CULTURAL 

LANDSCAPE 

REPORT 

FOR 

MARTIN vAN BUREN 

NATIONAL HisToRic SITE 

Volume 2: Treatment Plan 

ClJLTIJRALLANoscAPERFroRT 

MARTIN v ANBURFN 

NATIONALHlsiDRIC SITE 

Volume 2: Treatment Plan 

by 

David L. Uschold 

Historical Landscape Architect 

Advisors 

George W. Curry, Professor 

College of Environmental Science and Forestry 

State University of New York 

Katy Lacy, Historical Landscape Architect 

Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation 

National Park Service 

Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation 

National Park Service 

Boston, Massachusetts 

September 1997 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Volume 2 of the Cultural Landscape Report for the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site was a 

collaborative effort between the National Park Service's Olmsted Center fo r Landscape Preservation, 

the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY), and the 

Martin Van Buren National Historic Site. Many individuals within these organizations contributed their 

expertise and knowledge to the development of this document. 

A draft of the broad treatment recommendations within this report was originally developed in 1993 by 

David Uschold, at that time a Research Assistant for the Faculty of Landscape Architecture at the State 

University of New York, College of Environmental Science Forestry. The original draft 

recommendations were completed as a supplement to Uschold's Cultural Landscape Report for Martin 

Van Buren NHS, Volume One (1995). Volume one of the CLR and the draft recommendations were 

completed under the direction of Professor George W. Curry of SUNY and in close consultation with 

the staff at the Martin Van Buren NHS. 

This document, Cultural Landscape Report for Martin Van Buren NHS, Volume Two: Treatment Plan, 

was authored by David Uschold, Historical Landscape Architect at the Olmsted Center. Several other 

individuals at the Olmsted Center contribut.d to the report's completion including Katy Lacy, who 

supervised the project, Barbara Harty, Charlie Pepper, Lauren Meier and Nora Mitchell. 

The staff of the Martin Van Buren NHS worked closely with the Olmsted Center to complete this 

project. Michael Henderson, Superintendent, Phyllis Ewing, Curator, and Judy Harris, Museum 

Specialist, provided extensive guidance and support throughout the project. 

Katy Lacy of the Olmsted Center and Professor George Curry of SUNY provided editing support and 

guidance for the final product. The maps for the report were constructed on a computer-aided drafting 

system by Bob Von Elgg, of BYE CAD Graphics. In addition, Paul Weinbaum, Lead Historian, of the 

National Park Service's Boston Support Office, provided review and editing suppon in regards to 

National Park Service policies and compliance concerns. Kevin Mendik, Enviromnental Protection 

Specialist, also of the National Park Service's Boston Support Office, conducted a reconnaissance of 

the site and assisted in identifying issues related to compliance with natural and cultural resource 

regulations pertinent to this treatment plan. 

In closing, we would like to acknowledge the administrative staff of the Frederick Law Olmsted 

National Historic Site for their assistance in securing the cooperative agreement with SUNY by which 

this project was completed. 

11 
ABSTRACT 

Lindenwald was the nineteenth-century working and experimental farm of Martin Van Buren, eighth 

President of the United States (1837-1841). Located in the Hudson Valley village of Kinderhook, New 

York, the property was first established as a 260-acre farm in 1797. In 1839, Martin Van Buren 

purchased 137 acres including the main house. He immediately began transforming the property and 

by 1845 he had created a 221-acre working and experimental farm. At the completion of his 

Presidential term, Lindenwald served as a country seat for Van Buren's continued political activity. 

Van Buren owned and managed the property for twenty-three years, until his death in 1862. 

Today, the National Park Service owns a 14.3-acre portion of the core of Lindenwald, managing it as 

the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site. Lindenwald is located on Post Road in the Village of 

Kinderhook, twenty miles south of Albany and two miles east of the Hudson River. 

The Cultural Landscape Report for Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, Volume 1: Site History, 

Existing Conditions, and Analysis (CLR V 1), published in 1995, documented the establishment and 

evolution of Lindenwald and inventoried the existing conditions of the site. The report also assessed 

the property's historical significance and evaluated the integrity of the existing site. Through a 

comparison of historic and existing conditions, character-defining features of the historic period were 

identified. The overall period of significance for the property has been established as 1839-1862, 

which spans Martin Van Buren's ownership of Lindenwald. 

The CLR Vl expanded upon the property's documented National Registe r significance under Criteria B 

for its association with Martin Van Buren. The CLR V 1 stated that it was the entire property that is 

significant for its association with Van Buren, not simply the main house. It also noted that the 

property may have additional significance under Criteria C: Design/Construction as an important 

example of Italianate architecture and a well-preserved work of the prominent 19th-century architect, 

Richard Upjohn. 

Currently, the Secretary of the Interior recognizes four treatments for the management of historic 

resources: preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, and reconstruction. This report explores these 

treatment alternatives and recommends restoration as the most appropriate treatment for the Martin Van 

Buren NHS. It outlines, through a feature by feature list of tasks, how that treatment should be 

implemented. 

In addition this report makes additional recommendations that may be future considerations for the 

park. They include more long-term management recommendations that would not be accomplished as 

part of this treatment plan. 

lll 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Acknowledgements 

Abstract 

List of Illustrations 

INTRODUCTION 

Intent of Report 

Relation to Other Planning Documents 

Landscape Treatment Alternatives 

Recommended Landscape Treatment Alternative 

Landscape Treatment Alternatives Not Recommended 

Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Restoration 

LANDSCAPE RESTORATION TASKS 

Semi-Circular Entry Drive 

Overhead Utility Lines 

Flagpole and NPS Sign 

Stone Marker, Wagon and Farm Equipment 

Locust Allee 

Front Pine Row and Pine Grove 

Front Garden 

Front Lawn 

North Gate House 

North Gate House Vegetation 

South Gate House Vegetation 

Views 

Pastures 

North Orchard 

Dingmj n Fence 

Electric Transformer 

Mounting Platform 

ADDITIONAL TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 

COMPLIANCE ISSUES 

SOURCES 

APPENDIX 

iv 

1 

1 

3 

4 

5 

7 

8 

11 

11 

12 

13 

13 

19 

22 

29 

32 

34 

36 

36 

41 

44 

47 

49 

50 

52 

57 

61 

65 
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 

Cover: Lindenwald cl849, 1997 rendering (MAYA archives). 

Figure 1: 

Figure 2: 

Figure 3: 

Figure 4: 

Figure 5: 

Figure 6: 

Figure 7: 

Figure 8: 

Figure 9: 

Figure 10: 

Figure 11: 

Figure 12: 

Figure 13: 

Figure 14: 

Figure 15: 

Figure 16: 

Figure 17: 

Figure 18: 

Figure 19: 

Figure 20: 

Figure 21: 

Figure 22: 

Figure 23: 

Figure 24: 

Figure 25: 

Figure 26: 

Figure 27: 

Figure 28: 

Martin Van Buren NHS, boundary map (SUNY, 1995). 

Semi-circular entry drive, 1996 (OCLP). 

Plan #1, Feature Removal Plan (OCLP, 1997). 

Plan #2, Feature Relocation Plan (OCLP, 1997). 

Semi-circular entry drive with locust allee, c.1913 (Photo #CLR-30 1. MAY A 

archives). 

Locust allee planting plan (OCLP, 1997). 

Pine row along Post Road, 1996 (OCLP). 

Plan #3, Feature Removal Plan (OCLP, 1997). 

Plan #4, Feature Restoration Plan (OCLP, 1997). 

Front garden, c.1913 (Photo #CLR-302. MAYA archives). 

Front garden restoration plan (OCLP, 1997). 

Front lawn, 1996 (OCLP). 

North gate house, c. 1950 (Photo #CLR-426, MA VA archives). 

North gate house foundation, 1993 (SUNY). 

Plan #5, Feature Restoration Plan (OCLP, 1997). 

Vegetation, parcels 01-104 and 01-107, 1996 (OCLP). 

View from MAYA to Catskill Mountains, 1991 (SUNY). 

View from MAYA to Lindenwald farmland, 1996 (OCLP). 

South woodlot, 1992, historically south pasture (SUNY). 

Administr:aive and maintenance offices, 1991, historically rear pasture (SUNY). 

North woodlot, 199 1, historically north orchard (SUNY). 

North orchard restoration planting plan (OCLP, 1997). 

Dingman fence restoration detail (OCLP, 1997). 

Electrical transformer, 1996 (OCLP). 

Planting plan for screening transformer (OCLP, 1997). 

Mounting platform, c.1930 (MA VA archives). 

Plan #6, Feature Removal Plan (OCLP. 1997). 

Plan #7, Feature Restoration Plan (OCLP, 1997). 

v 
INTRODUCTION 

Lindenwald was established as the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site in 1974 to commemorate the 

life and political career of Martin Van Buren, the eighth President of the United States (1837-1841). 

Lindenwald is the only remaining site, other than the White House, closely associated with Martin Van 

Buren. Although Van Buren owned and invested in many properties, Lindenwald was the only one where 

he actually lived. It was this 221-acre farm of which Vn Buren was so proud and wished to show to all 

of his friends, relatives, and associates. Van Buren's evident love and devotion to his farm make it clear 

that Lindenwald was an extremely important part of his life for the twenty-three years he owned the 

property, during which he experimented with plants and managed the farm. The period of significance for 

Lindenwald is 1839-1862, encompassing the time Martin Van Buren owned the property. 

After Martin Van Buren's tenure at Lindenwald the property experienced several private ownerships. The 

farm land was separated from the main house and several of the farm buildings were torn down. By the 

time the National Park Service (NPS) acquired the property it was in a general state of deterioration. 

Today the site is open to the public with the main house operated as a house museum, restored to its 1850 

appearance. After an initial clean-up, the grounds have been maintained as they existed in 1974 when the 

NPS took over management of the site. In addition to the main house, the site includes other historic 

features including an expansive front lawn, a semi-circular entry drive, a gate house, two building 

foundations, and numerous specimen trees. 

The NPS currently manages 24.9 of the original 221 acres of Van Buren's Lindenwald. The NPS owns 

14.3 acres in fee simple while 10.6 acres are under conservation easements held by the park. The park 

also manages 13.7 acres of adjacent non-historic land on which the park proposes to locate a new visitor 

center and relocate administration and maintenance facilities (see fig. 1). 

The 24.9 acres of historic land represents the core of the original farm and includes the main house and 

the area which contained most of the support activities for the house. Also within this area is Lindenwald's 

road frontage along Post Road, which constituted the formal entry to the property. The remainder of the 

Lindenwald farmland was located to the rear of the house, west of this central core. The majority of the 

Lindenwald farmland remains in agriculture but is privately owned. The treatment prescribed within this 

report will address only the 38.6 acres of Lindenwald managed by the NPS (24.9 acres of historic and 13.7 

acres of non-historic). 

INTENT OF REPORT 

This report was prepared in response to a request from park management for guidance regarding the. 

protection and management of the site's landscape. The historical development of the landscape has been 

sufficiently documented to allow the park to determine an appropriate course for the landscape's future 

management. This document draws on information presented in Volume 1 of the park's Cultural 

Landscape Report (1995). Volume 1 documents the historical development of the site, assesses its National 

Register eligibility, identifies character-defining features, and provides an assessment of the site's historic 

integrity. Now that the historical development of the landscape has been sufficiently documented the park 

is ready to determine an appropriate course for the treatment and management of the historic landscape. 
Introduction 

D Existing MVB NHS Boundary 

Figure 1: Martin Van Buren NHS, boundary map (SUNY, 1995). 

2 

North 

NTS 
Introduction 

RELATION TO OTHER PLANNING DOCUMENTS 

Treatment and management of a historic property is typically identified in a park's General Management 

Plan (GMP) with specific development actions provided in a Development Concept Plan (DCP). According 

to NPS-28 Cultural Resource Management Guidelines, "A development concept plan should be coordinated 

with the development of a CLR (Cultural Landscape Report). " 

In 1970 the NPS completed a Master Plan for the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site. The Master 

Plan was officially approved by the NPS and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation as a General 

Management Plan in 1978. 1 The plan outlines the management objectives for the park and calls for a 

preferred treatment of restoration for the historic buildings and grounds "as far as practical and recreating 

the environment which President Van Buren knew." 

A supplement to the Master Plan, the park's most current management document is its Development 

Concept Plan (DCP), approved in 1991. This DCP is an amendment to the park's first DCP approved in 

1986. The 1986 DCP calls for the restoration of the main house and those landscape features that are well 

documented. The DCP states that grounds restoration will be completed on an individual feature-by-feature 

basis, restoring landscape features that are accurately documented and preserving those that lack 

documentation. The DCP also calls for the removal of any highly intrusive non-historic features. 

The 1991 DCP (amendment), as the park's current operational document, furthers the intentions of the 

1986 DCP by specifying the construction of a visitor center and parking area on adjacent non-historic 

property. The "preferred alternative" in the 1991 DCP removes all park operational and functional 

activities from the historic core and places them on adjacent non-historic property. Furthermore, the 1991 

DCP specifies restoration of the landscape as called for in the Master Plan and 1986 DCP. Construction 

of the visitor and staff parking area detailed in the 1991 DCP was completed in 1996. 

In 1995 a Cultural Landscape Report (CLR Vl) was completed, documenting the evolution of Lindenwald 

from its initial establishment as a farm to its status as a National Historic Site. The report assesses 

Lindenwald's historic significance and eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. 

It also identifies the site 's character-defining features and analyzes the historical integrity of the existing 

landscape. 

Currently, the park is planning a new DCP, providing a unique opportunity to revisit landscape treatment 

goals. It is the intention of park management to incorporate the treatment recommendations from this 

report (CLR V2) into the new DCP. This treatment plan, based on newly documented historical 

information presented within CLR V1 , is consistent with and will elaborate on the broad recommendations 

within the park's Master Plan and 1991 DCP. 

Myra Harrison (Assistant Director, Office of Review and Compliance, ACHP) to Jack Stark (Regional 

Director, NPS, NARO), 26 May 1978, Cultural Resources Management files, Boston Support Office, 

National Park Service, Boston MA. 

3 
Introduction 

LANDSCAPE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 

Because Martin Van Buren NHS is a federally-owned property listed on the National Registet' of Historic 

Places, decisions regarding its treatment must be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Further, the application of these decisions must conform with 

NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management Guidelines (Release Number 4, 1994). Four approaches are 

currently recognized by the Secretary of the Interior for the treatment of historic properties: preservation, 

rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction. 

2 NPS-28 provides the following definitions of the four 

treatment alternatives for cultural landscapes: 

Preservation maintains the existing integrity and character of a cultural landscape by arresting or 

retarding deterioration caused by natural forces and normal use. It includes both maintenance and 

stabilization. Maintenance is a systematic activity mitigating wear and deterioration of a cultural 

landscape by protecting its condition. In light of the dynamic qualities of a landscape, maintenance 

is essential for the long-term preservation of individual features and integrity of the entire 

landscape. Stabilization involves re-establishing the stability of an unsafe, damaged, or 

deteriorated cultural landscape while maintaining its existing character. 

Rehabilitation improves the utility or function of a cultural landscape, through repair or alteration, 

to make possible an efficient compatible use while preserving those portions or features that are 

important to defining its significance. 

Restoration accurately depicts the form, features, and character of a cultural landscape as it 

appeared at a specific period or as intended by its original constructed design. It may involve the 

reconstruction of missing historic features, and selective removal of later features, some having 

cultural value in themselves. 

Reconstruction entails depicting the fvrm, features and details of a non-surv1vmg cultural 

landscape, or any part thereof, as it appeared at a specific period or as intended by its original 

constructed design. Reconstruction of an entire landscape is always a last resort measure for 

addressing a management objective and will be undertaken only after policy review in the regional 

and Washington offices. 

A treatment is a physical action carried out to further a historic preservation goal. Determining the most 

appropriate treatment for a historic resource is dependant upon several factors including " ... the historical 

significance, the physical condition, the proposed use, and intended interpretation. "3 Other determining 

factors include the extent of historic documentation of the resource, long and short-term management 

objectives, operational requirements, and financial constraints of the resource. 

U.S. Department of Jn•erior. The Secretary of the Jncerior's Standards for the Treatment of H•otoric 

Properties. Preservation Assistance Division, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

1992. . 

Ibid. 

4 
Introduction 

RECOMMENDED LANDSCAPE TREATl\IENT ALTERNATIVE: RESTORATION 

As described in the analysis portion of the CLR V1, the historical significance of Lindenwald and its high 

level of integrity are evident. Consistent with NPS Management Policies and based on the current 

management goals of the park, along with the research and analysis conducted for this report, the 

recommended treatment for the Martin Van Buren NHS ir restoration. A restoration treatment is intended 

to "accurately depict the form, features, and character of a cultural landscape as it appeared at a specific 

period or as intended by its original constructed design. "

4 The recommended restoration date should be 

1850, coinciding with the restoration date of the main house. 1850 is also the year during which the last 

major changes were made to the property during Martin Van Buren's tenure at Lindenwald and was the 

height of productivity for the farm. 

As outlined by NPS Management Policies, restoration is the most appropriate treatment choice for the 

Martin Van Buren NHS. According to this established policy: "A cultural landscape may be restored to 

an earlier appearance if (1) restoration is essential to public understanding of the cultural associations of 

a park, and (2) sufficient data exist to permit restoration with minimal conjecture. "5 

Restoration is the recommended treatment for the Martin Van Buren NHS because: 

• The park's planning documents currently in place (Master Plan, Development Concept Plan) 

clearly state restoration as the preferred treatment for the park. As a means to that end, the main 

house has been accurately restored to its 1850 appearance. In addition, the exterior of the south 

gate house has been restored to its 1850 appearance. The recognition that the Secretary of the 

Interior's Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties do not recommend more than one 

treatment for an individual resource, and that a restoration has been implemented as a treatment 

for the site's extant buildings, adds to the validity of restoration as a preferred alternative for the 

entire site. 

