ANDSCAPE L INES

12

Treatment of Plant Features INTRODUCTION

Virtually all cultural landscapes are influenced by and depend on

natural resources and processes. In many ways, the dynamic qualities

inherent in natural systems differentiate cultural landscapes from

other cultural resources. Plant and animal communities associated

with human settlement and use are considered “biotic cultural

resources.” These can reflect social, functional, economic, ornamental, or traditional uses of the land.

Vegetation is considered a biotic cultural resource when it can be linked

to an established period of significance and adds to the overall significance of the landscape. Vegetation is a common landscape characteristic

associated with the historical development of a cultural landscape or

resulting from cultural activities on the land. Vegetation has a cycle of

growth, change, and eventual death and often requires constant management and intervention to retain its overall structure and appearance.

The features associated with vegetation are recognized as either a

system (such as a forest or wetland), an aggregation of plants (such as a

hedge or orchard), or an individual plant (such as a tree or shrub), all of

which have distinct, unique, or noteworthy characteristics in a landscape.

It is important to understand the degree to which change contributes

to or compromises the historic character of a cultural landscape, and

the way in which natural cycles influence the ecological processes

within a landscape. For example, preservation of a single tree in a

designed landscape may be critical to the overall integrity of the design.

In contrast, an entire woodlot may have significance, in which case it is

necessary to preserve the ecological processes of the system rather

than an individual tree. Determining a treatment strategy for the

vegetation within a cultural landscape involves consultation with

appropriate natural resource professionals.
2 L A N D S C A P E L I N E S

This text describes the process of historical research, existing conditions investigation, and

analysis and evaluation conducted during the

preparation of a Cultural Landscape Report (CLR)

as it relates to treating vegetation, in particular

individual plants and aggregations of plants. Individual plants are solitary (see Figure 1), whereas an

aggregation of plants is a physical grouping of

multiple individuals of the same plant type, such as

a hedge, allee, bosk, and orchard. The aggregation

of plants shares the same aesthestic or functional

role in the landscape because of the collective

arrangement of plants in space. In most cases, an

aggregation of plants can be treated similarly to an

individual plant because its composition is uniform.

(See Figures 2 and 3.)

Figure 1. Planted in the early nineteenth century, this Ginko Tree is an individual plant feature. Vanderbilt Mansion National Historic

Site. (NPS, 1995)

This text emphasizes the need to determine,

during analysis and evaluation, how the features

of vegetation contribute to the significance of a

landscape. This is particularly important in selecting a primary treatment for a landscape and in

implementing treatment and management of

plants. This text also discusses special considerations for treatment activities, including replacement of declining vegetation. Because vegetation

is living material, plant replacement is an inevitable

activity regardless of the treatment. Throughout

this text, the term “plant features” refers to both

individual plants and aggregations of plants that

contribute to the significance of a cultural landscape and retain integrity.
T R E A T M E N T O F P L A N T F E A T U R E S 3

PLANT FEATURES AND THE CLR

Historical Research

Historical research is performed while preparing a

CLR to produce the site history narrative. The

narrative describes and illustrates the development

and appearance of a landscape through successive

historic periods. When vegetation is a characteristic associated with the historic development of a

landscape, research includes identifying the

historic location, appearance, and identity of plant

features during each relevant period. (See Figures

4 and 5.)

Sources for historic research of plants include:

historic maintenance logs, agricultural records,

personal letters, diaries and journals, receipts of

plant purchases, historic photographs (including

historic aerial photographs), paintings, sketches,

planting plans, and oral histories. (See Figure 6.)

Figure 2. These evergreen shrub hedges represent an

aggregation of plants. Eugene O'Neill National Historic Site.

