HomeMy WebLinkAboutwillards_woods_ecological_land_management_and_design_plan_final_11.2.2021Ecological LAND MANAGEMENT AND DESIGN PLAN FOR
Willard’s Woods
IN
LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Jessica Applin
Land Stewardship Inc.
November 2021
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... ………1
Site Description ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Natural Communities …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2
Invasive Plants ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………11
Infrastructure………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………18
Ecological Land Management & Design Plan………………………………………………………..…………………………………..20
Site Goals and Challenges………………………………………………………………………………..………………………….21
Past management………………………………………………………………………………………………………………21
Future management Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………….22
Short Term Goals…………………………………………………………………………………………………………23
Long Term Goals…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……..35
Schedule of management Activity……………………………………………………………………………………..45
Priorities, Projects, Cost Estimates………………………………………………………………………………..45
Yearly Management Goals…………………………………………………………………………………….………47
Challenges…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………49
Additional Maps………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….51
Overview…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..52
Topographic………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………53
Soils…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..54
Other Management Areas……………………..………………………………………………………………………….55
Prime Forest……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..56
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………57
Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….58
A. References………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….59
B. Resources……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………59
C. Invasive Plant Map Key……………………………………………………………………………………………………….60
D. NRCS Soil Key……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..60
E. Photographs………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..61
F. Ecological Assessments……………………………………………………………………………………………………….73
Forest Ecological Assessment………………………………………………………………………………………………73
Wildlife Assessment…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….87
G. Universal Accessibility Trail Assessment………………………………………………………………...............111
1 | P a g e
Introduction
This Ecological Land Management and Design Plan for Willard’s Woods was prepared for the
Lexington Conservation Commission by Land Stewardship Incorporated. The recommendations
and design included within this report take into consideration an existing drafted land
management plan provided by the Town of Lexington Conservation Division (Kaufman
4/25/2019) as well as Lexington’s drafted Land Management Principles and Policies for
Management of Lexington Conservation Land (2/23/2015). The purpose of this plan is to guide
ecological management for the Willard’s Woods property by providing recommendations that
will help enhance the health and function of the landscape and will support passive recreational
use in a balanced and safe way that is sustainable for the future. Management priorities for
this site include field management and restoration, improving overall habitat health, supporting
balanced recreational opportunities, and preserving some of Willard’s Woods historic cultural
highlights.
The initial effort in drafting this plan was to conduct a comprehensive inventory and
assessment of the resources represented at the Willard’s Woods property, both natural and
those intended for public use. This work began in November 2019 and ran through July 2020.
This work included natural resource classifications, invasive plant species inventories, field
assessment, interpretation of site conditions, soils inventories, stone wall mapping, structural
inventories, and an infrastructure and trail assessment. The results and interpretations of this
effort are described and included in the Site Description section of this report.
Recommendations for future management and planning at Willard’s Woods that evolved from
this effort are included in the Ecological Land Management and Design Plan section under
Short-Term and Long-Term Goals.
In addition, a more in-depth forest community assessment and wildlife community assessment
were conducted in order to understand the natural resources at this site even further. As
climate change and the loss of biodiversity continue to be two of our planet’s most immediate
stressors, it is more important than ever to understand the landscapes capacity/potential for
carbon sequestration and to provide healthy intact habitats that will support as much diversity
2 | P a g e
as possible. These reports are included in the Appendices section and discuss these topics
further as well as include their own set of management recommendations. Some of the
recommendations that emerged from these two reports have been incorporated into the
Ecological Land Management and Design Plan as well.
Site Description
Willard’s Woods is a unique expanse of protected land surrounded by an otherwise highly
developed suburban landscape. Its 100 acres consists of fields, brooks, multiple wetlands,
white pine forest, hardwood transitional oak forest, miles of stone walls, a historic mill pond
and cottage chimney, public trails, bike trails, boardwalks, bridges, and areas where the public
can come sit and enjoy the surroundings.
Once a family farm owned by the Willard family, now its fields, forests and wetlands provide a
mosaic of habitat for wildlife that includes sightings of eastern coyote, red fox and a nesting
pair of Great horned owls. Its structural remnants include the old mill pond that at one time
provided waterpower and an old chimney from the cottage used by the Willard family. Then
there are the miles of stone walls that wrap around its boundaries and crisscross through its
interior, providing a snapshot of the historical landscape that once was and that continues to
influence this landscape.
Now a popular area for the public to engage with and enjoy the outdoors, Willard’s Woods
hosts miles of foot and bike trails, as well as boardwalks and bridges, managed by the Town of
Lexington. There are nine entrance points to the property. Two of these, North Street, and the
Diamond Middle School both have accessible off-street parking (see Additional Maps, Property
Overview Map, p.51). There is also a collection of informational kiosks and signage maintained
by the town to help keep its visitors informed, educated, and aware. This access and
information are provided as a way for the public to connect with the landscape and become
invested in the land.
Natural Communities
Natural Communities were assessed on the ground as well as by interpreting aerial ortho
3 | P a g e
imagery in ArcGIS. Combining these methods allowed us to map out these areas more
efficiently and present an accurate overview of how these communities intertwine on the
landscape. With the guidance of Mass Wildlife’s Natural Heritage and Endangered Species
Program resources on the community types represented in the state of Massachusetts, we
have classified each of these resource areas. These areas can be viewed on the following map
and are described below. In addition, a more in-depth description and classification of forest
types can be found in the Forest Ecological Assessment Report (Morrison 2020), Appendix F.
4 | P a g e
Figure 1. Map displaying Natural Communities classifications at Willard’s Woods
5 | P a g e
Figure 2. Map displaying DEP wetlands and water resources at Willard’s Woods
6 | P a g e
Wetland & Water Resources
The wetland and water resources at Willard’s Woods represent a fourth of the property,
covering approximately 26 acres. These resources are composed of a diverse mix of
classifications including wet meadows, shrub swamps, red maple swamps, stream channels and
the old mill pond. The overall health and functionality of these areas varies across the property
due to invasive plant pressure (discussed further in the Invasive Plants section, p11.), pollution
from outside development and storm water, and degradation from high levels of public use.
The wet meadow, shrub swamp complex located in the western most section of the property
that is shared by the Diamond Middle school remains relatively clear of any major invasive
plant infestation except for along the edges. Overall, this complex appears healthy and clear or
any major disturbance or degradation.
The larger interior red maple shrub swamp complex, with scattered wet meadow areas has a
more severe infestation of invasive glossy buckthorn and a high density of invasive woody
shrubs along its western edge. However, the northeast area of this wetland has lower densities
of glossy buckthorn and a higher diversity of native wetland shrubs. Overall, this northeastern
red maple shrub swamp portion of this wetland is in better health than its interior or adjoining
wet meadow areas.
The shrub swamp/wet meadow wetland area to the far north of the property, though also
highly infested with glossy buckthorn, appears to be functioning as a relatively healthy system
overall. An exception to this is the southwestern most area of this wetland where it connects
to the stream channel and is choked out entirely by glossy buckthorn.
The shrub swamp wetland along North Street is also filled with glossy buckthorn, and most
likely heavily influenced by runoff from the road and residential area abutting it. Much of this
wetland also extends further north outside the Willard’s Woods property. Though heavily
impacted, there is still a decent mix of native wetland shrubs represented in this area.
To the east lies one last shrub swamp, which is entirely choked out by glossy buckhorn without
much else growing in or around it.
7 | P a g e
Finally, there are the two stream channels and the old mill pond which are all partially man
made/influenced. The stream channel in the north central section of the property is relatively
open and clear except at its north and south ends where it connects with the heavily glossy
buckthorn infested shrub swamps. The mill pond has been heavily influenced in the past by
disturbance, pollution, and sediment input from the northern stream channel and by visiting
dogs. It is currently fenced off in an effort to slow further bank erosion and degradation. The
second steam channel in the south section of the property near Brent Rd. has heavier invasive
plant pressure, though is not choked out and remains clear and free flowing. Both channels
however are most likely highly influenced by the surrounding neighborhood runoff and storm
water discharge. It is not likely that any of these three areas are functioning as particularly
healthy habitat for fish or many other aquatic organisms, though it will depend on the overall
chemical parameters and sediment deposit levels. They are all however a highly desirable
drinking water resource for resident and visiting wildlife species.
In addition, there were three locations that the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species
Program identified as potential vernal pool sites. We visited each of these locations and did not
find current evidence that would indicate a functioning vernal pool. There was also an
additional site brought to our attention in the white pine forest as having the potential to be a
vernal pool. Upon inspection, this site is a significant upland depression and does indeed hold
Spring melt and rainwater, though there was no evidence that it was functioning as such. The
heavy layer of white pine needles and oak leaves most likely causes the soils here too be too
acidic to function as a vernal pool.
Fields
The open lands portion of Willards Woods was surveyed by Jess Applin and Chris Polatin on
7/10/2020 in order to broadly classify the existing site conditions of each field and to look for
indicators as to which type of early-successional habitat each field may best support. Our survey
notes are compiled in Table 1.
Early successional habitats include several categories of plant communities with vigorously
growing grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees which provide excellent food and cover for wildlife but
need disturbance to be maintained. Examples of early successional habitats include weedy areas,
8 | P a g e
grasslands, old fields or pastures, shrub thickets (e.g. dogwood or alder), and young forest. If
these habitats are not mowed, brush hogged, burned, cut, grazed or disturbed in some other
fashion, they will eventually become forest over time. Grasslands will revert to old fields. Old
fields will eventually grow into young forest. Young forest will grow into mature forest. As such,
grasslands, meadows, shrubland, old fields, and young forests are often referred to as early
successional habitats.
Four early-successional habitat types were observed at Willards Woods (Figure 8, p.40). It is
important to note that the difference between these types is subtle and based on landscape
patterns determined by soil moisture, sun aspect, soil nutrients, soil pH, soil texture, and
sometimes, land use history. It is also important to note that many of the same generalist plant
species are consistent within all the areas. Examples include cane species (Rubus spp.) such as
raspberry, grey dogwood, poison ivy, and black-eyed susan. We specifically noted specific
indicator species when present which are associated with more distinct habitats. These indicator
species are discussed further below.
Warm-Season Grassland (WSG)
Warm-season grasslands were determined based on the presence of little bluestem
(Schizachyrium scoparium) and purple love grass (Eragrostis spectabilis) where these co-
associated species likely persist within areas containing nutrient-poor dry soils. We have widely
delineated areas as WSG in cases where we observed even small quantities of these grasses
based on the potential of the area to support more WSG grasses resulting from changing
management timing and practices which is discussed in the long-term goals section of this
report. WSG is an important and somewhat rare regional habitat type to support at Willards
Woods.
Meadow
Observed upland meadow habitat at Willards Woods is quite similar to WSG without the
presence of little bluestem and purple lovegrass. The meadow areas support cool season pasture
grasses and classic forb wildflowers such as goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), black eyed susan
(Rudbeckia hirta) , milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), and various asters (Aster spp.).
9 | P a g e
Sedge Meadow
The wet meadows observed at Willards Woods occur at topographically low areas within the
open landscape which are closer to the water table. These areas support more wetland sedge
and fern species (sensitive fern) rather than grass species and a different assortment of forb
wildflowers than the upland meadows and WSG areas. Observed wildflower species include Joe
Pye Weed (Eupatorium fistulosum), blue vervain (Verbena hastata), New England Aster (Aster
novae-angliae), and boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum).
Shrubland
We classified only one area at Willards Woods as shrubland due to its dominance by native
shrubs and briar species such as grey dogwood (Cornus racemosa) and raspberry (Rubus spp.).
Invasive shrubs such as multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) are also present and contribute to its
overgrown thicket appearance.
Table 1. Dominant species observed in Willards Woods early successional habitats/grasslands
7/10/2020 by field area.
Name Area (acres) Dominant plant species Notes/Invasive plants
Field 1:
Orchard/Warm
Season Grassland
1.25 Little bluestem
Purple lovegrass
Relatively uninvaded
Field 2: Shrubland 0.5 Grey dogwood
Round leaved dogwood
Poison ivy
Rubus spp.
Black-eyed susan
Joe Pye weed
Queen Anne’s Lace
Milkweed
Ailanthus, bittersweet,
multiflora rose, glossy
buckthorn
Field 3: Meadow 3.75 Grey dogwood
Milkweed
Joe Pye weed
Deer Tongue grass
Sensitive fern
Solidago spp.
Canada goldenrod
Huge swaths grey
dogwood.
Ailanthus, bittersweet,
glossy buckthorn
Field 4: Warm Season
Grassland
1.5 Sumac
Willows
Sassafras
Lots of sumac
Purple loosestrife
10 | P a g e
Field 5: Meadow 1 Little bluestem
Field 6: Warm Season
Grassland
1.8 Little bluestem
Dogwood
Rubus spp.
Sedge
Overwhelmed with
bittersweet
Field 7: Warm-Season
Grassland/Sedge
Meadow
0.5 Dogbane
Rubus spp.
Goldenrod
Sedge
Bittersweet
Glossy buckthorn
Field 8: Warm-Season
Grassland
3.5 Little bluestem
Clematis
Poison Ivy
Dogwood
Poplar
Reed canary grass
Glossy buckthorn and rose
along trail edges
Field 9: Sedge
Meadow
0.25 Rubus spp.
Clematis
This area is very overgrown
with woody vines
Forested Land
There is a diverse mix of forested habitats covering the Willard’s Woods landscape that helps
support a rich composition of plant and wildlife species. The most prominent forest community
is the white pine stand located in the center of the property that covers approximately 21 acres
and is the convergence zone of many of the Willard’s Woods trails. The other major forest
types are the red oak and transitional forest communities that are interspersed throughout.
Transitional oak forests are common throughout New England, having grown up in response to
extensive land clearing and heavy use for agriculture as well as in response to other
development and disturbance. In addition, there are also forested wetland habitats consisting
of a large red maple swamp in the western half of the property, and several mixed shrub
wetlands edges. Some of these forest communities are also classified as being Prime Forest
areas or have significant local importance in terms of timber productivity (see Additional Maps,
Prime Forest, p.55). Further description of the Willard’s Woods forests is included in the Forest
Ecological Assessment Report (Morrison, 2020), Appendix F, p.72.
11 | P a g e
Invasive Plants
Invasive plant species are characterized by several common attributes. They are generalist
species that are not native to North America and can adapt to and thrive in a wide range of
conditions, from full sun to shade, from dry to wet. Frequent colonizers of disturbed areas, they
produce abundant fruits and seeds, and may have far-reaching root systems. They may
reproduce sexually from seed, vegetatively (asexually) from rhizomes, or spread through the
dispersal of rhizome fragments.
In our region, invasive plants leaf out earlier in the spring than native species and maintain
photosynthetic capacity later in the fall. Some species are allelopathic – they can alter soil
chemistry to their competitive advantage. Because species that are classified as invasive in our
region are growing outside of their native range and away from the controlling influence of
their co-evolved predators, there are no biological checks to control their growth.
The combination of these characteristics allows invasive plants to aggressively compete with
and displace native plant communities. The resulting loss of biodiversity among native plant
species threatens rare and endangered specimens. Reduction of native plants also results in
reduction of associated insects, which in turn reduces food supplies critical to ensuring
reproductive success of many bird populations.
The Willard’s Woods property has several different species of invasive plants, both woody and
herbaceous. Some of the species represented here are quite extensive throughout the
property, such as glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus). Other species like oriental bittersweet
(Celastrus orbiculatus), shrub honeysuckles (Lonicera L.), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),
Norway maple (Acer platanoides), and winged euonymus (Euonymus alatus) occur in specific
areas at more manageable densities. Others still, such as common buckthorn (Rhamnus
cathartica L.) and border privet (Ligustrum obtusifolium) occur at very low densities and are
scattered. It should be noted that due to the time of year the majority of the assessments were
done that the presence of some herbaceous invasive plants may have been missed, though
black swallowwort (Ciananchum louiseae) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) were
identified during a final visit to assess field composition. Black swallowwort is considered a
high priority early detection species in the state of MA and should be at the top of the list for
12 | P a g e
invasive plant management at Willard’s Woods. Purple loosestrife, though not listed as a high
priority species, is known to take over fields very quickly. At the time of the visit, these plants
looked healthy, with no evidence of damage from the Galerucella biocontrol beetles. It is
currently at low enough densities to be considered an early detection species and managing it
now would take only a minimal effort and would prevent it from establishing. Though not
previously identified at Willard’s Woods, it will be important to keep a look out for other
priority early detection species such as Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum) and mile-
a- minute (Polygonum perfoliatum) in the years to come. These species are prevalent in the
eastern part of the state and early detection is key to their successful management. Further,
black walnut (Juglans nigra) was identified on site, both mature well-established trees as well
as saplings starting to establish themselves in the field. This species is not currently listed as an
invasive in the state of Massachusetts, but it can also take over fields quickly, and should be
monitored closely as well as treated alongside other invasive plants in any field management
activities. See Table 2 below for the full list of invasive plants identified at Willard’s Woods
during our 2019-2020 assessment. Invasive plant population maps are provided for reference
below (Figures 3-6).
