Macricostas Preserve Management Plan

The following is excerpted from a study by Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies graduate students Ian Branson, Steve Dettman, Lydia Dixon and Jeremy West. Submitted in January 2003, "A Management Plan for the Steep Rock Association's Macricostas Preserve" is a 100-page report with 54 pages of appendices. What follows is actually chapter 6 of that study; the index below offers jump-down links to corresponding parts of the document -- or you can simply scroll down. This very detailed (and often quite technical) plan raises many interesting issues which a variety of committees are sorting through.

Macricostas Preserve plaque near Rt 202

1: Introduction
2: Management Strategies for Open Meadows and Grasslands
2.1: No action | 2.2: Farming | 2.3: Mowing | 2.4: Prescribed Burning | 2.5: Combined methods
3: Trails and Recreation
3.1: Permitted activities | 3.2: Parking | 3.3: Picnic areas | 3.4: Signage | 3.5: Location of trail network | 3.6: Trail maintenance
4: Hunting
5: Farming
6: Monitoring
6.1: BioBlitz | 6.2: Herbarium | 6.3: Vernal Pool Inventory | 6.4: Forest Health Monitoring
7: Areas of Ecological Significance
7.1: Talus Slopes | 7.2: Black Gum Ridge Top Hollow | 7.3: Calcareous Wetlands
8: Educational and Research Opportunities
9: Forest Health
9.1: Insects and Pathogens | 9.2: Invasive Species | 9.3: Wildlife
Conclusions

1: Introduction

In this chapter we synthesize our research as outlined in previous chapters and present our recommendations for Steep Rock’s management of the Macricostas Preserve. A few of the recommendations that follow are prescriptive, meaning they outline a specific course of action in detail. In contrast, the balance of our recommendations is intended to guide future decision making in a less prescriptive manner. The intent is not to present Steep Rock with a "cookbook" for management but rather to describe what we see as the major issues based on our research and to present recommended approaches.

In the table below we list the management topics, relative priority of treatment, and costs. This shorthand guide will act as a table of contents, a quick reference, and can help prioritize the management workflow schedule. Obviously, the Steep Rock Association should prioritize their work to tackle the highest priority work with the lowest cost. This "low hanging fruit" should get the most payback for the least financial output. If cost is less of a factor in prioritizing work, those projects with the longest timeline can be tackled first.

Management Topic	Timeline	Temporal Priority	Relative Cost
Open Meadows and Grassland	Periodic	High	Low to Medium, depending on treatment
Trails and Recreation	One-time construction	High	High
Hunting	One-time agreement	Medium	Low
Farming	One-time lease	Medium	Low to Medium
Monitoring	Long-term monitoring	Low	Low
Areas of Ecological Interest	Long-term monitoring	Low	Low
Education and Research Opportunities	Short-term projects over long term	Low	Low
Forest Health Management	Long-term	Low	Medium

2: Management Strategies for Open Meadows and Grasslands

A fair percentage of the Macricostas Preserve is currently listed as meadow, field, or agriculture. The mix of forested and unforested land provides a unique opportunity for managing for multiple use. Open fields are also some of the most quickly disappearing landscapes in southern New England. However, protecting these areas raises some difficult questions that must be answered.

1. What is Steep Rock’s policy on active management in general?
2. Is protecting open meadows more important than promoting small scale farming?
3. How does Steep Rock promote this habitat without encouraging the invasives that frequently invade these areas?
4. How will active management interact with Steep Rock’s mission to increase public activity on the land?
5. How much funding will Steep Rock dedicate to active work on this property?
6. How will intensive active management spill over onto neighboring properties?

Once these questions have been answered, the next step is to focus on the most critical areas for active management. In our view, the three main areas to consider are all located near the Macricostas inholding and provide slightly different ecological niches and management opportunities. Each of these have been discussed previously and should be looked at individually. However, even though the areas differ in type, the management options for each are quite similar.

We will outline four management possibilities for the open grasslands in the area. These involve tradeoffs that will be outlined as part of the management plan. For each possibility we will outline the benefits, shortcomings, and details of pursuing each option.

2.1: No action

One may think that "no action" will provide the lowest cost, lowest impact management option for the meadows. In fact, this is far from true. Many neighbors have expressed concern about invasive plants becoming firmly established on the property and becoming a population source for their own problem plants. Bird watchers and others who enjoy the wide diversity of the area will be disappointed to see the area change from an open grassland to early successional forest.

With no active management there will be great ecological changes across this area. The meadows we have listed as key areas for active management are considered "early seral habitat." The key point to remember about this term is that it represents the first stage in a succession of habitat stages that will change over time. Forest succession is a concept that has been established by ecologists for many decades.

An open field will generally first be colonized by lightly seeded pioneer species. These are often herbaceous plants such as goldenrod (Solidago spp.), grasses (Poa spp.), and trees such as birch. The herbaceous annuals will die back every year allowing perennials to become better established over time. [See Map of open meadows and grasslands.]

Eventually the light capturing advantages of taller woody plants will begin to increase the number of tree and shrub species within the area. Finally, what was once a grassland will become a forest. In the open fields, there are two possibilities that may play out in this successional story. First, the slow encroachment of woody species will lead to these areas becoming first a birch and red maple stand. These species will give way to oaks and other later forest species. In areas of meadow where the ground remains wet, the species composition will head toward red maple and sphagnum moss. A second less desirable alternative is that the area will become dominated by aggressive invasives. Plants such as multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and autumn olive (Eleagnus angustifolia) may take over the area and produce dense growth of undesirable plants that will be almost impossible to exterminate.

