View Powisset Farm management plan

Powisset Farm Management Plan
2005
©
On the Cover:
Looking northwest toward Powissett Street from the center of Powisset Farm.
Photo by C. Rodstrom.
Photo Credits:
Title Pages
Section 3
Maps:
Section 4
Section 5
Section 6
Section 7
Section 8
Section 9
Section 10
Section 11
Photographer
Unknown, from Amelia Peabody by Linda Smith Rhoads
for The Amelia Peabody Charitable Fund
A. Walsh
L. Vernegaard
C. Rodstrom
J. Younger
A. Walsh
L. Vernegaard
A. Walsh
C. Rodstrom
Section 5
All photos
J. Younger
Description and Page
Base Map, inside cover
Locus, p. 2-1
Cultural Resources of Powisset Farm, p.3-12
Regional Open Space, p. 4-3
Powisset Farm Soil Types, p. 4-6
Vegetation Communities, p. 4-9
Trail Easements near Powisset Farm, p. 7-9
Critical Lands, p. 7-10
TTOR Properties in the Charles River Valley Management Unit, p. 8-1
Active Regional Agricultural Operations, p. 9-3
Drive Time Analysis, p. 9-7
Schematic of Recommendations for Agricultural Activity, p. 10-2
About the Maps Included in the Plan:
Unless otherwise noted, all maps are produced by The Trustees of Reservations’
Geographic Information System. Production of these maps is made possible, in
part, by generous donations from the Stratford Foundation, Environmental
Systems Research Institute, Inc., Data General Corporation, and Hewlett
Packard.
Source data obtained from 1:24,000 scale USGS topographic maps, field surveys,
Global Positioning Systems, and the Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs, Mass GIS. Feature boundaries and locations are
approximate.
Powisset Farm Management Plan 2005
Table of Contents
1- Introduction
2- Executive Summary
3- Land Use History
4- Natural Resources
5- Structural Resources
6- The Visitor Experience
7- Land Conservation
8- Current Management
9- Agriculture
10- Recommended Actions
11- Implementation
12- Appendices
Section 1: Introduction
1.1
Overview of the Planning Process
Since 1891, The Trustees of Reservations has worked to protect special places in
Massachusetts and maintain them to the highest standards. To ensure these standards are
met, a program of careful planning and sound management is essential. While
management of Powisset Farm is well-established, The Trustees felt it was important to
affirm the outstanding characteristics of the property and to review current management
practices with the goal of establishing an active agricultural program. Thus, during the
summer of 2004, The Trustees embarked on a process to develop a comprehensive
management plan for Powisset Farm. The planning process included:
o Forming a planning committee made up of six members of the local communities
(Dover, Westwood, Medfield) who represented various stakeholder groups and
brought an array of expertise to the table.
o Conducting research on numerous types of farming operations and assessing their
potential viability at Powisset Farm.
o Making a site visit to The Trustees’ Appleton Farms property in Hamilton and
Ipswich to view an active Community Supported Agriculture program and a
livestock operation.
o Describing in detail Powisset’s natural, scenic, cultural, and structural resources
and identifying management issues related to the protection of those resources.
o Developing a list of management recommendations and a schedule for
implementing the actions.
In order to ensure that both the planning process and the recommended future
management of its properties support The Trustees’ mission and meet the organization’s
high standards for resource protection and the visitor experience, an established
framework is applied to guide the planning process for each Trustees’ reservation. This
framework outlines several factors that will guide the management of the property:
First, The Trustees’ mission, as set forth by founder Charles Eliot in 1891:
The Trustees of Reservations preserves, for public use and enjoyment, properties
of exceptional scenic, historic, and ecological value throughout Massachusetts
and protects special places across the state.
Introduction
1- 1
Second, management will support initiatives outlined in The Trustees’ Department of
Field Operations’ 2003 strategic plan, Conservation in Action! This plan highlights
several initiatives, including the following:
•
•
•
•
•
Be a leader in the conservation field through the exemplary stewardship of the
scenic, historic, and ecological features of each property entrusted to our care.
Expand our education and interpretation program to turn visitors into the future
stewards of the Massachusetts landscape.
Provide meaningful opportunities for volunteers to participate in hands-on
management.
Protect our plants and animals and their habitats, including controlling exotic
invasive species.
Eliminate deferred maintenance (i.e., repair and then properly maintain
structural features that have failed and no longer serve their intended function
properly).
Third, the Farm is subject to an Agricultural Preservation Restriction (APR) held jointly
by the Commonwealth and the Town of Dover. This restriction, summarized in Section 8
of this plan and included in its entirety as Appendix D, is a key component of the
planning framework as it requires that the property remain in active agricultural use in
perpetuity.
Finally, several principles will guide The Trustees’ work at Powisset Farm. These
guiding principles reflect the general rules that will be applied when carrying out work at
all Trustees’ properties. They are value statements that may also provide a source of
criteria for determining goals and recommended actions.
1. The Trustees will continue to adapt its management based on experience, newly
gained knowledge, and available human and financial resources.
2. Resource protection is The Trustees’ fundamental responsibility. Thus, we will
apply the best available management practices to preserve Powisset’s outstanding
features and to ensure a high quality experience for all visitors.
3. Successful management of the property relies on sound financial management. In
order to be the best possible stewards of our financial and human resources, we
nurture a culture of innovation, financial discipline, and thriftiness.
4. The Trustees is committed to providing a diversity of visitors a wide range of
opportunities to experience Powisset Farm. We consider the Farm as one of our
95 classrooms where visitors can participate in a variety of enjoyable activities
and life-long learning. By engaging a diversity of constituencies, we will
mobilize broad-based support for land and resource protection in Massachusetts.
Introduction
1- 2
5. Through good communication and collaboration, The Trustees will confirm and
strengthen its partnerships with the local community, members, volunteers, and
other conservation partners. We view ourselves as a community partner,
investing in creative initiatives to build shared values, perspectives and skills
among a diverse constituency.
6. The Trustees will employ “green practices” to minimize the impact of its
management on the environment.
7. Because the surrounding landscape may impact our resource protection efforts
and/or visitor services, we will evaluate and address management issues and
opportunities beyond the boundary of the Farm.
1.2 Acknowledgments
We are enormously grateful to all of the volunteers, staff, and other professionals who
have worked very hard to produce this management plan. Leading the way was a
Management Planning Committee that consisted of Trustees’ members and volunteers as
well as several staff members. The planning team included:
Volunteers:
Steven Browne, Chairman
Bonnie Akins
George Chimento
John Loughnane
Sara Molyneaux
Bob Truesdale
Staff and Consultants
Edie Dondero, Planner
Lisa Vernegaard, Director of Planning and Stewardship
Jeff Montgomery, Superintendent, Charles River Valley
Management Unit
Andy Walsh, Southeast Regional Ecologist
Steve Sloan, Southeast Regional Director
Wayne Beitler, Land Conservation Program Assistant
Jim Younger, Director of Structural Resources
Electa Kane Tritsch, Cultural Resources Consultant
In turn, the committee drew upon the assistance of several other individuals. Special
thanks go to the staff of Appleton Farms, especially Wayne Castonguay, Jenny Hausman,
Mark Bailey and Mike Victor, for sharing their agricultural expertise and for providing
assistance with research, advice and support; Melissa Gilbert for providing valuable
agricultural data and other information; Rob Daniels, The Trustees’ GIS Specialist, who
prepared the maps included in the plan; Sally Matkovich for editing portions of the plan;
and Jenn Alton, who compiled the final product.
Thanks to the thoughtful and tireless participation of these individuals, and their
passionate interest and concern for this unique treasure, Powisset Farm will forever
remain one of The Commonwealth’s special places.
Introduction
1- 3
Section 2: Executive Summary
2.1
The Significance of Powisset Farm
Powisset Farm was purchased by the
Massachusetts Farm and Conservation
Lands Trust, a subsidiary of The
Trustees of Reservations, from the estate
of Miss Amelia Peabody in 1985. An
agricultural preservation restriction
(APR) covering most of the property
was sold to the Commonwealth and the
Town of Dover the following year,
ensuring that Powisset will remain an
agricultural landscape in perpetuity.
Powisset Farm adjoins over 2,000 acres
of open space to its north and east,
making it an important component of a
greater open space network.
An Exceptional Cultural Landscape
The open fields and cluster of farm buildings one sees at Powisset Farm comprise a
scenic, pastoral landscape that is a rare treasure within the Greater Boston area. With a
history of active agricultural use dating back over 300 years, Powisset Farm is an
invaluable cultural resource. The existing farm buildings and structures are a vivid and
cherished reminder of this history.
Valuable Wildlife Habitat
Powisset Farm contains nearly 70 acres of hayfields and abandoned pasture. These
grasslands, and the species they support, are currently in decline in New England due to
the general trend toward reforestation over the last 50 years. If properly managed, the
grasslands at Powisset have the potential to support nesting grassland birds in addition to
other grassland wildlife including butterflies and odonates (dragonflies and damselflies).
An Untapped Opportunity
Although modest agricultural activity (e.g., haying and grazing) has occurred at Powisset
over the last twenty years, the property’s ability to support active agriculture that yields
numerous social and conservation benefits has not yet been tapped. Powisset Farm can
offer visitors the opportunity to experience firsthand a working agricultural landscape, an
opportunity that has become rare in the Greater Boston area.
Executive Summary
2- 1
2.2 Significant Management Issues and Challenges
o Deferred maintenance has become a threat to existing structures on the property
which currently lack a programmatic use (e.g., the Butler Barn). Opportunities
for adaptive re-use will abound with the establishment of an active agricultural
program, thereby eliminating the creation of further deferred maintenance.
o Invasive plants are common throughout the property, particularly along the forest
edges. Without effective control, the spread of these plants will impact native
plant communities on and adjacent to the property.
o Without periodic disturbance (e.g., mowing or brush clearing), the early
successional habitats on the Farm (i.e., abandoned pasture areas) will revert to
forest, resulting in a loss of valuable wildlife habitat.
2.3
A Vision for the Future
While acknowledging the significant qualities and features of the property, and in
keeping with the elements of the planning framework laid out in Section 1, The Trustees’
vision for Powisset Farm is that in ten years time, it will be:
A Working Farm
In the coming years, visitors will witness the rebirth of a vibrant farm operation at the
property. There will be several key features of the agricultural program.
•
•
•
A variety of cultivated crops managed as a Community Supported Agriculture
(CSA) program. The CSA will be the primary form of agriculture at the property.
A small-scale pig operation will begin on a seasonal basis and, over time, may grow
to be a year-round program. Raising pigs at Powisset not only supports the best use
of an existing building (the Piggery), but also re-establishes a historic use of the
property. The potential may exist for the pig operation to become a grass-based
grazing operation in the future.
Hay production will keep the hayfields in their current open condition and will
provide habitat for grassland-dependent wildlife.
A Conservation Success
Key aspects of the resource protection program will include:
•
•
•
Maintaining all existing buildings to support key operations, including farm
operations, visitor services, maintenance, staff housing, and administration.
Maintaining the cultural resource and scenic values of the landscape by retaining the
fields in an open condition, particularly those that border Powissett Street.
Protecting the significant ecological values associated with the landscape. Examples
of ecological resource protection include:
Executive Summary
2- 2
a. managing approximately 37 acres of grassland as habitat for grassland-dependent
wildlife;
b. managing and monitoring numerous vernal pools to protect these priority habitats;
and
c. developing a science-based monitoring program to ensure the long-term
protection of the property’s natural resources.
A Place of Enjoyment, Wonder, and Learning
One of Powisset Farm’s greatest values will be realized if visitors are able to have an
enjoyable and informative experience on a working landscape, and come away feeling a
renewed connection with the land. Indeed, the quality of the visitor experience is at the
core of The Trustees’ goals for the property. At Powisset, The Trustees will encourage:
•
•
•
•
•
outdoor recreation, such as walking and nature study;
passive interpretation, such as viewing exhibits or following a self-guided trail;
structured interpretation such as joining a guided walk or participating in an
educational program;
special events such as “Family Fun Days”; and
engaging, hands-on opportunities for volunteers to assist with property stewardship.
The Synergy of Farm, Resource Protection, and Visitor Experience
The Trustees of Reservations will realize its vision for Powisset Farm only if it integrates
into one comprehensive approach its goals for agriculture, resource protection, and visitor
experience and education. The synergy of all three will make Powisset a unique and
wondrous place, fulfilling the mission and current initiatives of The Trustees of
Reservations.
2.4
Implementing the Vision
Section 10 of this management plan details 72 recommended actions that will achieve the
vision for the future as described above. The total cost of implementing these actions
over the next nine years (FY2007-2015) is estimated to be $637,466. (This total may
actually be higher, as the costs of implementing several action steps were unknown as of
the writing of this plan.) Of this amount, an additional $301,136 in new funding and/or
in-kind donations is needed to complete all of the actions proposed. The bulk of the plan
costs are scheduled for the first phase (FY2007-FY2009) of implementation, and are
mainly associated with start-up of the farm operation, specifically the hiring of new staff
and capital improvements and adaptive re-use of existing buildings and structures.
Executive Summary
2- 3
Section 3: Land Use History
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Native American History
Early Agriculture
Diversification of the Farm
The Amelia Peabody Years
Cultural Resource Inventory
A young Amelia Peabody, circa 1910(?)
Section 3: Land Use History
3.1
Native American History
Long before Amelia Peabody amassed the plots of land in Dover now known as Noanet
Woodlands and Powisset Farm, the area was fished, farmed and hunted by Native
Americans. Noanet, according to early Dedham records, was a sachem of the Natick
Indians, a tribal group affiliated with other Massachusetts tribes probably including the
Nipmuck and the Wampanoag.