13 | P a g e
Figure 3. Map displaying glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus) densities at Willard’s Woods
14 | P a g e
Figure 4. Map displaying high density invasive areas at Willard’s Woods
15 | P a g e
Figure 5. Map displaying moderate density invasive areas at Willard’s Woods
16 | P a g e
Figure 6. Map displaying low density invasive areas at Willard’s Woods
17 | P a g e
Table 2. Invasive species identified at Willard’s Woods
Scientific Name National Common Name
Alliaria petiolata (M. Bieb.) Cavara & Grande Garlic mustard
Berberis thunbergii DC. Japanese barberry
Celastrus orbiculatus Thunb., orth. var. Oriental bittersweet
Elaeagnus umbellata Thunb. Autumn olive
Fallopia japonica (Houtt.) Ronse Decr. Japanese knotweed
Frangula alnus Mill. Glossy buckthorn
Lonicera L. (shrub honeysuckles: morrowii, x Bella, etc.) Honeysuckle
Rhamnus cathartica L. Common buckthorn
Rosa multiflora Thunb
Euonymous alatus.
Multiflora rose
Winged euonymous
Ligustrum obtusifolium
Ciananchum louiseae
Lythrum salicaria
Border Privet
Black swallowwort
Purple loosestrife
Massachusetts Invasive Plant Advisory Group (MIPAG)
The Massachusetts Invasive Plant Advisory Group (MIPAG) has developed a classification
system for invasive plant species based on numerous agreed-upon criteria. Those plants
deemed to be invasive are listed as such for the Commonwealth. Other invasive plants are
classified as Potentially Invasive, Likely Invasive, or Not Currently Meeting Criteria.
All invasive species identified at Willard’s Woods are considered as such, with the exception of
Border Privet which is classified as a Likely Invasive.
Any population of target invasive species that occur at low densities or at isolated locations
would be considered early detection species (ED). Managing ED populations that are at low
levels will both prevent their spread and will also save time and money that would otherwise be
needed to manage larger infestations. In addition to black swallowwort, a priority ED species
found at Willard’s Woods, there are other populations with low enough densities, or that are
isolated enough where prioritizing management could prevent more extensive infestations.
These species and locations are included in our management recommendations.
Other species of invasive plants that are found at Willard’s Woods pose a threat to the specific
habitats in which they are growing. This approach, also known as site-led invasive plant
management, weighs the type of habitat threatened.
18 | P a g e
Species that are found in Willard’s Woods fall within some of these classifications and are
considered priority targets for management due to safety concerns, potential to invade intact
forest, impacts to resource areas/potential resource areas, or are at low numbers where early
management is key to success, include:
• Black Swallowwort
• Oriental bittersweet
• Japanese knotweed
• Winged euonymus
• Garlic mustard
• Purple loosestrife
• Glossy buckthorn *select locations
Guidance on the prioritization for management of these species and where they are found
throughout the property is discussed in the Short-Term Goals (p.23) and Long-Term Goals (p.35)
sections of this report. A map displaying priority areas for invasive plant management is also
included in the Short-Term Goals section for reference.
Infrastructure
As the most popular conservation land in the Town of Lexington, Willard’s Woods incorporates
many different types of infrastructure features for public use and enjoyment. There are miles
of walking and biking trails, parking and picnic locations, stone walls, bird boxes, and many
kiosks and signs provided for visitor interaction (see Additional Maps section, Overview, p51.)
However, many of these public resources are starting to age and are in some level of disrepair.
Kiosks and signs are starting to break and are due for upgrades, boardwalk planks are starting
to rot, the picnic area tables, and fire pits are in need of repair/replacement, and both the
stone dust bike path/carriage road and trail network are showing signs of degradation and
erosion from heavy use. The town is highly interested in upgrading and adding to some of
these features in order to improve upon the overall enjoyment and safety of its guests. Some
of the main priorities that are being focused on and considered include:
-Improvements to the parking area on North St.
- Bike path/carriage road repair and walking trail upgrades
-Handicap accessibility options
-Picnic area upgrades
-Kiosk and signage upgrades
19 | P a g e
-Viewing platform installations
To fully assess the conditions and feasibility of some of these priorities, Land Stewardship Inc.
partnered with trails and infrastructure specialist Dick O’Brien from Conservation Works, LLC.
This effort is discussed further in the Ecological Land Management and Design Plan under Long-
Term Goals (p.35). The full Universal Accessibility Trail Assessment Report can be found as
Appendix G.
20 | P a g e
Ecological Land Management and Design Plan
21 | P a g e
Ecological Land Management and Design Plan
The following plan is designed to provide a comprehensive look at how the Willard’s Woods
property has been managed in the past, and how it may be managed going into the future. The
management recommendations presented come from numerous discussions with the town
about their priorities and vision for the property, ideas, and feedback from the residents of
Lexington that utilize and love the property, as well as from our expertise and experience
guiding and managing land conservation efforts for the health, functionality, resiliency,
sustainability, and balance of natural ecosystems. The goal of this plan is to offer an
approachable set of management goals that will improve the Willard’s Woods landscape for
those that come to enjoy it, and that will strengthen its ecological integrity so that it can remain
resilient in the face of future change.
Site Goals and Challenges
Past Management
Historically Willard’s Woods was managed by the Willard Family as a working farm and wood
lot. A white pine stand, open grazing fields, apple orchard, and an active mill pond were all
functioning components of farm operations.
More recently, under the management of the Town of Lexington, Willard’s Woods undergoes
routine maintenance and management though a combined effort provided by conservation
staff, the town Department of Public Works, and stewardship volunteers. Maintenance and
management activities include, but are not limited to:
• Bridges
• Boardwalk
• Trails
• Kiosks
• Signage
• Bike path/carriage road inspections
• General upkeep
• Scheduled yearly late fall field mowing
• Trail and edge mowing in June/July
• Periodic trail weed whacking
• Litter control
• Fallen tree removal
22 | P a g e
• Plowing/parking lot repair
• Culvert clearing
• Periodic general stewardship visits by conservation staff
• Mill pond daylighting restoration effort
In addition, between the time Willard’s Woods was actively managed as farmland and its
transfer of status to conservation land, the Middlesex Mosquito Control Commission trenched
some of the wetland swamp areas in an effort to control mosquito populations (Kaufman
2019). During this time, downed tree material was also actively cleared from the stream.
Future Management Recommendations
Table 3. Management Goals for Willard’s Woods
Short Term Goals Long Term Goals
Invasive & nuisance plant
management - safety
(Roadsides/entrance)
Apple orchard replanting
Invasive plant management - priority areas
(fields/mill pond/select wetland & stream
edges/field edges)
Field restoration plantings– Pollinator Meadow
Mill pond area continued restoration Field edge reclaiming
Wildlife Improvements - bird and bat boxes installation/maintenance/interpretive signs Continued invasive plant management
Select stone wall vegetation clearing Parking area improvements North Rd/Upgrade Brent Rd entrance
Cedar tree management Trail head upgrades
Updated mowing schedule for field restoration Handicap accessibility/UA trail
Picnic area upgrades (fire pit, picnic tables,
etc.)
Bike path/carriage road upgrades and repair
Accessible viewing platforms & benches
23 | P a g e
Short Term Goals:
Short term goals are action items that can or should begin in the relatively near future. Most
tasks can be executed with modest planning and preparation and many already have the
support of the town and the public. The town is ultimately responsible for implementing these
tasks, but a few of these recommended projects can be achieved through the help of volunteer
efforts and educational outreach. Some of these goals are considered short term because they
need to be implemented before other management goals can be attempted.
Invasive (and nuisance) plant management in priority areas
Because of the large size of the property and the heavy representation of invasive plants
throughout, we have focused our management recommendations to key areas of interest
expressed by the town and the public, and to priority areas based on preserving natural
resources, habitat restoration, and feasibility. That said, these recommendations are just a
start and further invasive management and planning should be continued for the long term.
This will be discussed, and further guidance provided, in Long-Term Goals. We have broken
our recommendations down into management areas that can be viewed on the following
Invasive Plant Management Priority Areas map, Figure 7, p24.
24 | P a g e
Figure 7. Map displaying recommended invasive plant areas prioritized for management.
25 | P a g e
Management for safety
There are two areas along the property boundaries where invasive plants are a potential issue
to public safety. Both areas are where the boundary meets the road, and the invasive plants
are creating a visibility issue. These areas combined cover approximately 4,600 square feet of
road frontage. The first location is on North Street on both sides of the main entrance to
Willards Woods. There is Japanese knotweed along both sides of the entrance that blocks
motorists from seeing oncoming vehicles as they are trying to pull out. As of now, it is being
repeatedly cut back by the town when it becomes a problem. Japanese knotweed grows fast
and continued cutting takes a lot of repeated effort. The second location is further south on
North St. at the old carriage road/bike path trail entrance. Invasive plants cover the roadside
stone wall on both sides of the trail here and need to be continually cut back from the road. It
is recommended that these relatively small areas be managed more aggressively with the help
of herbicides to knock these invasive plants back for a more effective level of maintenance.
Another safety concern expressed by the visitors of Willard’s Woods is the extensive presence
of poison ivy on site. Though poison ivy is considered a native plant in Massachusetts, it still
poses a health issue for many people. For some, poison ivy exposure can lead to reactions that
are quite severe and require medical attention or even hospitalization. Because of the extent
of poison ivy on the property, it is not feasible to control all of it. However, it is recommended
that it be managed along trail sides through cutting, mowing, and the help of herbicides in
order to create a buffer and reduce the risk of exposure for the public. The trails at Willard’s
Woods span approximately 14,325 linear feet. Managing a five-foot buffer area on either side
of the trails (where applicable) would help reduce unwanted contact with this plant and keep
guests safe from its effects.
West wetland interiors and edges:
The western portion of the property includes two wetland areas covering approximately four
acres. Both of these wetland areas seem to be in a relatively healthy state, and their
26 | P a g e
interiors containing fairly low densities of invasive plants. As of now, there are also some
scattered, larger glossy buckthorn established within the interior at a lower density. A large
portion of these wetlands however falls outside of Willard’s Woods boundaries and are part of
the Diamond Middle School property. It would be beneficial if Willard’s Woods could partner
with the school to tackle the management of these shrubs/trees so that they do not establish
themselves further. Though the interiors of these wetlands are mainly clear of woody invasive
plants, the edges have a very high combined density of large, mature glossy buckthorn,
multiflora rose, climbing oriental bittersweet, and shrub honeysuckle. This density gets higher
as you move east along the wetland edge. Managing these edge areas as well as a bit of a
buffer is recommended in order to reclaim part of the wetland and to keep the established
invasive plants from continuing to spread inward. Since glossy buckthorn is still at a relatively
low density in these two southwestern wetlands, but at a high density along its edges, it is also
recommended that it be included in the species targeted for management in this area, where it
is not recommended elsewhere.
As the edge of this wetland swings north, and the wetland itself opens to the east, the
composition shifts, and the wetland becomes dominated by glossy buckthorn. It is
recommended that the large multiflora rose, honeysuckle, and climbing oriental bittersweet
are managed along this edge to keep them from spreading into the larger wetland complex, or
in the case of the climbing bittersweet, creating a potential safety hazard. Since this larger
wetland to the east already has a high density of glossy buckthorn, management of this plant
along this edge does not make sense at this time and will need to be discussed as a much larger
property wide, long term effort. Wetland edges and buffer areas in this southwestern section
of the property add up to approximately 3.5 acres of recommended management.
Oriental bittersweet/winged euonymus west hot spots:
In the west section of Willard’s Woods there are two areas where invasive plants have started
to work their way in from the edges of the property. This is most likely due to development in
the residential area abutting it. These pockets of woody invasive plants are a mix of shrub
honeysuckle, common buckthorn, oriental bittersweet, winged euonymous,
27 | P a g e
multiflora rose and privet. Of these two areas, the one that is dominated by oriental
bittersweet and winged euonymus is of higher concern and prioritized for management. This
area covers approximately 1.7 acres. If left unmanaged the oriental bittersweet may move
further into the property and damage/kill mature trees which also poses a risk to public safety.
For the time being, it is recommended that winged euonymus only be monitored here. As of
now, with the heavy infestation of glossy buckthorn in the surrounding forested upland area, it
is unlikely to spread much further. However winged euonymus at Willard’s Woods is currently
found only in this hot spot, scattered at very low densities at the property’s edges, and found as
an isolated patch in the white pine stand that will be discussed later. This species is known for
its ability to quickly take over forest understories and therefore should be managed to stop it
from spreading further in these western and edge locations.
In addition, there is also a stand of Norway maple in this section along the north boundary
near one of the boardwalks. The density of Norway maple throughout the rest of the property
is very low and mostly scattered trees. Though not specifically called out for priority
management, it may be of interest to manage this stand in the future and monitor the
scattered Norway maple throughout the property in order to keep an eye on whether or not it
is spreading or establishing further.
Fields:
There are approximately 14.5 acres of fields in the Willard’s Woods property, all of which are of
management and restoration interest. In order to move forward with any restoration plans for
these fields (see Field Restoration p.35), the invasive plant populations need to be managed
first. This will need to happen in conjunction with mowing efforts (see Updated Mowing
Schedule, p.42). During our field assessment, two invasive species were identified that would
benefit from immediate management efforts. The first, black swallowwort is a state listed
priority/early detection species. At the time of the field visit, only one plant was identified,
which indicates it is early in its establishment, but also most likely means there are several
more. Committing to a structured mowing schedule in addition to successive herbicide
applications will keep this plant from spreading further. Once black swallowwort has
28 | P a g e
established in an area it is extremely hard to manage, so moving forward with management
quickly will be key to getting ahead of this species. The second species to note is purple
loosestrife. Currently, this species is at very low densities scattered in small clusters near the
wetter sections of the fields. There was no evidence of Galerucella beetle damage observed
and these beetles most likely would not be an effective biocontrol unless the population was
much larger, which ideally should be avoided. This plant can take over fields very quickly and
becomes quite dense, forcing out other native plants. Managing for this plant as soon as
possible would be a fairly easy effort and will prevent it from becoming an issue. This can be
achieved by committing to a mowing schedule, spot herbicide applications, and even hand
pulling efforts. Finally, there is also a mix of woody invasive plants scattered within the fields at
low to moderate densities, with the exception of glossy buckthorn which can be found in higher
density pockets. These woody invasive species can also be managed with a structured mowing
regime combined with successive herbicide applications. In addition, several mature black
walnut trees were also identified as well as many young saplings in and around the fields.
Though black walnut is not listed as an invasive species in the state of Massachusetts, it grows
quicky and can take over fields if not properly managed. It is recommended that these young
saplings and any new growth seedlings be managed alongside the other woody invasive plants
found in these fields. Usually after a consecutive three-year herbicide application effort paired
with supportive mowing, woody invasive plants populations should be significantly knocked
back and easier to control. After a three-year management period, continued stewardship
through mowing, monitoring, spot foliar applications and/or hand pulling efforts should be all
that is needed to keep these species from re-establishing.
Field Edges:
In order to successfully manage the fields for invasive plants, the edges of these fields will also
need to be managed. There are approximately 9,270 linear feet of field edge at Willard’s
Woods. This includes interior stone walls along the old carriage road/bike path that are creating
edges for invasive plants to establish. Invasive plant management of other stone walls along
field edges would also be included in this effort. Managing these edges for invasive plants will
be an important step to take prior to any field edge re-claiming or additional stone wall
29 | P a g e
vegetation clearing that may occur (see Field Edge Reclaiming, p.41) and Stone Wall Vegetation
Clearing, p.33. It is recommended that all field edges be managed prior to, or in conjunction
with any field management and before any field restoration begins.
Managing an invasive buffer of 10-15ft along these edges (where applicable) averages
approximately 2-3 acres of recommended field edge management.
Mill Pond Area:
Management recommendations for invasive plants in the Mill Pond Area will also include the
above recommendations for managing invasive plants in the fields and along field edges. This
section, however, specifically focuses on managing invasive plants in the wooded areas
surrounding the pond, some of which have already been captured under field edge
management recommendations.
There is however, a larger wooded area to the south of the pond that extends to the south
boundary of the property that covers an additional 2.75 acres. Overall invasive plant densities
in this area are fairly high, particularly oriental bittersweet (which is again a priority due to
safety concerns), but also multiflora rose and shrub honeysuckle with lower densities of
common buckthorn, glossy buckthorn and privet. The high density of mature climbing
bittersweet here is most likely fueling the higher density of low growing bittersweet observed
in the fields around the pond. It is recommended that the entirety of this area be managed for
invasive plants (not just the field edge) in order to keep them
from continuing to re-seed, the fields and allow for a more successful restoration overall.
Stream edges:
There are two stream channels running through the Willard’s Woods property that extend
outside of the wetland areas. Both are priority resource areas and are recommended for
invasive plant management. Combined, they span approximately 2,020 linear feet. The first is a
small stream channel in the east/central portion of the property running north/south
connecting wetland areas. The two wetlands at the north and south ends of the stream are
being choked out with high density glossy buckthorn and will need to be part of a longer-term
invasive management plan for the property. However, much of this stream edge has fairly low
30 | P a g e
densities of invasive plants, and the north section of this stream channel just above the foot
bridge has an area of multiflora rose that would be beneficial to manage. The second is the
small stream channel in the south/central portion of the property running east/west. This
channel is surrounded on both sides by mixed woody invasive shrubs at varying densities. It is
recommended that the edges of both these stream channels, as well as a buffer zone, be
managed for invasive plants to restore these important resource areas. Combined, these areas
add up to approximately .5 acre of management.
