Mohonk Preserve Land Asset Management Plan

Mohonk PreserveLAND ASSET

MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012

Mohonk PreserveLAND ASSET

MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012

Supported with funding from the Hudson River Valley Greenway, and the New York State Conservation Partnership Program, administered by the Land Trust Alliance, in

coordination with the state Department of Environmental Conservation.

A plan for land owned by the Open Space Conservancy and managed by Mohonk Preserve.

Acknowledgements

MOHONK PRESERVE

Mohonk Preserve Board:

> Ron G. Knapp > Jim Hoover > Joe Bridges > Vince Clephas > Harvey Flad

PresidentVice PresidentBoard MemberBoard MemberBoard Member

Mohonk Preserve Staff:

> Glenn D. Hoagland > Ellen Sticker > Jen Garofalini > Gretchen Reed > Kathy Ambrosini > Hank Alicandri > Justin Key > John E. Thompson

Executive Director / PMExecutive Projects ManagerDirector of Land ProtectionDirector of Marketing & CommunicationsDirector of EducationDirector of Land Stewardship / Chief RangerFacilities ManagerDirector of Conservation Science

Partners:

> Bob Anderberg > Tom Smiley

NYS Open Space InstituteMohonk Mountain House

Town of New Paltz Liaisons:

> Eileen Banyra > Tom O'Dowd > John Orfitelli

Planning BoardOpen Space CommitteeHistoric Preservation Commission

CONSULTANTS:

DIMELLA SHAFFER Architecture, Interior Design, Planning

> Michael S. Rudden, AIA > Aimee Epstein

Director of Higher Education PlanningStaff

FUNDING

Supported with funding from the Hudson River Valley Greenway, and the New York State Conservation Partnership Program and New York’s Environmental Protection Fund (EPF). The New York State Conservation Partnership Program is administered by the Land Trust Alliance, in coordination with the state Department of Environmental Conservation.

This plan represents an initial vision for mixed-use conservation on the Mohonk Preserve Foothills lands based on a collaborative process which included neighbors, partners, and the public. Realization and implementation of the component projects is predicated on securing necessary funding, further public input, design, planning, and appropriate permits.

page 1Table of Contents

MOHONK PRESERVE FOOTHILLS LANDS: HISTORY

1.1 PREHISTORIC PERIOD (PRIOR TO 17TH CENTURY) ......................

1.2 HISTORIC PERIOD ..................................................................................

1.3 THE NEW PALTZ AND WAWARSING TURNPIKE .............................

1.4 NEW YORK CITY AQUEDUCT .............................................................

1.5 MOHONK TESTIMONIAL GATEWAY .................................................

1.6 20TH CENTURY LAND USE ..................................................................

MOHONK PRESERVE FOOTHILLS LANDS: ECOLOGY

2.1 GEOLOGY ................................................................................................

2.2 SOIL ..........................................................................................................

2.3 HABITAT TYPES ......................................................................................

2.4 SPECIES ....................................................................................................

PLANNING CONTEXT

3.1 STATEWIDE PLANNING CONTEXT .....................................................

3.2 REGIONAL PLANNING CONTEXT .......................................................

3.3 SHAWANGUNK RIDGE PLANNING CONTEXT .................................

3.4 TOWN OF NEW PALTZ PLANNING CONTEXT .................................

3.5 PLANNING CONTEXT CONCLUSION .................................................

Table of Contents

1

2

5

6

6

10

12

13

20

31

32

33

43

51

63

64

68

71

78

84

3

page 2

page 3Table of Contents

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

4.1 LAND ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN GOALS & OBJECTIVES ..............

4.2 BALANCING POTENTIALLY CONFLICTING OBJECTIVES .....................

4.3 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................

LAND ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

5.1 PURPOSE OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN ...........................................

5.2 LAND MANAGEMENT: PUBLIC ROADS AND HUNTING ...................

5.3 TESTIMONIAL GATEWAY AREA .........................................................

5.4 FARMLAND AREA ...............................................................................

5.5 MARSHLAND AREA ............................................................................

5.6 RIDGELAND AREA ..............................................................................

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

6.1 PRE-ACQUISITON PHASE ....................................................................

6.2 SHORT-TERM PHASE............................................................................

6.3 LONG-TERM PHASE ............................................................................

6.4 IMPLEMENTATION BUDGET AND GOALS ..........................................

6.5 NEXT STEPS .........................................................................................

5

6

4 87

88

91

93

95

96

98

103

113

119

125

131

132

134

135

135

141

Mohonk Preserve Foothills: History page 5

1MOHONK PRESERVE FOOTHILLS: HISTORYBy Paul C. Huth, Robert A. Larsen and John E. ThompsonMohonk Preserve Daniel Smiley Research Center

Overview

The 857-acre parcel sold by Smiley Brothers, Incorporated to the Open State In-stitute is a property with an extensive recorded history. The land was settled and farmed, crossed by roads and a turnpike, bisected by construction of the Catskill Aqueduct, and eventually incorporated into the Mohonk Mountain House lands to provide food and fuel for resort operations. This parcel is part of the Mohonk Mountain House and surrounding lands designated as a National Historic Land-mark by the United States Department of the Interior in 1987.

MOHONK PRESERVE

Mohonk Preserve Foothills: Historypage 6

1.1PREHISTORIC PERIOD (PRIOR TO 17TH CENTURY)

While we know of no documented evidence for native American use of these lands, it is worth mentioning what has been documented from nearby.

As early on as 1936, a report of the Archeology of Southern New York by Max Schrabisch, hired by New York State to survey the area for native American evidence noted—“there were once many sites all along the Wallkill, north and south of New Paltz...”. A significant site is documented about a mile southwest of Mohonk Preserve Foothills lands along Plains Road in the area of the New Paltz Rural Cemetery on a broad sandy terrace on the south side of the Wallkill River. This site “yielded evidence of occupancy from Archaic times (predominantly the Vosburg, Sylvan Lake, River and Snookkill complexes) through Transitional, early Woodland and late Woodland times. The heaviest utilization was by Late Woodland groups” (Robert E. Funk, New York State Archeologist, November 1976). It is well known that fields adjacent to Route 299, Libertyville Road, and Springtown Road alongside the Wallkill River, all reveal surface artifacts, especially after spring plowing in preparation for planting. Artifacts generally range from late Archaic to Woodland, with most related to the Transitional Period (Halpern, 1979).