A 1663 land grant makes reference to “Nowanit’s ware” [weir] on the Charles River,
located where the Willow Street dam crosses the Charles today.1 A 1664 grant mentions
“Noannet’s” wigwam, believed to have been located at the mouth of Noanet Brook in
Dover.2 He appears again in the Dedham records in 1680 as an “ancient Indian”, but by
that time, the Natick Indians had generally removed from the Dover area onto the lands
set apart as the town of Natick.3
The second Native American name is more obscure. “Powissett” appears on modern
maps associated with an east/west road that meanders from Dover to Westwood. It is the
name of a 398 foot peak just north of the road and, most pertinently, of the farm
purchased by The Trustees of Reservations from the estate of Amelia Peabody in 1986.
Historically, Powisset appears most frequently as the name of a broad plain that served as
a landmark to early Dedham proprietors. A 1663 land grant in the area is described as
being “upon a plaine cald powisset.”4 In colonial terms, ‘plain’ meant an extensive tract
of relatively flat, open land. Richard Vara, in Dover Days Gone By, identifies Powissett
as the name of a group of Indians who farmed a plain located east of Noanet Brook.5
3.2 Early Agriculture
Whatever the exact location of Powisset Plain in prehistoric times, there seems to be
agreement that it was fertile land farmed by Contact Period Indians (ca. 1500-1700 A.D.).
The area encompassed by The Trustees’ Powisset Farm today is, therefore, aptly named.
Its documented agricultural use dates back at least to 1720, while one author refers to a
“tradition” that there was already a dry-herd house on the plain, used by Dedham settlers,
sixty years earlier.6
For the first hundred years after Dedham’s settlement in 1636, the area that would
become Dover was considered “outland” by Dedham landowners. Most of the land had
been legally subdivided and apportioned to Dedham proprietors, but they reserved much
of it for future use. Original proprietors whose unimproved lands measured in the
hundreds of acres deeded or willed equal portions to sons and to daughters’ husbands.
Land Use History
3-1
These tracts were the New World fortune that many had come to find, and they
guaranteed a solid beginning for any young man willing and able to put them to use.
By the early 1700s, many tracts had been passed down to second and third generation
Dedham -- and, by that time, Medfield -- sons. Among these was Samuel Chickering,
whose grandfather Nathaniel had been one of Dedham’s first and most respected
proprietors. By 1716 Samuel was in his late twenties and had received a portion of his
inheritance from his father. He requested the town Selectmen to lay out a “way … to his
land at poweset,7 which was accomplished the next summer.
Dedham Nouember ye 20 1717 …. We also laid out a road
for Samuell chickring and Amos fisher jun from the road
that was formerly laid out to amose fishers field [vicinity of
High Street and Dover Road, Westwood] and so into ye
woods from that road ouer the brook that comes out of the
pine swamp [called ‘Great Maple Swamp’ on 1818 map] as
it is drawn marked out to a rocky hill that is on the north
side of samuell chickrings swamp [Reserve Pond] and so
along to powiset plain and so crose the northerly end of
powiset plain to the land of amose fisher jvno [Walpole
Street] 8
If the interpolated locations are correct, Chickering had prepared the way for himself and
his soon-to-be bride, Mary Harding, to settle on Powisset Plain. They married in 1720,
and probably the move was made then, both to develop this large unimproved tract of
land and so that the bride could remain closer to her family in Medfield.
Shortly after Chickering settled at Powisset, a Dedham tax list hinted at his increasing
wealth and stability. A 1717 list indicated Chickering had owned no taxable land and
paid head tax for himself alone. By contrast, the 1726 list, identifying Chickering as
living “Att the West End”, shows him with a small but respectable real estate holding and
tax due for two adult males.9 Was some brother or cousin living with him, or a hired hand
helping to clear and fence the dozens of acres he was claiming for his farm?
There is no direct evidence of Powisset Farm‘s development over the next hundred years.
Genealogical research10 identifies the chain of inheritance from Samuel Chickering to his
daughter Mary and her husband, Samuel Fisher.
Mary was the only one of Samuel and Mary Chickering’s seven children to survive to
adulthood. In 1751 she married Fisher, a man fifteen years her senior, whose wife and
two children had all died within a month of each other, three years earlier. Probably
Fisher moved to Powisset Farm both to escape his own memories and to help out his
aging father-in-law who was, by then, in his sixties. Fisher’s misfortune did not leave
him, however. He died six years after his marriage to Mary, leaving a ten-month-old son
to inherit everything.
Land Use History
3-2
3.3 Diversification of the Farm
After the early tax listings for Samuel Chickering, there is a century-long silence
concerning land use at Powisset. The silence is more than made up for, however, by an
extraordinary set of documents compiled in settling the estate of Samuel Fisher, Jr.,
Chickering’s only grandson.
Samuel Jr. was the son born just before his father’s death in 1757. Presumably, during
Samuel’s growing years he remained on the farm with his aged grandparents, who both
died when he was 21, and his mother who died a year later. As soon as the Revolution
was over, Samuel married Abigail Mason, daughter of a family which, although Medfield
residents at the time of the wedding, had previously lived in Dover for some years.11 Did
Abigail’s father manage Powisset Farm for the Fishers during Samuel’s minority? If so,
then Samuel and Abigail, two years his junior, were old acquaintances before they
became man and wife.
Samuel and his wife aspired to a more comfortable life than could be found in an aging
farmhouse on the edge of Dover. By 1793 they had bought another, smaller farm with a
house already on it, in the center of town. Presumably it was a bigger house, for the
couple already had six living children and would have three more before the end of the
century. By that time, though, Samuel was well into an exercise in economic
diversification that would make his holdings a one-man empire by the time he died in
1822.
The settlement of Samuel’s estate, because of its size, complexity, and the number of
inheritors involved, required extended attention from the Probate Court of Norfolk
County. Among the court documents are a painstaking inventory of Fisher’s possessions,
both real and personal, and a proposal for the division of his real estate among the heirs,
accompanied by an elegant plan of the division lands.12 Ironically, Fisher left no will, and
the probate proceedings dragged on for five years before final settlement was made.
The real estate inventory, of itself, tells little about land use. The “Homestead near Dover
meetinghouse” and 27 acres of woodland were set off to the widow as her dower portion.
What remained were the “eastern section” and “western section” of Powessett [sic] farm:
a total of 471 acres, probably divided by the old section of Powisset Street that swung
north around Reserve Pond. Fisher’s land and buildings were valued at $20,960 in 1823,
making him arguably one of the richest landowners in the county. Fisher’s personal
estate, however, was also worth $3957, well above average for period farmers. And it is
in the listing of his personal possessions – his “moveables” – that we learn about his
cumulative efforts to diversify.
The inventory also lists the products that allow us to understand Fisher’s diversified land
use and activities. Although he may have thought of himself as a farmer, he had found a
profitable use for the hundreds of wooded acres he owned. Fisher built a saw mill to
process the timber harvested from Noanet Woods. His mill cut boards, planks and the
Land Use History
3-3
heavier joists needed for construction, and construction was big business in the turn-ofthe-century Dedham area. Dedham had just been established as the judicial seat of
Norfolk County in 1793, drawing hundreds of new residents to the area over the next two
or three decades. The resulting business boom sent shock waves of employment and
business opportunities through the surrounding countryside. Samuel Fisher was perfectly
situated to take advantage of those opportunities.
Construction timber was not the only source of income from his woodlands. Smaller trees
were cut and split into the 27 cords of maple and oak waiting to be sold as firewood. The
smallest caliper trees – and, presumably, some of the waste from the saw mill – were cut
into brands and slow-burned to charcoal for use by blacksmiths and forges in surrounding
towns.
Fisher obtained optimal financial return from his extensive property because he was born
into an era that saw the rise of a market economy in New England. He was also situated
in a part of Massachusetts that saw meteoric growth and diversification from the years of
the early republic until the 1820s or 1830s. At that point in time, the natural advantages
and capital investment in other regions outstripped the benefits of southeastern
Massachusetts, and Norfolk County’s economic boom years were over.
Figure 3.1- An 1831 map of Dover showing Powisset Farm.
Land Use History
3-4
Under the management of Fisher’s son-in-law, Timothy Allen, and subsequent owners
through the early 20th century, Powisset Farm reverted to a simpler pattern of land use.
The fields were primarily maintained as pasture and mowing for a herd of milk cows -herds providing a steady source of income for dozens of dairy farmers in western Norfolk
County. The deforested hillsides of Noanet Woods were sold to various owners, more
level plots to be used for grazing land; rougher terrain allowed to revert to scrub,
extensive low-bush blueberry, and prolific catbriar.
By World War I, when mineral coal became scarce and expensive, enough good-sized
timber had grown back in at least some areas of Noanet Woods for the Appalachian
Mountain Club to undertake a significant cordwood harvesting operation, primarily on
land now belonging to Hale Reservation. The history of the AMC’s wartime efforts and
subsequent use of the “Dover Woodlot” for passive recreation have been detailed in a
fascinating 1935 article in Appalachia magazine.13
3.4 The Amelia Peabody Years
In 1923, Miss Amelia Peabody, only daughter of Frank and Gertrude Peabody of Boston,
had three truckloads of furniture sent from the family’s cottage to the house she had just
purchased in Dover.14 Between that time and her death in 1984, Miss Peabody acquired at
least thirty additional lots of land, totaling 794 acres. These lots formed a solid tract of
land stretching from Mill Farm, her original purchase, at the north end, through Noanet
Woodlands, and across Powisset Street to Powisset Farm at the south end. Miss
Peabody’s tenure on the land was the last significant period in the development of this
area. The ways she used and changed this large and diverse tract effectively shaped what
the visitor sees today.
The pattern of land use that Amelia Peabody established was not unique in either its time
or place. What may set it apart from other country estates is, more than anything else, its
success – and that, in large part, is due to the long life of its proprietor.
Amelia Peabody did not enter the scene in Dover as a full-fledged “grand and proper
lady”. She was a young woman when, shortly after World War I, her father introduced
her to the Norfolk Hunt Club. The post-war years were a time of expansion at the Norfolk
Hunt. The club, located in Medfield, became a popular destination for wealthy
Bostonians intent on a day or a weekend of relaxation and entertainment out of the city.
Peabody and Saltonstall, Cabot, Goldthwait, Byng and men and women whose surnames
are now familiar in the Dover-Medfield area, took the train to Farm Station on the DoverMedfield line. There they could be met by Hunt Club staff and transported to a nearby
hotel. Perhaps they stayed with friends who had recently purchased one of the old farms
in the vicinity. Hunt weekends would be filled with social occasions including hunt
dinner and breakfast, as well as the hours spent riding through large tracts of unoccupied
land in the two towns and beyond.15
Land Use History
3-5
The influence of the Norfolk Hunt Club on the development (and preservation) of
Norfolk County cannot be overestimated. This single sporting venue brought together a
group of wealthy and highly influential Bostonians and introduced them to the landscape
of the western county towns including Dover, Medfield, Sherborn, Natick and
Westwood. The early 20th century, especially between the World Wars, was a period of
changing land use patterns in the region. Many of the traditional uses were becoming
outmoded: woodlot timber harvesting replaced by mineral coal for heat, crop lands left
fallow as more foodstuffs were imported from other regions, local residents seeking
employment either in local industry (such as the Medfield hat factory) or commuting to
jobs in the city.
To this landscape of change came Boston residents interested in buying a “place in the
country” – not as far from Boston as the previous generation had delighted in, but with
opportunities for fresh-air recreation unavailable in town. The fit was perfect. Dr. Joel
Goldthwait and the Jewell family in Medfield, for instance, brought together dozens of
minor holdings into large tracts earmarked for recreation and conservation. Today, these
properties are the backbone of The Trustees’ Rocky Woods and Fork Factory Brook
Reservations.
Similar land aggregation took place in Westwood, led by Robert Hale, and in Dover,
including the Saltonstall and Cabot holdings, and through the persistent efforts of Miss
Peabody. Amelia Peabody’s accumulation of 31 pieces of marginal farm land (Mill
Farm) and second- and third-growth woodlands (Noanet Woods) could not have been
excessively expensive. The only property of real agricultural value was the small dairy
operation at Powisset Farm, which was purchased some time later.16 But as she acquired
more acreage, her initial goal, that of enhancing the recreational value of the land by
associating it with the Norfolk Hunt, became more complicated, and more diverse.
As in the case of Samuel Fisher a century earlier, one source exists that sheds light on
Amelia Peabody’s complex estate management. These are the recollections of Ed
Wilcox, herdsman and then farm manager on the estate between 1947 and 1959.17
Although Mr. Wilcox has lived in Maine since that time, the memories of his time in
Dover are detailed and sharp. What emerges from the details is a view of Amelia
Peabody’s land management philosophy. Her goals for the Dover estate were fourpronged: recreation, conservation, sustainability and experimentation. They are a
uniquely twentieth-century combination.
3.4.1 Recreation
By the time Ed Wilcox arrived at Mill Farm, Miss Peabody’s recreational plans were
already well in hand. From her initial purchase of Mill Farm in the early ‘20s, she had
developed the old paths and wood roads that crossed it as bridal paths for her own use
and that of Hunt Club members and neighbors. Many of the western parcels she later
purchased, in the vicinity of Walpole Street, may be seen as reaching out to form a
through connection to Rocky Woods, on the border of Medfield and Dover, where the
Hunt had always ridden. Closer to home, a series of jumps erected in the Mill Farm back
Land Use History
3-6
pasture was available to all riders from the time of their first construction to her last
years, when the Hunt Club organized events on her home fields to facilitate her continued
observation of the sport she loved.