Isolated winged euonymus patch:
Along the south boundary in the eastern portion of the property there is an isolated high
density winged euonymus patch with a few scattered large climbing oriental bittersweet
vines. This area is approximately .4 acres. It is recommended that this population of winged
euonymus, as well as the few mature bittersweet vines be managed in order to prevent these
species form spreading further into the wooded areas or adjacent fields.
Mill Pond area continued restoration
The historic Mill Pond area, as mentioned previously, is a key area of management interest. It
has already undergone an initial restoration and daylighting effort on the inlet and outlet of its
stream channel in order to open the historic pond back up for public enjoyment. Since the
completion of this effort, there has been difficulty finding a balance managing this area for the
public. Willard’s Woods as a whole is a popular place for the public to walk their dogs, and the
pond has been a highly visited location within the property. This has caused continued
degradation to the banks, the overall condition of the pond, and has potentially hindered the
re-establishment of native plantings in the surrounding field area. To remediate this issue the
town has put in temporary fencing to keep dogs out of the pond itself, but this does not solve
the larger issue and was meant as only a temporary solution. It is recommended, (in addition
to the suggested invasive management discussed in the previous section and the
recommended meadow management that will be discussed in the next) to present this area
more clearly as a restoration sight while simultaneously improving the area for public
enjoyment. This can be achieved simply, by updating the fencing around the pond, adding in a
31 | P a g e
bench or two, installing educational signs to inform the public of the restoration effort, and
requesting at the same time that dogs stay on trail though this area.
Bird, Duck, and bat boxes
Bird boxes:
There are several bird boxes installed along field edges of the Willard’s Woods property. With
the goal of overall field restoration, a priority for this site, it would be beneficial to revitalize
this initial effort. The first recommendation would be to investigate the specs, condition, and
usage of the bird boxes that are currently standing. If they have evidence of being used, then
the next step would be to observe them in the Spring and see who is using them to determine
if they are being utilized by desirable species. If they do not seem to be used, consider moving
them to locations that have a lower amount of pedestrian and dog traffic. As of now, these
boxes are all located near trail junctions. It would be more ideal to place them deeper into the
fields, away from active trails. Also take into account the direction they are facing, the height
they are mounted, and whether or not there are overhanging branches nearby. All of these
components factor into what species may decide to use the box. Another consideration is
determining if they are already designed to attract a particular species. Check hole size and
overall dimensions. Some species are not so specific in what they look for when it comes to a
nesting box as long as they can fit.
While others, such as the eastern blue bird have set requirements.
Based on this information, it may be desirable to build/buy and place new boxes designed
specifically for species of interest, or build/buy ones that are more general to encourage a
diverse mix. This will be based on the decisions made from the field restoration
recommendations discussed later (see Field Restoration p.35). Overall field restoration is set as a
long-term goal, but starting to troubleshoot the bird boxes, investigating specifications for
individual species, building, buying, and installing, can be accomplished as a short-term goal to
get the process started. Resources for building blue bird boxes can be found in Appendix B.
32 | P a g e
Duck boxes:
One duck box was found along the brook in the northeastern part of the property. Most likely
this was installed for wood ducks, which was noted as a previously observed species at
Willard’s Woods. The placement of the box and habitat composition of the surrounding area
should be desirable as a wood duck nesting site. Opening up and managing the brook it is
placed on for invasive plants will also help make this location more attractive to potential
nesters. It is recommended that the box be checked for signs of nesting and overall
condition/repair needs. In the long term, once the brook area is fully restored it may be
desirable to install a second box nearer to the southern wetland as well to further encourage
wood duck nesting. This is not a necessary effort to attract wood ducks since the property
already has the wetlands, streams and standing cavity trees that meet the needs of wood
ducks, but the boxes will add to the overall resources available to them.
Resources for building wood duck boxes can be found in Appendix B.
Bat boxes:
Bat boxes would be an excellent addition to the Willard’s Woods property. There are nine
species of bats in the state of Massachusetts, five of which are listed as endangered in the
state. Of those five species, one is also listed as federally endangered, and one is listed as
federally threatened. Installing bat boxes provides additional roosting sites for these animals
and helps support their conservation. Having healthy bat populations is beneficial for the
environment in many ways. For one, they would help manage the mosquito population, which
is assumedly high with so many wetland areas on the property. It would also help reduce the
threat of Eastern equine encephalitis (EEE) which has started to become more of a concern in
the eastern parts of Massachusetts in recent years. Second, it is also an opportunity for wildlife
education and active conservation on the property. Five of our nine bat species in
Massachusetts are classified as endangered under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act
(MESA). There is currently one bat box located near the west trail entrance to Willard’s Woods
near the Diamond Middle School. Installing more bat boxes will help provide additional
roosting sites for female bats to raise their young. They will also spark interest and
conversation from the public. If handled correctly, there is an opportunity to engage further
33 | P a g e
support and investment to wildlife on site as well as to the property overall. One cautionary
note here is that bats are considered controversial wildlife. Mainly it is because they are
misunderstood. There is a lot of false information circulating that gives them a bad name or
instills unnecessary fear. Providing the public with the right resources and information ahead
of time will be very important in this effort it is of interest.
The main recommended area for installing bat houses would be in the main east fields along
the brook corridor. This location provides nearness to a running water source, nearby
wetlands, and fields with plenty of flying insects, enough space to allow for an east- southeast
positioning, and an open flight path desirable to bats. Another area that may be a good
location for a bat house would be next to the old mill pond. This location also has features
desirable for bats and since it is already in the process of being a restoration highlight for
Willard’s Woods, it would be a great location to stage an educational component for this effort.
Resources for building/installing bat houses as well as helpful bat fact sheets can be found in
Appendix B. Proposed locations for bat houses (approximate) are displayed on the Other
Management Areas map in the Additional Maps section (p.54)
Bird and duck boxes as well as bat houses are excellent projects to engage the local
community. Volunteers and local boy scout groups could easily become involved and help in
these efforts. This would increase overall stewardship support and bring additional educational
value to Willard’s Woods.
Select Stone wall vegetation clearing
Historic stone walls border and crisscross all over the Willard’s Woods property. Clearing some of
these stone walls for aesthetic value, and to reclaim a historic snapshot of the property as it once
was, is of interest to the town and the public who come to enjoy it.
Though under studied, stone walls across New England have been observed functioning as an
important habitat feature and corridor for several species of animals, from salamanders, frogs,
and turtles to mice and chipmunks, to raccoon, fox, bobcat, coyote and even black bear. They
are a man-made structure that has become a unique component to how wildlife survives and
thrives in our landscape, especially in more highly developed areas. The walls of Willard’s
34 | P a g e
woods most likely function as a crucial habitat feature for many species trying to navigate a
landscape heavily used by the public, their dogs, cyclists, and that is fully surrounded by
suburban development. The stone walls in Willard’s Woods most likely won’t be utilized by
some of the species listed above, such as black bear, but will most definitely be utilized by
many others, including several not mentioned. That said, the overall recommendation is to
leave most of the walls on the property as they are, with a few possible exceptions where
management and clearing may be beneficial as well as provide aesthetic value. These areas are
displayed in the Other Management Areas map in the Additional Maps section (p.54).
The first location where stone wall vegetation clearing, and management may be beneficial is
along the old carriage road/bike path leading in from North Street. This trail is bordered on
both sides by stone walls and in sections, these walls are covered in invasive plants. There is
also an intersecting stone wall that runs to the south at the west opening of this section (see
Additional Maps, Property Overview, p.51). The recommendation here would be to manage
invasive plants first, then clear back any of the remaining lower shrubby and immature
vegetation leaving select mature trees along the road for cover and aesthetics. On the south
side of the road between the wall and the field to the west side of the old mill pond, as well as
section of wall running south from the west opening, it may make sense to clear the area
further, expanding the field a bit (see Field Edge Reclaiming p.41. Overall, it is beneficial to
leave some cover when clearing the stone walls. This can be achieved by leaving select mature
trees along the length of it, and by leaving one side of the wall as wooded.
A second location where stone wall clearing may have aesthetic value, minimal impact on
wildlife and some benefit, is around the westernmost field. A stone wall borders the north
side of this field and is covered partially in invasive plants. Managing the invasive plants and
clearing the wall would help create a buffer from the invasive glossy buckthorn north of the
wall. The stone wall bordering the east side of the field does not have many invasive plants
but is backed by white pine forest. Clearing the stone wall and pushing back the field edge to
the wall here, and on the north side would provide a nice overall view of the stone wall field
border and still preserve cover for wildlife.
A third possible location for clearing would be the stone wall that runs east/west along the
35 | P a g e
north edge of the northernmost field. There is also the potential for some field re-claiming
here as well (see Field Edge Reclaiming p.41). This area is where the main access to the
property is located and seems to be the most utilized. There is a picnic and fire pit area already
in place here that is already on the priority list for improvements (Table 5, p.45).
There is also a possible apple orchard restoration for this field in the future (see Apple Orchard
Restoration, p.37). Because this particular area is a high priority area for improvement already,
also opening up the wall for aesthetics and public enjoyment makes sense in this location.
Cedar tree management
The Eastern red cedar tree (Juniperus virginiana) is present in most of the fields at Willard’s
Woods at varying densities. The goal with managing this tree will depend on what is decided on
for overall field restoration (see Field Restoration p.35). Ultimately, if left unchecked, the cedar
trees will continue to establish themselves and take over the fields.
No matter what direction the restoration of the fields is taken, it is recommended that a large
portion of the cedar trees be removed in most areas, leaving only a select few behind. Cedar
trees provide an important food source for both birds and small mammals. They also provide
cover, roosting areas, and nesting sites for several bird species. Leaving a tree or two in some
of the field areas would provide an additional habitat resource for many species. Continued
field management and mowing regimes will keep cedar trees from establishing and taking over
the fields. See Updated Mowing Schedule (Table 4, p.42).
Long Term Goals:
Long term goals are action items that may need a bit more planning, preparation, support,
permission, and in some cases the acquisition of more extensive funding. Some of these goals
are considered long term because they cannot be implemented until other goals are met
beforehand. They can also be goals that may be able to start in the short term but will need to
be executed over the long term to be successful or come to completion.
Field restoration
The fields at Willard’s Woods are broken down into seven discrete areas totaling approximately
36 | P a g e
14.5 acres. All of these fields have invasive plants at varying densities that will need to be
managed prior to any restoration efforts as discussed previously. When initially assessing the
layout of these fields, we considered two types of management approaches. The first possibility
was to manage for grassland bird habitat, and the second was to manage for more of a diverse
mosaic of field and shrub land habitat types. In investigating for grassland bird management, it
became clear that the overall juxtaposition and acreage of fields would not be supportive of
grassland bird species. Species, such as the eastern meadowlark, and upland sandpiper, require
higher acreages than Willard’s Woods can provide (60-100 acres minimum). Other grassland
bird species like the bobolink and the vesper sparrow require smaller acreages preferring 10-15
at an absolute minimum (Atwood, 2017). These acreages could be achieved at Willard’s Woods,
though the layout of the fields would not be supportive of these birds. Minimum acreages need
to maintain an open visibility to be desirable for these species. These conditions cannot be
achieved on this property without significant tree removal and disruption to the landscape.
The ideal option would be to manage the fields in order to achieve a more diverse mosaic of
habitats. This can be achieved at Willard’s Woods, by managing them in a way that supports
what they already want to be based on the characteristics and conditions already present (see
Field descriptions p.7). A map displaying these field compositions and recommended
management goals can be found at the end of this section (Figure 8, p.40). This approach is
desirable for many reasons. Managing for habitat diversity supports a wider range of species in
an area, increases biodiversity and leads to healthier, more resilient systems overall. With
climate change one of the most significant threats to our planet, encouraging and supporting
stronger, more complex systems is our best defense in order to adapt to the changes to come.
It would also provide the opportunity to manage for more early successional habitats. In the
state of Massachusetts, shrubland and young forest habitats are underrepresented (NRCS,
2012). Many of our forested areas have been allowed to fill back in since the height of our
agricultural days, but have done so all together, creating a more even aged distribution, and
ultimately a lower diversity of forest age classes. There are many species that require the use of
these younger habitats to fulfill part, if not all their survival and reproduction needs. Because of
this, we have seen a decline in the abundance and distribution of many species once common
37 | P a g e
throughout the state. Managing for these early successional habitats will help promote and
support many of these species that are finding it hard to locate the resources they need to
survive. The American woodcock, historically documented at Willard’s Woods, is an example of
a species who would benefit from a mosaic of habitat types (Managing Forests for Trees and
Birds in Massachusetts, Mass Audubon, 2016). Others, like the White throated sparrow, also a
historic visitor to this property, would benefit from more young forest representation.
In addition, there is also an opportunity at Willard’s Woods to increase habitat diversity even
further and establish areas as pollinator meadows. There will be the chance to incorporate
many different species of native flowers in managing shrubland areas as well but designating
set pollinator meadows will provide solid resource areas for insect species that are also facing
a decline in quality habitat. Managing and protecting areas for pollinators is essential not only
for the survival of countless species, but also to ensure our continued ability to grow crops for
food, fiber and medicine. Insects are often a forgotten, yet integral part of how healthy
ecosystems function.
Apple orchard replanting
The northeast field of Willard’s Woods was historically an apple orchard (Figure 8, p.40). It is
approximately 1.25 acres. The town Conservation Division is interested in once again
establishing a small apple orchard at this location to bring back some of the features of this
property’s past, and for the enjoyment of the public. Restoring this field as an apple orchard
would also be a benefit to local bird and wildlife species as it brings an additional food source,
cover, perching and roosting sites to the property. It is also a low cost, low management
addition that would be fairly easy to execute. The only reason this potential project is listed as
a long-term goal is because management of the invasive plants should happen prior to any
restoration efforts.
Warm season grasslands
The predominant potential habitat type that presents itself in the fields of Willard’s Woods are
warm season grasslands, which total approximately 8.5 acres. These areas are presented on
the field management map as Areas 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8 (Figure 8, p.40). These fields with small
38 | P a g e
amounts of little bluestem are indicating their potential to be full-fledged warm season
grassland habitat if they are managed accordingly. Managing these fields for invasive plants as
is discussed earlier and supporting that effort with a committed mowing regime (see updated
mowing schedule, Table 4, p.42), will give the native plant species the opportunity to thrive.
By incorporating an early season mow (June) in addition to a late Fall mow, warm season
grasses are encouraged, and the cool season species discouraged over time. Warm season
grasses begin to germinate and grow when soil temperatures are reliably above 65 degrees
Fahrenheit in the early-mid June timeframe. Mowing in June provides these grasses with a
competitive advantage. Another technique which may be used to encourage warm season
grasses is to broadcast sulfur as one would broadcast lime to increase soil pH or apply fertilizer
to make land more productive for growing crops. Sulfur will do the opposite. It will bind up
nutrients and render the area more nutrient poor which will support the desired grasses.
Shrubland
Another desirable habitat type that is presenting itself at Willard’s Woods are shrublands.
Though any of these fields can be transitioned and managed as shrublands, there is a location
already in transition that is also an ideal spot, to be managed as such. This area is defined as
Area 2 on the Field Restoration map (Figure 8, p.40). At approximately half an acre, this location
would provide enough of an area to be beneficial for wildlife, without taking over too much of
the Willard’s Woods overall field acreage. Once invasive plant management is underway, a Fall
mowing on a three-to-five-year cycle will keep this area at the desirable age class to function as
an early successional shrubland habitat.
Native Meadow
In addition to the more clearly defined warm season grasslands presenting themselves at
Willard’s Woods, there are also native meadow and native wet meadow habitat types with even
more of a mix of species represented. Totaling approximately 4.75 acres, these areas (Areas 3
and 5 on the Field Restoration Map, Figure 8, p.40) are an opportunity to encourage habitat
diversity even further. In line with what is recommended above, consistent invasive plant
management combined with a committed mowing regime will support a healthy native meadow
39 | P a g e
composition. Once invasive plants are under control, restoration can be taken even one step
further with the additional introduction of more rare native plants historic to this area, such as
New England blazing star (Liatris novae-angliae).
Groups such as Grassroots Wildlife Conservation Program and Native Plant Trust are both great
resources if exploring this option is of interest.
Pollinator/Sedge Meadow
Another opportunity for encouraging field habitat diversity is managing select spots as pollinator
meadow. During our field assessment, we identified a small .25-acre field that would be an ideal
location to work on such a project. Currently, this site is presenting itself partially as a sedge
meadow, but with many other invasive and aggressive species mixed throughout. Located near
the Brent Rd. and Hathaway Rd. entrances, it would be an excellent spot to welcome the public
entering Willard’s Woods. It is also a great opportunity to create a public outreach project and
get the community involved and engaged with the property. Invasive plant management and
mowing would also need to be part of this effort at the forefront, but with some additional
planning and effort, this small forgotten field could be transitioned into an important habitat
pocket for wildlife such as pollinators which is a very hot topic right now. If this is of interest, we
recommend reaching out to Grassroots Wildlife Conservation Program and Native Plant Trust,
both mentioned above, who can assist in designing a project that will work specifically with the
needs of Willard’s Woods.