Archaeological excavations by Joe Diamond, of SUNY New Paltz, in the area of historic Huguenot Street on the east shore of the Wallkill River documents pre-European native American artifacts. Likewise, Mohonk Preserve-sponsored research on the Shawangunk summit lands has documented at least 25 rockshelters used by native Americans. Several of these have had scientific excavations yielding substantial material dating back to their earliest presence in the area some 10,000 years BP. At the Mohonk Rockshelter near Rhododendron Swamp on Mohonk Preserve lands their occupancy lasts to the time of European contact. A native American foot path (one

of several) crossed the Shawangunk ridge in the area of the Trapps Gap, which today carries the passage of U.S. Route 44/55 through the Gap. This path is shown on the 1799 Nineteen Partners Map and is labeled “Footpath to Shawangunk.” Sylvester reports that with regard to the Rondout and Wallkill Rivers, they were “lined with (native American) corn planting grounds” in 1609 at the time of the arrival of Henry Hudson in the estuary (Halpern, 1979).

Since there is so much evidence of native American use and occupancy of lands surrounding the Mohonk Preserve Foothills, a sharp eye should be kept, especially regarding application of on-land management actions with associated disturbances.

1.2HISTORIC PERIOD

The first division of lands in the area of the Mohonk Preserve Foothills was of two parts. One (north) was part of the 1677 New Paltz Patent. This “confirmatory” Patent, purchased by one Lewis Dubois and 11 partners was dated 29 September 1677 and encompassed a vast area generally from the Hudson River (from near Marlborough-“Jeffrous Hoock”) to the Shawangunk ridge (in the area of Mohonk--“Maggonck”) to Rosendale (“Warachoes and Tawarataque”) and back eastward to near Esopus Island. A “partition of the (undivided) lands” of the New Paltz Patent was agreed to in a document dated 7 July 1792, which laid out parallel lot lines running generally westward from the Hudson River.

The second (south) was part of the Bruyn Patent which was purchased “about January 1682... from five Esopus Indians all of the land they had known as Sawankonch.” In January 1797, 12 lots were defined on a survey map with Dubois ownerships. The Duboises were heirs of Jacobus Bruyn.

One of the first documented clearings on the west side of the Wallkill River at about the end of the Revolutionary

Land Asset Management Plan


War was of “a tract of about 30 acres on the west side of the Wallkill near what is now the Jonas F. Athins place... called by the old people 'Humpho', a name still applied to the brook, nearby” (LeFevre, 1909). This use of the old name Humpo designating a brook appears again on the historic 1829 David H. Burr Map of Ulster County. Few other local cultural features are shown on the Burr Map, but a homestead is depicted near what is now Brook Farm, and the input into the Humpokill by the "Klienekill Stream" is also clearly shown nearby (Figure 1.2.1). The Burr Map shows what we call Old South Road running up the mountain from the present end of Pine Road toward

Mountain Rest. There is another road shown running along the west side of the Wallkill River which is likely the important route of the stage line stopping at Springtown. Peter H. Harp references this line in the 1820s, being the route on which “many droves of cattle, sheep, and some horses would come from the north... and pass through Springtown on the way to the New York and Philadelphia market.” The route “ran through Springtown, the Canaan Road, Butterville and on to Libertyville.” At Butterville was a tavern known as the Drovers Inn (a private residence today). Reflecting the demand and harvest of forest products, as well as the increasing agricultural land use,

Figure 1.2.1. A tributary of the Humpo Kill, the Kleinekill, is shown on this 1829 map with a house. (DSRC Archives)

MOHONK PRESERVE


tanneries were located at Springtown along the Wallkill River and at Butterville located along the Humpokill. At the turn of the century the Humpokill in the area of Butterville was apparently known as the Olynutekill (“from the Dutch name for the Butternut tree.”) These tanneries consumed Hemlock and Oak bark as the source of tannic acid to produce leather.

Such was the amount of agricultural and cultural development of the area and region during the first half of the 19th century that by the time of the production of the 1858 J. H. French Map of Ulster County there were some 16 homestead farms located within or near the Mohonk Preserve Foothills area. This would include the area of Old South Road, Mullinex Road located about mid-slope and running southward from Old South Road, and in the area of the new New Paltz and Wawarsing Turnpike, established in 1856. Dwelling names shown on the 1858 Map include G. Mulennix (sic), P. Dubois, W.H. DeGarno (sic), Mrs. Freer, J. Pine, C. Relyea, D. Barnhart (on what is now the Woodside Tract), W. Haight, G. Climp, T. Mullenix (sic), G. Dubois, S. Rose, S. Stilwell, J. Dubois, and J. Smedes. In 1854, Pine Farm, encompassing some 100 acres, is reported to have produced 270 bushels of grain, including corn, oats, rye and winter wheat. Nearly half the farm was in pasture, 13 sheep, 10 swine, five cows, two oxen, and two horses grazed the fields. The farm also produced apples, cider, and 12 pounds of maple sugar. (Johnson and Ryan, 2002)

Many of the 1858 homesteads and roads were also found on the 1875 Beers Atlas (Figure 1.2.2). The homesteads are now found as cellar holes in the woods surrounded by out-building foundations and field-stone walls. These will be identified, mapped, measured and photographed. Others are gone due to subsequent development such as the Catskill Aqueduct. A few (to be confirmed) are still extant, or exist in part, in current buildings (i.e. Turner, Kleinekill Farm, Pine Farm, Brook Farm and Hasbrouck House).



