, platforms, and other types of
nesting structures provide nest sites for
wildlife in areas where natural nest sites
(particularly cavities) are absent or available
only in low numbers. They are also used to
attract wildlife to specific areas even when
nest sites are not limited. Nest boxes can be
used to provide nest sites for birds such as
Eastern bluebirds, tree swallows, and
3 For more information on barn swallow conservation see https://www.massaudubon.org/our-conservation-
work/wildlife-research-conservation/bird-conservation-monitoring/grassland-birds/barn-swallows
Figure 8 - Nest box suitable for tree swallows or bluebirds
19
Carolina wrens. Nest boxes also provide nest sites for mammals like squirrels and bats. Platforms and
other structures are used to provide nest sites for species like Eastern Phoebe and Barn Swallows. Bat
boxes can also be erected along the field edges. See Mass Audubon’s website at
shttps://www.massaudubon.org/learn/nature-wildlife/birds/birdhouses for instructions for building and
placing nest boxes. Volunteers can maintain and monitor nest boxes and enter data on the Cornell web
site.
Each box should be mounted on a pole between 4 and 5 feet off the ground. The boxes should be placed
in pairs at least 10 feet apart so that any tree swallows that take up residence will chase other tree
swallows from the nearby nest, leaving it available for eastern bluebirds. No more than two nest boxes
should be installed per acre, and they should be located far away from the barn to discourage use by
English house sparrows.
The best time to put up a new birdhouse is in the fall or winter so that birds will have plenty of time to
locate them before the breeding season. Always mount the house with the entrance hole facing slightly
downward to keep wind and rain from entering. And make sure it is secured so that it does not swing or
move. Once breeding season is over, usually by mid-August, it is a good idea to clean out the birdhouse.
Remove old nesting material and scrub the house with a solution of one part bleach to nine parts water.
Rinse well and leave it open to dry completely.
Pollinator plantings
Pollinator-friendly plantings support numerous kinds of native bees, as well as honeybees, butterflies,
hummingbirds, and other pollinators. Planting a diverse mix of flowering plants that provides a
sequence of blooms from early spring to late fall will have the most impact. Even a small patch of the
right flowers can help, as it adds to the larger landscape mosaic in which the pollinators live and search
for food. For a list of plants and guidelines for planting see
https://extension.unh.edu/resources/files/Resource005973_Rep8387.pdf. Also, see the plant list for
native declining pollinators from the MCA Native Pollinator Task Force, https://www.svtweb.org/mca-
native-pollinator-task-force .
Invasives Management
Continue to monitor for resprouting of the Japanese stiltgrass and monitor the Fortune’s spindle to keep
it from spreading.
Additional invasive control efforts should be focused on thickets of oriental bittersweet and multiflora
rose found along the edges of meadows. Oriental bittersweet can be cut near the ground with loppers
and resprouts pulled annually. Japanese barberry grows along the intermittent stream running through
the forest. It too can be cut at the ground with loppers and/or pulled. Larger shrubs of multiflora rose,
and other species can be cut back, and the smaller ones pulled from the ground. Ideally, the larger
plants should be pulled up with a root wrench or tractor to get most of the roots. Glossy buckthorn is
another invasive species that occurs along the stonewall on Grove Street and elsewhere. Small plants
can be pulled. Roots are prone to resprout if cut.
See Appendix A for additional information on invasives management.
20
While not considered an exotic invasive, poison ivy needs to be controlled, especially in areas that are
likely to be used for educational programs.
Schedule of Maintenance Activity
Yearly Ongoing Activities
Winter Spring Summer Fall
Dec-
Feb
Mar-
May Jun-Aug
Sep-
Nov
Monthly Property Visits x x x x
Annual Work Plan with Staff and Stewards x x
Safety Meeting with Staff, Stewards, Police and Fire Dept. x
Trail Walk/Clean Up (downed limbs, drainage issues, signage) x
Building Projects (kiosks, signposts, etc.) x x
Invasive Plant Management x x
Mow Fields x
Clean out nest boxes x
Boundary Walk (monitoring for encroachments, signage, etc) x
Short Term Projects
1. Develop a trail plan, including a trail from parking area to the north meadow and on to the
boundary with Burlington’s Landlocked Forest. Negotiate trail connection with managers of
adjacent trail systems, as necessary. Maintain connections to the Liberty Ridge (Jefferson Drive)
trail system and the proposed ACROSS Lexington trail system4. Trail to the north meadow may
require a short bridge or boardwalk to cross the seasonally wet area. Include interesting
features and potential activity areas.