Mowing Alternatives
Another option that may be considered for the property as an alternative or supplement to
mowing would be to utilize grazing animals such as goats and sheep in the form of conservation
grazing. We recognize that goat grazing has previously been initiated within Lexington’s
conservation lands (Idylwilde Conservation Area and Chiesa Farm) and may be considered for
Willard’s Woods. Animals should be allowed to graze the months of April and May and taken off
the land by mind-June to be effective tools for encouraging warm season grasses. Likewise,
prescribed fire would be a great tool for these objectives, but we recognize that it will be very
difficult for a fire program to gain traction for managing the conservation lands of Lexington.
40 | P a g e
Figure 8. Map displaying field habitat types and acreages recommended for management.
41 | P a g e
Field edge reclaiming
As mentioned in the Field Edges section, there are approximately 9,270 linear feet of field edge
on the Willard’s Woods property. All of the field edges at Willard’s Woods have some degree of
invasive plant pressure. Where field restoration is a priority for this property, management of
invasive plants along these edge areas is recommended in order to prevent continued field
encroachment. By doing so, many of the field edges will be reclaimed to some degree by
default. After an initial invasive plant management effort in these areas, the town can then
decide if opening up any additional field acreage is desirable or not. In some cases, there will be
an added benefit of allowing parts of these areas to be managed as shrubland and early
successional habitat as discussed in the previous section. In other instances, this effort can go
hand in hand with other priority management activities, such as stone wall clearing, particularly
in the Mill Pond restoration area and in the southwest field near Brent Rd. There are however a
couple of field edge areas where reclaiming is not recommended. These areas include the south
edge of the southwest field near Brent Rd. and the western edge of the large main eastern
field. In both locations, there are small stream channels running in the woods behind the fields.
Once invasive plants are managed in these areas, a wooded buffer should be maintained along
the edges of these streams.
This may mean considering some future restoration plantings in areas where this zone is
already very narrow such as in the large main east field. Maintaining a buffer along these
streams will provide essential cover for several wildlife species, as well as keep water
temperatures regulated for numerous insects and aquatic organisms. One exception to this
may be in the northern section of this field, where more extensive invasive management is also
recommended. Providing a small opening here along the east side of the channel, north of the
trail and bridge, would allow better access to water for bat species if bat habitat restoration is
of interest.
Continued invasive plant management
Invasive plant management must always be considered a long-term stewardship effort. Invasive
plants can be reintroduced to the area by wind, birds, and other animals. Seed banks can also
42 | P a g e
remain viable for years, re awakened by numerous environmental factors. To keep invasive
plants out of the area for the long-term after short term management has been completed, it
will be necessary to monitor the property by scouting for new patches and individual plants.
Options for managing invasive plants after an initial management has been completed, usually
include hand-pulling, spot herbicide spraying, and/or repeated cutting.
In the interest of glossy buckthorn management, where there is a large scale, property wide
infestation, a long-term species-specific management plan should be discussed and considered
for the future. Managing this plant over the entirety of the property is most likely not realistic,
or financially feasible, but there are options to reduce the pressure this species inflicts on some
of the properties more important resource areas.
Further guidance on how to prioritize and manage invasive plant infestations on a large
scale can be acquired through the Invasive Plant Management Decision Analysis Tool,
developed by the Nature Conservancy, ipmdat.org.
Updated mowing schedule
Table 4. Mowing schedule
Field ID Management
Goal
Winter Spring Summer Fall
Area 1 Warm Season
Grassland/Apple
orchard
June October
Area 2 Shrubland
October
*Every 3-5
years
Area 3 Native
Meadow
June
*Until woody
vegetation is controlled
October
Area 4 Warm Season
Grassland
June October
Area 5 Native Meadow June
*Until woody
vegetation is controlled
October
43 | P a g e
Area 6 Warm Season
Grassland
June October
Area 7 Warm Season
Grassland/Sedge
Meadow
June October
Area 8 Warm Season Grassland
June October
Area 9 Pollinator Meadow June
*Until woody
vegetation is controlled
October
*After this mowing regime and invasive plant management has been underway for a few years,
the need for biannual mowing can be re-assessed. Once a balance has been restored in these field
habitats, returning to an annual mowing regime may once again be sufficient to maintain
desirable field composition.
Infrastructure improvements
One of the main topics of interest in developing an Ecological Design & Land Management Plan for
the Willard’s Woods property was to assess how to incorporate a Universally Accessible Trail (UA)
system for the public. To do this, Land Stewardship Inc. recruited the expertise of Dick O’Brien of
Conservation Works LLC. to assess the feasibility and potential of such an upgrade to the existing
trail network. During his assessment, Dick walked all trails to determine the best and most
realistic location for the UA trail, what upgrades would be needed to make it happen, and the
costs associated with it. He also assessed the parking area at North Street, the southwest
entrance trail connection at Brent Road, all bridges/boardwalks, and signage/kiosks for upgrade
potential. In addition, he looked at a possibility of enhancing the trail system even further with a
viewing platform near the Diamond Middle School. The findings, recommendations, and costs
associated with these assessments can be found in Dick O’Brien’s Universal Accessibility Trail
Assessment Report as Appendix G. A more detailed task and cost breakdown can be found in
Table 5. Priorities, Projects, Cost Estimates (p.47). Included below is a map of the proposed route
for the UA trail upgrade (It is also included in the full UA trail assessment report).
44 | P a g e
Figure 9. Map displaying proposed UA Trail.
45 | P a g e
Schedule of Management Activity
Table 5. Priorities, Projects, Cost Estimates
Recommendation
Acreage Priority
Level
Cost
Estimate
(+/- 20%)
Variables
Invasive & Nuisance Plant
Mgmt. - Safety
- North St. Japanese
knotweed &
roadside invasive
plants
.12
High
$1,250
Hazardous roadside work
- Trailside poison ivy
3.3
High
$3,250
Possible trail closures during
treatment.
Invasive & Nuisance Plant Mgmt.
– Safety Total
$4,500
Invasive Plant Mgmt. – Priority Areas
- SW Wetlands
4
High
$3,600
Permitting needed
- Wetland edges
3.5
High
$4,350
Permitting needed
- Stream corridors
.5
High
$1,250
Permitting needed
- Fields
14.5
High
$25,000
- Field edges/field edge
reclaiming
2.5
High
$3,750
- Mill Pond woodland
2.75
Medium
$4,250
- Winged Euonymous patch
.5
Medium
$1,100
- West hot
spot/climbing
bittersweet
1.7
High
$2,350
Invasive Plant Mgmt. – Priority
Areas Total
$45,650
(+/- 20%)
Invasive Plant Mgmt. –
Continued Stewardship
$3,500
Includes annual assessment/mgmt.
prioritization and two days of follow
up crew work
Cedar Tree Management $3,500
46 | P a g e
Select Stone Wall vegetation clearing
1
Medium
$1,650
Field Mowing 14 High $6,000 Cost based on 2 annual mowing’s.
Field Restoration Plantings –
Pollinator Meadow
.25
High
$7,500
Mill Pond Area Continued
Restoration -
Interpretive signs/protective
fencing/benches
High
$6,500
$6,000-
$8,000
$2,000-
$4,000
Interpretive sign, sign lumber,
installation hardware, 2 benches
Wood post and rail fencing around
pond
Labor and installation
Mill Pond Area Continued Restoration
Total
$14,500-
$18,500
Apple Orchard Replanting Low $3,200 Cost based on 20 trees plus labor.
Total will depend on how much of
this area the town would like to
plant for aesthetics.
Infrastructure Improvements
Bike path/carriage road upgrades &
repair
$32,000
- 6’ wide, compacted ¾” graded
base surface, no geotextile, no
finish layer, no loaming of the
sides
Very basic upgrade, widens and
raises trail to eliminate wetness
issue through the field and
crowding issues due to
narrow conditions.
Handicap accessibility/UA Trail
$165,000
- 6” ¾”graded base layer,
compacted
- 4” bike path/carriage rd.
finish layer, compacted
- 6’ wide geotextile
separator between the
layers
- graded loam sides, out to
6’ on either side
- NE Conservation Mix
No excavation of treadway
47 | P a g e
Accessible viewing platforms/benches
$1,600 to
$12,850
- Material choice, wood,
stone, steel, aluminum,
recycled material
- Quality level, base level to
premium
- Landscaping/ plantings
included, plants, trees,
mulch, etc.
- Signage, interpretive
panels, or other
- Memorial features, brass
plaques, stones, engraving,
etc.
Parking area improvements North Rd -
Upgrade Brent Rd entrance
$10,700-
$21,500
- Size & location of parking
area, 4 cars or 8 cars or
more at North Rd, and 2
cars at Brent Rd.
- Landscaping around the
parking area, guard rails,
stones, handicap signage,
etc.
- Material used, assumes
compacted gravel, could be
bit. Concrete
- Number of structures, kiosk,
dog waste station, other signage, bench
Trail head upgrades
$5,350 -
$16,000
each
- New kiosks, new mutt-mitt
stations, new waste
receptacles,
- Benches, bike racks, new map/information panels
- Design, materials and quality
Handicap parking design
and materials
Infrastructure Total
$220,000-
$263,350
Wildlife Improvements
Bird, Duck, Bat Boxes
Low
$150-$200
Cost for materials to build 3 each
Interpretive Signs (e.g. coyotes, bats)
Low
$5,500 each
Cost for signs, lumber and
installation hardware
Picnic Area Upgrades High $0 Scout project permitted in 2021
48 | P a g e
Table 6. Yearly Ongoing Management/Stewardship
Winter
(Jan-March)
Spring
(April-June)
Summer
(July-Sept)
Fall
(Oct-Dec)
Monthly Property Visits x x x x
Annual Work Plan with Staff and Stewards x
Safety Meeting with Staff, Stewards, Police and
Fire Dept.
x
Trail Walk/Clean Up (downed limbs, drainage
issues, signage)
x x
Building Projects (kiosks, signposts, etc.) x x
Invasive Plant Management x x x
Mow Meadows x x
Clean out nest boxes x
Boundary Walk (monitoring for encroachments,
signage, etc)
x
Monthly Property Visits x x x x
Bat box checks x
49 | P a g e
Challenges
The main challenges at Willard’s Woods are those we face in any urban/suburban highly
developed landscape. There will always be human impacts no matter how well the park is
cared for by both staff and visitors alike. Some of these impacts are easier to mitigate than
others, and all require public cooperation and stewardship to support the health of this
landscape. Willard’s Woods is highly loved by many of Lexington’s residents, as well as many of
its neighbors. This means there is an exceptionally high volume of visitors and heavy public use
of the Willard’s Woods foot trails, bike trails, picnic area, and parking access points. Heavy use
leads to faster degradation and more frequent need for repair and replacement. It also means
that there is increased pressure to the park resident and visiting wildlife species and increased
human wildlife interactions. Further, there is an increasingly high level of dog walking activity at
Willard’s Woods due to a lack of other park systems or dog parks in the immediate area. The
challenges here are safety, individual dog behavior and training issues, dog waste, increased
wildlife pressure/interaction, and wildlife habitat disruption/degradation.
The town has tried to manage these challenges in several ways. One solution was to create on
and off leash times for dog owners. This was so that owners with timid dogs, or with dogs that
have particular needs could also find a time to enjoy the park. This approach however depends
on the participation of the public and is hard to enforce. There have been several complaints
of people not adhering to these rules and creating issues for other dogs as well as their
owners. It also doesn’t require or ensure that dogs stay on marked trails. This leads to
increased wildlife habitat disruption and degradation as well as undesirable interaction. As
dogs run in and out of field areas, shrub thickets, streams, wetlands, and woodland areas, they
are impacting these animals where they are trying to seek refuge from the public. Another
solution was to temporarily fence off the Mill Pond. The Mill Pond area is an active habitat
restoration site that was degrading quickly due to heavy public use. Though prohibited, and
even with interpretive signs in place, the pond banks were eroding from both dog and human
use. A more permanent fencing solution and additional educational signage to stress the
importance of this restoration area are priorities of the town and are
recommended/supported in this report. Further, the town is
50 | P a g e
trying to keep up with the repair and replacement needs of the Willard’s Woods infrastructure
due to the increased public use of this property. Part of the goal of this plan is to provide
support and recommendations for these projects to help the town make decisions on how to
move them forward.
Finally, climate change is now a universal challenge we all face in our changing global
landscape. In terms of managing Willard’s Woods in the years to come, prioritizing habitat
health and function, managing for resiliency, and decreasing overall impacts and pressures will
be essential in order to adapt to these changes. The more diverse, complex and healthy a
system is, the stronger it will be in the face of adversity.
51 | P a g e
Additional Maps
52 | P a g e
53 | P a g e
54 | P a g e
55 | P a g e
56 | P a g e
57 | P a g e
Conclusion
Willard’s Woods is an invaluable piece of open space land in the greater Boston area. It is providing
essential habitat for wildlife in an otherwise highly developed area and offers important recreational
opportunities and enjoyment to many residents throughout the region. This property already hosts
a variety of habitats and an impressive diversity of wildlife within its hundred plus acres. In helping
to improve the quality of those habitats, and managing for their long-term health and resiliency,
Willard’s Woods will be able to support its resident wildlife, insect, and plant populations and will
allow these systems to adapt and thrive in the face of climate change.
By making thoughtful management decisions that take into consideration the balance needed
between nature and the public, there is the opportunity to improve the overall habitat conditions at
Willard’s Woods without the need for extreme measures. In working with the characteristics and
features that are already presenting themselves throughout the property, it will ensure a successful
management strategy that will be sustainable and easy to follow for the long term. The results of
management are always better when you work with a system rather than against it.
The New England landscape has undergone a lot of change and disturbance throughout its history.
Willard’s Woods is no different. What is remarkable about these ecosystems and communities is
that when given the opportunity, they almost always bounce back. They are resilient by nature. If
we put in the effort to remedy some of the human created pressures put on these landscapes
through supportive restoration, they will ultimately function the way they were meant to. The
management recommendations, observations and guidance presented in this plan are intended to
do just that.
58 | P a g e
Appendices
59 | P a g e
Appendix A.
References
Atwood, J., J. Collins, L. Kidd, M. Servison and J. Walsh. 2017. Best Management Practices for Nesting
Grassland Birds. Mass Audubon; Lincoln, Massachusetts. 10 pp.
Mass Audubon, Managing Forests for Trees. A guide to habitat assessments and silvicultural practices.
Adapted from Vermont’s Foresters for the Birds Program. 2016.
NRCS, Conservation Practices Benefit Shrubland Birds in New England. January 2012.
Appendix B.
Resources
Bats:
Bats house building/installation guides and bat fact sheets
*From MassWildlife
https://www.mass.gov/guides/bat-houses
https://www.mass.gov/doc/living-with-bats-printable-fact-sheet/download
https://www.mass.gov/doc/build-a-four-chamber-bat-house/download
Wood Duck Boxes:
Wood duck box plans and installation guides
*From MassWildlife
https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/wi/wood-duck-box-plans.pdf
*From Ducks Unlimited
https://www.ducks.org/conservation/waterfowl-research-science/wood-duck-boxes
Blue Bird Boxes:
Blue bird box guides/installation/fact sheets
*From Norcross Wildlife Sanctuary
https://www.norcrosswildlife.org/wildlife-sanctuary/programs/bluebird-nestbox-programs/
*From the North American Blue Bird Society
http://www.nabluebirdsociety.org/nestbox-plans/
http://www.nabluebirdsociety.org/PDF/NABS%20factsheet%20-%20Nestbox%20Recs.pdf
60 | P a g e
Appendix C.
Invasive Plant Species Map Key
GB – Glossy buckthorn
CB – Common buckthorn
HS – Shrub honey suckle
MR – Multiflora rose
WE – Winged euonymous
OB – Oriental bittersweet
AO – Autumn olive
NM – Norway maple
P – Privet
Appendix D.
NRCS Soils classification legend *Full NRCS Soils Report on file with the Town of Lexington
61 | P a g e
Appendix E. Photographs
Mixed herbaceous species found in much of the main Area 3 field
Milkweed in west section of Area 3 main field
62 | P a g e
Woody vegetation establishing along edges of Area 3 main field
Oriental bittersweet in Area 5 field northeast of Mill Pond.
63 | P a g e
Wet meadow characteristics in a south-central section of the main field, Area 3.
Black walnut and bittersweet in Area 5 field northeast of Mill Pond.
64 | P a g e
Glossy buckthorn establishing in Area 7 sedge meadow.
Warm season grassland characteristics presenting in Area 4.
65 | P a g e
View of freshly mowed Area 1 field looking towards North Street entrance.
View of understory at oak hemlock/shrub swamp transition zone.
66 | P a g e
Windstorm tree damage at edge of white pine stand.
View of glossy buckthorn saplings in the white pine understory.
67 | P a g e
View of glossy buckthorn saplings in the white pine understory.
View of Mill Pond in late Summer.