Figure 1.2.2. County Atlas of Ulster New York. (Beers 1875, p. 94 New Paltz School Districts)

MOHONK PRESERVE


1.3THE NEW PALTZ AND WAWARSING TURNPIKE

The New Paltz and Wawarsing Turnpike (1856) in part passed through and near the Mohonk Preserve Foothills. It passed the site of the future Mohonk Testimonial Gateway on what is now at least part of the public Gate House

Road to Breezy Lawn, and then crossed the location of the more recent Lenape Lane (1908) in a southwesterly direction between Mohonk fields B-39a, B-39b and B-40a, and close by the present Hasbrouck House. The Hasbrouck Farm contained some 105 acres of land with the house and four farm outbuildings including barns situated alongside the New Paltz and Wawarsing Turnpike. The barn and

Figure 1.3.1. This 4 October 1892 photo by geologist N. H. Darton shows the foreground area near the present Old Minnewaska Road as cleared for charcoal production and clearings in the distance extend far upslope below the Trapps Cliff. (DSRC Archives)



outbuildings, all the buildings except the house, burned in 1917 (Mohonk Mountain House Archives). The parcel was one of the last purchases of the Smileys in the area in 1922, acquired for $3250 (Mohonk Mountain House Archives). Until 1887, it was the Wessel Polhamus Farm. Peter H. Harp wrote of the Turnpike, “it will tend materially to develop the resources (of the area) and enhance the trade... of the whole country through which it passes.”

As elsewhere on the Shawangunk Ridge forest resources were extensively harvested: hemlock and oak bark for tanneries; saplings for hoop poles cut and shaved to supply regional coopers; and charcoal produced by burning hardwoods in a low oxygen environment to meet the demand of iron smelters and forges of the time.

Photographic evidence of the landscape from the area in the late 19th century is rather slim. We are fortunate to have a picture taken near the Mohonk Preserve Foothills lands in 1892 by USGS Geologist, N. H. Darton (Figure 1.3.1). It shows the whole area where arable lands are cleared for agricultural purposes, with stone walls approaching the Trapps running uphill to the base of the talus boulders.

On 3 November 1869, Albert K. Smiley purchased SBI Deed No. 1 from John F. Stokes, including Mohonk Lake, Paltz Point (now Sky Top) and about 280 acres of surrounding land. Over the next five decades, Albert (1828-1912) and brother Daniel (1855-1930) purchased surrounding summit lands, including subsistence farms,

Figure 1.3.2. Homesteads purchased by Albert K. Smiley.

MOHONK PRESERVE


1.4NEW YORK CITY AQUEDUCT

On 21 December 1908, Albert K. Smiley and Eliza P. Smiley signed a permanent easement (or right of way) on 20.607 acres of land for construction and operation of the New York City Aqueduct to be built to supply the City of New York with water from a Catskill Mountain reservoir under construction. It was noted that no stone fences were to be built along the bounds of the easement with Mohonk. The footprint of construction was very extensive and included buildings, crushing plants, transportation and other equipment. Most of the Aqueduct built through the SBI Acquisition was trench and cover (Figure 1.4.1), but one section was buried on the parcel.

Figure 1.4.1. This drainage is labeled with the year 1911, when this section of the Catskill Aqueduct was constructed by the New York City Board of Water Supply adjacent to the Engineers Office foundation on the William Pine lot. (Photograph by John E. Thompson)

All east slope owners in Section 4 whose lands were to be taken were shown on a list which appeared in the New Paltz Independent on 1 November 1907 on page 2, and included Adkins, Lucy, Freer, Pine, Steen, Wiltsie, Silkworth, Mullinex and DuBois. The Turner House, being in the pathway, was dismantled and moved downhill to its present location (Robert A. Larsen). The Jim Turner barn burned on 28 July 1915 (Mohonk Mountain House Archives).

Still impressive after a century is the foundation located on the former Eliza R. Pine lot, which was used during the adjacent aqueduct construction as an engineer/paymaster office. This building had a concrete closet built on the high east corner of the foundation that was added for storage of engineering plans and payroll and was burned-as most structures were—at the completion of the construction (circa 1917). This foundation was built by William H. Pine, predating the aqueduct construction. Bulkheads on the downhill ends of natural slope drainages were labeled in this area, “BWS-1911” and “BWS-1912” (Figure 6) Lands that were taken from individuals other than the Smileys, are owned by the City of New York in fee.

and east slope farms and bottomland. These smaller farms were amalgamated into large farms needed to support the Mohonk operation. Forest trees continued to be extensively harvested for lumber and cordwood. In regard to the SBI Acquisition lands, Albert made the first purchase (Deed No. 43) acquiring 120 acres from Catherine C. Hand on 8 November 1884 for $3,000 (Table 1.6.1). In all, some 17 homestead parcels were purchased between 1884 and 1925 (Nerdahl Map, 10 December 1940). [Eleven homesteads are located on Figure 1.3.2]. In 1885, Albert took title to a large parcel of 164.4 acres comprising what is now a large portion of Kleinekill Farm from Maria M. Howell and Henry T. Howell. The largest single purchase of 225 acres of the lands now known as Brook Farm came into the Smiley holdings on 13 September 1906, from S. Bruyn DuBois and Anna Ida DuBois for the consideration of $11,000. Lot 1 of this purchase is the same “as described in a deed from Benjamin Hasbrouck and Rachel his wife to Eliza Catherine, wife of Stephen Stilwell, dated 22 February, 1841...”. In this same deed, in the description of Lot 2, we find the use of the term “Old Olynate Road” for Butterville Road, a name almost totally out of use today. The 1845 and 1855 censuses list the number of acres owned by farmers in the area (Table 1.6.2 and 1.6.3)



1.5MOHONK TESTIMONIAL GATEWAY

Since as early as the 1850s with the John Stokes Tavern at the north corner of Mohonk Lake and the Smiley family after 1869, there can be traced a dozen approach routes to Mohonk (Smiley, 1982). In 1869 travel to Mohonk was a lengthy effort when first Alfred Smiley, and then soon after, his twin brother Albert visited. This is evident as noted in Mohonk’s First Annual Booklet issued in the spring of 1870, “A special stage, during the season, will convey passengers daily from Poughkeepsie to the Lake, starting about noon, on arrival of boats from New York, and connecting at New Paltz with another stage to the mountain. Fare from Poughkeepsie to Lake Mohonk, $2.25. Later in the season, passengers from New York can take Erie Railroad to Goshen, and Wallkill Valley Railroad to New Paltz, 5 ½ miles from the Lake.” This route from New Paltz to Mohonk is of interest in that it followed the New Paltz and Wawarsing Turnpike to the beginning of Old Stage Road at the now abandoned intersection with Yankee Folly Road, just northwest and uphill of Jenkins Road. Old Stage Road, now a substantial woods road, went all the way up to the “G. [Garret] DuBois” Farm (1845), now Home Farm, and followed most of the present Lake Shore Drive (built by John F. Stokes in the early 1860s) to the Mountain House. This was the route followed by Alfred Smiley on his first visit to Mohonk in 1869 (Smiley, 1982).