(NPS, 1944)

Figure 3. This birch allee is an aggregation of plants. SaintGaudens National Historic Site. (NPS, 1966)

BIOTIC CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

The treatment and management of biotic cultural resources

was first discussed in Ian Firth’s 1985 study: Biotic Cultural

Resources: Management Considerations for Historic Districts in

the National Park System, Southeast Region. The treatment and

management of agricultural landscapes, battlefields, and

private estates in the Southeast are described using the

extant plants and animals associated with historic uses of the

land. The document emphasizes the need to preserve biotic

cultural resources as a historic record and a living connection with the past, as well as abiotic features that convey the

historic character and significance of a landscape.

In a discussion of the treatment of biotic cultural resources

in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards,

the 1985 study illustrates the unique challenges in preserving

biotic, rather than abiotic features. Biotic features have an

inherently dynamic nature, that gives rise to such challenges

as managing the size of livestock herds, the need to sow and

harvest agricultural crops, resisting ecological succession in a

now unglazed pasture, and interpreting the role of a

replanted seedling forest in the maneuvers of a Civil War

battle, despite the slow pace of restoration. Referring to the

attempt to restore biotic cultural resources to depict the

appearance of a historic period, Ian Firth states:

A repetition of a historic scene composed of several

plant and animal communities requires a conjunction of

all biotic cycles in their appropriate phases. Therefore,

like Halley’s Comet, a historic scene may return

perhaps once in a lifetime.

The treatment and management of biotic cultural resources

must anticipate and plan for the natural process of change. It

must establish acceptable parameters for change and manage

the appearance of biotic resources within those parameters.
4 L A N D S C A P E L I N E S

The identification of plants from historic documentation sources, rather than from living or

herbarium specimens, is a special technique that

may require a plant taxonomist. Some site

investigation techniques, such as archeobotanical

analysis (the analysis of pollen, phytoliths, and

macroflora) and tree coring can also yield information on the existence of plants in historic

periods.

Existing Conditions Investigation

The existing conditions investigation provides an

understanding of the present conditions of a

cultural landscape. The investigation involves both

a site survey and site research to identify and

document the location and condition of all extant

landscape characteristics and associated features,

including vegetation and plant features. (See

Figure 7.) Based on the site survey and research,

Figure 4. The historic record for Rim Village indicated that large

trees were selected from other areas in the park, root pruned,

and transplanted to the Rim as part of the designed landscape.

Crater Lake National Park. (NPS, 1933)

Figure 5. Research illustrated that large conifers were moved and planted at Rim Village in the 1930s to create a “natural appearing

landscape.” Crater Lake National Park. (NPS, 1933)
T R E A T M E N T O F P L A N T F E A T U R E S 5

plant features may be graphically documented

with line drawings (sketches, measured sections,

and plans), black and white photographs, color

slides, and videography. (See Figure 8.)

Information on the identity and condition of

existing plants also may be gathered during a plant

inventory. A plant inventory is a specialized type

of site survey that focuses exclusively on existing

plants. A plant inventory identifies and locates all

existing plants, regardless of whether they are

known to be associated with a landscape’s period

of significance.

Information about contemporary introductions of

plants, or plant recolonizations, is particularly

important in treating and managing plants. If plants

cannot be accurately identified in the field (the

plant is an unknown variety or cultivar), it may be

necessary to make a herbarium specimen with a

representative sample from the plant. A botanist

or horticulturist can later identify the representative sample. Site investigation techniques used to

identify and map existing plant features may

include aerial photograph analysis, aerial photogrammetric surveys, topographic surveys (which

locate vegetation masses and individual plants),

Figure 6. A Historic American Building Survey (HABS) plan of Longfellow Place. The early HABS survey of the landscape identifies plant

names and is a valuable source for historic plant information. Longfellow National Historic Site. (NPS, 1935)
6 L A N D S C A P E L I N E S

Global Positioning System with a Geographic

Information System, and hydrographic surveys for

submerged vegetation.