While financial constraints may force the no action alternative, we highly recommend that it not be considered as a viable long term plan. Active management of these meadows is the only way that we can assure their continuation.

2.2: Farming

Retain an active farm on the property
The fifty-acre cornfield provides the Potter’s farm with 1/3 of its total grain production. Growing such a high percentage of total grain on one field is valuable to the farm. The field’s protected status also makes it valuable to the Potters because an ever-increasing number of other fields in the area continue to be sold and developed. Protection of the field provides secure land tenure that allows the Potters to plan for the long-term. For this reason, John Potter views stewardship of the field as in the farm’s best interest. This factor along with the 10-year duration of the lease provides them with an incentive to invest in the upkeep and productivity of the field. Examples of improvements that the Potters plan on making are spreading lime to increase pH, continued buildup of soil organic matter, fertilizing with manure to increase soil nutrients, and cutting back of the encroaching field edge. Currently Potter plans on only occasionally spreading manure because the cost and logistics of hauling large amounts of manure from the farm to the field prevent yearly spreading.

We recommend that Steep Rock continue to lease the field to local farmers for corn production. Long-term leases should be sought to encourage stewardship and investments in upkeep and productivity. We do not recommend expanding production into the fallow field on the inholding because of the prohibitive expense of building an adequate bridge. As dairy operations continue to disappear from the area Steep Rock may one day find that there are no longer farmers in the area who are willing or able to grow corn on the Macricostas field. If this situation arises we recommend that Steep Rock consider leasing the field for some other type of production, such as hay. John Potter stated that the field would work as a hay field, but conversion would involve an upfront cost of $25-30,000 for seeding. Local hay farmers such as Bobby Seymour should be consulted for development of a contingency plan.

Extend farming activity into the adjoining meadow area
Additional farming may not be an obvious choice for managing conservation lands, however it does meet many of the goals of the Steep Rock Association. There is ample precedent for this option given the large corn field adjacent to much of the meadows. There are several reasons that this alternative may prove attractive.

Benefits


• Financially sound: Not only is this the cheapest option since much of the actual land management is taken care of by the local farmer, it actually could provide more income for the Steep Rock Association.
• Supports working farms: While the ecological health of a corn-field may be debatable, sup-porting local farmers helps continue a dying farm tradition in the area. It also may help gain the Steep Rock Association support from groups who promote a more active management agenda.
• Continuity of land use in certain areas: There is a precedent for farming in some of these fields that dates back only a few years. We were able to see dead corn stalks throughout one area that indicated farming had taken place there only one or two years earlier. Essentially, the meadows may be returning to a land use of only a few years prior.

Drawbacks


• Could actually prove ecologically harmful: It is well known that the greatest amount of organic waste in local watersheds in the United States is generated by farming and other agricultural operations. There may be implications for local groundwater and the quality of Bee Brook if agriculture is increased near the wetlands.
• Decrease wildlife diversity on the preserve: Agriculture creates a plant monoculture that supports a much smaller cohort of wildlife species. Native wild plants and grasses can provide more varied food for a much wider variety of birds and animals. However it should be noted that many species such as wild turkey will thrive with this additional concentrated food source.
• May endanger some native wetland species: The wet areas of the meadows have the highest chance of providing habitat for rare and endangered species. By turning these areas over to cultivation you run the risk of eliminating these plants.

Procedure
If increased farming is selected as an option on the open meadows, there are several procedures that should be followed to ensure that the farming has as little ecological impact as possible:

• Make sure that proper ecological monitoring occurs to ensure water quality of local watersheds.
• Make sure that soil amendments do not change the basic hydrologic regime of the area.
• Properly maintain access roads.
• Ensure that farming activity does not impair wildlife populations during breeding seasons.

Prior to any increase in the amount of farmland we would highly recommend surveying the meadow for rare and endangered species. The possible scenario for increasing farming is best described by looking at how current farming practice takes place, and how the present farmer would view expanding. John Potter, the current farmer working the land, says he would farm the fallow cornfield on the 40-acre inholding if he had access. Currently access to other field is denied because the bridge over Bee Brook is not suitable. In order to have the Potters cultivate corn on the inholding Steep Rock would have to invest in a new bridge. This bridge would have to carry a 20-ton lime truck and be 16 feet wide to accommodate tractors and the combine. The Potters are not interested in growing crops on the flood plain area in the inholding and around the house and barns because the soils are too wet.

2.3: Mowing

Mowing is the current preferred management option for the meadows on the Macricostas Preserve. It has a huge impact on herbaceous and woody vegetation without causing a high degree of wider impact in the area.

Benefits


• Low impact on wildlife and neighbors
• Relatively low cost

Drawbacks


• May do little to stop invasive spread
• More frequent application
• Does not mimic any natural disturbance so may not promote elements of natural meadows
• Creates large amount of organic waste

Procedures
While there are not any legal procedures that should be followed when mowing the fields, there are some guidelines that should be followed with any mowing project.