Daniel Smiley (Sr.) (1855-1930) came to Mohonk at the invitation of brother Albert in June of 1880, at the age of 24. This was after Alfred had left Mohonk to manage his large new project at Lake Minnewaska. Daniel was to help Albert with the continued development of Mohonk’s lands, infrastructure and business. Daniel ultimately took “full charge of Mohonk operations” (Burgess, 1980). For our benefit today, Daniel was also a terrific recorder of detail.

Of particular interest to us in regard to Mohonk’s east slope lands is Daniel’s 1882 map of Mohonk roads and

drives. The map shows the route of Forest Drive on the east slope. The great drives of Mohonk, like Forest (1882), Lake Shore (1865), Oakwood (1898), Minnewaska (1879), Home Farm (1882), Terrace (1903), Cedar (1882), Bonticou (1882), Long (1872) and Short Woodland, Huguenot (1881), and Piney Woods (1905) (Prospect Drive – 1883), were all designed and built in the curved style of Andrew Jackson Downing— “Of course [the Drive] can only be formed upon places of considerable extent; but it enhances the enjoyment of such places very highly.... It generally commences where the approach road terminates, viz. near the house: and from thence, proceeds in the same easy curvilinear manner through various part of the grounds, farm or estate.” (Manning, 1995). At Mohonk, these drives and connecting roads were especially used in season for carriage excursions of one to two hours, in their day coinciding with the bloom of Mountain Laurel, Azalea, and Flowering Dogwood, bloom of the Yellow Ladyslipper stand, and to see the spectacular autumn color.

Forest Drive was also part of an early approach route to Mohonk. In part, it was constructed in 1882, as noted in Daniel's record book, to reach all the way down to Old South Road. Today, Old South Road is found running uphill as a substantial woods road from the Turner House at the end of Pine Road. In its day, Old South Road was a well-used public road. Daniel's record book cites, "18 November 1882 - Snowstorms yesterday and last night. About 4 inches fell on mountain - ground frozen just a little. Jesse [Coddington] working on a new road down to New Paltz through the Hasbrouck woods today. Has completed road once across woods to Haight field and partially completed it to crossing of brook in low places above Woodside Cottage".

Forest Drive passed downhill on what is now considered part of Oakwood Drive to the present Lenape Lane, and continued on down to Old South Road in a series of some seven large loops and levels to a junction a distance below the site of Woodside Cottage. It is very likely that when upper Lenape Lane was built above Kleinekill Farm, the large loop in the road below the site of the watering

MOHONK PRESERVE


trough–now just below the junction with Oakwood Drive–was part of the route of Old Forest Drive.

In 1885, “an alternate improved” route to lower Forest Drive was the use of part of the public Mullenix Road from its Old South Road junction just below the Turner House to the Kleinekill Farm, also strategically purchased by Albert in September 1885. This is in part the present route followed by Lenape Lane from Mullenix Road over the New York City Aqueduct to Kleinekill Farm using this 1885 route already in place. About a hundred yards north of Kleinekill Farm House, the new “alternate improved” route then turned southwest, uphill, on what is now called Kleinekill Farm (or Reservoir) Road, to what is now called Kleinekill Road. It was then built on uphill to Rock Spring Bridge where it rejoined Forest Drive. This is what we know as Kleinekill Road today.

The east slope approach route evolution culminated by the construction of the “third” or Mohonk Stage Road. It was begun in 1902, starting at the New Paltz and Wawarsing Turnpike, east of the present Testimonial Gateway, opened six years later in 1908. It went past Brook Farm, around the hairpin turn at White Oak Bend, uphill to the crossing of the Kleinekill on a high wooden bridge (the abutments of which are still there), across a bridge over the public Mullenix Road, climbed over a cow pass just below Duck Pond, across Duck Pond Dam to a watering trough, at the present location of the beginning of Duck Pond Trail, and on uphill to the Top-of-Kleinekill, where it joined the present Kleinekill Road, built on part of the 1885 approach route. I suspect the old road below Duck Pond Dam was used before Duck Pond (originally Kleinekill Lake) was built in 1908, and “developed” in 1911.

On July 8, 1917, Daniel Smiley (Sr.) wrote Memorandum No. 27—“Lenape Road”- “For ten years or more I have thought over each part of this road (completely circling the mountain at an elevation of 300 to 500 feet below the lake) and planned it out with considerable care and having kept the grades, levels, and contours very carefully in mind but to-day is the first time it has occurred to me to connect

up the various sections so as to form one continuous drive a large portion of which would be level and none of it need have any considerable grade. The name too—Lenape Lane—has long been in my mind to apply to some important road on the property—it being the name of an Indian tribe formerly in this region.”

While never built and connected, pieces of existing roads are part of Daniel’s planned route. It is also clear that the name “Lenape Lane” was not yet conferred on any road. The present route of Lenape Lane, in parts utilizing pre-existing approach routes going back to the earliest piece built in 1882, (lower Forest Drive), was completed up to Mountain Rest in 1925. Near its top, below Mountain Rest, it crossed Old South Road shown on the 1829 Burr map, in two locations.

One of the most impressive approach routes developed in the early 20th century included the building of the Mohonk Testimonial Gateway, located just north of the present NYS Route 299 (Figure 1.5.1).

The plan for the formal entrance to Mohonk resulted from a meeting of Mohonk guests in 1906 on an appropriate way to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the marriage of Albert Keith Smiley and Eliza Phelps Smiley, “the founders of Mohonk.” An agreement was made to provide for a proper testimonial in the form of a massive entrance gateway on the far eastern side of the Mohonk property. It was designed by James E. Ware & Sons, New York, Architects. This firm also designed the Mohonk Parlor and Lake Lounge as well as the Stone Building. The Testimonial Gateway was built on a relatively clear, commanding knoll with a broad view of Sky Top and the Shawangunk ridge. Friends were asked to donate $10 subscriptions and over $20,000 was raised from 1100 people (Mohonk Mountain House Archives). Ground was broken on 8 July 1907, the actual date of the Smiley’s 50th anniversary (Figure 1.5.2). The construction took place on 30 acres of land, purchased in three parcels by Albert from John Arbuckle, a leading importer of coffee and sugar from Cuba.