• The historic value and significance of the site are well documented and elaborated upon within the 

CLR V 1. As stated in Volume 1, Lindenwald is significant for its association with Martin Van 

Buren (1782-1862). Van Buren had a long and influential political career that began at the state 

level in New York and culminated with his term as the eighth President of the United States (1837-

1841). 

• As a result of the CLR V 1, the establishment and evolution of Lindenwald has been well 

documented. The historic character, overall layout, and many individual features which existed 

during Van Buren's occupancy of Lindenwald have been clearly documented, including both lost 

and extant features. 

• The landscape at Lindenwald is currently in good condition and, while it has undergone many 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, NPS-28 Cultural Resources Management 

Guideline , Release IV, Washington, DC, Government Printing Office. 1994, pl06. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, NPS Management Policies. Chapter 5:6, 

Washington, DC, 1988. 

5 
Introduction 

changes throughout its history, does retain a high level of historic integrity. Many of the largescale aspects of the landscape are extant as are many small-scale features. 

• It is the intent of the park to interpret Lindenwald to the public with the goal of fostering an 

appreciation and understanding of the life and public service of Martin Van Buren and his 

contributions to the American political system. Lindenwald is extremely important to this effort 

both as the only extant site intimately associated with President Van Buren and as the site from 

which he continued his political activity after his presidency. It is only through the restoration of 

both the house and the grounds of Lindenwald that the cultural associations attached to this site 

through Van Buren's tenure there will be fully understood. 

The successful restoration of Lindenwald will allow for the accomplishment of the park's mission as 

mandated through its enabling legislation. 

6 
Introduction 

LANDSCAPE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES NOT RECOMMENDED: 

PRESERVATION, REHABILITATION, RECONSTRUCTION 

Although restoration is the preferred treatment alternative. preservation, rehabilitation and reconstruction 

were also fully explored as potential treatments. 

Preservation is not an appropriate treatment alternative because it would not accomp lish the goal of the 

park to interpret the life and political career of Martin Van Buren. While the existing site does retain 

integrity, it does not wholly convey the character present during Van Buren's tenure. While many features 

are intact, some minor changes need to be made to existing features and some features need to be replaced 

in order for the site to accurately depict the historic scene of Lindenwald and best interpret Van Buren's 

political and personal life. Preserving the current scene would not provide visitors with an understanding 

of Van Buren's life or the time period in which he lived. Preservation of the site would not allow for the 

alterations necessary to recreate the historic character of Lindenwald during the tenure of Van Buren. 

Rehabilitation, as with preservation, is not an appropriate treatment alternative. Rehabilitation is intended 

to allow for the introduction of a compatible new use or new construction, neither of which are called for 

within park management goals as demonstrated in the park's existing management documents. The new 

parking and proposed visitor center are both on adjacent, non-histofic land, thus precluding the need for 

a rehabilitation of the historic core. Rehabilitating Lindenwald would not accomplish the park's 

management and interpretive goals of depicting Van Buren's personal and political life. In order to depict 

that historic scene, the character of several features must be changed and some features must be replaced. 

While rehabilitation would allow for the use of the site as a public park, it would not allow for the changes 

necessary to re-establish the historic character present during Van Buren's tenure. Finally, rehabilitation 

does not allow for the depiction of the site at a specific period of time , in this case, the Van Buren tenure. 

Reconstruction is not an appropriate treatment alternative for the Martin Van Buren NHS because the major 

character-defining elements and many smaller features of the site's landscape are extant. Changes 

necessary to re-establish the historic scene of Lindenwald do not require reconstruction as an overall 

treatment. 

7 
Introduction 

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S 

STANDARDS FOR RESTORATION 

Restoration accurately depicts the form, features, 1nd character of a cultural landscape as it appeared at 

a specific period or as intended by its original constructed design. It may involve the reconstruction of 

missing historic features and selective removal of later features, some having cultural value in themselves. 

The following standards based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties apply: 6 

A cultural landscape is used as it was historically or given a new or adaptive use that interprets the 

landscape and its restoration period. 

Materials and features from the restoration period are retained and preserved. The removal of 

materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize the period is 

not undertaken. 

Each cultural landscape is recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that 

create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features from other 

landscapes, are not undertaken. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate, and conserve materials and 

features from the restoration period is physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close 

inspection, and properly documented for future research. 

Materials, features, finishes, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the historic periods 

are documented prior to their alteration or removal. 

Historic materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that 

characterize the historic period are preserved. 

Deteriorated features from the restoration period are repaired rather than replaced. Where the 

severity of the deterioration requires replacement of a historic feature, the new feature matches the 

old in design, color, texture and, where possible, material. 

Replacement of missing features from the restoration period is substantiated by archeological, 

documentary, or physical evidence. A false sense of history is not created by adding conjectural 

features or features from other landscapes, or by combining features that never existed together 

historically. 

Chemical or physical treatments that cause damage to historic materials are not used. 

Archeological and structural resources are protected and preserved in place. If such resources 

must be disturbed, mitigation measures are undertaken including recovery, curation, and 

documentation. 

6 US Department of the Interior, National Park Service , NPS-28 Cultural Resources Management 

Guideline, Release IV. Washington, DC. Government Printing Office. 1994, p!06. 

8 
Introducrion 

Designs that were never executed historically are not constructed. 

The following additional standards apply: 

Archeological, documentary, or physical evidence is sufficient to permit accurate resto ration with 

minimal conjecture. 

Restoration is essential to public understanding of the cultural associations of a park. 

Reinforcements required for stability of existing support systems and protective or code-required 

features (electrical, security, fire protection, handicapped accessibility, etc.) are concealed 

whenever possible so as not to intrude upon or detract from a cultural landscape's aesthetic and 

historical qualities, except where concealment would result in the alteration or destruction of 

historically significant features, materials, or physical or visual relationships. 

9 
! . 

I 
LANDSCAPE RESTORATION TASKS 

TREATMENT IMPLEMENTATION 

The following section includes detailed descriptions of individual treatment tasks. Each task specifies 

actions to be undertaken for individual landscape features or a combination of features. The features 

addressed within the tasks are both historic features and those added subsequent to the period of 

significance. The sum of the actions within this section results in the restoration of the portion of 

Lindenwald that constitutes the Martin Van Buren NHS. · 

Since the individual actions, and the resulting property-wide restoration, are based on the documentation 

and analysis contained within Volume I of the Cultural Landscape Report, it should be referred to for 

further detail relating to the historic and existing condition of each feature effected by the treatment. 

Before any alterations are made to any feature of the landscape, the extant condition of that feature should 

be carefully recorded to document its current state and condition previous to physical treatment action. 

Semi-Circular Entry Drive 

Action: Preserve Historic Drive 

The semi-circular entry drive currently extends from Post Road to the main house from two locations: the 

south gate house and the north gate house foundation. An extension of the drive branches off encircling 

the main house. The semi-circular portion of the drive has a gravel surface and the branch encircling the 

rear of the main house is a combination of gravel and compacted soil. The location and the alignment of 

the semi-circular portion and the portion circling around the rear of the main house are historically accurate 

to 1850 and should be preserved (see fig. 2). 

Figure 2: Semi-circular entry drive, 1996 (OCLP). 

11 
Landscape Restoration Tasks 

The current surface material is the result of a 1996 development project which combined the construction 

of a staff and visitor parking area for the site and resurfacing the semi-circular portion of the drive. In 

order to meet current needs of the park and to accommodate universal access, a compacted gravel surface 

material was used. Although the surface is slightly different from the historically compacted soil surface, 

it does retains its rustic appearance. 

Overhead Utility Lines 

Overhead utility lines currently extend through the site in two locations: across the front lawn and adjacent 

to the south gate house. The extant overhead utility lines do not serve the park but rather the farm complex 

to the west. The park utilities are underground and do not detract from the historic character of the site. 

Overhead lines enter the site from Post Road and extend across the front lawn toward the main house. At 

a utility pole near the house the line turns west toward the farm complex behind the park. Another 

overhead utility line enters the park near the south gate house and extends just past the gate house. This 

line serves the gate house but also extends past the structure and ends at a utility pole behind it. This 

extension previously served a structure which is no longer extant. 

The presence and particularly the location of these utility lines severely impacts the historic character of 

the site. The lines extending across the front lawn disrupt the open expanse of the lawn and also introduce 

a contemporary addition to an otherwise intact historic feature (the front lawn). In addition the overhead 

lines conflict with the park's ability to replace lost features, specifically, trees within the locust allee and 

front pine row. Continued existence of the overhead lines will further damage extant historic trees and will 

inhibit growth of the replacement trees. 

Overhead Utility Lines Crossing Front Lawn 

Action: Relocate Non-Historic Utility Lines 

The overhead line extending across the front lawn should be relocated (see fig . 3). The following two 

potential alternatives would accomplish this task: 

• The preferred alternative would be to relocate the line completely off of park property to a location 

where it extends across the farm property it serves. The preferred location would be for the line 

to enter the farm from Mill Road at the southwest boundary of the existing field southwest of the 

park (see fig. 4). This location would place the utility line approximately six-hundred feet from 

the park's southwest boundary and along the edge of an existing woodlot. Both the distance and 

woodlot would assist in masking the utility line from views from the historic core of the property. 

• The second alternative would be to relocate the overhead line to the west boundary of the park, 

along the existing road accessing the Meyer farm. If this alternative were chosen, it would be 

preferable to place the line underground rather than overhead. Locating the utility line 

underground would necessitate an archeological evaluation of the proposed area before undertaking 

the task (see fig . 4). 

Overhead Utility Lines at South Gate House 

Action: Remove and Relocate Non-Historic Utility Lines 

The overhead utility line that extends to the south gate house (see fig. 3) should be addressed in two ways: 

• The portion of the line extending past the gate house should be removed. It served a non-historic 

structure that has been removed (see fig. 4). 

• The portion of the line currently serving the south gate house should be placed underground. The 

12 
Landscape Restoration Tasks 

overhead line exists at an important visitor contact point of the park. The south gate house is 

currently serving as the visitor orientation center and visitor restrooms. fn addition the south gate 

house has undergone an exterior restoration, making a contemporary utility line an even greater 

intrusion to the historic scene. Locating the utility line underground would necessitate an 

archeological evaluation of the proposed area before undertaking the task (see fig. 4). 

Flagpole and NPS Sign 

Action: Relocate Non-Historic Features 

A contemporary flagpole and park sign are located within the front pine row along the boundary of the 

front lawn and Post Road (see fig. 3). The current location of these features within the historic core 

detracts from the site's historic character and interferes with the character of both the front lawn and front 

pine row. In addition their presence conflicts with the replacement of trees within the pine row. 

The flagpole and park sign should be relocated to the non-historic parcel between Post Road and Route 9h, 

(parcel 01-104)(see fig. 4). The relocation will remove these two contemporary features from the historic 

core and also will allow for more visibility for the NPS sign from the passing traffic on Route 9h. 

Stone Marker, Wagon and Farm Equipment 

Action: Relocate Non-Historic Features 

A stone road marker is located in front of the south gate house (see fig. 3). The marker was not present 

during the period of significance and does not reflect the historic character of the site. The marker should 

be removed from its current location. Although the marker may date to 1850, it was not located in its 

current location. It may have historic significance of its own and should become part of the site's museum 

collection. 

Remnants of a horse-drawn wagon and a piece of farm equipment are located within the north woodlot (see 

fig. 3). The wagon and farm equipment should be removed from the woodlot. The farm equipment and 

wagon will conflict with the reestablishment of the north orchard. They should be analyzed to determine 

their age and origin and if determined non-historic they should be disposed of. If determined to date to 

the period of significance, they should be salvaged and become part of the site's museum collection. 

13 

Existing Plants CLR 

VI H Common Nome 

Block Locust 25 Eastern White Pine <9 Bitternut 

Block Locust 26 Eastern White Pine 50 Block Cherry 

Block Locust 27 Eastern White Pine 51 Eastern White Pine 

4 Eo,tern Red Cedar 28 Eastern White Pin e 52 Eastern White Pine 

5 Eastern Red Cedar 29 Eastern Whit e Pine 53 Eastern White Pine 

6 Eastern Red Cedar 30 Eastern White Pine 54 Eastern Whi te Pine 

7 Eastern Red Cedar 31 Block Cherry 55 Eastern White Pine 

8 Eastern White Pine 32 Eastern White Pine 56 Eastern White Pine 

9 Eastern White Pine 33 Kentucky Coffee-tree 57 Eastern White Pine 

10 Eastern White Pine 34 Red Maple 58 Eastern White Pine 

II Eastern White Pine 35 Eastern White Pine 59 Eastern Whit e Pine 

12 Ea9tern White Pine 36 Eastern White Pine 60 Eastern White Pine 

13 Eastern White Pine 37 Eastern Whitt'! Pine 61 Eastern White Pine 

14 Eastern Red Cedar 38 Eastern White Pine 62 Eastern White Pine 

15 Eastern Red Cedar 39 American Linden 63 Eastern White Pine 

16 Block Cherry 40 Eastern White Pine 64 Eastern While Pine 

17 Block Cherry 41 Eastern White Pin e 65 Eastern White Pine 

18 Black Locus t 42 Eastern White Pine 66 Eastern White Pine 

19 Mozzord Cherry 43 Eastern White Pine 67 Eastern White Pine 

20 Eastern White Pine 44 Eastern White Pine 68 American Linden 

21 Eastern White Pine 45 American Linden 69 American Linden 

22 Eastern White Pine 46 American Linden 70 Eastern White Pine 

23 Eastern White Pine 47 Littleleaf Linden 71 Red Maple 

24 Eastern White Pine 48 Littleleaf Linden 72 Eastern White Pine 

;~----- / · 

/ / 

/ 

-~ ~., 

rr_--_______________ :::..:...----::- -~~ 

I~ 

I ~ 

I 

I 

I 

I 

\ ~ I 

I 

I 

I 

\~ 

I 

·. I 

I I. 

I• 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

·· .. 

' ._, 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

ltemove utllitv polet 

••d overhead utilitT 

a6d relocate un.der•rcouo.~ 

I 

I 

I 

1 

--------- r-----------

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

L 

--- ------

·------·---------- --··--···---·- --·- ·- ·--·-- -------

------

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

30 

81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

Eastern White Pine 97 Block Cherry 121 Eastern Red Cedar 

Block Cherry 98 Black Cherry 122 Eastern Red Cedar 

Block Cherry 99 Common Lilac 123 Eastern Red Cedar Block Cherry 100 Black Locust 124 Eastern Red Cedar 

Eastern Wh1te Pine 101 Black Cherry 125 White Mulberry 

Eastern White Pine 102 Block Cherry 126 Littleleaf Linden 

Block Cherry 103 Block Cherry 127 Littleleof Linden 

Black Cherry 104 Black Cherry 128 Black Locust 

Black Cherry 105 American Elm 129 Eo.!;tern Red Cedar 

Black Cherry 106 Block Cherry 130 EaStern Red Cedar 

Black Cherry 107 Littleteof Linden 131 Eastern Red Cedar 

Block Cherry 108 American Linden 132 Eastern Red Cedar 

Black Cherry 109 White Mulberry 133 Eastern Red Cedar 

Block Cherry 110 Horse-chestnut 134 Eastern Red Cedar 

Block Cherry Ill Common Honey - locust 135 Eastern Red Cedar 

Block Cherry 112 Stock Locust 136 Eastern Red Cedar Block Cherry 113 Eastern Whit e Pine 137 Eastern Red Cedar 

Slack Cherry 114 Douglas-fir 138 Eastern Red Cedar American Elm 115 Eastern White Pine 139 Eastern Red Cedar 

Slack Cherry 116 American Elm 140 Eastern Red Cedar 

Block Cherry 11 7 Eastern White Pine 141 Eastern Red Cedar Stock Cherry 11 8 Eastern White Pine 142 Eastern Red Cedar 

Block Cherry 119 Kentucky Coffee-tree 143 Eastern Red Cedar 

Sleek Cherry 120 American Linden 144 Eastern Red Cedar 

f5 

MaJer Acrku.lNH Field 

------------------ ----------------

ICJJ29-:~. ·. ·.·. :· .. ·· . . . ·.~ 

·~ 

·-.. 0 

·._ l 

i 

i 

i 

Relocate NPS oi&n (;\ 

and flaepole\ u i 

i 

F1 

- P2 0 G;L· ·. \_.iz) C':\35 

------- -- --

BJ 

·OF. 

Remove urility poles 

and o.,.erhcad -udllty li.D.et 

and relocate off..,ite 

117 

0 

\.3 

0~ 

Poot Road 

145 

146 

147 

148 

149 

ISO 

lSI 

152 

153 

154 

ISS 

156 

157 

158 

159 

160 

161 

162 

163 

164 

165 

166 

167 

168 

Froa.t La .. 