Analysis and Evaluation

The analysis and evaluation performed while

preparing a CLR compares the findings of the site

history with the existing conditions investigation to

determine the type and extent of landscape change

since a site’s earliest historic period. The analysis

and evaluation identifies the extant landscape

characteristics and associated features and defines

their contribution to a landscape’s significance. If

vegetation is a landscape characteristic, plant

features are analyzed to determine their integrity

and association with the landscape’s significance.

In analyzing and evaluating vegetation and plant

features, the process must acknowledge the

dynamic nature of living organisms; plant features will

have changed in appearance since the historic

period(s). Therefore, evaluating the integrity of plant

features involves determining whether a plant’s

contemporary appearance is evidence of an association with the significance of a landscape. Plant

features may retain integrity if the historic type,

distribution, size, and structure are still recognizable.

Plant features are evaluated according to National

Register criteria in the same manner as abiotic

features of the landscape. Plant features may be

associated with a significant event, person, design,

or function, or have the potential to yield information about the history or prehistory of a

landscape. But generally, plant features are not

significant independent of their landscape context;

rather, they contribute to the significance of the

entire cultural landscape. For example, the fruit

trees of Adams National Historic Site in Massachusetts are associated with the lives of John and

Abigail Adams (criterion A). The woods and fields

of Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military

Park in Georgia are associated with the event of a

Civil War battle. The woods influenced the

pattern of maneuvers and conduct of the battle in

the landscape in 1863 (criterion B). The indigenous eastern woodland of Prospect Park,

Brooklyn, New York is associated with the

picturesque design of the landscape. The design

was carved from the existing woods by Olmsted

and Vaux in 1868 (criterion C). The filbert trees

of the 75-acre, 90-year-old orchard of Dorris

Ranch in Oregon have yielded information about

the early cultivation and breeding of filberts in the

Figure 7. Field documentation of plants at Lake Crescent Lodge.

Olympic National Park. (NPS, 1984)
T R E A T M E N T O F P L A N T F E A T U R E S 7

United States in their experimental planting

arrangements, spacing, culture, and genetic

composition (criterion D).

An understanding of the significance of plant

features in a landscape is a critical factor in determining how it should be managed. For example,

the fruit trees at the Adams National Historic Site

were one of the reasons John and Abigail purchased the property south of Boston in 1787, and

subsequent generations of the Adams family

continued to plant and experiment with the fruit

trees. The orchard is an important feature in light

of its association with the Adams family. The type

and variety of plant material may also contribute to

the significance of a cultural landscape. An inventory

of the orchards at the Moses Cone Estate on the

Blue Ridge Parkway uncovered several unusual

varieties of apples that date from the turn of the

century. These historic cultivars are part of the

historic record at this site, and because of their

rarity these cultivars should be genetically preserved within the landscape (through maintenance

and propagation for genetic authenticity).

The importance of the plant material may also be

derived from its function in the landscape as part of a

particular design or land use practice rather than

Figure 8. This vegetation assessment plan identifies broadleaf and coniferous trees, and indicates their common name, quantity,

diameter at breast height, and physical condition. Andrew Johnson National Cemetery. (NPS, 1992)

printer to

shoot

neg
8 L A N D S C A P E L I N E S

from its association or unique genetic makeup. At

Eleanor Roosevelt’s rural retreat, Val-Kill (now

Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site), in

Hyde Park, New York, a line of red pines was an

effective screen between the drive and the stone

cottage during the 1950s. As the pines matured,

the lower limbs were lost with a resulting loss of

screening. To regain the function of the pine

hedge as a landscape feature, the trees were

removed and replaced in-kind. A decision was

made that the significance of the red pines as a

hedge in the landscape was more important than

the fact that they were original plantings from the

time when Mrs. Roosevelt lived on the property.

Similarly, in vernacular landscapes, such as an

agricultural district, perpetuation of a particular

crop may not be as important as the retention of

the overall landscape patterns.