Figure 1.5.1. The Testimonial Gateway was built on a knoll with a commanding panoramic view as the grand entrance to Mohonk for horse-drawn carriages, shown here in the early 1920’s in this photograph taken by Leslie B. Wilcox, Vassar College Class of 1923. (DSRC Archives)

Figure 1.5.2. (above). The fiftieth wedding anniversary of Albert and Eliza Smiley, on 8 July 1907, was celebrated by the groundbreaking for the Testimonial Gateway. (Courtesy of Mohonk Mountain House Archives)

MOHONK PRESERVE


Figure 1.5.5. (left). The Woodside Reservoir likely supplied the water shot into the air by fountains in the Gateway lily ponds. (Courtesy of Mohonk Mountain House Archives)

Figure 1.5.3. (left). Hand-cranked derricks were used to place the stones, harvested nearby, to build the Testimonial Gateway in 1907. (Courtesy of Mohonk Mountain House Archives)

Figure 1.5.4. (right). In 1907, the Testimonial Gateway site offered a wide panoramic view of Mohonk lands with pastures in the view-shed extending nearly to the base of Sky Top cliff. (Courtesy of Mohonk Mountain House Archives)

The Gateway was built of large Shawangunk conglomerate blocks that were quarried or gathered as individual surface glacial erratics on the Mohonk estate (Figures 1.5.3 and 1.5.4). There were rooms designed for the gate keeper and family to reside. Of note, is the large (5 feet, 3 inch X 6 feet) cast-bronze, dedication tablet in place over the arch. It was cast in the bronze foundry of Jno. Williams, Inc., New York.

An elaborate dedication ceremony was held on 14 October 1908. Clearing of the land around the Gateway and improvements were guided by Albert. A nursery with some 2000 trees and shrubs were prepared for planting. In May 1909, 200 Pin Oaks were planted along the approach route (Lenape Lane) beyond the Gateway and elsewhere on the grounds. Ornamental shrubbery was also planted extensively.

In October 1908, Duck Pond— the “artificial” lake along the approach route—was completed, Brook Farm Pond was built, and lily ponds were developed along both sides of the entrance road near the Gateway in June 1909. All “were created for purely aesthetic reasons” (Daniel Smiley). Each lily pond had a tree-planted island in its



center. Fountains were subsequently added to these ponds (Figures 1.5.5 and 1.5.6). The Gateway was in use from 1908 until 1935 (DSRC files, & Hinman, 1994), with autos using the approach route while still in use (Figure 1.5.7). It has most recently been used for Mohonk employee housing.

In the mid-1960s it was leased for a short time from Mohonk by a small organization called the Mid-Hudson Catskill Museum, to develop a field site for outdoor nature education for cooperating school districts (BOCES).

Figure 1.5.6. (right). View of a fountain from the Testimonial Gateway looking west. (Courtesy of Mohonk Mountain House Archives)

Figure 1.5.7. Although the Testimonial Gateway was built as an approach route for carriages, it also provided an approach for cars towards the latter part of its use, as shown in this photograph taken in 1932. (Courtesy of Mohonk Mountain House Archives)

In 1965, a proposal designed in cooperation with the National Audubon Society called Project PINE (Projects in Interpretive Nature Education) laid out a series of nature tails. Foot bridges were built in the easterly “lily” pond and in the poorly-drained woods on the west side of the Gateway. It was funded for one year as an ESEA 1965 Title III Project. The Mid-Hudson Catskill Museum subsequently merged with the John Burroughs Natural History Society. JBNHS leased the Gateway area for a time in the early 1970s. Project PINE had proposed field opportunities for nature education that have strong foundation links with

MOHONK PRESERVE


the Mohonk Trust and Mohonk Preserve educational and interpretive programs today (Project PINE Proposal - 1965, DSRC files).

In 1919, the “Gatehouse” was included in a list of Historic Homes of New Paltz, appearing in a State 1A Cultural Resource Survey of the Town of New Paltz, New York for the firm of Brinnier and Larios, Engineers, Kingston New York, by Susan Halpern, Project Director.

In 1925 Mohonk employee Benjamin Helmer prepared a building inventory for the Mohonk property for Daniel Smiley (Sr.) including structures on the Mohonk Preserve Foothills parcel. The list included 10 farms that were extant at that time (Table 1.6.4).

In 1926, the Lenape Lane bridge over Butterville Road was widened and rebuilt using Rosendale Cement. Photographs by Albert Keith Smiley document the completed bridge being surfaced. The Pin Oak allée, the Testimonial Gateway and the Breezy Lawn Barn are visible in the photo looking east (Figure 1.5.8). Fields south of Kleinekill Stream and West of the Humpo Kill are just starting to be invaded by trees (Figure 1.5.9).



Figure 1.5.8. (top). Lenape Lane bridge over Butterville Road, was widened in 1926. Photograph taken by "Bert" Smiley on 9 December 1926. (DSRC Archives)

Figure 1.5.9. (bottom). Lenape Lane bridge over Butterville Road looking west. Photograph by Albert Keith "Bert" Smiley on 9 December 1926. (DSRC Archives)

MOHONK PRESERVE


1.620TH CENTURY LAND USE

On 12 December 1966, Daniel Smiley made a tour of the Mohonk Property with longtime Mohonk employee, Alton Quick. Alton worked at Mohonk from 1919 to 1969, he was with the Outside Crew, was a truck driver, and was Outside Superintendent. Much of the knowledge of farming operations was recorded by Dan from interactions with Alton Quick and other Mohonk employees.

The Woodside area includes Old South Road (a historic approach to the Mountain House). The area includes farms of D. Barnhart, W. Haight in the Beers Atlas. Kleinekill Farm and Brook Farm were operationally important providing milk, livestock, hay and grain for the resort (Figures 1.6.1, 1.6.2 and 1.6.3).

White Oak Bend was wooded but might have been pastured in the early 20th century. In 1940 Dan noticed areas of bark missing on trees; when asked, crew was told it was peeled for Mohonk horse medicine. On 17 June 1987, the largest trees were cored by Dr. Ed Cook of the Lamont Tree Ring Lab. He estimated the trees to be about 150 years old, and thinks they began growing after an initial cutting (about 1830s) as inner-most growth rings are thick indicating a field or open growing when they were established.