2. Remove fence sections as necessary, and remove invasives from stonewalls, establish regular
mowing program to maintain trail through meadows.
3. Monitor Japanese stiltgrass control project
4. Monitor Fortune’s spindle
5. Mowing of fields
6. Experiment with not mowing the wet area of field in the northeast corner of the site
7. Install nest boxes.
8. Complete feasibility study for community garden.
9. Finalize desired number of parking spaces based on future use of the site. Work with
engineering department to study feasibility of curb cut and potential storm water drainage
issues. Initiate design and permitting for parking lot. Manage ash trees (i.e., remove dead and
dying trees if they are a hazard). Note that parking can be implemented on an incremental or
two phased approach with part of the parking area installed early and additional spaces added
in a second phase.
10. Stabilize barn
4 https://www.lexingtonma.gov/across-lexington
21
Long Term Projects
1. Monitor and continue to control Japanese stiltgrass and Fortune’s spindle
2. Install phase one parking area north of barn. Include signage listing acceptable uses and
illustrating trails.
3. Create community garden.
4. Remove unnecessary fencing and realign some sections to better demarcate parking area.
5. Renovate barn for program use
Priorities and Cost Estimates for Recommended Projects
Recommendation Priority Level Cost Estimate Variables
Manage invasive species High $1,000 annually Control through mowing, manual
pulling, or herbicides
Stabilize barn High $125,000 Cost based on stabilization proposal
by Colin Smith Architects
Develop and implement
trail plan High $0-$500 annually Volunteer, contractor, or staff
Establish parking lot
High $10-$30k
size of lot, need for gravel,
permitting, tree removal, size and
design of signage
Install bird boxes Medium < $500 Boy Scout or volunteer project
Community garden
feasibility study Medium $0 Town staff and volunteers
Create community garden Medium $10-20k Type of fencing, town water,
necessary site prep
Remove some existing
fencing Low $0 Volunteer effort
Relocate some fencing to
demarcate parking area Low $0-$5k volunteer or contractor labor
Finalize plan to renovate
barn and implement Medium Up to $4,300,000 Cost based on total renovation
proposal by Colin Smith Architects
A1
Appendix A – Invasive Species Management
Several species of invasive plants are currently found within the Wright Farm Conservation Area and we
have described their management as it pertains to specific goals and objectives outlined in this plan. In
general, we recommend that the stewards assess threats from invasive species during annual
monitoring and implement treatment according to specifications outlined by the town.
If herbicide is used, the exact concentration, chemical, and type of application should be decided by the
licensed applicator and approved by the town. The applicator should develop an Invasive Plant
Management plan for the area and make recommendations to the town that are best suited for the site.
Glossy and Common Buckthorn
Manual, mechanical, and chemical means are effective in controlling glossy buckthorn and is most
effectively controlled by recognizing its appearance early and removing isolated plants before they begin
to produce seed. With large infestations, remove the largest seed-producing plants first. Currently no
means of biological control is available for controlling buckthorn. Hand pulling is effective in small
infestations. Remove the entire root section or re-sprouting will occur. Weed wrenches can be very
effective in uprooting buckthorn.
Chemical treatment is also an option. The type of herbicide determines the best time of year to apply
based on how the chemicals disrupt the biological process of the plant. Triclopyr herbicides are much
more effective early in the growing season. Glossy buckthorn retains its leaves late into the Fall, so you
can apply herbicide fairly late in the season. However, the application should not be too late, or the
leaves will no longer be photosynthetically active (or minimally so) and will easily fall from the twigs
without affecting the roots. During the growing season, cut the stems near ground level and apply a
20%-25% herbicide mixture to the stumps. Re-sprouts should be cut and treated again or sprayed with
a hand sprayer of 1.5%. Foliar applications over non-water sites can also be used. Foliar application of
herbicides using a backpack sprayer is effective, but less selective.
For more information on buckthorn see:
https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/natural_resources/invasives/terrestrialplants/woodyplants/buckthorn_wh
at_you_should_know.pdf
Multiflora Rose
Mechanical and chemical methods are effective methods for managing multiflora rose but may need to
be combined with chemical treatment in large or persistent infestations. The most important steps to
controlling multiflora rose are to destroy existing plants and begin a yearly program to control seedlings
as they appear. Biological control is not yet available for management of multiflora rose. However,
researchers are investigating several options, including a native viral pathogen (rose-rosette disease),
which is spread by a tiny native mite, and a seed-infesting wasp, the European rose chalcid.