Eastern Red Cedar 169 Eastern Red Cedar 170 Eastern Red Cedar 171 Eastern Red Cedar 172 Eastern Red Cedar 173 Eastern Red Cedar 174 Block Locust 175 Stock Cherry 176 Common Honey-locust 177 Common Honey-locust 178 Cammon Honey-locust 179 Cammon Honey-locust 180 Block Cherry 181 Block Cherry 182 Common Honey-locust 183 Black Cherry 184 Black Cherry 185 Black. Cherry 186 Block Cherry 187 Black Cherry 188 Block Cherry 189 Block Locust 190 Eastern Red Cedar 191 

Eastern Red Cedar 192 

:;> 

" 

. ·--~ 

Stock Locust 193 Crack Willow 

Easter Red Cedar 194 Common Lilac 

Black Cherry 195 Common Lilac 

Sto ck Cherry 196 Common Lilac 

Red Maple 197 Am~r can Elm 

Red Maple 198 Flowering Dogwood 

Block Cherry 199 White Mulberry 

Stock Cherry 200 White Mulberry 

Block Locust 201 Virginal Mock-orange 

Block Cherry 202 Virginal Mock -oronqe 

American Elm 203 Virginal Mock-orange 

Stack Locust 204 Virginal Mock-orange 

Black Locust 205 Common Lilac 

Red Maple 206 Common Lilac 

Block Locust 207 Common Lilac 

Stock Locust 208 Common Lilac 

Black Locust 209 Common Lilac 

Block Locust 210 Cornman Lilac 

Stock Cherry 211 Virginal Mock - orange 

White Spruce 212 Virginal Mock-orange 

Red Maple 213 Virginal Mock-orange 

Crock Willow 214 Virginal Moc k -orange 

Crack Willow 215 Common Lilac 

Crock Willow 216 Cammon Lilac 

Tnll 

0~ I" ~Remove farm equipmeDt 

and waaoa 

Nortk Wood Lot 

, 

I 

I 

I 

I 

217 

218 

219 

220 

22 1 

222 

223 

224 

225 

226 

227 

228 

229 

230 

23 1 

232 

233 

234 

235 

236 

237 

238 

239 

240 

~ 

Site of future 

Vbitor Center 

Common Lilac 

Common Lilac 

Common Lilac 

Common Lilac 

White Mulberry 

Sycamore 

American Lorch 

American Larch 

American Larch 

Block Locust 

Forsythia 

Common Hop 

Virginia Creeper 

White Spruce 

Common Lilac 

Eastern White 

Eastern White 

Eastern White 

Eastern White 

Eastern White 

Eastern Red 

Eastern White 

Eastern Red 

Butternut 

•, 

I , 

, 

I , 

, 

, 

, 

I 

Pine 

Pine 

Pine 

Pine 

Pine 

Cedar 

Pine 

Cedar 

______________ __}_ __ _ 

-oc~::::::::::=::=::=::=::=---=----=-------------------

---------------------------- --- ---

--------------- --- --·· 

24 1 Eastern White Pine 

242 Butternut 

243 Butternut 

244 Eastern Red Cedar 

245 Eastern Red Cedar 

246 Eastern Red Cedar 

247 Eastern White Pine 

248 Black Cherry 

249 Block Locust 

250 Block Cherry 

Bl Maintenance Garage 

Bl Uobile Homes 

BJ Pole Born 

Ml Form Complex Electric Lines 

ldl Electrical Tran sformer 

Cl 

Cl 

WI 

Fl 

n 

F3 

f4 

f5 

F6 

F7 

F8 

P9 

ru 

ru 

Visitor Parking 

Universal Access Parking 

Small Pond 

Pork Sign 

flagpole 

Stone Marker 

U<n 

Bench 

Historic Well 

Wagon 

Farm Equipment 

Aluminum Sheds 

Lineor Brick F eoture 

Circular Brick Feature 

Symbol Key 

---- Property Line 

----- Conservation Easement 

-....-.~ Tree Canopy Edge 

Understory Vegetation Edge 

~Wood Land 

-----·- Trait 

Topographic Contour 

Power Line 

~ F'eotures to be remo .... ed 

Cultural Landscape Report 

Martin Van Buren NHS 

Volume 2 

Treatment Plan 

Lindenwald 

Kindnllook, Colombia County, New York 

Olmned Center for landa.eape Preservation 

Notionol Pork Se vi c~ 

Plan 1 

Feature Removal Plan 

25 50 100 ft. 

Figure: 3 

.. ~ 

..... 

I 

Pr ferred altero.ati ve for relocation of eo•erhead uriUty Une 

..._,T~ 

0 0 .... ·· 

r. 

1 

1 

1 -- 10:, \ . 

1 

··\.- ' . 1 ·,_, L ••• 1 • • 

~,.,,j,_ relocation of overhead ··~) utility Une ~ 

1 

1 

\ I 

----------

1 I 

\ I ~------1 

-----------

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

._ _____________ _ 

----- ----- -----

· 0 

--------·· 

----... 

----------...... 

Si.tt of fw.tw• 

I 

•. i V~tol' C..wr / 

---------

i 

i 

i 

i 

Bl 

Bl 

B3 

B4 

BS 

116 

F6 

B7 

f9 

WI 

Maintenance Garage 

Mobile Homes 

Pole Born 

l.loin House 

South Cote House . 

