“The Whigs would hardly believe 

that a much larger

portion of my time is taken up 

with devising ways &

means to multiply the quantity & 

improve the quality

of manure than in forming 

political plans or any such

matter.”

— Martin Van Buren, 1843

Agricultural Management

Guidelines

Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

Prepared by

Alexandra von Bieberstein, Historical Landscape Architect

Margie Coffin Brown, Historical Landscape Architect

Jennifer Hanna, Historical Landscape Architect

The Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation

National Park Service, Boston, Massachusetts, 2018
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

The Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation promotes the stewardship of 

significant landscapes through research, planning, and sustainable preservation 

maintenance. The Center accomplishes its mission in collaboration with a network 

of partners including national parks, universities, government agencies, and private 

nonprofit organizations. Techniques and principles of preservation practice are made 

available through training and publications. 

Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation

National Park Service

15 State Street, 6th Floor

Boston, MA 02109

www.nps.gov/oclp/

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Bieberstein, Alexandra von, author. | United States. National Park Service. | 

Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation (U.S.)

Title: Agricultural management guidelines, Martin van Buren National Historic 

 Site / prepared by Alexandra von Bieberstein, Historical Landscape

 Architect, Margie Coffin Brown, Historical Landscape Architect, Jennifer 

 Hanna, Historical Landscape Architect.

Description: Boston, Massachusetts : The Olmsted Center for Landscape 

 Preservation, National Park Service, 2018. | Includes bibliographical 

 references.

Identifiers: LCCN 2018037776

Subjects: LCSH: Van Buren, Martin, 1782-1862--Homes and haunts. |

 Agriculture--Environmental aspects--New York (State)--Martin Van 

 Buren National Historic Site. | Farm management--New York (State)--Martin Van 

Buren National Historic Site. | Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

(N.Y.)

Classification: LCC S589.757.N7 B54 2018 | DDC 630.6809747/39--dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018037776

Publication Credits: Graphics from sources other than federal repositories may not 

be reproduced without the permission of the owners noted in the captions. Other 

information in this publication may be copied and used with the condition that full 

credit be given to the authors and publisher. Appropriate citations and bibliographic 

credits should be made for each use.

Cover Image Source: Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation

Title Page Image Source: Roxbury Farm
Table of Contents

i

Table of Contents

FOREWORD v

PROLOGUE vii

INTRODUCTION 1

Setting 2

Methodology 3

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 5

HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OVERVIEW 11 

EXISTING CONDITIONS 13

Geology and Soils 13

Water Courses and Ponds 14

Habitats, Flora, and Fauna 14

AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK 17

Legislation, Policy, and Planning 18

Management Zones Overview 20

Collaborative Organizations 21

Agricultural Management Philosophy 25

Communication and Collaboration Strategy 26

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 27

Six Primary Goals of Management 28

Soil Management 29

 Soil Health and Fertility 30

 Soil Structure and Tillage 32

 Crop Rotation and Selection 33

 Erosion and Conserving Agricultural Soils 35

Water Management 37

 Water Conservation 37

 Irrigation 38

Infrastructure 40

 Agricultural Buildings, Structures, and Service Areas 41

 Farm Fencing and Gates 43

 Farm Roads 43

Storage and Handling of Fertilizer, Chemicals and Fuels 44

 Chemicals and Fertilizer Handling 44
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

ii

 Petroleum and Fuel Handling 45

 Pest Management 46

 Insect Pest Management 47

 Weed Management 49

 Disease Pest Management 50

 Vertebrate Pests 51

Control of Farm Access 53

 Food Safety 53

 Human Safety 54

Operations 55

 Harvesting 55

 Livestock 56

Resource Management 57

 Cultural Resource Management 57

 Natural Resource Management 58

AGRICULTURAL FEATURE GUIDELINES 59

Circulation Systems 59

 Lower Farm Road 60

 Upper Farm Road 61

Constructed Water Systems 62

 Upper Pond 63

 Lower Pond 64

 Lower Farm Complex Ponds 64

 Kinderhook Creek Bank Treatment 65

 Extant Ditches 66

 Little Pond 68

Buildings and Structures 69

 Farm Cottage 69

 Shed on Lower Farm Road 69

 Meyer Farm Complex 70

Vegetation 71

 Agricultural Fields 71

 Vegetated Escarpment 73

 Field Boundary/Hedgerow Vegetation 73

 Spruce and Fir Plantings near Meyer Farm Complex 74

 Poplars along Escarpment 75

Views 76

 View to Farmland from Mansion 76

 View to Surrounding Farmland 76

Small Scale Features 78

 Van Ness Monument 78

 Utility Poles and Lines 79

 National Park Service Waysides and Directional Signage 80
Table of Contents

iii

Archaeological Features 80

 Ditch Traces 81

 Foundation of Red Hillside Barn 82

 Vicinity of Black Hay Barn Foundation 83

 Vicinity of Old Stone House 84

 Dingman Fence 85

 Original Post Road along edge of Lower Terrace 86

 Northern Farm Road 86

 Southern Farm Road 86

 Fencing 87

 Orchard Sites 87

ENDNOTES 91

REFERENCES 97

APPENDICES 99

Glossary of Terms 101

Relevant Case Studies 105

Conservation Easement 109
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

iv
List of Illustrations

v

List of Illustrations

INTRODUCTION

0.1 Fields, Roxbury Farm, 2014 3

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 

1.1 Voorman Map of Kinderhook, New York, 1805 5

1.2 Upjohn Rendering of Van Buren Mansion, circa 1849 6

1.3 Entrance to mansion, Wagoner ownership, circa 1913 7

1.4 Aerial photograph of upper terrace farm fields, 1978 8

1.5 Aerial photograph of farmland, 1948 9 

EXISTING CONDITIONS

3.1 Vegetation at Lower Pond, 2014 14

3.2 Goats feeding at Roxbury Farm, 2014 15

AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

4.1 Management Zones, 2015 20

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

5.1 Sustainable Agriculture Matrix, 1999 27

5.2 Adaptive Management Flow Chart, 2015 29

5.3 Soil Management, adding compost, 2014 30

5.4 Soil Management,soil sampling and analysis, 2014 31 

5.5 Soil Management, tilling the fields, 2014 32 

5.6 Soil Management, crop rotation, 2014 34

5.7 Soil Management, mitigating erosion, 2014 35

5.8 Water Management, crop diversity, 2014 38 

5.9 Water Management, irrigation techniques, 2014 39

5.10 Infrastructure, Meyer Farm Complex, 2014 41

5.11 Infrastructure, Livestock Fencing, 2014 42

5.12 Infrastructure, Lower Farm Road, 2014 42 

5.13 Infrastructure, Storage of Chemicals, Meyer Farm Complex, 2014 47

5.14 Pest Management, pest infestation on crops, 2014 48

5.15 Pest Management, weeding in Fields, 2014 49

5.16 Pest Management, barriers in farm fields, Roxbury Farm, 2014 51
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

vi

5.17 Control of Farm Access, Meyer Farm Complex, 2014 53 

5.18 Control of Farm Access, National Park Service Signage, 2014 54

5.19 Operations, Harvest Lanes, Roxbury Farm, 2014 56

AGRICULTURAL FEATURE GUIDELINES 

6.1 Historic Lower Farm Road, view southeast, 2018 60

6.2 Historic Lower Farm Road, through Roxbury Farm fields, 2014 61 

6.3 Upper Farm Road, view northwest, 2014 62

6.4 Historic Upper Pond, 2018 63

6.5 Historic Lower Pond, 2018 64

6.6 Lower Farm Complex Pond, 2014 65

6.7 Kinderhook Creek, 2014 66

6.8 Agricultural Ditch, 2018 67

6.9 Little Pond, 2018 68

6.10 Historic Farm Cottage, 2014 69

6.11 Shed, on Lower Farm Road 2018 70

6.12 Meyer Farm Complex agricultural buildings, 2014 71

6.13 Meyer Farm Complex greenhouse, 2018 72

6.14 Roxbury Farm fields, crop variety, 2014 72

6.15 Historic Vegetated Escarpment, 2018 73

6.16 Field boundary vegetation, Roxbury Farm, 2014 74

6.17 Spruce and fir plantings, 2018 75

6.18 Poplars along the escarpment, 2014 76

6.19 Figure illustrating views from the Upper Terrace, 2016 77

6.20 View of farm fields from the Upper Terrace, 2014 78

6.21 Van Ness Monument within farm fields, view north, 2014 79

6.22 Utility poles and lines in farm field, Roxbury Farm, 2014 79

6.23 Interpretive wayside exhibits near farm fields, 2014 81

6.24 Figure illustrating historic ditch traces, 2016 82

6.25 Red Hillside Barn Foundation Site, 2018 83

6.26 Black Hay Barn Foundation, 2017 84

6.27 Old Stone House Site, 2018 85

6.28 Site of Historic Dingman Fence, 2014 86

DRAWINGS

1 Agricultural Features 89
Foreword

vii

Foreword

In 1839 President Martin Van Buren, in the midst of a tumultuous presidential 

term, purchased an agricultural estate near the town of his youth, Kinderhook, 

New York. He named the 220-acre landscape of rolling fields and woodland, 

“Lindenwald”, envisioning it as a place where he could pursue his interest in 

progressive agriculture. But “Lindenwald” was more than a gentleman’s farm. 

At a time when the country was debating slavery, Van Buren used the estate 

to demonstrate that progressive agriculture techniques, such as soil fertility 

preservation and crop rotation, could support financial sustainability with free 

labor. He believed that progressive farming could make a positive impact on 

society and was critical to the future of American democracy. The distinctive 

character of the “Lindenwald” landscape, its rolling hills, narrow farm roads and 

swaths of dense woodland, is grounded in its historic association with the farming 

practices of President Van Buren. 

This report facilitates active and productive farming of the landscape of 

“Lindenwald” as a crucial element in preserving the inherent character of 

Martin Van Buren’s “Lindenwald.” The Agricultural Management Guidelines 

for the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site outlines a strategy that protects 

resources, supports meaningful visitor experiences, and helps to perpetuate 

successful farm operations. 

These guidelines are the product of a fruitful collaboration by staff of the Martin 

Van Buren National Historic Site and the Northeast Region’s Olmsted Center 

for Landscape Preservation, as well as Roxbury Farm Inc. They are offered as a 

helpful tool, assisting current and future managers to navigate future issues and 

decisions so that environmentally responsible, active agricultural operations may 

continue as a defining feature of this cultural landscape.

Megan O’Malley

Superintendent

Martin Van Buren National Historic Site
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

viii
Prologue

Prologue

Between 2009 and 2012, I had the privilege of working on an Ethnographic 

Landscape Study for Martin Van Buren National Historic Site. This was part 

of a well-constructed sequence of studies supporting the park’s ongoing shift 

from interpreting Van Buren’s Lindenwald estate as essentially a historic house 

to recognizing it as a dynamic participant in the past and present farming 

economy of the Hudson Valley. My study was built in large part on a 2004 

Cultural Landscape Report produced by the Olmsted Center that documented 

the agricultural uses of Lindenwald’s fields over many centuries. These and 

other projects in turn supported the development of the 2016 Treatment Plan 

whose supplemental guidelines for agricultural management are contained in this 

volume. 

Both painstaking and remarkably quick, the process of reenvisioning Lindenwald 

has presented an extraordinary opportunity to integrate landscape preservation, 

historic interpretation, and contemporary use of land as a resource for food 

production. This effort is exciting in itself for the way that it addresses longstanding concerns in historic preservation about relevance and the relationship 

of past and present. But it takes on added urgency in a moment when many park 

publics and stakeholders are “connecting the dots” among a host of issues that 

food and farming are linked to: the rapidly changing climate, our continued 

dependence on fossil fuels, widening economic disparity, increasingly polarized 

ideas about the role of government in American life, and much more. Food and 

farming are not necessarily central to all of these questions, but they do provide an 

exceptionally accessible entry-point for considering the tangle of problems that 

we face in the present while helping to ground present-day debates in the longer 

trajectories and broader contexts that historic places and narratives can give us.

That labor of grounding is not a simple one. It requires confronting some of the 

big contradictions in our food system and our economy—for example, how the 

combination of agricultural overproduction and low food prices make it nearly 

impossible for most farmers to recover their costs of operation, or how a system 

that produces such abundance also contributes to disparities and deficiencies that 

leave many Americans hungry on a daily basis. For great majority of us who are 

not farmers, tackling these questions means entering into issues that were once 

familiar to most people but are now like a foreign language.

I admit that when I began to wrestle with this task myself, I did not expect the 

little-known eighth President of the United States to be such a useful guide. 

But Martin Van Buren’s story turns out to be an exceptional starting-point for 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

x

unpacking these paradoxes and complexities. Far from being a bucolic retreat 

from partisan politics, Van Buren’s farming was a direct extension of his career, 

which was rooted in both a Jacksonian attempt to democratize political life and a 

Jeffersonian belief in land ownership and farming as cornerstones of the republic. 

Van Buren’s own single-term Presidency foundered largely on the economic 

panic caused by one of the first major crashes of the still-young market economy, 

a harbinger of the volatility that has created intractable dilemmas for farmers. 

In addition to serving as the base for Van Buren’s two subsequent Presidential 

campaigns—the final one on the Free Soil Party ticket in 1848—Lindenwald was 

a test site for ideas about soil improvement and farm productivity that Van Buren 

was eagerly absorbing from the agricultural press of his day. Those ideas were 

linked in turn with concerns about the viability of farming in the industrializing 

northeast, where rural areas were losing population to growing cities and an 

expanding, contested western frontier. The soil of this old Dutch farm, whose 

fields had likely been cultivated by indigenous farmers long before Europeans 

arrived, was literally remade—in ways that we now think of as “sustainable” or 

“regenerative”—by a gentleman farmer who was urgently trying to articulate a 

vision for his country’s future.

The potential for illuminating this piece of the American past is enormously 

enhanced by the present-day contexts in which the park sits. Enthusiasm for 

locally- and sustainably-grown food continues to increase, and the Hudson 

Valley, with its rich farmland and proximity to the huge urban consumer base 

in New York City, is an important node in what is sometimes termed “the food 

movement.” As in Van Buren’s day, contemporary concerns about food and 

farming intersect with hotly contested ideas about health, labor, land ownership, 

economic disparity and volatility, and the proper relationship of private enterprise 

and public oversight of agriculture and the resources we depend on for food and 

water. These questions are not simply similar to those of the mid-nineteenth 

century: in many cases they are exactly the same debates, which have never been 

fully resolved. 

Martin Van Buren’s Lindenwald gives us a site where we can begin to grasp 

what has been at stake in those debates over almost the entire trajectory of 

the nation’s history, and where we can see—and see ourselves as participants 

in—contemporary attempts to address the challenges of farming in a marketoriented economy. The land under our feet at Lindenwald is literally a record 

and an artifact of those efforts over time, right up to and including the present 

day. The project of preserving, interpreting, and cultivating these fields presents 

a remarkable opportunity to bring visitors, neighbors, partners, and stakeholders 

into experiences that are at once civic, educational, and deeply personal, 

embedded and embodied in a richly resonant place. 

The agricultural guidelines that follow are an innovative effort to stabilize 
Prologue

this ambitious vision in management policy. The vision itself is for a seamless 

integration of land management, stewardship, and interpretation, but of course 

there are inevitably gaps in the seams where the differing demands of historic 

preservation, working agriculture, and civically-engaged interpretation make 

themselves felt. In recent years, the National Park Service has experimented with 

ways of closing those gaps at some of the many other parks and heritage areas that 

include agricultural land, and this new document builds on those initiatives in 

many ways. But it also goes beyond them in its exceptionally detailed, thoughtful 

approach to spelling out precisely what this kind of integration might mean on the 

ground—and in the ground. 

Those at the park and the Olmsted Center who have been involved in creating 

the guidelines recognize this as an ongoing process rather than a final word—and 

indeed that is one of the most exciting aspects of what may appear at first to be 

a rather workaday manual for helping park managers understand the needs of 

an agricultural partner. By embracing an open-ended, dynamic, collaborative 

model for land management, these guidelines help to frame the stories of Martin 

Van Buren and Lindenwald as part of the much longer, ongoing history of food, 

farming, and all that they connect to—an unfinished story which concerns and 

involves us all.

Cathy Stanton, PhD

Senior Lecturer, Tufts University
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site
Introduction

1

Introduction

Perpetuating agriculture as an active and productive use of the landscape is key to 

preserving the inherent character of Martin Van Buren’s “Lindenwald.” Martin 

Van Buren’s political beliefs emphasized the importance of agriculture to the 

future of American democracy. Therefore, supporting sustainable active farming 

on the Lindenwald landscape is vital to the preservation and interpretation of the 

Martin Van Buren National Historic Site. 

The Agricultural Management Guidelines for the Martin Van Buren National 

Historic Site outlines a strategy to protect resources, to support meaningful 

visitor experiences, and to help ensure successful farm operations. Within 

the approximately 285 acres of the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site 

legislative boundary, only 44.77 acres are held in fee simple by the National Park 

Service. Roxbury Farm, a biodynamic farm operated as a community supported 

agricultural facility, currently leases 23.46 acres of this National Park Service 

owned land for agricultural purposes. Roxbury Farm also owns approximately 

171 acres within the park boundary. Of the land owned by Roxbury Farm, 101.89 

acres of farmland are protected by a conservation easement currently held by 

the Open Space Institute, which intends to donate the easement to the National 

Park Service at a future date. The remaining parcels within the park legislative 

boundary, totaling about 70 acres, are privately held, except for a one-fourth acre 

parcel held by the Town of Kinderhook. 

Within this milieu of land ownership and interests, the guidelines serve as a tool 

to help park managers perpetuate the historic integrity of Martin Van Buren 

National Historic Site through support of agricultural pursuits by collaborative 

organizations, including Roxbury Farm. Recognizing that the goals of historic 

preservation do not always reconcile easily with the agricultural processes 

impacted by climate, pests, and market demand, this document integrates best 

agricultural management practices with national standards for the management 

of cultural properties. This document has been developed through collaboration 

by agricultural, nonprofit, and cultural resource professionals, who understand 

that the requirements and expectations of park visitors must be considered when 

defining the responsibilities of land owners and those engaged in agriculture on 

public land. Specifically, the guidelines are intended to: 

• Serve as a platform for communication and collaboration for present and

future land stewards.

• Present an approach for integrating best management practices for sustainable
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

2

agriculture with the preservation of the historic setting of a nationally 

significant presidential home and farm property.

• Articulate a shared vision, recognizing the challenges of balancing resource 

preservation and active agriculture.

• Define historic farmland features and describe associated best practices for 

sustainable agriculture.

• Identify opportunities to expand visitor experience and understanding 

through partnerships and programs.

Perpetuating agriculture at “Lindenwald” is central to resource management and 

visitor experience goals at as articulated in the General Management Plan (2015) 

and the Cultural Landscape Report: Volume II Updated Treatment Plan and Record 

of Treatment for the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site (2016). Actively 

farmed acreage within the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site includes 

lands owned in fee simple by the National Park Service, lands under agricultural 

easement, and lands owned by others unencumbered by conservation easement. 

While the guidelines included in this document could be applied to any actively 

farmed land within the park boundary, the primary focus is on National Park 

Service lands and interests in lands under short-term special use permits, longterm agricultural leases, or conservation easements (DO-53, 10.4: Agricultural 

Use). 

SETTING

Lindenwald was the home of Martin Van Buren (1782-1862), the nation’s eighth 

president. Upon acquiring the property in 1839, President Van Buren managed it 

as a working, experimental farm. Continuing active farming within the park is key 

to effectively meeting park resource management goals and preserving the historic 

landscape character and historic setting surviving from the time of President Van 

Buren’s occupancy (1841 - 1862). Martin Van Buren National Historic Site is 

located twenty miles south of Albany and two miles east of the Hudson River in 

Kinderhook, New York. Located in the rolling farmland of Columbia County, the 

park lies between the Berkshire Mountains to the east and the Catskill Mountains 

to the west (Figure 0.1).

This document focuses on the agricultural lands under National Park Service 

fee-simple ownership, and land owned by Roxbury Farm Inc. subject to an 

conservation easement. All lands within this spectrum of legal interests fall within 

the authorized boundary of the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site. The 

National Park Service preserves President Van Buren’s two-and-a-half-story brick 

mansion and surrounding acreage including a semicircular tree-lined entry drive. 

Roxbury Farm utilizes the surrounding fields, most of which are actively farmed. 
Introduction

3

METHODOLOGY

This document builds upon the 2015 General Management Plan for the Martin 

Van Buren National Historic Site, as well as the Cultural Landscape Report for 

Martin Van Buren National Historic Site , Volume II: Updated Treatment Plan 

and Record of Treatment published in 2016. The management guidelines are a 

product of multiple conversations with park staff and collaborators. Workshops 

attended by staff from the National Park Service’s Northeast Regional Office’s 

Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, the Martin Van Buren National 

Historic Site, and the owners of Roxbury Farm Inc. have been instrumental in 

defining sustainable agriculture and best practices. A major component of initial 

research involved the identification and analysis of relevant case studies, to 

better understand best management practices and to build off those employed 

by Roxbury Farm. In addition, information was gathered from various reference 

materials, as well as the reports and manuals of other National Park Service 

sites, educational institutions, and federal and state agencies involved with active 

agricultural management. To address the successful integration of park operations 

with agricultural operations, this document identifies the significance of the 

agricultural portion of the property, appropriate interface with park visitors, 

and recommends specific landscape management practices related to cultural 

resources, natural resources, visitor experience, interpretation, and recreation. 

The report is organized into six sections. The first two sections provide an 

overview of the agricultural history and significance of Martin Van Buren’s 

historic farm within the context of the Hudson Valley region. The Existing 

Figure 0.1. Active farming of the 

agricultural landscape contributes to 

the preservation and interpretation of 

the landscape’s historic significance 

(MAVA, 2014).
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

4

Conditions section describes the ecological systems present on site. The 

Agricultural Management Framework section describes the legal and regulatory 

basis of the guidelines, and outlines the agricultural management philosophy 

of the National Park Service and its multiple collaborators to align the cultural 

and natural resource management goals of a national park with the requirements 

of actively farmed land. The Best Management Practices section describes 

sustainable farming techniques and methodologies within the context of a 

National Park Service historic site. The final section of this document identifies 

agricultural features, both historic and non-historic, and cross-references the 

management of those features to related best agricultural management practices. 

This document was developed specifically for the collaborative management of 

the historic Lindenwald farmland, therefore specific guidance found here may 

not be applicable elsewhere. However, the collaborative and multidisciplinary 

approach used to develop the guidance may serve as a useful example to those 

involved in perpetuating sustainable agriculture. 
Historical Overvview

5

Historical Overview

Prior to European settlement the Mahicans, part of the Eastern Algonquian, 

occupied the Hudson River Valley. In the 1600s, Dutch and English settlers 

transformed the Kinderhook landscape into a patchwork of working farms. The 

land that would later become Lindenwald was part of the Powell Patent of 1664, a 

portion of which was acquired by the Van Alstynes in the 1600s. The Van Alstynes 

constructed a stone house on the terrace above Kinderhook Creek. Peter Van 

Ness purchased 260 acres from the Van Alstynes in 1780 and seventeen years later 

constructed a Federal-style brick house on the upper terrace by the Old Post Road 

(Figure 1.1). The property passed to the two sons of Van Ness, who in turn sold 

137 acres to President Martin Van Buren in 1839, a Kinderhook native who was 

then serving as the nation’s eighth president.

Van Buren named his estate “Lindenwald” and envisioned it as a place to pursue 

his interest in agriculture, as well as a place to receive dignitaries, politicians, 

and other guests. After a tumultuous term as President, including the Financial 

Panic of 1837 and an extended economic depression, Van Buren lost his bid 

for reelection in 1840, forcing an early return to Lindenwald in 1841. As a 

figure of national importance, Van Buren sought recognition for his progressive 

management of Lindenwald as a model country estate and farm, emulating 

Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello and Andrew Jackson’s Hermitage. Van Buren 

chose Lindenwald for its highly visible location on the Old Post Road and for its 

Figure 1.1. The 1805 drawing on the 

1762 Voorman Map of Kinderhook 

depicts the location of several buildings 

on what was to become the Van Buren 

property, including the mansion, 

outbuildings, and the Old Stone House 

in the lower terrace (MAVA).
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

6

distinction as the former home of Peter Van Ness, a member of an established 

New York family.

While serving as president in Washington, D.C., Van Buren began improving 

the deteriorated property immediately after acquiring it by issuing directives to 

his foreman in Kinderhook. Stables, wood houses, fish ponds, and a hothouse 

were added in the early years, and improvements to the estate continued after 

his return to Kinderhook. He increased the size of the farm to approximately 220 

acres by 1845 with the purchase of adjacent parcels, and built two large barns and 

a dwelling for his farm foreman. Intending the farm to be self-sufficient, Van Buren 

planted field crops, predominantly potatoes, hay, rye, corn, and oats, and tree 

fruits including pear and apple, to sell at market.

In creating a prosperous working farm, Van Buren’s property did not assume the 

highly designed and manicured appearance inspired by the popularity of Andrew 

Jackson Downing and Alexander Jackson Davis’s adaptations of English pastoral 

landscape structures and garden designs. However, Van Buren did hope to portray 

the refined appearance of a country gentleman, fitting his station in life (Figure 

1.2).1

Van Buren launched two unsuccessful campaigns to regain the presidency in 1844 

and 1848. Throughout this time and the 1850s, Van Buren relished being “a farmer 

in my native town,” and kept busy managing the farm, writing his memoirs, and 

entertaining at Lindenwald until his death in 1862. He willed the property to his 

three surviving sons, although none chose to live at Lindenwald. His second eldest 

son, John, purchased the estate shares owned by his brothers in 1863 but did 

not occupy or improve the estate. After less than a year, John sold the financially 

burdensome property to Leonard Jerome.2

Figure 1.2. Circa 1849 Richard Upjohn 

rendering of the mansion, showing 

the 1850 improvements that altered 

the Georgian-Federal style home to 

an Italianate villa during Van Buren 

ownership, (Columbia Avery Library/ 

MAVA).
Historical Overvview

7

Over the next ten years, the property changed hands numerous times and 

suffered from absentee owners. This ended with the Wagoner brothers’ purchase 

of the 220-acre estate in 1874 and their subsequent forty-three year ownership. 