A2
Manual and mechanical control consisting of frequent, repeated cutting or mowing three to six times
per growing season for two to four years is effective in achieving high mortality of multiflora rose. In
high quality natural communities, cut the individual plants to minimize habitat disturbance. Herbicides
are successful in controlling multiflora rose, but follow-up treatments are required because of the long-
lived stores of seed in the soil. Apply systemic herbicides (such as glyphosate) late in the growing season
to freshly cut stumps or to regrowth. In wetlands, where multiflora rose may occur, make sure to use a
wetland-formulated concentrate. Use an active ingredient concentration of 25-35% when you apply
herbicide to the cut stem. Plant growth regulators control the spread of multiflora rose by preventing
fruit set.
Oriental Bittersweet
A combination of cutting followed by application of concentrated systemic herbicide to rooted, living cut
surfaces is an effective approach for removing Oriental bittersweet. For large infestations spanning
extensive areas of ground, a foliar herbicide is recommended over manual or mechanical methods,
which would create soil disturbance to minimize soil disturbance. Manual, mechanical, and chemical
control methods are effective in removing and killing Oriental bittersweet. A combination of methods
often yields the best results and may reduce potential impacts to native plants, animals, and people.
The method selected depends on the extent and type of infestation, the amount of native vegetation on
the site, and the time, labor, and available resources. No biological controls are currently available for
this plant.
Manual control of small infestations can be achieved by hand-pulling, but the entire plant should be
removed including all the root portions. If fruits are present, collect, bag, and dispose of them in heavy
garbage bags. Always wear gloves and long sleeves to protect your skin from poison ivy and barbed or
spiny plants. Plants can also be controlled by cutting climbing vines near the ground at a comfortable
height to kill upper portions and to relieve the tree canopy. Vines can be cut using pruning snips or a
pruning saw for smaller stems, or a hand axe or chain saw for larger vines. Minimize the damage to the
bark of the host tree. Rooted portions will remain alive and should be repeatedly cut to the ground or
treated with herbicide. Cutting without herbicide treatment requires vigilance and repeated cutting
because plants will re-sprout from the base. Begin treatment early in the growing season and repeat
the treatment every two weeks until autumn
Systemic herbicides are absorbed into plant tissues and carried to the roots, killing the entire plant
within about a week. This method is most effective if the stems are first cut and herbicide is applied
immediately to the cut stem tissue.
Fall and Winter applications will avoid or minimize impacts to native plants and animals. Repeated
treatments will be required. Any herbicide applications should be carefully targeted to avoid damage to
native, non-target species. If native grasses are intermingled with the bittersweet, triclopyr is better to
use than glyphosate because it is selective for broad-leaved plants and will not harm grasses. Follow-up
monitoring is required to ensure effective control.
A3
Japanese Barberry
Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) is an invasive, non-native woody plant that can grow 3 to 6 feet
tall with a similar width. It was introduced in the United States as an ornamental plant. However, like
many invasive species, it escaped from managed care and is now naturalized. This plant can dominate
deep in the woods and along woodland edges. This crowds out native plants and disrupts these
ecosystems. Research has shown that the presence of the black-legged tick, which transmits Lyme
disease, increases in areas with dense barberry.
Japanese barberry has small, oval, alternate leaves. Foliage is green to a dark reddish purple. The stems
have single spines along their length. Barberry is a very dense plant due to the multitude of small twigs
and branches. Small, yellow flowers are produced during the spring, but are not particularly noticeable
since they are under the foliage. Red fruit develops and can persist into winter. Birds and other animals
feed on the fruit and then deposit seeds as they move.
Young plants can be removed by hand, but this option is not going to work on well-established plants.
Gloves are necessary due to the presence of spines on the twigs. Mowing is an option for barberry but
requires professional power equipment. Established plants, even small ones, are not going to be cut
using a lawnmower. Plants need to be mowed multiple times each year (3-6 times) to deplete energy
reserves and kill the plant.
Barberry can also be pulled out (a weed
wrench is a great tool) or dug out but
follow up treatments may be necessary if
runners start new plants. Dicamba, 2,4-D,
or triclopyr can be applied as foliar
herbicides early in the growing season. In
late August or early September, glyphosate
or triclopyr can be applied as cut
stump/branch treatments, or basal bark.
Glyphosate can also be applied as a foliar
treatment in late summer. Remember to
always read the label for specific
application sites, precautions, and mix
rates.