• Mow only in certain non-critical times of the year: The prime nesting and breeding season for birds occurs in late April and early May. Mowing should not occur at this time. The best time to take on mowing project is in the late spring and summer when fledglings are not in the nest. Of course the mowing may take place in mid-summer however only after ground nesting birds have left the area.
• Attempt to create as varied an impact as possible: Unlike other active management activities that attempt to mimic natural disturbance patterns, mowing is decidedly alien to the environment. The impact of taking all vegetation down to one-inch above the ground can be dramatic, but may not achieve all of the desired results. For example, trailing ground cover may not be cut by mowing blades set at 1-2" above the topsoil, while woody species that grow several feet above the ground will always be extirpated. This may actually promote certain species over others and end up changing the basic composition of the meadow habitat. Mowers should attempt to vary the blade height and feel free to cut the area rather unevenly.
• Leave grouped reserves of taller herbaceous and woody plants: Mowing an area completely destroys most woody plants. While they are often the plants that one wishes to avoid since they push the cover type to a later successional stage, they are not completely bad. In fact, woodcock -- one of the rarer bird species spotted in the Macricostas meadows -- requires a combination of open field and smaller trees on which male birds can display during breeding season. Managing for this and many other species would require a combination of grasses, herbaceous plants, and small trees. Some islands of trees should be left to grow up and provide a variety of canopy cover throughout the area.
• Wetlands should be protected: Many of the meadow areas throughout the Macricostas Preserve are technically wetlands, or are on the edge of wetlands. This means that extra care should be taken in these sensitive areas. Mowers should prevent organic debris from clogging the waterway.
• A long term mowing plan should be drawn up to make sure that goals are met: This should include a tentative calendar that would ensure that mowing does not overlap critical wildlife breeding or nesting seasons. It should also include a monitoring plan to see how mowing affects invasive spread. Finally it would be in Steep Rock’s best interest to periodically check for rare and endangered plants to ensure they are protected.

2.4: Prescribed Burning

Land managers in New England have used burning as a management tool for the past thousand years. While there is some debate about the benefits and dangers of using fire, any land manager should keep it in mind as a possibility. For certain objectives, there is no replacement for burning, however it should be noted that you first must make your objectives clear.

Generally there are two goals that are desired by burning the landscape. The first is treatment of problem areas, including invasive removal and restoration of fire controlled systems. Second, burning is often used as a chronic disturbance, moving the ecosystem back to an earlier successional stage. In most cases, this involves maintaining a field in grasses and other herbaceous species, rather than allowing it to return to woody vegetation, and eventually to forestland.

According to experts of prescribed burning in New England, the most effective use of fire is the second category listed above -- maintenance of early successional habitat (William Patterson, University of Massachusetts, personal conversation with Steve Dettman 11/20/2002.) Currently there has not been enough data to show that fire when combined with mechanical mowing, is effective in reducing all invasive plants. The most effective treatment for invasives is still mechanical and chemical. If invasive removal is the main goal of treatment, fire should not be the primary tool. However, if the goal of management is to retain early successional habitat, fire can play a key role.

When considering burning, it is important to remember the basic ecology of meadow sites. Many of the plants in meadows are annuals, so care should be taken to burn in conjunction with these cycles. Perennial plants have slightly different considerations. These plants go through a dormant cycle prior to overwintering. Prior to this, the plant will convert much of its energy to stored carbohydrates in the below ground biomass. In many cases, burning the above ground portions of the plant will not significantly damage the ability of the plant to return the next spring. The main exceptions to this are the woody plants such as trees and shrubs that are more heavily damaged by fire damage to the cambium of their stems. Because of this key difference between herbaceous and woody plants, burning is the single most important natural disturbance that maintains open meadow.

Benefits


• In certain systems fire is necessary to encourage regeneration and remove seedling competition, as in Cedar Swamps and Pitch Pine systems.
• Second, fire is very different from mowing in its disturbance patterns. Mowing generally kills all plants -- woody and herbaceous -- above one or two inches in height.
• Fire on the other hand kills dead and dying herbaceous material if it burns at low temperatures, while leaving intact some of the larger woody structures. Even in high intensity fires, the remaining dead snags provide a very different residual habitat than does mowing.

Drawbacks


• Neighbors generally do not appreciate the increased smoke and danger associated with prescribed burns.
• Local fire officials are reticent to approve larger scale burns in areas where fuel levels may be high.
• Local land managers also may not want to take on the liability risk of a fire that escapes their control.

Procedure
The first step of any prescribed burn is to draw up a long-term fire management plan. This involves schedules of burns, areas to be covered, goals of each individual burn, necessary contacts to be made, etc. These fire management plans must be created with the goals clearly stated. Once this is determined the management organization can move on to specific burn plans.

A burn plan covers all the elements of the individual prescribed burn that need to be considered to ensure that it occurs at the right time and as safely as possible. We have included key points from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, one of the most active organizations utilizing prescribed burns for ecological restoration and maintenance (Mass. DEP, 2001). According to them, burn plan documents should include the following:

• Purpose: Description of the purpose of the burn -- vegetation to be targeted, invasives, woody seedlings, etc.
• Biophysical description:
  1. Physical description of the area -- vegetation survey
  2. Access operability -- how difficult is the area to access, are there any emergency routes to be explored.
  3. Water sources -- fire control mandates the availability of a sufficient quantity of water to extinguish burns
• Operational Considerations:
  1. Personnel required -- roles and responsibilities clearly defined
  2. Equipment required -- make sure that all safety concerns are adequately addressed.
  3. Contingency plan -- to be drawn up for emergencies
  4. Notification of adjoining property owners
  5. Unacceptable conditions of fire -- when should the burn occur
As another alternative we have attached a copy of the Nature Conservancy’s burn plan as Appendix G. This should provide an alternative plan that demonstrates how other conservation organizations handle prescribed burns for ecological restoration and continuation.