Known locally as industrious and successful farmers, the Wagoners maintained 

the property well and managed the area immediately surrounding the home as 

mowed turf with a scattering of informally placed trees. They farmed the property 

intensively, as evidenced by their use of a portion of the front lawn as a corn field. 

Along with several new buildings erected by the Wagoners, many of Van Buren’s 

farm buildings west of the main house remained in use during this period.

In 1917, the Wagoners sold the property in two parcels. They first sold 185 acres 

to Dr. Bascom Birney, retaining 36 acres on the southern end of the property. 

The Birney family, of Yonkers, New York, purchased the farm as an investment 

but later occupied the property full-time. Several members of the Birney family 

held title to the property, but the longest term owner was Clementine Birney 

deProsse, who lived on the site with her family from 1930 to 1957. The Birneys 

and deProsses farmed the land throughout the 1920s and 1930s during a difficult 

economic period. Many of the aging agricultural buildings fell into disrepair 

at this time but the main house remained well-tended thanks to Clementine’s 

appreciation of the property’s historical significance (Figure 1.3).

Early in the tenure of the deProsse family, Clementine encouraged the federal 

and state government to acquire the property as a memorial to Van Buren, 

unsuccessfully proposing that the state use it as a summer residence for the 

Governor of New York. 

During the 1930s and 1940s enormous change occurred in the landscape. In 1930, 

the alignment of the Old Post Road was altered by the construction of Route 9H. 

Figure 1.3. In this photograph dating 

from the Wagoner ownership, circa 

1913, the entrance of the mansion is 

visible (MAVA).
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

8

The new road bed was located just east of Old Post Road, leaving a new triangular 

piece of land buffering the northeastern portion of the property. During the 

later years of the deProsse tenure, less care was given to the vegetation around 

the mansion, and shrubs, grass, and trees became overgrown. Deterioration of 

farm buildings, limited maintenance of orchards, and loss of old trees somewhat 

changed the property’s character. The deProsse family sold the farmland in 1946 

to local farmer Dudley Ray Meyer, Jr., retaining thirteen acres and the mansion, 

where they resided until 1957.

Using farm tractors and earth-moving machines, Meyer made substantial 

changes to the farm to modernize the fields, orchards, fences, and buildings 

that had deteriorated over the previous twenty years. He removed hedge rows, 

cut down orchards, burned unstable buildings, enlarged drainage ditches, 

altered topography, and built new farm roads and barns. Meyer transformed 

his farmland, which until this time retained many character defining features 

from the nineteenth century. In 1957, Ken Campbell purchased the mansion 

and the surrounding thirteen acres from the deProsse family. There he operated 

an antique business out of the historic south gatehouse and new shop building 

located near the gatehouse.

In 1973, the National Park Foundation purchased the approximate thirteen-acre 

Martin Van Buren mansion property from Campbell (Figure 1.4). The remainder 

of the Van Buren’s historic estate was then owned by two separate local farmers, 

and some acreage had been developed as a residential subdivision. A year later, 

the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site was established and the National 

Park Service obtained the property from the National Park Foundation. The 

Figure 1.4. Aerial photograph of the 

mansion and upper terrace farmland, 

1978 (MAVA).
Historical Overvview

9

National Park Service emphasized the importance of the agricultural legacy for 

the Martin Van Buren property in its early plans to protect and interpret the 

property. Prior to National Park Service acquisition, Director George Hartzog 

noted the importance of preserving the agricultural land and the site’s scenic 

viewsheds, and preventing inappropriate development along Route 9H. Following 

establishment, the park completed landscape projects including the restoration 

of the formal entry drive and locust allée, replacement of aged white pines along 

the Old Post Road trace, and installation of screening plants around the visitor 

parking lot and park office temporary structure. During the 1990s, the National 

Park Service prepared two cultural landscape reports on the mansion property, 

and one in 2004 that focused on historic agricultural acreage. 3

Following a boundary adjustment study in 2003 and the Omnibus Public Land 

Management Act of 2009, the park authorized boundary expanded from 40 to 

approximately 285 acres to allow for the acquisition of lands that would facilitate 

protection of the surrounding property that was once part of the historic farm, 

and to protect the park’s western viewshed (Figure 1.5). Within the enlarged 

authorized boundary, approximately 44 acres remain owned in fee simple by 

National Park Service; 18.24 acres are held in conservation easements; 171.21 

acres are owned by Roxbury Farm Inc, with 101.89 acres protected under a 

conservation easement held by the Open Space Institute which is to be donated to 

Figure 1.5. Aerial photograph of 

the farmlands and meadowlands 

encompassing the historic site, 1948 

(MAVA).
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

10

the National Park Service at a future date. In addition, approximately 70 acres are 

privately held of which 7.64 acres are under conservation easement. A one-fourth 

acre parcel is owned by the Town of Kinderhook.

Within the expanded park administrative boundary, the former Van Buren 

property supports the missions of several organizations, notably the National Park 

Service, Open Space Institute, and Roxbury Farm. 
Historic Significance Overview

11

Historical Significance Overview

The Lindenwald Mansion and thirteen surrounding acres became a 

National Historic Landmark in 1961 and was administratively listed without 

documentation in the National Register of Historic Places in 1966 with the 

passage of the National Historic Preservation Act. Documentation for the historic 

site was accepted by the Keeper of the National Register on February 8, 1980.

As described previously, Congress approved the expansion of the park’s 

authorized boundary in 2009 to include an additional 261 acres of land 

encompassing all of President Van Buren’s historic farmland northwest of 

New York State Highway Route 9H and Albany Avenue (County Road 25) and 

additional lands intended to provide protection for its setting. On July 11, 2012, 

the Keeper accepted an amendment to the National Register documentation 

evaluating all resources within the expanded boundary. The amendment 

identified historic significance for a portion of the property, a 176.95-acre historic 

district under National Register Criteria A, B, C, and D in the areas of politics/

government, architecture, and archeology.

The historic district derives its primary significance under Criterion A and B at the 

national level in the area of politics/government for its association with President 

Martin Van Buren (1782–1862) and his political career during the years between 

1841 and 1848. During that period, Van Buren, who moved to Lindenwald after 

his single term as President of the United States (1837–1841), launched two 

unsuccessful but historically important campaigns to regain the presidency in 

1844 and 1848. 

The district is also significant under Criterion B as the only surviving property 

associated with the life of Martin Van Buren. Lindenwald, the only home that Van 

Buren ever owned, represents the culmination of a remarkable political career 

that saw him rise from meager beginnings as a Kinderhook tavern-keeper’s son 

to become the eighth President of the United States. His subsequent development 

of Lindenwald into a country estate and working farm reflected his Jeffersonian 

beliefs in the value and virtue of agriculture to a democratic society.

Lindenwald is locally significant under Criterion C in the area of architecture as 

an important example of a Federal-style mansion that was redesigned by architect 

Richard Upjohn in the Italianate-style of the mid-nineteenth century. The district 

is significant under Criterion D in the area of archeology and the subcategories 

“Prehistoric” and “Historic-Non Aboriginal” as a property that has yielded, or 

may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Surveys 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

12

and excavations conducted on the property to date have identified four sites that 

address substantive research questions regarding Native American usage of the 

land, Van Buren’s occupancy of Lindenwald, and development of the property by 

previous and subsequent owners.

The physical integrity of the landscape is evaluated by comparing landscape 

characteristics and features present during the two historic periods of significance 

(1797, 1839–1862) with current conditions. Many of the landscape’s historic 

characteristics and features remain intact. The spatial organization of the formal 

mansion grounds, with the imposing home, semi-circular lawn, and gracefully 

curved entry drive, is still distinct from the open farmland west of the mansion. 

Vegetation patterns remain similar through the restored black locust allée, mowed 

turf lawn, and cultivated acreage of the farm fields. The Italianate-style mansion 

has been restored and remains the focus of the historic core, as it was during Van 

Buren’s time, and the extant south gatehouse contributes to the presentation 

of historic conditions. The Van Ness monument is still visible in the field to the 

west of the mansion, and one of the fish ponds remains. Importantly, the historic 

setting is largely intact due to the retention of views of the Catskill Mountains 

and the preservation of actively farmed land in the park’s viewshed. However, 

much has changed since 1862. Notably, many of the historic structures known 

to Van Buren are no longer extant, including all of the barns, the farm office, and 

the north gatehouse. This alters the spatial arrangement of the area behind the 

mansion that was once the center of the working farm. Other key features such 

as the orchards and formal garden are gone, further altering the character around 

the mansion. Additionally, the dense north wooded area, once Van Buren’s north 

orchard, encroaches on the formerly open yet organized landscape.

A more detailed summary of the property’s significance and integrity with respect 

to the National Register is contained in the 2012 National Register documentation 

for the property by the Public Archeology Lab.1
Existing Conditions

13

Existing Conditions

Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, including farmland owned in fee simple 

by the National Park Service and land owned by Roxbury Farm, comprises the 

majority of the former historic extents of the Lindenwald property. The remaining 

approximately seventy acres are privately held of which about eight acres are 

under conservation easement. A one-fourth acre parcel is owned by the Town of 

Kinderhook.

The historic site is located twenty miles south of Albany and two miles east of the 

Hudson River in Kinderhook, Columbia County, New York. Less than thirty 

miles east of the Catskill Mountains and adjacent to Kinderhook Creek, the 

historic Lindenwald property features fertile soils, striking scenery, and a variety 

of habitats along a riparian corridor. 

The landscape continues to be defined by its historically rural Hudson Valley 

setting, upper and lower river terrace topography, and the distant Catskill 

Mountains visible in the park’s western viewshed. The surrounding woodland 

and farmland within the park’s nearly 300-acre authorized boundary remains 

undeveloped and actively farmed.

The park continues to preserve much of the original Van Buren estate within its 

boundary. Resources include the Lindenwald mansion, South Gatehouse, North 

Gatehouse foundation, Farm Cottage, and the Farm Office site. A semi-circular 

driveway lined with locust trees leads to the 2.5-story brick Lindenwald mansion 

built in 1797 and enlarged by Van Buren in 1849 – 1850. A remnant segment of 

the Old Post Road is located near the east edge of the property. A portion of the 

circular front garden has been restored near the front entrance to Lindenwald. 

Specimen trees continue to dot a well-manicured law as they did during the 

historic period. Remnants of Van Buren’s fish ponds remain. The approximate site 

of the carriage barn, located northwest of the mansion is marked with scattered 

foundation stones. In addition to cultural features, Lindenwald also possesses 

natural systems and features which influence the management of the agricultural 

lands. The following paragraphs describe these systems and features. 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

The geomorphology of the site is illustrative of the last Ice Age, when the area 

was flooded by the glacial Lake Albany. The lake drained about 13,500 years 

ago, leaving behind terraces and lake shore delta deposits of sandy loam in the 

Kinderhook area. The Lindenwald property consists of two steps, a lower terrace 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

14

along the creek and an upper terrace surrounding the mansion and extending 

to the Old Post Road. The lowest elevations of the lower terrace consist of muck 

filled swamp areas and seasonally wet meadows. The Kinderhook soils are deep 

and fertile due to the alluvial floodplains, which are replenished by periodic spring 

flooding. Germantown shale, conglomerate, and limestone lay to the north, east 

and west of Lindenwald, resulting in calcareous soils. East of the upper terrace, 

the land continues to rise, and the fertility of the soil diminishes.

WATER COURSES AND PONDS

Water courses generally flow southwest toward the Hudson River. Numerous 

tributaries including Kline Run, Valatie Kill, and Stuyvesant Brook flow into 

Kinderhook Creek before it winds along the western edge of the Lindenwald 

property. A network of non-historic constructed ditches within the lower terrace 

of Lindenwald drain the wet meadows into swamps that seep into Kinderhook 

Creek. Kinderhook Creek continues southwest to Stockport Creek, which flows 

into the tidal Hudson River. Within the Lindenwald property, five ponds hold 

water for most of the year. Upper Pond and Lower Pond, both part of a Van Buren 

area fish pond, are historic and contributing. The remaining ponds, collectively 

called the Lower Farm Complex Ponds, were constructed by Meyer after the 

period of significance.

HABITATS, FLORA, AND FAUNA

Due to its fertile soils paired with wet areas, the Lindenwald property contains of 

a mix of habitats. These include a predominance of upland meadow, some upland 

forest, an edge of hardwood swamp, pockets of wet meadows, vestiges of shrubby 

oldfield in transition between meadow and young forest, ponds, and sandbars. 

Figure 3.1. Since Van Buren’s era, 

the farmland has been supported 

by natural and constructed water 

features, including the Lower Pond, 

(MAVA, 2014).
Existing Conditions

15

Ongoing agricultural use of the property preserves the upland meadow habitat, 

which supports a mosaic of flora and fauna (Figure 3.1). 1

Plants inventoried on the property are a mix of native and introduced, naturalized 

and cultivated, non-invasive and invasive. A complete list is contained in 

Hudsonia’s biological survey. Common plant species associated with the upland 

meadow include grasses and forbs, such as orchard grass, tall oatgrass, timothy, 

Queen Anne’s lace, and goldenrods. Trees found in the upland deciduous 

forest include black locust, black cherry, white ash, white pine, elm, and eastern 

hemlock.

A patch of forest by the southern swamp also contains bitternut, pignut, and 

shagbark hickories, plus American beech, black oak, and bladdernut. The swamp 

contains trees tolerant of flooding including red maple, green ash, slippery elm, 

yellow birch, black willow. Wet meadow areas too wet for cultivation contain 

purple loosestrife, goldenrod, and path rush. The shrubby oldfield area contains 

cottonwood, staghorn sumac, hawthorn, and multiflora rose. The constructed 

ponds contain abundant floating plants, such as watermeal and common 

duckweed. 

The sandbar in Kinderhook Creek supports species such as silver maple, boxelder, 

sycamore, and black locust. Wetland areas contain plants typically associated with 

limestone formations and calcareous or circumneutral soils in the Hudson Valley, 

such as pale jewelweed (Impatiens pallida) and lakeside sedge (Carex lacustris). 

A number of regionally and statewide rare plants in wetland areas including 

sedges (Carex squarrosa, lacustris, trichocarpa, grayii, and davisii), ostrich fern 

(Matteuccia struthiopteris), false-mermaid (Floerkea proserpinacoides), and pale 

St. Johnswort (Hypericum ellipticum).

Figure 3.2. Goats contribute to weed 

or invasive species management 

(MAVA, 2014).
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

16

Mammals observed on and near the Lindenwald property include white-tailed 

deer, striped skunk, river otter, long-tailed weasel, raccoon, red fox, coyote, 

muskrat, American beaver, woodchuck, meadow vole, star-nosed mole, eastern 

cottontail, gray squirrel, and eastern chipmunk. Additional mammal species likely 

on the property but not fully documented include opossum and several species of 

bat, shrew, mouse, vole, and squirrels. In addition, domesticated animals form an 

integral part of the agricultural experience on the farm. (Figure 3.2).

Numerous fish species reside in Kinderhook Creek. Amphibians recorded at 

Lindenwald include four species of salamander, seven species of frogs and toads, 

snapping turtle, painted turtle, plus two species of snakes. Most were seen in 

and around wetland areas, though frogs and snakes are infrequently seen in the 

window wells of the mansion. 

The open fields, water sources, coniferous shelter-belts, ditches, hedgerows 

support an array of bird species typically associated with fields, woodlots, 

thickets, swamps, and forest edges. The survey by Hudsonia between 2002 and 

2004 documented 78 bird species as common, uncommon, or rare. Examples 

of common bird species include mallard duck, mourning dove, American crow, 

black-capped chickadee, American robin, gray catbird, European starling, 

common yellowthroat, song sparrow, and American goldfinch. Uncommon 

species observed include Canada goose, northern flicker, red-eyed vireo, blue jay, 

American tree sparrow, and chipping sparrow. Rarely seen species include great 

blue heron, green heron, great egret, American black duck, wood duck, osprey, 

American woodcock, spotted sandpiper, least sandpiper, and many more bird 

species. Twenty of the species observed on the property demonstrated breeding 

activities including singing, carrying nesting material, and carrying food for young. 

The diversity and abundance of invertebrates is not fully documented for the 

Lindenwald property. Species observed during the 2002-2004 biological survey 

included the American rubyspot, a rare damselfly; the checkered skipper, a 

regionally rare butterfly; a snout, another rare butterfly; tiger beetles; and phantom 

crane fly, an uncommon species that is locally distributed in the Hudson Valley 

that is associated with the wet, organic, calcarious or circumneutral soils.
agricultural Management Framework

17

Agricultural Management

Framework

This chapter describes the management framework that has guided the 

development of the Agricultural Management Guidelines for the Martin Van Buren 

National Historic Site. The management framework articulates the legal and 

regulatory foundation upon which the management of the short and long-term 

care of the cultural landscape of the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site is 

based. It describes the management zones defined in the General Management 

Plan for the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site (2015), as well as the 

organizations and agencies that work with the National Park Service in the 

management of the agricultural lands. Finally, it outlines a strategy to facilitate 

effective communication and collaboration among organizations. 

The agricultural management framework addresses agricultural land within three 

management zones, as defined in the General Management Plan for the Martin Van 

Buren National Historic Site. The Historic Transition Zone, which encompasses 

the upper terrace fields and the Meyer Farm Complex, is owned in fee simple 

by the National Park Service. The Natural Resource Zone includes the riparian 

corridor along Kinderhook Creek, the Vegetated Escarpment, and wooded areas 

bordering the Upper and Lower Terraces. Land within the Natural Resource 

Zone is owned by Roxbury Farm, and subject to a conservation easement held 

by the Open Space Institute. Finally the agricultural management framework 

addresses land within the Agricultural Zone in which the National Park Service 

currently possesses a legal interest, or may acquire a legal interest in the future. 

These management zones are addressed further on pages 20 and 21.

The National Park Service and its partners will continue to manage Van Buren’s 

agricultural fields in environmentally sustainable cultivation, utilizing presentday techniques, materials, cultivars, and breeds. The type and variety of crops 

or agricultural products grown will be determined by the farm operator, in 

response to market demand. Cultivation of this historic land will preserve historic 

hedgerows, fencelines, and field patterns characteristic of the mid-nineteenthcentury agricultural landscape of the Hudson Valley. Surviving outbuildings 

and portions of farm roads surviving from the historic period will be preserved, 

reflecting the formerly interconnected infrastructure present during the historic 

period. Missing outbuildings present during the historic period will be indicated, 

but need not be rebuilt unless it is practical, desirable and feasible to do so. 

Reconstructed outbuildings will be consistent with the scale and form of those 

present during the historic period, but need not replicate historic construction 

methods. Sites of non-extant historic structures that are not to be reconstructed 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

18

will be protected archaeological sites. 

Establishing clear and consistent lines of communication between the National 

Park Service and its partners is critical to successful implementation of these 

guidelines. Farm operations are subject to the life-cycle of plants and animals, 

involving sowing, weeding, pest control and harvesting operations that are 

sometimes not conducive to public visitation. National Park Service sites are, 

by mission and legislation, open to the public. In order to facilitate coordinated 

farm operations and park visitor services, the National Park Service, in close 

consultation with the farm operator and other land management collaborators, 

will prepare a detailed calendar indicating the anticipated timing of specific 

agricultural practices, as well as park operations and anticipated special 

events. It is projected that this calendar will be the product of an annual winter 

coordination meeting attended by all partners involved in the stewardship of the 

Lindenwald landscape.

LEGISTATION, POLICY, AND PLANNING

The primary purpose of managing the agricultural landscape of the Martin Van 

Buren National Historic Site is to preserve the integrity of the surviving historic 

characteristics and features, while ensuring the viability of appropriate agricultural 

pursuits by others. This purpose reflects the conservation mission of the National 

Park Service, defined in the Organic Act of 1916. The application of this mission 

to historic preservation (cultural resources) is articulated in The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which in turn informs 

a hierarchy of National Park Service regulations and policies that comply with the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The application of these regulations 

and policies to cultural landscapes is contained within National Park Service 

Management Policies (2006), Director’s Order #28: Cultural Resource Management, 

and NPS-28 Cultural Resource Management Guidelines. Resource management 

guidelines also include Natural Resource Management Reference Manual #77: 

National Park Service Integrated Pest Management Manual, NPS-77 Agriculture, 

and Directors Order #53: Special Use Permits. 

The leasing of park real property to third parties is governed by RM 38 -Leasing 

Reference Manual for 36 CFR Part 18, which provides guidance to the authority 

provided under regulation 36 CFR Part 18, NPS Management Policies 2006, 

and Director’s Order-38. According to RM-38, the regulation specifically of 

agricultural leases is further addressed under Section 8.6.7 of Management 

Policies 2006, and DO-53, Special Park Uses. 

The agricultural management framework is also aligned with objectives described 

in the General Management Plan for the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site 

(2015) which specifically recognizes the cultural landscape of the Martin Van 
agricultural Management Framework

19

Buren National Historic Site as nationally significant for its association with the 

agricultural pursuits of Martin Van Buren. In the General Management Plan’s 

preferred alternative, the cultural landscape will be restored and rehabilitated 

to reflect its appearance in the mid 1800s, to coincide with the ownership and 

occupancy of Martin Van Buren from 1839 to 1862. Treatment will perpetuate 

ongoing agricultural operations and allow visitors to tour the historic core of the 

property and explore edges of the historic farmland. The General Management 

Plan recognizes that “the continuity of agriculture at Lindenwald, the surrounding 

farmland provides a context for interpreting the history of progressive farming, 

from Van Buren’s time to the present day operations of Roxbury Farm.” 

Moreover, the agricultural soil is recognized as a cultural and important resource.2

The Cultural Landscape Report for Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, 

Volume II: Updated Treatment Plan and Record of Treatment (2016) further 

emphasizes the significance of active agriculture in the preservation of the 

integrity of the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site through a program of 

recommendations and tasks to preserve what survives of the historic landscape, 

restore key features, and rehabilitate the landscape characteristics to both 

recapture the landscape’s former character to the greatest extent possible and 

support park and farm operations. Recommended actions within the Cultural 

Landscape Report for Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, Volume II: Updated 

Treatment Plan and Record of Treatment (2016) seek to enhance parallels between 

Van Buren’s experimental and scientific agricultural practices and contemporary 

sustainable farming techniques. Specific treatment tasks address the issues 

associated with the restoration of historic vegetation patterns, management of 

a maturing landscape and viewsheds, enhancement of visitor experience and 

access, connections to agricultural practices, and interpretation of missing historic 

features. As a companion to the Cultural Landscape Report, the Agricultural 

Management Guidelines document identifies significant features to be preserved, 

and describes appropriate farming methodologies, processes, and techniques.
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

20

01-115, 

(01-120)

(01-119)

01-121

01-118

01-122

 

01-117

01-116

01-105

01-106 (01-108)

2.75 ac.

(01-101)

12.84 ac.

(01-102)

1.48 ac.

01-109

01-111

(01-107)

2.60 ac.

(01-104)

.59 ac.

(01-110)

1.05 ac.

(01-113), 

(01-114)

Private, 28 ac.

Roxbury Farm, 10.38 ac.

Roxbury Farm, 

9.58 ac.

Roxbury Farm with OSI Easement, 101.89 ac.

Private, 

5.48 ac.

Roxbury Farm, 18.33 ac.

Private, 27.93 ac.

Roxbury Farm, 31.03 ac.

Private w/ Easement, 

2.17 ac.

Private w/ Easement, 1.73 ac.

Town of Kinderhook, .24 ac.

Private w/ Easement, .88 ac.

Private w/ Easement, 2.86 ac.

Route 9-H

formerly 

01-103

23.46 ac.

formerly (01-123)

formerly 01-112

Private Land

Town of Kinderhook 

Tract Boundary

Federal Land (Fee)

Federal Interest

(Less than fee)

NPS Boundary (Expanded 2009)

Tract Number (Less than fee)

Tract Number (Fee)

Former NPS Boundary

OSI Easement 

(01-102)

 01-118

Figure 4.1. The majority of the land within the park boundary is not owned by the National Park Service, but by private individuals and 

organizations, including Roxbury Farm and the nonprofit organization The Open Space Institute. Land not owned by the National Park 

Service is shown in yellow (OCLP 2018, adapted from GMP 2015).

MANAGEMENT ZONES

The park’s General Management Plan and the Cultural Landscape Report for 

the Martin Van Buren Historic Site, Volume II provide management direction for 

land acquired in fee-simple and for land under easement within the expanded 

National Park Service boundary. The National Park Service is required to 

develop management zones for national parks. All management zones are located 

within the park boundary and represent an important management tool to help 

managers prioritize park funding and staffing. The General Management Plan

defines five management zones for the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site. 

For the purposes of the guidelines, areas within the Agricultural Zone are further 

divided by ownership status (Figure 4.1).
agricultural Management Framework

21

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE ZONE

This zone includes land on the east and west sides of the Old Post Road, primarily 

in the north field, an area outside of Van Buren’s historic property boundary. It 

includes the visitor center and visitor parking lot, and is owned in fee simple.

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE HISTORIC ZONE

This zone includes the land immediately surrounding the Martin Van Buren 

Mansion. It does not include agricultural land. It is owned in fee simple by the 

National Park Service.

HISTORIC TRANSITION ZONE 

This zone encompasses the upper terrace lands which are used for agriculture. 

This land includes the Meyer Farm Complex and is owned in fee simple by the 

National Park Service. 

NATURAL RESOURCE ZONE

This zone includes the riparian corridor along Kinderhook Creek, the Vegetated 

Escarpment, and wooded areas bordering the Upper and Lower Terraces. This 

land is owned by Roxbury Farm, subject to a preservation easement held by the 

Open Space Institute.