Garlic Mustard
Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) is an invasive biennial weed. It is an herbaceous member of the
mustard family (Brassicaceae) brought over by early European colonizers. First documented in New York
in 1868, it was used as a source of food and medicine. This plant's biennial life cycle consists of a
ground-level, or "basal," year and a reproductive, or "bolt," year. Garlic mustard's vigorous reproduction
has enabled it to spread from coast to coast, where it blankets habitats with moist, rich soils. A prolific
seeder, it forms dense monocultures, leaving little room for native plants.
Weed wrench
A4
Suited to a wide range of habitat types, garlic mustard thrives especially well in areas with a disturbed
overstory and basic soil pH. They are shade tolerant and will often spread from forest edges and
openings to mature forest understories.
Garlic mustard has a taproot, and unlike some invasive herbaceous perennials, it does not regenerate
from root fragments. Therefore, this is one of the few invasive plant species that can be controlled
manually by pulling. Manual operations that completely remove shoot tissue will prevent regrowth.
Plants should be pulled before the seed shatter stage. Individuals hold their flowers for several weeks,
giving the population staggered blooming periods. For this reason, it is a "best" practice to bag and
remove pulled plants from the site, as even early pulling treatments probably include some plants that
have viable seed.
Fortune’s Spindle
Fortune’s spindle or Winter creeper (Euonymus fortune) is an evergreen vine. It is a native of China that
was introduced to the US in 1907 as an ornamental ground cover. It is known to spread rapidly and
replace spring ephemerals. Available information indicate that winter creeper is persistent, competitive,
and difficult to control. It is not currently listed as a prohibited plant species in Massachusetts nor is it
listed as invasive by the Mass. Invasive Plant Advisory Group.
Still, its potential to spread aggressively and impact on native species warrants control. The traits that
make it a desirable ornamental plant, such as rapid growth, evergreen nature, and tolerance of variable
A5
site conditions, also make it a threat to natural areas. Probably
the most effective way to control winter creeper is to prevent
its establishment by minimizing its use as a landscape plant and
preventing further seed dispersal. Once established, control of
winter creeper requires complete removal of plants and roots,
because it can spread vegetatively. The most effective
management of winter creeper is to totally eradicate it from
natural areas and the surrounding vicinity by pulling and
removing individuals as soon as possible after recognition.
Physical or mechanical control: Hand-pulling or grubbing using
a pulaski or similar digging tool may control small populations
of winter creeper. To be effective, the entire plant, including
the roots, stem fragments, and fruits, must be bagged and
removed from the site to prevent reestablishment. Any portion
of the remaining root system may sprout. Cutting is not
recommended as a control method except to prevent fruiting,
or in combination with herbicide application.
Biological control: No effective biological controls are currently known for winter creeper. However,
winter creeper is one of the top 10 invasive plants of Asian origin in the United States that is being
studied for future biological control opportunities, and scientists are looking for host-specific natural
enemies in China.
Chemical control: On winter creeper populations that are too large to control by hand-pulling or digging,
foliar or cut-stem applications of herbicides may be effective. Cut stem application of herbicides is
effective in areas where lianas are well established on or around nontarget plants or where they have
grown into tree canopies or other vertical surfaces.
For more information see https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/vine/euofor/all.html .
A6
Japanese Stiltgrass
Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) Camus
Grass family (Poaceae)
Jil M. Swearingen, National Park Service, Center for Urban Ecology, Washington, DC
Sheherezade Adams, University of Maryland, Frostburg, MD
Adapted from http://www.nps.gov/plants/ALIEN/fact/mivi1.htm
NATIVE RANGE
Japan, Korea, China, Malaysia and India
DESCRIPTION
Japanese stiltgrass, or Nepalese browntop, is an
annual grass with a sprawling habit. It
germinates in spring and grows slowly through
the summer months, ultimately reaching heights
of 2 to 3½ ft. The leaves are pale green, lance-
shaped, asymmetrical, 1 to 3 in. long, and have a
distinctive shiny midrib. Slender stalks of tiny
flowers are produced in late summer (August
through September-early October) and dry fruits
called achenes are produced soon afterwards.
ECOLOGICAL THREAT
Japanese stiltgrass is especially well adapted to
low light conditions. It threatens native plants
and natural habitats in open to shady, and moist
to dry locations. Stiltgrass spreads to form
extensive patches, displacing native species that
are not able to compete with it. Where white-tail
deer are over-abundant, they may facilitate its
invasion by feeding on native plant species and
avoiding stiltgrass. Japanese stiltgrass may impact other plants by changing soil chemistry and
shading other plants.