Miss Peabody took the responsibility of property maintenance seriously, not only for her
private use, but also for public access. Predictably, the woodland rides and bridal paths
were kept clear for horses and foot traffic. More surprisingly, the Iron Company dam
reconstruction, described earlier, was also undertaken with a view to its public
accessibility. When Roland Robbins began work on the site, he recorded her wishes:18
Her main concern is to get the ruins cleared of rubble and
have the dam repaired…. Wanted me to have the deeds and
library, et cetera checked so that the property could be
more accurately recorded….
Permanent markers, possibly metal or granite, should
appropriately mark the site when the work is completed.
By the time the work was done, Robbins was writing to her, talking her into wider
publicity for the restoration.19
I believe the occasion may arise whereby this little [slide
show] might be useful. Local schools, the library, historical
society and interested persons may want to become
acquainted with the very generous contribution you made
to the community with this work and restoration.
In predictably independent fashion, Miss Peabody took his advice her own way. She
arranged an outing for members of the Dover Church (which she attended) at the site. A
bonfire and picnic supper by the mill was followed by Robbins giving an open-air slide
show, thanks to a portable generator brought overland for the occasion by Ed Wilcox.
3.4.2 Conservation
Wilcox’s job as farm manager often required he be a jack-of-all-trades. “If I had had a
written job description,” he commented, “it would have been in volumes. I never had to
wonder what I needed to do tomorrow.”20 Besides maintaining the trails for riders and
pedestrians, he was also charged with managing the network of fire roads in the wooded
areas of the estate. “She was very concerned about fire,” he recalls. “There were lightning
rods all over.”
Undoubtedly, whatever Miss Peabody’s initial concern may have been, it must have been
informed by her experience of the devastating fires that wiped out large sections of
Rocky Woods in the ‘20s and again in the ‘30s. Closer to home, a major fire in 1928
burned a swathe from Walpole Street all the way to the eastern edge of Westwood. This
blaze must have had a direct impact on Noanet Woods, although to what extent is
unknown.21
Land Use History
3-7
The Medfield fires were a graphic lesson to the area’s major landowners. Disused trails
and overgrown ponds were cleared out after that time, and trail maintenance became a
safety issue rather than a recreational prerogative.
Conservation took many forms at the estate. Over the years Miss Peabody’s interest in
native plants resulted in numerous wildflower ‘plantations’ being established on her
property, especially in the woodlands. Stands of lady slippers and Indian pipes, and drifts
of azalea and other bushes remain as evidence of experiments with the varied
microenvironments on her holdings, as is a small parcel bequeathed to the New England
Wildflower Society, containing a range of these plants.1
3.4.3 Sustainable Agriculture
Edgar Wilcox’ tenure as farm manager on the Peabody estate set the pattern of productive
farm management that continued until Miss Peabody’s death in 1984. Mill Farm had
always maintained a stable of thoroughbred horses bred for show, racing and sale, as well
as to provide the owner with good hunting and riding mounts.
By the end of World War II, however, Miss Peabody had diversified her livestock
holdings to include registered Hereford cattle and Yorkshire pigs, “all carefully managed
in a project to develop superior breeding stock.”22 A new piggery was constructed in
1947, with no expense spared. There were rubber mats underfoot, wooden platforms for
the stock to sleep on, and the whole interior was plastered for cleanliness and warmth.
The “Pig Palace,” some called it, and Wilcox remembers the plaster costing more than an
entire house. “Miss Peabody did not do things halfway,” he commented.
In similar fashion, Miss Peabody sent Wilcox to England in 1953, to purchase additional
Hereford breeding stock “directly from the source.” Following the enlargement of the
herd, Powisset Farm hosted visitors from nearby and abroad. Some, like the secretary of
the American Hereford Association, came to inspect the prizewinning cattle. Others, like
inner city school children, rolled in the long green grass and stared at piglets suckling in
the Palace.
Miss Peabody, never one to ignore the social dimension of an occasion, hosted Field
Days for pig farmers and cattle breeders.
I remember well when once we cleared out the machine
storage shed and tables and chairs were set up. This was all
done by one of Boston’s top caterers. Steak and kidney pie
was the main entrée. During the meal Miss Peabody
whispered in my ear that the business manager told her that
the expense was all tax deductible.23
1
The Wildflower Society has since sold this property.
Land Use History
3-8
Tax deductible or not, the animals bred at Mill Farm and Powisset represented a sizable
investment. Miss Peabody oversaw the investment personally, conferring weekly with her
unit managers and always attending the far-flung shows and exhibits where her livestock
was on display.
In more mundane ways, the farm also provided for its owner. A large kitchen garden
supplied sweet corn, potatoes and vegetables for the table. There were always one or two
beeves fattened for use as prime meat at home. Cut flowers in summer and wood in
winter were transported to Boston where they warmed the Peabody residence at 120
Commonwealth Avenue.
While Mill Farm and Powisset may not have paid for themselves, it is arguable that the
estate as it was run was sustainable, given the Peabody fortune. That fortune also
provided the means by which Amelia Peabody could realize the fourth of her land use
goals.
3.4.4 Experimentation
There is nothing to suggest that Amelia Peabody’s livestock practices, or her
maintenance of the acreage on her estate, was particularly experimental. On the contrary,
she seems to have followed the most solid advice of contemporary experts and followed
the examples of her Hunt Club neighbors in the decisions she made about land use and
animal husbandry.
By contrast, the structures she commissioned for Mill Farm and Powisset were on the
cutting edge of modern architectural design. For this she had Eleanor Raymond, a
forward-thinking Boston architect, to thank. Raymond’s architectural designs show
strong Bauhaus and Wrightian influence, while her choice of materials indicates an
enduring fascination with new construction technologies.24
Many of the most interesting structures designed by Raymond for the Peabody estate
stand outside the present Trustees’ property and thus, outside the purview of this report.
They are worth noting in passing, however, as examples of Raymond’s technological
experimentation and Peabody patronage. The earliest Raymond commission was the
redesign and enlargement of the facilities at Mill Farm in 1933. Although work on the
colonial house itself was an exercise in restoration – being returned to its “original,
simple charm,”25 the enclosed barnyard layout is more akin to southwest design and
suggests Raymond’s affinity for the Prairie School. Going a step beyond even this, the
high-ceilinged, north-facing sculpture studio shows distinct Bauhaus influence in its
linearity, stark surfaces, and modern use of materials.
By the end of the 1930s, the Peabody estate had grown large enough to require expanded
staff living quarters. Domestic staff, farm manager, herdsman, horse man, gardener, and
half a dozen other temporary and permanent employees were generally given housing as
part of their compensation. To accommodate them, Miss Peabody bought and refurbished
three houses on the edges of her property, but she also commissioned Eleanor Raymond
to build others on the estate. These are among the experimental buildings for which
Land Use History
3-9
Powisset Farm became known. Over a period of thirty-two years, this extensive building
campaign changed the cultural landscape of Powisset Farm.
The first of Raymond’s materials experiments was a plywood house built in 1940. Use of
this strong, multi-dimensional building material was still in its infancy. East of the farm
buildings, a similar house was built in 1944, its interior and exterior both completely
finished in another new building material, masonite. A revolutionary “sun house” was
built in 1948, its southwest-facing roof covered with solar panels designed by Dr. Maria
Telkes of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.26 The solar house was among the
first of its kind, widely reported on and studied. Although its solar heating capacity had to
be augmented by a traditional furnace in 1954, its innovative technology remained
unsurpassed until the mid-1970s.
It should be noted that all of these buildings were constructed with an eye to long-term
efficiency as well as immediate savings on construction materials. During the greatest
housing boom America had ever seen, Amelia Peabody was investing in experiments
aimed at cutting the costs of housing. These were useful experiments, as were other
houses built during the period on what is still Powisset Farm property.
At the corner of Walpole Street and Perry Lane, a Deck House was built in 1968. The
Deck House was another architectural innovation based on a design developed at M.I.T.
Deck Houses were among the first “kit” designs that extended the industrial concept of
interchangeable parts to the construction industry. Customers could select from a range of
basic house designs, and then customize the design to their own specifications. Deck
Houses incorporated a number of Modernist architectural elements in their plans,
including extensive use of plate glass, open floor plan, and location of the main living
areas on a cantilevered second story. The Perry Lane Deck House is still standing in
essentially original condition. Its current problems are attributable to deferred
maintenance as much as to original design flaws.
Within the Powisset Farm complex itself is the last of Miss Peabody’s “experimental”
houses: a small, prefabricated building known as a Hodgson House, manufactured down
the street in Dover. By the time Eleanor Raymond installed one at Mill Farm, Hodgson
Houses were no longer true experiments. Ernest Hodgson had been in the business of
prefabricating inexpensive, practical buildings since 1892, and he is recognized today as
the earliest American manufacturer of “factory-built” houses.
The Hodgson House erected in the back lot at Powisset Farm was one of a number of
buildings clustered around the Pig Palace. Two innovative farm buildings were also
erected, both of which still stand. A new barn went up in 1952, built entirely of aluminum
and made by the Butler Manufacturing Company. Period photos show that this, like so
many other Peabody structures, was cause for admiration and discussion. Next to it, an
unusual cement stave silo held corn ensilage for stock feed. The silo was torn down by
The Trustees in the 1990s.
Land Use History
3-10
Recreation and conservation, sustainability and experimentation – all infused with a
strong aesthetic sensibility – were the driving forces that shaped Powisset Farm during
the twentieth century. When Amelia Peabody died in May, 1984, she willed over 700
acres of her property to The Trustees of Reservations. Since that time, The Trustees’
continued use of large areas for agricultural purposes, and their maintenance of publiclyaccessible recreational trails in the Woodlands, simply continue the pattern of land use
that Miss Peabody mapped out. Noanet Woodlands and Powisset Farm exist today as
living testament to three hundred years of changing land uses, and sixty years of careful
and creative land management.
3.5
Cultural Resource Inventory
The following is a list of sites and structures that constitute the cultural resources of
Powisset Farm. All of these features are labeled on the map in Figure 3.2. Management
issues associated with them are, in large part, symbiotic with natural resource
management issues for the property.
At least three historic buildings that were once part of the farm -- Samuel Chickering’s
house and barn, and Bernhardt Post’s 1890 farmhouse -- are located across Powisset Street
from the rest of the farm buildings and are not on Trustees’ property. The archaeological site
listed below is the only pre-1900 dwelling known to have been part of the farm and still
included within The Trustees’ boundaries.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Charles Fisher House (archaeological site)
Cow barn (Main Barn)
Tool shed/workshop
Piggery (1947)
Open pig sheds
Long barn (Butler Barn- 1952)
Hodgson House (1972)
Garage (1939)
Agway Barn (1950s – now equipment shed)
Silage pits
Perhaps the most valuable cultural resource at Powisset, more than any one building or
cluster of buildings, is the landscape itself. A parcel of land in Eastern Massachusetts
that has been continually farmed for over 300 years, while not extraordinary, is most
certainly rare. It attests to the quality of the farm’s soils and the ease of working the land.
Preserving the landscape in its current open condition is one of the most important means
of preserving the cultural resource that is Powisset Farm.
Land Use History
3-11
Figure 3.2- Cultural Resources of Powisset Farm
Land Use History
3-12
ENDNOTES
(Including bibliographic information)
1
Dedham Records, Vol. IV, p. 71.
Ibid., p. 85.
3
Quoted in Worthington, J. W., “Annals of the Dover Woodlot,” Appalachia, November 1935.
Appalachian Mountain Club, publisher.
4
Dedham Records, op. cit., p.57.
5
Vara, Richard Hart, Dover Days Gone By. Privately printed, 1976; p. 11. Vara suggests the Powissetts’
camp may have been farther east, in present-day Dedham.
6
Smith, Frank, Dover Farms. Dover MA: Dover Historical and Natural History Society, 1914; p. 1.
7
Dedham Town Records, Vol. VI, p. 160.
8
Ibid., p.173. Note that Powisset Street as originally laid out turned north at Powisset Farm, curving around
the north end of what became Reserve Pond (a large swampy area), then angled southwest and west to
Walpole Street, connecting approximately across from the present Pinewood Road.
9
Dedham Records, Vol. VI, pp. 169, 267.
10
See Smith, History of Dover: Genealogies and Dover Farms
11
Tilden, William S., History of the Town of Medfield MA 1650-1886. Boston: George Ellis, 1887. p.431.
12
Norfolk County Probate records, Docket #7071, estate of Samuel Fisher.
13
J. W. Worthington, “Annals of the Dover Woodlot,” Appalachia, November 1935, pp. 341-358.
14
Rhoads, Linda Smith, Amelia Peabody. Privately printed for the Amelia Peabody Charitable Fund, n.d.;
p, 18.
15
Fine, Norman M., The Norfolk Hunt: One Hundred Years of Sport. Millwood VA: Millwood House,
1995. See especially p. 78 ff.
16
The exact dates of the Peabody land purchases are obscured by Miss Peabody performing most of the
transactions through the Massachusetts Land Court. What can be said is that the entire Mill Farm –
Noanet – Powisset complex was essentially complete by 1948, when a court-ordered plan of the entire
estate was drawn up (See Illustration #[]).
17
Wilcox, Edgar. “Memories…written 7/1/98” and “Sept. 30, 1998 – Walk…with Ed Wilcox.” Typescripts
on file at The Trustees of Reservations.
18
Robbins, Field Notes, op. cit., p. 1.
19
Ibid., letter of August 9, 1954.
20
Wilcox, op. cit., p. 3.
21
Information from James Early, Director of Hale Reservation, cited in “Plant Communities of Noanet
Woodlands…”; 1997 draft manuscript by Russell T. Hopping for The Trustees of Reservations.
22
Rhoads, op. cit., p. 20.