68 | P a g e
Fire pit and picnic area at west end of Area 1 field. North St. entrance.
View looking east along the trail on north side of Area 3 field.
69 | P a g e
Glossy buckthorn saplings in northeast wetland understory.
View looking northeast down main carriage road/bike path.
70 | P a g e
View looking northeast down main carriage road/bike path.
View of bridge crossing into Area 5 field near Mill Pond.
71 | P a g e
View looking northeast across footbridge towards North St. entrance.
View of boardwalk running along edge of wetland in north central section of the property.
72 | P a g e
View of Mill Pond in late Fall.
View of interior stone wall.
73 | P a g e
Appendix F. Ecological Assessments
Town of Lexington
Willard’s Woods
Forest ecological assessment
and management considerations
Prepared by
Andrew Morrison
Forest Ecologist
3/10/2020
74 | P a g e
Introduction
Willard’s Woods is a conservation property owned and managed by the Town of Lexington. While not
physically connected to other conservation areas it has connections to other town managed open
spaces including the adjacent Diamond Middle School and is part of a small regional corridor for wildlife
movement.
The property has a variety of habitat types, includes evergreen woodlands, deciduous woodlands,
forested wetlands, shrub wetlands, a perennial brook, a small pond and a variety of open lands. This
richness of habitat types is an incredible asset to the ecological function of the property. There are four
dominant forest communities on the property. The most prominent communities are the white pine
forest and midslope oak forest communities, while the property also has a transitional forest
community, a red maple swamp and a small area of sand plain forest 1.
The forest communities at Willard’s Woods are even aged. The dominant canopy trees in each stand all
established at the same time as one another. While there is a spectrum of forest ages on the property
ranging from roughly 35-120 years old (based on a rough sample of tree cores) the property does not
contain what is considered either old forest or young forest. Old forest is generally a rare commodity
within New England due to the history of land clearing and agriculture which boomed throughout the
early 1800’s. While pockets of forest that predate European settlement exist, even many of these have
75 | P a g e
been heavily influenced by human management. Old forest need not however be synonymous with old
growth forest. Old forests can in some instances be defined by their structure as much as by their age.
An old forest may mimic an old growth forest in structure by having a multitude of tree size and age
classes, gaps in the canopy, dead standing trees and cavity trees and large dead wood material on the
forest floor 2. Other aspects of old growth forest are particular to age and may include shifts in bark
chemistry that occur with tree age. In the contexts of Willard’s Woods meaningful old forest would be
difficult to manage for or achieve but some of the above stated structural features, including cavities,
snag trees and large dead wood material on the forest floor, are achievable objectives. Young forests are
forests which are just developing. These forests tend to be less than 15-20 years of age when the
developing trees are still at very high densities. These forest types are far easier to create than old
forests but also are an important part of the forested landscape and are the rearing grounds for a wide
variety of species, especially several species of migratory songbird.
In addition to age diversity the forested habitats do not provide for strong interior forest conditions.
Forests are impacted by what is referred to as the “edge effect” a set of ecological conditions driven by
light levels and microclimate which makes the habitat of the forest different along its boundary with
other habitat types than within its interior. The extent of the edge effect is situational but can be
commonly thought of as extending roughly 300 feet from the forest edge. The forest interior is the areas
of forest not impacted by this edge effect. Of the just over 100 acres at Willard’s Woods roughly 75% of
them are forested, this increases the edge effect on the forest and represents a trade-off between
habitat diversity and forest integrity. Edge effect on the property is also in part due to the shape of the
property, which is not a square but rather a more organic shape that is narrower north and south than it
is east and west. The forest interior at Willard’s Woods can be estimated at roughly 5.5 acres, a value so
low that it is questionable whether it is ecologically significant. In addition to its small size this section of
interior forest is the confluence of most of the properties trail system, increasing the amount of human
interaction for wildlife seeking this type of habitat.
77 | P a g e
Forest Ecological Communities
White pine forest
This forest has a unique composition within the conservation lands in Lexington and forms the
geographic and woodland core of the property. This forest is dominated by eastern white pine which
forms the majority of the canopy. White pine is a fast growing species and is also capable of greater
height growth than the other tree species common to New England, often forming a super canopy which
rises above the maximum height of the surrounding trees. Many pure stands of white pine were
established on abandoned agricultural fields. These communities were often susceptible to attack by an
insect pest which would bore out and kill the leading green shoot of the tree. The damage induced by
this weevil insect would require the pine to signal side branches to take up the torch and form a new
leader. The resulting “weevilled” trees were of poor health and had multiple competing tree trunks. The
pines at Willard’s Woods, while established after agriculture, show almost no signs of weevil damage
and most cases are well spaced, large and healthy trees as demonstrated by their broad and deep tree
crowns. Unfortunately these tall trees are vulnerable to storms and many of the pine in this stand have
signs of some type of storm damage. In some cases storms have killed individual trees. The dead and
storm damaged trees have increased the structural diversity of this stand by generating low densities of
standing snags, some very large woody material on the forest floor and some light openings which have
in places favored white pine or hardwood trees to regenerate.
Trees Site
Estimated Age* 90+
Course woody material
Fine woody material
Leaf litter
Moderate
Moderate
Adequate
White pine
Red maple
Red oak
White oak
Quaking aspen
75%
9%
9%
5%
2%
Mean Diameter
(quadratic)
15.5
Total basal area
Canopy basal area
Suppressed
basal area
Dead trees
Trees per acre
133 ft2/acre
92 ft2/acre
42 ft2/acre
15 ft2/acre
112
Regeneration Low to moderate,
primarily with American
beech or red maple in
the midstory and low
levels of pine in the
understory
Health Notes Wind damage present
* based on tree cores
White oak is a minor component of the stand and these wide crowned trees, which are now shorter
than the surrounding pines, are likely older. White oak is not as fast growing a tree as its red oak cousin
and the trees would not have established such wide crowns in the shade of the pines surrounding them.
Some of these oak trees have died which has also increased the amount of snag material in the stand.
78 | P a g e
The midstory of the stand has some white pine as well as a small mix of hardwood species including red
maple and the shade tolerant American beech.
The understory of the stand has low bush and high bush blueberry as well as a small component of
American holly, a species found in excessively sandy soils. Glossy buckthorn is common throughout the
understory. Some wintergreen, partridge berry and other herbaceous plants were present but most
were hard to identify during the winter months.
Midslope Oak Forest
This community is the major deciduous component of the forest. The canopy dominant in this stand is
red oak, which is a fast growing species, but is joined by red maple and at times American beech, white
pine, bitternut hickory, quaking aspen and white ash. This stand has a fairly regular ecological gradient
from what is considered a midslope oak community to a low slope oak community. In the strongly
upland sections of the stand red oak is the dominant tree with red maple, as a minor canopy component
and occasional hickory, primarily shagbark hickory, or white pine. Closer to the wetland edges at the toe
of the slope or where the ground appears to be seasonally less upland in nature, red maple is a stronger
component of the stand composition, sometimes more dominant a component than the oak. This stand
has low to moderate levels of woody material on the forest floor. Competition between trees is present
and has led to the death of some, mostly midsized trees. Many of the oak are beginning to shed larger
low branches because of competition which will help to form more tree cavities over time. Epicormic
branching is common on the oaks and is often a sign of stress. Gypsy moth damage has been common
throughout the southern range of Massachusetts over the past several seasons and may be the root
cause. Red maple is prone to rot as it ages and cavities are more common in these trees and will likely
continue to develop over time.
The midstory of the stand has red maple, shagbark hickory and some American beech throughout with
occasional pockets of white pine.
The understory has high and low bush blueberry present as well as some signs of herbaceous plants
including ground raspberries, Lycopodia such as princess pine and some fern species. Invasive plants are
common throughout this forest type. The primary species is glossy buckthorn pockets of winged
euonymus and Asiatic bittersweet are also present as are other species at lower densities.
Within the northeast corner of this community is a small pocket of pitch pine. Pitch pine is a fire adapted
tree species which is considered an important ecological indicator of the sand plain forest community.
Trees Site
Estimated Age* 60+
Course woody material
Fine woody material
Leaf litter
Moderate
Moderate
Generally Adequate
Red oak
Red maple
White Pine
Pitch Pine
American beech
Shagbark hickory
Hardwoods (5 species)
46%
27%
15%
4%
3%
2%
4%
Mean Diameter
(quadratic)
11.6
79 | P a g e
Total basal area
Canopy basal area
Suppressed
basal area
Dead trees
Trees per acre
101 ft2/acre
72 ft2/acre
29 ft2/acre
9 ft2/acre
150
Regeneration Low to moderate,
understory and midstory
regeneration of red
maple and white pine
with other species as
well
Health Notes Oak have lots of
epicormic branching.
Some red maple have
heart rot
* based on tree cores
While this section of woodland is too small to be considered a sand plain forest, the pitch pine is an
indicator, like the American holly, of the sandy well drained nature of the higher points of land at
Willard’s Woods.
Transitional Forest
This is the youngest forest type on the property. This forest stand likely only developed within the past
30 years, having previously been open land. The canopy is primarily red maple and quaking aspen with
some white pine and black cherry present. This stand has a lower canopy height than the surrounding
forest and smaller average tree size due to its young age. Old pasture remnants are still present in the
midstory such as red cedar and crab apple. Other midstory species include white pine and red maple.
This stand has very few cavities and almost no large woody material on the forest floor, neither of which
would be anticipated in a stand this young. This stand seems to have a higher overall density of invasive
plants. The primary species is glossy buckthorn but Asiatic bittersweet and bush honeysuckle are also
present. While the quaking aspen in this stand are still in good health, this is a short lived species and
will begin to die back and deteriorate in the coming years.
Trees Site
Estimated Age* 35
Course woody material
Fine woody material
Leaf litter
Moderate-Abundant
Moderate-Abundant
Somewhat Adequate
Red maple
White Pine
Quaking Aspen
Bigtooth Aspen
Paper Birch
Hardwoods (3 species)
36%
24%
19%
12%
2%
7%
Mean Diameter
(quadratic)
8.4
Total basal area
Canopy basal area
105 ft2/acre
60 ft2/acre
Regeneration Moderate to high
midstory regeneration of
red maple with some
white pine and other
species as well
80 | P a g e
Suppressed
basal area
Dead trees
Trees per acre
45 ft2/acre
9 ft2/acre
270
Health Notes Red cedar are declining
or dead, aspen will begin
to decline in the future
* based on tree cores
Red maple swamp
This is a forested wetland area, primarily dominated by red maple of a variety of sizes, including multi-
stemmed trees. As is common in these wetland communities the trees are much smaller than their age
would suggest, averaging well below 12 inches in diameter after greater than 50 years of growth.
Management Considerations
Willard’s Woods has numerous management pressures. An attempt is made here to identify some of the
current and future management considerations and the inherent trade-offs which need to be
considered.
Current considerations
Old Forest: The white pine forest at Willard’s Woods is best positioned to provide old forest
characteristics as several of these characteristics already exist. This stand, because of the quick growing
nature of white pine, has large trees present already. Past storm events have snapped the tops out of
some of these pines and created dead standing snags, larger woody material on the forest floor and
small canopy gaps. Storm damage to the remaining pines is inevitable so additional management actions
will generally involve timely public outreach and management vision to prevent salvaging and woods
cleanup from occurring following these storms.
Young Forest: The transitional forest areas are best positioned to provide rotational young forest. These
forest areas are not yet well established, don’t occupy the core of the property and in several cases
contain species of trees that grow rapidly from root sprouts such as aspen. Willard’s Woods has 3
distinct patches of transitional forest that could be managed as 4 young forest blocks with the
southeastern block of forest managed as two pieces of forest divided by the open field. Having 4 forest
blocks would allow for canopy clearing on one of them every 5 years. This scheme would allow for a
rotation that would keep some acreage of young forest always present on the property. Cutting would
not necessitate tree harvesting and cut trees could be left in place with larger trees girdled if desired.
The primary obstacle to implementing the establishment of young forest is the control of invasive
plants. Many of the transitional forest zones on the property are around the property edges, areas that
already have high invasive plant pressure. The perpetuation of disturbance in these areas will continue
to provide establishment opportunities for invasive plants. The investment in both the creation of these
forests and the invasive plant control can be thought of in terms of its investment in nesting habitat for
song birds such as the golden-winged warbler, chestnut-sided warbler and indigo bunting and dozens of
other migrating birds that are in decline because of the lack of this critical habitat throughout New
England 3.
81 | P a g e
Hazardous trees and Wildlife habitat: Dead standing trees and trees with interior rot are important
habitat features in an unmanaged forest. These trees are not just a critical part of old forest, but provide
habitat for a host of insect and fungus species which form the backbone of the forest food web as well
as providing physical structures for bird and mammal species to inhabit. In order to continue to promote
cavity tree habitat it is important to retain dead trees whenever possible. Although dead trees can
sometimes pose a hazard to visitors they should be kept in place whenever they occur in a location
where it is unlikely that they could cause any harm. If trees must be removed then leaving the dead
material in place on the forest floor will provide a different type of habitat for a suite of amphibian and
mammal species to utilize. While the Massachusetts manual on Best Management Practices does not
give specific guidance for snag retention or forested lands they do require snag retention in the context
of some biomass harvesting operations in which they require that 5 snags greater than 10” in diameter
be retained per acre 4.
Gypsy moth: Over the past several years Massachusetts has had severe gypsy moth outbreaks 5. Gypsy
moths are a non-native insect pest whose caterpillar larva can appear in devastating numbers and eat
the entirety of leaves from both canopy and midstory trees and shrub species. While plants are often
capable of responding from the loss of their leaf crop in any particular season, multiple years of
defoliation or the combination of defoliation with drought or other stressors can kill even mature trees.
In a forest area as small as Willard’s Woods the loss of a large area of tree cover would be a severe
disturbance that should trigger emergency management actions. Control strategies could include such
actions as insecticide applications and a plan should be established ahead of time to prevent the need
for a reactive management strategy in the event that severe outbreaks occur. A strategy should be
developed with the input of a licensed Arborist which establishes a monitoring system and threshold for
management in order to determine when the Town of Lexington should take action to protect Willard’s
Woods from a severe moth outbreak.
Invasive plant species: Invasive plant species are pervasive throughout the forests and other natural
areas at Willard’s Woods. These plants are given special consideration elsewhere and so it will suffice to
say here only that they degrade the ecological integrity of the forests where they occur, can reduce the
recruitment of new tree growth and are capable in some cases of killing established trees. Management
of invasive plant species will be a critical step in attaining any of the management goals laid out in this
document.
Carbon sequestration: In this age of climate changes many communities are looking for methods for
offsetting their carbon footprint. As Carbon Markets increase town managers may also think to look to
Willard’s Woods for revenue. Managing forests for carbon sequestration can be a complex task to
evaluate and often requires trade-offs with other management objectives. The clearest information
regarding carbon sequestration is that forests store carbon, and they store it well. Forests in the
northeast are storing nearly twice as much carbon as grassland communities and 6 times that which is
stored in developed areas. New England forests, and the oak dominated woodlands in particular,
sequester greater quantities of CO2 than the other woodlands types across the whole of the United
States because of the forests’ structure and species adaptations 6. A forest has a variety of “carbon
pools”, such as living tree material or soil organic material, where carbon is stored. Carbon can shift
between these pools due to human or natural processes and each pool of carbon has different
capacities and durations for storage. Research into maximizing carbon storage through management is
difficult to perform because of the complexities of the lifecycle analysis involved. It is known that carbon
stored in wood which is used for durable projects such as furniture or housing can remain locked up for
over 100 years. Management that focuses on rapidly growing trees for these end uses could
82 | P a g e
theoretically increase carbon sequestration over other forest uses but is complicated by the emissions
outputs involved in the harvesting, processing and transportation of these materials as well as the
carbon releases from the impact on forest soils 6. Unmanaged forests, in contrast, do not facilitate the
fastest tree growth rates but do have higher plant densities than managed forests. In addition,
unmanaged forests can eventually lead to the death of trees and accumulation of woody material which
continues to store carbon on the forest floor and within forest soils.
Future vulnerability assessment and planning
What the future holds has a great deal of uncertainty but that does not preclude exploring the predicted
changes, assessing the vulnerabilities at Willard’s Woods and developing plans and strategies to meet or
pre-empt future challenges.
Many changes face New England in the coming decades but in particular increased pressure from
development, the arrival of insect pests and changes in climate are the most striking. Each of these
challenges is unique in its own way and likewise the level of threat which each possess to Willard’s
Woods is unique.
Development pressure: Willard’s Woods, as described in the introduction, is already embedded in a
matrix of heavy human development. Future development of the property itself could be considered
non-existent but the development of the neighboring landscape can’t be entirely ignored. In their
analysis of the Town of Lexington open spaces updated in 2015 the civil engineering firm VHB identified
Willard’s Woods as part of a local corridor for wildlife 7. While Willard’s Woods does not have
continuous connecting woodlands surrounding it, neighborhood tree cover and open spaces such as
William Diamond Middle School help to connect the woodland to other woodland areas including Chiesa
Farm, Parker Meadow Conservation Area and the Ada Govan Bird Sanctuary. While the woodland areas
mentioned above are not at risk, changes in the tree cover in surrounding neighborhoods could have an
outsized impact on the utilization of this connecting corridor system by wildlife.