DISTRIBUTION IN THE UNITED STATES
According to the WeedUS Database, Japanese stiltgrass has been reported to be invasive in
natural areas in 15 eastern states including Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
Virginia, West Virginia, and Washington, DC.
HABITAT IN THE UNITED STATES
Stiltgrass occurs in a wide variety of habitats including moist ground of open woods, floodplain
forests, wetlands, uplands, fields, thickets, paths, clearings, roadsides, ditches, utility corridors,
A7
and gardens. It readily invades areas subject to regular mowing, tilling, foot traffic, and other soil
disturbing activities as well as natural disturbances such as the scouring associated with flooding.
Stiltgrass appears to prefer moist, acidic to neutral soils that are high in nitrogen.
BACKGROUND
First documented in Tennessee around 1919, stiltgrass may have accidentally escaped as a result
of its use as a packing material for porcelain.
BIOLOGY & SPREAD
Japanese stiltgrass is an annual grass, with all plants dying each fall. It is a colonial species that
spreads during the summer and fall by rooting at stem nodes that touch the ground. Individual
plants may produce 100 to 1,000 seeds that fall close to the parent plant from both self-fertilizing
and cross-fertilizing flowers. Seed may be carried further by water currents during heavy rains or
moved in contaminated hay, soil, or potted plants, and on footwear and vehicles. Stiltgrass seed
remains viable in the soil for five or more years and germinates readily. Deer and other grazers
reportedly do not browse it, though they have been found to spread the seeds. Stiltgrass leaves a
thick layer of thatch after dieback each year in heavily invaded areas, and while leaves
decompose quickly, stems do not. Like other invasive species, stiltgrass is physiologically
adaptive. For example, it is able to withstand low light levels where nutrient levels are sufficient,
and able to withstand low nutrient levels where light levels are sufficient. While stiltgrass can
photosynthesize in low light conditions and respond quickly to the changing light conditions
typically found on the forest floor, the very low light conditions found beneath a multilayered
forest canopy will limit its growth.
MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
A variety of control methods are available for stiltgrass, depending on the extent of the
infestation, the type of habitat, and the availability of labor and other resources. Preventing the
introduction of stiltgrass from infested to non-infested areas should be a priority. Early control of
new infestations will also reduce the likelihood of establishment and expansion. Manual removal
of plants results in unavoidable disturbance to the soil which can result in additional germination
of stiltgrass seed. Using an herbicide leaves the plants and soil in place, thus minimizing that
likelihood.
Chemical
For extensive stiltgrass infestations, use of a systemic herbicide such as glyphosate (e.g.,
Roundup Pro®) is a practical and effective method if used with some caution. Glyphosate is a
non-specific herbicide that will kill or damage almost any herbaceous plant and possibly some
woody plants it contacts. Roundup Pro® is surfactant-loaded (no additional surfactant needed)
and the surfactant is not lethal to amphibians and aquatic invertebrates like the
polyoxyethyleneamine surfactant in Roundup Classic® is. Roundup Pro® carries the 'Caution'
signal word while Roundup Classic® carries 'Warning'. When treating stiltgrass in wetland sites,
use Rodeo® or other formulation labeled for wetlands. Apply a 2% solution of Roundup® or
Rodeo® mixed with water (8 oz. per 3 gals. mix) and a surfactant in late summer. Be careful to
avoid application to non-target plants.
A8
Some researchers have also found success using the pre-emergent herbicide imazapic which is
the active ingredient found in Plateau® (for government use only), and Journey® (for all other
applicators). Imazapic is most effective against stiltgrass when applied in March in the Mid-
Atlantic states. The best rate for maximum selectivity is 4 oz. per acre, applied as a broadcast
application with backpack sprayers. Sprayers should be fitted with an 8003E flat fan nozzle and
calibrated at 15 to 20 gpa. Plateau® and Journey® can be applied continually through
germination of the stiltgrass and throughout the summer during its peak growth. No surfactant is
necessary for pre-emergent applications. As germination nears, begin to add 1/4% non-ionic
surfactant to the mixture.
Another option that may be appropriate for certain situations is to apply a pre-emergent (only)
treatment with Pendulum® Aquacap™ (active ingredient is pendimethalin) at 2.4 qts. to 4.8 qts.
per acre (15 to 20 gpa). The higher rates have provided season long control.
Note: Calibration of spray equipment will ensure that the correct rate of herbicide mix is
actually applied to the plants. Actual rate of application can vary widely based on different skills
and techniques of applicators. These differences can lead to under-application or over-
application of herbicide mix which can affect the efficacy of the treatment. For this reason, it is
important to calibrate spray equipment before conducting herbicide applications.