AGRICULTURAL ZONE

This zone includes all agricultural land owed by the National Park Service and 

under easement by Roxbury Farm. The Agricultural Zone is further divided 

up into the following areas based on ownership, as seen in the accompanying 

diagram.

a. Roxbury Farm Fee Simple with Open Space Institute Easement

b. Roxbury Farm Fee Simple, No conservation easement

c. East of 9H-Roxbury Farm Fee Simple, No conservation easement
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

22

COLLABORATIVE ORGANIZATIONS

The purpose of the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site is to preserve 

Lindenwald so present and future generations of visitors may learn about the 

life and public career of President Martin Van Buren and find meaning in the 

issues facing America during the formative years of the republic through the 

turbulent decades leading up to the Civil War. The Park is located within the 

boundary of the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area. Park management 

cultivates relationships with numerous community organizations, including 

but not limited to, the Friends of Lindenwald, Open Space Institute, Columbia 

Land Conservancy, Stockbridge Munsee Community-Band of Mohican Society, 

Kinderhook Stockport Stuyvesant Trail Committee, Friends of Kinderhook Trails, 

Landmarks Visitor Collaborative of Columbia County Historic Sites and Tourism 

Agencies, and the Center for Applied Historical Research of the Department of 

History at the University at Albany, State University of New York. The following 

paragraphs describe primary collaborators of the National Park Service at 

Lindenwald. 

ROXBURY FARM, INC. 

Roxbury Farm Inc is a community supported agricultural enterprise, operating 

on several discontiguous properties in Kinderhook, that grows vegetables, herbs, 

and grass fed pork, lamb, and beef. Part of this company’s extended operations 

occupy a 375-acre farm, a portion of which falls within the authorized boundary 

of the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site. Of the 44.7 acres of owned by 

the National Park Service within the authorized park boundary, Roxbury Farm 

leases for agricultural purposes approximately 18 acres. Under NPS RG-38, the 

lessee/lessor relationship between the National Park Service and Roxbury Farm 

must remain non prejudicial to outside parties. Though the agricultural activity 

undertaken by Roxbury Farm perpetuates the integrity of the historic landscape 

of Lindenwald through a continuance of historic use, Roxbury should not be 

considered a “partner” under the technical National Park Service definition of 

the term. Under NPS policy, partners are limited to governmental and nonprofit 

organizations.

Shareholders of Roxbury Farm, a for-profit organization, represent more than 

twelve-hundred families in four communities including Columbia County, the 

Capital Region, Westchester County, and Manhattan. Jean-Paul Courtens, a 

Dutch immigrant, started Roxbury Farm in Claverack, NY in 1989. His farming 

practices were based on the principles of organic and biodynamic farming. In 

1990, Jean-Paul and a group of customers started the first community supported 

agriculture (CSA) relationship in New York City. In 1991 the CSA concept spread 

to customers in Albany, NY and locally at the farm. Jody Bolluyt joined the farm 

in 2000 when the farm moved to its present location in Kinderhook, NY. With 
agricultural Management Framework

23

the move to new land Roxbury Farm gained long term land security. Through 

partnerships with Roxbury Farm CSA members and friends, Equity Trust, Inc. 

and the Open Space Institute Roxbury Farm now is a steward of 375 acres of 

farmland, woods, and pasture. Keri Latiolais joined the farm in 2012 as part of 

the management team. Currently the farm is managed by Jean-Paul, Jody, and 

Keri along with a dedicated team of crew members. Due to the agricultural and 

historic value of the property, the Open Space Institute retains a conservation 

easement on the property requiring the preservation of its historic characteristics 

and features, and its use for agriculture in perpetuity. The historic characteristics 

and features of the landscape to be preserved and protected are identified in the 

conservation easement and reiterated in this document. 

For the past four decades, the National Park Service has cared for the core of the 

Martin Van Buren property, undertaking improvements consistent with National 

Park Service policies and guidelines, as well as park management objectives. In 

2009, the park expanded its boundary to encompass all of Van Buren’s former 

farmland. The 44.70 acres of land of the Martin Van Buren National Historic 

Site owned in fee-simple by the National Park Service adjoins the 101.89-acre 

property currently held by Roxbury Farm and under easement by a conservation 

nonprofit, the Open Space Institute. The primary purpose of the conservation 

easement is to enable the property to remain in agricultural use by preserving 

and protecting its agricultural soils and agricultural viability and productivity 

while also ensuring that the property’s open space, natural, historic, recreation, 

habitat and scenic values will be conserved in perpetuity. The easement requires 

provisions for limited public recreational access, including a reserved right to 

construct a public trail on the property near Kinderhook Creek. The Agricultural 

Management Guidelines for the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site will help 

the owners of the lands under conservation easement to preserve the historic 

integrity of the landscape while engaging in environmentally and financially 

sustainable agriculture. 

In the management of the Martin Van Buren National Historical Site, the National 

Park Service works in cooperation with many governmental and nonprofit 

organizations to perpetuate sustainable agriculture, preserve historic landscape 

character, and expand opportunities for collaborative programing to connect 

people to the landscape and agriculture on the site. The Martin Van Buren 

National Historic Site and the primary organizations with which it collaborates are 

described below. 

THE OPEN SPACE INSTITUTE

The Open Space Institute protects scenic, natural and historic landscapes to 

provide public enjoyment, conserve habitat and working lands and sustain 

communities. Founded in 1974 to protect significant landscapes in New York 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

24

State, the Open Space Institute (OSI) has since become a leader in environmental 

conservation. The Open Space Institute has partnered in the protection of 

nearly 2.2 million acres in North America, from Alabama up the spine of the 

Appalachians to southeastern Canada. All of OSI’s work is directed by a consistent 

strategy emphasizing permanent protection on a landscape-level scale. Each 

discrete transaction, such as buying a conservation easement on a family farm in 

the Hudson River Valley or helping fund the purchase of 100,000 acres in Maine, 

represents an effort to align the pieces of the landscape puzzle and prevent habitat 

fragmentation. Much of OSI’s work in New York State is accomplished through 

the Open Space Land Trust, Inc. The Open Space Institute currently holds an 

easement on 101 acres within the authorized boundary of the Martin Van Buren 

National Historic Site. 

TOWN OF KINDERHOOK

The town of Kinderhook is located in the northern part of Columbia County. 

With a population of 8,498 people (2010 census), it is the most populous 

municipality in the county. The town of Kinderhook owns a .24 acre parcel of 

property, a narrow strip of land including the entrance drive off of Route 9H, into 

the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site.

COLUMBIA COUNTY AGRICULTURAL AND FARMLAND PROTECTION BOARD

The Columbia County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board is a quasigovernmental body located in Hudson, New York consisting of eleven members 

who hold the authority to advise the Columbia County Board of Supervisors on 

matters related to the proposed establishment, modification, continuation, or 

termination of any state certified Article 25AA agricultural district. As such the 

property addressed by the guidelines falls within their purview.

NEW YORK STATE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION COMMITTEE

The mission of the New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee is 

to advance comprehensive natural resources management through the support 

of local Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Agricultural Environmental 

Management (AEM) is a cooperative, interagency program providing one-on-one 

help to farmers to identify environmental risks on their farms. Once these risks are 

identified, farmers receive planning, design and help obtaining financial assistance 

to correct existing problems and prevent future ones. The State Committee 

develops policy for the statewide AEM program and administers programs 

through staff and various groups associated with the interagency AEM Steering 

Committee. 
Best Management Practices

25

AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY

The National Park Service with its collaborators, including Roxbury Farm Inc. and 

the Open Space Institute, will perpetuate sustainable agriculture, improve historic 

landscape character, and expand opportunities for collaborative programing 

to connect people to the landscape and agriculture on the lands of the former 

Lindenwald property. The landscape will continue to provide an appropriate 

setting to interpret Van Buren’s progressive farming methods within a broad 

platform of agricultural and regional history, and highlight parallels between Van 

Buren’s practices and contemporary sustainable agricultural production. 

Implementation of the guidance provided in the guidelines supports continued 

development of a mutually beneficial relationship between the National Park 

Service and farming collaborators. The guidelines provide an overall context 

for enhancing historic character and for perpetuating the characteristics and 

features that convey historic significance while balancing contemporary needs 

associated with active agricultural use and park operations. The guidelines may 

be used by both present and future land stewards and park managers to facilitate 

communication and collaboration between numerous stakeholders. Through 

clear language and relevant examples, the guidelines describe appropriate ways of 

addressing challenges through prioritization of both agricultural and visitor access 

and activity scheduling. 

The historic Lindenwald landscape has a distinctive character based on its 

physical attributes as a Hudson Valley estate and working farm, and its historic 

association with President Van Buren This document articulates the essential 

qualities of the landscape that convey its significance and are consistent with 

broad principles derived from the preferred management alternative identified 

in the park’s General Management Plan Alternative C: “In the Footsteps of 

Martin Van Buren,” as well as the Preferred Treatment identified in the Cultural 

Landscape Report for the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, Volume II. 

Van Buren’s agricultural fields west of the mansion will remain in active 

agricultural production, providing an opportunity to tell the story of nearly three 

hundred years of continual farming. Hedgerows and fence lines characteristic 

of the mid-1800s agricultural landscape will be retained in order to evoke 

the character of the Van Buren agricultural landscape. Several outbuildings 

and portions of farm roads from the historic period remain, and relate to the 

interconnected network of barns, sheds, and greenhouses present during the 

historic period. Locations of missing outbuildings that date to the historic period 

will be preserved. The landscape will be managed for historic character, allowing 

modification of historic features when necessary to address other resource values, 

park operations, or agricultural operations, provided the changes are subordinate 

to the historic landscape characteristics. As such, the primary purpose of this 

document is to guide preservation of the characteristics and features that convey 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

26

historic significance, while balancing contemporary needs associated with active, 

sustainable agricultural use and meaningful visitor experience.

COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION STRATEGY

Positive communication and collaboration between the National Park Service 

and its many partners is critical to the successful preservation of the historic 

agricultural landscape of Lindenwald. Working together the National Park 

Service and its partners will perpetuate sustainable agriculture, improve historic 

landscape character, and expand opportunities for collaborative programing. The 

landscape will continue to provide an appropriate setting to interpret Van Buren’s 

progressive farming methods within a broad platform of agricultural and regional 

history, and highlight parallels between Van Buren’s practices and contemporary 

sustainable agricultural production. 

Acknowledging that modern farming practices are inherently dynamic, tied to 

a changing climate and marketplace, flexible solutions are necessary to ensure a 

sustainable agricultural enterprise. Collaboration on leases should be long-term 

where possible, for short-term agricultural leases limit the return on investment 

of lessees in maintenance and capital improvements. In addition, planning for 

succession and a smooth transition to future generations of farmers will be critical 

to preventing production loss and ecological facility degradation. 

Planning for operational and capital improvement needs should be organized 

through shared calendars identifying critical agricultural and public event dates. 

Regular communication between partners, facilitated through annual meetings 

and shared calendars, will help to resolve issues in a timely and positive manner. 

Collaboration between partners, in the context of resource preservation and 

agricultural stainability and visitor safety, contributes to the goals of community 

integration and education.

The farm is a learning institution where the relevance of Martin Van Buren’s 

life and contributions can be clearly understood. Interpretative materials such 

as signs, booklets, lectures, and mobile apps provide visitors with a layered 

understanding of the place and its activities. Interpretive programs should 

include experiential or hands-on learning opportunities where visitors have the 

opportunity to engage in agricultural practices. Through such programs people 

connect with the land and deepen their understanding. 
Best Management Practices

27

Figure 5.1. A matrix for sustainable 

agriculture provides a spectrum of 

actions and mindsets towards long 

term management and preservation 

of resources (Plant and Life Sciences 

Publishing, Cornell University, 1999).

Best Management Practices

Best Management Practices, as articulated in this chapter, provide the 

management of Martin Van Buren National Historic Site with a useful reference to 

the multifaceted and complex profession of sustainable agriculture. Information 

in this chapter is by no means exhaustive, but rather provided at a depth necessary 

to provide National Park Service management with the knowledge, language, 

and understanding necessary to make informed decisions regarding agricultural 

operations on the Van Buren lands. Best practices are articulated under the 

broad topics of soil management, water management, infrastructure and storage, 

pest management, farm access control, operations, and resource management 

(Figure 5.1). Each broad topic is described and divided into related subtopics. 

Best management practices, including preferred methodologies, are included 

under each topic and subtopic. Sections on special considerations and evaluation 

processes and procedures are also included under agricultural subtopics where 

applicable to the subject.

This chapter is consistent with National Park Service policy and supports 

direction outlined in park planning documents developed for Martin Van Buren 

National Historic Site. Legal obligations and recommendations are articulated 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

28

SIX PRIMARY GOALS OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

To enhance historic character and perpetuate the characteristics and features that 

convey historic significance while balancing contemporary needs associated with 

active sustainable agricultural use and park operations, the National Park Service 

and its collaborators will work to achieve the following six goals. 

• Articulate parallels between National Park Service management objectives for 

the Van Buren farm land, soil health, and the cultural landscape setting with 

the objectives of modern sustainable agricultural operations that value park 

soil health and the perpetuation of soil fertility and farming operations.

• Provide direction intended to transcend changes in National Park Service 

management, as well as the tenure of individual managers and owners of 

lands under easement (Figure 5.2).

• Provide agricultural management staff with a resource clearly articulating the 

National Park Service philosophy and methodology behind cultural resource 

stewardship on public lands. 

• Provide National Park Service staff and management, especially those 

without a background in agriculture, with a resource that articulates the basic 

concepts of best practices for sustainable agricultural production. 

• Recognize the long-term investment required on the part of farm partners in 

order to sustain and improve soil health in perpetuity.

• Support communication between the National Park Service and farm 

partners working towards the achievement of mutual goals.

in National Park Service resource management guidelines including Natural 

Resource Management Reference Manual #77, National Park Service Integrated Pest 

Management Manual; NPS-28 Cultural Resource Management Guidelines; National 

Park Service Management Policies 2006; Directors Order 53: Special Use Permits and 

RM-38 Leasing Reference Manual. The Best Management Practices outlined here 

are consistent with objectives articulated in the General Management Plan (2015) 

and the Cultural Landscape Report for Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, 

Volume II: Updated Treatment Plan and Record of Treatment (2016).
Best Management Practices

29

SOIL MANAGEMENT

The agricultural soil at Martin Van Buren National Historic Site is identified as an 

important cultural resource in the park’s recently completed General Management 

Plan.

1 The soil in the historic Van Buren agricultural fields has been continually 

managed for centuries and reflects a long history of human intervention. At 

Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, proper stewardship of the agricultural 

soil is essential for sound management, crop production, and long-term ecosystem 

health. The quality and quantity of crops produced is directly linked to soil health 

as the foundation of sustainable agriculture. Healthy agricultural soil takes decades 

to develop. The benefits of good soil health reach beyond crop field boundaries, 

extending to protect local and regional water quality.2

 Cooperative management 

and co-stewardship of the Van Buren agricultural soil, regardless of specifics of 

land ownership, is essential to perpetuating sustainable agriculture within Van 

Buren’s historic fields. Best practices for soil management and the emphasis on 

soil health parallel Van Buren’s dedication to soil “improvement,” a hallmark of 

progressive agriculture.3

The following provides an overview of general soil management best practices. 

Specific practices are expanded upon in individual sections below. 

Figure 5.2. A flow chart illustrating the process of aligning stakeholder missions with best 

management practices including the continual re-evaluation of best management practices 

within a framework of adaptive management (OCLP, 2015).
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

30

• Use practices that add organic material to the soil including animal manures, 

composts, leaves and cover crops. Supplemental fertility sources should 

match crop uptake needs and align with long-term soil management goals 

(Figure 5.3).4

• Manage soil to provide a sufficient supply of soil nutrients and optimal pH 

levels for crops without resulting in water pollution.5

• Utilize cover crops and/or surface residue (mulches).6

• Minimize the loss of native soil organic matter.7

• Preserve soil structure by minimize tillage and other soil disturbances 

including compaction from field equipment.8

SOIL HEALTH AND FERTILITY

Soil health and fertility is a long-term objective of sustainable agriculture with the 

intent to perpetuate optimal crop production and economic viability. Soil health 

and fertility is measured by intermittent monitoring of physical, biological, and 

chemical characteristics. Soil health and fertility is directly related to the capacity 

of soil to provide nutrients for plant growth and support a healthy ecosystem.

Special Considerations

According to the park General Management Plan management practices should 

be developed that ‘promote active farming and the sustainable productivity 

of the soil. The Van Buren agricultural soils will continue to be managed as a 

cultural resource in perpetuity, including efforts to return their nutrient balance, 

health, and fertility, prior to their alteration by conventional farming practices 

in the 1950s. Recognizing that improving soil health and fertility is a long-term 

process, requiring years of investment by a farmer in the form of time, labor, 

and monetary resources, leases should be pursued for the longest term feasible 

Figure 5.3. Soil Management: Adding 

compost to crop soil promotes health 

and fertility (Roxbury Farm, 2014).
Best Management Practices

31

(minimum 60 year term recommended, 99 year term preferred). Soil analysis 

conducted in 1999, 2002, and 2016 revealed the upper terrace fields have very 

high levels of phosphorus. High phosphorus levels present unique management 

needs and necessitates the use of low phosphorus fertilizers, requiring additional 

expenditure by farmers. 

Best Practices

The farm manager will care for the Van Buren agricultural soil with the longterm objective of improving soil health and fertility. Soil health and fertility 

will, at minimum, be maintained throughout the length of the lease term. Per 

regulations established in NPS-77, sampling and analysis of soil conditions will be 

accomplished by the farmer on an annual basis as part of a monitoring program to 

track soil health and fertility. Testing should including micro and macro nutrients, 

pH, and cation-exchange capacity. A copy of test results will be kept on file by 

farmers and a designated park resource manager. It should be noted that soil 

sample analysis results are not an absolute indicator of soil health and fertility, 

and results may fluctuate based on a variety of factors. Testers should strive for 

consistency in testing parameters. Testing should be used as part of a program to 

monitor long-term trends, nutrient deficiencies, and change over time. Testing 

should be accompanied with documentation describing specific practices and 

methodologies undertaken with the objective of improving soil health and fertility 

(Figure 5.4).9

Biological and physical aspects of soil fertility are managed primarily by adding 

organic residues via cover crops, manures, compost, and compost residues. 

Additionally, soil fertility management practices prevent erosion, compaction, 

salinization and accumulation of toxins. Management of the chemical aspects of 

Figure 5.4. Soil Management: Soil 

sampling and analysis should be 

conducted annually to monitor health 

and fertility (OCLP, 2014).
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

32

soil fertility is primarily focused on assessing crop nutrient needs and applying 

fertilizers appropriately.10 Given the current high levels of phosphorus present in 

the Van Buren soils, low phosphorus fertilizers should be used. The farmer should 

develop, and submit for approval, a periodic soil testing program utilizing a soil 

penetrometer to evaluate organic matter and water holding capacity.11

SOIL, STRUCTURE, AND TILLAGE

Soil structure is the physical condition of the soil, including porosity, compaction, 

and arrangement of soil solids into aggregates (sand, silt, clay and organic matter). 

Compaction of soil can destroy soil structure and reduce naturally formed voids 

in soil. Soil structure should be preserved to the extent possible (Figure 5.5). 

Tillage involves mechanical manipulation of soil and is practiced to reduce 

compaction or loosen the soil, create a seed-bed, control weeds or to incorporate 

soil amendments. Primary tillage (moldboard plowing, chiseling) is a more 

rigorous practice, primarily for loosening soil and incorporating amendments. 

Secondary tillage (disking, harrowing) is a less rigorous practice, which creates 

a seedbed containing fine aggregates ideal for the germination and growth of 

seedlings.

Soil is composed of distinct horizontal layers known as horizons. There are 

five classifications of horizons O, A, E, B, and C. R is used to denote bedrock. A 

Horizon soil forms at the surface and is also known as topsoil. This soil is typically 

rich with organic matter and is where agricultural crops grow. 

Best Practices

Proper timing and tillage techniques are essential to the preservation and 

Figure 5.5. Soil Management: Tilling 

and other soil management techniques 

help maintain a balanced soil structure 

(Roxbury Farm, 2014).
Best Management Practices

33

improvement of soil structure. A stable structure will have equal distribution 

between mineral particles and pores so that roots can penetrate, with good 

capacity to hold water and drain excess water.12 Tillage will be performed at a 

point of optimum soil moisture to reduce soil compaction and degradation of soil 

structure. Agricultural lessees will note the unique qualities and characteristics of 

each of the Van Buren fields, including microclimates and soil types which affect 

soil moisture. While minimizing tillage is an important practice in sustainable 

agriculture, vegetable production requires tillage for incorporation of organic 

matter. Deep tillage (20-24”) should only occur when necessary to counteract the 

development of a sub-surface hardpan or impervious layer. Shallow tillage (9-

12”) is a preferred method to incorporate organic materials into soil. Specialized 

equipment, like a chisel plow or spading machine, minimizes the breakdown 

of healthy soil structure. Equipment like roto-tillers and roto-vators degrade 

soil structure rapidly and should not be used. Tillage equipment employing the 

action similar to a hand-fork is preferred because it fractures the soil at its natural 

breaking points.13

Sustainable practices include:

• Planting cover crops without tilling the soil through the use of specialised 

equipment, such as grain drills.14

• Incorporate ‘harvest lanes’ to avoid compaction of agricultural soils.15

• Use the correct tire equipment. Wider tires and lower tire pressure distributes 

weight evenly while establishing a planting bed or cover crop, where narrow 

tires minimize impact to established planting beds.16

• Use ballast weights on tractors to minimize wheel slippage as needed.17

• Lay mulch (straw or hay) for weed control rather than cultivating when 

feasible.18 

CROP ROTATION AND SELECTION

Crop rotation is the systematic alternation or rotation of crops within a field or 

system of fields to support optimal soil health, crop yields, and economic profit in 

perpetuity. Crop selection encompasses the general category of crops produced 

(vegetable, animal, tree), individual crops grown, and specific genetic varieties. 

Best Practices

Crop rotation is an integral component of sustainable agriculture and is used to 

manage weeds, pests, and diseases while promoting soil health. As articulated 

in NPS-77, ‘crop and breed selection should be consistent not only with needs 

identified in the park’s cultural landscape report but also with maintenance of a 

sound environment. As NPS-77 explains, many historic varieties have fallen out of 

favor because of their intolerance to pests or diseases. From the cultural landscape 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

34

preservation perspective, the emphasis falls on preservation of the general 

character of the agricultural fields as Van Buren cultivated them rather than any 

particular singular crop(s). The section on Resource Management details the 

relationship between agriculture and cultural landscape preservation in detail.

Good crop rotation practices for sustainable vegetable production include not 

only rotation within plant families of vegetables but also rotation of grasses and 

legume plantings. Crops will be chosen to match soil conditions and rotated on 

3-4 year cycles. For example, at the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, 

the well-drained soils of the upper terrace field can be worked earlier in the 

spring, while low-lying areas subject to intermittent flooding are ill suited for 

high value crops. Large rocks, steep slopes, or poor drainage makes certain areas 

inappropriate for vegetable crop production. Sequencing of crops with rotation 

cycles will be managed to meet nutrient needs (Figure 5.6).

Characteristics of prime land for vegetable crops include:

• A high weight-bearing capacity (soil structure suitable to carry the weight of 

equipment without creating irreversible compaction)19

• Good drainage 20

• Access to irrigation water 21

• A deep A horizon (topsoil), free from stones 22

• Less than a 2% slope 23

• Long season micro climate 24

• Full exposure to sunlight 25

Figure 5.6. Soil Management: Crop 

rotation should be implemented based 

on soil type and growing conditions 

(Roxbury Farm, 2014).
Best Management Practices

35

• Good air drainage (fields not restricted by physical barriers such as belts of 

trees or buildings which can trap cold air trap cold air) to avoid late season 

frosts 26

• Easy access to farm roads 27

• High cation-exchange capacity (CEC), an inherent soil characteristic that 

influences soil’s capacity to hold nutrients.28

EROSION AND CONSERVING AGRICULTURAL SOILS

Erosion is the wearing away of soil by runoff water (water erosion), wind shear 

(wind erosion), or tillage (tillage erosion).Erosion occurs when an erosive force 

(wind, water, or gravity) interacts with a susceptible soil. 

Best Practices

Soil erosion occurs when a susceptible soil is impacted by water, wind, or 

tillage. Healthy soils and sustainable agricultural practices reduce susceptibility 

to erosion. Susceptibility is determined by soil texture, aggregation, and water 

conditions. Under no circumstances should soil erosion rates exceed tolerable 

levels established for the site or soil by the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service.29 Reduced tillage systems, crop rotation, and cover crops are effective 

methods to control soil erosion.30 

The following additional practices will reduce erosion and perpetuate 

conservation of agricultural soils at Martin Van Buren National Historic Site 

(Figure 5.7).

• Steep slopes, such as areas along the escarpment, will be kept in permanent 

cover to prevent erosion 31 

• Avoid tilling steep erodible slopes 32

• Field edges will continue to be buffered by vegetation including previously 

Figure 5.7. Soil Management: Efforts 

to mitigate soil erosion, such as buffer 

plantings along the Kinderhook Creek, 

should be utilized throughout the 

property (Bing, 2014).
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

36

established grass strips and hedgerows 33

• Continue building soil health and maintaining soil structure (minimize 

compaction) to increase water infiltration capacity 34 

• Increase soil organic matter 35

• Retain vegetative buffers along the creek corridor to help to reduce creek 

sedimentation36

PREFERRED METHODOLOGY AND BENEFITS

The practices place an emphasis on long-term management of soil health and 

fertility within the historic Van Buren fields. This methodology recognizes the 

lengthy span of time necessary to improve soil health, and the necessity of a longterm leasing program in meeting soil health goals.

Best practices for soil management and tillage preserve natural soil aggregates and 

water-conducting channels that are typically degraded by conventional plowing 

and disking. Reduced tillage and the use of mulches and cover crops makes soil 

less susceptible to wind and water erosion.37

The use of crop rotation andselection of pest resistant varieties is a best practice 

to manage crop weeds, pests, diseases. Rotation between the vegetable families, 

grasses, and legumes promotes long-term soil health and nutrient cycling. 

Practices to reduce erosion and conserve agricultural soils support National Park 

Service goals, objectives of sustainable farm operations, and the local and regional 

community. Additionally, reducing erosion of the Van Buren farm land will reduce 

run-off and sediment in Kinderhook Creek. The best practices outlined above 

align with policy established in NPS-77.