23
Wilcox, p. 4.
24
An interesting and thoroughly illustrated study of Raymond’s career is Doris Cole’s Eleanor Raymond,
Architect (Philadelphia: Art Alliance Press, 1981). It is clear from the chronology of Raymond’s projects
that Miss Peabody invested in the architect’s career, engaging her as overall design supervisor for both
Mill Farm and Powisset. Raymond’s work on Peabody projects spanned nearly her entire professional
career, from the restoration of the Mill Farm house in 1933 to supervising the installation of the Hodgson
buildings in 1972.
25
Rhoads, op.cit., p.26
26
Ibid., pp. 23-24.
2
Land Use History
3-13
Section 4: Natural Resources
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
Introduction and Methods
An Overview of the Natural Landscape
Regional Context and Open Space Setting
Watershed Setting
Geology and Soils
Water Resources
Plant Community Types
Priority Natural Communities and Rare Species
Fish and Wildlife
Threats to Natural Resources
Summary of Ecological Highlights
Summary of Significant Threats
Summary of Ecological Opportunities
An amphibian egg mass found in a vernal pool at Powisset Farm.
Section 4: Natural Resources
4.1 Introduction and Methods
Powisset Farm contains a variety of agricultural and natural environments, including
extensive areas of hayfields and pasture as well as naturally forested uplands and wetlands.
This section of the management plan summarizes the ecological values of the property’s
natural and agricultural resources, as well as the significance of and threat to those resources.
The information provided in this section serves as the basis for management
recommendations in Section 10.
The ecological resources of Powisset Farm are described based on existing information and
field surveys conducted during the summer of 2003 and 2004. Trustees’ staff inventoried
and located plant communities in 1999, and surveyed breeding birds in 1998 and 2003.
Where possible, plant community classifications follow the Natural Heritage & Endangered
Species Program’s classification of natural communities.13 Vernal pool surveys were
conducted in 2002 and 2003. Baseline information concerning the property’s resources was
collected to inform management planning and to provide a basis for future ecological data
collection and analysis, if necessary. Priority was given toward identifying significant
resources (i.e., rare species and priority natural community types) at Powisset Farm as well
as any potential threats to those resources.
4.2 An Overview of the Natural Landscape
Powisset Farm, as the name implies, is predominantly an agricultural landscape of hayfields,
pastures, and cultivated ground. Not surprisingly, agricultural use of the property dates back
at least to 1720, and probably much earlier than that.6 The farm is situated on a relatively
flat plain, ranging in elevation from roughly 280 ft. near Powissett Street to 250 ft. at the
southern end of the farm near wetlands bordering Mill Brook. The landscape surrounding
Powisset Farm is mostly characterized by hilly, rocky terrain that contrasts sharply with the
relatively flat expanse of Powisset Farm. Numerous small, ledgey hills, including Powissett
Peak, Noanet Peak, and Strawberry Hill, dot the landscape nearby and provide ecological and
scenic diversity to the surroundings. Glacial action over 10,000 years ago sculpted the rocky
highlands surrounding the farm, leaving thin, well-drained soils on which plants tolerant of
dry, nutrient poor conditions have developed. The soils on Powisset Farm, in contrast,
formed on thick accumulations of glacial sands and gravels.
Grazing, haying and cultivation practices over the years have profoundly shaped the plant
and animal communities we see at Powisset Farm today. Over a third of the farm’s acreage
is mowed annually, maintaining large swathes of hayfield that support a distinct flora and
fauna. Intensive grazing on other parts of the farm has resulted in a savanna-like community
that is both ecologically and scenically significant. Although agricultural uses apparently
resulted in some wetland loss, several seasonally ponded basins on the property provide
essential breeding habitat for vernal pool wildlife. An additional consequence of human use
Natural Resources
4-1
and disturbance on the property is the presence of many exotic, invasive species. Although
land use on the property is predominantly agricultural, over a third of the farm is naturally
vegetated, mainly by oak-pine forest and red maple swamp. Regardless of Powisset’s long
history of human use, its varied natural and agricultural environments provide important
habitat for many plants and wildlife species.
4.3 Regional Context and Open Space Setting
Powisset Farm is located in the Town of Dover, which is situated about 14 miles
southwest of Boston. The property and its surroundings are located within the Neponset
River watershed, one of Boston Harbor’s major tributaries. Powisset Farm is located in
the Southern New England Coastal Plains and Hills ecoregion,10 which is characterized
by low, rolling hills interspersed with many rivers that were altered long ago to provide
power for local mills and towns. Moderate density residential development occurs just
west and south of the farm. More concentrated suburban development near downtown
Westwood is located over a half-mile south and east of the farm. The downtown section
of Dover is located almost two miles northwest of the property.
Over 2,000 acres of open space adjoins Powisset Farm to the north and east (see Map
4.1), providing an abundance of mostly high quality habitat for native plants and animals.
Noanet Woodlands (610 acres) and Hale Reservation (1100+ acres) are the largest parcels
of open space near the farm. The Trustees own and manage Noanet Woodlands for its
ecological, scenic and recreational values. The land comprising Hale Reservation,
although managed for education, recreation and preservation of its natural resources, is
not currently protected by a conservation restriction. Both properties constitute largely
unfragmented forest tracts, providing habitat for interior forest species that are
increasingly at risk elsewhere in the region. The section of Hale Reservation located
south of Powissett Street abuts much of the eastern margin of Powisset Farm, providing
ample forested buffer to suburban development in Westwood. An additional 33 acres of
conservation land owned by the Town of Dover abuts Powisset Farm along its west side,
forming an important buffer to residential development just beyond.
A few additional parcels of either town-owned property or otherwise restricted land help
protect the overall integrity of this large block of mostly forested open space. Caryl Park,
an 80-acre property owned by the Town of Dover, borders the northwest side of Noanet
Woodlands. In addition, the Trustees hold conservation restrictions on Mill Farm (24.5
ac.) next to Noanet Woodlands, and Strawberry Hill Farm (22 ac.) north of Hale
Reservation. The Larabbee Estate, owned by the Town of Dover, conserves a little over
50 acres of mostly forested land just north of Hale Reservation.
Rocky Woods and Fork Factory Brook Reservations, a combined 626 acres of forests and
fields owned and managed by the Trustees, is located roughly 0.75 miles southwest of
Powisset Farm. Although Noanet lies even closer to Rocky Woods and Fork Factory
Brook (approximately 0.6 mi. away), residential development has largely severed any
meaningful connection between these reservations.
Natural Resources
4-2
Map 4.1 - Regional Open Space
Natural Resources
4-3
4.4 Watershed Setting
Powisset Farm is located within the watersheds of Tubwreck Brook and Mill Brook, both
classified as first order streamsA within the Neponset River watershed. The northwestern
half of the farm drains into Tubwreck Brook, while runoff from the southeastern half of the
property flows into Mill Brook. Tubwreck Brook is a small, perennial tributary that issues
from the unnamed pond located on the property near Powissett Street. From the unnamed
pond, Tubwreck Brook flows 1.6 miles to its confluence with Mill Brook (not the same Mill
Brook mentioned above), located just southwest of the Dover-Medfield line. Approximately
half of the Tubwreck Brook watershed is developed for residential housing (52%), with the
remaining land area classified as forested (36%) or agricultural (12%).2 Surface drainage
from Powisset Farm’s outer fields comprise one of several sources of Mill Brook, which
flows over three miles to Pettee Pond in Westwood. Land uses within Mill Brook’s
watershed are similar to those of Tubwreck Brook, with somewhat less land currently in
agricultural use (3%).2
4.5 Geology and Soils
Powisset Farm is underlain by the Mattapan Volcanic complex, a rock formation that consists
of fine-grained rhyolites, basaltic lavas, and ashflows that erupted from volcanoes about 596
million years ago.12 The Mattapan volcanics rest upon the more extensive Dedham Granite,
which formed 610 million years ago from magma associated with volcanic islands bordering
Gondwana, a supercontinent that existed during Pre-Cambrian time. All of New England
was subject to advances of glacial ice during the Pleistocene epoch that ended roughly
10,000 years ago. While the continental ice sheet significantly eroded some land surfaces, it
deposited vast quantities of sediment in others. Till, an unsorted and unstratified sediment
deposited directly from glacial ice, is the predominant surficial deposit on the higher uplands
surrounding Powisset Farm. The broad, flat plain upon which the farm is situated, however,
is largely underlain by stratified sands and gravels deposited by meltwater from the receding
glacier.
The soils at Powisset Farm are directly influenced by the surficial geology of the area (i.e.,
glacial sediments), as well as the actions of climate, drainage, plant and animal life, and
humans. Eight soil series have been identified on Powisset Farm, and can be differentiated
based on drainage and other properties.14 Haven soils are deep, well-drained silt loams (08% slopes) that cover the drier, agricultural sections of Powisset Farm, including hayfields
near Powissett Street and the 4-acre, formerly cultivated plot. Pasture and hayfields located
on the southeastern half of the farm are underlain by moderately well-drained Scio very fine
sandy loam (2-5% slope) and Sudbury fine sandy loam (2-8% slope). The depth of seasonal
high water tables are somewhat higher in Scio and Sudbury soils (1.5-3 ft.) than in areas of
Haven soil (>6 ft.) due to the slightly lower elevation of this section of the property.
Charlton-Hollis-Rock outcrop complex (8-15% slopes) and Hollis-Rock outcrop-Charlton
complex (3-15% slopes) underlie most forested upland areas of the property. Generally
A
The smallest streams of a watershed having no tributaries are called first order streams. When two first
order streams join, they form a second order stream.
Natural Resources
4-4
speaking, these soils are stony and often shallow with bedrock near the surface or exposed as
ledge. Wetlands on the property are underlain by very poorly drained Freetown muck and
Scarboro and Birdsall soils, as well as poorly drained Ridgebury fine sandy loam (2-8%
slopes) and Raynham silt loam. All of these wetland soils are deep (>60 in. thick) and have
seasonal high water tables from +1.0 ft. to 1.5 ft. below the ground surface.
Four of the mapped soil units at Powisset Farm are identified as Prime Farmland Soils,B
including Haven silt loam (0-3% slopes), Haven silt loam (3-8% slopes), Scio very fine
sandy loam (2-5% slopes), and Sudbury fine sandy loam (2-8% slopes) (see Map 4.2).
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Prime Farmland Soils are
those with the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing
food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and may include cropland, pastureland, forest
land, or other land. While most areas of Prime Farmland Soils at Powisset Farm are
currently in agricultural use, a small area of Scio very fine sandy loam near the southern
end of the property is currently forested.
The major crops in Norfolk County are silage corn and vegetables such as sweet corn,
tomatoes, and green peas. Deep friable, well-drained soils such as Haven silt loam are
well suited to cultivated crops, gardens and pasture. Haven silt loam (0-3% slopes) has
an agronomic class of “I,” indicating that it has only slight limitations that restrict its use
for most kinds of field crops. The other three Prime Farmland Soils at Powisset are
classified as “IIe,” indicating they “have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of
plants or that require moderate conservation practices.”14 Due to the slight increase in
slope of these Prime Farmland Soils, erosion poses a minor risk unless close-growing
plant cover is maintained. Most soils in Norfolk County are typically strongly acidic to
very strongly acidic and require applications of lime to raise the pH to nearly neutral as
needed for the optimal growth of most crops. In addition, most soils in the county are
low in natural fertility and require fertilizer to maximize crop yields.
B
General criteria - Prime farmland soils are those that have the best combination of physical and chemical
characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and are also available for these
uses (the soil's use could be cropland, pastureland, forest land, or other land, but not urban built-up or
water). It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce
sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to
acceptable farming methods. In general, prime farmland soils have adequate and dependable precipitation,
a favorable temperature and growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, and few or no surface stones.
They are permeable to water and air. Prime farmland soils are not excessively erodible or saturated with
water for a long period of time, and they either do not flood frequently or are protected from flooding.
(From Prime Farmland Soil Map Units, Unofficial Massachusetts List (http://nesoil.com/prime1.html).
Natural Resources
4-5
Map 4.2 - Powisset Farm Soil Types
Natural Resources
4-6
4.6 Water Resources
Powisset Farm supports a diverse array of permanent and ephemeral water resources,
including a pond, freshwater stream, and numerous vernal pools. A small, unnamed pond
located on the northwestern corner of the property near Powissett Street forms the
headwaters of Tubwreck Brook, a small, perennial stream that flows into Mill Brook, and
eventually into the Neponset River. The pond, approximately 0.6 acre in size, may have
originated from clearing and excavation of material from an area that previously was red
maple swamp. The water level in the pond, therefore, partly reflects the fluctuating
groundwater table. A small tributary of Mill Brook extends onto the southeastern
section of Powisset Farm, receiving some flow from one of several vernal pools on the
property. As recently as 1979, this tributary extended across the fields located on the
southeastern half of the farm, draining low-lying areas northeast of the property. The
non-forested areas bordering the stream on this section of the property were identified as
wetlands on the 1957 and 1979 USGS topographic maps,15 and may have been wet
meadow or marsh at the time. Areas located adjacent to Mill Brook (including the former
tributary that crossed the outer hayfield) and the section of Tubwreck Brook on the
property are subject to 100-yr. flooding with average depths less than one foot.4
The property protects the uppermost 500-foot section of Tubwreck Brook where it issues
from the unnamed pond, with an additional 1000 ft. protected by land owned by the Town of
Dover. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) has identified
Tubwreck Brook as a Class B waterbody. MDEP defines Class B waters as:
“habitat for fish, other aquatic life, and wildlife, and for primary and secondary contact
recreation. Where designated they shall be suitable as a source of public water supply
with appropriate treatment. They shall be suitable for irrigation and other agricultural
uses and for compatible industrial cooling and process uses. These waters shall have
consistently good aesthetic value”.7
An interim wellhead protection area associated with a public water supply well located about
1200 ft. west of the intersection of Powissett and Walpole Streets overlaps the northwestern
corner of the property, including the pond and the upper reaches of Tubwreck Brook. The
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife has identified Tubwreck Brook as
supporting a coldwater fishery (DEP, 1999). It has not yet been determined whether or not
Mill Brook supports a coldwater fishery.