Treatment

The treatment section in a CLR either states the

primary treatment (if already known through park

planning), proposes a primary treatment (preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction), or proposes treatment alternatives for a

cultural landscape. Landscape character areas and

management zones may also be discussed in the

treatment section of a CLR.

Determining the primary treatment (the goal for

the overall appearance of the landscape) for a

cultural landscape is influenced by the following:

• integrity and condition of the biotic and abiotic

features

• management objectives for the park

• type of cultural landscape and significance

• contemporary use of the landscape

Treatment is guided by policy, guidelines, and

standards contained within NPS Management

Policies, Cultural Resource Management Guideline, and The Secretary of the Interior Standards

for Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes.

These documents identify four treatments for

cultural landscapes: preservation, rehabilitation,

restoration, and reconstruction.

Plant features are addressed in relation to the

primary treatment for a cultural landscape, along

with designated character areas or management

zones. For example, the CLR for the Van Buren

National Historic Site in New York proposes

restoration as the primary treatment, and treatment recommendations include replanting the fruit

orchards that existed during Van Buren’s occupation. The CLR for the Frederick Law Olmsted Site

in Brookline, Massachusetts proposes restoration

of the landscape to its appearance circa1930 to

illustrate the landscape designed and developed by

Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. and perpetuated by his

sons, John Charles and Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr.

As a result, the CLR prescribes removing over 200

nonhistoric trees and shrubs and introducing over

800 trees, shrubs, and vines based on the character of the landscape in circa1930. (See Figure 9.)

All treatments for a cultural landscape are represented by a sequence of activities given in order

of increasing physical intervention: protect and

maintain, repair, replace, design for missing

features, and design compatible alterations and
T R E A T M E N T O F P L A N T F E A T U R E S 9

Figure 9. Photographs showing before and after the clearing of recolonizing vegetation. This activity was part of a restoration treatment

plan. Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site. (NPS, 1994)
10 L A N D S C A P E L I N E S

additions. The sequence first establishes that

significant features, such as plant features, are

preserved by regular maintenance and by protecting them from adverse influences. The

sequence promotes repairing before replacing

deteriorated features, requires substantiated

design for replacing missing features, and asserts

that alterations and additions be compatible with

the historic character of the landscape. The

frequency with which various activities occur

varies with a given treatment. For example, the

majority of activities in preservation involve

protection, maintenance, and repair, while

restoration involves more replacement and

design for missing features.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR

TREATMENT ACTIVITIES

Treatment activities applied to plant features may

be restricted, modified, or influenced by:

• protection and maintenance

• repairs and replacement

Protection and Maintenance

The protection and maintenance of significant

plant features, including their form and scale in a

landscape, is a high priority in all treatments.

Good horticultural practices can enhance the

longevity of significant plant material. Although

genetics is a major factor in determining plant

longevity, external factors can also play a role.

For example, erecting barriers, staking, tying,

and cabling plants are protective measures that

can be performed. Maintenance is performed

by irrigating, fertilizing, pruning, dividing, transplanting, mowing, and performing integrated

pest management. Such activities create a

favorable growing environment and promote

the health of plants, but they may also be

designed to achieve particular visual effects.

With an aggregation of plants, each individual

plant is equally protected and maintained to

achieve a uniform effect. The protection and

maintenance of plants must integrate a knowledge of the cultivation requirements of individual

plant species with an understanding of the

primary landscape. For example, the optimal

growth and reproductive potential of a plant

may be compromised to achieve a visual appearance that accurately conveys the landscape’s

significance. Protection and maintenance regimes may be modified to achieve a particular

effect (for instance, infrequent or high grass

mowing to resemble the appearance of

meadow-like sod that existed before the advent

of lawnmowers).