Thresholds for action include measurable increases or decreases over multiple 

years in phosphorous, soil health and fertility, and crop production.

Evaluation

Specific soil health and fertility practices should be evaluated annually based on 

a mutually agreeable schedule and process. Soil testing will be done annually as 

mandated by NPS-77. It is understood test results can reflect variations based 

on a variety of factors. Both soil sample results and an evaluation of the cultural 

practices used to improve overall soil health and composition should be used to 

examine long-term trends. When conducting evaluation, the following questions 

might be asked.

• What specific agricultural practices were used to care for and improve soil 

health and fertility?

• Are any long-term trends documented by soil samples?

• What types of fertilizers were used? 
Best Management Practices

37

• What types of crops were planted? How has crop rotation been utilized?

• Have soil erosion prevention methods been effective? Should practices be 

revised? 

WATER MANAGEMENT

Water management practices include methods of conserving water, irrigating 

crops, coping with flooding, draining fields as necessary, and managing on site 

surface water such as farm ponds and wells. Water management systems benefit 

farmers and consumers, by promoting a more consistent yield and a more stable 

food supply. They typically minimize water use and protect natural resources. 

Water management practices are specific to the circumstances of each farm and 

are based on microclimates and regional location, crops produced, land and soil 

characteristics, size of the farm, it’s infrastructure and goals.38

Special Considerations

There is no National Park Service owned water source for the upper terrace 

fields. At Martin Van Buren National Historic Site irrigation of the upper terrace 

fields requires physical access to Kinderhook Creek across privately owned land. 

Underground irrigation pipes in the upper terrace field are supplied by pipes 

within the privately owned lower terrace. Irrigation of the upper terrace field, 

necessary for water dependent vegetable crops, requires water access. Farmers 

using Kinderhook Creek for irrigation must file an annual report with New York 

State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The average annual 

quantity of water used by the land owner of the lower terrace fields and current 

lessee of the upper terrace fields has been grandfathered into any future state level 

restrictions on agricultural water use. Any lessee of the upper terrace field will be 

responsible for acquiring their own water access and complying with DEC regulations and processes. 

WATER CONSERVATION

Conservation of water resources reduces the amount of water pumped from 

surface water sources or wells. During times of drought efficient use of water 

resources is especially important.

Best Practices

The physical characteristics of soils influence their individual capacity to hold 

water. Agricultural irrigation requirements are directly affected by climate and 

weather patterns. The demand for irrigation fluctuates from week to week and 

year to year. Successful vegetable crop production in the northeast United States 

requires irrigation, although certain crops require consistent irrigation while 

others are more drought tolerant. The water needs of crops should be taken into 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

38

Figure 5.8. Water Management: Crop 

varieties and crop locations should be 

selected based on drought tolerance 

and proximity to resources (OCLP, 

2014).

account when selecting planting locations. Water requirements of vegetable crops 

are also influenced by the current life cycle stage of specific crops39

The following practices should be implemented to conserve water resources at 

Martin Van Buren National Historic Site:

• Monitor soil conditions and adjust irrigation rates based on the capacity 

of the soil/field to hold water, water loss through evaporation, absorption, 

and percolation. Management Allowable Depletion (MAD), the maximum 

amount of soil water the irrigation manager allows the crop to extract from 

the active rooting zone between irrigations will vary by crop, lifecycle stage, 

previous and potential rainfall, and the soils water holding capacity.40

• Do not over apply water, which strains water sources and requires 

unnecessary energy expenditure to ‘lift’ water into an irrigation system via 

pumps. Over application of irrigation water may foster germination of weed 

seeds that may have otherwise remained dormant. Other consequences of 

over irrigation include nutrient leaching, groundwater contamination, and 

soil compaction. 41

IRRIGATION

Irrigation is the application of water to soil to provide optimal moisture conditions 

supporting crop growth. Effective irrigation can increase crop yields and 

quality, conserve water, and protect natural resources. Irrigation is necessary for 

successful vegetable crop production in the northeast United States because crops 

need a consistent water source and rainfall is unpredictable (Figure 5.8).42 Microirrigation (including drip, trickle, and microsprinklers) applies localized water at 

low rates through small tubes and emitters and generally conserves water. 
Best Management Practices

39

Best Practices

Irrigation is necessary for successful vegetable crop production. The primary 

irrigation source for the Van Buren farm land is Kinderhook Creek. The gravelly 

soil of the upper terrace field drains quickly, making irrigation essential. Vegetable 

crops grown in the upper terrace field require approximately 3⁄4” of supplemental 

water applied via the irrigation system weekly, although this amount fluctuates in 

response to weather conditions and the growth phase of the crop (Figure 5.9).43.

Factors that influence frequency and volume of irrigation include: 

• Climate: Including air temperature (evapotranspiration), precipitation, 

humidity, and wind.44

• Soil Type: Sandy soils drain rapidly and do not hold water well; silty soils drain 

slowly and hold water well; clay soil drains slowly and hold water; loam soils 

drain excess water well and hold moisture well; agricultural soil improved 

with organic matter maintain good drainage and moisture retention.45

• Crop state development/ individual crop type needs: Crop life cycle dictates 

water requirements; while some crops are notorious as ‘water loving’ 

throughout their lifecycle while others are known as drought-tolerant.46

 Sustainable irrigation practices currently in place on the upper terrace fields are 

 summarized in the following list:

• A privately-owned small-scale irrigation system pumps water directly out of 

Kinderhook Creek and has limited environmental impacts. 47

• Water is applied via a combination of drip irrigation and overhead systems.

• The upper terrace fields at Martin Van Buren National Historic Site are 

irrigated primarily via a drip irrigation system, which must be removed at the 

Figure 5.9. Water Management: 

Irrigation techniques should be 

adapted to suit various crops and 

locations, while conserving water 

(OCLP, 2014).
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

40

end of each season and installed at the start of each season. Drip irrigation 

allows water to be applied close to plant roots and minimizes water lost to 

evaporation.

• The irrigation system of the upper terrace is fed directly by a network of 

underground water pipes sourcing water from Kinderhook Creek. 

• The water quality of all farm ponds within the park is unknown and therefore 

the ponds should not be used for irrigation. Any further action regarding 

using the farm ponds will be in response to water quality testing results.

PREFERRED METHODOLOGY AND BENEFITS

The best practices for water management will produce a high quality crop yield 

with minimal environmental implications. Water application methods will 

conserve water and energy as feasible. Impact to neighboring surface water and 

ground water will be limited. The methodology will perpetuate soil health while 

promoting high yields of good quality produce.

A threshold for action includes a measurable increase or decrease in the amount 

of water necessary for irrigation. Attempt should be made to track water volume 

on a long term basis to supplement data related to shifting weather patterns and 

climate change.

Evaluation

Specific water management practices should be evaluated annually on a mutually 

agreeable schedule. Questions to raise in discussions might include:

• What irrigation practices were used to provide water support healthy crops?

• Have these practices shifted since the previous year?

• How did/will weather patterns and climate change influence the need for 

irrigation?

• Are improvements to irrigation infrastructure necessary?

INFRASTRUCTURE 

Agricultural infrastructure and storage including barns, outbuildings, 

greenhouses, storage facilities, power sources and utilities are central to the 

logistical and economic viability of agricultural operations on the Van Buren farm 

land. Vegetable production, in particular, is dependent on infrastructure and 

storage facilities.

Special Considerations

At Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, National Park Service management 
Best Management Practices

41

and farm partners are presented with a unique challenge regarding the ongoing 

leasing of the National Park Service owned barn complex constructed in the 

mid-twentieth century. There is a considerable maintenance backlog and 

numerous infrastructure problems with the farm complex buildings. The park 

plans to conduct a condition assessment and determine an accurate estimate of 

funds necessary to address deferred maintenance needs (Figure 5.10). Necessary 

improvements could be used to offset rental rates. There has been no Facility 

Management Software System (FMSS) assessment and evaluation of the buildings.

While leasing of the upper terrace fields supports park management goals to 

enhance soil health, preserve the cultural landscape, and perpetuate views west to 

agricultural fields and the Catskill Mountains, active agriculture on National Park 

Service land requires supporting infrastructure including barns, greenhouse, and 

storage facilities. Vegetable production is particularly dependent on buildings for 

operational needs including washing, packing, and storing. Production of multiple 

varieties of vegetables within the upper terrace field perpetuates a landscape 

supporting cultural landscape preservation goals. Production of high quality 

organic vegetables as part of a community supported agriculture (CSA) program 

is an economically viable use of the Van Buren farm land and supports National 

Park Service management objectives and environmental values. Vegetables could 

not be profitably grown in the upper terrace field without infrastructure. The 

agricultural buildings are indivisible from the actively managed farm land. 

AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND SERVICE AREAS

Farm infrastructure encompasses the buildings, structures, and facilities necessary 

to support agricultural operations. Vegetable farming requires more supporting 

infrastructure than other agricultural products.

Figure 5.10. Infrastructure: Buildings 

and structure supporting agricultural 

activities should be maintained, 

including affordable staff housing 

(OCLP, 2014).
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

42

Figure 5.12. Infrastructure: Farm 

roads should be maintained to allow 

access to the farmlands without 

impacting the fields. (OCLP, 2014).

Best Practices

Sustainable farming operations within the Van Buren farm land require access to 

agricultural buildings. Required infrastructure includes barn(s), greenhouse(s), 

washing/ packing shed for vegetables, facilities to store equipment and supplies, 

and a farm office. On-site employee housing is preferred. Affordable employee 

housing is essential to agricultural operations. An adequate power source and 

wiring system is necessary for agricultural operations. The amount of electricity 

needed varies by operation. A new well should be dug to serve the farm cottage 

and barn.

FARM FENCING AND GATES

Figure 5.11. Infrastructure: Sufficient 

fencing should be incorporated or 

maintained to control livestock (OCLP, 

2018).
Best Management Practices

43

Fencing and gates are important infrastructure used to keep livestock in and pests 

out. Fences and gates can also be used for security or to restrict vehicular access.

Best Practices

Well maintained fences and gates are essential for containing livestock (Figure 

5.11). Fences and gates can also be used for security purposes and restricting 

access. Fences can also be used as barrier to pests. At present, all farm fencing and 

gates within the upper terrace field at Martin Van Buren National Historic Site are 

owned by the current lessee. 

If used to contain livestock, fences and gates must be of sufficient construction 

to avoid breakouts. High tensile fencing is recommended for larger animals like 

cows. Any electric fencing should be posted as such.

FARM ROADS

Farm roads provide a designated travel lane for farm vehicles, concentrating traffic 

and soil compaction in a designated travel lane. 

Best Practices

Established farm roads will continue to be used. No new surfaced roads will be 

established. Portions of extant farm roads date to the Van Buren era and their 

alignment and subsurface structure should be preserved. Within agricultural 

fields, established harvest lanes will continue to be used to preserve soil health and 

avoid compaction (Figure 5.12).

PREFERRED METHODOLOGY AND BENEFITS

The best practices for infrastructure management will produce a high quality crop 

yield with minimal environmental implications. Access to the necessary facilities 

and supporting infrastructure including barns, greenhouses and storage facilities 

supports the economic viability of agricultural operations within Martin Van 

Buren National Historic Site. Soil management goals and the nature of vegetable 

crops necessitate farm infrastructure. National Park Service efforts to address the 

maintenance backlog of the existing infrastructure will benefit park management 

goals for soil health and cultural landscape preservation while supporting the 

economic viability of farming operations within park boundaries. 

In addition, farm fences and gates are an important component of a farming 

operation with livestock. Livestock can play an important role in the on-farm 

ecosystem and nutrient cycling. Proper construction will keep animals from 

escaping. Signage on electric fencing is important to inform visitors.
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

44

Evaluation

Infrastructure needs should be assessed annually as part of the annual meeting. 

Questions to address in the evaluation might include:

• What infrastructure improvements have been made in the past year?

• What infrastructure improvements are needed? How can they be prioritized?

• What infrastructure improvements are planned for the coming year?

• Is the current fencing system adequate for livestock?

• What condition are farm roads in? Is resurfacing needed?

STORAGE AND HANDLING OF FERTILIZER, CHEMICALS, AND 

FUELS

Safe storage and handling of fertilizers, chemicals, and fuel is essential for safe 

agricultural operations. Fertilizer, chemicals and fuels must be stored in a secure 

areas. Effective and safe application of chemicals, including pesticides, requires 

appropriate tools and techniques to minimize run-off and drift.

CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZER HANDLING

Best Practices

Chemicals and fertilizers will be stored in a secure manner to protect the 

environment and human safety. All chemicals should be stored in a lockable 

storage cabinet that complies with Occupational Safety and Health Standards 

(OSHA) regulations. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDs), which provide 

information of the safe use and potential hazards of a particular chemical should 

be available for reference in close proximity to chemical storage facilities. The 

following list provides recommendations for chemical and fertilizer storage:

• Follow current recommendations and label instructions when using fertilizers 

or sprays.

• Utilize the most effective application tools and techniques to minimize the 

drift of chemicals or fertilizers beyond the intended target.

• Store all equipment and materials associated with the application of 

fertilizers, chemicals, or fuel storage in a secure area.

• Calibrate equipment carefully to ensure spray pressure, nozzle type, dilution 

rate, and application speed are most effective and the intended amount of the 

active ingredient is applied.

• Time application of chemicals and fertilizers to maximum effectiveness and 

reduce the risk of run-off or contamination.

• Select equipment for effective and efficiently delivery of spray to target areas.
Best Management Practices

45

• Properly clean equipment after use.

Defined by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, a pesticide 

is any substance or mixture of substances “intended for preventing, destroying, 

repelling, or mitigating any pest . . .” a definition which includes antimicrobials, 

herbicides, plant growth regulators, defoliants, and nitrogen stabilizers.49 Safe 

storage of pesticides and other chemicals is critical to protecting people, animals, 

and the environment. The following guidelines should be adhered to:

• Store pesticides and chemicals in a designated location.50

• Store pesticides and chemicals in their original containers with original 

labeling, including application and disposal, directions, ingredient names, and 

emergency information.51

• Store pesticides and chemicals in a lockable area that children and animals 

cannot access.52

• Store away from food, feed, flames, and water sources.53

• Store in a location that avoids temperature extremes which can alter material 

chemistry and damage containers.54

• Keep inventory as low as feasible.55

• Safely dispose of unwanted pesticides rather than storing them long-term.56

For lands owned in fee simple by the National Park Service, all prospective users 

of pesticides are required to submit a pesticide use request to the Integrated Pest 

Management (IPM) Coordinator. Use logs for all pesticides, biological control 

agents, and GMOs, proposed and or used in the calendar year by the National 

Park Service or on lands owned in fee simple by the National Park Service, must 

be completed and entered into PUPS by January 31 of the following year. The 

Park IPM Coordinator, designated by the Park Superintendent, is responsible for 

completing use logs. 

PETROLEUM AND FUEL HANDLING

Because of the danger of combustability, leakage and other contamination, careful 

storage and handling of petroleum is essential for safe agricultural operations and 

is required under state and federal law. 

Best Practices

Petroleum and other fuels will continue to be stored carefully and securely. 

Depending on the size of the operation, New York State law may require “bulk 

storage of petroleum products- gasoline, heating and lubricating oil- and 

hazardous chemicals, like ammonia, in above-ground or under-ground tanks 

. . . per requirements as a registered Petroleum Bulk Storage Facility-regulated 

facility” Fuel is currently stored in above ground tanks under a canopy structure.
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

46

PREFERRED METHODOLOGY AND BENEFITS

Careful storage and handling will protect environmental and human health while 

complying with state and federal requirements (Figure 5.13). 

• Are chemicals, fertilizers, and fuels stored effectively? 

PEST MANAGEMENT 

Pest management encompasses control of insect pests, weed pests (annual and 

perennial), plant diseases, and vertebrate pests. An organism is considered an 

agricultural pest when it damages crops or diminishes yields. 

National Park Service regulations and policies regarding pest management on 

park land are articulated in Management Policies (2006) and Natural Resource

Reference Manual #77 (NPS 77). According to Management Policies Section 4.4.5.3 

Pesticide Use, all prospective users of pesticides in National Parks on lands owned 

by the National Park Service in fee simple, are required to submit a pesticide 

use request to the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) coordinator. Requests 

are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, evaluating environmental effects, cost and 

staffing, and other relevant considerations. Pest management with chemical 

methods will be minimized to the extent possible to align with National Park 

Service rules and regulations and the mission of neighboring organic farming 

operations. Use logs for all pesticides, biological control agents, and GMOs, 

proposed and or used in the calendar year by the National Park Service or on 

lands owned by the National Park Service, must be completed and entered into 

PUPS by January 31 of the following year. 

National Park Service Natural Resource Reference Manual #77 (NPS-77) provides 

guidance for agricultural use on National Park Service land. The document states, 

‘Agricultural practices and techniques, including the use of pesticides and other 

bio-control agents such as genetically modified or engineered organisms, should 

be specified in an approved resource management plan, and are subject to review 

and approval by the NPS integrated pest management (IPM) program manager. 

. . . In general, agricultural activities should be conducted in accordance with 

accepted best management practices.’57

NPS-77 provides the following guidelines regarding an acceptable pest 

management strategy:

• Site sensitivity and resource significance should be considered before action is 

taken.58

• Park employees, cooperators, and visitors should be notified before pesticides 

are used.59

• Areas where pesticides have been applied must be posted as specified on the 

pesticide label, or if no posting specifications are present treated areas subject 
Best Management Practices

47

Figure 5.13. Storage and Handling: 

Equipment, chemicals, and petroleum 

should be appropriately stored (OCLP, 

2014).

to visitation should be posted until dry.60

• The use of pesticides on predetermined schedules is discouraged.61

• The use of agricultural practices such as crop rotation and the use of disease 

and insect resistant crop varieties can greatly decrease the incidence of pests 

in a particular planting and are strongly encouraged.62

Special Considerations

The National Park Service is aware that use of chemical pesticides within the 

historic core of the property has the ability to impact adjacent farm land and 

interfere with crop production and growing standards. Use of pesticides on the 

upper terrace field of Martin Van Buren National Historic Site by a lessee has 

potential to impact visitor use of the historic core and agricultural operations 

on privately owned land in the lower terrace. Any use of pesticides in parkowned agricultural land and in park-owned land within a 25 to 50 foot buffer of 

neighboring agricultural land will only occur after consultation with and consent 

from fellow co-stewards of the historic Van Buren farm land.

INSECT PEST MANAGEMENT

Insect pests cause direct and indirect damage to crops by feeding on foliage, fruit, 

roots, stems, bulbs, and/ or seeds. Direct damage affects the marketable portion 

of the crop, while indirect damage to non-marketable portions of a crop reduces 

yield or quality. Insects can also spread plant diseases. 

Best Practices

Best practices for management of insects requires the control of pest species and 

the conservation of beneficial species.69 The preferred method to control insect 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

48

pests depends on many factors including the type of insect, extent of the infestation, crops involved, weather, and crops stage. The follow provides general guidance for sustainable pest management.

• Crop-rotation to a non-host crop depletes the insect’s food source and is an 

excellent way to manage insect populations.63 

• Select crops (as feasible by market demand) that are resistant to insect pests.64

• Use physical barriers, including floating row covers, greenhouse screens, 

mulches, and trenches, as appropriate.65

• Promote natural predators of pests (like birds and bats or released predatory 

wasps) by conserving surrounding habitat (Figure 5.14).66 

• Use certified organic products and bio-insecticides, such as Bacillus thuringiensis, rather than conventional insecticides.67 

• Time plantings to avoid peak pest populations.68

• Plant companion species to deter pest colonization of the main crop.69 

• Plant trap crops (when appropriate) to keep pests off of the main crop or to 

concentrate before spraying.70 

• Use of flame to remove exposed insects on flame-tolerant crops.71

The following is a list of the primary insect pest commonly found in the Van Buren 

farm land.72

• European Corn Borer

• Leaf Hopper

• Flea Beetle

• Aphids

Figure 5.14. Pest Management: 

Integrated pest management requires 

adapting control efforts to the type of 

pest and plant (OCLP, 2014.)
Best Management Practices

49

Figure 5.15. Pest Management: Lowimpact weed control efforts should be 

used wherever possible (Roxbury Farm, 

2014).

• Imported Cabbageworm

• Thrips 

WEED MANAGEMENT

Maintain sustainable weed management practices including mulching pesticides, 

mulching, mowing, intercropping, concentration of resources, crop rotation, and 

tillage. 

Best Practices

Weed management will be conducted using sustainable practices that effectively 

control weeds in crop fields and surrounding areas including field edges, farm 

roads, roadways, and hedgerows (Figure 5.15). The preferred weed management 

practice will depend on multiple factors including the type of weed, density of 

the weed population, crops affected, and crop lifecycle stage. The following list 

provides general guidance for sustainable weed management.

• Non-herbicide control strategies for weed prevention and removal will utilize 

a combination of cultivation, mulches (synthetic and/ or traditional), mowing, 

smothercrops, or hand-pulling as necessary through the growing season.

• Use crop rotation and tillage to reduce weed populations.

• Crop nutrients (water and fertilizers) will be concentrated as closely to crops 

as possible rather than broadcast widely, when feasible. 

• The use of synthetic herbicides is not preferred, however in the event 

that conditions necessitate its use within park boundaries, all prospective 

use requires submittal of a use request to a designated integrated pest 

management specialist. 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

50

• Select herbicides or cultivation tools according to their ability to control 

predominant weed species. 

DISEASE PEST MANAGEMENT

Prevention rather than treatment is fundamental to disease pest management of 

crops. Disease pests can effect above or below ground portions of plants. Disease 

can reduce profitability of vegetable crops by reducing plant vigor, yields, quality, 

marketability and shelf life.73 

Best Practices

Disease pest management practices address one or more of the three conditions 

necessary for plant pathogens to effect crops. The first condition, a susceptible 

host plant, can be mitigated in many instances by planting resistant or tolerant 

cultivars or using crop rotation. The second condition is the presence of 

inoculum (a disease pathogen), which can be reduced by sanitation. The 

third is environmental conditions conducive to the development of a disease. 

Environmental conditions can be mitigated though cultural practices, which are 

outlined below. Identification of crop diseases is a critical first step to stopping the 

spread and treating a disease .74

The following list provides an overview of practices that reduce the likelihood of a 

crop disease outbreak. 

• Use crop rotation to reduce plant disease beds/sources.75

• Use specialized plantings like sorghum, sudangrass, and mustard to help 

control diseases in the soil.76

• Ensure that planting stock or seeds are disease-free. Purchased stock should 

be certified disease-free. Self-propagated planting material should be 

inspected for disease.77

• Select resistant and disease tolerant varieties, if available and appropriate to 

market demands.78

• Remove and dispose of diseased plants properly (composing, burial, or 

burning depending on the type of material and disease).79

• Time plantings appropriately to reduce the likelihood of a disease outbreak.80

• Space planting rows appropriately to allow foliage to dry.81

• Time overhead irrigation application to avoid extending the leaf-wetting 

period or drip irrigation can be used.82

• Incorporate tile drainage and/or raised beds to reduce the risk of plant and 

soil disease in poorly drained soils.83

• Apply fungicide sprays to ensure good coverage.84

• Protect new growth by appropriate timing of spray applications.85
Best Management Practices

51

Figure 5.16. Pest Management: 

Barriers can prevent large pests from 

damaging crops (OCLP, 2014).

• Use sustainable and natural products, such as copper rich products, to treat 

diseases where possible.86

VERTEBRATE PESTS (LARGE PESTS)

Vertebrate pests are mammals which cause damage to crops by eating, thereby 

impacting the productive value of the field crops. Vertebrate pests include deer, 

birds, raccoons, rabbits, and woodchucks. 

Best Practices

Vertebrate pests will be managed as necessary to protect crops and control pest 

populations. Visitor and employee health and safety are important considerations 

in any pest management program. Best practices include physical exclusion, 

habitat modification, repellents, and hunting, trapping and removal.

Physical Exclusion

Use of barriers, including fencing or netting, is the most effective method of 

reducing crop damage from wildlife. Physical exclusion systems are often more 

costly initially than short-term controls but are typically more effective and 

offer the best long term results (Figure 5.16). Physical barriers can be used to 

keep deer, raccoons, and rabbits away from crops, although the style of fencing 

recommended varies.87

Habitat Modification

Alterations to the surrounding environment can be used to reduce vertebrate 

pest populations. Eliminating overgrown areas or piles of brush can help to 

reduce local rodent populations. Understanding which fields face the greatest 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

52

deer pressure (likely those with nearby woodland cover) can help growers to 

avoid planting the crops most palatable to deer in those fields.88 Other alternatives 

include using propane cannons and screech boxes to frighten birds away. Farm 

dogs can be used to deter deer.89 

Repellents

Use of non-toxic repellents that pests find distasteful can reduce the impact of 

pests on crops. “Contact” repellents are applied directly to plants and “area” 

repellents are applied near plants. Many of these products contain ingredients 

such as ammonium soaps, rotten eggs, and capsaicin. Only materials directly 

labeled for use on crops should be applied to crops.90 

Hunting, Trapping & Removal

Hunting can be used to control deer populations.91 Woodchuck burrows can 

be fumigated, although this is often only a short term solution as the holes are 

soon reoccupied.92 Nuisance permits can be obtained from New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to extend hunting and 

trapping seasons on agricultural land.

PREFERRED METHODOLOGY AND BENEFITS

Best practices for pest management will perpetuate sustainable agricultural 

practices and protect natural resources while producing high quality and quantity 

crops. Successful pest management practices will control insect, weed, disease, 

and vertebrate populations. The best practices outlined above comply with 

recommendations and restrictions identified in USDA Organic Regulations, 

National Park Service’s Management Policies 2006, Natural Resource Management 

Reference Manual #77. 

Thresholds for action might include measurable increases/decreases in pest 

population, yield, crop quality, invasives, and economic profit.

Evaluation

Best management practices for insects, weeds, diseases, and vertebrate pests 

should be evaluated on an annual basis. Weed populations within crop fields and 

surrounding area should be evaluated at regular intervals throughout the growing 

season. Questions asked during evaluation may include:

• Has the selected best practice effectively controlled insect, weed, disease and 

vertebrate pests in agricultural fields?