Figure 1.6.1. (top). Hay was necessary to support Mohonk livestock. Harvest at Brook Farm circa 1942.

Figure 1.6.2. (middle). Haying at Brook Farm Field B-39a, with Brook Farm in the background, circa 1942.

Figure 1.6.3. (bottom). Brook Farm Field B-26, along Lenape Lane, growing corn in 1950.

(DSRC Archives)



The area of the Testimonial Gateway Woods was probably not cultivated due to the abundance of glacial erratics, but may have been used as pasture. Alton Quick thought that the forest originated from a few old oaks and hickories left for shade trees in 19th century pasture. Many of the glacial erratics were taken for construction of the Testimonial Gateway in 1907-08. A few White Oaks were cut south of the Gateway in 1965.

Eastern Red Cedars have been harvested sporadically across the site up until the present. Many fields are overgrown, including the fields east of the Testimonial Gateway (B-32 and B-33), which were mowed up until the mid 1960s.

In 1988-89 the Mohonk Testimonial Gateway area was proposed as a Critical Environmental Area by the Town of New Paltz Environmental Conservation Commission. It was discussed at a Town Board meeting on 13 February 1989. It was proposed under Town Code Number 617.4 (h)(l)(iii)—“Areas with Social, Cultural, Historic, Archaeological, Recreational or Educational Values” and (iv)—Areas with Inherent Ecological, Geological, or Hydrological Sensitivity”. On p. 2 of the proposal (drafted by PCH), we find the following:

Habitats such as old field in various stages, wood swamp, Oak-Hickory woods, and ponds make for considerable diversity in the critical area. In the 1920s, the first record of Birds-foot Trefoil in Ulster County was made here. Also in the 1950s, the first records of the Tufted Titmouse were in the area. Yellow [and] Palm Warblers, and the Golden- and Ruby-crowned Kinglets are examples of some 28 species of birds observed.

In the areas of old field, important examples of the ecology and interaction of Red Cedar, deciduous shrubs, and tree seedlings can be seen. Now maturing Oak and Hickory stands on plots where vegetables were once grown nearly one hundred years ago are of considerable interest. Purple loosestrife is common and abundant in the wetter habitats, along with Joe-Pye-Weed and cattails. Chokeberries, Mountain Mint and New York Ironweed have been found. On limestone glacial erratics, Walking Fern has been observed. In the 1967 “Project PINE” proposal, over 80 species of plants were listed for this area. Muskrats and deer are common.

MOHONK PRESERVE


Table 1.6.1. • Mohonk Preserve Foothills East Slope Acquisition Deeds

MPF Deed No. Purchased From Date

43 Catherine C. Hand (part) 3 Nov. 1884

44 William H. & Eliza R. Pine 6 Nov. 1884

51 Maria & Henry Howell 26 Sept. 1885

52 William H. & Eliza R. Pine 3 Sept. 1885

75 Peter W. DuBois (by Executor) 19 April 1901

84 Eliza R. Pine & James W. Pine 31 Oct. 1904

104 John H. & Agnes J. Silkworth 31 Aug. 1904

96 Ella & James Turner 27 June 1905

105 S. Bruyn DuBois & Anna Ida DuBois 13 Sept. 1906

106 Lewis H. Deyo & Naomi C. Deyo 29 Sept. 1906

107 John Arbuckle & Mary A.K. Arbuckle 15 Nov. 1906

113 Kate (Daniel) Silkworth (by Executor) 12 Oct. 1907

114 John Koenig & Wife 12 Dec. 1908

121 James C. Pine & Sarah E. Pine 25 May 1912

123 Degnon Contracting Co. (George Mullinex) 10 Feb. 1919

124 James C. Pine & Sarah E. Pine 29 Mar. 1919

132 Clifford Hasbrouck & Emma Addine Hasbrouck 31 July 1922

138 George J. Young & Sylvia B. Young (George Mullinex) 20 Aug. 1925



Table 1.6.2. • New Paltz 1845 Census

File No. Name Acres

375 Garret DuBois 80 acres

383 Peter Barnhart

391 Peter Clearwater 200 acres

395 Christopher Relyea 60 acres

396 John N. Haight 100 acres

411 Daniel Barnhart ?

413 Henry P. Polhemus ? 60 acres

415 James Pine 100 acres

397 George Clinp 110 acres

417 Thomas Mulnix 90 acres

Table 1.6.3. • New Paltz 1855 Census

File No. Name

90 Barnhart, Daniel 60, Maria 60, Jane 30, Albert 19 all – Res. 25 years

91 Relyea, Christopher 42, Sarah B. 32, Wm. S. 13, Hannah L. 11, Gideon 10,

Henry D. 8, Deborah 6, David C. 5, Maria 3

DeGarmo, Hannah 64, Aunt – Res. 35 years

98 Mulnix, George 26 b. Ohio, Sophia 25, Eulala 4 ??? b. Ohio all – Res.2 year

96 Pine, James 46 46 b. Or. , Sarah 45, Phebe A. 22 b. Sull. – All Res. 21 years.

Thomas J. 13, Mary H. 10, James C. 8, Wm. H. 6, Sarah E. 4, Amelia 1

Turner, Wm. 35 b. Dutchess, Collier – Res. 10 years.

100 Polhamus, Henry 45 – Res. 35 years. Rachel 42, Oliver 21, Cyrus 17, Wefsael

15, Vina A. 8, Lydia M. 6, George 5

111 Haight, John N. 49 b. Dut. , Mary 43, Eliza 20, William H. 15 – Res. All 10 years.

Mary C. 9

MOHONK PRESERVE


Name

Woodside

Turner

Pine, “Jase”

Kleinekill Farm

Brook Farm

Breezy Lawn

Hasbrouck Farm

Gateway

Table 1.6.4. • Building Inventory East Side SBI Farms in OSI Purchase, and Nearby. Pre-pared by Benjamin Helmer for Daniel Smiley in 1925 and issued by Daniel Smiley (Jr.) in 1988.