Contemporary environmental legislation may

restrict the protection and maintenance of plants

associated with the significance of a cultural landscape. Many old cultivars or varieties of agricultural

crops are prohibited by federal or state law to

prevent new epidemics of pests and diseases and

conserve soil fertility. For example, each year at

the Shiloh National Military Park in Tennessee, a

representative portion of land is planted in cotton

to reflect the appearance of the land at the time of

the Civil War battle. To guard against loss of soil

fertility, state law requires that the cotton crop be

rotated to a different area each year.
T R E A T M E N T O F P L A N T F E A T U R E S 11

Contemporary standards of environmental quality

also affect land management practices. These

standards may influence the protection and

maintenance of certain plant species or affect

current practices that eradicate others. New

technologies, such as geotextiles and biological

pest controls, should be integrated wherever

possible into the protection and maintenance of

plant features.

Repair and Replacement

The repair of plant features may involve remedial

or rejuvenative pruning, cabling, or grafting to

remove infection or decay, provide physical

support, and promote healing or the regeneration

of new tissue. Plant features must be closely

monitored to determine the vitality of plants and

identify agents that may cause their decline.

Replacement typically occurs when repair is no

longer possible. Loss of vitality due to age, pest

and disease infestation, mechanical damage,

natural disasters, or environmental modification

may negate attempts at repair and necessitate

replacement.

Replacing plant features involves removing a

declining plant in a particular location and replanting it with another plant. (See Figures 10 and 11.)

The replacement plant may be genetically identical to the former plant, taxonomically the same,

or be a substitute cultivar, variety, species, or

genus for the former plant. The desired degree of

authenticity of the replacement plant is a decision

influenced by various factors, but it is primarily

based on the association of the plant with the

landscape’s significance.

When repair and replacement is applied to an

aggregation of plants, it may involve just one

individual of the group (removing and replanting

one dying individual) or the entire group (removing and replanting every plant). The decision

to remove and replant one or all individuals of

an aggregation of plants must consider two

factors:

• whether the feature still conveys its association

with the significance of the landscape in its

current state

• the vitality, longevity, growth rate, and size of

the plant to be replanted

The questions to be answered are what is the

condition and anticipated life span of the remaining plants of the feature, and what will be the

visual effect of incremental replacement in terms

of conveying the historic character of the landscape?

For example, at Saint-Gaudens National Historic

Site in Cornish, New Hampshire, the home and

studio of the nineteenth century sculptor,

Augustus Saint-Gaudens, a significant aggregation

of plants is the more than one mile of hedges that

divide the landscape into intimate garden rooms.

Historically, the hedge was primarily white pine

transplanted from the surrounding fields. Park

maintenance staff has developed a replacement

strategy that integrates new material into the

existing hedge. In contrast, if the individual elements of the hedge were deteriorated, missing,

or out of scale with the original intent, so that the

historic feature as a whole was no longer discernible, the entire hedge would be replaced.
12 L A N D S C A P E L I N E S

In-Kind Replacement

The in-kind replacement of plant features in a

cultural landscape involves replanting with the

same cultivar, variety, or species as the former

plant. The degree of authenticity selected for

the replacement plant should consider the

particular association of the former plant with

the significance of the landscape and the primary treatment for the landscape. Individual

plants and aggregations of plants directly associated with the significance of a landscape may

require the highest level of genetic authenticity

in their replacement.

For example, at Adams National Historic Site,

the genetic identity of the fruit trees (their

particular varieties) is of great importance in

associating them with the landscape’s significance

(the acquisition and development of the property by John and Abigail Adams). The fruit tree

replacement at the Adams’ property therefore

requires the highest level of authenticity. ReplacFigure 11. Japanese Holly being planted as a functional

replacement for Boxwood. Naumkeag in Stockbridge,

Massachusetts. (Photograph courtesy of the Trustees of

Reservations, n.d.)