• How has the selected best practice impacted pest populations within 

surrounding areas including field edges, farm roads, roadways, and 

hedgerows? Was the outcome as expected? 

• Have there been changes in practices used to manage pest populations on 
Best Management Practices

53

Figure 5.17. Control of Farm Access: 

Restricting the access of National Park 

Service visitors appropriately wil be 

critical in agricultural infrastructure 

(OCLP, 2014).

adjoining land? How has this effected pest populations within the upper 

terrace field at Martin Van Buren National Historic Site?

• How could application/ completion be improved next time? Should the 

approach to the best management practice be reexamined? Should/ How can 

practices be modified for the following season? 

CONTROL OF FARM ACCESS 

Farm access control, important to all agricultural operations, is especially 

important to the discussion of the Van Buren farm land. The Van Buren farm land 

encompass land owned privately and by the National Park Service. The direct 

proximity of the farm land to the publicly accessible historic core of the national 

park necessitates restrictions on visitor access (Figure 5.17). Subtopics under the 

Control of Farm Access section include Food Safety and Human Safety. 

An easement on the lower terrace field allows for construction of a pedestrian trail 

through the lower terrace. The easement is held by the Open Space Institute (OSI) 

and expected to transfer to the National Park Service in the near future. When/ 

if action is taken to develop a trail through the farm land, visitor access and safety 

will become an especially critical management issue. 

FOOD SAFETY

Food safety is overseen by the Food and Drug Administration to protect 

public health and prevent food safety problems. Federal regulations establish 

benchmarks for food and human safety with which farms must comply.
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

54

Figure 5.18. Access Control: Clear 

interpretive and directional signs 

prevent visitors from wandering into 

the active farmland (OCLP, 2014.)

Best Practices 

Food safety standards are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

via the Food Safety and Modernization Act (FSMA), which was passed in 2011. 

Specifically the FSMA defines standards for produce production and safety 

measures for facilities that process food for human consumption. All operations 

on the Van Buren farm land will comply with federal standards including required 

testing of water for irritation and vegetable washes.94

HUMAN SAFETY

Human safety is the top priority for the National Park Service. Active agricultural 

operations on and surrounding National Park Service land present a unique 

challenge requiring management to integrate with or exclude visitors from 

agricultural operations. 

Best Practices

Human safety is critical. With the potential for increased public access to the Van 

Buren farm land, open and frequent dialogue between the National Park Service 

and farm operators will be necessary. Visitor access to the farm land should not 

disrupt agricultural operations, therefore during planting, harvesting and other 

agricultural operations visitors must be restricted from entering farm land (Figure 

5.18).

• All rules and guidelines for visitor access will be clearly posted. 

• All visitors will be required to sign in and out. 

• All effort will be made to educate visitors to stay on a designated trail or route. 

• No dogs, leashed or unleashed, will be allowed in the farm land. 
Best Management Practices

55

PREFERRED METHODOLOGY AND BENEFITS

The best practice will ensure proper farm access control methods are established 

and enforced. Upholding federally regulated food safety standards is essential 

to the economic viability of the lessee’s agricultural operation and the safe 

and comfortable working conditions of employees. Best practices for human 

and public safety will ensure a positive visitor experience while fostering good 

neighbor relations between the National Park Service, the public, and the 

lessee. Enforcement of best practices for human and public safety is critical to 

perpetuating agricultural operations on the leased land.

Evaluation

Best management practices should be evaluated annually. Concerns regarding 

visitor access or health and human safety should be brought to the attention of a 

designated National Park Service representative immediately. Questions to ask 

during evaluation might include:

• Has the established best practice for human safety been effective?

• Are additional rules, regulations, or stronger enforcement necessary?

OPERATIONS

Operations include the planning and management of the fields, livestock and 

resources associated with agriculture. Subtopics under operations include 

harvesting of vegetable crops and hay, and the raising of livestock for meat, milk, 

eggs and other products.

HARVESTING 

Timely and efficient harvesting is critical to profitable vegetable production. Care 

must be taken to timing harvesting according to maturity/life cycle, intended 

markets, and upcoming weather.

Best Practices

Harvesting will be done in a manner consistent with food safety guidelines. Proper 

handling and storage conditions are essential to retain marketability of crops. 

The unique requirements for each crop during harvest and storage should be 

considered. A combination of mechanized and hand harvesting techniques should 

be employed based on crop requirements and the farmers discretion. 

The use of harvest lanes allows for efficient harvesting of crops while protecting 

soil health and concentrating compaction. The use of established harvest lanes is 

a best practice for soil management; however it reduces the productive area of the 

field by approximately fifteen percent, a factor which should be taken into account 

when determining the rental rate (Figure 5.19).93 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

56

LIVESTOCK

Livestock encompasses all animals raised for meat, milk,eggs, or other products. 

Best Practices

Livestock within National Park Service owned land will be managed to support 

cultural landscape preservation and soil health objectives. Livestock require 

a water source and protection from the elements via a shade structure. The 

following guidance provides a general overview of a sustainable livestock program:

• Protect and enhance soil quality (physical and biological): Keep permanent 

pasture in place and manage it with intensive rotational grazing- ex: move each 

group of animals every 24-48 hours, allowing animals to graze the pasture 

down to 6” height and then enter a rest period before animals are introduced 

to the area again.95

• Provide a humane and healthy environment for livestock, including adequate 

water supply, shelter, and rotation of animals to reduce parasite and disease 

risk.96

• Protect water quality through vegetation buffers.97

PREFERRED METHODOLOGY AND BENEFITS

The best practices for operations including harvesting and livestock production 

will ensure a high quality vegetable and meat product while perpetuating 

sustainable agricultural practices and minimizing environmental impact. 

Responsible harvesting practices including the use of harvest lanes will promote 

long-term soil health goals. Best practices for livestock production will minimize 

environmental impact, protect water quality, and support soil health goals.

Figure 5.19. Operations: Harvest lanes 

can encourage sustainable harvesting 

efforts while protecting the soil 

(Johannes Courtens, 2014).
Best Management Practices

57

Evaluation 

Best practices for harvesting and livestock management should be evaluated 

annually. Harvesting techniques will be adapted to meet the need of the lessee, in 

response to weather, and according to crop lifecycle. Livestock health should be 

evaluated at a regular interval year round. 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Natural and cultural resources within and surrounding the Van Buren farm land 

should be protected. Cultural and natural resources within National Park Service 

owned lands are protected under federal law. Cultural resources within the farm 

land include archeological sites and historic road segments. Natural resources 

include woodlots and riparian buffers within the farm land ecosystem.

The National Park Service is working with the State University of New YorkCollege of Environmental Science and Forestry on a Natural Resource Condition 

Assessment (NRCA) for the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site. Findings 

are forthcoming.

Perpetuation of sustainable agriculture directly supports cultural resource goals 

identified in the park’s General Management Plan and further articulated in the 

recently completed Cultural Landscape Report for Martin Van Buren National 

Historic Site, Volume II: Treatment and Record of Treatment. Active farm land 

has played a role in the Hudson Valley ecosystem for centuries. The patterns 

of working agricultural fields, woodland, and edges are important habitat for 

wildlife. As described in Natural Resource Reference Manual NPS #77, “agricultural 

operations typically hold plant succession at an early stage, benefiting some 

species of wildlife, known as farm game, and harming species that favor climax 

vegetation. These impacts should be analyzed and documented prior to making 

decisions on agricultural programs.”98

CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

The Van Buren fields should remain in agricultural production in perpetuity, 

providing an appropriate context and landscape for Lindenwald. As stated in the 

Cultural Landscape Report for Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, Volume II, 

“The agricultural fields at Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, continually 

farmed since the 1700s, are a critical component of the park cultural landscape 

and setting. The variety of crops and sustainable methods used today reflect the 

diversity of crops and practices of Van Buren’s tenure. Active agriculture is a 

continuation of a historic uses and allows the park to maintain an appropriate 

cultural landscape . . .sustainable agricultural practices should continue to build 

nutrient rich soil.”99
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

58

The following list section present general guidance for reducing impact to cultural 

resources from agricultural operations. Additional detail is provided in the Farm 

Features chapter. 

• Identify, evaluate, document, and understand cultural resources through 

inventories and planning documents.100

• Minimize tillage and soil disturbance.101

• Keep soil in permanent cover with crop residues and mulches to protect soil 

from erosion. 109

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

The following list presents general best management practices to protect of 

natural resources at Martin Van Buren National Historic Site. Consultation with 

biologists or other resource experts may provide additional useful information. 

• Protect and restore wetlands- agricultural actives should not impinge upon 

wetland protection. Wetlands should be identified via Natural Resource 

Conservation Service (NRCS) soils maps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or 

the Army Corps of Engineers wetland maps or other references.102

• Protect, maintain, and restore riparian buffers around ponds and along the 

Kinderhook Creek corridor. All agricultural projects should be in compliance 

with state and federal lands while being designed to protect and/or enhance 

riparian vegetation and the natural buffers they create.103

• Screen all plant materials and seeds to prevent the introduction of invasive 

and/or non-native plants that might compromise existing native vegetation.104

• Manage farm woodlots for ecosystem health.105

• Reduce water pollution risks.106

• Use best practices that improve soil.107

• Use practices that control invasive and unwanted plants.108

PREFERRED METHODOLOGY AND BENEFITS

The best practices resource management ensures protection of the park’s cultural 

and natural resources. Responsible resource management including the use of 

harvest lanes will promote long-term soil health goals. Best practices for livestock 

production will minimize environmental impact, protect water quality, and 

support soil health goals.

Evaluation 

Best practices for resource management should be evaluated annually. Risks and 

potential impacts to resources should be identified annually. Impacts to resources 

should be brought to the attention of a designated park representative.
Agricultural Feature Guidelines

59

Agricultural Feature Guidelines

This chapter guides the management of farm features within the historic Van 

Buren agricultural landscape. Within the historic farmland many contributing 

characteristics and features remain intact preserving the integrity of the landscape. 

These characteristics and features provide opportunities for the National 

Park Service to interpret direct connections between Van Buren’s day-to-day 

operations at Lindenwald as an experimental farmer and ongoing sustainable 

agricultural operations on adjacent property. The preservation of contributing 

cultural resources such as historic farm roads, views and archeological sites within 

an active agricultural landscape requires special consideration. In addition to 

historic features, the landscape includes many non-historic features which are 

critical to agricultural operations and/or facilitate visitor use. Please refer to the 

feature map at the end of this chapter where farm features are addressed.

As in the contributing features section of the Cultural Landscape Report for the 

Martin Van Buren National Historical Park, Volume II Updated Treatment and 

Record of Treatment, the agricultural feature guidelines section is organized 

according to the following landscape characteristics: circulation systems, 

constructed water systems, buildings and structures, vegetation, views, small-scale 

features, and archeological sites. Corresponding features, identified as historic 

or non-historic, are listed under the appropriate landscape characteristic. In 

addition, the following subsections are included under each feature: existing 

conditions, historic conditions, and treatment guidance. Treatment guidance, 

which includes a list of associated best practices where applicable, are described 

in more detail in the previous section. Finally, management considerations related 

to features are included where applicable. 

CIRCULATION SYSTEMS

Circulation systems encompass the formal and informal routes established for the 

movement of people, animals, vehicles, and equipment through the landscape. 

During the historic period a variety of circulation systems consisting primarily of 

regional roadways and farm roads were present within the Lindenwald landscape. 

These systems, or portions thereof, persist today helping to convey how Van 

Buren, his family, and farmhands moved through the landscape accomplishing 

daily tasks. The primary circulation system of the Van Buren era agricultural 

landscape consisted of two farm roads which arced west from the mansion and 

linked the formal mansion and landscape to the agricultural landscape. The roads 

connected agricultural fields, orchards, barns and outbuildings including the 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

60

Figure 6.1. View of the Historic Lower 

Farm Road looking southeast (OCLP 

2018).

carriage barn, farm cottage, garden, and greenhouse. Since the close of the historic 

period, portions of these roads were altered and in some instances removed. For 

example, in the 1940s and 50s when Meyer constructed the large Barn Complex 

and access road, fields were combined so that farmers could use large mechanized 

equipment on the fields which altered some farm roads. 

LOWER FARM ROAD 

HISTORIC / CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: During Van Buren’s ownership two farm roads, known as the 

north and south farm roads, extended west from the mansion through the fields 

on the lower terrace to Kinderhook Creek. A portion of the south farm road is 

encompassed by the existing Lower Farm Road. During the historic period the 

south farm road began at the rear of the mansion and extended west across the 

upper terrace in the direction of the Red Hillside Barn before it dropped down 

the escarpment and continued west through the lower terrace past the Black Hay 

Barn to Kinderhook Creek. During the Meyer period the section of the road 

bisecting the upper terrace was abandoned and the roadway was incorporated 

into the upper terrace agricultural field.1

Existing Conditions: The Lower Farm Road is an unpaved vehicle tract which 

descends from the Vegetated Escarpment between the non-historic shed and the 

historic Foundation of the Red Hillside Barn and continues southwest between 

the approximately sixteen acre middle field and the 48.6-acre southern most 

field to the bank of Kinderhook Creek. The road is surfaced in gravel and used 

exclusively by Roxbury Farm to access the lower terrace (Figures 6.1 and 6.2).

Treatment Guidance: The Lower Farm Road is a contributing feature and should 

be protected and its alignment preserved. This roadway is central to Roxbury 
Agricultural Feature Guidelines

61

Farm’s agricultural operations and this use should be continued.

Associated Best Practices:

• Control of Farm Access

• Infrastructure - Farm Roads

Management Considerations: The proposed Kinderhook Creek Trail and National 

Park Service interpretive trail in the lower terrace may utilize portions of this 

roadway for visitor access. Active agricultural operations will need to be carefully 

balanced with visitor access.

UPPER FARM ROAD 

NON-HISTORIC / NON-CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: The Upper Farm Road, the access road between Route 9H 

and the Meyer Barn Complex, was not present during the historic period. The 

road was constructed by Meyer in the early 1950s. Construction of the road 

altered the drainage of the area, and resulted in creation of a small pond opposite 

the upper pond (north of the new access road). 

Existing Conditions: This road provides access for vehicles and machinery from 

Route 9H to the Barn Complex and Farm Cottage. This road is used by employees 

of Roxbury Farm and the National Park Service. The road is paved with asphalt 

between Route 9H and the bridge. West of the bridge the road is gravel. 

Treatment Guidance: The Upper Farm Road is a non-contributing feature. It is the 

primary means of access to the Meyer Barn Complex and is essential for Roxbury 

Farm’s agricultural operations. This road should continue to be used as an access 

road. Visitor access to this roadway will be discouraged, as pedestrian traffic on 

the roadway would conflict with the primary purpose of this roadway. The sight 

Figure 6.2. View of the Historic Lower 

Farm Road bisecting farmland managed 

by Roxbury Farm in the lower terrace 

(OCLP 2014).
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

62

lines and clearance necessary for safe operation of farm equipment on this road 

should be maintained, free of infringing vegetation (Figure 6.3).

Associated Best Practices:

• Control of Farm Access

• Infrastructure - Farm Roads

Management Considerations: Screening between the formal mansion landscape 

and the non-historic access road is recommended in the Cultural Landscape 

Report for Martin Van Buren National Historic Site Volume II: Updated Treatment 

Plan and Record of Treatment. Implementation of screening should take 

into account sight lines along the roadway and width and height clearance 

requirements for farm machinery. 

A proposed interpretive garden in the southwest corner of the formal mansion 

landscape could result in an increase of visitors in proximity to this roadway. 

Should development of the interpretive garden proceed additional buffering 

between the garden and access roadway should be considered.

Where overhead utility lines crossing the formal Lindenwald lawn and upper 

terrace field are relocated alternative locations will be examined. One option may 

be to run them along the access road corridor. 

CONSTRUCTED WATER SYSTEMS

Constructed water systems are built features that use water for aesthetic or 

utilitarian functions in a landscape. During Van Buren’s tenure and in the decades 

that followed, the natural hydrological systems of surface and subsurface water 

Figure 6.3. View of the non-historic 

Upper Farm Road to the Meyer Farm 

Complex looking northwest. The access 

road is heavily used for farm operations 

and by NPS staff (OCLP 2014).
Agricultural Feature Guidelines

63

including streams and springs were manipulated for aesthetic and functional 

purpose. Van Buren constructed the upper and lower ponds shortly after taking 

ownership of the property. Meyer constructed a series of irrigation ponds below 

the farm cottage during his tenure. Numerous natural springs in the area feed the 

upper and lower ponds. Drainage ditches installed during the Van Buren era are 

discussed in the archeology section. 

UPPER POND 

HISTORIC / CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: The Upper Pond was constructed by Van Buren in 1840. 

Water flow from the Upper Pond to the Lower Pond via a the ravine was regulated 

by a fieldstone dam and a wooden sluice at the west end of the pond. The Upper 

Pond was described in 1938 as “24,000 sq. feet, fed by natural springs, has stone 

retaining wall and Picturesque ravine, all surrounded by trees.”3

 Meyer removed 

the dam and sluiceway when he enlarged the pond for irrigation storage in the 

1950s. Construction of the new access road between Route 9H and the Meyer 

Barn complex altered the drainage of the upper terrace and created a small pond 

opposite the upper pond to the north of the new access road.4

Existing Conditions: The Upper Pond continues to reflect alterations made by 

Meyer in the 1950s. Algae is prevalent in the pond (Figure 6.4).

Treatment Guidance: The Upper Pond is a contributing resource and should be 

protected. Analysis of water quality in the pond is recommended. 

Associated Best Practices:

• Water Management - Farm Ponds

• Resource Management - Cultural Resource Management

Figure 6.4. The Historic Upper Pond 

was constructed by Van Buren and 

reflects alterations made by Meyer in 

the 1950s (OCLP, 2014).
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

64

• Resource Management -Natural Resource Management

Management Considerations: The interpretative potential of the Upper Pond 

should be explored further.

LOWER POND 

HISTORIC / CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: Van Buren created the Lower Pond in 1840 by building a 

dam on a natural spring.5

 The Van Buren era Lower Pond was altered by Meyer 

between 1948 and 1959 when the new farm road connecting Route 9H to the Barn 

Complex was constructed. The Lower Pond was partially filled during the Meyer 

era as the ravine between the Upper and the Lower ponds became a dumping area 

for Meyer’s construction projects. 6

Existing Conditions: Conditions of the Lower Pond currently reflect changes made 

by Meyer, including his reconfiguring of the lower pond and created several new 

ponds regrading the area with heavy equipment (Figure 6.5). 

Treatment Guidance: The historic Lower Pond is a contributing resource and 

should be preserved. 

Associated Best Practices:

• Water Management - Farm Ponds

• Resource Management - Cultural Resource Management

• Natural Resource Management

LOWER FARM COMPLEX PONDS 

NON-HISTORIC / NON-CONTRIBUTING

Figure 6.5. Historic Lower Pond (OCLP, 

2018).
Agricultural Feature Guidelines

65

Historic Conditions: The Lower Farm Complex Ponds, located near the historic 

Farm Cottage were not present during the historic period. During the historic 

period the area of the ponds was unexcavated wetland. Meyer excavated in the 

area to form five ponds between 1967 and 1994.

Existing Conditions: Currently, the Lower Farm Complex Ponds reflect the manmade form created by Meyer. The ponds are surrounded by rough earthen berms 

(Figure 6.6). 

Treatment Guidance: The Lower Ponds below Farm Cottage are non-contributing 

features. 

Associated Best Practices:

• Water Management - Farm Ponds

• Resource Management - Natural Resource Management

KINDERHOOK CREEK BANK TREATMENT 

NON-HISTORIC / NON-CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: The existing Kinderhook Creek bank stabilization treatment 

was not present during the period of significance. 

Existing Conditions: Between 1965 and 1994, Meyer struggled to combat gradual 

erosion of the east bank of Kinderhook Creek. Prior to Meyer’s tenure, the 

course of Kinderhook Creek continually shifted. Changes in the creek channel are 

documented in historic maps and photographs. 

By 1994 the creek had cut off a large section of the lower terrace field, forming 

an island from a triangular piece of land which had previously jutted into the 

Figure 6.6. The Non-Historic Lower 

Farm Complex Ponds consist of five 

ponds constructed by Meyer between 

the 1970s and 1990s. Only one of the 

Lower Farm Complex Ponds falls within 

the park legislative boundary (OCLP 

2014).
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

66

creek. As a result Meyer lost approximately six acres of farmland to the creek. He 

combatted creek erosion in the late 1990s by dumping slabs of concrete and shale 

on the east bank to stabilize the soil loss. Many of the pieces of concrete , reused 

from a bridge in Valatie, contained rebar and other metal pieces. Crushed shale 

was used to fill the voids between the concrete pieces. 

Treatment Guidance: The Kinderhook Creek bank treatment is non-contributing. 

Without stabilization measures on the east bank, the soil will erode (Figure 6.7).

Associated Best Practices:

• Water Management - Irrigation

• Soil Management - Erosion and Conserving Agricultural Soils

• Resource Management - Natural Resource Management

EXTANT DITCHES 

NON-HISTORIC / NON-CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: The existing ditches were not present during the historic 

period, but were constructed by Meyer between 1959 and 1967. It is possible, 

however, that the modern ditches follow the alignment of Wagoner or Van Buren 

era ditches (Figure 6.8).12

The existing traces of Van Buren-era ditches are historic contributing resources 

and are discussed in the archeological sites section.

Existing Conditions: In the second half of the twentieth century Meyer revived 

Van Buren’s battle against wet cropland, and drained the wet pasture area below 

the escarpment and red barn. Using dynamite, Meyer and an associate were able 

to “blow a ditch across the southeast end of the swamp, at the bottom of the hill 

behind the farmhouse and further south . . . to collect water from 2 or 3 streams 

Figure 6.7. The course of the 

Kinderhood Creek has changed over 

time, from both natural and artificial 

causes. The course change impacted 

the lower terrace farmland primarily 

(OCLP, 2014).
Agricultural Feature Guidelines

67

that were coming down the hill . . . put in drainage pipes from the ditch across the 

swampy pasture to the creek . . .”9

 Meyer efforts allowed the land to become arable 

again, although intermittent wet spots persisted. Meyer reports uncovering some 

of Van Buren’s clay pipe drainage structures that had clogged. Intermittent pools 

in this area are documented in the 1948 aerial, but are no longer visible in 1959 

aerials when this area was incorporated into crop fields. By 1994, Meyer had dug 

ponds in almost the exact location of the original swamp and pools on the lower 

fields.10

Meyer connected the ponds he had dug with culverts to the drainage ditch, 

which he had cleared and widened. This ditch parallels the border between the 

northeastern-most field on the property and the field to the west of it. Meyer also 

installed six-inch plastic piping in the ground in several places to irrigate fields 

with water from Kinderhook Creek. Some of this piping remained on the site after 

it was no longer used, for example along the boundary between the two lower 

terrace fields to the north of the farm road.11

Treatment Guidance: The existing ditches are non-contributing features, however 

it is likely that Meyer’s alterations make the farmland less susceptible to flooding.

Associated Best Practices:

• Soil Management- Erosion and Conserving Agricultural Soils

Figure 6.8. Non-historic field drainage 

ditch (OCLP 2018).
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

68

• Water Management - Irrigation

LITTLE POND 

UNDETERMINED

Historic Conditions: The exact date of the origin of Little Pond is undetermined, 

but it may pre-date the Meyer era, and may represent an expansion of a naturally 

occurring spring (Figure 6.9). The spring or pond in this area could date from 

the Wagoner period or earlier. A “walled spring” on the slope, roughly in line 

with Van Buren’s mansion and in the location of this pond, is mentioned in the 

Wagoner-Birney deed.7

The small pond was enlarged by Meyer between 1946 and 1999, likely when he 

expanded a drainage ditch along the border between the field in the northeast 

corner of the property and that immediately to its west.8

Existing Conditions: The Little Pond is located on the slope north of Lower Farm 

Road.

Treatment Guidance: Whether the Little Pond is historic and contributing is 

undetermined. It does, however, facilitate agricultural use of the property. 

Figure 6.9. The Little Pond lies north 

of the non-historic Upper Farm Road to 

the non-historic Meyer Farm Complex 

(OCLP, 2018).
Agricultural Feature Guidelines

69

Associated Best Practices:

• Water Management - Farm Ponds

• Resource Management - Cultural and Natural Resource Management, until 

determined

• Soil Management - Erosion and Conserving Agricultural Soils/riparian buffer

BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES

FARM COTTAGE 

HISTORIC / CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: The Farm Cottage was constructed by Martin Van Buren in 

1844 and was home to Van Buren’s farm foreman.. The cottage was renovated by 

Meyer in 1946.

Existing Conditions: The Farm Cottage is currently used to house Roxbury Farm 

employees. Its appearance reflects the changes made by Meyer (Figure 6.10). 

Treatment Guidance: The Farm Cottage is a contributing feature that must be 

preserved.

Associated Best Practices:

• Infrastructure - Agricultural Buildings, Structures and Service Areas

• Resource Management - Cultural Resource Management

Figure 6.10. View west toward the 

Historic Farm Cottage, currently used to 

house Roxbury Farm employees, (2014 

OCLP).
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

70

SHED ON LOWER FARM ROAD

NON-HISTORIC / NON-CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: The date of construction of this shed, located on historic 

Lower Farm Road road, but according the National Register documentation it 

post-dates the period of significance. 

Existing Conditions: The shed is currently an open-fronted storage shed 

located on the north side of the historic Lower Farm Road opposite the historic 

foundation of the Red Hillside Barn.

Treatment Guidance: The Shed on Lower Farm Road is a non-contributing feature 

(Figure 6.11).

Associated Best Practices:

• Infrastructure - Agricultural Buildings, Structures and Service Areas

MEYER FARM COMPLEX 

NON-HISTORIC / NON-CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: The buildings and structures within the Farm Complex were 

not present during the historic period, and thus do not contribute individually to 

the historic significance of the property

Within the Farm Complex three silos, one large barn, seven garages and sheds, 

one hothouse, and one greenhouse were constructed during the Meyer period of 

ownership.13 In addition, Meyer built an open-fronted metal and wood barn in 

the 1960s and three greenhouses around 1975. He also constructed two fifteenfoot tall metal silos south of the concrete-block building between 1969 and 1994. 