4.7 Plant Community Types
Although Powisset Farm is predominantly an agricultural landscape (69 acres; 55% of
total area), almost half of the property is naturally vegetated by native plant communities
(51 acres; 41% of total area).C Community and species diversity at Powisset Farm is
enhanced by the abundance of edge environments associated with this agricultural
C
The remaining 4% of the property’s acreage is covered by structures, roadways, etc.
Natural Resources
4-7
landscape, as well as by current and former agricultural land uses including hay-cropping
and the pasturing of livestock.
Ten plant communities were identified on Powisset Farm, including two terrestrial
communities, four palustrine communities (including open water), and four communities
associated with current or former agricultural practices (see Map 4.3 and Table 4.1).5
The Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) considers any
community type with a state-rank (S-rank) of S1-S3 or any exemplary example of a S4 or
S5 community type as a "Natural Community Type for Priority Protection." This ranking
prioritizes communities based on rarity and threat. S1 community types receive the
highest priority for protection, while S5 communities are those that are regarded as
secure.D Of the ten plant communities identified on the property, only those temporary
pools/wetlands identified as vernal pool habitat are classified as priority natural
communities as defined by the Natural Heritage Program.
Forested Uplands
The naturally vegetated, forest uplands at Powisset Farm are dominated by the oak forest
community and the oak-white pine forest community. Oak forest, covering
approximately 26 acres of the property, occurs primarily on gently sloping terrain on the
southern end of the property as well as on the small, rocky knolls bordering the outer
hayfields. Northern red oak is the dominant canopy species in the oak forest community,
especially on deeper, well-drained soils. Where thin soils overlie bedrock (e.g., knolls),
black oak and white oak typically replace red oak. Although present throughout the
forest communities at Powisset Farm, white pine is more common in the oak-white pine
forest on the western margin of the property where soils are more stony and shallow to
bedrock. The oak-white pine community covers about eight acres of the property.
Saplings of the above species characterize much of the understory of both forest
communities. Ericaceous shrubs, low growing species that are tolerant of dry, acidic
conditions, may form dense shrub layers in both forest communities. American chestnut,
once an important component of the eastern deciduous forest, is now confined to the
understory as an occasional shrub or small tree due to the chestnut blight. Herbaceous
plants are relatively sparse, particularly where ericaceous shrubs occur, with species
typically reflecting the dry, acidic soil conditions in the forested uplands. Pink lady
slipper, bracken fern, wild sarsaparilla, Canada mayflower, white wood aster, and
clubmosses are a few of the many groundcover species present.
D
State Ranking for Natural Community Types for Priority Protection:
S1 = typically 5 or fewer occurrences, very few remaining acres, or especially vulnerable to extirpation
in Massachusetts;
S2 = typically 6-20 occurrences, few remaining acres, or very vulnerable to extirpation in Massachusetts;
S3 = typically 21-100 occurrences; limited acreage in Massachusetts;
S4 = apparently secure in Massachusetts;
S5 = demonstrably secure in Massachusetts;
SU = status unknown.
Natural Resources
4-8
Map 4.3 - Vegetation Communities at Powisset Farm
Natural Resources
4-9
Table 4.1 - Plant Community Types at Powisset Farm
Community Type
Forested Uplands
Mixed oak forest
Oak-white pine forest
Wetlands
Red maple swamp
Shrub swamp
Temporary pools
Open water
Agricultural
Abandoned field/pasture
Cropland
Cultural grassland (hayfield)
Pasture
Developed
Developed land
Total
NHESP Ranking
Acreage
S5
S5
26
7.8
S5
S5
S3
-
13.8
0.25
2.7
0.6
-
1.2
3.9
46.8
16.7
-
4.4
~124
Wetlands
Forested wetlands dominated by red maple and other plants adapted to seasonally high
water tables occur in low-lying areas bordering perennial and intermittent streams on the
farm. The total area of red maple swamp on the property is roughly 14 acres, with the
largest area of swamp associated with Tubwreck Brook. Smaller areas of red maple
swamp border tributaries of Mill Brook. Although red maple is the most common
canopy and subcanopy species, sour gum, swamp white oak, and white pine may also
occur in the red maple swamp. The shrub layer is typically dense with sweet pepperbush,
highbush blueberry, swamp azalea, common winterberry, and buttonbush being the most
common species. Ferns, including cinnamon fern, sensitive fern, and royal fern, often
dominate the groundcover, with skunk cabbage, jewelweed, and goldthread common
associates. Species composition varies, however, depending on moisture and light levels.
Herbaceous plants less commonly occurring on the property include bulblet waterhemlock, jack-in-the-pulpit, wood reed-grass, and tall meadow rue. Golden saxifrage and
sphagnum moss colonize areas where soils are saturated (e.g., shallow depressions).
Small, temporary wetlands that occur in shallow depressions are common on the property
and exist in a variety of habitat conditions. At least 16 temporary pools (or more,
depending on water level) have been located on the property to date. A few additional
temporary pools are located near the property. Obligate vernal pool organisms have been
documented in 14 of the temporary pools located on Powisset Farm.E Documented
vernal pools on the property occur within pasture, hayfield, oak forest, oak-white pine
E
The remaining two seasonal pools require further investigation to determine whether or not they serve as
breeding habitat for vernal pool-dependent wildlife.
Natural Resources
4-10
forest, and red maple swamp communities. Vernal pools located in former pasture and
hayfield typically support a thick cover of grasses and herbaceous plants, including
swamp beggar ticks, fox sedge, Cyperus sp., fowl meadow grass, rice cut-grass, and
fringed loosestrife. Vernal pools located within pasture with an overstory of trees are
only sparsely vegetated. Wetland plants associated with red maple swamps occur within
vernal pools located in the forested wetlands.
No aquatic plant inventory has been conducted at the unnamed pond located near
Powissett Street. However, duckweed covered much of the pond during a part of the
summer in 1997. Swamp loosestrife, a native and sometimes invasive shrub or perennial
herb, is common along the southern margin of the pond. The abundance and rapid spread
of swamp loosestrife is related to one of its reproductive strategies whereby the tip of the
stem is capable of rooting and forming dense beds of clonal plants. Buttonbush, marsh
fern, sensitive fern, jewelweed, and mad-dog skullcap are also common along the pond
margin. Swamp loosestrife forms a nearly continuous vegetative layer within a small
shrub swamp (0.25 ac.) located south of the pond, suggesting that the pond at one time
may have been larger than it is today. Red maple saplings are also encroaching upon this
vegetated wetland.
Agricultural Communities
Almost 70 acres of Powisset Farm’s 124 acres have been modified for agricultural
purposes. Hayfield, pasture, and cropland are (or were) the primary agricultural land uses
on the property. However, some of this acreage has been abandoned over the last few
years with plant species composition changing in response to the absence of disturbance.
While hayfields on the farm continue to be mowed at least annually, most of the pasture
is not currently grazed (now referred to as “abandoned pasture”), and four acres of
cropland on the property are presently not in cultivation. A small amount of former
agricultural land at the far end of the property has been abandoned and is currently in the
early stages of succession.
Almost 47 acres of Powisset Farm is managed for the production of hay. The fields on
the property are dominated by cool-season grasses including timothy and orchard grass.
Forbs, including clover, goldenrod, vetch and hawkweed, are common throughout the
fields, with weeds such as horse nettle possibly becoming more common. Under the
former lease agreement (effective through 2004), a local farmer mowed the fields two to
three times annually and fertilized the fields with manure in the late fall. The first cutting
generally occurred prior to mid-July. Unusually wet years, however, resulted in a single
cutting late in the season (e.g., 2003). The hay was baled and used by the farmer as feed
for cows. Several large piles of manure, used for fertilizing the fields, are stored near the
southwest corner of the hayfield. The manure piles currently support a robust colony of
weedy plants, including barnyard grass, foxtail, and jimsonweed.
The abandoned pasture community is highly variable and covers nearly 16 acres in the
middle of the farm and along the unpaved roadway. Beef cattle (polled Herefords) and
swine (Yorkshire/Landrace) were historically grazed at Powisset Farm. Following
closure of the commercial operation in the late 1970s, a small herd of Belted Galloway
Natural Resources
4-11
cattle and a few pigs were maintained on the farm until August 1997, when the
Galloways were removed. The pastures were subsequently leased to another farmer who
grazed up to 30 head of cattle until 1999. Livestock throughout this time were pastured
in the area southwest of the Butler Barn.9 Currently, only a small number of pigs are
maintained on the farm. The pigs are housed in the Piggery, and are either confined to
the adjacent pens or are allowed to graze in the pasture located across the dirt roadway.
The abandoned pasture located between the Main Barn and the Piggery is mostly divided
into small paddocks that may have been more intensively grazed than the more open
pasture southwest of the Butler Barn. Much of the former pasture near the Butler Barn is
partly treed by oak, maple and pitch pine, creating a savanna-like habitat.F In addition,
the abandoned pasture is pockmarked by small depressions, many of which provide
breeding habitat for vernal pool organisms during the spring. Although most of the
understory is currently well vegetated by grasses, the shallow depressions are sparsely
vegetated (e.g., northern bugleweed, beggar’s ticks, Canada bluejoint, etc.). Invasive,
exotic shrubs typically found in grazed areas are present, such as Japanese barberry and
multiflora rose. As recently as 1999, the treed portion of the former pasture was
described as having no understory and very little herbaceous growth.5
A four-acre, rectangular block of land located southwest of the piggery was previously
leased to a local farmer for the production of organic produce as part of a local
community supported agriculture (CSA) effort. Tomatoes, melons, squash, cabbage and
corn, among others, were grown. Cultivation ceased during the summer of 2000, and no
cultivation has occurred since that time. The cropland has since become overgrown by
numerous weedy species, including foxtail, horseweed, common mugwort, and daisy
fleabane.
A little over one acre of old field habitat is located near the southern end of the hayfields.
This field is no longer actively maintained by mowing or grazing, and is slowly being
colonized by woody plants and forbs. Goldenrod is common throughout the abandoned
field, with rough-stemmed goldenrod dominant and late goldenrod and others also
present. Common milkweed, vetch, bracken fern and reed canary grass add to the species
diversity in this community. A few small black cherry trees and remnant fruit trees are
scattered within the field. Small white pines are also encroaching upon the field, which
will eventually revert back to forest without future disturbance.
Invasive, exotic plant species are common on Powisset Farm and occur in all community
types, although they are most prevalent along field edges. Japanese barberry, oriental
bittersweet, black swallow-wort, common buckthorn and multiflora rose are among the
common invasive, non-indigenous plants on the property. Other species, such as purple
loosestrife, are present but in relatively low numbers.
F
Savanna is a grassland type with shrubs and widely and irregularly scattered trees, resulting from either
soil-moisture regimes or disturbances such as fire and grazing (DeGraaf, 1992).
Natural Resources
4-12
4.8 Priority Natural Communities and Rare Species
The Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) has identified both Core
Habitat for rare speciesG and Supporting Natural LandscapeH on Powisset Farm.10 Core
Habitat in this area centers on the section of Hale Reservation and its naturally vegetated
surroundings located south of Powissett Street. This area of Core Habitat also includes
roughly 25 acres of oak forest and red maple swamp on the southeastern section of Powisset
Farm. Supporting Natural Landscape on the property includes forested habitats elsewhere on
the property (e.g., red maple swamp, oak-white pine forest) as well as some abandoned
pasture, hayfield and old field communities. The Supporting Natural Landscape on Powisset
Farm supports both documented and potential rare species habitats located on the adjacent
Hale Reservation and at Noanet Woodlands. No Living Waters Core Habitat or Core
Supporting Watershed areas have been identified on the property by NHESP.11
The vernal pools at Powisset Farm are priority natural communities that are tracked by
NHESP based on their rarity and level of threat in Massachusetts. At least 14 vernal pools
have been identified at Powisset Farm in a variety of settings (e.g., abandoned pasture, oak
forest, etc.), with additional potential vernal pools occurring nearby. The vernal pools on the
property may be significant based on their location, vegetative characteristics, hydrological
diversity, and distribution (i.e., metapopulation). Although a detailed investigation of
obligate and facultative vernal pool organisms utilizing the vernal pools has not been
conducted to date, breeding populations of wood frogs and spotted salamanders have been
documented. Fairy shrimp, a small crustacean (Eubranchipus sp.) that lives only in vernal
pools, was the only obligate vernal pool organism found in several of the small, mostly
ephemeral pools located in open fields and pastures.I Several other amphibian, reptile and
invertebrate species associated with vernal pools have also been observed both in and around
vernal pools on the property. The abundance of both breeding and non-breeding habitats for
vernal pool organisms on the property and adjacent lands is likely to provide long term
security for this important wildlife habitat. No other priority natural communities or
exemplary examples of natural community types have been identified at Powisset Farm.
No state-listed rare species (Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern) have been
observed to date at Powisset Farm. However, seven state Watch-list speciesJ have been
documented on the property, including Cooper’s hawk, eastern bluebird, great blue
heron, turkey vulture, warbling vireo, and northern leopard frog. Spotted salamander,
G
The Core Habitat is for the Hessel’s hairstreak (Callophrys hesseli - Special Concern), a small butterfly
that inhabits Atlantic white cedar swamps.