Figure 10. Boxwood around these ponds did not thrive in the

climatic conditions and was therefore replaced with Japanese

Holly. Naumkeag in Stockbridge, Massachusetts. (Photograph

courtesy of the Trustees of Reservations, n.d.)

ing one dying tree in a woodland of a designed

landscape would not require the highest level of

genetic authenticity because each tree is indirectly associated with the significance of the

landscape. In this case the exact genetic replacement of the dying tree is not as important as the

protection, cyclical maintenance, repair, and

replacement of the entire woodland. A dying

tree may be felled and left as a nurse log, allowing natural regeneration to take place. A replacement tree could be the same species as the

former tree or another species of the woodland, according to the management regimes

established for the entire woodland. Woodland

managers may insist that the replacement tree

has the same provenance as the former tree

(originating from seed of the same localized

region in the United States), but woodland

managers would generally discourage attempts

to clone the former tree, as genetic diversity

contributes to the vitality of such plant communities as woodlands.
T R E A T M E N T O F P L A N T F E A T U R E S 13

The need to clone a plant in decline may be

due to the lack of availability of a replacement

plant through other sources. Some plants of

cultural landscapes are no longer commercially

available, either because they are no longer

fashionable (extinct as a result of lack of propagation), or they are difficult to find as “unimproved” (nonhybridized) straight species or

varieties. Some plants can be found in other

cultural landscapes where they have been

accurately identified and maintained. But when

a source cannot be found for a plant in decline,

vegetative propagation guarantees the accurate

identity of the replacement plant and the

prevention of extinction of the cultivar, variety,

or species. If old-fashioned cultivars, straight

varieties of exotic plants, or other unusual

forms of plants exist, it is useful to check on

plant availability before the onset of mortality

so that a viable propagule can be made. When

genetic authenticity is important, the spectrum

for the genetic authenticity of replacements

should be considered when planning a replacement.

Plants can be asexually propagated by cuttings, by

grafting onto another plant, or sexually propagated by seed, with genetic authenticity decreasing, respectively. Nursery stock has no direct

genetic association with the original plant to be

replaced; the greatest level of authenticity of

nursery stock is another individual of the same

variety or species. Note: cultivars must be asexually propagated. All members of a cultivar (or a

man-made cultivated variety) are genetically

identical.

Substitutions

In-kind replacement of the original species or

variety may not be possible because of changes

in the site’s growing conditions, disease and

insect problems, or simply because the original is

no longer available. In these cases, substitution

of plant material may be necessary. This may be

the appropriate action when plants negatively

impact the habitat of a rare and endangered

species or a diseased plant cannot be replaced

Highest Level of Genetic Authenticity

CLONAL

• Shoot Cuttings

• Root Cuttings

Intermediate Level of Genetic Authenticity

SUBCLONAL GRAFTING

• Cloned Rootstock x Cloned Scion

• Cloned Rootstock or Scion x Seedling Rootstock or Scion

• Seedling Rootstock x Seedling Scion

SEEDLINGS

• Manually Pollinated, Seed Collected from Original Plant

• Naturally Pollinated, Seed Collected from Original Plant

• Naturally Pollinated, Seed Collected from Same Plant on

Site

Lowest Level of Genetic Authenticity

NONCLONAL NURSERY STOCK

• Substitution of Cultivar or Variety

• Substitution of Species

• Substitution of Genus

GENETIC AUTHENTICITY OF

PLANT REPLACEMENTS

The following list, prepared by the Olmsted Center for

Landscape Preservation, illustrates the spectrum of genetic

authenticity associated with the following types of plant

propagation.
14 L A N D S C A P E L I N E S

with the same plant. For example, Anthracnose

disease precludes the replanting of the dogwoods

Cornus florida or Cornus nuttalli with these

species, and Dutch Elm disease precludes the

replanting of American Elm, Ulmus americana with

the same species, though the Liberty Bell or

Princeton cultivars are disease-resistant substitutes.