1923 Description

House

Barn

Shed

House

Sheds

House

Barn & Stable

Hay Barn

Corn Crib

Chicken House

House (rebuilt) (1912)

Barn

Creamery & Ice House

Granary

Chicken House

Silo

Pig Pen

Sheds

House

Barn

Sheds

Granary

Ice House

Creamery

Silos (4)

Wagon House

Chicken Coop

House

Barns & Sheds

House

Barn

Acquired or Built

—

—

—

1905

—

1919

˝

˝

˝

˝

(acq. 1885)

—

1922

—

—

—

—

—

1906

(built) 1915

(3) 1900

1900

1908

1911

1920

—

—

1906

˝

19- (acq.1922)

˝

1907

1923 Inventory Value

150

25

—

300

—

1500

750

50

25

25

1800

1080

2700

20

200

200

50

90

700

(cost 1700) 1350

(cost 1500) 1500

(cost 100) 100

(cost1100) 450

(cost 929) --

(cost 2000) 1900

300

10

1500

700

500

1000

“nothing”



Name

Mullenix

Peter W. Dubois Farm

Lenape Farm

Table 1.6.4. (cont'd) • Building Inventory East Side SBI Farms in OSI Purchase, and Nearby. Prepared by Benjamin Helmer for Daniel Smiley in 1925 and issued by Daniel Smiley (Jr.) in 1988.

1923 Description

Barn

House

House

Barn

Sheds (in Sheep Pasture)

Acquired or Built

--

1901

1905

--

--

1923 Inventory Value

300

100

100

25

40

Table 1.6.5. • SBI Buildings Inventory (All) (1/12/25)

- “Exact number now standing

- Exact number already torn down or burned or fallen

- Exact number now insured

- Exact number not insured

- Buildings of all sorts on Farms

East Side:

Brook Farm (includes Breezy Lawn)

Kleinekill Farm (includes Pine Farm)

- Buildings used as Tenant Houses

East Side:

Woodside

Turner

Pine

Dubois

Hasbrouck”

(Breezy Lawn)

(Brook Farm)

(Kleinekill Farm)

199

?

118

81

17

14

MOHONK PRESERVE


References

Beers, F. W. County Atlas of Ulster, New York. 1875.

City of New York Board of Water Supply. 1909-1914. Wallkill Division Summaries. DSRC Archives.

Deed and Map Books. Mohonk acquisitions of subject properties. DSRC Archives.

DuBois, S. . Days of the Horse and Buggy. New Paltz Independent and Times, March 26, 1942, April 2, 1942, May 7, 1942, May 14, 1942, May 29, 1942. Accounts of visits back to area of Old South Road and Mullenix Road of her childhood.

Editor, New Paltz Independent. Land Taken for the Aqueduct. November 1, 1907:2.

Field Trip Reports. The Mohonk Trust and Mohonk Preserve. DSRC Archives.

Foster, A. K. Bobolinks (Dolichonyx oryzivorous) 1990 – 2001. Mohonk Preserve Research Report. 11 September, 2001. 8 pp. and Appendices.

Funk, R. E. Recent Contributions to Hudson Valley Prehistory. New York State Museum, Memoir 22, November 1976. p.147.

Halpern, S. A Stage 1A Cultural Resource Survey of the Town of New Paltz, New York, and a Section of the Town of Lloyd, New York. Prepared for Brinnier and Larios, Engineers. 29 pp. & maps. May 1979.

Harp, P. H. A History of New Paltz, N.Y. – Horse and Buggy Days. Bulletin #6, The Mary Stuart Haviland Department of History, Elting Memorial Library, New Paltz, NY 1968. 64 pp.

Hasbrouck, K. E. The Gatehouse By Moonlight. New Paltz Independent and Times. March 17, 1949:6.

Hauptman, L. M. The Native Americans: A History of the First Residents of New Paltz and Environs. Bulletin No. 9, Haviland-Heidgerd Historical Collection, Elting Memorial Library. 1988. 27 pp.

Hinman, A. M. A Site Analysis – Smiley Testimonial Gateway. Student Report for Principles of Landscape Design. 8 pp. and Appendices. November 21, 1994.

Historic Photographs. DSRC Archives. Taken by Albert Keith Smiley (1883 – 1964)



Huth, P. C. Critical Environmental Area – No. 3 Mohonk Testimonial Gateway. Prepared for Town of New Paltz Environmental Conservation Commission. 1988. 4 pp. Draft.

Johnson, C. A. and Marion W. Ryan. New Paltz. Images of America, Arcadia Publishing. 2001. 128 pp.

Mabee, C. Listen to the Whistle – An Anecdotal History of the Wallkill Valley Railroad in Ulster and Orange Counties, New York 1995. 166 pp. Chapter 17 – Aqueduct – p.96-100.

Map of Ulster County. Burr, D. H. Map of Ulster County. 1829. DSRC Archives.

Map of Ulster County. French, J. H. 1858.

Migliorelli, C. The Economic Growth of the Klein Kill Farm from 1912 – 1920. May 3, 1982. Student Report.

Mitchell, W. D. Testimonial Gateway and Lodge. American Art in Bronze and Iron.

National Audubon Society. Survey Report and Outdoor Laboratory Plan – Projects In Imaginative Nature Education (PINE) – An ESEA 1965, Title III Project located at Gateway Center of the Mid-Hudson – Catskills Museum, New Paltz, New York. January 20, 1967. 29 pp. & Appendices.

New York Genealogical and Biographical Society. Collection of the New York Genealogical and Biographical Society. Vol. II, Baptisms from 1639-1730 in New York. Chapter 4, The Bruyn Family. pp. 63-70.

Nineteen Partners Map, 1799. DSRC Archives (copy).

Quinn, E. Sifting the Sands of Time. New Paltz Times, Vol. II (29):1, 18, 19. July 21, 2011. Huguenot Street Archeology.

Ruttenber, E.M. Indian Geographical Names. Proceedings of the New York State Historical Association, 1906:148-155.

Schrabish, M. Archaeology of Southern New York. New York State Museum. 1936. pp. 91-191 (in part). Confidential.

Smiley D. and P. C. Huth, Natural History Landmarks – SBI Lands. June 1987. DSRC Archives.

MOHONK PRESERVE


Smiley, D. Approach Routes to Mohonk: With Notes on the History of their Use. Research Report No. 1. Mohonk Archives. December 1982. 15 pp. & Appendices.

Smiley, D. The Catskill Aqueduct Through The Shawangunks. Historical /Cultural Note No. 17, Mohonk Preserve. March 1986. 6 pp.