In order to pursue prescribed burning, the Steep Rock Association will have to acquire the proper permits. Generally it is much easier to receive these permits for the spring. The later you can burn the area, the greater the chance that the area will be dry enough to burn well. However you cannot wait too long, as you will begin to impact ground nesting bird habitat. Fall burns are allowed, and in many cases would be preferred, however the permits are not given out quite as readily. In order to get a permit Steep Rock will have to contact Ralph Scarpino at the state Department of Environmental Protection (79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT, 06106). The managers in charge of the burn will also have to contact local fire authorities to ensure that they are informed of the date and time of the operation. In most cases, there is no need to contact air quality officials.

2.5: Combined methods

It has been noted by fire experts that the best way to control herbaceous and woody plants is to combine fire and mowing (William Patterson, University of Massachusetts, personal conversation with Steve Dettman 11/20/2002). One plan to consider would be a mowing in June followed by a prescribed burn in August. This provides the most complete removal of plants that are working to store carbohydrates in their root systems. The residual organic material left after mowing provides a good amount of fuel for the fire. This would prove useful in getting rid of invasives, as well as keeping back woody plants that tend to sprout from their stems. One problem with this combination is that burning in the dry summer months is difficult to control and permit.

3: Trails and Recreation

Public access is a key issue in the management of the Macricostas Preserve due to provisions in the conservation easement held by the state of Connecticut. Establishing a trail network for passive recreation such as hiking, cross-country skiing, and birdwatching is the obvious choice for facilitating public use of the Preserve. One of the foremost purposes in establishing a trail network is to provide easier access to the Pinnacle, a popular hiking destination. The current situation has problematic parking and access issues. Birdwatchers would also benefit from trails laid out appropriately to take advantage of the edge habitat near the wetlands and old fields, which is ideal bird habitat. Several abandoned skid and farming roads already exist on the Preserve, making the establishment of a trail system relatively straightforward. Several factors associated with public access are addressed.

3.1: Permitted activities

Due to the delicate nature of the Macricostas Preserve, only passive recreation, specifically hiking or cross-country skiing, should be allowed. Mechanized travel, such as ATVs or mountain bikes, should be prohibited due to noise and threats to unsuspecting hikers as well as erosional damage caused by soil scarification from thick tires.

3.2: Parking

The graveled area to the west of the Dedication site and just south of the cornfield, already accessed by a gated road, could be an ideal location for establishing a parking area. The Christian Street driveway could also be converted to a gravel parking area following the destruction of the old barns.

3.3: Picnic areas

Another low-impact alternative for creating public access is to establish picnic areas in close proximity to the parking lots. These areas will provide options for individuals who want to take advantage of the Preserve, but do not want to hike, to enjoy this natural setting. Picnic tables, trash cans, and open-grate grills could be erected. By focusing development on these ecologically-hardy areas, impact on sensitive areas such as the wetlands and steep hillsides may be alleviated.

3.4: Signage

Trailheads should be clearly marked with aesthetically designed small wooden billboards. A large map of the area and information regarding the identification of invasive plant species and forest health problems, such as the wooly adelgid, should be posted on the bill-board. Contact information for Steep Rock should also be clearly posted, with the proviso that any illegal activities (such as ATV or mountain bike activity) be reported, as well as any potentially new invasions of exotic species or sightings of wooly adelgid. In this way, the general public can take part in the stewardship of the Preserve and help Steep Rock monitor their property.

3.5: Location of trail network

We mapped the existing abandoned logging roads found in the Preserve and suggest that these areas be converted into hiking and skiing trails, with some additional trail construction necessary to create a contiguous trail system. The attached map delineates the possible trail loops incorporating much of the existing road system. An interpretative trail guide would also be valuable as a public education tool, identifying some of the key features of the landscape through which the trails pass. Some of the points to address include:

1. local agriculture, as the trail will circumnavigate the Potters’ cornfield
2. red maple swamp
3. calcareous wetlands
4. glacial erratics
5. historical land use, indicated by the old stone walls and wolf trees present in the knoll just above the red maple swamp
6. forest health, including information on the identification of invasive species, the hemlock wooly adelgid, and gypsy moths
7. various wildlife habitat, including the value of hemlock for winter deer yards and wetlands for migratory bird species
8. talus slopes

3.6: Trail maintenance

The most pressing concern in constructing a trail system is constructing water bars on the existing roads to alleviate erosion. One of the existing roads along the northern edge of the wetlands and approaching the eastern boundary with the Weiner’s property runs directly through a stream where a water bar installed promptly could mitigate damage from erosion. The trail should be rerouted around the stream when construction of the trail network is underway.

The other concern in creating a trail network is the establishment of viewsheds. Our recommendations for trails include one loop that takes advantage of existing viewsheds from large glacial erratics on the eastern end of the property, while the suggested path through the center and along the ridge could benefit from some simple alterations. Because of the danger inherent in running a trail directly along the edge of a cliff, we suggest setting the trail back from the sharp drop-off on the south side of the ridge and using simple silvicultural techniques to open up the understory and take advantage of the fantastic view observed from the ridgeline. Thinning from below, or removing several small diameter trees, specifically scrubby chestnut oak, will create a more park-like atmosphere along the ridge and afford views of the cornfield immediately and Washington in the distance. All large shade trees should be retained, however, to prevent the growth of annuals which may quickly take advantage of a gap in the overstory to proliferate and block the view the treatment intended to release (Birchard & Proudman, 1981).