Insect Pests: Non-native insects are not unknown to New England. Within the oak dominated
woodlands of Massachusetts many are familiar with the gypsy moth caterpillar. This non-native insect
pest can reach incredibly high population levels which are capable of defoliating the canopy of a mature
forest. Regionally there are several other insect pests of great concern which include the emerald ash
borer and Asian longhorn beetle. Each of these species has a preferred host profile and their impact on
Willard’s Woods can be predicted based upon the current forest composition. Emerald ash borer is a
recent arrival to Lexington 8. This insect pest has been spreading throughout New England with
saddening effect. As the name of this species implies its target host plants are all members of the ash
genus. White ash is present on the property but at very low levels. The loss of ash at Willard’s Woods,
while not inconsequential for the regional forest community, would not have a dramatic effect on the
forest cover or species composition of the property due to the minor number of trees present. If
community support existed there are system insecticide products which can be used to prevent
infestation of a particular tree. Such an application should be done by an Arborist and is a way that
Willard’s Woods could provide a small refuge during this period of ash devastation. Asian longhorn
beetle has been identified at a site in Worcester, Massachusetts, one of only 3 infestations nationwide.
This infestation has been managed through a Federal eradication effort which has had an overwhelming
positive impact but has been a costly decade long endeavor 9. The impact of an infestation of Asian
longhorn beetle would be severe. The beetle has a wide range of host species which include the maples,
ash species, birches, sycamores, willows, poplars and elm species in Massachusetts. These trees
83 | P a g e
comprise a significant portion of the hardwood species on the property. Despite the severity of the
threat the likelihood of infestation is very low and any infestation would be managed with a Federally
orchestrated response. Generally the best strategy for the prevention of insect infestations is to educate
residents and local industries about the movement of wood products. Asian longhorn beetle was
introduced to the Worchester area in pallet stock, while gypsy moth caterpillar and emerald ash borer
are both easily transported within firewood. People can move these insects orders of magnitude further
than they are capable of flying on their own so the responsibility is in our hands to slow their spread.
Climate: Climate change is a global threat with yet unknown implications. Research has provided some
regionally scaled modeling for anticipated changes based on global modeling predictions that have some
utility in understanding the impact of climate change on eastern Massachusetts. Generally speaking,
under all of the climate models New England is likely to experience increases in average temperature
and precipitation 10. Changes in both of these climate phenomenon have some level of variability in the
level of change expected but models of precipitation have more variability than those for temperature.
Likewise, while research points to the theoretical potential for an increase in extreme weather events,
such as high intensity rain fall, high wind events or hurricanes, these uncommon occurrences are
difficult to establish a historic baseline for and therefore models are a poor indicator of what to expect
in the future. These broad shifts in climate will effect each of New England’s forest ecosystems
differently. The central hardwood-pine ecosystem which covers much of eastern Massachusetts
including Willard’s Woods is not a particularly vulnerable ecosystem. Our oak and pine woodlands are at
the northern range of a similar ecosystem type that stretches into regions of the country that already
experience the type of climate predicted to occur under warming models. It is expected that this forest
type will fare better than many of the other regional forest types because of the abundance of drought
and warm weather adapted species which are present including the oaks and hickories 10.
Other associated changes from climate change include increases in ice storm damage, moisture stress
and drought, high wind events and heavy rainfall events. These associated events may have a greater
impact upon Willard’s Woods than the general shifts in precipitation and temperature norms predicted
under climate change scenarios. Unlike the shifts in climate that can be easily modeled it is hard to
predict the likelihood or severity of these associated changes. The best management protocol in the face
of such uncertainty is to manage the forest for greater adaptive capacity to better assist it in weathering
whatever the future may bring.
Managing for Adaptive Capacity
In addition to the aforementioned shifts in climate patterns and associated changes, climate change is
likely to have an impact on existing stressors including invasive plant species, insect pests and others.
While there is no silver bullet for managing a forest in these changing times any efforts that can be
made to reduce existing stressors on forests will increase their adaptive capacity. The following
management goals have been selected from those identified by the USFS Northern Research Station as
opportunities to restore or increase forests’ adaptive capacity 11.
Maintain or restore hydrology: Willard’s Woods has several areas of open and forested wetlands. As
precipitation regimes change, either with alterations of the seasonal timing and type of rainfall or the
severity of rain events, the capacity of wetland areas to absorb large amounts of surface water and
restore ground water supplies will be important. Efforts that restore wetland areas through invasive
plant removal or the mitigation of any existing drainage modifications that may exist from the
agricultural legacy of the land would increase the capacity of these wetlands to play their part.
84 | P a g e
Maintain or improve capacity to resist pests: Insect tree pests, both native and non-native, are
attracted to stressed trees. Likewise, trees under stress are more likely to die from insect damage.
Reducing other stress factors on a tree, specifically competition with neighboring trees, can be a
mechanism for reducing a trees chemical stress signals and increasing a trees capacity to weather a
season insect outbreak such as defoliation by gypsy moth caterpillars.
Remove or manage existing invasive plant species: Invasive plant species have numerous impacts on a
forest ecosystem including competing with newly established trees for growing space, altering soil
nutrient regimes and even competing with mature trees for resources. Invasive plant management is
addressed more specifically elsewhere but all of these impacts can harm the existing forest (eg. Asiatic
bittersweet vines girdling mature trees) and future forest (eg. glossy buckthorn outcompeting the
establishment of climate adapted shagbark hickory seedlings).
Manage for the threat of wind or storm events: If the severity of storm events increases or shifts in
temperature regimes result in heavy icing events while trees still have leaves it could result in
devastating damage to the trees at Willard’s Woods. Managing for wind can be difficult but often
focuses upon avoiding harsh woodland edges on the face of a mature forest that faces prevailing or
winter storm winds and not drastically thinning mature trees which are in an exposed location. In
particular, the white pines at Willard’s Woods are likely the most susceptible trees on the property to
wind and storm events because of their large healthy crowns and height above the surrounding tree
cover. While thinning some of the white pine may be necessary in the future to ensure that the
remaining trees continue to have enough growing space any cutting should be careful to ensure that the
remaining trees are not left exposed on more than 2 sides. In addition, storm damaged trees can
increase important old forest characteristics and storm damage should not trigger salvaging activities.
Promote a diversity of age classes: While it has been noted earlier in this document that forests of
varying age classes are important in providing a variety of habitat conditions it can also be an important
factor in increasing adaptive capacity. Just like any “all your eggs in one basket” style recommendation,
forests and trees have different characteristics and structures at different points in their development.
For simple example, you may recall from Robert Frost’s poem Birches that the ice storm of the tale has
bent over the birch trees “They are dragged to the withered bracken by the load; And they seem not to
break”12 yet research presented at the Monadnock Natural History Conference in 2019 by Peter
Palmiotto found that on Mount Monadnock in New Hampshire it was birch trees that suffered worst
from the 2008 ice storm which damaged trees throughout the region13. The difference between the
flexible trees of Frost’s playtime forest and the brittle trees on Monadnock was simply age. While young
birch trees and other saplings can be bent low under a load without damage, the older paper birch on
Monadnock was over-mature and no longer able to respond to the ice loading.
Conclusion
Willard’s Woods is an important part of the forested and open lands in the Town of Lexington. At
present the property is providing a wide variety of forest and wetland cover types as well as some
variation in forest maturity. It is also a cornerstone of a regional wildlife corridor and is providing habitat
types for a variety of wildlife species documented elsewhere in this report. In addition to the current
conditions, the property offers management opportunities that can enhance the overall value and
adaptive capacity of the woodland, expanding its value to the Town of Lexington now and into the
future.
85 | P a g e
- Old forest structure through snag tree and course wood material retention
- Improved woodland habitat value through invasive plant control
- Increased age diversity and young forest habitat creation
- Plan for thresholds and reactions to insect pest outbreaks
- Protect and restore the hydrology of wetland areas
- Act as a part of broader public messaging campaign about timely subjects such as the need to not
move firewood
Along with these opportunities the woodlands also face challenges. While the forest is poised to
weather some of the clearest changes in climate which are predicted there are still challenges to come
for which the forest will need management and support. Steps taken to mitigate the current stressors
and to prepare for future adaptive capacity will only increase the forests value to the Town’s human and
wild communities.
End Notes:
1 (pg. 1) Jorgensen, N. 1978. Sierra Club Naturalist’s Guide to Southern New England. Sierra Club Books.
San Francisco.
2 (pg. 2) D’Amato, P. Catanzaro. Restoring Old-growth Characteristics. UMass Amherst Outreach
Publication. UMass Extension Service.
3 (pg. 8) Wildlife Management Institute. Young forest guide. www.youngforest.org.
4 (pg. 9) Cantanzaro P., J. Fish, D. Kittredge. 2013. Massachusetts Forestry Best Management Practices
Manual 2nd Edition. Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.
5 (pg. 9 ) Gypsy Moth in Massachusetts. https://www.mass.gov/guides/gypsy-moth-in-massachusetts#-
history-of-gypsy-moth-in-ma-. Accessed 3/4/20.
6 (pg. 9) Janowiak, M., W.J. Connelly, K. Dante-Wood, G.M. Domke, C. Giardina, Z. Kayler, K.
Marcinkowski, T. Ontl, C. Rodriquez-Franco, C. Swanston, C.W. Woodall, M. Buford. 2017.
Considering Forest and Grassland carbon in Land management. USFS General Technical Report WO-
95
7 (pg. 10) Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB). 2015. Town of Lexington Open Space and Recreation Plan
2015 update.
8 (pg. 10) Emerald Ash Borer in Massachusetts. https://www.mass.gov/guides/emerald-ash-borer-in-
massachusetts#-current-detections-. Accessed 3/4/20.
9 (pg. 11) USDA Aphis. 2019. Eradication Program Announces Plans for Fighting Asian Longhorned Beetle
and Reminds Public of Quarantines.
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/newsroom/news/sa_by_date/sa-2019/alb-eradication. Accessed
3/4/20.
10 (pg. 11) Janowiak, M.K., A.W. D’Amato, C.W. Swanston, L. Iverson, F.R. Thompson III, W.D. Dijak, S.
Mathews, M.P. Peters, A. Prasad, J.S. Fraser, L. A. Brandt, P. Butler-Leopold, S.D. Handler, P.
Danielle-Shannon, D. Burbank, J. Campbell, C. Cogbill, M.J. Duveneck, M.R. Emery, N. Fisichelli, J.
Foster, J. Hushaw, L. Kenefic, A. Mahaffey, T.L. Morelli, N.J. Reo, P.G. Schaberg, K.R. Simmons, A.
Weiskittel, S. Wilmot, D. Hollimger, E. Lane, L. Rustad, P.H. Templer. 2018. New England and
Northern New York Forest Ecosystem Vulnerability Assessment and Synthesis: A report from the
New England Climate Change Response Framework Project. USFS Norther Research Station. General
Technical Manual NRS-173.
11 (pg. 12) Swantston, C.W., M.K. Janowiak, L.A. Brandt, P.R. Butler, S.D. Handler, P. Danielle-Sharon,
86 | P a g e
A.D. Lewis, K. Hall, R.T. Fahey, L. Scott, A. Kerber, J.W. Miesbauer, L. Darling. 2016. Forest
Adaptation Resources: Climate Change Tools and Approaches for Land Managers 2nd Edition. USFS
Northern Research Station. General Technical Report NRS-87-2.
12 Frost, R. 1949. The Complete Poems of Robert Frost. Henry Holt and Co. New York.
13 Palmiotto, P. 2019. Monadmock’s Resilient Forests: Impact and Recover from the 2008 Ice Storm.
Monadnock Natural History Conference, Keene, NH.
Ongoing Management/Stewardship
Annually Every 5 years Every 10 years
Property visits x
Cut young forest habitat x
Assess hazard trees for retention or
removal
x
Monitor for insect pest threats x
Invasive plant species control projects x x
Update to survey and Recommendations x
Priorities, Projects, Cost Estimates
Recommendation Priority Level Cost estimate Variables
Old-Forest retention High Low Requires inaction following storm
events and visitor education
Young forest creation Moderate High Invasive plant control required
Insect Pest Preparedness Low Moderate Gypsy moth preparedness is a higher
priority than E. Ash Borer
preparedness
Invasive plan control
projects
High High See planning document for priority
locations
Restore Hydrology Low High Restoration efforts may not be
necessary given the age of the farm
drainage structures
Thinning for tree health Low Moderate-High Thinning trees can promote health
and reduce risk of disease and insect
damage, but is at odds with
management for carbon
sequestration
87 | P a g e
Town of Lexington
Willard’s Woods
Wildlife Assessment
Observations, Interpretation and Management
Recommendations
Prepared By:
Jessica Applin
Wildlife Ecologist
Land Stewardship Inc.
March 2020
88 | P a g e
Introduction
When it comes to wildlife, Willard’s Woods is an important tract of open space land nestled
within a highly developed urban/suburban landscape. The town of Lexington itself sits just to
the northeast of what quickly becomes the concrete jungle of the inner Boston area. Willard’s
Woods, along with a few other scattered areas of greenspace throughout the town, create an
essential network of habitat resources utilized by many wildlife species. It is within these core
areas, with the help of residential backyards, small stream corridors, rail trails, bike trails, and
powerlines, that the wildlife in this area are able to move around in order to piecemeal together
the resources they need to survive.
Assessment Methods
The Willard’s Woods wildlife assessment was conducted over the course of four and a half
months, running from mid-November 2019 through the end of March 2020. Because of the time
of year this survey was executed, the focus of the assessment was on small-medium and large
mammals, with a few exceptions. The methods utilized included: Track identification, wildlife
camera trapping, sign and spoor observation, and visual/auditory confirmation. These methods
can be used to collect data quantitatively, qualitatively, or both, depending on the purpose and
scope of the study. The goals for the Willard’s Woods wildlife assessment were to identify as
many of its wildlife residents as was feasible during the winter months, get a sense of activity
levels of its key members, and to observe where and how they are utilizing the property. For this
assessment, all data and observations collected was done on a qualitative level for the purpose of
educating the town and its residents about the wildlife they are sharing Willard’s Woods with.
Track Identification
Winter snow tracking in the northeast is an effective way to determine species presence/absence,
activity levels, frequency of occurrence, and movement patterns within an area of interest, or
across a larger landscape. This method can be used on a quantitative level by running line
transects and collecting data on only those species who cross the lines, or, qualitatively by
exploring a property more holistically and collecting observational data as you encounter it.
Either approach, when taking tracking data for a set purpose, requires specific snow conditions in
order to collect quality data, and to get a more accurate sense of activity levels of the animals
89 | P a g e
moving through the landscape. The recommended protocol is for tracking to occur 24-48hrs
after a significant snowfall event, usually at a minimum of 3 inches to ensure a more even snow
cover. This re-sets the canvas so to speak. You can track animals at any time but may not get an
accurate representation of activity levels or number of individuals unless you follow a protocol.
For example, you may come across an area that is covered with coyote tracks and assume that
there is a high number of these animals living there. But, if it has been several weeks since the
last snowfall, what you might be seeing is one or two individuals moving through or utilizing the
same area every day. Animals are creatures of habit.
Ideally, the winter snow tracking method would have been utilized over the course of the entire
four-and-a-half-month assessment. However, the 2019-2020 winter season in Massachusetts did
not produce any significant snowfall aside from one early season storm. This meant shifting to
more mud and leaf litter tracking/trailing and putting more of a focus on wildlife camera data
collection.
Wildlife Camera Trapping
The use of wildlife cameras on a property is an excellent way to collect data on wildlife with
minimal disturbance or disruption to the animals. Not only can it be used to confirm track
observations, it can also be used to investigate areas or interest, habitat types, resource features
or areas of concern. There are also many species that are difficult to track, especially if they are
small, lightweight, or moving through leaf litter conditions, or across hard substrate. Wildlife
cameras provide a way to explore other options for data collection.
Wildlife cameras were deployed starting in mid-November and were rotated to different
locations in Willard’s Woods until the end of March. In total, there were six separate locations
where cameras were set up throughout the property. Locations were chosen to represent
different habitat types, resource areas, and points of interest based on field observations. All
were set back away from trails and the bulk of human traffic. These areas covered the northeast
shrub wetland, northeast oak upland, a northeast den site, the southwest oak upland, a southeast
wet meadow, and the white pine forest.
Sign & Spoor
Sign and spoor observation and identification go hand in hand with tracking. Sign and spoor
90 | P a g e
cover all the other pieces of evidence left behind by wildlife. This evidence includes things like
scat, deer antler rubs/incisor scrapes on trees, midden piles, scent scrapes, browsed foliage,
bedding sites, dens, game trails, holes/tunnels, kill/feeding sites, bones, etc. Basically, anything
that gives proof an animal was there. These observations help to flesh out the story of who is
living on or using a property, and what behavior they are engaging in while they are there.