North Gote House F oundatlon 

Historic WeU _ 

Form OlfLce foundotLon 

Aluminum Sheds 

Fish Pond 

Symbol Key 

Property Line 

Conservation Easement 

~ Tree Canopy Edge 

Understory Vegetation Edge 

c::::.:J wood Land Trail 

Topographic Contour 

Power Line 

Cultural Landscape Report 

Martin Van Buren NHS 

Volome 2 

Treatment Plan 

Lindenwald 

Kinderbook, Columbia County, New York 

~~~~d Center for Landaupe Preservation 

L.lnitPd S:ote s l,jepar:me'l\ cf :r.e flt r·or 

Nation:)! ?orlt r ... ice 

Plan 2 

Feature Relocation Plan 

0 . . --- -------------

Figure: 4 

Landscape Restoration Tasks 

Locust Allee 

Action: Re-establish Locust Allee 

Existing vegetation along the semi-circular entry drive varies in species and is scattered and unsymmetrical 

in location. Historically, the semi-circular entry drive was enclosed by an allee of black locust (Robinia 

psuedoacacia), creating a corridor-like space leading to the front entrance of the main house (see fig . 5). 

The black locust allee enclosing the semi-circular entry drive should be replaced. In order to replace the 

locust allee, the vegetation along both sides of the drive should be cleared. A twenty-foot strip along the 

outside of the drive should be cleared to allow for planting and proper growth of the allee. The clearing 

should include all trees, shrubs and herbaceous growth and include stumps and surface roots (see fig. 8). 

Before initiating any treatment tasks effecting the woodlots, natural resource issues regarding their content 

must be considered (see Natural Resource Issues section at the end of this report). 

One historic black locust (#112), part of the original allee, exists on the north drive near the main house. 

The historic black locust should be preserved and the 39 black locusts (#R3-R22 and #R25-R43 on fig. 9) 

that have been lost should be replaced (see figs. 6 & 9). To best represent the historic character of a 

uniform allee, the new trees should be reasonably equal to one another in size, creating a corridor space 

and enclosing the drive. All attempts should be made to maintain the locusts within the allee at a 

comparable size to one another through cyclic pruning. After planting, the cleared area of the ground 

plane should be seeded and maintained in a manner consistent with the front lawn. 

Figure 5: Semi-circular entry drive with locust allee, c.1913 (Photo #CLR-301, MA VA archives). 

19 
Landscape Treatment Tasks 

The remaining historic black locust (#112) is the last tree on the north drive. Due to its location its mature 

size will not interrupt the corridor created by the replacement locust. The extant locust adds to the integrity 

and historic character of the site. During the implementation of this and other treatment tasks damage to 

the root system of the existing locust should be avoided. 

Removal of Non-historic Trees 

Planted and volunteer trees existing along the drive need to be removed. The following forty-seven trees 

should be removed (numbers correspond to labels on fig. 8): 

#81-90 

#92-98 

#99 

#100 

#101-104 

#105 

#106 

#107 

#108 

#110 

#111 

#125 

#126-127 

#128 

#151 

#152 

#153-156 

#157-158 

#159 

#160-164 

#197 

#198 

#199-200 

black cherry 

black cherry 

common lilac 

black locust 

clack cherry 

American elm 

black cherry 

littleleaf linden 

American linden 

horse-chestnut 

common honey-locust 

white mulberry 

littleleaf linden 

black locust 

black locust 

black cherry 

common honey-locust 

black cherry 

common honey-locust 

black cherry 

American elm 

flowering dogwood 

white mulberry 

Replacement of Lost Historic Trees 

The following thirty-nine lost historic trees should be replaced as specified in Figures 6 and 9 (numbers 

correspond to labels on fig. 9): 

#R3-R22 

#R25-R43 

black locust 

black locust 

20 
Main 

House 

North 

NTS 

• 

247 

• 250 

• 

Figure 6: Locust allee planting plan (OCLP, 1997). 

21 

Landscape Restoration Tasks 

North Woodlot 

Replacement locust trees are spaced every 

23' on alternating sides along the drive. 

Each tree is located 15' froro the center 

line of the drive. 
Landscape Treatment Tasks 

Front Pine Row and Pine Grove 

Action: Restore Pine Row and Pine Grove 

The existing vegetation along the border of the front lawn at Post Road includes a combination of pine, 

cherry, locust, linden, cedar, bitternut and maple. The pattern is an irregular hedgerow with a wider grove 

directly in front of the main house. It is very dense in some areas while sparse in others along this 

boundary (see fig. 7). Historically, the vegetation along the border of the front lawn and Post Road was 

comprised of a more symmetrical, single row of mostly Eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) with a grove 

of Eastern white pine directly in front of the main house. The historic vegetation row created an even row 

of trees along the boundary and a dense grove directly in front of the main house. 

The pine row and grove should be restored. In order to restore the pine row and pine grove, the extant 

portions should be preserved. Invasive and non-historic plant materials should be removed (see fig. 8) and 

the lost portions of the pine row and pine grove should be replaced (see fig. 9). The removal and addition 

of vegetation to this area should be carefully implemented to avoid damage to the existing trees being 

preserved. 

Figure 7: Pine row along Post Road, 1996 (OCLP). 

22 
Landscape Restoration Tasks 

Preservation of Existing Trees 

The following sixteen historic plants existing within the pine row and pine grove should be preserved 

(numbers correspond to labels on fig. 4): 

#8 

#18 

#19 

#37 

#37A 

#40- 44 

#45 

#51-55 

Eastern white pine 

black locust 

mazzard cherry 

Eastern white pine 

Eastern whit~ pine 

Eastern white pine 

American linden 

Eastern white pine 

Four non-historic trees existing within the pine row and grove should also be preserved. Although nonhistoric, these trees do not detract from the site's historic character. The location and species of these 

plants help to maintain the setting of the historic pine and pine grove. Their location within the pine row 

and pine grove and their species are consistent with the historic character of this feature. The following 

non-historic trees should be preserved (numbers correspond to labels on fig. 8): 

#47 littleleaf linden 

#60 Eastern white pine 

#70 Eastern white pine 

#76 black cherry 

Removal of Non-historic Trees 

The following forty-six non-historic volunteer and invasive trees within the pine row and pine grove should 

be removed (numbers correspond to labels on fig. 8): 

#4-7 

#10-13 

#16- 17 

#20- 30 

#31 

#32 

#34 

#35 

#49 

#50 

#58-59 

#61-67 

#68-69 

#71 

#72-73 

#74-75 

#77-78 

Eastern red cedar 

Eastern white pine 

black cherry 

Eastern white pine 

black cherry 

Eastern white pine 

red maple 

Eastern white pine 

bitternut 

black cherry 

Eastern white pine 

Eastern white pine 

American linden 

red maple 

Eastern white pine 

black cherry 

Eastern white pine 

23 
Landscape Treatment Tasks 

#79 black cherry 

Replacement of Lost Historic Trees 

The following twenty-nine lost historic trees should be replaced within the pine row and pine grove 

(numbers correspond to labels on fig. 9): 

#Rl-R2 

#R44 

#R46 

#R51 

#R54-R55 

#R58-R63 

#R67-R71 

#R73 

#R75 

#R76-R78 

#R80-R85 

Eastern white pine 

Eastern white pine 

Eastern white pine 

Eastern white pine 

Eastern white pine 

Eastern white pine 

Eastern white pine 

Eastern white pine 

black locust 

Eastern white pine 

Eastern white pine 

24 
-------··-- -·- ·-- --· -·-- ·-·-- -·· . ---- --·- ··- ··- -- --- -----·-·- - . ---

Existing Plants CLR 

VI I 

.. 

·~ • 6 

•7 

8 

9 

• 10 

•II 

• 12 

• 13 

,. 

15 

• 16 

• 17 

18 

19 

• 20 

•21 

• 12 

• 23 

• 2• 

Common Nome 

Block Locust 

Block Locust 

Block Locust 

Eastern Red Cedar Eastern Rod Cedar 

Eo<Jtern Rtd Cedar 

Eastern Red Cedar 

Eastern Wh•te Pine 

Eastern Wh•t~ Pine 

Eas tern White Pine 

Eastern wn.te Pine 

Eosttrn Wh.te Pine 

Eastern Wh1te Pine 

Eastern Red Cedar 

Eastern Red Cedar 

Block Cherry 

Block Cherry 

Block Locust 

Mozzord Cherry 

Eastern Wh•le Pine 

Eastern Wh•te Pine 

Eastern White Pine 

Eastern Wh•t e Pine 

Eastern Wh•le Pine 

1 \ 

1 

I 

1 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

I 

I 

1 

I 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

I 

1 

• 25 

• 26 

• 27 

• 28 

• 29 

•JO 

• 31 

• 32 

33 

•34 

• 35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

.. 

45 

46 

•7 

48 

Eastern Wh•te Pine •49 Bitternut • 73 Eastern Wh,te Pine •97 Block Cherry 121 (o!tern Red Cedar 

Eastern w,,te Pine • 'iO Block Cherry •74 Block Cherry • 98 Block Cherry 122 Eastern Red Cedar 

Eastern White Pine 51 Eastern White Pine •75 Slack Cherry • 99 Common Lilac 123 Eastern Red Cedar 

Eastern Wh ile Pine 52 Eastern White Pine 76 Block Cherry • 100 Stock Locust 124 Eastern Red Cedar 

Eastern White Ptne ~3 Eastern White Pine • 77 Eastern White Pine • 101 Block Cherry • 125 Wh.te Mulberry 

Eastern White Pine 54 Eastern White Pine • 78 Eastern White Pine • 102 Block Cherry • 126 Litt•eleof Linden 

Btoc k Cherry 55 Eastern White P•ne •79 Block Cherry • 103 Bleck Cherry • 127 Litt'eleof Linden 

Eastern White Pine 56 Eastern White P.ne 80 Black Cherry • 104 Black Cherry • 128 Blo.;k Locust 

Kentucky Coffee-tree 57 t.ostern White Pine •81 Srock Cherry •105 Amen con Elm 129 Et~stern Red Cedar 

Red Maple •58 (astern White Pine • 82 Black Cherry • 106 Block Cherry 130 Eo.atern Red Cedor 

Eastern White Pine ·~9 £.astern Whit e P•ne •83 Black Cherry • 107 Littteleof Linden 131 Et~stern Red Cedar 

Eastern White Pine 60 Eastern White Pine •84 Stock Cherry • 108 American Linden 132 Eo tern Red Cedar 

£.astern Wh•te Pine •51 Eastern White Pine • 85 Block Cherry 109 Whi l e Mulberry 133 Ea~tern Red Cedar 

Eastern While Pine •52 Eastern White Pint •86 Block Cherry • 110 Horse-cl'\estnut 134 Eastern Red Cedar 

American Lin<'en • 63 Eastern White Prne •87 Block Cherry • 111 Common Honey-locust 135 Eastern Red Ceder 

Eastern White Pine • 6-4 Eastern White Pine •88 Stock Cherry 112 Black Locust 136 Eastern Red Cedar 

Eastern White Ptne •55 £.astern White Pine • 89 Stock Cherry 113 Eastern White Pine 137 Ecs-tern Red Cedar 

Eastern White Pine •56 Eastern White Prne •90 Stock Cherry 114 Douglas-fir 138 Eos!ern Red Cedar 

Eastern White P•ne •67 Eastern White Ptne • 91 American Elm 11~ Eastern White Pine 139 Eastern Red Cedar 

Eastern Whi te P•ne • 58 Ameru:on Linden • 92 Block Cherry 116 American Elm 140 Eos~em Red Cedar 

Amencon Linden • 69 American Linden • 93 Block Cherry 117 Eastern White Pine 141 Eastern Red Cedar 

Amer1con Linden 70 Eastern White Pine • 94 Block Cherry 118 Eastern White Pine 142 Eastern Red Cedar 

Liltleleof Linden • 71 Red Maple • 95 Block Cherry 119 Kentucky Coffee-tree 143 Eastern Red Cedar 

Littleleof Linden • 72 Eastern While Pine • 96 Block Cherry 120 Amen con Linden 144 Eastern Red Cedar 

145 Eastern Red Cedar 169 Block Locust 193 Croc lc Wi llow 

146 Eastern Red Cedar 170 £aster Red Cedar 194 Common Lilac 147 Eastern Red Cedar 17 1 Block Cherry 195 Commo n Liloc 

148 Eastern Re d Cedar 172 Block Cherry 196 Cornmon Lilac 149 Eastern Red Cedar 173 Red Maple o197 America n Elm l'iO Eosterl"' Red Cedar 174 Red Maple o198 Flower•nq Ooqwood 

•151 Block Locust 175 Block Cherry • 199 White ~uiDerry 

• 152 Stack Cherry 176 Block Cherry • 200 Whtte Mulberry 

• 153 Common Honey-locust 177 Btoclc Locust 20 1 Virginal Mock - oron.qe • 154 Common Honey-locust 178 Block Cherry 202 Vir<;inol Moek-oronqe • 155 Common Honey-locust 179 Amencon Elm 203 Virgmol Mock-orange • 156 Common Honey-locust 180 Stock Locust 204 Virc;1not Mock-orange • 157 Stock Cherry 18 1 Stock Locust 205 Cur"''mo n Lilac • 158 Block Cherry 182 Red Maple 206 Comm on Lilac 

• 159 Common Honey-locust 183 Block Locust 207 Common L•loc • 160 Block Cherry 184 Block Locust 208 Common Lilac • 161 Slack Cherry ISS Sto ck Locust 209 Common Lilac 

• 162 Brock Cherry 186 Block Locust 2 10 Common Lilac • 163 Block Cherry 187 Blo ck Cherry 211 Virgiool Mock-orange • 164 Block Cherry 188 White Spruce 2 12 Virq1nat Mock- oronqe 

165 Stock Cherry 189 Red Maple 213 Virgrnal Mock- oronqe 

166 Slack Locust 190 Crock Willow 214 Virginal Mock-orange 

167 Eastern Red Cedar 19 1 Crock Willow 2 15 Common Lilac 

168 Eastern Red Cedar 192 Crock Willow 2 16 Common Lilac 

:,. :; 

" " 

,. .. - - :::------. /--: ., ", / . ·'·.,_ 

------------------------F9 ·-' /;, ---- ---- ~--::------~-- -------~~~=...::..=.__~ .... :>.. •• _="'-'=-"--":='--"'=. 

----- --~~-_:_:.-~:..:.:.:~ --'---~----- --- ---- (') / ·. , 

l . Bl ,/ / I 

I 

I 

I 

I <. _:T~nl=I~-----------------_L __ 

Remove esUt:lo1 YtJetadoa. 

'Cilli29-l~ ..... . ··.··.· .. .. ·.~ 

!?.:\ 

·.\:V 

·.o r4 

117 

0 

Poo• Rood 

Nordt. Wood Lot 

New ovcntory ..-qec.atioa limit 

Remove exbtln• ve,etation 

Remove alatioa •eaetadoD 

~-------------------- ----------------------------------- -------------------------

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

su. of ,.,IU"t 

va.acOf c--~ .... 

r-------------------- --------------- --- 1 

I 

1 

1 

I 

1 

1 

'-

--- --- --- --- ------ --- ---

2 17 

218 

2 19 

220 

22 1 

222 

223 

224 

225 

226 

227 

228 

2~9 

230 

231 

232 

233 

n• 

235 

236 

237 

238 

239 

240 

I 

/ 

Common L•loc 

Common Lilac 

Common lilac 

Common Lilac 

While Mulberry 

Sycamor e 

American Lo rch 

American Lorch 

Americor'l Lorch 

Slack Locust 

Forsythia 

Common Hop 

Virginia Creeper 

White Spruce 

Common Lilac 

£astern While Pine 

Eastern While Ptne 

Eastern Wh•te Pine 

(astern White Pin.e 

Eastern Whtte Pine 

(astern Red Cedar 

East ern White Pine 

(ost ern Red Cedar 

Butternut 

·-

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

241 (estern wn .t e f"'e 

242 Butternu t 

24J Butternut 

244 (.:~ste n Red Cedar 

245 Eastern Red Cedo r 

2•6 (aster n Red Ceoor 

247 Eastern Wh1te Pine 

248 Block Cherry 249 9/oclc Locust 

250 Block Cherry 

Nolo: 

• Denotes trees to be removed 

81 .,.Oinl tnonce Cotoc;e 

BZ uooae Homes 

Bl Pole Born 

Wl EhK.tricot TronsfO(mer 

Wl Small Pond ,. 

F5 

f6 

F9 

ru 

ru 

Urn 

Stocn 

Alummum Sheds 

Lint er Brick f eature 

Circulat BriCk f eoture 

Symbol Key 

op~rty Line 

Conservatio n Easement 

~ Tree Cano py Edqe 

Understory VeQelo tion Edge 

c::::::::J Wood Land 

Trait 

Topoqrophic Contour 

Power Line 

f· · :. __ .: .... _._··:·.1 F"eo h,o~r s to be removed 

Cultural Landscape Report 

Martin Van Buren NHS 

Voloat 2 

Trurment P1au 

Lindenwald 

Kiuderhook. Columbia COUiltl, New York 

Olm.tted Center for Land.c:apt Preservation 

llil~ d t~ es o .. oortmoert of ,,... lnle'""' 

No t.OnoJI Por .., '! ~>'! • 

o. •• ,.. l .u 

Plan 3 

Vegetation Removal Plan 

0 

Figure: 8 

Existing Plants CLR 

Vl N Common Nome 

Replaced Plants CLR 

Vl # Common Nome 

1 Bleck Locust 52 (astern White Pin e 129 Eastern Red Cedar 167 Eastern Red Cedar 191 Crock Willow 219 Common l ila c 

2 Block locust 53 Eastern Wh1te Pine llO Eastern Red Cedar 168 Eastern Red Cedar 192 Crock Willow 220 Conmon Lilac 

3 Sleek Locust • 54 Eastern White Pine IJI Eastern Red Cedar 169 Block Locust 193 Crock Willow 22 1 Wh1:e Mulberry 

8 Eastern White Pine 55 Eastern White Pine 132 Eastern Red Cedar 170 Easter Red Cedar 194 Common Lilac 222 Sycamore 

9 Eastern WMite P;ne 56 Eastern White Pine 133 Eastern Red Cedar 171 Stock Cherry 195 Common Lilac 223 Amtr.ccn Lorch 

1• Eastern Red Cedar 57 Eastern White Pine 13• Ea stern Red Cedar 172 Block Cherry 196 Common Lilac 22• Am!ncon Lorch 

15 Eastern Red Cedar 60 Eastern Whit e Pine 135 Eastern Red Ce<lor 173 Red Maple 201 Virginal Mock-orange 225 Amencon Lorch 

18 Block Locust 70 Eastern White Pine 136 Eastern Red Cedar 17• Red Maple 202 Virg1nol Mock-orange 226 Block Locust 

19 Mozzord Cherry 76 Block Cherry 137 Eastern Red Cedar 175 Block Cherry 203 Virginal Mock- oro nge 227 Forsythia 

33 Kentucky Coffee-tree 80 Block Cherry 1l8 Eastern Reo Cedar 176 Blo ck Cherry 204 Virginal Mock-oronqe 228 COf'll iT'IO n Hop 

36 Eastern White P ine 109 White Mulberry 139 Eastern Red Cedar 177 BlocK Locust 205 Common Lilac 229 Virgin1a Creeper 

37 Eastern White Pine 112 Block Locust 140 Eastern Red Cedar 178 Block Cherry 206 Common Lilac 230 Wl"llle Spruce 

36 Eastern Wl'ute Pine 113 Eastern White Pine 141 Eastern Red Cedar 179 American Elm 207 Common Uloc 231 Conlmon L•IOC 

39 American Ltnden 114 Oouglos-lir 142 Eastern Red CtdOI' 180 Block Locust 208 Common Lilac 132 Eastern White Pin e 

40 Eastern Wh•tt Pine 115 Eastern White Pine 143 Eastern Red Cedar 181 Black Locu st 209 Common Lilac 233 Eastern White Pine 

•I Easterl"' White Pine 11 6 Am erican Elm 14. Eostern Red Cedar 182 Red Maple 210 Common Lilac 234 Eastern While Pine 

42 Eastern Wl'l ite Pine 117 Eastern White P•ne 1•5 Eo stern Red Cedar 183 Block locust 211 Virginal Mock-orange 235 Eastern White Pine 

43 Eastern White Pine 118 Eastern White Pine 146 Eo,tern Reo Cedar 184 Stack Locust 212 Virginal Mock-orange 236 Eastern White Pine 

.. Easte rn Wh•t e Pine 119 Kentucky Coffee-tree 147 Eost~rn Red Coda.:. 18.5 Slack Locust 213 Virginal ack -oron9e 2J7 Eastern Red Cedar 

• 5 American Linden 120 Arner•con Linden 1•6 Eastern Reo Cedar 186 Block. Locust 21 • Virg1na1 Mock-orange 238 Eastern White Pine 

•6 Arner.con Linden 121 Eastern Red Cedar 149 Eastert'l Red Cedar 187 Block Cherry 215 Common L•loc 239 Eastern Red Cedar 

47 L•ltleteof L•nden 122 Eastern Red Cedar 150 Eastern Red Cedar 188 Wh.te Spruce 216 Common L•loc 240 Sut!ernut 

48 Littl~leof L•nden 123 Eastern Red Cedar 165 Stock Cherry 189 Red Maple 217 Common Liloc 241 Eastern White Pine 

51 Eastern Wh•te Pine 124 Eastern Red Cedar 166 Block Locust 190 Crock Willow 218 Commo n Liloe 242 Butternut 

243 Butternut R- 1 Eastern Wh.t e Pin e R-25 Block Locust R- 5' 

244 Eastern Red Cedar R-2 Eas tern White P.n e R-26 Stock Locust R-~5 

245 Eastern Red Ceder R-3 Block Locust R- 27 Block Locust R-56 

246 Eastern Red Ceda r R-4 Blocl< Locust R-28 Block Locust R-59 

247 Ea stern White Pine R-5 Block Locust R- 29 8IC"Ck Locust R-60 

248 Block Cherry R--5 Block Locust R- JO Block Locust R- 61 

249 Black Locust R-7 Block Locust R-JI Bleck Locust R-62 

250 Block Cherry R- 8 Sto ck Locust R-J2 Steck Locust R- 63 

R-9 Block Locust R-33 8 te;ck Locust R-66 

R-10 Block. Locust R- 34 Bleck Locust R-67 

R-1 1 Block Locust R-35 Black Locus! R-68 

R-12 Block Locust R-36 Block Locus t R-69 

R-U Block Locust R-37 Block Locust R- 70 

R-1 " Block Locust R- 38 81Gck Locust R-71 

R- 15 Block Locust R- j9 Bleck Locus! R-73 

R- 16 Block Locust R-40 Block Locust R-75 

R-1 7 Block Locust R-'1 Block Locust R-76 

R-18 Block Locust R-"2 Bleck Locus! R-77 

R-19 Block lOCYS t R-4J 8 1(1Ck l OCUS! R- 78 

R-10 Block Locust R-« Eastern While Pine R-80 

R- 21 Block. Locust R-46 Eo-st~n Whtte Pine R-81 

R-22 Stock Locust R-51 (on ern White Pine R-82 

~---- "'1> ij 

,- W.y.., Apla.ltv~ FI.W ~-- ---- .. 

...... ~ ' 

------------ ------------ -:..:.._:_:. ~:. ;:. --- -~--------- ..----. ---. __ . __ _ ______ _:::~ ~;:-"- ----- --- -~-~ ·-..,-· ~· -- :~~\ 

I ' 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I w .... Aaricoal"'" Fl.W 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

L---- ---

r-------------------- 1 ---

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

'-

--- ---

'C§j29-:~. · .. ··.· ·.· .. ···.: 

--- ---

/ ) , 

, 

I / 

I //_---c::~-:-~ ~ --"'"'---------------------/--I 

\, / I 

~ 0 - --- 117 

0 

p .. , R.,.d 

\ i I I 

\ I 

y 

! 

Fro.t t..wa 

------------------------------------------------------- - ----- o n 

--- -- I F1 

---------------.___ __ __ 

------------- -----. 

I 

, 

, 

I 

, 

, 

I 

, 

, 

I , 

, 

I 

Eastern Whtte Pin e 

Easte rn Whtte Pine 

Eastern Wh•te Pine 

Eastern Whtte Pine 

Eastern Wh•te Pine 

Eastern White Pin e 

Eas te rn Whtte Pine 

Easte rn Whtt e Pine 

Eastern White Pine 

Eos te rn White P4ne 

Eastern White Pjne 

Eostetn Wh•le Pin e 

Easte rn Wh•te Pine 

(ostern White Pine 

Eostetn Wh,te Pine 

Blo ck. Locust 

Eastern Wh ite Pine 

Eastern White Pine Eastern White Pine 

Eastern White Pine 

Eostern Whtte Pine 

Eastern Whtle Pine 

•. 

R-SJ Eastern Wh.t e P.ne 

R- 8 J. East ern Wh•te P•ne 

R-13~ East ern Whit e Pine 

Notes: 

R denotes a reptocemtnt plant. 

E~~: t.ng plant list ;, cumulolive. 

snow;nq completion of pft vfously 

recommended toslc.s {wlUM this 

document, CLR V2) 

Bl Moinle-nonce Coroqe 

81 Uobde HomH 

8J POle Born 