He used these facilities to raise vegetables, as well as to store farm equipment, 

Figure 6.11. The non-historic Shed is 

located west of the Lower Farm Road 

(OCLP, 2018).
Agricultural Feature Guidelines

71

crops, and chemicals. In addition, from the mid to late 1980s Meyer ran a farm 

market and retail produce stand on the property from this area.14

Existing Conditions: Currently, these buildings contain the Roxbury Farm Office 

and house facilities to wash and store vegetables, equipment and supplies (Figures 

6.12 and 6.13). The greenhouses are used in germination. 

Treatment Guidance: These non-historic structures are central to the daily 

operations of Roxbury Farm. As recommended in the Cultural Landscape Report 

for Martin Van Buren National Historic Site Volume II: Updated Treatment and 

Record of Treatment, the visual impact of these non-historic buildings should be 

minimized with screening. The National Park Service and Roxbury Farm should 

not encourage unsupervised visitor access to this working area of the farm.. 

Associated Best Practices

• Infrastructure - Agricultural Buildings, Structures and Service Areas

• Storage and Handling of Fertilizers, Chemicals and Fuels

• Control of Farm Access

VEGETATION

Vegetation includes the cropped and hay agricultural fields, as well as the 

vegetated escarpment.

AGRICULTURAL FIELDS 

HISTORIC / CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: During the Van Buren Era the lower terrace and a portion of 

Figure 6.12. View of the nonhistoric Meyer Farm Complex looking 

northwest, connected to 9H by nonhistoric Upper Farm Road (OCLP, 2014). 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

72

the upper terrace were maintained as agricultural fields. Van Buren maintained the 

bulk of the estate in crops or hay. Van Buren grew a variety of crops including rye, 

corn, oats, and potatoes.16

Current Conditions: Roxbury Farm uses both the lower terrace fields and the 

upper terrace fields for a variety of vegetable crop production.

Treatment Guidance: A diverse crop production contributes to the historic 

character of the property, by reflecting the diverse character of the agricultural 

landscape present during Van Buren’s ownership (Figure 6.14). 

Associated Best Practices:

• Soil Management - Soil Health and Fertility/Structure and Tillage

• Soil Management - Crop Rotation and Selection

Figure 6.14. Single fields can contain 

a variety of crops. (OCLP, 2014) 

Figure 6.13. Greenhouse within the 

non-historic Meyer Farm Complex 

(OCLP, 2018). .
Agricultural Feature Guidelines

73

• Pest Management 

• Operations

VEGETATED ESCARPMENT

HISTORIC / CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: While it is probable that the species of trees, as well as 

the shape and size of the woodland on the escarpment changed over time, a 

woodland was located in this area during the period of significance.17 It may have 

been a managed woodlot during the Van Buren period. 

Existing Conditions: The vegetated escarpment is a partially wooded slope along 

the eastern edge of the approximately thirteen-acre northernmost field. It extends 

southward across the Historic Lower Farm Road (Figure 6.15).

Treatment Guidance: The historic Vegetated Escarpment is a contributing feature 

and should be protected. 

Associated Best Practices:

• Resource Management - Cultural Resource Management

• Resource Management - Natural Resource Management

FIELD BOUNDARY/HEDGEROW VEGETATION 

HISTORIC / CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: During the historic period hedgerows formed the boundaries 

of fields. The majority of these hedgerows were removed by Meyer in the 1940s 

and 1950s to increase field sizes and allow for more efficient use of agricultural 

equipment. The location of hedgerows prior to their removal is documented in 

historic photographs. 

Figure 6.15. Although the size 

and species that cover the Historic 

Vegetated Escarpment have changed 

over time, the topography of the 

escarpment remains (OCLP, 2018).
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

74

While most boundary vegetation was removed in the 1940s and 1950s to enlarge 

field size, some historic field edges remain visible through existing vegetation. 

These field boundaries include the north field boundary, among others. 

Existing Conditions: Although individual plants dating to the historic period are 

no longer extant, existing vegetation, including black cherry, black locust, and 

multiflora rose along the northern boundary, mark the some historic field edges. 

Treatment Guidance: Though existing vegetation does not date from the period 

of significance, some existing vegetation marks traditional historic field edges. 

Therefore vegetation along the borders of fields, where it exists today, contributes 

to the legibility of the historic field and use patterns, and should be preserved 

(Figure 6.16). In addition, hedgerows can help minimize soil erosion.

Associated Best Practices:

• Resource Management - Natural Resource Management

• Resource Management - Cultural Resource Management

SPRUCE AND FIR PLANTINGS NEAR MEYER FARM COMPLEX 

NON-HISTORIC / NON-CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: The spruce and fir near the Meyer Farm Complex were not 

present during the historic period. The trees were planted by Meyer between 

1978 and 1993. 

Meyer planted blue spruce (Picea pungens) in front of the Farm Cottage and a 

row of firs (Abies spp.) to the north of the Farm Cottage, around the upper terrace 

pond, and between the upper terrace pond and the farm office building. 

Figure 6.16. Field Boundary Vegetation: 

Vegetation marking field boundaries 

contributes to the legibility of historic 

field areas and thus is considered a 

contributing feature of the landscape 

(OCLP, 2014).
Agricultural Feature Guidelines

75

Existing Conditions: The non-historic spruce and fir plantings currently screen 

non-historic features.. When standing on within the terraces west of the main 

house, the non-historic spruces and fir plantings screen the non-historic buildings 

of the Meyer Farm Complex. The area near the spruce and fir plantings is 

currently used for equipment storage (Figure 6.17).

Treatment Guidance: The spruce and fir near the Meyer Farm Complex are 

non-contributing. However, they serve to screen the non-historic Meyer Farm 

Complex and should be maintained.

Associated Best Practices:

• Resource Management - Natural Resource Management

POPLARS ALONG ESCARPMENT

NON-HISTORIC / NON-CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: During Meyer’s tenure he planted a small stand of poplars 

along the escarpment. The poplars were not present during the historic period. 

Existing Conditions: Currently a small stand of poplars grows along the 

escarpment (Figure 6.18).

Treatment Guidance: These poplars growing along the escarpment are nonhistoric and non-contributing.

Figure 6.17. Non-historic spruce and 

fir plantings near the Meyer Farm 

Complex (OCLP, 2018).
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

76

Associated Best Practices:

• Resource Management - Natural Resource Management

VIEWS

VIEW TO CATSKILL MOUNTAINS FROM UPPER TERRACE OF MANSION

HISTORIC / CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: During the Van Buren era the Catskill Mountains were visible 

from the rear of the main house and upper terrace. 

Existing Conditions: Currently, the Catskill Mountains are not visible from the 

rear of the main house or the upper terrace due to the growth of vegetation. The 

mountains are visible from the northern boundary of the park, near the upper 

terrace field and north woodlot.

Treatment Guidance: According to the recommendations of the The Cultural 

Landscape Report for Martin Van Buren National Historic Site Volume II: Record 

of Treatment , the reestablishment of views from the main house to the Catskill 

Mountains would improve the integrity of the property. Guidance to reestablish 

the historic views is outlined through treatment tasks in the CLR. Implications for 

agriculture in re-establishing the views may need to be re-examined. 

Associated Best Practices

• Resource Management - Natural Resource Management

• Resource Management - Cultural Resource Management

Figure 6.18. Non-historic poplars along 

escarpment (OCLP, 2014).
Agricultural Feature Guidelines

77

VIEW TO FARMLAND FROM MANSION 

HISTORIC / CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: During the Van Buren era, views from the mansion and 

terraces to farmland were expansive. Though the now non-extant north and south 

orchards may have screened some views of farmland beyond the property line 

historically. 

Existing Conditions: Currently farmland is partially visible from the rear of the 

mansion. Views are impacted by contemporary park maintenance buildings and 

non-historic hedgerows and woodland. The Van Buren farmland and the Catskills 

beyond are visible from the northern end of the upper terrace field (Figure 6.19). 

Treatment Guidance: As the views to historic farmland from the mansion 

contribute to the historic integrity of the property, the re-establishment of 

these views is desirable. Guidance for the restoration of these views to the 

extent possible is provided in the Cultural Landscape Report for Martin Van 

Buren National Historic Site Volume II: Treatment and Record of Treatment. 

Implementation of this treatment guidance may require alterations in current 

agricultural practices. 

VIEWS TO SURROUNDING FARM LAND 

HISTORIC / CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: During the historic period the landscape surrounding 

Lindenwald was agricultural. Lindenwald retains its rural agricultural setting 

Figure 6.19. Drawing showing the 

views from the mansion to the upper 

and lower terrace farmland (OCLP CLR 

2016).
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

78

although residential development and Route 9-H have encroached on the historic 

setting. 

Existing Conditions: Non-historic vegetation, including the north woodlot and the 

south woodlot, obscures views to surrounding farmland.

Treatment Guidance: Views to the surrounding farmland are contributing and 

should be preserved (Figure 6.20).

Associated Best Practices:

• Resource Management - Natural Resource Management

• Resource Management - Cultural Resource Management

SMALL SCALE FEATURES

Small Scale Features are the elements which provide detail and diversity for both 

functional needs and aesthetic concerns in the landscape. 

VAN NESS MONUMENT 

HISTORIC / CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: The Van Ness Monument was placed at the western edge of 

the upper terrace in 1847 and marks the grave of Peter Van Ness. 

Existing Conditions: The Van Ness Monument is in its original location 

surrounded by turf (Figure 6.21). 

Figure 6.20. HIstoric views of 

farmland from the mansion terrace 

and from within other farm fields 

contribute to the significance of the 

property (Roxbury Farm, 2014).
Agricultural Feature Guidelines

79

Treatment Guidance: The Van Ness Monument is a contributing resource and 

must be protected. Farmers should keep an adequate buffer around this object 

during agricultural activities.

Associated Best Practices:

• Resource Management - Cultural Resource Management

• Operations

UTILITY POLES AND LINES 

NON-HISTORIC / NON-CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: The utility poles and lines were not present during the historic 

period. 

Existing Conditions: The lines that bisect the historic core and upper terrace 

Figure 6.21. Photograph of the Van 

Ness monument in context behind the 

farmlands northeast of the mansion 

(Roxbury Farm, 2014).

Figure 6.22. Utility poles and electric 

lines were added in the 1940s and 

detract from the historic character of 

the farmland (Roxbury Farm, 2016).
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

80

field were installed in the late 1940s. The utility lines provide power to the Farm 

Complex. There are two utility poles located in the house lot and one in the upper 

terrace field (Figure 6.22). 

Treatment Guidance: The power lines and poles are non-contributing and should 

be removed. Removal of the power lines that bisect the Lindenwald formal 

landscape and upper terrace field is contingent upon providing utility access to the 

Meyer Farm Complex.

Roxbury Farm should continue to exercise caution when operating farm 

equipment in the vicinity of utility poles within the actively farmed upper terrace 

field.

Associated Best Practices:

• Infrastructure

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WAYSIDES AND DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE 

NON-HISTORIC / NON-CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: National Park Service waysides and signs were not present 

during the historic period.

Existing Conditions: The National Park Service uses signs and waysides to 

interpret the history of the property and direct visitors. At present the majority of 

park signage is located in the historic core. In addition, a wayside at the northeast 

corner of the upper terrace field provides details about Van Buren’s tenure.

Treatment Guidance: Additional National Park Service signs should be installed 

as necessary to provide visitor direction or interpret the cultural landscape or 

agricultural practices, in a manner that does not impact agricultural operations. 

Associated Best Practices:

• Control of Farm Access

Management Considerations: As visitor access to the Van Buren agricultural fields 

is expanded via an interpretive trail or tours, additional signage is recommended 

to provide direction to visitors, make them aware of restricted areas, and interpret 

the agricultural landscape linking current agricultural methods on site with 

practices during Martin Van Buren’s tenure (Figure 6.23). 

ARCHEOLOGICAL FEATURES

Archeological sites are the ruins, traces, or deposited artifacts in the landscape, 

evidenced by the presence of either surface or subsurface features. Examples of 

features associated with archeological resources include road traces, structural 
Agricultural Feature Guidelines

81

ruins, irrigation system ruins, and reforested field or orchards. The former Van 

Buren farmland contains extensive archeological sites that should be protected 

from disturbance until proper documentation and further treatment planning is 

developed. These features include portions of the farm road system pre-dating 

and developed by Van Buren, sites of outbuildings including the Carriage Barn, 

Red Hillside Barn, Black Hay Barn, and traces of Van Buren era drainage ditches 

and the lower pond. During the 1940s and 1950s, many of these road sections 

were abandoned when the landowner combined fields to maximize agricultural 

production and capitalize on the efficiency offered by larger machinery. During 

the same time period many of the outbuildings that had supported Van Buren’s 

farming operations were removed from the site.

Archeological investigation is recommended to locate and document former 

roads, building sites, and irrigation features.

DITCH TRACES

HISTORIC / CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: In 1841 Van Buren constructed ditches, to make “into good 

meadows the moist lands covered with useless bushes.”19 In 1847 Van Buren 

commenced a second round of ditch digging and developed clay drain systems. 

The exact location of ditches installed by Van Buren is unknown, but aerial 

photographs taken in 1948 provide some clues, including evidence of two or three 

drainage routes across the lower terrace field (Figure 6.24). An open ditch draining 

to Kinderhook Creek is visible along the wooded ridge on the south end of the 

same field. This perimeter ditch may have been altered ten years after Van Buren’s 

death and re-dug in the twentieth century. 20

Existing Conditions: Currently the historic Ditch Trace is comprised of a lineal 

depression forming a u-shape within the 48.6-acre southernmost field southeast of 

Figure 6.23. Interpretive wayside 

exhibits describe historic farmland and 

enhance visitors’ experience (OCLP, 

2015).
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

82

the historic Lower Farm Road. 

Treatment Guidance: Archeological investigation of the area may be considered 

to determine if further evidence of this historic ditch trace, and others, exists. As 

a contributing resource this feature should be preserved, provided that normal 

agricultural field work and regular field maintenance over and across the historic 

Ditch Trace is not prevented (Figure 6.24).

Associated Best Practices:

• Resource Management - Cultural Resource Management

FOUNDATION OF THE RED HILLSIDE BARN

HISTORIC / CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: Van Buren constructed the Red Hillside Barn in 1849. The 

structure was built into the escarpment behind the Farm Cottage. Van Buren used 

this agricultural outbuilding for crop storage and housing animals. 

Figure 6.24. This overlay drawing 

shows the location of historic ditch 

traces constructed within the lower 

terrace (BING, OCLP CLR, 2016).
Agricultural Feature Guidelines

83

Current Conditions: The historic foundation of the Red Hillside Barn is located 

on the south side of the historic Lower Farm Road. The area is overgrown with 

brambles and scrub vegetation.

Treatment Guidance: The Red Hillside Barn site, as well as subterranean 

archeological resources, are contributing features and must be protected. 

Additional study of this area is recommended.

Associated Best Practices:

• Resource Management - Cultural Resource Management

Management Considerations: If visitor access to the farmlands is expanded, the 

Red Hillside Barn Foundation would be an excellent site to interpret (Figure 6.25). 

VICINITY OF BLACK HAY BARN FOUNDATION

HISTORIC / CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: Martin Van Buren constructed the Black Hay Barn in 

the spring of 1844 for storage of hay, animals, and grain. The large barn was 

constructed on the lower terrace near Kinderhook Creek. 

Existing Conditions: Although the Black Hay Barn is no longer extant, the 

location of this former structure is known and is a contributing archeological 

feature that must be protected. In 1948, Ray Meyer burned the Black Hay Barn. 

After removing the structural remains, Meyer dumped some of the building’s 

foundation stones along the bank of Kinderhook Creek, while others were left 

in place.23 The site is located within the southern portion of the lower terrace 

field. The Black Hay Barn Site is east of the historic Lower Farm Road and 

approximately 250 feet east of Kinderhook Creek. A slight topographic rise 

distinguishes the Black Hay Barn site from the surrounding agricultural field. 

Figure 6.25. Vicinity of Red Hillside 

Barn Foundation (OCLP, 2018).
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

84

Treatment Guidance: The Black Hay Barn site is an archeological site and should 

be protected.(Figure 6.26) Likely additional foundation stones and artifacts 

remain subterranean. Treatment of this area should follow guidelines established 

in the Conservation Easement specifically that “the Grantor shall not disturb 

soils in the area [of subsurface resources] deeper than twenty-four inches and 

shall notify the Grantee if foundation stones are discovered.”

Associated Best Practices:

• Resource Management - Cultural Resource Management

Management Considerations: This site is near the Farm Road. If a regional trail 

corridor or interpretive trail is developed in the lower terrace, the Black Hay Barn 

site should be referenced in interpretive waysides and other media (Figure 6.26).

OLD STONE HOUSE

HISTORIC / CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: The Old Stone House was built on the lower terrace during 

the tenure of Van Alstyne. The date of the removal of the Old Stone House is 

unknown. 

Existing Conditions: The Old Stone House is an area with subsurface remains 

located within the lower terrace (Figure 6.27).

Treatment Guidance: As an identified area of subsurface remains, the soil in this 

area should not be disturbed by deeper than twenty-four inches. The National 

Park Service should be notified if foundation stones are discovered. 

Figure 6.26. Black Hay Barn Foundation 

discovered in Roxbury Farm Fields 

(Roxbury Farm, 2017).
Agricultural Feature Guidelines

85

DINGMAN FENCE

HISTORIC / CONTRIBUTING

Historic Conditions: Historically the Dingman fence separated Van Buren’s house 

lot and orchard from Dingham’s land to the northeast. The extant to which this 

fence extended west is unknown. 

Existing Conditions: The existence of scattered remnants of a fence along the 

boundary is documented in Cultural Landscape Report for Martin Van Buren 

National Historic Site, Volume I: Site History, Existing Conditions, and Analysis 

(1995).

Treatment Guidance: The evidence of the Dingman Fence, as a contributing 

feature of the landscape, should be preserved (Figure 6.28).

Associated Best Practices:

• Resource Management - Cultural Resource Management

ORIGINAL POST ROAD ALONG EDGE OF LOWER TERRACE 

UNDETERMINED

Historic Conditions: Prior to the Van Buren period the Post Road ran through the 

property’s lower terrace. By Van Buren’s ownership of the property, the Post 

Road had been relocated eastward to its present location in front of the mansion.18

Existing Conditions: No evidence of the original Post Road is visible above 

ground. 

Figure 6.27. Vicinity oF Old Stone 

House site (OCLP, 2014).
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

86

Treatment Guidance: Archeological investigation of the area is recommended to 

determine if subsurface evidence of the original Post Road remains.

NORTHERN FARM ROAD 

UNDETERMINED

Historic Conditions: This road was present during the Van Buren period and was 

abandoned during the Meyer period.

Existing Conditions: No evidence of the original Northern Farm Road is visible 

above ground.

Treatment Guidance: Archeological investigation of the area is recommended to 

determine if subsurface evidence of the original Northern Farm Road remains

SOUTHERN FARM ROAD

UNDETERMINED

Historic Conditions: The Southern Farm Road was present during Van Buren period 

and abandoned during Meyer period.

Existing Conditions: No evidence of the original Southern Farm Road remains 

above ground, except where it is incorporated into the historic Lower Farm Road.

Treatment Guidance: Archeological investigation of the area is recommended to 

determine if subsurface evidence of the original Southern Farm Road remains.

VICINITY OF THE CARRIAGE BARN 

UNDETERMINED

Historic Conditions: The Carriage Barn, once located to the northwest of the 

mansion, was built by Van Ness. Van Buren used the carriage barn throughout his 

Figure 6.28. View west from northwest 

corner of the upper terrace field along 

the north boundary of the historic 

Van Buren property in the area of the 

Historic Dingman Fence. Remnants of 

a hedgerow are visible in the landscape 

today. Documentation indicates the 

historic boundary with the Dingham 

property was delineated with a fence. 

It is likely that a volunteer hedgerow 

was present during the hstoric period, 

a pattern in the landscape that persists 

today (OCLP 2014).
Agricultural Feature Guidelines

87

tenure at the property. In the DeProsse period in the early 1900s, the barn stabled 

horses and stored carriages. Meyer burned down the Carriage Barn in 1947.21

Existing Conditions: Though no above ground evidence of the Carriage Barn 

remains, the barn’s approximate historic location has been determined through 

analysis of historic maps.

Treatment Guidance: This approximate location should be preserved and 

protected. Agricultural activity in this area should be minimized. 

FENCING

UNDETERMINED

Historic Conditions: The exact location and style of fencing used by Van Buren is 

unknown, although the existence of fencing through the estate is documented in 

historic records. 

Existing Conditions: Except for the Dingman Fence, no remnants of historic 

fences exist on the property.

Treatment Guidance: Archaeological investigation of areas where fences were 

located historically is necessary to locate the remains, if any, of historic fencing. 

If found, these archeological remains would contribute to the significance of 

the property, and help to establish the location and type of fencing used on the 

property during the period of significance. 

ORCHARD SITES

NON-EXTANT

Historic Conditions: Van Buren planted orchards on the Lindenwald property, 

however no Van Buren era orchards remain. The north orchard extended along 

the north portion of the house lot and was divided into two sections. The front 

section (nearer the mansion) contained pear trees and the rear section contained 

apple trees. The rear portion of the orchard extended down the escarpment and 

into the present day lower terrace field. The south apple orchard, less than half 

the size of the north orchard, was located at the west end of the garden. Both the 

north and south orchards were removed by subsequent land owners. 

Existing Conditions: The front portion of the north orchard, now known as the 

north woodlot, is a mixture of woodland tree species. The locations of the rear 

and south orchards are now cultivated farmland. 

Treatment Guidance: Van Buren’s orchards were once an important feature in the 

Lindenwald landscape. However, the only orchard site extant is not subject to 

agricultural lease or easement. The area is currently under easement is used for 

agricultural and should remain so. 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

88
Lindenwald

Mansion

Administration/ Visitor 

Services

Maintenance 

Buildings

Old Post Road

Agricultural Field

UpperTerrace

Myer Farm Complex

Farm Cottage

Agricultural Field

Lower Terrace

Kinderhook Creek

Irrigation Ditch

Farm Road

Upper Farm Road

Route 9-H

Albany Avenue (County Route 25) 

Martin Van Buren Nature 

Area Trailhead

Trailhead

Shed

Ditch Traces

Lower Farm Road

Upper Pond

Van Ness Monument

Lower Pond

Vicinity of Old 

Stone House

Vicinity of Black 

Hay Barn

Woodland 

Agricultural Fields

Roxbury Farm

Spruce and Fir 

Plantings

Poplars 

Red Hillside Barn 

Foundation

Lower Farm

Complex Pond

Little Pond

Kinderhook Creek 

Bank Treatment

Ditch Trace

(Easement)

Vegetated

Escarpment

PRIVATE

PRIVATE

ROXBURY FARM ROXBURY FARM

ROXBURY FARM

ROXBURY FARM

WITH EASEMENT

ROXBURY FARM PRIVATE

PRIVATE WITH

EASEMENT PRIVATE WITH

EASEMENT

PRIVATE WITH

EASEMENT

NPS

NPS OWNED

LEASED FIELDS

NPS

NPS

NPS

NPS

Agricultural Management

Guidelines

Kinderhook, New York

Agricultural Features

National Park Service

Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation

SOURCES

Drawing 1

Martin Van Buren

National Historic Site

OLMSTED

for LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION

CENTER

www.nps.gov/oclp

1. All features shown in approximate scale and location.

0’ 125’ 250’ 500’

1. Orthophotos, NYS GIS Clearinghouse

2. NPS GIS data, Nigel Shaw 2003

3. Martin Van Buren NHS CLR Volume I & II, David Uschold, 1995, 1997

4. Preservation Maintenance Plan for Martin Van Buren NHS, 

 Britzel et. all, 1996

5. General Management Plan for Martin Van Buren NHS, 2015

6. Site visits, field notes, photography, 2014- 2018.

LEGEND

Turf

Gravel Roadway

Building

Bituminous Concrete

Cultivated Field

Water Feature

NPS Boundary

Woodland

NOTES

Land Parcel Boundaries

Endnotes

91

Endnotes

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

1. Alexandra von Bieberstein and Margie Brown, Cultural Landscape Report for Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, 

Volume II: Updated Treatment Plan and Record of Treatment. 2016, 5-6.

2. von Bieberstein, 5-6.

3. von Bieberstein, 5-6.

HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OVERVIEW

1. Public Archeology Lab, “National Register of Historic Places Nomination for the Martin Van Buren National Historic 

Site.” 2012.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

1. Please note, this section on Habitats, Flora and Fauna is based on the findings of the 2004 Biological Survey by Hudsonia 

Ltd. 

AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

1. Conservation Easement (in appendices), 2004

2. “Martin Van Buren National Historic Site: General Management Plan, Environmental Assessment (GMP).” National 

Park Service, 2015, p.18.

3. National Park Service, 2015, p. 18

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

1 The National Park Service identifies fundamental resources and important resources in General Management Plans. 

Fundamental resources are features, systems, processes, experiences, stories, scenes, sounds, smells and other attributes 

that warrant primary consideration during planning and management because they are critical to achieving the park’s 

purpose and maintaining its significance. Fundamental resources must be owned and managed by the National Park 

Service (GMP, 14-15). Important resources are other resources and values that are not fundamental to the purpose of the 

park and may be unrelated to its significance, but are considered to be important in the planning process. These resources 

are important in the operation and management of the park and warrant special consideration in park planning. 

2 NPS-77: Natural Resource Management Reference Manual #77 (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 2004).

3 “Martin Van Buren National Historic Site: General Management Plan, Environmental Assessment (GMP).” National 

Park Service, 2015, p. 18.

4 Magdoff, Fred and Harold Van Es, Building Soils for Better Crops: Sustainable Soil Management,Waldorf, MD, 2009, p. 7; 

see also Jody Bolluyt and Keri Latiolais. “OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop,” Workshop by Olmsted Center for 

Landscape Preservation. 2/3/17.