H
Core habitat is defined as the sum total of viable rare plant and animal habitat and viable exemplary
natural communities. Supporting Natural Landscape is defined as the combination of core habitat buffers,
large vegetation patches, large roadless areas, and undeveloped watersheds that together help maintain
ecological integrity and enhance the core habitat areas.
I
Wood frogs and salamanders were not observed in several of the small, shallow vernal pools in the fields,
probably because the duration of flooding is insufficient for them to complete the aquatic portion of their
life cycle. Only the larger vernal pools with longer hydroperiods support wood frogs and spotted
salamanders.
J
Watch-list species are those plant and animal species that are potentially vulnerable to becoming
Threatened or Endangered.
Natural Resources
4-13
also a watch-list species, is likely to breed in vernal pools on the farm. NHESP has
identified Priority HabitatK for two state-listed rare species on the section of Hale
Reservation located south of Powissett Street. Viable habitat for the spotted turtle exists
at Powisset Farm (i.e., vernal pools), although it has not been documented to date on the
property. No habitat for the Hessel’s hairstreak (i.e., Atlantic white cedar) is known to
occur at Powisset.
A total of eleven priority bird species3 have been documented on the property. These
include three “High Continental Priority – High Regional Responsibility”L species (wood
thrush, northern oriole and scarlet tanager), four “High Regional Concern”M species
(chimney swift, eastern wood-pewee, black and white warbler, and eastern towhee), one
U.S. National Watch-list species (bobolink), and three species that are state-listed in one
or more of the states in the Southern New England physiographic region (Cooper’s hawk,
savannah sparrow and great blue heron). Although habitat on the property is suitable for
many priority bird species, three of these species (black and white warbler, wood thrush
and scarlet tanager) often favor more extensive mature forests than those on the property
itself. However, adequate habitat for these forest-breeding birds occurs at Noanet
Woodlands and the Hale Reservation.
4.9 Fish and Wildlife
The predominantly agricultural setting of Powisset Farm, with its open fields and abundance
of edge environments (i.e., where two different plant communities or similar communities of
different ages join) favor wildlife either adapted to, or those that prefer, early successional
habitats. Forest patches on the property provide sufficient habitat for many types of forest
wildlife, increasing the overall diversity of animal species on the farm itself. The location of
Powisset Farm adjacent to other large and small parcels of protected open space (Noanet
Woodlands, Hale Reservation) supports the habitat values associated within the farm.
Except for breeding bird surveys conducted in 1998 and 2003, Trustees’ staff has not
conducted any formal wildlife inventories of the property.
Mammals
White-tailed deer, red fox, coyote, eastern chipmunk, gray squirrel and eastern cottontail are
among the mammal species have been observed at Powisset Farm during ecological surveys
of the property. Coyote, a wide ranging and adaptable mammal that favors open or semiopen country for hunting, is regularly seen on the farm.9 Red fox typically avoid coyote
K
The Priority Habitat is for spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata – Special Concern) and Hessel’s hairstreak
(Callophrys hesseli – Special Concern). Priority Habitat in this area occurs within a larger area of Core
Habitat, and is based on the approximate extent of rare species populations taken from records in the
Natural Heritage Program database.
L
“High Continental Priority-High Regional Responsibility” species are those for which the region shares in
major conservation responsibility; i.e., conservation in this region is critical to the overall health of this
species.
M
“High Regional Concern” species are those that are experiencing declines in the core of their range and
that require short-term conservation action to reverse or stabilize trends.
Natural Resources
4-14
territories,1 which probably explains why they are less commonly observed on the property
even though suitable habitat exists. Wildlife signs indicating the presence of other mammal
species (e.g., woodchuck) is also present. Although observations are somewhat limited in
terms of species diversity, other common mammals such as Virginia opossum, striped skunk,
raccoon, masked shrew, and weasel are likely to be present on the farm. The abundance of
hawks in the area suggests the presence of small mammals often preyed upon by raptors,
such as meadow vole and mice (e.g., meadow jumping mouse, white-footed mouse). The
abundance of open fields on the property probably attracts bats during the breeding season
for feeding.
Birds
The diversity of community types at Powisset Farm, including field, forest, wetlands, open
water (pond) and cultivated land, offer a wide range of potential habitats for resident and
migratory birds. The abundance of edge environments between the above communities also
contributes significantly toward avifaunal diversity. However, the absence of large forest
patches on the farm itself precludes the property’s use by interior forest breeding birds, such
as ovenbird and scarlet tanager.
A total of 61 species of birds have been observed on the farm, including those documented
during the breeding bird surveys in 1998 and 2003 as well as species observed during other
field visits. In spite of the abundance of hayfield and other open, grassy habitat at Powisset
Farm, no grassland breeding birds were recorded during the 2003 survey and only two
savannah sparrows during the 1998 survey.N The results of the 1998 and 2003 surveys
notwithstanding, the size and vegetative character of the grasslands at Powisset Farm are
adequate for nesting grassland birds, particularly bobolinks. The absence of bobolinks
during the breeding bird surveys may be due to early mowing of the fields (i.e., prior to July
15), which kills the nestlings before they fledge. Although not recorded during the 2003
survey, bobolinks have been observed on the farm (e.g., May 15, 2003), though usually in
single numbers and never for extended periods of time. A lack of reproductive success over
the years due to early mowing may have discouraged later nesting attempts by bobolinks.
Eastern meadowlark, another grassland dependent species, was observed on the farm in 1998
although not during the breeding bird survey.
Since the breeding bird plots are mostly located in the hayfields, the status of non-grassland
breeding birds on the property is not well documented. However, several other species of
interest have been confirmed as breeding on the farm or are nesting elsewhere but using
resources on the property. The Cooper’s hawk, listed as both a priority species3 and a species
of Special Concern, was observed during the 1998 survey as well as during other site visits.
Although uncommon over much of the twentieth century, the Cooper’s hawk has been
increasing in numbers and was recently delisted by NHESP.1 Eastern bluebird, a watch-list
species, is probably also breeding on the property (1998 and 2003 surveys). Other watch-list
species observed on the property include warbling vireo, turkey vulture, and great blue heron.
N
At least 7 savannah sparrows were observed on the property in May, prior to the 1998 survey. Similarly,
three savannah sparrows were observed during a site visit in mid-May 2003 (prior to the breeding bird
survey). Although unconfirmed, savannah sparrows may have been breeding on the farm in 1998 based on
the presence of pairs before and during the survey.
Natural Resources
4-15
With the exception of the warbling vireo, these species are not breeding on the property.
Several other “priority species” have been observed on the property, including eastern
kingbird, northern oriole, black and white warbler, scarlet tanager, eastern phoebe, gray
catbird and eastern towhee.
Other birds recorded on the property that are associated with early successional habitats
include field sparrow, indigo bunting and northern bobwhite. Tree swallow, orchard oriole
and eastern kingbird, all species that occur in agricultural landscapes (i.e., fields, forest
edges, etc.), have also been observed on the site. Great horned owls also nest on the
property. Other nocturnal bird species, such as woodcock and possibly whip-poor-will, may
occur at Powisset but have not been documented.
Several non-native bird species have been recorded on the farm, including some problematic
species that compete with native birds for food and nesting habitat. The house sparrow and
European starling are both non-indigenous species that often compete successfully with
native cavity nesting birds. House finch, another species not native to New England, is
present but poses little to no threat to any of the native species. The brown-headed cowbird
is a nest parasite that lays its eggs in the nests of other species, which then raise the young
cowbirds, often at the expense of their own young. Although cowbirds may prefer the fieldforest ecotones (i.e., edge habitat) that are common at Powisset Farm, no cowbirds were
recorded during the 2003 survey.
Amphibians and Reptiles
Aside from field observations by Trustees’ staff, little is known about the amphibians and
reptiles at Powisset Farm. Common amphibian species, such as green frog and bullfrog,
have been observed in the pond, and spring peepers have been seen in forested areas on the
property. Wood frogs are abundant in the vernal pools on the farm. The American toad also
breeds in the vernal pools and perhaps other wetlands on the property. Gray tree frogs and
northern leopard frogs have been observed or heard. Although no adults have been found,
spermatophores deposited by adult male mole salamanders (probably spotted salamander)
have been observed in some vernal pools on the property.
Painted turtles inhabit the pond, often basking in significant numbers on emerged logs.
Snapping turtles, while not observed, may also occur in the pond. Snakes are likely to be
common at Powisset Farm given the variety of non-forested habitats and the abundance of
structures that attract some species. Both a northern water snake and a milk snake (dead)
were observed on Powissett Street in June 2003. Other species, including garter snake and
black racer would be expected on the property. Future wildlife inventories should focus on
herptiles, especially listed species that may occur on the property such as spotted turtle, box
turtle, blue-spotted salamander, and marbled salamander.
Fish
No information is available regarding fish populations at Powisset Farm. However, the
presence of great blue heron and other wading birds may indicate that the pond supports at
least some fish. In addition, Tubwreck Brook has been identified by the Massachusetts
Natural Resources
4-16
Division of Fisheries and Wildlife as supporting a coldwater fishery (i.e., reproduction by
brook, brown, or rainbow trout has been determined).2
Invertebrates
The level of insect diversity at Powisset Farm, including butterflies and odonates, is
unknown. However, the variety of forest, field and aquatic (and semi-aquatic)
environments probably attracts many species. Black swallowtail, tiger swallowtail,
monarch butterfly, and clouded sulphur, among other common butterflies, have been
observed in the fields and along forest edges on the property. Odonates observed on the
property include common green darner, common whitetail, and widow skimmer. Fairy
shrimp are common in small, ephemeral vernal pools in the fields. Although no rare
invertebrate species have yet been documented on the property, the arrowhead spiketail, a
watch-list species, was observed at nearby Noanet Woodlands.O The arrowhead spiketail
can be found along semi-permanent streams and seeps, habitats that occur at Powisset
Farm.
4.10 Threats to Natural Resources
Future Agricultural Practices
The current dormant state of agricultural activity at Powisset Farm has enhanced plant
and animal diversity in many ways. The lack of grazing in former pasture areas has
allowed many seasonal pools on this part of the property to support populations of
obligate vernal pool wildlife. Future grazing in this area may result in the loss of
vegetation and other site characteristics important to vernal pool wildlife. Plant species
diversity in the fields is also benefiting from the lack of grazing and from less intensive
mowing on the property in recent years. The cessation of crop cultivation in the four-acre
field near the Piggery has allowed this field to succeed to a weed and forb-dominated
field. Although restoring agricultural activity on the farm may diminish some of the
property’s conservation values, future property management can likely be achieved in a
way that is mutually beneficial to the property’s traditional land uses and its ecology.
Plant Community Succession
The property’s agricultural environments have been maintained in an early successional
state over the years by active management that includes hay cropping, grazing and the
cultivation of crops. In the absence of active management, woody plants will colonize
these early successional communities and eventually revert to forest. The abandoned
pasture (i.e., old field) near the southern end of the hayfield is currently undergoing
succession toward a community dominated by forbs and woody plants. Much of the
ecological significance at Powisset Farm (potential and current) is directly related to the
fields and open lands on the property, habitat types that are increasingly uncommon, both
locally and statewide.
O
Site visit to Noanet Woodlands with Fred St. Ours (invertebrate biologist) on June 4, 2002.
Natural Resources
4-17
Invasive Species
Invasive plant species are common at Powisset Farm due to its long history of human use and
disturbance, as well as the abundance of forest edges. Eleven non-indigenous plant species
which are invasive into “natural areas”8 have been identified on the property to date,
including black swallow-wort, Japanese barberry, garlic mustard, oriental bittersweet, glossy
buckthorn and multiflora rose, among others. Two additional plants, common mugwort and
white bedstraw, are “watch-list” plants that do not appear to be invasive at this time, but are
invasive in nearby states or similar habitats. Reed canary grass, also found on the property,
is a potentially native plant that may have some populations that are non-indigenous and
invasive.8 Swamp loosestrife, a native but potentially invasive plant, has spread over a
significant area of the shrub swamp south of the pond.
Most invasive plants share several traits including: (1) the production of large quantities of
seeds; (2) very effective dispersal mechanisms; (3) easy and rapid establishment, particularly
in disturbed areas; (4) rapid growth; and (5) aggressive competition with other, usually native
plants. When invasive plants become established in a plant community, they expand in
numbers and in the amount of space they occupy until the pre-existing plants are pushed out.
This process of invasion tends to homogenize the plant community, decreasing the biological
diversity, severely degrading the ecological health of a community and possibly resulting in
local extinctions.
Invasive species are not limited to plants, but can include certain bird species that displace
native birds either through direct competition for nesting and food resources or by nest
parasitism and predation. The European starling and house sparrow are both found on the
farm, and compete with some native, cavity nesting birds. The status of the eastern bluebird,
a Watch-listed species that breeds in open or semi-open areas, depends largely on the
abundance of house sparrows and starlings. The brown-headed cowbird is a brood parasite
that mainly lays its eggs in the nests of Neotropical migrants, which then raise the cowbird’s
young. Cowbirds were more commonly observed during the 1998 survey when livestock
were kept on the farm.
4.11 Summary of Ecological Highlights
Powisset Farm’s location adjacent to a large area of mostly forested open space, as well as its
diversity of naturally vegetated and agricultural communities, results in Powisset Farm
supporting many important ecological values. The following is a summary of ecological
highlights at the Farm.
•
The location of Powisset Farm- adjacent to over 2,000 acres of forestland- both
buffers and enhances the natural resources of the farm. The naturally vegetated
communities on the property likewise complement and support the landscape ecology
functions and contribute to the habitat diversity of this large area of open space.