Visual/Auditory
Finally, there are the wildlife observations and identifications made directly through sight and
sound. Wildlife professionals and enthusiasts are not often rewarded with actual encounters, and
if acting responsibly, do not seek them out except at safe distances where the animals can be
observed but not influenced. When sightings do occur, such as coyote pups at the edge of a field,
a red fox skirting the edge of a shrubland, or a black bear turning to run deeper into the forest, it
is a true gift. Of course, in the greater Boston area, we are more likely to see the wildlife
exceptions such as the grey squirrel or chipmunk that are habituated to human presence, but it
doesn’t mean a rarer sighting won’t occur from time to time, or that certain species aren’t living
on the landscape. Auditory identification is also possible, particularly for bird species if you are
familiar with their songs. Mammals can also be identified this way, though for certain species, if
you can hear them and know who it is, like a black bear grunt/huff for instance, you are too close
and do not want to catch them unaware. Some, you may hear from a distance, like coyote howls,
red fox barks/screams or chipmunk chirping.
Results & Interpretation
Present Day Species List
This list represents only species that were positively identified during the assessment period.
There are many other species that live on and utilize the Willard’s Woods property, but they
cannot be added to the list without observational confirmation. Because of the time of year and
brief period that this survey was conducted, this list shows only a snapshot of the creatures that
represented, and as mentioned prior, is mainly focused on small/medium to large sized mammals
with a few exceptions. It is recommended that the list continue to be added to by wildlife
professionals and that the public continue to share their own observations and sightings for
confirmation. Including future surveys of birds, reptiles and amphibians would also be of great
91 | P a g e
benefit in order to truly understand the health and functioning of the habitat mosaic and
ecosystem that is Willard’s Woods.
Winter 2019-2020 Species observations
A full historic species list was provided by conservation steward David L. Kaufman and can be
viewed in Appendix B.
Cameras Tracks, Sign & Observations
As described in the methods section, there were six separate locations at Willard’s Woods where
cameras were set up over the course of a four-and-a-half-month period from mid-November
2019 through the end of March 2020. Photos and video footage captured on these cameras
revealed a significant amount of wildlife activity, even over the more dormant winter months.
Not surprisingly, grey squirrel was the number one Willard’s Woods celebrity caught on camera,
with white tailed deer coming in a close second. Species such as raccoon, Eastern cottontail and
Eastern coyote also made significant appearances. Others include red squirrel, chipmunk,
opossum, skunk, deer mouse, blue jay, tufted titmouse, crow, red tailed hawk and domestic dog.
See Appendix A for camera capture highlights.
Tracks were found and identified more randomly because of the lack of snow this season.
Tracking data was collected as they were observed over multiple days during other data
collection visits. Species identified through their tracks included opossum, raccoon and white-
tailed deer. Other tracks were also noted, but because of substrate conditions and age,
identification to species was not possible. Physical sign also helped to flesh out and confirm the
list of species and level of activity found at Willard’s Woods. Midden piles were found all over
Birds
Red-tailed Hawk American Crow Turkey
Robin Tufted Titmouse
Mourning Dove Great Horned Owl
Blue Jay Black Capped Chickadee
Mammals
Coyote Deer mouse Chipmunk Skunk
Eastern Cottontail Red Squirrel Raccoon
White-tailed deer Grey Squirrel Opossum
92 | P a g e
the property, most likely left by chipmunks based on the pile location and characteristics. Scat
was also noted in several places identified as raccoon, coyote, deer and cottontail. Well-worn
game trails were noted in a few areas, most likely utilized by several different species, as well as
older antler rubs/incisor scrapings, and two potential kill sites/feeding locations were observed.
Further, a den site was located on the property. Though there was no evidence over the winter of
it being actively used, by the end of March it had been excavated out and seemed to be active.
Based on the size and location relative to activity observed, it is possible that it is an active
coyote den site being prepared for pup rearing starting this April. Finally, Great horned owl was
identified through auditory confirmation. Though many visitors to Willard’s Woods shared their
sightings of these birds with me, I did not get to observe one during my time on the property.
However, after a long field day, racing the sun as it started to set for the day, I was rewarded by
the pleasant sound of their hoots as I made my way back to the car. Further auditory
confirmations partnered with visual observations were from red tailed hawk, black-capped
chickadee, mourning dove, and crow.
The species documented are those I would expect to be living and utilizing the Willard’s Woods
property. Most of them, are what I would classify as urban wildlife. Those species that have
adapted and thrived living in and around human development, activity and civilization. I would
like to describe and comment on a few of these observations a bit further.
Raccoon – This species was observed in multiple camera locations and were highly
active throughout the property. There are a couple public health and safety issues to note
with a high level of raccoon activity. The first, is that raccoons are the primary host of
the intestinal roundworm (Baylisascaris procyonis) which can be found in their feces. It
is transmissible to both humans and dogs and can cause serious infection leading to major
neurological impacts. Visitors with dogs should be extra cautious and remain on trail to
prevent them from picking up this dangerous roundworm. The second issue to be aware
of is that raccoons are one of the primary carriers of the rabies virus. Though it is not
uncommon for racoons to be out and about during the day, be cautious and stay away
from the animal, and keep pets close. Infected raccoons will display abnormal and erratic
behavior such as staggering, wandering aimlessly, have discharge around the eyes and
mouth, or show other distress. If you see a raccoon (or any other animal) that seems
93 | P a g e
distressed at all, leave the area, and contact town animal control immediately.
Coyote - The presence of coyote at Willard’s Woods is not at all surprising. This species
is highly adapted to living in developed landscapes and has gotten used to human activity
out of necessity. This property provides a nice refuge for these animals and a bit of a
break from navigating backyards, crossing roads/dodging traffic, being chased and
barked at, or in some cases shot at, poisoned and trapped. Though visitors may see these
animals from time to time at Willard’s Woods, they would prefer to go about their
business without interacting with humans at all. Tucking themselves into the woods and
wetlands of this property allows them that reprieve. Camera captures revealed exactly
that type of behavior.
Coyote activity does indeed seem to be high at Willard’s Woods based on camera
footage. In addition to the potential denning site mentioned previously, other areas were
identified as sites where these animals are periodically bedding down for the evening.
There are also areas where they seem to just be moving through. In the areas where
coyotes were observed settling down for the night, up to four individuals were seen
together at the same time on a few occasions. What is most likely being captured on
camera in these cases is a mating pair accompanied by members from a previous litter of
pups. This means that there is a family group of coyotes utilizing and living in Willard’s
Woods at least part of the time, and that sightings are not just only individuals travelling
through. More resources on coyotes is provided in the Recommendations section and in
Appendix E.
Additional information – Since Willard’s Woods has such a high level of wildlife activity
and is also a highly popular location for the public to walk their dogs, dog owners should
make sure to talk to their veterinarians about preventative vaccine options. Many dog
owners already know the importance of having their dogs vaccinated for Lyme disease,
but some may not be aware of a second vaccine for Leptospirosis. Leptospirosis is
caused by bacteria that can be carried by raccoon, opossum, mice, rats, skunks and white-
tailed deer. It can be contracted through animal urine or contaminated water and soil.
Leptospirosis can also infect humans. Though rarer, when infected, symptoms can be
94 | P a g e
mistaken for other ailments. If untreated, there can be major impacts to the organs, spine
and respiratory system.
Further Discussion
Connectivity
The overall suburban landscape of the town of Lexington does not provide much connectivity of
habitat for wildlife movement or include enough open space land to support any significant
functioning wildlife corridors. The University of Massachusetts has assessed the ecological
integrity of all the state’s land and water through the Conservation Assessment Prioritization
System (CAPS) ecosystem-based model. There are only small, scattered areas in Lexington that
are highlighted on this index and they are all highly fragmented from each other. One of these
areas is Willard’s Woods. This index is included in Appendix C. There are however some
potential locally functioning corridors in the Willard’s Woods area that may be helping facilitate
wildlife movement. Although these locations are not classified as having ecological importance,
they are still providing some level of cover for these animals. One possible local corridor of
movement may be between Willard’s Woods, the Diamond Middle School, and Chiesa Farm.
Though still highly developed, these areas show enough tree cover and green space to potentially
support some level of wildlife movement. There is also the possibly that some species, like the
coyote, may incorporate the Ada Govan Bird Sanctuary and Lower Vine Brook area, though
Adams Street and Grant Street seem significant enough barriers to deter many species. Finally,
there are areas of greenspace and wetlands north and east of North St. that are most likely being
utilized along with Willard’s Woods by larger species like coyote and deer, though again, the
traffic on this road is most likely influencing the behavior of smaller species. It would be
interesting to collect roadkill and crossing data at these locations to see if animals are attempting
to connect these areas and if so, what species. There may be opportunities at one or both
crossings to help facilitate movement, especially near the Fiske School.
Urban Wildlife Behavior
As mentioned previously, Willard’s Woods is home to mainly what are considered urban wildlife
species. Those who have been able to adapt to living in and among highly developed areas and
high levels of human activity. These species, however, are also found in the more rural and
95 | P a g e
wilder parts of Massachusetts. There is an important distinction to consider here. Though
similar in many ways, these animals may display differences in behavior depending on what type
of environment they are living in. That is because each is facing a different set of stressors and
pressures in order to survive. For instance, coyotes living in a suburban landscape have far less
land to utilize for resources, and more territorial pressure from other coyotes because they are
forced to live in a much more concentrated scenario. That means that territories and home
ranges tend to be smaller and much more fragmented than would normally be seen in a more
open landscape. It may also mean that overlapping territories between individuals, or between
different species are more common. You also start to see differences in how and when the
animal uses the landscape. You may notice wildlife out more frequently during the day or poking
in and out of residential neighborhoods and yards more often. Further, species that prefer to be
out hunting during dawn and dusk normally, may need to shift that behavior in order to avoid
human interference or interaction and pressure from other animals. This is all because these
animals are trying to find a way to utilize their landscapes opportunistically and partition
resources with other individuals and other species. They are trying to get the resources they need
while navigating around a high level of human activity, and higher densities of other individuals
and other species. Finally, wildlife living in more developed areas are much more habituated to
human activity. A normally fearful or shy animal may display indifference, or even boldness
around humans in an urban/suburban setting. Overall, when trying to understand and manage
wildlife in these developed landscapes, it is important to realize that the known natural history
and behavioral information on a species may not accurately represent what is happening with
these animals on the ground.
Recommendations
The Human Wildlife Interface – Considering the high activity and diversity of wildlife residing
in and moving through Willard’s Woods, as well as the high level of public activity on the
property, it should be no surprise that the human wildlife interface is of concern. The wildlife
that utilize this landscape are already under extreme stress and pressure from surrounding
development and varying types of human disturbance. They are finding a way to piecemeal
together the resources they need in order to survive, and Willard’s Woods acts an oasis of sorts
for many of these animals. The human visitors to this property are also utilizing Willard’s
96 | P a g e
Woods in a very similar way. It becomes a natural refuge from the stressors and pressures of the
urban landscape outside its boundaries. Part of the reason why this is the case for so many is
because of the natural landscape it provides and the connection to nature. A major part of that is
the wildlife that live here. That said, it is up to the public that use this property, as well as its
managers, to be the stewards of the land and the wildlife within. There will always be varying
levels of stress at this interface. Light, noise and physical pollution, edge effects, habitat
degradation, wildlife/human interactions/concerns, and worries for dog walkers. But there are
ways that everyone can help maintain a balance so that wildlife, humans and dogs alike can
coexist safely and continue to enjoy this property in a healthy way.
The main recommendation to keep the peace at this interface is to keep dogs on trails. The Town
of Lexington allows dog owners the privilege of off leash hours for their beloved pets to stretch
their legs, but this comes with a price when dogs are allowed free rein through its woods and
wetlands. Keeping dogs on trails still allows plenty of room to run and get exercise. It also
helps keep dogs safe from unwanted wildlife interaction and possible disease transmission as
well as gives wildlife a safe place to be on the property. Every time I visited Willard’s Woods, I
observed at least one dog being allowed to charge full tilt in and out of these resource areas. I
also observed, in some of the properties more remote sections, dogs running up to, and past the
wildlife cameras. Some of these locations were near active den and bedding sites. Allowing this
sort of behavior not only puts the wildlife at risk, it puts the dogs at risk of having an unwanted,
potentially dangerous encounter, or picking up a dangerous disease/infection. Further, it poses
potential issues with other dogs that may not be as outgoing, energetic, or friendly. If a dog is
well trained enough to be considered safe/have proper behavior and etiquette for off leash
adventures, then keeping them on trail and close by should not be a problem. If a healthy
balance is to be maintained between wildlife and the public at Willard’s Woods, then wildlife
need to have safe places to nest, feed, forage, rest and sleep, away from as much human
influence as possible. The trail network on this property is quite extensive and already allows
plenty of places for people and dogs to roam, play and enjoy the land.
A second recommendation to maintain a healthy balance at Willard’s Woods is to establish an
interpretive program for the public so that they can be educated and informed about how to
safely share the space with wildlife. Kiosk bulletins, trail signs, information on the town
97 | P a g e
website, brochures, and even small informational workshops on site, can help build
understanding and guide behaviors to maintain a healthy interface. For instance, many visitors to
the Willard’s Woods property expressed concern over the presence and high activity levels of
coyote on site. This was particularly true for dog owners. Coyotes are not considered to be
aggressive animals, and very rarely attack humans or most dogs unless under extreme stress. An
exception to this would be for small dogs off leash (which can trigger predator prey behavior) or
large dogs that get too close to dens or encroach into coyote territories. Coyotes, like most
wildlife, would much rather prefer to avoid confrontation and be left alone. That said, they are
still a larger wild animal, and there are things visitors can do to keep their dogs and themselves
safe from an interaction. Mainly, as mentioned previously, keeping dogs close by or on leash,
not allowing them to run into wildlife resource areas, maintaining safe distances, and if off leash
making sure dogs have good recall training. If you observe a coyote on the property, walk the
other way. If you have a large dog with you, call them to you and leash them if they aren’t
already. If you have a small dog with you, pick them up. These suggestions hold true for almost
all significant wildlife observations: coyote, raccoon, skunk, opossum, deer. Even with squirrel,
chipmunk, rabbit and bird sightings. Though these smaller residents do not necessarily pose a
threat themselves, dogs should not be allowed to chase or harass them. More resources on living
safely with coyotes are included in Appendix E.
Concern was also expressed from the public that the Great horned owl nesting site may need
further protection. It was observed that due to storm damage that the nest is now much closer to
the ground. If these birds do decide to continue using this location to raise their chicks, it is
recommended that the area be roped off in some way during this time. Incorporating educational
signage to this restriction will help visitors understand its importance in protecting these birds
from disturbance or harm.
A final recommendation is to consider and implement as much invasive plant management and
habitat restoration on the property time and budget will allow. These management
recommendations are found in the main Ecological Land Management Report. Establishing
healthy habitats and supporting functioning ecological systems will lead to a more stable, diverse
and robust set of species. It will also help build resiliency to environmental impacts, human
98 | P a g e
impacts, and to continued shifts due to climate change.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Willard’s Woods is a very special place for the wildlife that call it home, and for
its human visitors. In an area that does not have a lot of open space left, it is a critical landscape
that provides essential resources for the survival of local wildlife and the wellbeing of its human
visitors. Understanding the animals that live here and the pressures that they face is necessary to
create a healthy balance for everyone. If the town and the public embrace education and
stewardship of this landscape it will be possible to conserve its resources, maintain and provide
healthy habitats, and support and encourage a diverse set of species on the Willard’s Woods
property for years to come.
99 | P a g e
Appendix A. Wildlife Camera Captures
100 | P a g e
101 | P a g e
102 | P a g e
103 | P a g e
104 | P a g e
105 | P a g e
106 | P a g e
107 | P a g e
108 | P a g e
Appendix B. Historic Species List
The following species list was provided by David L. Kaufman, conservation steward for the
town of Lexington. This list is based on observations made on the property over the last 40
years. Some of these species are full time residents, while others were most likely just passing
through. Abundance, diversity, and frequency of visitation have also shifted over time. Not all
species represented on this list continue to use the property or live in the surrounding Lexington
area due to environmental changes, land use shifts, landscape fragmentation, and habitat quality
degradation.
Birds
Red-tailed Hawk Red-breasted Nuthatch Starling Eastern Kingbird
Ring-necked Pheasant Brown Creeper Northern Oriole Chimney Swift
Rock Dove Carolina Wren House Finch Wood Thrush
Robin Gray Catbird Purple Finch Hermit Thrush
Mourning Dove Mockingbird American Goldfinch Yellow Warbler
Downy Woodpecker Brown Thrasher Rose-Breasted Grosbeak American Redstart
Hairy Woodpecker Cedar Waxwing Great Horned Owl Yellow-rumped Warbler
Common Flicker Tennessee Warbler Mallard Black-throated Green Warbler
Eastern Phoebe Black Throated Blue Warbler Wood Duck Ovenbird
Tree Swallow Common Yellowthroat Canada Goose House Wren
Barn Swallow Indigo Bunting Wild Turkey Song Sparrow
Blue Jay Northern Cardinal American Woodcock White-throated Sparrow
American Crow Tree Sparrow Barred Owl Swamp Sparrow
Black-capped Chickadee Dark-eyed Junco Eastern Screech Owl Great Blue Heron
Tufted Titmouse Red-winged Blackbird Red-bellied Woodpecker Eastern Bluebird
White-breasted Nuthatch Common Grackle Great-crested Flycatcher
Mammals
Coyote Vole and field mice Red and gray squirrel
Red Fox Bat (sp?)Chipmunk
Skunk Opossum White tailed deer
Rabbit Fisher Raccoon
Muskrat Weasel
Reptiles & Amphibians
Garter snake Leopard Frog
Turtles Spring Peeper
Bull Frog Toad
109 | P a g e
Appendix C. UMass Conservation Assessment Prioritization System
110 | P a g e
Appendix D.