5 Magdoff and Van Es, 2009, p. 7.

6 Magdoff and Van Es, 2009, p. 7.

7 Magdoff and Van Es, 2009, p. 7.
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

92

8 Magdoff and Van Es, 2009, p. 7.

9 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17. 

10 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

11 Grubinger, Vernon P. “Sustainable Vegetable Production from Start-Up to Market.” Ithaca, New York, 1999), p. 46.

12 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

13 Courtens, Jean- Paul, “Fertility Management at Roxbury Farm.” 2010, p. 5.

14 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

15 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

16 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

17 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

18 “Whole Farm Approach to Plant and Soil Health at Roxbury Farm”, Slide 21.

19 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

20 Courtens, 2010, 4.

21 Courtens, 2010.

22 Courtens, 2010.

23 Courtens, 2010.

24 Courtens, 2010.

25 Courtens, 2010.

26 Courtens, 2010.

27 Courtens, 2010.

28 Courtens, 2010.

29 Courtens, 2010.

30 NPS-77; Please note, the Natural Resource Conservation Service can prepare conservation plans that assist in controlling soil erosion, at no cost to the park.

31 NPS-77.

32 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

33 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

34 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

35 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

36 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

37 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

38 Magdoff and Van Es, 2009, pp. 26-27.

39 Magdoff and Van Es, 2009, p. 188.

40 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

41 Brown, Martha, Jan Perez, and Albie Miles. “Teaching Organic Farming & Gardening.” University of California, 2015, pp. 

209-213.
Endnotes

93

42 Brown, Martha et al., pp. 213-214.

43 Grubinger, 1999, p. 112.

44 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/2017.

45 Brown, Martha, Jan Perez and Albie Miles, 2015, pp. 205-216.

46 Magdoff and Van Es, 2009, 189; OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/2017.

47 7 U.S.C. United States Code, 2013 edition, Title 7- Agriculture, Chapter 6, Insecticides and Environmental Pesticide Control, Subchapter II- Environmental Pesticide Control, Sec. 136.

48 National Pesticide Information Center, http://npic.orst.edu/health/storage.html, accessed 2/15/17.

49 National Pesticide Information Center, http://npic.orst.edu/health/storage.html, accessed 2/15/17.

50 National Pesticide Information Center, http://npic.orst.edu/health/storage.html, accessed 2/15/17.

51 National Pesticide Information Center, http://npic.orst.edu/health/storage.html, accessed 2/15/17.

52 National Pesticide Information Center, http://npic.orst.edu/health/storage.html, accessed 2/15/17.

53 National Pesticide Information Center, http://npic.orst.edu/health/storage.html, accessed 2/15/17.

54 National Pesticide Information Center, http://npic.orst.edu/health/storage.html, accessed 2/15/17.

55 The National Park Service Integrated Pest Management Manual provides descriptions of the biology and management 

of twenty-one species or categories of pests.

56 NPS-77.

57 NPS-77.

58 NPS-77.

59 NPS-77.

60 NPS-77.

61 Grubinger, 1999, p. 149.

62 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

63 Grubinger, 1999, pp. 5 and 150.

64 Grubinger, 1999, pp. 5 and 150; and OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

65 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

66 Grubinger, 1999, pp. 5 and 150; OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

67 Grubinger, 1999, pp. 5 and 150; OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

68 Grubinger, 1999, pp. 5 and 150; OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

69 Grubinger, 1999, pp. 5 and 150; OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

70 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

71 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17..

72 Grubinger, 1999, p.157. 

73 Grubinger, 1999, p.157.

74 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

75 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

94

76 Grubinger, 1999, p. 5.

77 Grubinger, 1999, p. 5.

78 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

79 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17..

80 Grubinger, 1999, p. 5.

81Grubinger, 1999, p. 5.

82 Grubinger, 1999, p. 5.

83 Grubinger, 1999, p. 5.

84 Grubinger, 1999, p. 5.

85 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

86 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17; Grubinger, 1999, p. 173.

87 Grubinger, 1999, p. 177.

88 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

89 Grubinger, 1999, p. 177.

90 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

91 Grubinger, 1999, p. 177.

92 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

93 https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm268229.htm accessed 2/24/17.

94 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

95 Phillips, Gansvoort Farm, https//sites.google.com/site/gansvoort/sustainable-livestock-management, accessed 2/1/17.

96 OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm Workshop, 2/3/17.

97 NPS-77.

98 von Bieberstein, Alexandra and Margie Brown, “Cultural Landscape Report for Martin Van Buren National Historic 

Site, Volume II: Updated Treatment Plan and Record of Treatment.” National Park Service, 2016, p. 35.

99 NPS-28, Section A.

100 Conservation Agriculture poster by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

101 Conservation Agriculture poster by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

102 NPS-77.

103 NPS-77.

104 NPS-77.

105 United States Department of Agriculture, NRCS Riparian Buffer Conservation Plan, (2/2007)

106 NPS-77.

107 NPS-77.

108 NPS-77.
Endnotes

95

AGRICULTURAL FEATURE GUIDELINES

1. Alexandra von Bieberstein, “Cultural Landscape Inventory for Martin Van Buren National Historic Site Landscape,” 

National Park Service, 2013,p. 64.

2 Ibid.

3 Llerena Searle, “A Farmer in his Native Town: Cultural Landscape Report for the Martin Van Buren Farmland.” National 

Park Service, 2004), p. 87.

4 Searle, pp. 109-110.

5 Searle, pp. 145-146.

6 Searle, pp. 109-110.

7 Searle, p. 110.

8 Searle, pp. 109-110.

9 Searle, p. 109.

10 Searle, pp. 109-110.

11 Searle, pp. 108-110.

12 Searle, p. 151.

13 David L. Uschold, Cultural Landscape Report for Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, (Boston: National Park 

Service, 1995), pp. 167.

14 Llerena Searle. “A Farmer in his Native Town: Cultural Landscape Report for the Martin Van Buren Farmland.” National 

Park Service, 2004, pp. 111-112.

15 Searle, p. 152.

16 Searle, p. 33.

17 Searle, p. 153.

18 Searle, p. 64.

19 New York Commercial Advertiser, November 1841, quoted in Stokinger, 61-2; cited in Farmlands, 2004, 37.

20 Llerena Searle, A Farmer in his Native Town: Cultural Landscape Report for the Martin Van Buren Farmland, (Boston: 

National Park Service, 2004), 38.

21 Searle, p. 111.

22 Searle, p. 127.

23 Searle, p. 111.
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

96
References

97

References

PUBLISHED BOOKS, JOURNALS AND ARTICLES

Grubinger, Vernon P. Sustainable Vegetable Production from Start-Up to Market. 

Ithaca, New York: Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service 

(NRAES), 1999.

Magdoff, Fred and Harold Van Es. Building Soils for Better Crops: Sustainable Soil 

Management, Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education (SARE), United 

States Department of Agriculture, 2009.

REPORTS, REGULATIONS, AND BULLETINS

Brown, Martha, Jan Perez, and Albie Miles. “Teaching Organic Farming & 

Gardening.” University of California, 2015.

Courtens, Jean-Paul. “Fertility Management at Roxbury Farm: A Personal 

Narrative.” Roxbury Farm, 2010.

Hudsonia, Inc. “Biological Survey for the Martin Van Buren National Historic 

Site.” unpublished report, National Park Service, 2004.

National Park Service. “Martin Van Buren National Historic Site: General 

Management Plan, Environmental Assessment (GMP).” 2015.

National Park Service. “NPS-77: Natural Resource Management Reference 

Manual.”2004.

National Park Service. “NPS-28, Cultural Resource Management Guidelines.” 

1998.

National Park Service. “NPS-38 Leasing Reference Manual for 36 CFR Part 18.” 

2008.

Public Archaeology Lab. “National Register Nomination for the Martin Van Buren 

National Historic Site.” Public Archaeology Lab, 2012.

Roxbury Farm, Inc. “Whole Farm Approach to Plant and Soil Health at Roxbury 

Farm.” ND.

Tierney, R. G. and J. Gibbs. In prep. Natural Resource Condition Assessment: 

Martin Van Buren National Historic Site. Natural Resource Report NPS/XXXX/

NRR—20XX/XXX. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

98

United States Code, , Title 7- Agriculture, Chapter 6, Insecticides and Environmental 

Pesticide Control, Subchapter II- Environmental Pesticide Control, Sec. 136- 

Definitions, 2013.

von Bieberstein, Alexandra and Margie Brown, “Cultural Landscape Report for 

Martin Van Buren National Historic Site. Cultural Landscape Report, Volume II 

Treatment.” National Park Service, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 

2016.

INTERVIEWS

Bolluyt, Jody and Keri Latiolais. “OCLP, MAVA, and Roxbury Farm 

Workshop,” Workshop by Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 

February 3, 2017.
Appendices

99

Appendices

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Agricultural

Agricultural connotes activity having to do with farming or land cultivation. 

Agrarian means actively promoting the interests of farmers, especially by 

advocating for more equitable bases of land ownership, sometimes including 

redistribution of lands held by wealthy owners.

Ballasting Tractors

Ballasting a tractor is the process of adding weight to a tractor’s driving wheels in 

order to increase its tire friction. If tire slippage is lower than 10%, ballast should 

be removed in order to prevent fuel waste and excessive soil compaction. If tire 

slippage is higher than 20%, ballast should be added to prevent fuel waste and 

premature tire wear. 

Biodynamic

Biodynamic relates to a system of farming that follows a sustainable, holistic 

approach which uses only organic, usually locally-sourced materials for fertilizing 

and soil conditioning, views the farm as a closed, diversified ecosystem, and often 

bases farming activities on lunar cycle

Calendar spray

Calendar spray describes the application of pesticides on a regular time interval, 

e.g., weekly, regardless of need.

Composting

The managed decomposition of organic residues to produce a biologically stable 

material.

Conservation tillage

All tillage methods that leave more than 30% of soil covered in crop residue. 

Includes no-till, mulch-till, and ridge-till.

Corridor

A corridor is an elongated patch that may connect other patches together. A 

corridor may be meandering or straight, narrow or wide, and connected or 

disconnected. Corridors are often major conduits for the movement of wildlife, 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

100

water, and other living and nonliving elements.

Cover crop

A cover crop is grown to protect and improve the soil, rather than to provide 

income.

Crop rotation

Crop rotation is the systematic alternation of crops on the same field or farm over 

time

Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), New York State

New York State’s environmental protection and regulatory agency

Drip Tape

Drip tape is a type of drip irrigation system, a plastic or rubber hose with small 

holes that allow water to slowly drip out

Ecological Services (or Ecosystem Services)

A positive benefit that wildlife and/or ecosystems provide for humans. These 

benefits may be on a large or small scale, and either direct or indirect.

Fallow

Farmland that is temporarily not being used to produce cash crops. Letting 

farmland become fallow for two to three weeks or more allows the soil to rest and 

thereby can enhance soil quality for future production.

Fence Rows

A narrow strip of woody vegetation separating two upland meadows marking a 

former or extant fence line, stone wall or drainage ditch

Fundamental Resource

A fundamental Resource is a resource which, based on the park’s enabling 

legislation or presidential proclamation, contributes to the core significance, 

values, and primary interpretive themes.

General Management Plan (GMP)

This is a broad umbrella document that sets the long-term goals for the park based 

on the foundation statement. The general management plan (1) clearly defines the 

desired natural and cultural resource conditions to be achieved and maintained 

over time; (2) clearly defines the necessary conditions for visitors to understand, 

enjoy, and appreciate the park’s significant resources, and (3) identifies the 

kinds and levels of management activities, visitor use, and development that are 
Appendices

101

appropriate for maintaining the desired conditions; and (4) identifies indicators 

and standards for maintaining the desired conditions.

Green Manure Crops

Fast-growing plants used increase soil nutrients and organic matter by covering 

bare soil, preventing soil erosion, and bringing up nutrients through their roots.

Habitat

A habitat is the natural environment that meets a species’ specific requirements for 

(1) cover from weather and predators, (2) food and water, and (3) courtship and 

reproduction

Habitat Fragmentation

Habitat Fragmentation is the process by which large areas of intact habitat patches 

are converted into fewer, smaller, and more disconnected habitat patches. Habitat 

fragmentation may occur due to human activities such as the construction of 

new roads and fences, or natural processes such as the widening of a stream. This 

results in a loss of habitat and a higher probability of wildlife becoming isolated 

from critical resources. 

Intensive-till

All tillage methods that leave less than 15% of soil covered in crop residue. 

Intercropping

Intercropping is a method of planting two or more crops of differing 

characteristics in close proximity to reduce weeds; to encourage plant diversity in 

order to avoid insect and pest infestation; and to provide shade, nitrogen fixation, 

and to increase the yield of a given piece of land. 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

Integrated pest management (IPM) is an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses 

on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of 

techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of 

cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties. Pesticides are used only after 

monitoring indicates they are needed according to established guidelines, and 

treatments are made with the goal of removing only the target organism. Pest 

control materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to 

human health, beneficial and nontarget organisms, and the environment. 

No-till

In no-till soil management, no tilling of the soil occurs between harvest time 

(usually in the fall) until planting (usually in the spring). In a no-till approach, 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

102

more than thirty percent of the soil remains covered in crop residue to minimize 

soil erosion and maximize the percentage of organic matter incorporated into the 

soil. 

Organic

Organic is used to describe a product grown and produced without the use of 

artificial chemicals.

Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI)

The Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) is an international nonprofit 

organization that determines which input products are allowed for use in organic 

production and processing.

Paddock

A paddock is a small enclosed field for pasturing animals.

Patch

A patch is a discrete land area that is different from its surroundings and has a 

definite size, shape, and composition. A patch may be defined as an area with a 

particular resource that does not exist in the surrounding area. 

Pests

Pests are living organisms that interfere with the purposes or management 

objectives of a specific site or that jeopardize human health or safety.

Preservation

Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to 

sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, 

including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally 

focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and 

features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. 

Reduced-till

In reduced-till cultivation, between fifteen and thirty percent of soil remains 

covered in crop residue after harvest. 

Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use 

for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those 

portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.

Reconstruction 
Appendices

103

Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new 

construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, 

building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a 

specific period of time and in its historic location.

Restoration 

Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, 

features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of 

time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and 

reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. 

Rotational grazing

In rotational grazing, livestock graze in one small paddock for a limited amount 

of time before they are moved to a different paddock. Rotational grazing gives 

vegetation in previously grazed pastures time to rest and regrow before being 

grazed again. It also has been shown to improve the nesting success of grassland 

birds. 

Silviculture 

Silviculture is the art and science of controlling the establishment, growth, 

composition, health and quality of woodlands to meet the diverse needs and 

values of landowners and society on a sustainable basis. 

Spatial Scale

Spatial Scale is the distance between habitat patches relative to the dispersal 

distance of the organism.

Temporal Scale

Temporal Scale is habitat lifespan relative to the generation time of the organism.

Tilling

Tilling is to dig into and break up soil in order to prepare it for seeding. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

The USDA provides leadership on issues related to food, agriculture, and natural 

resources, including energy, based on sound public policy, the best available 

science, and efficient management. USDA focuses on further developing 

alternative markets for agricultural products and activities, providing financing 

to expand job opportunities and improve housing, utilities, and infrastructure in 

rural America. The Department also works to enhance food safety, protect and 

manage land, improve nutrition and health, and support international agricultural 

and economic development. 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

104
Appendices

105

Appendices

APPENDIX B: RELEVANT CASE STUDIES

The case studies below provide examples of different approaches to the 

management and documentation of agricultural pursuits at sites within the 

National Park Service. 

Booker T. Washington National Monument, Virginia, www.nps.gov/BOWA

Booker T. Washington National Monument works in conjunction with the Smith 

Mountain Lake Rotary Club to provide fresh vegetables and fruits to low-income 

individuals and families in the area.

Civil War Defenses of Washington, Washington, D.C., www.nps.gov/CWDW

Within the Civil War Defenses of Washington, the Fort Dupont Community 

Gardens provide over two hundred plots allowing area residents the opportunity 

to grow their own vegetables for more than thirty years. All gardeners must attend 

an orientation session and agree not to use chemical fertilizers or pesticides. In 

2010 a NPS partner, The Neighborhood Farm Initiative, began a program to train 

new gardeners in organic practices.

Essex National Heritage Area, Massachusetts, www.essexheritage.org

In 2005 the Essex National Heritage Commission worked in partnership with 

Massachusetts State Department of Conservation Resources to conduct a 

Heritage Landscape Inventory which included many of the region’s more than 

two hundred family-owned farmsteads.

Freedom’s Way National Heritage Area, Massachusetts, www.freedomsway.org

Staff at Freedom’s Way National Heritage Area collected oral histories of local 

farmers through a program entitled “Saving Voices: Saving Farms”. There are one 

hundred and fifty five farms within the Heritage Area and twenty-eight farmers 

markets. 

Gateway National Recreation Area, New Jersey & New York, www.nps.gov/GATE 

Gateway National Recreation Area has an active community gardening program 

offering education workshops on a wide variety of subjects including composting 

and canning. 

Gettysburg National Military Park, Pennsylvania, www.nps.gov/GETT
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

106

At Gettysburg National Military Park allows visitors to gather fruit for personal 

use from more than thirty orchards in the park. Their deer management program 

contributes all of the venison harvested to area food banks.

Hampton National Historic Site, Maryland, www.nps.gov/HAMP

Hampton National Historic Site offers interpretive programs celebrating spring 

and fall harvests, including children’s programming. In addition annual event 

celebrate food, including Dairy Day and a Wine Tasting

Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, Pennsylvania, www.nps.gov/HOFU

Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site raises sheep which are sold at auction 

in the fall, as well as holding an annual sheep shearing. A dye and herb garden on 

site is managed by Master Gardener volunteers and students in a local high school 

horticultural program. They also allow visitors to harvest apples.

Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park, Vermont, www.nps.gov/MABI

The Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park uses Cow Power to full 

the Full Circle Trolley in the park. Cow Power is run through Central Vermont 

Public Service’s Cow Power Program, which uses methane digesters to turn waste 

into enters. Treks to Taste, a series of events made possible through a partnerships 

that make connections between healthy lifestyles, national parks, community 

walking trails, and local food grown by regional area farms. Dishes made from 

local food, prepared by volunteers, are sampled by groups of walker at various 

trail destinations throughout the park.

The Sustainability and Leadership Institute is run through partnerships with State 

government and a local school. The program offers student participants forcredit classes on energy conservation, alternative transportation, and sustainable 

agriculture. Students conduct regular public presentations sharing knowledge 

with parents and community members

Minute Man National Historical Park, Massachusetts, www.nps.gov/MIMA

Through a partnerships with nonprofit farm-based educational organization, The 

Farm School of Athol, Massachusetts, the Park allows students to graze heritage 

animals on park lands and offers educational programs based on sustainability, 

historical methods, environmental stewardship, healthy food, and outdoor 

experience. The program Battle Roads Farm hosts young apprentice farmers

National Colonial Farm (Piscataway Park),Maryland, www.nps.gov/PISC

At National Colonial Farm (Piscataway Park) a partnership with the Accokeek 

Foundation makes open-to-the-public agriculture programs possible. A 

partnership with Ecosystem Farm supports the training of two or three apprentice 

farmers a year. A CSA program at the park has about seventy member families.
Appendices

107

Rock Creek Park, Washington, D.C. www.nps.gov/ROCR

Rock Creek Park has nine community gardens, overseen by individual community 

garden associations. In addition,members of the Fort Totten neighborhood 

revitalized part of the Mamie D. Lee Garden through a partnership with the 

Neighborhood Farm Initiative, where teens now learn about organic vegetable 

gardening.

Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National Historic Site, New York, www.nps.gov/ROVA

At the Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National Historic Site a Forest Management Plan 

was developed in partnership with SUNY-ESF. In addition, agricultural based 

teaching lessons, created through “Teaching the Hudson Valley”, a Hudson River 

Valley National Heritage Area program are managed by ROVA.

Saratoga National Historical Park, New York, www.nps.gov/SARA

At Saratoga National Historical Park,through the Viewshed Art Program artists 

paint and exhibit various views of lands in the Viewshed Protection Plan. The 

Park also runs a program, “Tour de Farm” were bike riders tour conserved farms 

and Battlefield sites.

Weir Farm National Historic Site, Connecticut, www.nps.gov/WEFA

At Weir Farm National Historic Site, Groundwork Bridgeport, a local youth 

organization, harvests apples and presses them to make cider at the park. 

Wheeling National Heritage Area, West Virginia www.nps.gov/WHEE

The East Wheeling Community Gardens are located in the Wheeling National 

Heritage Area and are supported by a grant program.

Cuyahoga Valley National Park/Cuyahoga Valley Countryside Conservancy

Ohio, www.nps.gov/CUVA and www.cvcountryside.org

Established in 1974, Cuyahoga Valley National Park preserves the rural landscape 

along a 20 mile segment of the meandering Cuyahoga River between Cleveland 

and Akron, Ohio. To aid in preserving the working farms within the park, a 

new non-profit formed in 1999 to advance privately supported, economically 

viable, and environmentally friendly approaches to agricultural practices 

within an agricultural setting. The non-profit, the Cuyahoga Valley Countryside 

Conservancy (CVCC) supports the ten working farms within the park and 

sponsors activities to engage farmers and the community.

Cuyahoga Valley Countryside Conservancy mission is to connect people, food, 

and land by increasing public awareness of how food and farming impact 

personal, community, and environmental health, and by inspiring personal 

commitment to building a resilient, sustainable food culture.
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

108

The programs of the CVCC promote living, working farms in the Cuyahoga 

Valley National Park because they represent the rural heritage of the Cuyahoga 

Valley and protect the park’s resources. Examples of activities facilitated 

by the CVCC include: The CVCC assisted in managing sixty-year leases by 

helping to select farm and field sites to be rehabilitated, recruiting potential 

farmers, providing agricultural expertise, and finding resources needed to 

help both the farmers and the park succeed. The nonprofit aids in agricultural 

business planning and marketing. They also provide educational components, 

including organizing farm tours where the farmer is compensated for 

their time. The Cuyahoga Valley Countryside Conservancy and Cuyahoga 

National Park were recently featured in a National Geographic article 

entitled, “ “National Park Offers Farmland of the People, by the People, 

for the People.” See, http://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/11/

national-park-offers-farmland-of-the-people-by-the-people-for-the-people/

Grant-Kohrs Ranch, Montana, www.nps.gov/GRKO

At Grant-Kohrs Ranch visitors observe key livestock operations including cattle 

moving, branding and calving. Story telling about farming shares the perspectives 

of American Indians, pioneers, cowboys, emigrants, entrepreneurs and cattle 

barons. Each year GRKO hosts a three-day teacher workshop designed to 

adapt and develop curricula focusing on how ranching fits within ecosystem 

management. Community education and land ethic development: Institutional 

memory is handed down to our younger generations, and shared within our local 

and regional community through two college education and on-site programs.

Point-Reyes National Seashore, California, www.nps.gov/PORE

The Point Reyes Ranches Historic District includes more than 22,000 acres 

on the coastal plain, highlighting the origin of ranching in west Marin, and 

emphasizing the history of the Shafter / Howard dairy enterprise (1857–1939), 

also known as the “alphabet ranches”, and its contribution to the development 

of industrial-scale dairy in California. Many of the existing ranches are operated 

by descendents of the early Point Reyes dairies. The park offers interpretative 

programming about the dairying and ranching enterprises. It also has an ongoing 

leasing and agricultural management program. 
Appendices

109

Appendices

APPENDIX C: AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT

Plans are underway to transfer this easement, with some modification, from the 

Open Spate Institute (OSI) to the National Park Service. At present, OSI holds, or 

manages, a version of this easement with Roxbury Farm. 

This Conservation Easement is granted on this 2nd day of April, 2004, by 

JEAN-PAUL COURTENS and JODY LYNN BOLLUYT,

Residing at 2501 Route 9H, PO Box 388, Kinderhook, New York 12106 

(the“Grantor”), to 

OPEN SPACE CONSERVANCY, INC.,

a New York Not-For-Profit corporation with a principal place of business at c/o 

Open Space Institute, Inc., 1350 Broadway, Room 201, New York, New York, 

10018 (the “Grantee”).

WITNESS THAT:

A. The Grantor is the owner in fee of approximately 101.89 acres of property 

(the “Property”) described in Exhibit A, attached to and made a part of this 

Conservation Easement, located in the Town of Kinderhook, County of 

Columbia, and State of New York.

B. The Property has significant agricultural and historic value as formerly being 

part of President Martin Van Buren’s retirement estate. Its conservation and 

protection, including the continuation of farming activities, will help provide 

visitors to the nearby Martin Van Buren National Historic Site (“MVBNHS”) 

with a sense of the local landscape as it existed in Van Buren’s day. Such farming 

activities will also help perpetuate the centuries-old traditional use of the land. 

It is also an integral part of a larger historic setting that includes the nearby 

Luykas Van Alen House and the many historic structures located in the Village of 

Kinderhook.

C. The Property includes frontage on the Kinderhook Creek, which is a tributary 

of the Hudson River. The Creek is an important source of water for agricultural 

use of the Property as well as being a local recreational resource for fishing, 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

110

swimming, paddling, and similar activities. An existing farm road through the 

Property provides access to the Creek from State Route 9H.

D. The primary purpose of this Conservation Easement is to enable the Property 

to remain in agricultural use by preserving and protecting its agricultural soils 

and agricultural viability and productivity, while also: ensuring that the Property’s 

open space, natural, historic, recreational, habitat and scenic values will be 

conserved in perpetuity; providing for limited public recreational access as 

provided herein; and ensuring that uses of the Property that are inconsistent with 

these conservation purposes will be prevented or corrected. 

E. The agricultural and other characteristics of the Property, its current use and 

state of improvement are described in a Present Conditions Report acknowledged 

by the Grantor and the Grantee to be complete and accurate as of the date of 

this Conservation Easement. Both the Grantor and Grantee have copies of the 

Present Conditions Report and will keep it on file. It will be used by the Grantee 

to ensure that any future changes in the use of the Property will be consistent with 

the terms of this Conservation Easement. 