4: Hunting

Hunting has been one of the primary uses of the Macricostas Preserve throughout its history. Many local hunters regard this parcel as some of the best hunting ground in the area because of its size and especially because of its habitat diversity. When Steep Rock took over management of this land two years ago hunting was no longer allowed on the property. We recommend that Steep Rock reexamine this policy. Deer overpopulation is a major problem in the area. Excessive deer browse may be having a negative effect on regeneration of forests in the Macricostas Preserve. Reducing the deer population through hunting can alleviate these effects. In addition, allowing local hunters access to the property could be an opportunity to help Steep Rock with some of its problems with its public perception. Steep Rock should seriously consider this, especially in light of the fact that two thirds of the purchase price of the preserve, about one million dollars, came from taxpayer dollars from the town and state.

Of course, hunting must be managed in ways that are compatible with other uses of the property such as hiking. We recommend a limited hunt, restricted to bow hunting for deer on areas that are not adjacent to popular trails. Steep Rock should consider developing a hunting plan in partnership with a local hunting group such as the Washington Rod and Gun Club. Leasing the right to hunt to such a group would allow Steep Rock to transfer control and oversight to an organization that could tightly control its members. This may offer the additional benefit of yearly lease revenue that could be reinvested for improvement of the property. Steep Rock should examine the hunting policies of other organizations that allow multiple use of land such as the State of Connecticut DEP.

5: Farming

The cornfield is in the second year of a ten-year lease to Potter’s Farm, a dairy operation in Washington with 400 cows. The Potters grow 400 acres of corn in total, mostly on land owned by others in Washington and Bethlehem. The lease with Steep Rock is the only formal written arrangement that Potters have with the owners of the 1000 acres they farm. All other arrangements are "gentlemen’s agreements."

The Potters have grown corn on the Macricostas field for about two years. Before they began farming it, Danny Logue, another local dairy farmer, had it in corn for two years. Prior to that the field lay fallow for about five years. Prior to that the field was farmed for about 25 years in a relatively passive manner, with little upkeep in the form of fertilization or other maintenance. As a result of this history, these soils are now very low in organic matter but quite high in phosphorus because of spreading of chicken manure when it was part of the Wells Chicken Farm. The soil is currently excessively acidic, but the pH is gradually coming up with organic matter inputs from cornstalks and the spreading of lime. John Potter characterized the field as marginally productive. The soils on the hill are quite droughty, while the back side by Meeker Swamp is excessively wet. In terms of productivity, about 20% is average to above average, 20% is average to below average, and the remaining 60% is below average.

At Macricostas, the Potters grow high-moisture content corn for production of grain for cattle feed. The corn is picked with a combine, a machine that picks the cobs from the stalks, separates the kernels (the grain), and leaves behind the cobs, stalks, and all other parts of the plant. By leaving behind the stalks, cobs and leaves to decompose, grain production contributes to soil organic matter and provides long-term improvement to the productivity of the field.

This particular field provides the farm with 1/3 of its total grain production. Growing such a high percentage of total grain on one field is valuable to the farm. The field’s protected status also makes it valuable to the farm because an ever-increasing number of other fields on the area continue to be sold and developed. Protection of the field provides secure land tenure that allows the Potters to plan for the long-term. For this reason, John Potter views stewardship of the field as in the farm’s best interest. This factor along with the 10-year duration of the lease provides the Potters with an incentive to invest in the upkeep and productivity of the field. Examples of improvements that the Potters plan on making are spreading lime to increase pH, continued buildup of soil organic matter, fertilizing with manure to increase soil nutrients, and cutting back of the encroaching field edge. Currently Potter plans on only occasionally spreading manure because the cost and logistics of hauling large amounts of manure from the farm to the field prevent yearly spreading.

John Potter says he would farm the fallow cornfield on the 40-acre inholding if he had access. Currently access to the other field is denied because the bridge over Bee Brook is not suitable. In order to have the Potters cultivate corn on the inholding, Steep Rock or the current owner, Macricostas, would have to invest in a new bridge. This bridge would have to carry a 20-ton lime truck and be 16 feet wide to accommodate tractors and the combine. The Potters are not interested in growing crops on the flood plain area in the inholding and around the house and barns because the soils are too wet.

We recommend that Steep Rock continue to lease the field to local farmers for corn production. Long-term leases should be sought to encourage stewardship and investments in upkeep and productivity. We do not recommend expanding production into the fallow field on the inholding because of the prohibitive expense of building an adequate bridge. As dairy operations continue to disappear from the area Steep Rock may one day find that there are no longer farmers in the area who are willing or able to grow corn on the Macricostas field. If this situation arises we recommend that Steep Rock consider leasing the field for some other type of production, such as hay. John Potter stated that the field would work as a hay field, but conversion would involve an upfront cost of $25-30,000 for seeding. Local hay farmers such as Bobby Seymour should be consulted for development of a contingency plan. If in the future no farmers are willing or able to work the field we recommend a course of action to keep the field open and prevent it from reverting to young forest. This may involve mowing or prescribed burning. Keeping the field open will continue to provide town with the landscape diversity, habitat diversity, and extraordinary views that the cornfield now provides. The unique, wide-open feel of the landscape at the Macricostas Preserve is a major factor in its value as conservation land and we recommend that Steep Rock maintain this characteristic in the long term.

6: Monitoring

The primary tool for management of the Macricostas Preserve is periodic biophysical monitoring of several key areas. By developing an extensive database of vegetation cover, species richness, forest health, etc., changes over time can be tracked and a valuable historical record will be created for use in the future by land managers, researchers, students, and other interested parties. Furthermore, periodic monitoring will enable Steep Rock to pinpoint and address any management issues, such as invasion by exotic species, before they spiral out of control. Specific monitoring management suggestions are as follows:

6.1: BioBlitz

Steep Rock should consider assembling a group of naturalists with specializations in different species taxa, such as birds, small mammals, large mammals, herbaceous plants, wetland plants, shrubs, fungi, insects, spiders, amphibians, etc., to investigate the Macricostas Preserve and categorize every species found. A periodic BioBlitz, every five years in spring, summer, and fall, would provide a comprehensive listing of the biota within the Preserve. Rare species, specifically plants and amphibians, would be located and habitat protection measures then identified.