ct Visttor Por\liog 

Wl Small Pond 

n POfk Sign 

n Flagpole 

F4 UJn 

F5 Bench 

F6 Historic Well 

F9 

ru 

ru 

Wl 

Aluminum Sheds 

Linear Brick F'~ tur t 

Citculor Brick F'-eoturt 

Oectricot Tronsformff 

Symbol Key 

- --- Prooerty Line 

Conservation Easement 

~ Tree Can opy Edge 

Understory Vegetation Edge 

c:::::::J Wood Lon d 

Tra•l 

Topographic Contour 

Power Line 

f... ... · ....... ! Features Added 

Cultural Landscape Report 

Martin Van Buren NHS 

VollUllc 2 

T rt:ttmta.t Pia a. 

Lindenwald 

IGndubook. Coluabia Couo[l, New Yock 

Olmlred Cmte:r for Lac:u:Uc.apc Pre:wrntioa 

Uno1c(l ~lot e., l) otl l"l': t CJ f t r"le l .. t• l •llr 

Not!o l'lnl Perk So:,.,ic• 

Plan 4 

Feature Restoration Plan 

0 1 

tOO ft. 

Figure: 9 

Landscape Restorarion Tasks 

Front Garden 

Action: Re-establish Front Garden 

During the period of significance the front garden was the only area in front of the main house that was 

maintained in a finely manicured condition. Since that time the garden's circular path has grown over with 

grass and the original three Eastern white pines surrounding the garden were lost but have been replaced 

in kind. Historically, an urn was located at the center of the garden. the historic urn is extant and stored 

in the park's museum collection. A 20th-century reproduction of the urn is located in the historic urn's 

1850 location (see fig. 10). 

Figure 10: Front garden, c.l913 (Photo #CLR-302, MA VA archives). 

29 
Landscape Treatment Tasks 

The circular garden at the front entrance to the main house should be re-established (see figs. 11 & 15). 

The following tasks are necessary to accomplish this: 

• The circular path should be replaced. It should be two feet wide and surfaced with compacted soil. 

At the point of the path where the compacted soil meets the gravel drive, the two materials should 

blend together, there should be no distinct edge. The boundary of the path and the adjoining lawn 

should also blend with each other rather than having a sharp edge. 

• Two of the three Eastern white pines surrounding the garden should be replaced. Trees #115 and 

#118 should be replaced in kind. The leaders on the existing trees have been broken several times 

and the trees are forming a globular shape. The replacements should be of comparable size and 

form to one another and attempt to match tree #117 at the far end of the garden (see fig . 15). 

• The lawn within the garden should be maintained at a two-inch-height, rather than the six-inch 

height recommended for the surrounding lawn. 

• The urn currently located at the center of the front garden is a 20th-century reproduction of the 

historic urn. The contemporary urn is an accurate reproduction of the historic urn and should 

remain on the existing concrete base in the center of the front garden (see fig. 11). 

• The 20th-century reproductions of the historic benches should be placed underneath each of the 

Eastern white pines at the garden's entrance. Until the pines have grown to sufficient height to 

allow this placement, the benches should be placed adjacent to the pines, within the front garden 

(see fig. 11). 

• The Douglas fir (#114) on the north side of the garden should be preserved until such time that it 

interferes with the growth of the front garden plants or the trees within the locust allee along the 

semi-circular entry drive. At a future date, if the Douglas fir does begin to interfere with the 

growth of surrounding plants, its preservation should be re-evaluated. While the Douglas fir does 

not date to 1850 and is not historically significant, it potentially is significant as a natural resource 

or a specimen tree and should be evaluated within these other contexts. 

30 
33' 

Rustic Lawn 

Main House 

Urn 

Manicured 

Lawn 

Compacted Soil Path 

(2' wide) 

Plant labels refer to numbers on Figure 9. 

Figure 11: Front garden restoration plan, (OCLP, 1997). 

31 

Landscape Restoration Tasks 

North 

NTS 
Landscape Treatment Tasks 

Front Lawn 

Action: Restore Front Lawn 

Historically, the front lawn was enclosed by the locust allee and front pine row. It had several scattered 

trees within it and the grass was maintained in a rustic fashion. Except for the small, circular garden at 

the front entry to the main house, the lawn was maintained at a height of approximately 6 inches. 

Today the lawn is used for special events and visitors are encouraged to walk the grounds. The grass is 

maintained at approximately 2 inches and the lower branches are cut from the trees to allow mowers access 

to areas under the tree canopies (see fig. 12). The current mowing practices damage the tree roots and scar 

the trunks and removing the lower limbs of the trees alters the historic character of the site (Martin Van 

Buren Landscape Preservation Maintenance Plan; Bitzel, Coffin, 1996). While allowing contemporary 

uses of the site, these maintenance practices create an appearance that is in direct contrast with the site's 

historic rustic appearance. 

The lawn should be restored to its rustic character. This could be accomplished by adjusting the 

maintenance schedule to allow the lawn to grow to 6 inches (see fig. 15). The mowing schedule for the 

lawn could also be reduced to lessen the number of cuttings per year. 

Adjusting the height of the lawn and altering the maintenance schedule will re-establish the lawn's rustic 

appearance and avoid mowing damage to the tree roots. In addition,' the. practice of limbing the trees 

should be discontinued. 

Figure 12: Front lawn, 1996 (OCLP). 

32 
Landscape Restoration Tasks 

Action: Replace Trees in Front Lawn 

Today many trees are located within the front lawn including historic trees and non-historic planted and 

volunteer trees. The overall character of the front lawn is that of an open expanse of manicured grass with 

scattered trees throughout. Historically, the front lawn was an open expanse of lawn, more rustic in 

nature, but still having many scattered trees within its boundaries. It is the open character with scattered 

trees that is important, rather than actual specific location of each individual tree. 

Several historic trees within the lawn are extant and many have been lost. The location and species of 

several lost trees have been documented while others are unclear. Trees dating from 1850 include six 

Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana, #14-15, 121-124) which should be preserved. A white mulberry 

(Morus alba, #109) may potentially date to 1850 and should be preserved. Four lost historic Eastern white 

pines (Pinus strobus, #R64-R65, R91-R92) should be replaced (see fig. 15). 

Of the non-historic trees within the front lawn, several do not detract from the lawn's historic character 

while other trees do conflict with the lawn's historic character or that of the locust allee along the semicircular entry drive. A non-historic Eastern white pine (#113) should be removed because it will conflict 

with the growth of the trees within the locust allee as well as the spatial organization of the front garden. 

Several non-historic trees, specified below, do not detract from the overall historic character of the front 

lawn and should be preserved. While these trees may not be in the exact location as lost historic trees, they 

help to maintain the character of the front lawn as an open expansive lawn with scattered trees. 

Preservation of Historic Trees 

The following seven historic trees should be preserved (numbers correspond to labels on fig. 15): 

#14-15 

#109 

#121-124 

Eastern red cedar 

white mulberry 

Eastern red cedar 

Preservation of Existing Non-historic Trees 

The following twenty-five non-historic trees should be preserved (numbers correspond to labels on fig. 15): 

#33 

#116 

#119 

#129-150 

Kentucky coffee-tree 

American elm 

Kentucky coffee-tree 

Eastern red cedar 

Replacement of Historic Trees 

The following four lost historic trees should be replaced (numbers co~respond to labels on fig. 15): 

#R64-R65 

#R91-R92 

Eastern white pine 

Eastern white pine 

33 
Landscape Treatment Tasks 

North Gate House 

Action: Reconstruct North Gate House 

Historically, two gate houses stood at the two entrances to the semi-circular entry drive along Post Road. 

The north and south gate houses were mirror images of each other with a few minor differences. The 

south gate house is extant and has been restored to its 1850 appearance. The foundation of the north gate 

house is extant but the building itself was torn down in the 1950s. The foundation and basement have been 

back-filled as a preservation effort (see figs. 13-15). 

Historically the two gate houses were important features of Lindenwald. Together they added to the formal 

character and symmetry of the front of the property, which cannot be represented without the presence of 

both gate houses. The north gate house was extremely important to the historic character and spatial 

organization of Lindenwald as it was the property's main entry. In addition, the north gate house is the 

first feature within the historic core of the park reached by visitors today as they leave the parking area and 

cross Post Road. Visually, the physical presence of the north gate house would greatly enhance 

interpretation at the site while the interior of the building could serve park needs. 

Functionally the gate house could be very useful for the park in light of the insufficient interior building 

space at the park. Currently, the park drastically needs additional administrative and curatorial space for 

both office and storage needs. A reconstruction of the north gate house could greatly assist in meeting the 

current space needs. 

The north gate house should be reconstructed. 7 The overall configuration and details of the building are 

well documented. The structure should be a mirror image of the south gate house but have a gable on the 

south side of the roof. The following tasks will be necessary to complete the replacement of the north gate 

house: 

• Documentation of the north gate hous..; should be analyzed and construction plans and 

specifications should be prepared in order to accurately reconstruct it. The existing documentation 

includes several sources such as the existing foundation, extant south gate house, photographs, oral 

interviews, and the CLR VI. Information regarding the south gate house should also be analyzed 

since the two structures were nearly identical. 

• In order to reconstruct the north gate house, 14 black cherry (Prunus serotina, #84-90, 92-98) trees 

should be removed. This invasive species threatens the condition of the existing foundation and 

would interfere with reconstruction of the north gate house (see fig. 8). The tree removal should 

be completed in a manner that would not disturb the foundation. 8 

Reconstruction of the north gate house was an action included within the park's 1970 Master Plan. It 

was approved by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation as part of the Master Plan in 1978. The 

reconstruction of the north gate house was specifically called out and approved by the ACHP in 

confirmation with ter...s of NPS Management Policies regarding reconstruction. 

The tree removal necessary for reconstruction of the north gate house may already have been completed 

as part of the steps to restore the locust allee along the semi-circular entry drive. If, at the time of the 

north gate house reconstruction, trees numbered 84-90 and 92-98 do exist, they must be removed. 

34 
Landscape Restoration Tasks 

Figure 13: North gate house, c.1950 (Photo #CLR-426, MA VA archives). 

Figure 14: North gate house foundation, 1993 (SUNY). 

35 
Landscape Treatment Tasks 

• The existing foundation should be repaired to allow the recpnstruction. 

• The interior of the north gate house could be adapted to accommodate needs of the park staff. 

Reconstructing the north gate house on its original foundation should not detract from the archeological 

potential of the existing foundation due to the existing and identical foundation of the south gate house. 

Mitigation efforts should be taken to minimize damage to the historic foundation. 

Replace Trees Surrounding North Gate House 

In 1850, several trees surrounded the north gate house. One existing common lilac (Syringa vulgaris, #99) 

should be preserved as potentially historic. After treatment to the north gate house is complete, five lost 

historic black locusts (Robinia pseudoacacia, #R86-R90) should be replaced (see fig. 15). 

Remove Non-historic Trees Surrounding North Gate House 

Three non-historic volunteer trees should be removed, including one. black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia, 

#100) and two black cherry (Prunus serotina, #101-102). 

South Gate House 

Action: Replace Trees Surrounding South Gate House 

The exterior of the south gate house has been accurately restored to its 1850 appearance. However, the 

vegetation surrounding the south gate house includes a combination of historic and non-historic trees. Six 

historic trees are extant and should be preserved and four lost trees should be replaced. Nineteen nonhistoric volunteer plants should be removed (see fig. 27). 

Preserve Historic Trees Surrounding South Gate House 

The following six historic trees should be preserved (numbers correspond to la.bels on fig. 15): 

#2-3 black locust 

#166 black locust 

#167 Eastern red cedar 

#168 Eastern red cedar 

#169 black locust 

Remove Non-historic Trees Surrounding South Gate House 

The following nineteen non-historic trees should be removed (numbers correspond to labels on fig. 27): 

#165 

#170 

#171-172 

#173-174 

#175-176 

#177 

#178 

#179-181 

#182 

#183-186 

black cherry 

Eastern red cedar 

black cherry 

red maple 

black cherry 

black locust 

black cherry 

black locust 

red maple 

black locust 

36 
Landscape Restoration Tasks 

#187 black cherry 

Replace Historic Trees Surrounding South Gate House 

The following four lost historic trees should be replaced (numbers correspond to labels on fig. 15): 

#R47-R50 black locust 

37 

Existing Plants CLR 

VJ N Common Nome 

I Stock Locust 52 2 Stock Locust 53 

J Block Locust 54 

s Eastern Wh•te Pine 55 

9 Eastern Wh.te P.ne 56 

" Eastern Reef Cedar 57 15 Eastern Red Ceder 60 18 Block Locust 70 

19 Menard Cherry 76 

n Kentucky Coffee-tree 80 

36 Eastern White Pine 109 

37 Eastern Wh•te P1ne 112 

38 Eastern Wh•te Pine Ill 39 American Linden 114 

40 Eastern Wh•t e Pine 115 

4\ Easte rn Whit e Pine \16 

42 Easte rn White Pir"e 117 

4) Eastern Whi te Pine 118 

.. Eastern White Pine 119 

•5 Amencon t..inoen 120 

46 American Lindt-n 121 

47 Littleleof Linden 122 

•8 Littleleof Linden 123 

51 Eastern White Pine 124 

;~---- r-

'. I" 

~. ' "$. 

'.1 

I 

1' . 

1\ 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

\ WtTCt Al;rlcalt\&l'e FleW 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I Repbu South 

\ Gate Houte Crees 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I L ____ _ 

Eastern Wh ite Pine 129 Eastern Red Cedar 

Eastern White ?.ne IJO Eastern Red Cedar 

Eastern White P.ne Ill Eastern Red Cedar 

Eastern While Pine 132 Eastern Red Cedar 

Eastern White Pine 133 Eastern Red Cedar 

Eosterr"\ White Pine 134 (astern Red Cedar 

Eastern White Pine 135 Eastern Red Cedar 

Eastern White Pine 136 Eastern Red Ceder 

Block Cherry 137 Eastern Red Ceder Block Cherry 138 Eastern Red Ceder 

White Mulberry 139 Eastern Red Cedar 

Block Locust 140 Eastern Red Ceder 

Eastern White Pine 141 Eastern Red Ceder 

Douqlos-fir 142 Eastern Red Cedar 

Eastern White P1ne 143 Eastern Red Cedar 

American Elm IH Eastern Red Cedar 

Easte rn White Pine 145 Eastern Red Cedar 

Eastern White Pine 146 Eastern Red Cedar 

Kentucky Coffee-tree 147 Eastern Red Cedar 

American Linden 148 Eastern Red Cedar 

Eastern Red Cedar 149 Eastern Red Cedar 

Easte rn Red Cedar 150 Eastern Red Cedar 

Eos1e rn Red Ceder 165 Brock Cherry 

Eastern Red Cedar 166 Block Locust 

167 [astern Reo Cedar 191 Cree\( w.rtow 219 Common Lilac 

168 Eastern Reo Cedar 192 Crock Willow 220 Common Litoc 

169 Block Locust 193 Crock Wiltow 221 White Mulberry 

170 Easter Red Ceoor 194 Common Lilac 222 Sycamore 171 Slack Cherry 195 Common Lilac 223 Amer.c:on Lorch 

172 Block Cherry 196 Common Lilac 224 American Lorch 173 Red Maple 201 Vlrg.nor Mock-oronge 225 Amer•con Lorch 

174 Red Maple 202 V.rginol Mock-orange 226 Slack Locust 175 Bloc k Cherry 203 Virg.nol Mock - orange 227 Forsythia 176 Black Cherry 204 Virginal Moe k-oro nge 228 Common Hop 177 Block Locust 205 Common L•loc 229 Vir'Q•nio Creeper 178 Stock Cherry 206 Common Lilac 2JO White Spruce 179 Am e rican Elm 207 Common Lilac 231 Common Liloc 180 Block Locu st 208 Common Litoc 232 Easlern White Pine 

181 Black Locust 209 Common Lilac 233 Eastern White Pine 

182 Red Maple 210 Common Lilac 234 Eastern White Pine 183 Block Locust 211 Virginal Mock- ora nge 235 Eastern White Pine 184 Stock Locust 212 v.rgtnal Mock-orange 236 Eastern White Pine 

185 Slack Locust 213 Virginal Mock-orange 237 Eastern Red Cedar 

186 Black Locust 214 Virginal Mock-orange 238 (astern Wh•te Pine 187 Slack Cherry 215 Common Lilac 239 Eastern Red Cedar 

188 White Spruce 216 Common Lilac 240 Butternut 189 Red Maple 217 Common Lilac 241 Eastern White Pine 

190 Crock Willow 218 Common L•loc 242 Butternut 

243 Butternut R- 17 Brae\.. Locust R-43 Block Locust R- 81 

244 Eastern Red Cedar R-18 Stock Locus t R-4-' Eastern Whit e ~ R-82 

245 East ern Re d Cedar R-19 Block Locust R-46 (astern Whit e Pine 83 

246 Easte rn Red Cedar R- 20 Block Locust R-51 Eastern Wh•te Pine R-84 

247 (astern Wh•t• Pin• R- 21 Block Locust R-54 Eastern Whit e Pine R- 85 

248 Bro ck Cherry R-22 Block Locust R-5S Eastern While Pine 

249 Block Locust R-25 Block locust R-58 Eastern Wh•te P.oe 

250 Srock Cherry R-26 Block Locust R- 59 Eastern Whit e Pine 

R- 1 Eastern 'Nh•l e Pine R-27 Slack locust R-60 Eastern Wh1t e Pone 

R-2 (astern White Pine R- 28 Sloe\( Locust R- 61 Eastern White Pine 

R-J Block Locust R-29 Brock Locust R- 62 Eastern White Pine 

R-4 Block Locust R-JO Block locust R-63 Eo stern wnite Pine 

R- ~ Block Locust R-JI Stock Locu st R- 66 Eastern White Ptne 

R-6 Stock locust R- .12 Block Locu st R- 57 Eastern Whit e Pine 

R-7 Block Locust R- 33 Block Locust R-68 as rn wnit e Pine 

R-8 Block Locust R- 34 Block Locust R- 69 Easte rn Wh•te Pine 

R-9 Block Locust R-35 Block. Locust R- 70 Eastern Wh•te Pine 

R-IO Block Locust R-36 Stock Locust R- 71 £astern White Pine 

R-11 arock Locust R-37 Block Locust R-73 Eastern White Pine 

R-12 Block Locust R-J8 Stock Locu st R- 75 Block Locu st 

R-13 Block Locust R-39 Block Locust R- 76 East ern White Pine 

R-1< Block Locust R-•o Block Locu st R-77 Eastern Wh•te Pine 

R-15 Block Locust R- 41 Black Lac~.~s t R- 78 Eastern Wh ite Pine 

R-16 Block locust R-42 Stock Locust R-80 C::ostern White Pine 

~'to 

fi ~ "' ·" " 

~ 

w., ... 1\#icv.lnu. Pl.cld /~- ~ '. 

------- ----- --~---- --- (', ~-........ .... -=-:._:~: ..::..:. .: ----_--:: - -. --- - -- r-- v _. \ . . -.::.- -----

--- - -- :·::·~ -- ------~~-~-=-~ ~~ --·::· .·-·"' ·--···· ···--·- ·-· -- ..... .~.":'. .7'\ 

\' , I I ) 

lc:lli29-:~ . ... ·.· .. ::. · ... .. 

I 

I i I :' 

Tn.U I : 

-· -· ---.- ~ -_ ------------------·-------i--/ 

~ -·-- .... __ .,. 

Nonb Wood Lot 

Pt .. t l.&.a 

,. · 117 

0 : , : @:·· .· -: · · .,. Rcplacett ... . .. Ia. lawn · 

~-- · R·92 :. · ·: · - - .' ,: _ _ _ 

•· R-91 · 

- ---------------------------------------- -------·------- -----._ ___ on 

--- - -- 11'1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

: 

/ 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Sht of fat•rc 

Vllll.tcw Ctclller 

~- ----- ---- ---

1 --- -------- I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

'-

---- ------ -- ------------------------------------------ --- ----

n 

Easte rn 

Eastern 

Eastern 

Easte rn 

·-

I 

I 

Whit e Pine 

Whi te Pine 

Whit e Pine 

Whi te Pin e 

White J'ine 

Replaced Plants - ClR 

V1 I Co mmon Nome 

R-·H Block Locust 

R--48 Block Locust 

R- <49 81ock l ocost 

R-50 Block Locust 

R- 6" East ern Whole Pint 

R- 65 Eastern Wh•t e P,ne 

R-e6 8Jock Locust 

R- a7 Block Locust 

R- 88 Brock Locust 

R- 89 oc~~: Locust 

Fl- 90 Block Locust 

R- 91 Eastern Wh.te Pine 

K-n Eastern Whit e Pine 

Bt Ma ;nt r~c e Coroge 

Bl !.,IOC>~ e Homes 

8J POle Barf! 

Wl $moll P001d 

F1 Pork Sign 

n r 1ogp01e 

F4 Um 

F!: Bench 

f6 

19 

m 

ru 

loll 

H•stOt•c Wei 

Alummum Sheds 

Lintor Br·c• f c-olute 

Crc..,lor BriCk F'eotvre 

Electrical TronsfOtmtr 

Symbol Key 

Prope rty Line 

Conse rva tion Ea sement 