F. The parties agree that the current agricultural uses of the Property shall be 

permitted and are consistent with the conservation purposes of this Conservation 

Easement. However, this paragraph shall not be construed so as to preclude 

future agricultural uses of the Property that are otherwise permitted by this 

Conservation Easement. 

G. The Grantee is a “qualified conservation organization”, as defined by the 

Internal Revenue Code, and accepts the responsibility of enforcing the terms of 

this Conservation Easement and upholding its conservation purposes.

H. The Grantor owns the entire fee simple interest in the Property, including the 

entire mineral estate. 

NOW, THEREFORE, for the reasons given, and in consideration of their mutual 

promises and covenants, the Grantor voluntarily grants and conveys to the 

Grantee, and the Grantee voluntarily accepts, a perpetual Conservation Easement 

over the Property, an immediately vested interest in real property defined by 

Article 49, Title 3, of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law 

(“ECL”), of the nature and character described in this Conservation Easement 

and to the extent hereinafter set forth.

1. Rights Retained by Grantor

The Grantor retains the right to perform any act and engage in all uses of the 

Property that are not specifically prohibited or limited by this Conservation 

Easement. These ownership rights include, but are not limited to, the right to 
Appendices

111

exclude any member of the public from trespassing on the Property, it being 

acknowledged and agreed that except for the Trail Easement described below, no 

right of access by the general public to any portion of the Property is conveyed by 

this Conservation Easement. 

Subject to the restrictions and limitations contained in this Conservation 

Easement, the Grantor expressly reserves the right to engage in any and all 

agricultural practices as that term is defined in the State Agriculture and Markets 

Law and any amendments thereto, in accordance with the Conservation Plan 

described in Paragraph 4 below. It is understood that the term “agricultural 

practices” shall include but not be limited to the breeding, raising, pasturing and 

grazing of any type of livestock and that appropriate and necessary fencing shall 

be allowed. Such term shall also include but not be limited to the planting, raising, 

harvesting and producing agricultural, aquacultural, and horticultural and forestry 

products of every nature and description.

2. Prohibited Acts

Grantor promises to not perform, nor allow others to perform by permission, 

acquiescence, or failure to prevent, any act on or affecting the Property that is 

inconsistent with the covenants set forth below. Grantor also authorizes the 

Grantee to enforce these covenants in the manner described below. However, 

unless otherwise specified below, nothing in this Conservation Easement shall 

require the Grantor to take any action to restore the condition of the Property 

after any Act of God or other event over which Grantor had no control. Grantor 

understands that nothing in this Conservation Easement relieves Grantor of any 

obligation or restriction on the use of the Property imposed by law.

(a) Protection of Historic Landscape Characteristics and Features – Certain 

features (hereinafter the “Historic Features”) within the Property contribute to 

the historic landscape documented in a report entitled, “A Farmer in His Native 

Town: Cultural Landscape Report for Martin Van Buren Farmland,” produced 

by the National Park Service (NPS). A copy of said report is included in the 

Present Conditions Report for the Property. The general locations of the Historic 

Features, to the extent known, are shown on a map prepared by NPS and included 

in the Present Conditions Report. Table 6 of said report, “Summary of Landscape 

Characteristics and Features for Van Buren Farmland,” (pp. 150-155) is included 

in the Present Conditions Report.

The Grantor shall avoid any act or omission that could be detrimental to the 

Historic Features, nor shall the Grantor alter, modify, relocate, remove, damage, 

or destroy said features without prior written approval by the Grantee. In the 

event that any Historic Feature is degraded by act or omission of the Grantor 

without prior written approval by the Grantee, the Grantor shall restore said 

feature to its previous condition to the greatest practical extent. Upon request by 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

112

the Grantor, the NPS may provide technical assistance at no cost to the Grantor 

in connection with protecting or restoring said features, provided that funds have 

been appropriated and are available to the NPS for that purpose.

Feature 1 – Shed – an existing open-fronted storage shed on the north side of 

the Historic Lower Farm Road (Feature 4) opposite the foundation of the Red 

Hillside Barn (Feature 5).

Feature 2 – Historic Ditch Trace – a lineal depression forming a u-shape within 

the ±48.6-acre southernmost field southeast of the Historic Lower Farm Road 

(Feature 4); provided, however, that this covenant shall not prevent normal 

agricultural field work or regular maintenance over and across the Historic Ditch 

Trace.

Feature 3 – Vegetated Escarpment – a partially vegetated slope along the eastern 

edge of the ±13-acre northernmost field and extending southward across 

the Historic Lower Farm Road (Feature 4); notwithstanding Section 6 of this 

easement entitled, “Timber Harvesting,” the Grantor shall not alter or remove 

vegetation from the Vegetated Escarpment except that selective tree cutting may 

be allowed with prior written approval by the Grantee to control insects and 

disease, prevent personal injury and property damage, or for firewood and other 

domestic uses, including construction of permitted fences on the Property. 

Feature 4 – Historic Lower Farm Road – an unpaved vehicle track that descends 

the Vegetated Escarpment (Feature 3) between the Shed (Feature 1) and the 

Foundation of the Red Hillside Barn (Feature 5), and continues southwest 

between the ±16-acre middle field and the ±48.6-acre southernmost field to the 

bank of Kinderhook Creek.

Feature 5 – Foundation of the Red Hillside Barn – a stone foundation on the south 

side of the Historic Lower Farm Road (Feature 4) opposite the Shed (Feature 1).

Feature 6 – Vicinity of the Old Stone House – an area with subsurface remains; the 

Grantor shall not disturb soils in this area deeper than 24 inches and shall notify 

the Grantee if foundation stones are are discovered.

Feature 7 – Vicinity of the Black Hay Barn – an area with subsurface remains; the 

Grantor shall not disturb soils in this area deeper than 24 inches and shall notify 

the Grantee if foundation stones are discovered.

(b) New Construction and Alterations

(i) Subject to Grantee’s prior approval of written plans, which approval shall 

not be unreasonably withheld, Grantor may make pursue new construction and 

alterations as described below (ii – v). New construction and alterations shall 

be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties, with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes 
Appendices

113

(more specifically the section within entitled Guidelines for Rehabilitating 

Cultural Landscapes).

(ii) Two new barns may be constructed on the Property in support of 

ongoing agricultural operations as replacements for two 19th century barns 

destroyed during the mid-20th century. The design of the two new replacement 

barns is to be consistent with the standards referenced above (i) respecting 

building form, massing and roofline geometries of the new structures to be 

compatible with the form, massing and roofline geometry of similar structures 

of the region during the 19th century and compatible with, but not replicating, 

structures that would have existed on the property during the Van Buren 

tenure. The two new replacement barns may incorporate modern construction 

materials, methods, finishes and utility or mechanical systems wherever these will 

not detract from the historic rural character and visual qualities of the historic 

landscape setting.> One barn shall have a maximum footprint of 50 feet by 75 

feet and a maximum height of 35 feet and the second barn shall have a maximum 

footprint of 50 feet by 50 feet and a maximum height of 35 feet, height being 

measured from average finished grade to peak of roof. Provided, however, that 

if the archeological survey reveals a footprint of the barns larger than indicated 

herein, Grantor shall be permitted to build to the size of the barn foundation 

actually revealed, with no maximum height change. Materials, appearance and 

construction techniques shall conform to those of the Martin Van Buren era to 

the greatest practical extent. The locations of such barns shall not be directly on 

the foundations of barns from the Van Buren era identified above as Feature 5 and 

Feature 7, with the precise locations to be approved by Grantee. <The new barn 

locations may be located in the vicinity of the former barn structures, or otherwise 

may be located well beyond the vicinity of the former buildings so as to best 

accommodate present day agricultural operations and to minimize conflicts with 

park visitation.> Subject to available funding, MVBNHS may provide technical 

assistance to Grantor at no cost to Grantor regarding the location, design and 

construction of such structures. 

(ii) Prior to beginning any subsurface disturbance for constructing buildings or 

other structures, or for any other purpose, the Grantor shall provide the NPS 

a reasonable opportunity, at no cost to the Grantor, to conduct archeological 

research at the proposed site(s). The Grantor shall also allow the NPS to 

monitor any excavations for evidence of archeological resources and agrees to 

halt subsurface disturbance in the event significant archeological resources are 

uncovered to allow the NPS a reasonable opportunity, at no cost to the Grantor, 

to conduct further research at that site. A “reasonable opportunity” will allow the 

NPS at least 60 days to plan, contract and conduct said research. This period may 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

114

be longer if necessary to allow site work to be conducted during a viable time of 

the year. Grantee and/or NPS shall provide Grantor with a copy of any report or 

findings made in connection with this provision.

(iii) Notwithstanding the foregoing, Grantor may repair, maintain, rebuild, or 

replace the existing shed described above as Feature 1 in its present location, 

provided, however, that such shed may not be enlarged without Grantee’s 

prior approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Materials, 

appearance and construction techniques shall conform to those of the original 

structure to the greatest practical extent.

(iv) Grantor may run electrical power to the above described barns and shed via 

an underground line in order to operate machinery and provide interior lighting. 

No light fixtures shall be installed on the exterior of such structures or elsewhere 

on the Property. 

(v) Grantor may construct ponds or impoundments and install two wells, one 

each in the immediate vicinity of the barn locations set forth above, for use in the 

agricultural operations.

(vi) Grantee approval of the above construction and alterations may, in some 

cases, be subject to federal environmental compliance which would be completed 

by the NPS (if the NPS is the approving party). Environmental compliance 

requirements would be completed as timely as possible to not unduly burden 

planned activities by the Grantor.

(c) Subdivision

The Property may be subdivided into up to three (3) lots or parcels of no less 

than twenty (20) acres. Provided, however, that such lots or parcels may only 

be sold to an adjoining landowner or landowners. In addition, in the event the 

boundary of the MVBNHS is expanded to include the Property and federal funds 

are appropriated for acquisition purposes, Grantor may subdivide and convey a 

portion of the Property to the United States of America (“USA”), acting through 

NPS, for trail or other purposes.

(d) Mining

The mining or extraction of soil, sand, gravel, rock, oil, natural gas, fuel or any 

other mineral substance, using any method, is prohibited. Provided, however, that 

Grantor may use existing gravel for maintaining the existing road on the Property 

and/or in connection with the construction of roadways and structures allowed by 

this Conservation Easement.

(e) Paving and Road Construction

No portion of the Property shall be paved or otherwise be covered with concrete, 
Appendices

115

asphalt, or any other impervious paving material, nor shall any road for access 

or other purposes be constructed without the advance written permission of the 

Grantee.

(f) Trash

The dumping or accumulation of any kind of trash or refuse on the Property, 

other than compostable materials (the end product of which is intended to 

be used exclusively on the Property or other property owned or leased by the 

Grantor for agricultural production purposes), is prohibited. However, this shall 

not prevent the storage or application of agricultural products and byproducts, or 

the composting of compostable materials, on the Property, so long as it is done in 

accordance with all applicable government laws and regulations. 

(g) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, Grantor has the right to 

maintain the existing underground irrigation piping, and is permitted to install 

new underground irrigation piping, including under all the farm roads and the 

Trail Easement on the Property, at such locations and in such quantity as is 

necessary to carry out the agricultural purposes of this Conservation Easement. 

Grantor shall provide Grantee and/or NPS with ten (10) days’ prior written notice 

of intent to install new irrigation piping, including a sketch of the approximate 

location of such installation, and Grantee and/or NPS shall be permitted 

a reasonable opportunity to observe the excavation associated with such 

installation.

3. Trail Easement.

(a) Grant of Trail Easement. 

(i) The Grantor grants forever to the Grantee and its successors and assigns a trail 

easement (the “Trail Easement”) for the general public to use a designated trail 

that may in the future be constructed on the Property (the “Trail”). 

(ii) The Trail Easement shall be a twenty-five (25) foot wide corridor to be 

located by consultation among Grantor, Grantee and NPS. However, it is the 

intention of the parties that the Trail Easement shall be located, to the greatest 

extent practicable, along the Kinderhook Creek and along the western most and 

northern most boundaries of the Property. The Trail shall be located, designed 

and constructed so as to minimize to the greatest practical extent any interference 

with Grantor’s agricultural use of the Property.

(iii) The Trail Easement shall not be construed as permission for the general public 

to enter upon any portion of the Property other than the Trail. The Grantor 

expressly reserves the right to cross the Trail Easement to draw water from 

the Kinderhook Creek for irrigation and other purposes related to its use and 

ownership of the Property, provided that the means of such drawing of water shall 

accommodate the public’s use of the Trail Easement to the greatest practicable 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

116

extent. The Trail Easement shall run with the land and bind the heirs, successors 

and assigns of the Grantor and shall inure to the benefit of the Grantee. Grantee 

may assign its rights and obligations under the Trail Easement to a third party such 

as USA, acting through NPS, subject to such assignee providing liability protection 

to the Grantor in an amount and manner reasonably acceptable to the Grantor.

(iv) In the event that the boundary of the MVBNHS is enlarged to include the 

Property and subject to available funding, NPS may provide interpretive services 

and Park Ranger patrol services in connection with the Trail.

(b) Permitted Uses of Trail. If constructed, the general public may use the Trail 

from dawn until dusk for the specific purposes of walking, hiking, jogging, 

snowshoeing, cross country skiing, horseback riding, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. Grantee and/or its designee(s) may only use motorized 

vehicles and/or equipment within the Trail Easement for administrative purposes 

including trail construction, trail maintenance, and enforcement.

(c) Maintenance of Trail. Grantee expressly accepts said Trail Easement in 

“as is” condition, and agrees that the Grantor will not be responsible for the 

maintenance, upkeep, or repair of any portion of the Trail Easement and/or Trail 

after the time in which the Grantee first begins to enter the Trail Easement to 

construct or create said Trail. If the Grantee or its successor or assignee elects to 

construct the Trail, it shall build, repair, rebuild, mark, and maintain the Trail at 

its sole cost and expense. Any construction or creation of the Trail shall include 

appropriate signage, fencing and/or markings for and along said Trail to delineate 

the location of the Trail, inform the general public of the nature and terms of the 

Trail Easement, and notify the public of any hazardous conditions existing on the 

Trail. Maintenance of the Trail will include upkeep, repair and replacement of the 

Trail’s signage, fencing and markings, clearing brush and vegetation from the Trail, 

and keeping the Trail in good repair and condition. If the Grantee or its successor 

or assignee elects not to maintain the Trail as described above, it shall close the 

Trail to public use. The Grantee may delegate the exercise of its rights hereunder 

to a third party including, without limitation, USA, acting through NPS, and/or the 

Town of Kinderhook. 

(d) Liability and Indemnification. The Grantee hereby expressly assumes any and 

all risks or liabilities associated with or related to the use and/or occupancy of the 

Trail Easement and/or Trail. The Grantee further hereby remises, releases and 

forever discharges the Grantor from and against any and all claims, actions, suits, 

causes of action, or legal proceedings whatsoever, in law or equity, by reason of 

Grantee’s use and/or occupation of the Trail Easement and Trail, including any 

claim for property damage, property loss or personal injury of any employee or 

representative of the Grantee or any guests, invitees, or visitors of same, including 

members of the general public. The Grantee shall indemnify and reimburse the 

Grantor for these payments, as well as for reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses 
Appendices

117

of defending itself. Provided, however, that the foregoing shall not apply to the 

extent the Grantor or any of its agents committed a willful or negligent act that is 

determined by a court to have contributed to the injury or damage. 

(e) Insurance. The Grantee agrees to secure and keep in force from and after the 

commencement of the Trail Easement, at Grantee’s sole cost and expense, general 

liability insurance with a minimum limit of liability of One Million ($1,000,000.00) 

Dollars (or the commercially reasonable limits applicable at the time) which 

shall contain (1) contractual liability covering all written contracts including this 

easement and (2) personal injury and real and personal property damage liability. 

The Grantor shall be named as an additional insured party on such insurance 

policy and shall be provided a Certificate of Insurance. The Grantee shall be 

solely responsible to insure any and all personal property it maintains on the Trail 

Easement and/or Trail, even if such property is incorporated into any structure as 

a permanent fixture.

4. Development Rights

Grantor hereby grants to Grantee all development rights that are now or hereafter 

allocated to, implied, reserved or inherent in the Property and the parties agree 

that such rights are terminated and extinguished, and may not be used on or 

transferred to any portion of the Property as it now or hereafter may be bounded 

or described, or to any other property adjacent or otherwise, nor used for the 

purpose of calculating permissible lot yield of the Property or any other property.

5. Conservation Practices

All agricultural operations on the Property shall be conducted in a manner 

consistent with a conservation plan prepared by a qualified conservation 

professional. Such plan shall be updated periodically, and in any event any time 

the basic type of agricultural operation on the Property changes or ownership 

of the Property changes, and shall provide for management of the Property in a 

manner consistent with “best management practices”, as those practices may be 

identified from time to time by appropriate governmental educational institutions, 

and in a manner not wasteful of soil resources or detrimental to water quality or 

conservation. A copy of such plan shall be provided to Grantee.

6. Timber Harvesting

Trees may be selectively cut to control insects and disease, to prevent personal 

injury and property damage, and for firewood and other domestic uses, including 

construction of permitted fences on the Property. Subject to the prior written 

approval of the Grantee, trees and other vegetation may also be cut to clear 

land for agricultural use. Subject to the prior written approval of the Grantee, 

commercial timber harvesting on the Property may be conducted on a sustainable 

yield basis and in substantial accordance with a forest management plan prepared 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

118

by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation or by a 

forester certified by the Society of American Foresters.

7. Responsibilities of Grantor and Grantee Not Affected

Other than as specified herein, this Conservation Easement is not intended to 

impose any legal or other responsibility on the Grantee or in any way to affect any 

existing obligation of the Grantor as owner of the Property. Among other things, 

this shall apply to:

(a) Taxes -- The Grantor shall continue to be solely responsible for payment of all 

taxes and assessments levied against the Property. If the Grantee is ever required 

to pay any taxes or assessments on its interest in the Property, the Grantor will 

provide reimbursement for the same.

(b) Upkeep and Maintenance – Except for the Trail Easement described above, 

Grantor shall continue to be solely responsible for the upkeep and maintenance 

of the Property, to the extent it may be required by law. The Grantee shall have no 

obligation for the upkeep or maintenance of the Property except that, for the said 

Trail Easement, the Grantee shall have the right but not the obligation to construct 

and maintain said Trail pursuant to subsection 3(c) above.

(c) Liability and Indemnification – Except as expressly set forth in Paragraph 3 

above, if the Grantee is ever required by a court to pay damages for any personal 

injury or property damage resulting from an incident that occurs on the Property 

after the closing on the Property, the Grantor shall indemnify and reimburse 

the Grantee for these payments, as well as for reasonable attorney’s fees and 

other expenses of defending itself, except to the extent the Grantee or any of its 

agents committed a willful or negligent act that is determined by a court to have 

contributed to the injury or damage. In addition, Grantor warrants that Grantee 

is an additional insured party on Grantor’s general liability insurance policies 

covering the Property.

8. Enforcement

(a) The Grantee (and its directors, officers, employees, agents and independent 

contractors, who for purposes of this paragraph 8 shall be referred to as the 

“Grantee”) and, if the boundary of MVBNHS is extended to include the Property 

and the easement is assigned to NPS, the United States of America, acting through 

the National Park Service, shall have the right to prevent and correct violations 

of the terms of this Conservation Easement in law or in equity pursuant to the 

provisions of Article 49, Title 3 of the ECL. 

(b) With reasonable advance notice to the Grantor, the Grantee may enter the 

Property for the purpose of inspecting for violations. If the Grantee finds what it 
Appendices

119

believes is a violation, it may at its discretion take appropriate legal action. Except 

when an ongoing or imminent violation could irreversibly diminish or impair 

the agricultural productivity, open space character, wildlife habitat or scenic 

qualities of the Property, the Grantee shall give the Grantor written notice of the 

violation and thirty (30) days to correct it, before filing any legal action, and the 

Grantee shall not commence any such legal action so long as Grantor commences 

to correct such violation within said 30 day period and continues thereafter to 

diligently complete the correction of such violation. If a court with jurisdiction 

determines that a violation may exist or has occurred, the Grantee may obtain 

an injunction to stop it, temporarily or permanently. A court may also issue an 

injunction requiring the Grantor to restore the Property to its condition prior to 

the violation. 

(c) The failure of the Grantee to enforce a prior violation or to discover a violation 

or to take immediate legal action shall not bar it from doing so at a later time. 

9. Transfer of Easement

The Grantee shall have the right to transfer the easement created by this 

Conservation Easement to any public agency or private nonprofit organization 

that, at the time of transfer, is a “qualified organization” under paragraph 170 (h) 

of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, and under Art. 49, Title 3, NY ECL, and only if 

the agency or organization expressly agrees to assume the responsibility imposed 

by this Conservation Easement. 

If the Grantee ever ceases to exist or no longer qualifies under paragraph 170 (h) 

or applicable state law, this easement shall be transferred without consideration 

to USA, acting by and through NPS, subject to available appropriated funds for 

acquisition work, valid title, and an approved Environmental Site Assessment or 

waiver thereof. If USA is unable or refuses to accept such transfer, then a court 

with jurisdiction shall transfer this easement to another qualified organization 

having similar purposes that agrees to assume the responsibility.

In the event the Grantee or its assignee transfers the easement created 

by this Conservation Easement to USA, USA expressly agrees to assume 

the responsibility imposed by this Conservation Easement provided that, 

notwithstanding any other provision of said easement: (i) USA shall not be 

required to assume any liability, provide any indemnification, or hold any 

insurance; (ii) USA shall hold said easement without any restraint on alienation; 

(iii) no provision of said easement shall be construed as binding the USA or the 

NPS to expend in any one fiscal year any sum in excess of appropriations made 

by Congress or administratively allocated for the purposes of said easement 

for that fiscal year; (iv) the Conservation Easement, if held by USA, will not be 

terminable by judicial action; and (v) the USA, acting by and through the NPS, 

shall have a reasonable opportunity to prepare all responses to requests for 
Agricultural Management Guidelines, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

120

approvals or permissions required by said easement or prepare and contract for 

archaeological research and/or monitoring allowed by said easement including 

sufficient time to allow the National Park Service to comply with all statutory and 

regulatory requirements. If it is necessary to amend this Conservation Easement 

to add, delete or modify terms to facilitate transfer to USA, Grantor shall not 

unreasonably withhold consent to such an amendment; however, such change 

or amendment shall not change in practical or material form any of the terms or 

conditions of this Conservation Easement, including but not limited to terms or 

conditions pertaining to the construction of buildings or the agricultural practices 

allowed on the Property.

10. Transfer of Property

If at any time the Property, or any interest in it, is transferred by the Grantor to 

any third party, the Grantor shall notify the Grantee in writing prior to the transfer 

of the Property, and the document of conveyance shall expressly refer to this 

Conservation Easement. Grantor’s, and each of Grantor’s successors’, liability 

under this Conservation Easement shall terminate upon the transfer of such 

party’s title to the Property, except that liability for acts or omissions occurring 

prior to such transfer shall survive such transfer of title.

11. Amendment of Easement

This Easement may be amended only with the written consent of Grantee and 

Grantor. Any such amendment (i) shall be consistent with the purposes of this 

Conservation Easement and with the Grantee’s easement amendment policies, (ii) 

shall comply with Section 170 (h) of the Internal Revenue Code, or any regulations 

promulgated in accordance with that section, and (iii) shall comply with Article 49, 

Title 3, of the ECL or any regulations promulgated pursuant to that law.

12. Termination of Easement

If a court with jurisdiction determines that conditions on or surrounding the 

Property change so much that it becomes impossible to fulfill its conservation 

purposes, such court may terminate this Conservation Easement. If 

condemnation of a part of the Property or of the entire Property by public 

authority renders it impossible to fulfill any of these conservation purposes, this 

Conservation Easement may be terminated through condemnation proceedings. 

If this Conservation Easement is terminated and the Property is sold or taken for 

public use, then, as required by paragraph 1.170A-14 (g) (6) of the IRS regulations 

or its successor, the Grantee shall be entitled to a percentage of the gross sale 

proceeds or condemnation award equal to the ratio of the appraised value of this 

easement to the unrestricted fair market value of the Property, as these values 

are determined on the date of this Conservation Easement. The Grantor and 

the Grantee agree that such percentage shall be sixty nine (69%) percent, in 
Appendices

121

accordance with an appraisal of the Property by First Pioneer Farm Credit dated 

February 28, 2002. The Grantee shall use the proceeds consistently with the 

conservation purposes of this Conservation Easement as set forth in the recitals 

contained herein.

13. Interpretation

This Conservation Easement shall be interpreted under the laws of New York, 

resolving any ambiguities and questions of the validity of specific provisions so as 

to give maximum effect to its conservation purposes.

14. Perpetual Duration

This Conservation Easement shall be a servitude running with the land in 

perpetuity. Every provision of this Conservation Easement that applies to the 

Grantor or Grantee shall also apply to their respective agents, heirs, executors, 

administrators, assigns, and all other successors as their interests may appear, 

including any party entitled to possession or use of the Property.

15. Notices

Any notices required by this Conservation Easement shall be in writing and shall 

be personally delivered or sent by first class mail to the addresses indicated on 

Page 1 of this Conservation Easement, unless a party has been notified by the 

other of a change of address.

16. Subsequent Liens on Property

No provisions of this Conservation Easement should be construed as impairing 

the ability of Grantor to use the Property as collateral for subsequent borrowing, 

provided that any mortgage or lien arising from such a borrowing would be 

subordinated to this Conservation Easement.

17. Further Acts

Each party shall perform any further acts and execute and deliver any documents, 

including amendments to this Conservation Easement which may be reasonably 

necessary to carry out the provisions of this Conservation Easement or which are 

necessary to qualify this instrument as a conservation easement under Article 49, 

Title 3, of the ECL or any regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.

18. Acceptance

As attested by the signature of its authorized officer, the Grantee hereby accepts 

without reservation the rights and responsibilities conveyed by this Conservation 

Easement. To have and to hold, this Conservation Easement unto the Grantee, its 

successors and assigns, forever.