In decisions on substitution, care should be given

to match the visual, functional, and horticultural

characteristics of the historic plant material. A

substitute plant should be compatible with the

role of the former plant in its association with the

significance of the landscape. The importance of

the former plant’s genetic identity, aesthetic or

functional historic role, physical form, texture,

color, size, and longevity should be considered in

selecting the substitute plant. These attributes

may include the form, shape, and texture of the

original, as well as its seasonal varieties, such as

the bloom time and color, fruit, and fall foliage.

When substitutions are made, it should be

recorded to allow future generations to distinguish between historic plants and later alterations

and additions to the landscape.

Ideally, plant features should be protected,

maintained, repaired, and replaced (in-kind or

with substitutions) to accurately preserve the

historic character of a cultural landscape.

However, under some circumstances, plants

that are removed are not replaced. For example, if a plant feature threatens the perpetuation of an endangered species, it may not be

preserved or replaced. In addition, when the

growth of a plant feature is undermining the

structural integrity of another cultural resource,

such as the facade of a building or a buried

archeological resource, the plant may be removed before its decline and not replaced.

However, prior to the removal of such plant

features, the available technologies, such as root

barriers and support systems in replanting

attempts, as well as the plant’s association with

the significance of the landscape should be

considered.

Management Considerations

Beyond the implementation of a treatment plan,

all treatment activities eventually focus on protection, maintenance, repair, and replacement.

Preserving the landscape characteristics and

associated features is the focus of landscape

management. The changing appearance of the

landscape must be anticipated through planning

and managed within well defined parameters

that best support the significance of the landscape.

When protection and maintenance are regularly

practiced, the requirement for repair is infrequent

and the cyclical need for replacement can be

anticipated. Maintaining accurate plant records is

useful for management. These records may

include information on the anticipated longevity of

a plant feature, current condition, protection and

maintenance regimes, and records of repair and

replacement interventions. A record of the

anticipated replacement strategy can be included

for each plant feature to expedite the replacement

process when replacement is necessary. A

replacement strategy is particularly important for

plant features that will be propagated, because
T R E A T M E N T O F P L A N T F E A T U R E S 15

DECISION PROCESS FOR REPLACEMENT OF PLANT FEATURES

Not Possible

Not Possible

Not Possible

Not Possible

Replace by substitution with another

cultivar/variety/species/genus from

nursery trade or other source.

Replace by substitution with a

disease-resistant cultivar from

nursery trade or other source.

Replace with same nursery stock or

same individual from other landscape

source.

Replace by seedling progeny.

Replace by vegetative root or shoot

cuttings (clone).

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Genetic identity of plant is not directly

associated with the significance of the

landscape.

Is the plant feature independently

historically significant, or directly

associated with the significance of the

landscape, based on National Register

criteria A-D?

No

No

Is the plant feature rare, endangered,

or commercially unavailable?

Does the plant exhibit unique or

unusual physical characteristics that

are unrepresentative of its variety or

species?

No

Is the plant suffering from an uncontrollable disease, or an epidemic?

No

Is the plant having a negative impact

on rare and endangered species, or

on other cultural resources?

Has the environmental context (the

growing conditions) of the plant

changed, or does legislation prohibit

growth of the plant?

Replace by substitution with another

cultivar/variety/species/genus from

nursery trade or other source using

available technologies to limit impacts

or do not replace and document

removal for the historical record.

Not Possible
16 L A N D S C A P E L I N E S

cuttings or grafts must be taken from live, healthy

tissue, and special growing facilities may need to

be used. Herbarium specimens of plant features,

particularly those to be replaced, are excellent

archival records.

REFERENCES

General

Birnbaum, Charles A. September 1994. Preservation Brief No. 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment, and Management of

Historic Landscapes. Washington, DC: USDI,

NPS, Preservation Assistance Division.

Birnbaum, Charles A., with Christine Capella

Peters, eds. 1996. The Secretary of the

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. Washington, DC:

USDI, NPS, Heritage Preservation Services.