~ Tree Canopy Edqe 

Understory Vegeta tion Edge 

c::::::> Wood L<lnd 

Tra il 

Topographic Contour 

Power Line 

c::::::::.J r eotures Added 

rr::!IIIIITil Feature Adj usted 

:4~_;:~~~~~; ~ •Y ,.,. .. ~ .-. BY! io ........ ~, 

~=-:_:__-~::_~s.::_:!L- ~ ... , . • 50' ;~•• r~.o:::~ ry 199? 

Cultural Landscape Report 

Martin Van Buren NHS 

Volame 2 

Treatmt:Elt Plaa 

Lindenwald Kioderbook. Columbia CoaotT, New York 

Olauted CeDttr for Lacdtcape Prncrvation 

UrMed Stott "' CII:Otl'Uf'e ..,t t or.e "te r.ut 

Not>t~ I'IOI Per o. Ser.,,.zt 

o. ...... , .... 

Plan 5 

Feature Restoration Plan 

0 25 50 100 f t. 

Landscape Restoration Tasks 

Views 

Action: Re-establish Views 

Two character-defining views at Lindenwald are the view of the front of the property for those approaching 

or passing by and the view from the rear of the main house over the farmland to the mountains beyond. 

Present day land use and improvements to the surrounding area have brought changes to these views. 

Several adjustments should be made to recapture and protect these important views, allowing for a far 

better understanding of Lindenwald as a working farm with the appearance of a formal country estate. The 

following steps should also help to protect the view to the mountains west of the park. 

Re-establish Views to the Front of Lindenwald 

Replacement of the missing elements in the front pine row and re-establishment of the locust allee will do 

much to recapture the view of the front of Lindenwald. In addition to physical changes since Van Buren's 

tenure, modes of transportation have changed drastically, effecting the view of the property. Those 

approaching or passing Lindenwald today experience a different view of the property than those during the 

period of significance. Historically travellers would have been on foot, horse or carriage. With the 

automobile being the current, and much faster moving, transportation mode, steps should be taken to 

counter the effects to some degree. The understory vegetation of parcels 01-104 and 01-107 (between Post 

Road and NYS Route 9h) should be cleared, removing all shrubs and herbaceous vegetation. The 

overstory should be thinned, removing all smaller vegetation, leaving only the larger trees (6 inch caliper 

and larger)(see fig. 16 & 27). Vegetation removal should include stump grinding and should be completed 

in a manner to minimize damage to remaining trees. Once the understory is cleared both parcels should 

be seeded and maintained in the manner consistent with the front lawn at a height of 6 inches. 

Figure 16: Vegetation, parcels 01-104 & 01-107, 1996 (OCLP). 

41 
Landscape Treatment Tasks 

The recommended changes would provide travellers on Route 9h views of Lindenwald as close as possible 

to those that travellers on Post Road would have seen historically. Although Route 9h does not directly 

abut the front boundary of Lindenwald, clearing the small area between Route 9h and the front of 

Lindenwald (parcels 01-104 & 01-107) would provide a similar view. 

Re-establish Views from the Rear of the Lindenwald 

Historically, views from the rear of the house extended over the farm fields and included a view to the 

Catskill Mountains. While the views remain, forest and hedgerow growth along the edges of the fields are 

progressively inhibiting them and reducing their expanse. During full-foliage seasons much of the views 

are almost completely blocked. From the northern portions of the houselot these views do remain intact. 

On NPS property a thin hedgerow has begun to form along the northwest boundary of the park. This 

growth consists of a row of small trees and shrubs which has begun to inhibit views of the adjacent fields 

and creates a separation which never existed between the houselot and the farm fields. · This hedgerow 

should be cleared, lessening interference with views from the rear of Lindenwald and providing a better 

visual connection between the main house and the farm fields (see figs. 27). 

The majority of the vegetative growth interfering with views is off of park property. The most substantial 

is from the hedgerow at the edge of the upper terrace and the hedgerow between the fields on the lower 

terrace. These hedgerows interfere with views of the farmland as well as the views to the mountains (see 

figs. 17). Because these hedgerows are off of park property they cannot be cleared. 

42 
Landscape Restoration Tasks 

Figure 17: View from MAVA to Catskill Mountains, 1991 (SUNY). 

Figure 18: View from MA VA to Lindenwald farmland, 1996 (OCLP). 

43 
Landscape Treatment Tasks 

Pastures 

Action: Re-establish Pastures 

Historically two pastures existed within the houselot, one southwest of the main house and one directly 

behind the main house. These two pastures were separated by the vegetable and flower garden. The area 

south of the main house is currently wooded (see fig. 19) and the area behind the house contains the park's 

administrative and maintenance facilities (see fig. 20). Both areas should be returned to pasture. Before 

initiating any treatment tasks within the south woodlot, natural resource issues regarding the woodlot must 

be considered. Re-establishing the south pasture should be completed in a manner that does not adversely 

effect any significant natural resources such as wetlands or endangered species within the woodlot. 9 

Historically, the rear vegetable and flower garden was located in the area between these two pastures. 

Treatment to the garden will not be completed at this time and the area should be incorporated as part of 

these two pastures until treatment of the garden is initiated. Implementing these pastures should be done 

in a manner that will not disturb the farm office foundation or the historic plants being preserved near the 

foundation. 

Re-establish South Pasture 

• All vegetation within the south woodlot, on park property, should be removed (respecting natural 

resource issues identified for the south woodlot). Removal of the vegetation should include trees, 

shrubs, and herbaceous materials (see fig. 27). 

• The area should be graded and tilled and planted as a rye field. The ·areas adjacent to the rye 

pasture should be seeded and maintained consistent with specifications for the front lawn (see fig. 

28). 

Figure 19: South woodlot, 1992, historically south pasture (SUNY). 

Further detail on natural resource compliance issues is provided within the Natural Resource section in 

the rear of this document. 

44 
Landscape Restoration Tasks 

• The existing staff parking area west of the main house should be removed (see fig. 27). 

• The park's plant stock nursery should be relocated off of the historic core (see fig. 27). 

A natural spring exists within the south woodlot but its exact location is unclear. Re-establishing the south 

pasture (including the required clearing and grading) should be completed in a manner that will not disturb 

drainage patterns which allow the spring water to flow into the upper fish pond. In addition, re-establishing 

the pasture should be completed in a manner so as not to damage or disturb the locust allee along the drive. 

Re-establish Rear Pasture 

• The maintenance and administrative activities should be relocated off of Lindenwald's historic core 

(see fig. 27). 

• The garage and pole bam serving as maintenance facilities should be demolished. The portion of 

the drive extending to the front of the maintenance garage should be removed (see fig. 27). 

• The two mobile homes serving as the administrative facility should be removed (see fig. 27). 

• All sheds, walkways and utilities associated with the park's maintenance and administrative 

facilities should be removed from behind the main house (see fig. 27). 

• The farm road enclosing the rear pasture should be replaced. It should be single lane and 

constructed of compacted soil (see fig . .28). 

Figure 20: Administrative and maintenance offices, 1991, historically rear pasture (SUNY). 

45 
Landscape Treatment Tasks 

In conjunction with the re-establishment of the rear pasture, several existing plants should be preserved and 

several non-historic trees and shrubs should be removed: 

Preserve Existing Vegetation 

The following ten existing plants should be preserved: 

#221 

#222 

#223-225 

#226 

#227 

#228 

#229 

#231 

white mulberry 

sycamore 

American larch 

black locust 

forsythia 

common hop 

Virginia creeper 

common lilac 

Remove Non-historic Vegetation 

The following sixteen non-historic trees should be removed: 

#230 

#232-236 

#237 

#238 

#239 

#240 

#241 

#242-243 

#244-246 

white spruce 

Eastern white pine 

Eastern red cedar 

Eastern white pine 

Eastern red cedar 

butternut 

Eastern white pine 

butternut 

Eastern red cedar 

• The area should be graded and tilled and planted as a rye field. The areas adjacent to the rye 

pasture should be seeded and maintained consistent with specifications for the front lawn (see fig. 

28). 

46 
Landscape Restoration Tasks 

North Orchard 

Action: Re-establish North Orchard 

The north portion of the site is currently wooded, referred to as the north woodlot (see fig. 21). 

Historically the area was an orchard extending to the lower terrace of the property. The orchard was 

divided into two sections. The front section was planted with pear trees and the rear section with apple 

trees The section of the north orchard that was apple trees is not owned by the NPS and is currently an 

agricultural field. The front portion should be replanted as a pear orchard. 

Before initiating any treatment tasks within the north woodlot, natural resource issues must be considered 

(see Natural Resource Mitigation section at the rear of this report). Re-establishing the north orchard 

should be completed in a manner that does not adversely effect any significant natural resources such as 

wetlands or endangered species within the existing woodlot. The following tasks need to be completed in 

order to re-establish the north orchard: 

• The vegetation in the north woodlot should be cleared. Removal of the vegetation should include 

trees, shrubs, and herbaceous materials. Two trees at the west edge of the woodlot should be 

preserved including #247 (Eastern white pine) and #249 (black locust) (see fig. 27). 

• The existing elements of the Dingman fence along the north border of the north woodlot should 

be removed (see fig. 27). 

Figure 21: North woodlot, 1991, historically north orchard (SUNY). 

47 
Landscape Treatment Tasks 

• The pear orchard should be replanted as illustrated on figure 28. The pear trees should be singlestemmed with approximately 1 to 1-112 inch caliper. They should have a main, upright trunk and 

overhead canopy. They should be planted and spaced _as indicated on figure 22. 

• The ground plain of the orchard should be seeded and maintained in the manner of the surrounding 

lawn, maintained at a height of six inches, blending the orchard's ground plain with the 

surrounding Ia wn. 

Main 

House 

157' 

Trees in North Orchard are to be planted in a 

grid pattern perpendicular to the Main House. 

The trees within the rows and columns should 

be spaced 30' and 40' respectively as specified. 

Figure 22: North orchard restoration planting plan (OCLP, 1997). 

48 

0 0 

Pear Orchard 

0 0 

0 

0 

North 

NTS 
Landscape Restoration Tasks 

Dingman Fence 

Action: Replace Dingman Fence 

In 1850, a white post and wire fence stood along the northeast boundary of the property, along the edge 

of the pear orchard. The fence was referred to as the Dingman fence in reference to the property owners 

along that boundary of Lindenwald. 

The fence should be replaced. It should be a post and wire fence and the posts should be painted white (see 

fig . 23 & 28). 

--o 

Plan View 

Wood Posts: 

4" Diameter 

4' 6" High 

Painted White 

Wire: 

#12 Gauge Galvanized 

Elevation 

NTS 

r 

0 

1 4" 

13" 

13" 

18" 

Figure 23: Dingman fence restoration detail (OCLP, 1997). 

49 

6' t 

3' I 

() 
Landscape Treatment Tasks 

Electric Transformer 

Action: Screen Views of Transformer 

After the north woodlot is cleared, the park's electric transformer, currently located within the north 

woodlot, will be visually exposed (see fig. 28). Measures should be .taken to minimize the intrusive visual 

effects of the transformer. It should be screened from view using plantings typical of the property during 

the period of significance. The planting screen should consist of a combination of common lilac (Syringa 

vulgaris), virginal mock-orange (Philadelphus x virginalis), and Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) 

(see fig. 25). The planting should surround the transformer to mask it from view during all seasons of the 

year. 

Figure 24: Electrical transformer, 1996 (OCLP). 

50 
0 

North 

NTS 

Mock-orange 

Lilac 

Rustic Lawn 

Circular Drive 

Replacement Locust 

R27 

Figure 25: Planting plan, electrical transformer screen (OCLP, 1997). 

51 

Landscape Restoration Tasks 
Landscape Treatment Tasks 

Mounting Platform 

Action: Replace Mounting Platform 

The historic stone used by Martin Van Buren to mount his horse was located at the north entry to the main 

house (see fig. 26). The stone, lost in the 1960s, should be replaced. 

The new stone should replicate the original in size and materials. The top should have a smooth finish 

while the sides should have a rough surface. The material should be very light in color, possibly made of 

granite. It should be approximately eight inches high and three feet square. The stone should be placed 

on the northwest side of the entrance walk leading to the north entrance of the main house, at the point 

where the walk meets the entry drive (see fig. 28). 

Figure 26: Mounting platform, c.1930 (no photo number, MA VA archives). 

52 
' Existing Plants CLR 

VI I Common Nome 

Block Locust 

Block Locust 

Block Locust 

Eastern Wh•te Pine 

Eastern Wh•te Pine 

14 Eastern Red Cedar 

15 Eastern Red Cedar 

18 Block Locust 

19 Mazzara Cherry 

33 Kentucky Coffee-tree 

36 Eastern Wh•te Pine 

J7 Eastern White Pine 

38 Eastern Wh,te Pine 

J9 American Linden 

40 Eastern Wh•te Pine 

41 Eastern Whtte Pine 

<2 Eastern White Pine 

4J Eastern Whil e Pine 44 Eastern Wh•te Pin~ 

4~ Amertcon Linden 

46 American Linden 

47 LilUtleof Linden 

<8 litUeleot Linden 

~1 Eastern White Pine 

~---- ,-

·. I~ 

· .. , "l 

·.I 

t 

1·. I . 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

60 

70 

76 

80 

109 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 

117 

118 

119 

120 

121 

122 

12J 

124 

\ Waycr Apka(tve ti•W 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

L-----

Eastern Whits Pine 

Eosttrn White Pine 

Eastern White Pine 

Eastern White Pine 

Eastern White Pine Eastern White Pine 

Eastern White Pine 

Eastern White Pine 

Block Cherry 

Block Cherry 

White Mulberry 

SlacK Locust 

Eastern White Pine 

Douglas-fir 

Eastern White Ptne 

Amencan Elm 

Eastern White Pine 

Eastern White Pine 

Kentucky Coffee-tree 

American Linden 

Eo'ltern Red Cedot 

Eastern Red Cedar 

Eastern Red Cedar 

Eastern Red Cedar 

~. 

,---------------- 1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

129 Eastern Red Cedar 

130 Eastern Red Ceder 

131 Eastern Red Cedar 1J2 Eastern Red Cedar 

1JJ Eastern Red Cedar 

1J4 Eastern Red Cedar 135 Eastern Red Cedar 1J6 Eastern Red Cedar 137 Eastern Red Cedar 1~8 Eastern Red Cedar 139 Eastern Red Cedar 

140 Eastern Red Cedor 

\41 Eastern Red Cedar 

142 Eastern Red Cedar 

143 Eastern Red Cedar 

144 Eastern Red Cedar 

145 Eastern Red Cedar 

146 Eastern Red Cedot 

147 Eastern Rea C•dor 148 Eastern Red Cedar 

149 Eastern Red C~or 

1~0 Eastern Red Cedar 

·165 Block Cherry 

166 Block Locust 

------- --

·------ ·-- - - - ------ - --· 

167 

16ll 

169 

• 170 

• 171 

• 172 

• t7J 

• 174 

17~ 

·176 

·177 

• 178 

• 179 

o 180 

• 18 1 

• 182 

·18.3 

· 184 • 185 

· 186 

• 187 

188 

189 

190 

---

Eastern Red Cedar 

Eastern Red Cedar Block Locust 

Easter Red Cedar 

8toek Cnerry 

Block Cherry 

Red Maple 

Red Maple 

Stock Cherry 

Block. Cherry 

8toek Locust 

Block Cherry 

Amer•con Elm 

Block Locust 

Block. locust 

Red Mople 

Block Locust 

Block Locust Black Locust 

Block Locust 

Block Cherry 

White Spruce 

Red Maple 

Crack Willow 

Meyer Acricu.lnan P1cW 

1Cjl9-:~. ·. ·.·. :· . ·· . .... 

.. 

191 

192 

193 

194 

195 

196 

201 

202 

203 

204 

205 

206 

207 

208 

209 

210 

211 

212 

213 

214 

215 

216 

217 

218 

Crock Willow 219 

Crock Willow 220 

Crock Willo-w 221 

Common Ltloc 222 Comma!'\ L•IOC 223 

Common lilac 224 

Virginal Mock-orange 225 

Virq,nol Mock-orange 226 

Virginal Mock-orange · 227 

Virginal ock-oronge • 228 

Common Lilac • 229 

Common Lilac · 230 

Common Ltloc 2J1 

Common Lilac • 2J2 

Common L•IOC • 2JJ Common Lilac ·234 

Virginal Mock-orange • 235 

Virginal Mock-orange • 2J6 Virginal Mock-oranqe •237 Virginal Mock-orang~ •238 

Common Lilac • 239 

Common Lilac ·240 

Common Lilac ·241 

Common L1loc • 242 

~ 

Common Lilac 

Common Lilac 

Wh,~e Mulberry 

Sycamore 

American Lorch 

American Lorch 

Nntricon Lorch 

Block locust F'o rl)lthio 

Common Hop 

Vi~ nio Creeper 

Wh.te Spruce 

Common Liklc 

Eastern White Pine 

Ecstern White Pine 

Eastern Wh•te Pine 

Eastern Whtte Pine 

Eastern Wh•te Pine 

Eastern Red Cedar 

Eastern White Pine 

Eastern Reel Ceoor 

Butternut 

Eastern White Pine 

Butternut 

(.;\.: 

\J 

P<Mt Ra.d 

• 243 Butternut R-17 Block Locust 

•2« Eastern Red Cedar R- 18 Block Locust 

• 245 Eastern Red Cedar R- 19 Block Locust 

• 246 Eastern Red Cedar R-20 Block Locust 

247 Eastern White Pine R-21 Block Locust 248 Block Cnerry R-22 Stock Locust 

249 Block Locust R-2~ etoek Locust 

250 Block Cnerry R-26 Block loct.tst R-t Eastern wh.te Pine R-27 Bloc\< Locust 

R-2 . Eastern Whit e Pine R-28 Btock Locust R-J 8taek Locust R-29 Block Locust R-4 81aek Locust R-.lO 8toek locust R-~ Block Locust R-J1 Stock locost R-6 Stack Locust R-32 Stock Locust R-7 Btack Locust R-33 Block Locust R-8 Block Locust R-34 8taek Locust R-9 Block Locust R-J5 Block locust R-10 Block Locust R-36 Block lo.;ust R-11 Block Locust R-J7 Stock Locust R-12 Block Locust R-J8 Block locust R-IJ Block Locust R-j9 Block Loc~.~st 

R-14 Block Locust R-40 Stock LOCI.ISt R-15 Block Locust R-<1 Stock Locust R- 16 Block Locust R-42 Block Locust 

,;> .., 

-----------------·-------------------------------------- ----...... o n · 

-------._ I PI 

~-43 q_,. 

R-46 

R-•H 

R-48 

R-•9 

~- 50 

R-51 

R-~4 

R-55 

R-53 

R-59 

R-60 

R-51 

R-62 

R-6J 

R-64 

R-6S 

R- 66 

R-57 

R-68 

R-69 

R-70 

R-71 

Black Locust 

Eastern Wh.te Pine 

Eastern White Pine 

Bleck Locust 

Block Locust 

Block. Locust 

Block Locust 

Eastern White Pine 

Eo,tern Wh1to Pine 

Eastern While Pine 

(astern Whit~ P•ne 

Eastern White Pine 

Eastern Wh•te Pine 

( O$tern White Pine 

(a:Jtern wn;te Pine 

EGstern White Pine 

(astern White Pine 

Eastern Whitt P1ne 

Eastern White Pine 

Eastern White Pine 

Eastern Wl'ute Ptne 

Eastern White Pine 

Eastern White Pine 

Eastern White Pine 

Site of future 

VUJtor Center 

R-73 

R-75 

R- 76 

R-77 

R-78 

R-80 

R- 81 

R-82 

R-8J 

R-84 

R-85 

R-86 

R-87 

R-88 

R-d9 

R-90 

R-91 

R- 92 

Eastern White 

Block locust 

Eastern Wh1te 

Eastern Whtte 

Eastern White 

Eastern White 

Eastern Wh1te 

Eastern Wh;te 

(estern White 

£astern White 

Eastern White Block locust 

Block Locust 

Stock Locust 

Block Locust 

Block Locust 

Eastern Wh.te 

Eo stern 

·-

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

White 

___________ __j_---

Pine 

Pine 

Pine 

Pine 

Pine 

Pine 

P;ne 

P~ne 

Pine 

Pine 

Pine 

P~ne 

Notes. 

R dtnetes o repklcement ptont. 

[;ttSIIng plont list is cumu atN~. 

sMw•ng comoletion of pre\liOIJSiy 

recommended toslc s ( ... ~u'hn this 

document, ClR V2) 

• Oenotts trees to be remo\led 

81 t.lotn ten\W\ce Gor09e 

81 t-~ ob e Homes 

Bl P01e Born 

C1 \.~sil or P01llinq 

WI Smat Pond 

n Pat'< Si9n f1 f"logpole 

F<4 Urn 

" a .. ,, F6 HisiOtic WtH 

F9 Alumif,um Sheds 

ru linear Brick ftX~ture 

ru Circutcr Brick feature 

lU Electrlcoi Transformer 

Symbol Key 

Property L•ne 

Conservoh'ln Easement 

~ Tree Canopy Edge 

Understory Veqetotion Edge 

c::::::::::> Wood Land 

Trcil 

Topographic Contour 

Power L+ne 

c:::::::::o:::J Feature Removal 

:_:::_:___ .lt=:.:~-=--.L~_:_:' __ ~~--'j• ~~.:!i..._ 

Sco.. , ... 50' !r..1

• rt erJory 199-:-

.,.._., .~~oo 

Cultural Landscape Report 

Martin Van Buren NHS 

Volume 2 

TrniDUDt PI&D 

Lindenwald 

Kioderbook, Columbia Cooo<r, N•• York 