6.2: Herbarium

Betsy Corrigan, local field naturalist, is in the process of constructing a herbarium for the Macricostas Preserve (Fall 2002). Periodic BioBlitzing as defined above would enable Steep Rock to maintain and expand their herbarium, adding new specimens as discovered on the Preserve and creating a historical record of vegetational succession in the Preserve.

6.3: Vernal Pool Inventory

Vernal pools are protected as watercourses under Connecticut State Law (183 C. 532, 539 Sec. 22a-38). A trained ecologist should inventory and map all vernal pools within the Macricostas Preserve and register his/her findings with the State. Several methods exist for inventorying and certifying vernal pools, as delineated by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (2000):

• Obligate Species Method: Evidence of a confined basin depression with no permanently flowing outlet and evidence of either breeding obligate amphibians or adult obligate invertebrate
• Facultative Species Method: Evidence of a confined basin depression with no permanently flowing outlet and evidence that there is no established, reproducing fish population, and photographs of two or more of a selected list of amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates. [See table, below.]
• Dry Pool Method: Evidence of a confined basin depression containing no standing water (dry pool) and one of the following:
  - Cases of caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera)
  - Adults, juveniles, or shells of either freshwater clams (Pisidiidae) amphibious, air-breathing snails (Basommatophora)
  - Shed skins (exuvia) of dragonfly or damselfly larvae on vegetation along the edge of the pool

AMPHIBIANS	REPTILES	INVERTEBRATES
Breeding Spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer)	Spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata)	Predaceous diving beetle larvae (Dystiscidae)
Breeding Gray treefrog(Hyla versicolor)	Blanding's turtle (Emydoidea blandingii)	Water scorpion (Nepidae)
Breeding American toad (Bufo americanus)	Wood turtle (Clemmys insculpta)	Dragonfly larvae (Odonata: Anisoptera)
Breeding Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousii)	Painted turtle (Chrysemys p. pictata)	Damselfly larvae (Odonata: Zygoptera)
Breeding Green frog (Rana clamitans melanota)	Snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina)	Whirligig beetle larvae (Gyrinidae)
Breeding Pickerel frog (Rana palustris)		Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera)
Breeding Leopard frog (Rana pipiens)		Leeches (Hirundinea)
Breeding Four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum)		Freshwater (fingernail) clams (Pisididae)
Adult or Breeding Red-spotted newt (Notophthalmus v. viridescens)		Amphibious, air-breathing snails (Basommatophora)

Source: Massachusetts Natural and Endangered Heritage Program 2001

Once pools have been identified, periodic monitoring can determine how the pools may be expanding or decreasing in area over time. Regular species inventories can also determine the presence of endangered or threatened species, and subsequent habitat conservation plans should be adopted given their presence. Attached as Appendix H are sample vernal pool inventory sheets used by the Massachusetts Natural and Endangered Heritage Program.

6.4: Forest Health Monitoring

The greatest threats to ecosystems within the Macricostas Preserve are invasive plants and pathogens. By instructing the public users through trail signs and brochures available at the trailhead to report any suspected invasive plants or pathogens, such as the wooly adelgid, to Steep Rock, management steps as out-lined in Section 6.9 can be appropriately evaluated and engaged to control the problem. Trail corridors and parking areas are especially vulnerable to invasion by exotic plants as cars, humans, and pets can all act as dispersal agents. Periodic inventory of the wetland areas should also help to identify any new invasions carried by Bee Brook through its course or brought by birds and small mammals.

7: Areas of Ecological Significance

Through the inventory of the Macricostas Preserve, several areas were identified as unique and should be regularly monitored. Three areas warrant specific mention: the talus slopes, the black gum ridgetop hollow, and the calcareous swamp areas.

7.1: Talus Slopes

The talus slopes will be an ideal location to survey local wildlife. As we have stated earlier, there are many species dependent upon caves, rock outcrops, and other rock formations. This should provide significant opportunity for scientific study. Care should also be taken in these areas regarding passive recreation. The large boulders and talus could cause injury to hikers.

7.2: Black Gum Ridge Top Hollow

An old-growth Black Gum, or Tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica) stand was found in a large vernal pool area southwest of the Pinnacle. Regular diameter at breast height (dbh) and height measurements should be taken to monitor the growth of these trees. This site may be recommended to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection for inclusion in Connecticut’s Natural Diversity Data Base, a subset of the Natural Heritage Program. We would recommend that this area remain off the general trail system since it is part of a vernal pool system. Given its swampy character, we feel that it will mainly be of interest to specialists and they can be informed on a need to know basis.

7.3: Calcareous Wetlands

A survey of rare plants should be conducted in the calcareous wetlands. There is a good chance that state and federally listed endangered or threatened species could show up in these areas, and this may significantly affect management decisions. Water quality should also be monitored, and details about pH content of the soils and water should be recorded.

8: Educational and Research Opportunities

Because of the unique ecosystems occurring within the Macricostas Preserve, an interpretative brochure associated with the loop trail would help the public realize the ecological significance of the Preserve. Interesting points, such as the red maple swamp, forest health problems and invasive species, wildlife habitat, calcareous wetlands, and past land use could be identified and explained. By encouraging local schools to bring students to the Preserve, an early conservation ethic can be instilled in the next generation. Guided nature walks, perhaps led by a local naturalist, are also an easy means of achieving the goal of conservation education.