Bratton, Susan, ed. 1988. Vegetation Change

and Historic Landscape Management. In Proceedings of the Conference on Science in the

National Parks, Colorado State University,

1986. Washington, DC: The George Wright

Society and the NPS.

Clark, James R. August 1993. Age Related

Change in Trees. Journal of Aboriculture 9 (8):

201-205.

Clark, James R., and Nelda Matheny. July 1991.

Management of Mature Trees. Journal of

Aboriculture 17 (7): 173-183.

Cobham, Ralph, ed. 1990. Amenity Landscape

Management: A Resource Handbook. New

York: Van Nostrand.

Coffin, Margaret. 1995. Cultural Landscape

Publication No. 7: Guide to Developing a

Preservation Maintenance Plan for a Historic

Landscape. Brookline, Massachusetts: USDI,

NPS, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation.

Couch, Sarah, H. 1991. Trees in Line for

Conservation. Landscape Design 214: 24-30.

________. 1992. The Practice of Avenue

Planting in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth

Centuries. Garden History 20 (2): 173-200.

Firth, Ian. 1985. Biotic Cultural Resources:

Management Considerations for Historic Districts in the National Park System, Southeast

Region. Georgia: USDI, NPS, Southeast Regional Office.

Loeb, Robert, E. 1993. Long Term Arboreal

Change in a Landscaped Urban Park: Central

Park, New York. Journal of Aboriculture 19 (4):

238-249.

McGann, Martin, R. 1989. Maintaining the

Historic Garden. The Public Garden 4 (3): 22-

25, 38.

Meier, Lauren. April 1992. The Treatment of

Historic Plant Material. The Public Garden.
T R E A T M E N T O F P L A N T F E A T U R E S 17

Wright, Tom. 1982. The Maintenance and

Management of Historic Gardens. Large Gardens and Parks: Maintenance Management and

Design, 135-144. London: Granada.

Plant Propagation References

Clark, G., and Alan Toogood. 1992. The Complete

Book of Plant Propagation. London: Ward Lock.

Dirr, Michael, and C.W. Heuser, Jr. 1987. The

Reference Manual for Woody Plant Propagation.

Athens, Georgia: Varsity Press.

Hartman, Hudson T., et al. 1990. Propagation:

Principles and Practices. 5th ed. Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Herbarium Specimens References

Arnold Arboretum. 1968. Notes on Making an

Herbarium. Arnoldia 28 (8-9): 69-92.

Bridson and Leonard Foreman. 1992. The

Herbarium Handbook. Kew, England: Royal

Botanic Gardens.

Robertson, Kenneth, R. 1980. Observing, Photographing and Collecting Plants. Illinois Natural

History Survey Circular 55.

Meier, Lauren, and Nora Mitchell. 1990. Principles for Preserving Historic Plant Material.

Preservation Technology Update 6. Washington, DC: USDI, NPS, Preservation Assistance

Division.

Mitchell, Nora J., and Robert R. Page. 1993.

Managing the Past for the Future. Historic Preservation Forum 7 (3). Washington, DC: National

Trust for Historic Preservation.

National Park Service. July 1997. Cultural

Resource Management Guideline, no. 5.

Washington, DC: USDI, NPS, History Division.

Remple, Sharon. 1992. Conserving and Managing Living Plant Collections. APT Bulletin 24 (3

and 4): 69-70.

Treib, Marc. Spring 1994. The Care and Feeding of Noble Allee. Arnoldia 54 (1): 12-23.

Van Valkenburgh, Michael, and Peter Del

Tredici. Spring 1994. Restoring the Harvard

Yard Landscape. Arnoldia 54 (1): 2-11.

Weinstein, Geraldine. 1985. Replacing the

Understory Plantings of Central Park. Arnoldia,

45 (2): 19-27.
18 L A N D S C A P E L I N E S
T R E A T M E N T O F P L A N T F E A T U R E S 19

The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and

cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to tribes.

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Cultural Resources

Park Historic Structures & Cultural Landscapes