Olauttd Cn.tcr fot LaDdtc.ape PracrnrioD 

Ut"hl<tO S!o tcs pe;f ~r""~lll 'Jf lht" ~t• •l or 

Ncti011f.ll P-:~rk Strv·~~ 

Plan 6 

Feature Removal Plan 

0 

Figure: 27 

Existing Plants CLR 

~ Common Nome 

I Block Locust 52 Eastern Wl'lite Pine 129 Eastern Red Cedar 168 Eastern Red Ceder 21 4 Virginal Mock-orange R-7 Block Locust R- 33 Blod: Locust ~-02 Eastern Wh.te Pine <-a9 Block Locust 

2 Block. Locust 53 Eastern White Pine 130 Eastern Red C~or 169 Black Locust 215 Common Lilac R-8 81<1Cic Locust R- 34 Black Locust R-5; Eastern Wl"hte Pine R-90 81.Jck: Locust 

3 Slack Locust 54 Eastern White Pine 131 Eastern Red Cedar 188 Wh•te Spruce 216 Common Lilac R-9 Block lOCYSt R-35 Block Locust R-64 Eastern Wh•te Pine 'l-~ 1 Eastern White Pine 

8 Eastern Wh ole Pine 55 Eastern White Pine 132 Eastern Red Cedar 189 Red Maple 217 Common Lilac R- IO Block Locust R-.!6 Block Locust R-65 Eastern Wh•te Pin e R-92 (llstern White Pine 

9 Easte-rn W,ite Pine 56 Eastern While Pine 133 Eastern Red Cedar 190 Crock Willow 218 Common Lilac R-11 Sleek Locust R-37 Block Locust R-66 Eastern Whtte Pine 

I• Eastern Red Cedar 57 Eastern White Pine 134 Eastern Red Cedar 191 Crock Willow 219 Common Li lac R-12 Block Locust R-38 Block Locust R-67 Eosttrn Wh•te Pin e 

I~ Eastern Red Cedar 60 Eastern Wl'lite Pine 13~ Eastern Red Cedar 192 Croct( Willow 220 Common Lilac R-13 Block Locust R-39 Block Locust R-oe Eastern White P•ne 18 Block Locust 70 Eastern Wh•te Pine IJ6 Eastern Red Cedar 193 Crock Willow 221 While Mulberry R-14 Block Locust R-40 Block Locust R- 69 Eastern Wh1te Pine 19 Mozzord Cherry 76 Stock Cherry 137 (<Jstern Red Cedar 19• Common Lilac 222 Sycamore R- 15 Block Locust R-•1 Block Locust R-70 Eastern Wh,le Pine 33 Kentucky Coffee - tree 80 Block Cherry 138 Eastern Red Cedar 195 Common Lilac 223 American Lorch R- 16 Srock Locust R-<2 Slack Locust R-71 Eosttrn Wh1te Pine 

36 Eastern Wh1te Pine 109 'Hhate Mulberry 139 Eastern Red Cedar 196 Common Laloc 224 Ameracon Lorch R- 17 BlOck LOCuSt R-4J Block Locust R-73 Eastern Wh•te Pine 37 Eastern Wh,te Pine 112 Block locust 140 Eastern Red Cedar 201 Virginal Mock-oran9e 225 American Lorch R- 18 Block Locust R-44 (astern White Pine R-75 Block Locust 

J8 Eastern White Pine 113 Eastern White Pin e 141 Eastern Red Cedar 202 Virginal Mock-orcangt 226 Block Locust R- 19 Slack Locust R-46 Eastern White Pine R- 76 Eastern Wl'\tte P.ne 

39 American Linden 114 Douglas-fir 1<2 Eastern Red Cedar 203 Virginal Moc.l<-oronge 231 Common Lifoc R-20 Block Locust R-•7 Block Locust R- 17 Eastern White Pine 

•o Eastern Wh•te Pine 115 Eastern White Pine 143 Eastern Red Cedar 204 Virg•nol Mock-orange 247 Eastern White Pine R- 21 Block Locust R-•8 Black Locust R-78 (astern wn.te Pine 41 Eastern White Pine 11 6 American Elm 144 Eo stern Red Cedar 205 Common Lilac 248 Block Cherry R-n Block Locust R-49 Block Locust R-80 Eastern White Pine 

42 Eastern Wh.te Pine 117 Eastern White Pine 145 Eastern Red Cedar 206 Common Lilac 249 Slack Locust R-25 Block Locust R-50 Slade: Locust R-81 Eastern White Pine 

•3 Eastern Wl'ute Pine 118 Eastern White Pine 146 Eastern Red Cedar 207 Common Lilac 250 Block Cherry R-26 Block Locust R-51 Eastern White Pine R- ~2 Eastern Wh•te Pine .. Eastern Wh•le Pine 119 Kentucky Coffee-tree 147 Eastern Red Cedor 208 Common Lilac R-1 Eastern White Pine R-27 Blor.k Locust R- 54 Eastern White Pine R- 83 Eastern White Pine 

45 American L1nden 120 American Linden 148 Eastern Red Cedar 209 Common Lilac R-2 Eastern White Pine R-28 Block Locust R-55 Eastern White Pine R- 8 4 Eastern White Pine 

46 Ame,.con LiM den 121 Eastern Red Cedar 149 Eastern Red Cedar 210 Common Lilac R-3 8Jock Locust R-29 Block Locust R-58 Eastern White Pine R- 85 Eastern White Pine ,, Littleleaf Linden 122 Eost&rn Red Cedar 150 Eostern Red Cador 211 Virginol Mock-orange R-4 Slack Locust R-JO Block Locust R-59 t:os tern White Pine R-86 Block Locust 48 Littleleaf Linden 123 Eostern Red Cedor 166 Block Locust 212 Virginal Mock-oronqe R- 5 Block Locust R-JI Block Locust R-60 Eastern White Pine R-87 Slack Locust 

51 Eastern White Pine 124 Eastern Red Cedar 167 £astern Red Cedar 213 Virginal Mock - orange R-6 Block Locust R-32 Block Locust R-61 Eastern White Pine R- 88 Block Locust 

;~---- "'b 

~ ~ $ r- ·" 

Mer- Acrlc•ltv. field 

--------------------------------------------------------------------·- ---- _: -----· ------------------------- -----------... 

, I~ 

·. \ ~ 

'J 

I 

I ' 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

' .... , ... ~ Pl.W 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

L-----

-. ---~. -- ----.::::::.-==--=~--:;;=:;;:.:..----,, ,_..---------------····----------- . .... .. ,, #t/1> I " I# 

~ --· \ I 

I I • ·· ~ : : 

I : : ! 

: : -~- ~ : .. i : 

• t ! I : : 

I : : : ! ~ ~ I 

Re-urablith Rear Patt:u.fe 

~ ··R.-..tahth~ South Puture i : >Q2JI _. \ 

i ! l {_) <:...._ _________ ----------------------------------··##,• 1 : 

I , 

··r 

'

I ' 

I 

' ' I 

i i 

I I : ,' ,,' !· ....... ,~" ·.: ·. __ ,t:- ;! ' ,,,~~ -- I~ ~ I / _,.," i .. ,~,,~ 

. ' , ; : ,if' ~. ~ l ,,,.,_ ~. ... ·-. ' ............ ~ ......... ., 

'ej29-:~ .... . ··.··.· .. .. -..: 

0.\0

~ 

··65 11-64 

R·.5ll Pla•ll<>w ~ R·60 R·61 R·62 • ~ ca R·6J • 

r\ f.\ !.'-';\ 0 . . . _\..:,L ~-- - -- R·.U 

Pott Roed 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 0 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

I 

I 

- --------------- ---------------------------------------

- - ----- --------- , - ---------

----- o n 

---- In --- --- ----------... _____ __ 

-------- - --

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Slc• of {yfllr• 

VLricor Cc-a.tu 

r 

I 

~ 

----- ---------------- LiJJJI! t !l \\ --- ---- - --- - -------- - --- ------- -----·--·- - --- - -

I 

I 

I 

I 

·-

I 

I 

I 

I 

Cl Visitor Pan ing 

WI Small Pono 

fl Potlt Sign 

n Flagpole 

14 Urn 

15 Bench 

F6 Hi.st«ic Weft 

ru Llf'IN~ Snclt rt"Oture 

rn Cir~ or Brick F Nture 

Wl [ lectriccl TronsfOfmer 

Symbol Key 

---- Propert y Line 

Conservot.on Easement 

~ Tree Conopy Edqe 

Understory Vegetati¢n Edqt 

Wood Lend 

Trail 

Topographic Contour 

Power Line 

- =-~~--:-~~ -- .. ~ . ----T::: .;:-~---;;:;;;:--- - ·- ~ -o;;:- 'f.;; 

Cultural Landscape Report 

Martin Van Buren NHS 

Volume 2 

Treatment Plaa. 

Lindenwald 

Kinderhook, Columbia COUIItl, New York 

Otau.red Ceater for Llodacapr Prettrvatioo 

Uru("oj :o ~.S :> too •u"'t "' .... • '" I" ."'11<'•,:•' 

Not oO•lQI o:~ lt $e1v.c e 

Plan 7 

Feature Restoration Plan 

0 

0 25 50 100 ft 

Figure: 28 

ADDITIONAL TREATMENT RECOMI\-1ENDATIONS 

While it is the intent of this report to address specific treatment actions that will result in the restoration 

of Lindenwald to its 1850 appearance , several additional recommendations, both treatment and 

management related, may be pertinent to the site's restoration. These include issues regarding the 

conservation easements held by the park, further plans and specifications for future treatment, and updating 

the park's maintenance plan during and after completion of the restoration. In addition there are a few 

recommendations for tasks that could be addressed after completing the treatment tasks outlined in this 

plan. 

Conservation Easements 

Within the boundaries of the Martin Van Buren NHS the park holds several conservation easements on 

privately owned agricultural land bordering the historic core of the park. While these areas are not owned 

in fee-simple by the park, they directly affect the historic character of the park and need to be addressed 

in the treatment plan. 

As specified within two of the tasks outlined in this plan action is called for involving the conservation 

easement areas. The tasks include planting trees along the edge of the conservation easement on parcel 

01-103 and clearing a small, invasive hedgerow along the border of that easement and park property. 

Neither of these actions should interfere with current farming activity on those easements. 

Another aspect of Lindenwald's restoration that falls within an easement, partially in this case, is the 

vegetable and flower garden located behind the main house. The historic location of the garden straddles 

the boundary of the park property owned in fee and the conservation easement on parcel 01-103. The front 

portion of the garden would have been located on current park property while the rear portion of the 

garden was within the current conservation easement. 

Treatment of the garden depends on future management of the portion of the garden extending onto the 

easement. Combined with incomplete documentation, replacing only a portion of the garden would be 

inappropriate according to NPS preservation policies. Until such time that the NPS does manage the entire 

are of the garden, replacement of the garden should not be attempted. The only elements of the garden 

which could accurately be replaced are the farm office (as specified in the following section), trees and, 

potentially, the fence bordering the front portion of the garden. 

Post-Treatment 

After the completion of the treatment tasks, several Issues should be addressed. They include the 

following: 

• Landscape Preservation Maintenance Plan 

Once treatment (of an individual feature or the entire landscape) is complete the park's existing 

Landscape Preservation Maintenance Plan (Bitzel, Coffin, 1996) should be updated. Features that 

have been altered or added should be inventoried, inspected, and documented. The work calendar 

and monitoring schedule should be adjusted if necessary. 

In addition to an inventory of adjusted and new features, changes in the following areas (and 

possibly others) may necessitate additions in the existing Landscape Preservation Maintenance 

Plan: 

57 
Additional Treatment Recommendations 

Care of New Plantings 

Altered Lawn Maintenance 

Pasture Maintenance 

Garden Maintenance 

Orchard Maintenance 

• Historic Tree Propagation 

In order to better preserve the historic character of Lindenwald, steps have been taken to propagate 

specified historic trees on the site. By propagating these trees, their genetic stock is preserved, 

ensuring that characteristics of future replacements are similar to the original plant. 

Propagation of two of the historic trees has already been initiated, including the sycamore 

(Platanus occidentalis, #222) and the white mulberry (Morus alba, #221) on the south side ofthe 

main house. The propagated plants are currently being maintained at the Arnold Arboretum by 

the staff of the Olmsted Center. The remaining historic plants on the site should be evaluated for 

possible propagation. 

• Farm Office 

Historically, the farm office was located at the east corner of the garden. Today, only the 

foundation of the farm office is extant and the garden no longer exists. Enough documentation of 

the farm office exists to accurately reconstruct the building. This reconstruction, however, 

requires further study of the existing documentation in order to prepare construction plans and 

specifications. Documentation can be collected from the information within the CLR V 1, historic 

photographs in the park archives, and from the extant foundation. 

• Vegetable and Flower Garden 

The overall layout of the historic vegetable and flower garden at Lindenwald has been documented, 

including the buildings, fences, paths and trees. In addition, a list of plants grown in the garden 

has been compiled. However, the layout of these plants within the garden is unknown. 

A study should be undertaken to explore the possibility of recreating Lindenwald's vegetable and 

flower garden. A combination of the plant list from the historic period and documentation of the 

evolution of the garden at Lindenwald over later time periods could provide sufficient evidence to 

restore the garden. 

Recommendations for Implementation 

Implementation of the treatment tasks to accomplish Lindenwald's restoration can be initiated in several 

ways. They can include in-house projects completed by the park staff or by purchase orders ($25,000 or 

less) administered by the park directly. Tasks can also be completed through the Preservation Maimenance 

Branch of the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, requested directly by the park to the Olmsted 

Center. Larger contracts (above $25,000) could be administered through outside contracts. 

Standards for Vegetation Tasks 

The following are standards that need to be taken into account throughout the proposed treatment 

implementation: 

58 
Additional Treatmem Recommendations 

• Tree and Shrub Removal 

Removal of trees and shrubs includes both surface roots and stumps. Stumps should be ground to 

a depth of six inches below grade. Locust and cherry stumps should be treated with an herbicide 

to insure that they do not grow back. In the instances where replacement trees will be planted in 

the location of an existing tree, the stump anc! roots of the existing tree should be sufficiently 

ground ( 16-18" below grade) to allow planting of the replacement trees. 

• Tree Replacement 

Replacement trees should conform to the following specifications: 

Black locusts should be approximately 2 to 2-1/2" in caliper, balled and burlaped, have a strong 

leader, main trunk and horizontal branching pattern. 

Eastern white pines should be approximately 7 to 8' in height, balled and burlaped, have a strong 

leader, main trunk and horizontal branching pattern. 

Pear trees should be approximately 2 to 2-1 /2" in caliper, balled and burlaped, have a strong 

leader, main trunk and horizontal branching pattern. 

59 

COMPLIANCE ISSUES 

The National Park Service will comply with all applicable laws, regulations and executive orders, including 

those listed here, prior to implementing the recommendations outlined in this Treatment Plan for Martin 

Van Buren NHS. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, states that the federal government 

must make it possible for the nation to "preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our 

national heritage." In accordance with this act, all federal agencies must prepare an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) for proposed actions and permits that might effect the environment. In the case of the 

Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, the EIS for the forthcoming Development Concept Plan (DCP) 

will address (among other issues) all changes proposed in this CLR: Vol2, Treatment Plan. The National 

Park Service will prepare a record of decision and make it available to interested parties to complete the 

NEPA process. 

Cultural Resource Compliance 

The Martin Van Buren National Historic Site is a National Historic Landmark (1961). Because it is owned 

by the federal government, any proposed changes to the area must comply with Section 106 and Section 

110 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and the implementing regulations for 

Section 106. 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470, et. seq) requires 

a federal agency head with jurisdiction over a federal, federally assisted or federally licensed undertaking 

to take into account the effects of the agencies undertakings on properties included in or eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places, and, prior to approval of an undertaking, to afford the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking. 

The Council seeks through the Section 106 process to take into account historic preservation concerns with 

the needs of agency programs. It is designed to identify potential conflicts between the two and to help 

resolve such conflicts in the public interest. The Council encourages consultation among the Agency 

Official, the State Historic Preservation officer, and other interested persons during the early stages of 

planning. The Council regards the consultation process as an effective means for reconciling the interests 

of consulting parties. 

Section 110(f) of the act requires the federal agency heads, to the maximum extent possible, undertake such 

planning and actions as may be necessary to minimize harm to any National Historic Landmark that may 

be directly and adversely affected by an undertaking and, prior to approval of such undertaking, afford the 

Council a reasonable opportunity to comment. 

The National Park Service completes a 106 form (Assessment of Actions Having an Effect on Cultural 

Resources) or otherwise documents all undertakings prior to implementing any proposed actions. All 

ground-disturbing activities are preceded by an archeological evaluation to determine the level of 

archeological investigation required before any such activities can begin. Should any resources be 

identified, the SHPO and the National Park Service evaluate their potential for inclusion on the National 

61 
Compliance Issues 

Register of Historic Places; if eligible, appropriate measures are undertaken to preserve them. 

Archeological testing is carried out prior to ground-breaking activities. 

During treatment implementation, measures should be taken to minimize and avoid, whenever possible, 

damage to historic resources and vegetation in particular. Construction equipment should be kept away 

from historic vegetation, minimizing trunk and branch scarring and compaction damage to roots. 

In addition, the protection of archeological resources of the site must be addressed. Within the standards 

for restoration, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties states: 

"archeological resources affected by a project will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources 

must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. "10 

In compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Programmatic 

Agreement Among the National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the 

National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, this document was reviewed by the designated 

NPS advisors for the Martin Van Buren NHS and by the New York State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO). The SHPO concluded that the proposed treatment actions would have no adverse effect. 

Appendix A includes the correspondence between the NPS and the SHPO. 

Pursuant to the SHPO's request for an archeological treatment plan regarding the effected landscape the 

NPS archeology advisor for the Martin Van Buren NHS prepared a matrix identifying actions that may 

require additional archeological investigation before or as part of implementation. A summary of the 

archeological review and the matrix is included in Appendix A.

11 

Natural Resource Compliance 

The following regulations are intended to protect natural resources on all federally-owned properties: 

Section 118 of the Clean Air act requires all federal facilities to comply with existing federal, state, and 

local air pollution control laws and regulations. The National Park Service will work with the State of New 

York to ensure the all site activities meet the requirements of the state air quality implementation plan. 

Executive Order 11988 ("Floodplain Management") requires that all federal agencies avoid construction 

within the 100-year floodplain unless no other practicable alternative exists. The tasks described within 

this document are not located within a 100-year floodplain. 

Executive Order 119900 ("Protection of Wetlands") requires that all federal agencies avoid construction 

within a wetland unless no other practicable alternative exists. Restoring the south pasture may potentially 

effect a wetland. The area in question needs to be evaluated to determine if it is a wetland and if so, what 

10 

II 

US Department of the Interior. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties. Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, National Park Service, 1995, pl18. 

Stephen Pendery, Leslie Mead, Cultural Resources Center, National Park Service, Lowell, 

Massachusetts. 

62 
Compliance Issues 

its boundaries are (see Natural Resources Issues section on following page for details). Restoring the south 

pasture is the only recommendation within this plan that may effect a wetland. 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended ( 16 USC 1531 et seq.) requires all federal 

agencies to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that any action authorized, 

funded, or carried out by the agency does not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species of critical 

habitat. 

During the design phase of project implementation, the National Park Service will comply with all pertinent 

state and local permitting procedures, such as the New York Wetlands Protection Act. 