Natural Resources
4-18
•
At least 14 vernal pools have been identified on the farm. These seasonal
waterbodies occur in a variety of habitat types, including abandoned pasture, oak
forest, and red maple swamp, with pools located in more open areas supporting a
thick cover of herbaceous plants. The vernal pools at Powisset Farm together with
those at nearby Hale Reservation support a critical wildlife habitat that is currently in
a state of decline.
•
Powisset Farm provides Core Habitat for one state-listed species of Special Concern.
In addition, the property supports seven state “Watch-listed” species including five
bird species (e.g., eastern bluebird, Cooper’s hawk, warbling vireo, etc.) and two
amphibians (northern leopard frog and spotted salamander). Eleven priority bird
species have been observed on the farm.
•
Over half of Powisset Farm’s acreage is agricultural, including 47 acres of hayfields,
17-18 acres of abandoned pasture (including over one acre of “old field” habitat), and
almost four acres of formerly cultivated land. Grasslands, and the species they
support, are currently in decline in New England due to the general trend toward
reforestation over the last 50 years. The hayfields and abandoned pastures at the farm
either currently support, or have the potential to support with proper management,
several important species that depend on these habitat types (e.g., savannah sparrow,
blue-winged warbler, etc.), as well as provide important habitat for plants and insects.
•
Tubwreck Brook, which originates at the small pond near the Main Barn, supports a
coldwater fishery.
4.12 Summary of Significant Threats
•
Future agricultural practices at Powisset Farm will determine the extent to which the
property’s important grasslands provide habitat for grassland dependent species and
whether they contribute to plant and insect diversity. Moreover, inappropriate
management (e.g., intensive grazing) of the abandoned pasture area in the central
portion of the property could impact vernal pools that exist in this area.
•
Invasive plants are most common along forest edges on the farm. However, some
invasive plants, such as glossy buckthorn or purple loosestrife, could become
problematic in adjacent forests and wetlands, respectively, if not controlled. An
increase in the abundance of these exotic species will impact native plant
communities on and adjacent to the property.
•
Invasive bird species, such as the house sparrow and European starling, can diminish
native bird diversity through competition for food and nesting resources. The
reproductive success of the eastern bluebird, a watch-list species that inhabits open
field and savanna habitats like those found on the property, is linked to the numbers
of house sparrows attempting to breed in the area. The brown-headed cowbird,
observed in relatively high numbers during the 1998 survey, could become a problem
if livestock is re-introduced to the farm.
Natural Resources
4-19
•
Plant community succession threatens all early successional habitats on the farm.
Without periodic disturbance (e.g., mowing or brush clearing), these important
habitats will revert to forest over time and no longer support certain wildlife species
which are dependent upon them. While the hayfields on the property will likely be
maintained by mowing, old field habitat (abandoned pasture) near the southern end of
the hayfield may not. Overgrown fields such as these support blue-winged warbler,
indigo bunting, and eastern cottontail, among many other species.
4.13 Summary of Ecological Opportunities
•
Maintain a diversity of early successional habitats at Powisset Farm through
scheduled mowing, limited grazing, and periodic brush clearing. Developing a
mowing plan specific to the farm may allow some property income from hay
production while allowing grassland birds to nest in sections of the field that offer
suitable habitat. Limited grazing in the former pasture will diversify grassland
environments on the property, but should avoid the most productive vernal pools on
the property. Maintaining or expanding existing old field habitat on the property will
likely benefit certain wildlife species. Adjusting the mowing regime in some small
field sections (e.g., small field in the west corner of the property) would increase
plant and insect diversity.
•
Restore nesting habitat for grassland birds. Although viable nesting habitat exists on
the farm, breeding grassland birds have not been observed. Prior to 2003, the fields
were mowed before July 15, the date by which most nesting and fledging activity has
ceased. Adjusting the mowing schedule of hayfields would likely attract grassland
birds, such as bobolinks and possibly savannah sparrow, to the property.
•
Convert a small section of the existing grasslands to native grassland habitat.
Managing a small area of Powisset’s fields for native grasslands would contribute to
plant and insect diversity and would not interfere with (and, in fact, may enhance)
efforts toward attracting grassland nesting birds. Native grassland restoration would
also present an excellent educational and interpretive opportunity.
•
Educate visitors regarding the ecological values associated with agriculture. Merging
sound agricultural practices with ecological management at Powisset Farm may yield
significant benefits for The Trustees in terms of education and interpretation.
However, agricultural management should proceed cautiously to avoid impacting the
farm’s biodiversity.
Natural Resources
4-20
References Cited
1. DeGraaf, R.M., and Mariko Yamasaki. 2001. New England Wildlife - Habitat,
Natural History, and Distribution. University Press of New England. 482 pp.
2. Department of Environmental Protection. 1999. Boston Harbor Watershed, Water
Quality Assessment Report. Division of Watershed Management.
3. Dettmers, R., and Kenneth V. Rosenberg. 2000. Partners In Flight Landbird
Conservation Plan: Physiographic Area 9: Southern New England. 51 pp.
4. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1987. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Town of
Dover, Massachusetts, Norfolk County; Community Panel No. 250238 0010 C.
5. Hopping, R.T. 1999. Plant Communities of Noanet Woodlands Reservation, Dover,
MA. The Trustees of Reservations. 15 pp.
6. Kane-Tritsch, E. 2000. A History of Land Use in Noanet Woodlands and Powissett
Farm, Dover, Massachusetts. 35 pp. + endnotes.
7. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. 2000. 314 CMR 4.00:
Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards.
8. Mehrfoff, L.J. 1997. Invasive Plant Species Occurring in Southern New England.
George Safford Torrey Herbarium. 15 pp.
9. Montgomery, J. 2004. Personal communication: Superintendent, Charles River
Management Unit.
10. Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. 2001. BioMap - Guiding Land
Conservation for Biodiversity in Massachusetts. 58 pp.
11. Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. 2003. Living Waters - Guiding
the Protection of Freshwater Biodiversity in Massachusetts. 50 pp.
12. Skehan, J.W. 2001. Roadside Geology of Massachusetts. Mountain Press
Publishing Company. 379 pp.
13. Swain, P.C., and Jennifer B. Kearsley. 2000. Classification of the Natural
Communities of Massachusetts (Draft). Natural Heritage & Endangered Species
Program, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.
14. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1989. Soil Survey of Norfolk and Suffolk
Counties, Massachusetts. 194 pp.
15. U.S. Geological Survey. 1957. Medfield, Massachusetts. U.S. Geological Survey.
Natural Resources
4-21
Section 5: Structural Resources
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
Introduction
Methodology
Current Use and Condition
Routine Maintenance
Capital Renewal
Capital Improvement
Summary of Significant Threats and Opportunities
A view of the Main Barn, as seen looking northwest from the Piggery.
Section 5: Structural Resources
5.1 Introduction
The collection of buildings at Powisset Farm reflect both Miss Amelia Peabody’s passions for
agriculture and technology, and a farming tradition that dates back over 350 years. Powisset
Farm was once home to Miss Peabody’s livestock holdings, including Hereford cattle in the
Main Barn and Yorkshire pigs in the Piggery, a state-of-the-art structure designed with the latest
advances in farming technology. With an interest in farming-related technology advancements
also came an interest in new building technologies. The existing farmhouse, designed by Ernest
Hodgson and manufactured in Dover, is an example of early factory-built housing.
While the collection of buildings is generally in good condition, capital improvements and
renewal needs will need to be considered as these buildings are programmed for a more
disciplined use. The development of capital improvement projects will reflect any proposed
changes of use. Any change that encourages use by the public will require life safety equipment
(e.g., exit signs). Local authorities in Dover will play a major role in determining the balance
between code interpretation and any change of use.
Under the leadership of Jeff Montgomery, Superintendent of the Charles River Valley
Management Unit, the buildings’ care has been exemplary. Jeff and his crew have budgeted
time in their annual work planning to address deferred maintenance, capital renewal and ongoing
routine maintenance. Knowing that resources (both financial and human) are limited, the
management has been creative and responsive. For example, the “swap shop” at the Dover
transfer station has been a tremendous resource; found materials have included a supply of nearly
new cabinets for the farmhouse kitchen and rolls of unwrapped insulation for use in other farm
buildings. This chapter strives to outline baseline conditions to make future work planning a
proactive, rather than a reactive, exercise.
5.2 Methodology
In order to develop a meaningful management plan, it is important to include an understanding of
the baseline condition of our buildings and structures. This is accomplished in two phases. The
first phase consists of a brief systematic review of building systems classifying their condition as
excellent, good, fair, or poor. Building systems include the roof; the chimney; the structural
integrity of walls; the finish of walls; the interior condition; the exterior trim condition; the
gutters and any drainage issues; the condition of the foundation; the condition of the floor; and
the condition of the electrical, heating, and plumbing systems. Of course, only those systems
which are present are assessed.
Such a classification provides a snapshot of the current health of the building while modeling the
immediate needs to achieve renewal of building systems. The excellent, good, fair, or poor
ratings are indications of a building systems’ useful life. An excellent rating indicates that
Structural Resources
5-1
greater than 75% of a system’s useful life remains; a good rating falls between 50 and 75%; fair
falls between 25 and 50%; and poor indicates that less than 25% of a building system’s useful
life remains. Predicting useful life is not an exact science and this first phase of review is meant
to create a generalized assessment of building health while relating this assessment to the health
of other structures across the state. All information gathered during this initial assessment is
stored and updated on the structural resources web site (www.structural-resources.org), allowing
for remote access from all areas of the state.
Once the initial assessment is complete, identifiable deficiencies which make up the analysis of
renewal need can be categorized as projects. These will help to identify costs associated with
routine maintenance, deferred maintenance, capital renewal and capital improvements.1 Once
again, the web-based database is used to store project information which can help identify
immediate and future needs.
Figure 1 below provides an inventory of the existing buildings and structures at Powisset Farm,
lists the approximate years of construction, and documents size and estimated replacement costs.
Figure 1: Inventory of Powisset Farm Buildings and Structures
Approximate
Year
Constructed
Square
Footage
Replacement Cost
Agway Barn
1950s
5,900
$20sf x 5,900 = $118,000
Butler Barn
1952
4,455
$20sf x 4,455 = $89,100
Main Barn Garage
(detached)
Farm House
Garage
Main Barn
1950
1,200
$80sf x 1,200 = $96,000
1939
600
$80sf x 600 = $48,000
1920
8,485
$80sf x 8,485 = $678,800
Main Barn
Apartment
Piggery
1920
800
$150 x 800 = $120,000
1947
4,320
$80sf x 4,320 = $345,600
Farmhouse
(Hodgson House)
Shop (Tool Shed)
1972
1,853
$150 x 1,853 = $277,950
1940
2,079
$80sf x 2,079 = $166,320
Building
1
Appendix A: Understanding the baseline condition of Structural Resources Statewide. July 9, 2004
Structural Resources
5-2
5.3 Current Use and Condition
Agway Barn
No work has been performed to this structure since it
was inspected in 1990 by the Foster and Bassett field
management team. At that time and at present, the
building is generally in good condition. The metal
building is not complex; it is a three-sided structure
with open bays and an earthen floor. Cost models for
this structure use $20 per square foot; at 5,900 sf,
replacement value is $118,000.
Butler Barn
Like the Agway Barn, no work has been performed since the inspections in 1990 by Foster and
Bassett. The barn continues to suffer from the complications of deferred maintenance and is in
poor condition. Deficiencies include roof leaks and a variety of infrastructure-related issues
associated with farm buildings where resources are scarce and the farmer acts as a “jack-of-alltrades.” Electrical wiring needs to be upgraded as well as the water distribution system. Cost
models for this structure use $20 per square foot; at 4,455 sf, replacement value is $89,100.
Main Barn Garage
Built in 1950, this garage is in good condition overall and
is currently used by the tenant of the barn apartment.
Trustees’ staff also uses a portion of the garage for secure
storage. Cost models for this structure use $80 per square
foot; at 1,200 sf, replacement value is $96,000.
Structural Resources
5-3
Farmhouse Garage
Just as the Foster and Bassett inspections reported in
1990, the garage appears to be in good condition with
one exception being the poor condition of the loft and
rear entry doors. Cost models for this structure use $80
per square foot; at 600 sf, replacement value is $48,000.
Farmhouse (Hodgson House)
A number of improvements were made to
the farmhouse since the inspection in 1990.
The observations and subsequent
recommendations resulted in renewal of
many systems including the addition of heat
for the laundry room and the installation of
a water softener system to eliminate hard
water in 1998, the enclosing of the back porch and remodeling of the kitchen in 1999, the
remodeling of the bathroom in 2000, the replacement of the furnace in 2001, the replacement of
the well pump and service in 2002, and ventilation improvements to the basement crawl space.
The roof was completely renewed with in-house labor during the fall of 2004. The farmhouse
should be de-leaded before any resident with children becomes a tenant. Cost models for this
structure use $150 per square foot; at 1,843 sf, replacement value is $277,950.
Main Barn and Apartment
In 1990, Foster and Bassett made many
recommendations for immediate repairs to both the
Main Barn and the apartment. While the
conditions were reported to be generally good,
most deficiencies related to the mechanical
systems. It was reported that the oil burner and fire
box had outlived its useful life and should be
replaced. There were outstanding questions
concerning the location and condition of the septic system. Foster and Bassett recommended a
water softener system be installed and, in 1998, this work was completed. Other completed
projects included the replacement of the main door and storm door in 1998, siding work on the
north and west side in 1999, water line improvements and a stove replacement in 2001.
Superintendent Jeff Montgomery renewed all the finishes in the management unit’s office in the
basement of the barn.