Manual
Stiltgrass is a shallow-rooted annual that can be pulled by hand throughout the growing season,
especially when the soil is moist and entire plants with roots can be removed. Pulling is easier
and probably more effective in mid-to-late summer when the plants are much taller and more
branched. At this stage, entire plants can be easily removed by grabbing the basal portion of a
plant and pulling firmly. In a short time, a fair amount of stiltgrass can be pulled and piled up to
dehydrate on site. If plants are already in the fruiting stage, they should be bagged and disposed
of offsite to prevent dispersal of seed. Also, try to avoid pulling native grasses like Virginia
cutgrass (Leersia virginia) that often grow intermingled with stiltgrass and may be difficult to
distinguish from it. Because hand pulling plants disturbs the soil and may expose stiltgrass seed
from previous seasons, late season pulling will avoid the likelihood of seed germination. Hand
pulling of plants will need to be repeated and continued for many seasons until the seed bank is
exhausted.
Mechanical
Stiltgrass can be mowed in late summer (i.e., August through September) when the plants are
flowering but preferably before seed is produced. This can be done using a lawn mower or
"Weed Whacker" type machine or a scythe. Because stiltgrass is primarily an annual plant,
cutting late in the season before the plants would die back naturally avoids the possibility of
regrowth. Recent information suggests that stiltgrass plants that are cut early in the summer
respond by regrowing and flowering soon after cutting, much earlier than they would normally
flower. This is another reason to consider cutting in late summer to fall rather than during the
early summer months.
REFERENCES
A9
Barden, Lawrence. 1987. Invasion of Microstegium vimineum (Poaceae), an exotic, annual,
shade-tolerant, C-4 grass, into a North Carolina floodplain. The American Midland Naturalist
118 (1):40-45.
Barden, Lawrence. 1991. Element Stewardship Abstract: Microstegium vimineum. The Nature
Conservancy.
Claridge, K and Franklin, SB. 2003. Compensation and plasticity in an invasive plant species.
Biological Invasions 4: 339-347.
Cole, PG and Weltzin, JF. 2004. Environmental correlates of the distribution and abundance of
Microstegium vimineum, in east Tennessee. Southeastern Naturalist 3: 545-562.
Cole, PG and Weltzin, JF. 2005. Light limitation creates patchy distribution of an invasive grass
in eastern deciduous forests. Biological Invasions 7: 477-488.
Ehrenfeld, JG, Kourtev, P and Huang, W. 2001. Changes in soil functions following invasions of
exotic understory plants in deciduous forests. Ecological applications 11: 1287-1300.
Fairbrothers, D. E. and J.R. Gray. 1972. Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) A. Camus (Gramineae)
in the United States. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 99:97-100.
Horton, JL and Neufeld, HS. 1998. Photosynthetic responses of Microstegium vimineum (Trin.)
A. Camus, a shade-tolerant, C4 grass, to variable light environments. Oecologia 114: 11-19.
Hunt, D. M. and Robert E. Zaremba. 1992. The northeastward spread of Microstegium vimineum
(Poaceae) into New York and adjacent states. Rhodora 94:167- 170.
LaFleur, A. 1996. Invasive plant information sheet: Japanese stiltgrass. The Nature Conservancy,
Connecticut Chapter Connecticut, Hartford, CT.
Mehrhoff, LJ. 2000. Perennial Microstegium vimineum (Poaceae): an apparent misidentification?
Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 127: 251-254.
Miller, J.H. 2003. Nonnative invasive plants of southern forests: a field guide for identification
and control. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-62. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Southern Research Station. 93 pp.
Redman, Donnell E. 1995. Distribution and habitat types for Nepal microstegium [Microstegium
vimineum (Trin.) Camus] in Maryland and the District of Columbia. Castanea 60(3): 270-275.
Rhoads, A.F. and T.A Block. 2000.The Plants of Pennsylvania, An Illustrated Manual.
University of Pennsylvania Press. 1061 pp.
Swearingen, J. 2009. WeedUS Database of Plants Invading Natural Areas in the United States:
Japanese Stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum).
http://www.invasive.org/weedus/subject.html?sub=3051.
USDA, NRCS. 2009. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data
Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA.
Winter, K, Schmitt, MR and Edwards, GE. 1982. Microstegium vimineum, a shade adapted C-4
grass. Plant Science Letters 24: 311-318.