Furthermore, other unique characteristics withheld from the public trail system, such as the Black Gum Ridgetop Hollow, could be open for researchers from local universities to conduct research projects.

9: Forest Health

A primary goal in managing the Macricostas Preserve is the conservation of native biodiversity. The insects and pathogens and invasive species detailed in section 4.2 are revisited with suggestions for managing their spread and mitigating damage to local ecosystems sustained by these pests. Addressing forest health is a primary issue in preserving the integrity of Northeastern forests. Restoring areas degraded by past use and subsequently invaded by exotic species and taking steps to alleviate damage caused to tree species by deadly pests should be a top priority in managing the Macricostas Preserve.

9.1: Insects and Pathogens
• Hemlock Wooly Adelgid: Though no infested hemlock trees were observed in the Macricostas Preserve in our Biophysical Inventory, monitoring and public education of Preserve users will ensure that once the adelgid does arrive at the Preserve it may be caught early in the infestation. Given Steep Rock’s previous experience with Mark McClure, entomologist at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, it would be beneficial to report any infestation to McClure and determine its scale (Branson 2002). Depending on the accessibility of the infested trees and the financial resources available, the biological control method of releasing Pseudoscymnus tsugae, a natural predator of the adelgid, may be employed to reduce the potential for a large-scale hemlock death. Because of Steep Rock’s positive experience in the Steep Rock Reservation with Pseydoscymnus tsugae, in which the adelgid infestation seems to be declining and hemlock growth rates increasing, other management options such as salvage logging and planting are less favorably advised (Branson 2002).

• Hemlock Scale: Currently, the elongate hemlock scale (Fiorinia externa) is the primary threat to hemlock stands in the Macricostas Preserve. Treatment options are limited, as there is no practical chemical option for attacking the scale. Aerial spraying is ineffective due to the nature of the scale, which attacks the underside of hemlock needles. Spraying from below is also ineffective due to the near impossibility of complete coverage spraying; incomplete spraying results in mortality to natural predators of the scale (Roy 1992). Salvage logging is impractical, as access is difficult and would most likely not be cost-efficient. There is no practical solution for control of hemlock scale.

• Beech Bark Disease: Occasionally, in areas heavily infested with beech bark disease a few individuals remain unscathed, indicating that some beeches may be genetically resistant to the disease. However, because beech reproduces vigorously from root sprouts, mortality of beech trees due to beech bark disease and subsequent root shooting may produce a stand of beech trees even more susceptible to the disease, indicating that future outbreaks could be much larger (Tainter 1996). Herbicides can be used in this case to control and minimize the reproduction of stands predisposed to infection. Natural predators of the scale and the fungus exist, respectively, the twice-stabbed ladybird beetle (Chilocorus stigma) and the mycoparasite Gonatorrhodiella highlei. However, neither of these predators is particularly effective in controlling large-scale beech bark disease outbreaks (Tainter 1996). The primary control strategy lies in manipulating the genetic make-up of beech stands through salvage logging. This strategy is financially excessive as beech does not have a high market value. Because the disease has been observed on only a few individuals, no action is recommended at this time.

• Armillaria: Armillaria spp. is a common pathogen in forests worldwide, and can actually be beneficial when infections are sporadic. Death of individual trees affected by Armillaria can create small gap openings beneficial for wildlife forage and snags provide dens and nesting opportunities for birds and small mammals (Tainter 1996). However, due to the potential for tree fall, Armillaria infected individuals near trails, campsites, or other areas frequented by humans should be felled to reduce the possibility of injury or damage to people or property (Tainter 1996). Regular inspection of the periphery trees surrounding developed areas or trails and felling of dead trees will alleviate any potential Armillaria-related problems.

• Gypsy Moths: Public education and monitoring are the best indices to use to determine the potential for a gypsy moth outbreak. Hikers should be aware of egg masses on leaves in the fall, winter, and early spring and report any sightings; egg masses should be destroyed upon positive identification.

9.2: Invasive Species

Early detection and subsequent removal are the most effective means of controlling invasive species. The key to detection is identification and delineation of invasive species from their sometimes nearly identical native counterparts. By implementing an annual monitoring schedule for areas prone to invasion, problems may be identified and controlled before the invasion becomes unmanageable. Target areas should include along abandoned roads, trails, field edges, and along watercourses, specifically Bee Brook. Educating users of the preserve through a trailhead billboard or pamphlet to identify invasive plants and report new growth can help the Steep Rock Association with monitoring and delineating areas to target for removal of problem invasions.

Some invasive plants are more receptive to different methods of eradication. Many invasive species can be controlled with the application of herbicide, the most prevalent of which is glysophate (Roundup®). Before embarking on a purge of invasive individuals with herbicide, it would be prudent to consult an agricultural specialist for application guide-lines, specifically timing of application and concentration. Following is a list of prevalent invasives in the Macricostas Preserve and the recommended methods of removal.

• Japanese barberry (Berberis thungbergii): The most effective manner of controlling barberry is through physical removal by hand-pulling or digging up individuals. In areas where the level of infestation is high burning is also a viable option. The population of Japanese barberry in the Macricostas Preserve is not substantial enough to warrant burning; by identifying individuals and soliciting volunteer labor to remove them the invasion may be kept in check (DEP 2002).