Structural Resources
5-4
Current recommendations include the replacement of four garage doors located at the lower
garage bays (in order to provide secure storage); replacement of the roof (to be budgeted for
fiscal year 2006); and lead paint abatement from the apartment after the current tenant moves
out.
Cost models for this structure use $80 per square foot for the barn; at 8,485 sf, replacement value
is $678,800. Cost models for the apartment use $150 per square foot; at $800 sf, replacement
value is $120,000.
Piggery
In recent years the Piggery has continued to be
used for raising pigs, celebrating the historic use
of this structure. The piggery also receives
annual resources for the renewal of siding and is
kept in good condition. Electrical, heating and
plumbing systems will need to be upgraded and
renewed. The mechanical feed hoppers work
and their design still functions.
Cost models for this structure use $80 per square foot; at 4,320 sf, replacement value is $345,600
Shop (Tool Shed)
Once again, good planning catalyzed by the
Foster and Bassett report of 1990 resulted in
renewal to fit the proposed use of the tool shed as
the maintenance shop for the Charles River
Valley Management Unit. Upgrades completed
in 2000 added electrical capacity, insulation and
a wood burning stove, as well as a new asphalt
shingle roof. In December 2004, a propane-fired
Dayton space heated was added as an additional heat source.
Cost models for this structure use $80 per square foot; at 2,079 sf, replacement value is
$166,320.
5.3.1 Infrastructure
Questions concerning water distribution, electrical distribution, and roadway conditions need to
be addressed during the management planning process. Any changes to the use of buildings will
impact project planning. Currently, roadways are in poor condition, water needs are served by
only one well, and electrical service is barely adequate.
Structural Resources
5-5
5.3.2 Other structures
This briefing document does not identify other structures that may occur on the property, such as
gates, trail markings, and stone walls. There are a number of structures in the landscape that will
also need to be reviewed and assessed in order to form a complete inventory of buildings and
structures.
5.4 Routine Maintenance
Until the existing systems are upgraded substantially, identifying all of the routine maintenance
needs will be extremely important to guard against the creation of deferred maintenance and the
rapid deterioration of building systems. A simple list of Routine Maintenance follows. The time
and labor, or outsourced costs, involved is an important consideration when determining
resources required in implementing a management plan.
Building System
Roof, gutters
Interval
spring, fall,
winter
Description
Clean out gutters, repair gutters if needed, remove any build-up of organic material (leaves, fungus).
In winter, watch for signs of ice damming and protect roof from heavy snow loads.
Chimney
fall
Have chimneys cleaned regularly; check mortar joints for excessive wear and deterioration.
Exterior
eight to ten
years
Complete exterior paint job, clean all surfaces, provide surface prep and paint. If painting is needed
more frequently, look for moisture and ventilation issues.
Walls Interior
winter,
spring,
summer,
fall
Interior surfaces should be cleaned regularly with a major cleaning done in each of the four seasons.
Interior renewal, painting and wallpaper can follow an eight to fifteen year cycle.
Foundation
(exterior)
annually
Inspect mortar joints annually; watch for moisture problems related to improper drainage, high water
tables or seasonal flooding. Make sure foundation is vented properly (dry air is best).
Windows
Doors
spring and
fall
Prior to heating and cooling seasons, make sure all weather-stripping, storm windows and doors, and
insulation, is properly installed. All storm combinations are to be positioned properly to guard
against unwanted water infiltration.
Floors
periodically
Floors should be cleaned periodically reducing excessive build-up of dirt and dust. Renewal
generally occurs in five to ten years depending on the materials.
Electrical
winter,
spring,
summer,
and fall
Check all smoke detectors to make sure they are active. Make sure access to electric panels and
sub-panels remain unobstructed.
Heating
spring and
fall
Heating systems should be maintained using a service contract. All filters should be replaced as
recommended. Oil tanks should have containment underneath; any apparent leaks are to be reported
immediately.
Plumbing
annually
Water softening equipment and pump house equipment to be serviced annually by a qualified
professional.
Pest Control
annually
Regular pest control should be assessed and serviced by an outside contractor.
Site
annually
Vegetation around the building perimeter is to be cleared away annually.
It appears that the Butler Barn has the greatest accumulation of deferred maintenance. This has
occurred mainly because the building has no present use. Much of the building and
infrastructure renewal needs will eliminate deferred maintenance.
Structural Resources
5-6
5.5 Capital Renewal
When creating a management plan it is important to proactively plan for the renewal of building
systems. The rule of thumb for building a reserve to pay for renewal needs is to set aside 2% of
the building replacement value. In the case of the Powisset collection, total replacement cost of
all nine buildings is $1,939,770. At 2% annually, the renewal costs should be approximately
$39,000 per year. This renewal figure assumes that all building systems were recently renewed
and it does not include infrastructure renewal associated with site improvements (e.g.,
roadways). Funds should be adjusted in the start-up budget to care for the backlog of renewal
needs.
5.6 Capital Improvement
Funds associated with capital improvement projects will be identified as proposed programmed
uses are identified. Programmed uses involving the public may include visitor centers,
restrooms, and other conditioned spaces to encourage interaction between the public and possible
agriculture activities at Powisset. Built space for the public requires life safety appurtenances
(e.g., exit signs, pull stations, fire access). New spaces and/or changes of use also require a
careful review of accessibility regulations, local health codes, and compliance with
Massachusetts Building Codes.
5.7 Summary of Significant Threats and Opportunities
As with all buildings and structures, the lack of proper stewardship is their most significant
threat. Adaptive re-use provides an opportunity to advance the health of the structures while
performing important Trustees’ mission-related activities in all areas of resource protection. If
Powisset were to be rejuvenated with an agricultural use, perhaps one that included the historic
housing of cows or pigs, the structures could be renewed to serve this function. While the
precise cost depends on the level of programmed activity, most farm activity can be easily
accommodated with this collection of farm buildings.
The current field operations plan, Conservation in Action!, has proclaimed the elimination of
deferred maintenance as one of its goals. In order to move toward this goal it is important that
adequate operational funds are allocated to Powisset Farm for routine maintenance. Funds spent
to support routine maintenance will protect against the creation of deferred maintenance. Funds
should also be identified for building renewal to ensure the updating of antiquated building
systems.
Structural Resources
5-7
Section 6: The Visitor Experience
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
Introduction
Past and Current Use
Future Use
Access and Circulation
Potential Threats to the Visitor Experience
Opportunities to Enhance the Visitor Experience
Exploring the Farm’s natural and cultural resources.
Section 6: The Visitor Experience
6.1 Introduction
A high quality visitor experience is at the core of The Trustees’ goals for Powisset Farm.
That goal will be realized when visitors are able to experience a working landscape and
come away with a renewed sense of connection to the land.
There are abundant potential recreational and educational opportunities at Powisset Farm.
Along with these opportunities, however, challenges also exist. Other management
goals, such as agricultural management or resource protection, may be incompatible with
or constrain some types of visitor use. The Trustees will work to achieve an integrated
management approach that successfully integrates resource protection, agricultural use
and the visitor experience.
6.2 Past and Current Use
At present, there are few visitors to Powisset Farm. Although the farm has not been
officially opened to the public, visitors who come to the farm are not turned away. A
spur trail within the adjacent town-owned conservation land ends at the farm and hikers
sometimes make their way onto Powisset Farm via this trail.
Although not a user group in the traditional sense (i.e., hikers, dog walkers, birdwatchers,
etc.), Powisset Farm is enjoyed by almost all of the residents of Dover. Each week Dover
residents pass by Powisset Farm while traveling along Powissett Street to the town
transfer station. The scenic view of open fields and picturesque farm buildings at
Powisset are valued by many passers-by.
The Norfolk Hunt Club has been using the farm for outings since the days of Amelia
Peabody, who was an active member of the group. The Hunt hosts approximately six or
seven major events each year (two or three in the spring and four in the fall) in which
portions of Powisset Farm are utilized. Normally, these events involve about 40 horses
and riders, 20 hounds and several support personnel on foot. Only portions of the
property are used for these events, namely the open fields in the front and rear of the
property and the trails along the periphery. The central portion of the property, where
active agriculture has occurred in the past, is avoided. In addition to the major events,
The Hunt also regularly holds hound schooling events at Powisset Farm. Mounted hound
schooling occurs three times in the spring, four times in the fall and up to once per week
during the summer months, annually. These events involve five to ten horses and riders
and as many as 20-30 hounds. Hound schooling on foot (i.e., without horses) occurs up
to once per week during the winter months.
Visitor Experience
6-1
The Hunt has no written agreement with The Trustees for its use of the property nor does
The Trustees receive any compensation for hosting these events. The relationship
between the Hunt Club and The Trustees is a positive one. Many members of the club
are Trustees’ supporters and some live in the immediate neighborhood of Powisset Farm.
It may be desirable for The Trustees to draft a written agreement (e.g., a Memorandum of
Understanding) with the Hunt guiding the Club’s use of the property, so that The
Trustees can prevent any impacts to the Farm and its resources.
During Miss Peabody’s ownership of Powisset, “visitors to the farm were many and
varied.” (E. Wilcox, personal communication.) Schoolchildren from the inner city of
Boston were bussed to Powisset to experience life on a farm. Miss Peabody also hosted
Dover Church outings at the farm and annual Field Days for pig farmers and cattle
breeders. Notable visitors to Powisset Farm during this time included Franklin D.
Roosevelt, Jr., who owned a cattle farm in New York, and the Secretary of the American
Hereford Association, who visited Powisset to inspect Miss Peabody’s prized herd of
Hereford cattle.
6.3 Future Use
Who will visit Powisset Farm?
It is expected that people will visit Powisset Farm for two main reasons. The first will be
to experience a working landscape and to participate directly in an active agricultural
operation. In researching options for a future agricultural operation at Powisset, a
rudimentary market analysis was conducted. The analysis showed that, at present, there
is limited opportunity within the region for people to experience a working farm
firsthand. (See Section 9 of this plan.) The second reason for visiting Powisset Farm will
be to engage in informal or casual outdoor recreation. A potential trail network could
link a large expanse of open space in the area, including the town-owned conservation
land, Noanet Woodlands and the Hale Reservation, which would provide visitors the
opportunity to include Powisset Farm in their hiking.
In addition to Noanet Woodlands, there are a number of Trustees’ reservations in close
proximity to Powisset Farm, including Chase Woodlands, Peters Reservation, Pegan Hill,
Rocky Narrows and Rocky Woods. It is expected that visitors to these properties will
also visit Powisset Farm once it is formally opened for public access.
What will be the common visitor activities?
Considering the two types of visitors described above, we anticipate that visitors will
come to Powisset Farm either to take a walk or to learn about and participate in the
Farm’s agricultural and resource protection activities. Some visitors may explore only
the farm, while others may hike in the adjacent conservation lands as well. Other
recreational activities will likely include those typical of other Trustees’ properties, such
as nature study or photography.
Visitor Experience
6-2
6.4 Access and Circulation
Visitors to Powisset Farm will access the property via Powissett Street. Since the Farm
has never been formally opened to the public, there is no parking lot on the property at
present. Further, the agricultural preservation restriction (APR) prohibits the creation of
any new parking that is not primarily for agricultural use. Thus, parking is a significant
management issue to be considered in planning for the future of the property.
As a result of past agricultural use, no formal trail network has ever been established on
the property. A spur trail within the town-owned conservation land to the south empties
onto Powisset Farm, but then ends abruptly. On the north side of the farm, within land
owned by the Hale Reservation, there is a trail that runs parallel to the Farm boundary.
Extending these trails to grant visitors safe access onto Powisset Farm offers an
opportunity to greatly enhance the visitor experience.
6.5 Potential Threats to the Visitor Experience
Dover transfer station and local traffic
The town transfer station is located one mile northeast of the farm along Powissett Street.
Although there is no visual connection or any immediate impacts to the Farm from this
facility, it does cause increased truck and vehicular traffic along Powissett Street on the
days in which the facility is open to residents. Any proposed trail linking Powisset Farm
to Noanet Woodlands would inevitably cross Powissett Street at some point, which could
prove a safety risk for pedestrians, given the volume of traffic and the limited sight lines.
Agricultural activity
Agricultural management of Powisset Farm will likely require the use of heavy
equipment and may include a variety of farm animals. While the agricultural program
will be of great interest to visitors, it may also be a potential conflict and safety concern.
Providing safe visitor access will be an important issue to address in the planning
process.
6.6 Opportunities to Enhance the Visitor Experience
Visitors will be invited to experience Powisset Farm in a number of ways. Whether
through structured activities or passive recreation, opportunities to connect with the
landscape will abound.
Trail connections
There are many opportunities to establish a trail network that takes visitors into Powisset
and connects them with surrounding open space, including the town-owned conservation
land on Walpole Street, the Hale Reservation, and Noanet Woodlands. This would afford
visitors the opportunity to experience a variety of landscape types, such as open field,
woodland and wetlands.
Visitor Experience
6-3
Education & Interpretation
In 2004, The Trustees adopted a strategic plan for its Field Operations activities. In the
plan, titled Conservation in Action!, the organization outlined a major initiative to
advance education and interpretation at its properties. Organizational goals and strategies
designed to implement the initiative include:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
a focus on “reading” the landscape—its ecology and the natural forces which
created it and the ways it has been shaped by people over hundreds, if not
thousands, of years;
place-based education techniques which engage visitors in hands-on activities on
our properties that support our management and understanding of the property;
and
an emphasis on converting visitors to members and, ultimately, stewards of the
Massachusetts landscape.
The resources and unique values of Powisset Farm can play an important role in
advancing The Trustees’ educational goals. A strategy for implementing educational and
interpretive programming at the Farm should be developed to ensure that any
programming offered successfully advances the goals of The Trustees’ education
initiative.
Visitor Experience
6-4