References:
Ditchkoff, S. S., S. T. Saalfeld, and C. J. Gibson. 2006. Animal behavior in urban ecosystems:
Modifications due to human-induced stress. Urban Ecosystems 9:5–12
Elbroch, M. 2003. Mammal Tracks and Sign, First edition. Stackpole Books.
Elbroch, M., and K. Rinehart. 2011. Behavior of North American Mammals. Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt.
Foster, D.R., G. Motzkin, D. Bernardos and J. Cardoza. (2002). Wildlife Dynamics in the
Changing New England Landscape. Journal of Biogeography, 29, 1337-1357.
Moll, RJ, JD Cepek, PD Lorch, PM Dennis, T Robinson, JJ Millspaugh, and RA
Montgomery. 2018. Humans and urban development mediate the sympatry of competing
carnivores. Urban Ecosystems 21(4):765-778
Mueller MA, Drake D, Allen ML (2018) Coexistence of coyotes (Canis latrans) and red foxes
(Vulpes vulpes) in an urban landscape. PLOS ONE 13(1): e0190971
Poessel S. A., Breck S. W., & Gese E. M. May 2016. Spatial ecology of coyotes in the Denver
metropolitan area: influence of the urban matrix. Journal of Mammalogy 97(5):1414-1427
Prange, S., and S. D. Gehrt. 2004. Changes in mesopredator-community structure in response to
urbanization. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82:1804–1817.
Van de Poll, R. (1996). Natural and cultural resource inventories: A guide to comprehensive
(“Level III”) methods for private landowners in New England (Ph.D.). The Union Institute, Ann
Arbor, United States.
Rezendes, P. 1999. Tracking and the art of seeing, Second edition. Harper Collins.
Appendix E.
Coyote Resources:
Mass Wildlife:
https://www.mass.gov/service-details/learn-about-coyotes
*Many links and informational pdf’s available here.
Urban Coyote Initiative:
https://urbancoyoteinitiative.com/10-fascinating-facts-about-urban-coyotes/
*Comprehensive look at the coyote human interface in urban areas.
111 | P a g e
Appendix G.
WILLARD’S WOODS
UNIVERSAL ACCESSIBILITY TRAIL ASSESSMENT
By Conservation Works, LLC
December 28, 2019
REVISED: 3/23/2020
REVISED: 6/14/2021
Introduction: Conservation Works, LLC (CW) was contracted by Land Stewardship, Inc. to conduct a
feasibility study on the potential of a trail route at Lexington’s 100-acre Willard’s Woods Conservation
Area for upgrading to a universally accessible (UA) trail. This report contains CW’s findings and
recommendations.
Findings and Recommendations: The Willard Woods Trail Plan Map included in the file depicts
the route CW staff hiked during our initial field reconnaissance (November 21, 2019) with Jessica Applin
from Land Stewardship, Inc and Jordan McCarron of the Lexington Conservation Department. It is the
same route for which CW staff later completed a detailed trail assessment (December 23, 2019). During
the initial field reconnaissance, Dick O’Brien, CW’s lead trail designer visit, indicated that he saw no
conditions that would preclude that route from being upgraded to a UA trail, but upon completion of a
detailed assessment (feasibility analysis), CW is of the opinion that the route we hiked and evaluated
is not the best alternative for a UA trail on the property. On March 20, 2020, CW staff staked out,
flagged, and mapped an alternative route for a UA trail loop in the large meadow just south of the
North Road trailhead. This proposed UA trail has been re-staked and flagged on June 11, 2021 per
request of the Conservation Department. Included with this report are the two maps relevant to this
report: the Willard Woods Trail Plan Map that depicts the initial route taken by CW and others and the
Willard Woods UA Trail Map depicting the UA trail route being proposed by CW. Below are our reasons
supporting this conclusion:
The Trail Configuration and Length are Not Conducive to Handicap Use: The initially
designated route follows an “out and back” trail configuration - the user hikes out to a destination
or location and then returns to the starting point by retracing their route. For this proposed trail,
the user would travel over a mile to get to the Diamond Middle School trailhead and then return to
the North Road trailhead by the same route – a total distance of approximately 2-1/2+ miles. Most
wheelchair users are not looking for that extensive a trail experience. Additionally, the more user-
friendly trail configuration is a trail loop. One that begins at one spot and loops around to the
beginning without having doubled back on itself. Trail loops of ½ mil to 1 mile are more user-
friendly and used more often than longer loops or out and back trails.
The Existing Trail Grades Would Require Several Trail Reroutes and significant new
disturbance to the wooded habitat on the knoll. At 7 different locations along the existing
proposed route, CW found running grade conditions on the existing trail that exceeded the
recommended standards for UA trails. In 5 out of the 7 situations, running grades exceeded 12%.
While none of these is sufficient to seek an exemption or preclude re-routing the trail to provide
running grades that comply with the national accessible trail guidelines, the required trail re-routes
112 | P a g e
are lengthy (with some as long as 400’), would add thousands of dollars to the construction cost of
the trail, and significantly increase the overall disturbance and impact of the trail through this
wooded knoll area between the North Street entrance and the Brent Road entrance. For these
reasons we recommend using the proposed route that connects from the proposed UA loop trails
over to Brent Road trail entrance.
The Existing Boardwalks and Bridges Need Renovation: referring to the 2 bridges and 3
boardwalks on the route in question; all of them fail to meet current UA trail standards for bridge
and boardwalk structures. While the bridges require minimal corrections to achieve compliance, the
boardwalks will require extensive work to meet the guidelines and preferences of Lexington
officials. The top decking and framework for the deck will have to be removed from the existing
boardwalks and redone to provide a minimum 3’ wide travel surface with required edging to keep
wheelchair-bound users from falling off the structure. To minimize the impact of the boardwalks
being low to the ground so as not to trigger the need for railings, CW would propose using molded
PVC mesh grating with an imbedded grit surface for traction. This decking allows 70% light through
the grate to minimize the impact to the native vegetation beneath the boardwalk. All this work can
be done, but the material and labor costs would be relatively high.
A Better Alternative Exists on the Property: CW believes that a UA Loop Trail can be constructed in
the meadow just off North Road that would be used more frequently by the intended user groups,
would cost considerably less to build, and would impact the property less!
CW Proposes an Alternative UA Trail Loop in the shape of a figure 8 trail loop. This UA trail that
would begin and end at the North Road Trailhead and be roughly .42 miles. See the included map
(Willards Woods Proposed UA Trail Route) for this proposed trail layout and the resting/viewing areas
along the trail. One of the features of this configuration is that it actually consists of 3 loops; Loop 1(the
shortest’ loop at .22 miles) that loops around to the west from the main trail, Loop 2 (the next longest at
.33 miles) that flows to the east from the main trail and Loop 3 (the longest at .42 miles) the includes
both the outer segments of both Loop 1 and Loop 2. This layout gives the user multiple choices for their
outdoor experience on any given day. CW is proposing this because the initial route was:
➢ it provides 3 distance options for handicap users.
➢ it will be less than ½ the cost to construct compared to the initial proposed
trail route
➢ does not include traveling over the same trail on the same trip
➢ should cause minimal impact to the flora and fauna on the property
➢ much simpler and quicker to install
CW recommends that this UA trail consist of a 6’ compacted gravel trail built on top of the existing grade
with a base layer of coarse gravel (4”-6” of 3/4” graded base), a geotextile fabric (4 oz, non-woven type),
and a finish layer of 4”-6” of 3/8” crusher fines (P.J. Keating “Cart Path” mix). The Town of South Hadley
recently completed a UA trail built to these specifications right along the banks of the Connecticut River.
The “River to Range” UA trail has been well received and is getting lots of use. This base layer and
finish layer would be compacted separately using a vibratory roller. The edges of the trail would
transition down to the existing grade using screened loam, lightly compacted, and seeded with a NE
Conservation Mix grass seed. In addition to the basic UA trail, CW is also recommending creating 6 new
seating/resting/viewing areas along these loop trails as well as upgrading the existing picnic table/firepit
area. These areas will either be right along the UA trail or accessed by means of short spur trails – all of
113 | P a g e
which are handicapped accessible. While the options for what these areas look like and what materials
are used are numerous, they should all be designed and built to be handicapped accessible as well!
These could be great opportunities for public donations for potential “memorial” seating/resting areas.
Benches of powder-coated cast iron, granite, or heavy wooden structures that are anchored into the
ground resist degradation from the elements, both natural and manmade! The settings for these
benches/viewing areas have been carefully selected to already be “anchored” by some natural feature
like a large, mature tree, a grove of trees, a stream, or a rock outcrop, but additions to these sites if
sensitively done, could add to the user’s enjoyment of the trail and their experience on it.
In addition to the creation of a UA trail loop, CW recommends the following improvements to existing
trail features and amenities:
Existing Conditions at Trailhead Areas: Whether the initial route or the alternative route is
developed, users will continue to access the property using three trailhead areas. CW found each of
these lacking with the structures dated and in poor repair, with poor overall layout and placement of
features. CW recommends upgrading all three of the trailheads on this property. They are; the main
parking area and trailhead off North Road, the secondary trailhead off of Brent Road, and the third
trailhead at the Diamond Middle School. Below are our detailed findings relative to these three
trailheads:
The North Street Trailhead:
• The trailhead and parking area off North Road are easy to find and access down the
gravel driveway is safe and clear
• Gravel surface of parking area is dry, firm, and level, but surfacing material is not to
accessible trail standards
• The entrance sign on North Road is acceptable for users to find their way to this
property, even those from out-of-town
• The size of the parking lot is more than adequate for the volume of traffic we
encountered on the two times we visited the property and there was room for several
more cars (capacity: 20 vehicles)
• No identified “handicap parking” spaces or signs to indicate where they would be (Photo
3)
• Large hazardous White pine on the right corner of the driveway just as one enters the
parking area. the lean of the tree indicates in will fall towards the parking area. Should
be removed before it causes injury or damage.
• Trash can is the first thing users see as they enter the trail
• Aging dog regulation sign is the next structure visible to users
• Unimpressive trailhead kiosk with unappealing map and trail information
The Brent Road Trailhead:
• Limited roadside parking
• Entrance easy to find
• Trail is level and firm but does not meet UA standards
• Signage is adequate but not visually appealing, not well-designed or well laid out at
entrance
• Trash receptacle the first item users see at this entrance
114 | P a g e
The Diamond Middle School Trailhead:
• Trail surface material from the parking area to the beginning of the boardwalk does not
meet UA standards
• Directional and enforcement signage is present, but the trailhead lacks a formal kiosk
• The running grade of the trail is 14% from the school parking area down to the
beginning of the boardwalk
Recommendations for Trailhead Areas: While the three trailhead areas on this property are
adequate, CW recommends enhancing the look and amenities at all three trailheads. This includes more
stylish and more informational kiosks, better visual and practical layout of the entrance signs, kiosks,
dog walking signs and ancillary structures and to make all of this UA compliant. As an example,
TimberHomes LLC (www.timberhomesllc.com) produces custom made post and beam wooden kiosks
that would add to the aesthetics and functionality of this structure. Additionally, they produce smaller
kiosks for interpretive and regulatory signage that would provide a consistent look throughout the
property.
With regard to handicap parking areas, CW recommends outlining on the ground two spaces for
handicap vans; one on either side of the trail entrance at North Road and two side-by-side at the Brent
Road parking area. The outlining can consist of 8’x20’ rectangles created by installing granite curb stone
flush with the ground for both parking spots (The Old Manse, Concord has done this in their visitor
parking area). Appropriate handicap parking signage should be posted at the front of the parking spot.
Within and around these two areas, the surfacing should meet accessibility guidelines and not have
particles larger than 1/2'” in diameter. This surfacing should connect directly to the start of the trail.
Access to the trailhead kiosk and the “mutt-mit” station should be made handicap accessible as well.
The kiosk should be the first thing users see and with which they interact. Any Rules and Regs signs,
trash receptacles and dog-walking amenities should be placed further in from the entrance. All should
be accessible from the trail for wheelchair-bound users.
Existing Conditions at Bridges: The two bridges on this property are not in bad shape. Since only the
Excel Bridge will be experiencing handicapped traffic, that will be the focus of this assessment.
Bridge 1 (PT lumber, 6” width, 25’ length, 42” railings)
• Good, sturdy PT wood bridge, but does not meet the technical standards for a UA trail
• The gaps in the deck boards are > ½” standard allowing for the possibility of the front
wheels of a wheelchair to get stuck in the gap between two decking boards
• The spacing between the side rails on the railings are too wide allowing for a young child to
slip or slide through them down into the stream below.
• The lip at both ends of the bridge creates a potential barrier to wheelchair users
Excel Bridge (Steel and concrete bridge, 10’ wide, 25’ long, concrete abutments)
• Designed to accommodate vehicle crossings as well as pedestrian traffic
• Railings meet UA standards for height and openings
• Concrete surface if solid, firm and smooth for wheelchair users
• The gap between the bridge deck and the bridge abutment on both ends of the bridge are
wider than allowed by the UA trail guidelines
115 | P a g e
Recommendations for the Bridges: CW recommends the following work for the Excel Bridge near the
Brent Street Trailhead.
• The Excel metal/concrete bridge is in fine condition as it is relatively new. The one area of
concern is the gap between the deck of the bridge and the concrete abutments. The gap is
greater than the ½” allowed by code. CW recommends that a flat metal 4” strip could be
welded to one side of the bridge to cover the gap and eliminate the possibility of wheels
getting caught in this gap. This would still allow the bridge structure to shrink or expand due
to the temperature and would not impact travel over the flange. The railings on this bridge
meet the guidelines and the concrete decking is great!
Recommendations for the Boardwalks: Since the UA trail will not be following this section of trail
with the boardwalks, CW did not see the necessity of including an assessment or recommendations on
these structures
Trail Grades: While running trail grades would be an issue on the initially designated trail, running
grades will not be an issue on the alternative trail route.
Viewing Platform - As a part of this trail enhancement project, Lexington officials expressed a desire
for a viewing platform on the boardwalk closest to Diamond Middle School. CW recommends a
platform large enough to handle a classroom of children (approximately 25-30). It should also have
benches around the outer edge of the platform so the students can sit and listen to teachers or
naturalists presenting information. The location of benches on the outer edge of the platform suggests
the need for railings that would prohibit younger children from climbing up on the benches and falling
over them into the marsh. The railings should be no higher than 42” so that future wheelchair users
would have a line of sight over the railing. CW would propose a 6’-sided octagon that is split down the
middle by the 6’ boardwalk. The benches would facilitate educational use of the trail while also
providing benefits to other users. The existing boardwalk from the access at Diamond Middle Scholl to
the viewing platform would have to be redone to meet UA code.
Trail Signage: CW recommends greater use of the metal trail signs
shown in the photo to the left. They should be installed on posts at
each trail intersection at a minimum.
The image below shows another example of a an effective, easy to
maintain signage system used in the City of Leominster’s trail network.
It uses metal signs and PT
posts & provides a mini-map attached to the angled top of the post.
This map shows the trails and all the numbered trail intersections on
the trails. Below the mini-map
is the trail Intersection # and below that are directional arrows and
distances to the next closest trail intersection or feature. This system
has worked very well for the
City and has all but eliminated lost hikers in its 2,000-acre watershed
area. The signs are made of aluminum and attached to 6x6 PT posts
with vandal-resistant
stainless-steel screws and an epoxy adhesive. The posts are set 3-4’ in
the ground using a traditional “deadman” anchor to keep the posts
from being removed from the ground.
116 | P a g e
Brent Rd. Trail Connection: Connecting from the side of LOOP 2 over to Brent Road is possible using
the same trail construction approach as is recommended for the
accessible trail loops. A layer of compacted graded base, covered with a 6’ wide sheet of geotextile,
capped with a compacted layer of Cart Path (3/8” crusher fines)
would produce a compliant, accessible trail that could flow to the Excel Bridge and then to the Brent
Road trailhead. The sides of this upgraded trail would need to be
sloped down to meet the original grade with loam and then seeded with a NE conservation mix of
grasses. Given the intended user group and the length of this trail, CW
recommends that 2 or 3 benches be placed along this trail to give users a chance to rest and enjoy the
property.
Approximate Costs: Given the length of trail proposed for upgrading to accessible standards and the
length of newly constructed accessible trail, the upgrading of the three trailhead areas with new
amenities, the creation of a new accessible parking area off of Brent Road, the accessible viewing
areas/benches; CW estimates that the cost of this work would be approximately $150,000 to $200,000.
117 | P a g e
Figure 9. Willard’s Woods Trail Plan Assessment Points
118 | P a g e
Figure 10. Willard’s Woods UA Trail Plan Map
119 | P a g e
Figure 11. Willard’s Woods Trail Plan Map