Natural Resource Issues at Martin Van Buren National Historic Site 

Based on a recent field survey at the site, it appears that three of the treatment tasks specified in the 

Treatment Plan for Martin Van Buren NHS will require natural resource mitigation efforts.'2 

Re-establishing the Locust Allee 

In order to re-establish the locust allee along the entry drive a portion of both the north and south woodlot 

must be cleared. A twenty-foot wide linear strip of each woodlot's vegetation directly adjacent to the drive 

must be cleared. These cleared strips are necessary to allow for planting and proper growth of the locust 

trees in the allee. 

The re-establishment of the locust allee, particularly its southeast boundary, will need to take into account 

the limits of the wetland and the existence of any documented endangered species. Restoring the locust 

allee must be accomplished in a manner that would not extend beyond the limits of ant determined wetland 

or appropriate buffer zone. 

Clearing South Woodlot 

This treatment plan recommends clearing the south woodlot and restoring the south pasture. During the 

period of significance (1839-1862) an for many years after, the area now known as the south woodlot was 

a pasture. However, in the early 20th-century, the pasture was abandoned, allowing successional forest 

growth. The vegetation today is a result of that successional growth. 

It has been previously determined that a small wetland area may exist within the south woodlot. In 

accordance with federal, state and local wetland regulations, the boundaries of this wetland must be 

specifically delineated and the required buffer zones established to ensure that clearing portions of the 

woodlot will not adversely effect or interfere with the wetland area. In addition, in accordance with 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the NPS must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

to ensure that no endangered species will be adversely effected by this task. 

The re-establishment of the south pasture, particularly the boundaries of the re-established pasture, will 

12 Field Reconnaissance, Martin Van Buren NHS, 24 September, 1996; K. Mendik, D. Uschold, J. Harris, 

P. Ewing. Kevin Mendik, Environmental Protection Specialist, BOS, conducted a site survey to 

determine a preliminary environmental impact evaluation in regards to this report. 

63 
Compliance Issues 

need to take into account the limits of the wetland and the existence of any documented endangered species. 

The boundaries of the re-established pasture will be defined so that they do not extend beyond the limits 

of the wetland or appropriate buffer zone. 

Clearing North Woodlot 

This treatment plan recommends clearing the north woodlot and restoring the orchard. During the period 

of significance (1839-1862) and into the 20th century the area now lmown as the north woodlot was a pear 

orchard. However, in the early 20th century the orchard was abandoned and allowed to experience 

successional forest growth which remains today. 

Initial reconnaissance of the north woodlot indicated that the area has potential characteristics of a wetland. 

In accordance with federal, state and local wetlands regulations, the north woodlot must be examined 

further to determine whether it does contain a wetland, and if one does exist, its boundaries and required 

protective buffer zones must be delineated. Clearing the woodlot must be undertaken in a method that does 

not adversely effect any established wetland areas. In addition, in accordance with Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act, the NPS must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that no 

endangered species will be adversely effected by this task. The re-establishing the north orchard, should 

take in to account the limits of any wetland areas determined to exist there and the existence of any 

documented endangered species. 

64 
SOURCES 

Uschold, David. 1995. Cultural Landscape Report for Martin Van Buren National Historic Site. Boston: 

Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. North Atlantic Regional Office . Development 

Concept Plan/Environmental Assessment of 1986: Martin Van Buren National Historic Site. Boston, 1986. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. North Atlantic Regional Office. Development 

Concept Plan/Environmental Assessment of 1986: Martin Van Buren National Historic Site: Amendment. 

Boston, 1991. 

U.S . Department of the Interior. National Park Service. North Atlantic Regional Office. Lindenwald: 

Master Plan. Boston, 1970. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service . North Atlantic Regional Office. Martin Van 

Buren National Historic Site: Adjacent Lands Resource Analysis. Columbia Land Conservancy, Boston, 

1990. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. North Atlantic Regional Office. Historic 

Grounds Report, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, VI. Brown UniYersity, Boston, 1982. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. North Atlantic Regional Office. Historic 

Grounds Report, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, V2. Brown University, Boston, 1982. 

65 

APPENDIX A 

ARCHEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW 

This treatment plan was reviewed by a professional archeologist at the NPS's Cultural Resource Center 

in Lowell, Massachusetts. The intent of the review was to identify any proposed treatment actions that 

may impact archeological resources on the site. Review of the actions in the treatment plan was based 

on the Cultural Landscape Report for Martin Van Buren National Historic Site Volume 1: Site History, 

Existing Conditions, and Analysis (Uschold, 1995) as well as a review of the archeological literature 

relating to Lindenwald (see references cited, list attached). 

The archeological overview is summarized on the following pages in the form of a matrix which outlines 

each treatment action and the compliance issues associated with that action. The archeology overview 

also recommends archeological research options which could provide additional data to support the 

treatment actions. 

The archeological review takes two perspectives on the archeological record. The first focuses on 

assessing the impact the treatment plan will have on the site's archeological resources and identifying 

ways to address those impacts. The second focuses on identifying ways in which archeological research 

could provide data to enhance, inform, or provide further information for the treatment plan. 

Compliance: 

• Several treatment actions, including replacing the locust allee, pine row and grove, trees around 

the south gate house, and restoring the front lawn and garden will have no affect on 

archeological remains so long as the recommended treatment plan is followed and the stumps 

from the removed trees are ground rather than removed. 

• Archeological surveys, ranging from reconnaissance to intensive (Phase I and II Archeological 

Surveys), are recommended where overhead utility lines are replaced with underground lines, 

relocation of the flagpole and park signage, in areas where the pastures or orchards are being 

re-established, and in the area of the vegetable garden restoration. 

• Data recovery excavations (Phase III) are recommended when known archeological resources 

are likely to be impacted by the proposed treatment plan. The only known archeological 

resource threatened by the proposed treatment plan is the foundation of the north gate house and 

Phase III data recovery is recommended here. 

Research: 

• The treatment plan calls for the replacement of large numbers of trees which are no longer extant 

(in the Locust allee, pine row and grove, and the front lawn). The locations of the original 

planting holes for specimen trees can be determined archeologically and systematic excavations 

focusing on identifying the these features could provide data useful for guiding the exact location 

of the replacement trees. 

• A systematic archeological program could provide additional data for the treatment plan. 

Identifying the locations of fences and fence posts, determining the exact original route of the 

garden path and other garden elements, as well as providing data on how these features were 

originally installed. In addition, pollen and phytolith data could help illuminate gray areas in the 

plant list for the property, particularly in areas such as the front garden and vegetable garden. 
• An integrated research program focusing on the North Gate House could provide information 

useful for the proposed restoration/reconstruction of this building. Recovering that information 

as part of research program begun well prior to the completion of construction drawings, would 

allow the resultant research and data to be incorporated into restoration plans. 

• Remote sensing can examine the Lindenwald landscape with an eye toward clarifying the 

locations of "missing" elements, such as the remains of the "carriage house" or "carriage barn" or 

the location of lost paths and other landscape features. Remote sensing has improved 

enormously in the last decade and many of the unachieved goals of the 1983 remote sensing 

project would be well within the scope of the present technology. 
Landscape Basis for recommendation Archaeological Research Archaeological Compliance Issues 

Restoration Which Could Buttress Relating to Implementation of 

Task Landscape Restoration Recommendation 

Preservation of Significant, contributing, existing feature (Uschold None None. The area of the circular drive has 

Semi-Circular 1995:175). Drive dates to the Van Buren been extensively tested and additional 

Entry Drive occupation and has not substantially changed since testing is unlikely to provide new 

then (Uschold 1995: 51). Archaeological testing in information. 

vicinity of drive indicated that the present drive 

was underlain by an earlier drive which varies no 

more than 1 meter from the existing one (Simon 

1982a: 61-64; Gallagher 1984 ). Simon postulated 

from limited artifactual remains that the drive dated 

to late 18th or early 19th century. 

Moving of The presence of the utility lines severely impact the None If overhead utility lines are replaced by 

Overhead Utility historic character of the site. underground lines on Park property, limited 

Lines testing may be necessary in some locations, 

depending upon location of proposed new 

lines (Uschold 1995: 11) 

No impact where lines are being removed 

and not replaced. 

Relocate Current location detracts from site's historic None None. Some very limited testing in 

Flagpole and character and interferes with the character of both proposed new location of sign and flagpole 

NPS sign the front lawn and front pine row. Simon (Simon 1982a). Excavation found "many 

(1982a:65) identifies this area as the location of the disturbed profiles in this area; and in fairly 

Everts House and Wagoner bam. undisturbed soil profiles, nothing of interest 

was found" . Simon concludes area is too 

disturbed by road construction to contain 

significant deposits. 

Relocate stone While possibly of an historic character these items None None, unless the stone road marker is moved 

road marker, are in inappropriate locations an conflict either with to a new location on park property and 

remains of a the historic character of the property or with reinstalled. If that takes places archeological 

horse-drawn restoration plans. The CLR state the stone marker investigations of the new location may be 

wagon and a was not located on the property during the Van necessary. 

piece of farm Buren tenure. 

equipment 
Landscape Basis for recommendation Archaeological Research Which Archaeological Compliance Issues 

Restoration Could Buttress Landscape Relating to Implementation of 

Task Restoration Recommendation 

Re-establish Historic documentation exists for an allee of Black Archaeological investigations None, if stumps are ground in the 20-foot 

locust allee Locusts from the Van Ness period. "The Black might uncover some evidence for strip of clearance along the outside of the 

Locusts along the drive were planted some time the original planting holes for the drive. Locations of specific replacement 

between the completion of the main house in 1797 39 missing trees. locusts should be investigated prior to 

and when they appear on the 1805 map" (footnote replacing individual specimens. 

42 Uschold 1995). The 1805 map is part of Peter 

Van Ness' will, fig. 1.3, p. 17 in Uschold 1995. 

Uschold describes the trees as "spaced 

approimately forty feet apart in an alternating 

sequence along both sides ofthe drive" (1995: 23). 

Restore Pine Historically, the vegetation along the border of the Archaeological investigations None, if stumps of non-historic trees to be 

Row and Pine front lawn and Post Road was comprised of a more might uncover some evidence for removed are ground. Locations of specific 

Grove symmetrical singular row of mostly Eastern White the original planting holes for the replaced pines and locust should be 

Pine with a grove of Eastern White Pine directly in missing trees. investigated prior to replacing individual 

front of the house (Uschold 1997). "The front lawn specimens. 

contained a large number of White Pines (Pinus 

strobus) during this period, including a circular 

grove along the road in front of the main house. 

This pine grove partially screened the view of the 

main house from Post Road" (Uschold 995: 43), 

citing Collier's A History of Kinderhook (p. 378), 

later photographs, and the existing specimens as 

evidence of these white pines. 

Re-establish The evidence for the front garden seems to be Some testing might help with None, if stumps of 115 and 118 are ground 

front garden confmed to the in-the-ground remains of this exactly locating the route of the prior to replanting (as described p. 57 of 

feature, a 1849 Upjohn rendering of the main path (currently overgrown). Uschold 1997). 

house, and a 1913 photo which show portions of 

the garden. However Uschold 1995 questions the 

reliability of these sources. 

Restore front Description of the front lawn space in 1841 "[the Testing may help identify the None, if stumps of removed non-historic 

lawn main house] stands at a little distance from the original locations of lost historic trees are ground prior to replanting (as 

road, in the midst of ground planted with trees and trees. described p. 57 ofUschold 1997). 

shrubbery ... " (1841 newspaper account). --- -------
Landscape Basis for recommendation Archaeological Research Which Archaeological Compliance Issues 

Restoration Could Buttress Landscape Relating to Implementation of 

Task Restoration Recommendation -

Reconstruct Archeological investigations in Date Recovery excavations are 

North Gate this location will add to the recommended. Of the two gatehouse sites, 

House documentation on the structure the north gate house is the least well 

and should be done prior to investigated. Given that Simon postulates 

construction. that the north gate house was occupied 

Questions to focus on: earlier than the southern, that the farm office 

the farm office addition may have been subsequently added to the 

who lived in the building and back of it (Simon 1982a and b; Capozzi 

when. 1991 ), and that the nature and character of 

the archaeological remains presently in place 

will be substantially changed by 

reconstruction data recovery (Phase III) is 

likely to be necessary. 

},'Zeplace Trees None, if stumps are ground prior to 

Surrounding the replanting (as described p. 57 ofUschold, 

South Gate 1997). In addition, the area was extensively 

House tested by Simon (1982a and 1982b). 

Re-establish None, if stumps are ground (as described p. 

views 57 ofUschold 1997). 

Re-establish 1841 sketch map of property identifying these areas This area is identified in Simon (1982a: 100) 

pastures as rye fields. a locus of pre-historic activity. Additional 

testing on the level of a Phase II survey may 

be appropriate in the case of the south 

pasture if tree removal does not include 

grinding of stumps. The removal of the 

administrative and maintance offices could 

pose a problem for the rear pasture. 
Landscape Basis for recommendation Archaeological Research Which Archaeological Compliance Issues 

Restoration Could Buttress Landscape Relating to Implementation of 

Task Restoration Recommendation 

Re-establish 1841 sketch map of property identifying these areas Archaeological investigations may This area is identified in Simon (1982a: 100) 

north orchard as rye fields, early 20th c. Photographs and oral help defme the locations of a locus of pre-historic activity. Additional 

histories. planting holes. In addition, remote testing on the level of a Phase VII survey 

sensing might assist in identifying may be appropriate. This area was 

the location of the remains of the extensively tested by (1982b) looking for 

barn foundation (NPS 1983)1

• the remains of the "carriagehouse" or 

"carriage bam." She did not find them, 

however Uschold 1995 cites substantial oral 

historical evidence of the barn being located 

north west of the main house. 

Replace Existing remnants of the fence provide evidence of Archeological investigation might None 

Dingman Fence its origina1location. help locate any missing fence 

posts. 

Screen Views of None 

Transformer 

Replace 

Mounting 

Platform 

Conservation 

easement--

Vegetable 

Garden 

Historic photograph, c. 1930. Archeological investigations of the None. No excavation will be required for 

proposed location for the the proposed placement of the mounting 

mounting platform, might provide platform (Uschold, personal communcation). 

useful information of how it was 

originally installed. 

Report calls for additional research prior to any Archaeological investigations Simon (1982b) identifies this as a locus for 

attempt to replace portions of the garden, the farm might be useful in identifying the prehistoric activity. A Phase VII survey 

office, or the fence. former location of the fence, and might be appropriate. 

othe garden features. Pollen and 

phytolith analysis might also be 

helpful. 

Previous "remote sensing" (NPS 1983) consisted of aerial photography. This project was more of a test case for the use of aerial photography 

at historic sites and was handicapped by a number of limiting factors, including that the interpreter of the photographs did not have a working 

knowledge of the history of the site. 
References 

Capozzi, Maria 

1991 Archeological Collections Management at Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, 

New York. ACMP Series No. 8. Division of Cultural Resources, North Atlantic Regional 

Office, National Park Service, Boston. 

Fiero, Kathleen W. 

1983 Historic Structure Report, Archeological Data Section, Lindenwald Martin Van Buren 

National Historic Site, Kinderhook, New York. Denver Service Center, Branch of 

Cultural Resources, Mid-Atlantic/North Atlantic Team, National Park Service, United 

States Department of the Interior, Denver. 

Gallagher, Joan 

1984 Archeological Survey Electrical Line Easement, Lindenwald, Martin Van Buren 

National Historical Site. Ms. on file, Division of Cultural Resources, North Atlantic 

Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston. 

National Park Service 

1983 Cultural Resources Remote Sensing and Its Limitations: A Test at Martin Van Buren 

National Historic Site. Ms. on file, Division of Cultural Resources, North Atlantic 

Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston. 

Simon, Brona G. 

1982a Historic Grounds Report, Volume II, Archeological Data Section, Lindenwald, Martin 

Van Buren National Historic Site. Ms. on file, Division of Cultural Resources, North 

Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston. 

1982b Archeological Survey of the Proposed Utility Line, Servicing the Mansion and South 

Gate House, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site. Ms. on file, Division of Cultural 

Resources, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston. 

Uschold, David 

1995 Cultural Landscape Report for Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, Site History, 

Existing Conditions and Analysis. Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, National 

Park Service, Boston. 

1997 Cultural Landscape Report for Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, Volume 2 

Treatment Plan. Draft ms. on file, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, National 

Park Service, Boston.