• Autumn olive (Elaegnus umbellata) and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia): Young individuals can be removed by hand-pulling when the soil is moist to ensure complete eradication of root mass in the soil. Larger, older individuals can be controlled by herbicide application, taking care to avoid contact with native plants. By applying the herbicide to freshly cut stumps, the potential for damage to native plants is minimized. Burning and cutting older individuals exacerbates the invasion, as the olives respond with vigorous root-sprouting and dense thickets (Virginia Natural Heritage Program 2002).

• Asiatic bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus): Cutting back individuals and applying herbicide is again the most effective means of eradicating bittersweet. Care must be taken to avoid applying herbicide to native plants. Because bittersweet maintains an abundant seed bank, treatment must be continued for a period of two to three years, until the source of the invasion has been exterminated (Nature Conservancy 2002).

• Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora): Cutting down plants several times a year may stunt the growth and spread of multiflora rose if continued over a period of several years. Herbicide is also an effective means of controlling rose invasions; again, care must be taken to avoid contact with native plants (Nature Conservancy 2002).

• Burningbush (Euonymus alatus): Mechanical control is an effective means of controlling Burningbush invasions. Individuals less then two feet tall can be hand-pulled under moist soil conditions, while larger individuals can be removed with the aid of a spading fork. Larger shrubs can also be cut; to prevent regrowth the stump can either be ground out or painted with herbicide (Wildland Invasive Species Team 2002).

• Privet (Ligustrum spp.): Because the density of privet in the Macricostas Preserve is currently relatively low, it should be a priority target for invasive control. As density increases, the potential for restoration and eradication decreases rapidly. Mowing and cutting are appropriate measures for small invasions in easily accessible areas. Multiple cuttings may be necessary over a period of several years to ensure eradication. Young plants can be effectively removed by hand when the soil is moist. Several methods of herbicide application, including foliar spray, cut stump application, and basal bark application may all be appropriate. Prescribed burning may be appropriate if burns can be administered regularly; however, the degree of invasion is low enough that mechanical removal methods are the most appropriate (Batcher 2000).

• Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata): Garlic mustard is easily controlled if individuals are removed prior to seed production in the late spring. Late fall and early spring monitoring for immature rosettes and early to mid spring for flowering adults are ideal times to halt an invasion. The best places to monitor are along edges, such as parking lots, trails, stream banks, and fields for new populations. For existing populations, burning provides mixed results; usually fire is successful as a management strategy if spring or fall burns can be conducted, and two or more are necessary to ensure eradication of individuals. Again, applying herbicide during the dormant season can also be an effective means of control. However, mechanical control is very effective and probably the easiest means of control. Individuals should be cut at ground level during the flowering season and the stems should be bagged and removed from the site. Pulling entire individuals from the ground in early spring is also very effective (Nuzzo 2000).

• Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria): Management for purple loosestrife should begin immediately due to its already established presence and potential for rapid spread throughout the wetlands of the Macricostas Preserve. The first step in eradicating or containing the population is to determine the scale of the spread through ground surveys in July or August, when the flowers easily identify individuals. Control is best enacted through mechanical removal of individuals by hand-pulling. It is necessary to remove all of the roots as loosestrife may re-sprout from roots remaining in the soil. Broken stems may also re-sprout and should be completely removed from the treatment area. Herbicide, specifically RoundUp™, is also effective though careless application will result in death of native species as well. However, we do not recommend the use of RoundUp™ in the wetland area or near watercourses. Rodeo™ has been approved for use near water; spot application by cutting all stems to six inches and painting the cut surface with the herbicide is effective and localizes the effects of the herbicide. Because of the persistence of loosestrife due to the presence of massive seed banks, it is crucial that any control effort be monitored and followed up on later in the growing season and for several subsequent years to ensure that the infestation has been eradicated (Bender & Rendall 2001).

9.3: Wildlife

Deer browse is the primary threat to forest regeneration at the Macricostas Preserve. The primary measure in protecting the future overstory of oak stands here lies in an active deer management monitoring and control program. Deer populations could explode here as these animals retreat to its hemlock stands for winter cover and abundant understory vegetation for browse without the threat of hunters. Hunting in a limited, controlled capacity may alleviate some of the problems caused to forested ecosystems by high deer populations.

Conclusions

The management recommendations outlined above provide Steep Rock with a solid base on which to develop management policies for the Macricostas Preserve. With the acquisition of this property Steep Rock has taken on a heavy responsibility. The Preserve not only represents 368 more acres of land to worry about, but also involves a whole new suite of management issues that are far different from those that Steep Rock is probably used to. Examples of these issues include:

1. How to manage a resource that was acquired with a significant input of public money (two thirds of the sale price).
2. How to manage abandoned agricultural lands, which require immediate and aggressive management.
3. How to preserve active agricultural lands without degrading the character of natural communities.
4. How to reconcile passive recreation like hiking with active recreation like hunting.
5. How to manage rare and unique ecological communities. Our position is that this responsibility is really an opportunity to create innovative approaches to the above issues and others and to serve as a model to other land trusts that will be faced with similar issues in the future.

Based on our research, we feel that Steep Rock can rest assured that they have done a great service to the community of Washington and the region in general by acquiring and protecting such a unique resource. We hope that our survey proves that the Macricostas Preserve contains a myriad of qualities that make it extremely valuable as conservation land and a truly special place. Finally, we hope that our recommendations prove useful as Steep Rock faces the management challenges posed by the Macricostas Preserve far into the future.

---

Home | The Reservations | Land Preservation | History | Stewardship | Membership | Other Links

---

Copyright © 2003-2008 Steep Rock Association, Inc. All rights reserved.