Smiley, D. Tour of Mohonk Property. 12 December 1966. 3 pp.

Tappen, C. H. Jr. Att’y. Mortgage Sale. Ulster Plebian, Vol. XIII, Issue 648, p.3. November 21, 1815. Gideon Mullenix.

The Gold Day, July Eighth 1907. Fiftieth Anniversary of Marriage of Albert Keith Smiley and Eliza Phelps Cornell. Ground breaking for “Memorial Gateway.”

Wadlin, V. Y. The Testimontial Gateway. Ulster County About Town. June 2011. 11 pp.



page 31Mohonk Preserve Foothills: Ecology

2

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to map and describe the wildlife habitat of the recent acquisition from Smiley Brothers, Inc. (SBI) in order to develop a land asset management plan framework for the Mohonk Preserve. This is the first step in an investigation of the community dynamics of this species-rich landscape.

The ecology and land use history of this landscape are intertwined, the ecology at the time of European settlement influenced human land use and the present ecology is to a large degree the result of land use of the site. This landscape is both durable, having been farmed for hundreds of years, and an important area for birds year-round. The site supports a diversity of habitats and a wide variety of wildlife including animals that do not occur in other areas of the Northern Shawangunk Mountains. The large fields (grasslands) serve as important habitat for both breeding and wintering birds and Humpo Marsh serves as both an important breeding habitat and a migratory stopover.

The durability of much of the landscape offers many opportunities for land use and possibilities that will not affect many of the habitats. However, some of these habitats will need to be intensively managed, i.e. fields, to promote biodiversity.

This parcel is part of the Mohonk Mountain House and surrounding lands designated as a National Historic Landmark by the United States Department of the Interior in 1987.

MOHONK PRESERVE FOOTHILLS: ECOLOGYBy Shanan F. Smiley and John E. ThompsonMohonk Preserve Daniel Smiley Research Center

MOHONK PRESERVE

Mohonk Preserve Foothills: Ecologypage 32

2.1GEOLOGY

This eastern slope of the Northern Shawangunks is primarily Martinsburg Formation, dark gray thinly bedded shales and siltstones formed from sediments of mostly mud deposited in an ancient sea approximately 465 million years ago during the Ordovician Period. The comparatively soft shale slowly breaks down into soil. The landscape was shaped by glaciation during the Pleistocene with the Wisconsin glaciation, the most influential on the present landscape. Evidence of glaciation can be seen in

Figure 2.2.1. Soil types.

the scattered glacial erratics as well as glacial till that soils are formed in.

REFERENCES

Fagan, J. 1996. Time and the Mountain: A Guide to the Geology of the Northern Shawangunk Mountains. Mohonk Preserve, Inc.: New Paltz, NY.

Snyder, B. & Beard K. 1981. The Shawangunk Mountains: A history of nature and man. Mohonk Preserve, Inc.: New Paltz, NY.


Mohonk Preserve Foothills: Ecology page 33

2.2SOIL

Glossary

Fragipan - a dense, natural subsurface layer of hard soil with relatively slow permeability to water, mostly because of its extreme density or compactness rather than its high clay content or cementation.

Friable - readily crumbled; brittle.

Soils on the site are formed in glacial till and lake-laid clay and silt deposits (Figure 2.2.1). Much of the site is some-what poorly to poorly drained with much of the rest of the area on slopes with well drained or excessively well drained soils (Figure 2.2.2).

BnC – Bath-Nassau complex, 8-25% slope (194 acres). Best uses: orchards, permanent pasture, woodland

This soil consists of a deep, well drained Bath soil and a shallow, somewhat excessively drained Nassau soil. These sloping to moderately steep soils were formed in glacial till. Bath and Nassau soils are situated in a very intricate pattern. The Bath soil is in the convex inter-ridge areas where runoff does not accumulate and the Nassau soil is on the sides and tops of the bedrock ridges. This unit is made up of 50% Bath gravelly silt loam, 30% Nassau shaly silt loam, and 20% other soils. Runoff is rapid from both soils.

Typically, the surface layer of the Bath soil is dark brown gravelly silt loam about 6 inches thick. The upper part of

Figure 2.2.2. Soil drainage class.

0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000200Feet

.

SoilsDrainage Class

Excessively Well

Well

Moderately Well

Somewhat Poorly

Poorly

Water

MOHONK PRESERVE


cover maintained on the site helps prevent erosion.

CkB – Cayuga silt loam, 3-8% slope (26 acres). Best uses: woodland, crops, pasture

This deep, gently sloping, well drained and moderately well drained soil formed in 20 to 40 inches of lake-laid clay and silt deposits over glacial till. Typically, the surface layer is brown silt loam about 8 inches thick. The subsoil ex-tends to a depth of about 38 inches. The upper 7 inches is very firm, mottled, yellowish brown and light olive brown silty clay; and the lower 10 inches is very firm, mottled, olive brown gravelly silty clay loam and gravelly clay loam.

This soil has a perched seasonal high water table at a depth of 18 to 36 inches in spring and in other excessively wet periods. Roots are mainly in the upper 24 inches of the soil. Available water capacity in the root zone is mod-erate to high.

Most of the acreage of this soil is used for crops, pasture, and woodland. Woodland productivity is high. Machine planting of tree seedlings is practical on this soil. This soil has good potential for farming and for some recreational uses, but it has limited potential for urban developments. Seasonal wetness, slow permeability, and high content of clay and silt in the subsoil limit the use of this soil for spe-cial crops and fruit crops. Artificial drainage is needed in areas of the wetter included soils. This soil needs to be cultivated at the proper moisture condition because it is sticky when wet and fairly hard when dry. Hard clods and a crusty surface form if the soil is cultivated when wet. Planting when the soil is very dry generally results in poor seed germination. The hazard of erosion is severe in cul-tivated areas that are not protected. Standard manage-ment practices, for example, contour farming, minimum tillage, use of cover crops, incorporating crop residue into soil, crop rotation, good fertilization, and pasturing and harvesting at the proper moisture condition, help to con-trol erosion, improve tilth, and maintain the content of organic matter.

the subsoil extends to a depth of about 28 inches. It is friable, yellowish brown gravelly loam. In unlimed areas, the Bath soil is very strongly acid in the surface layer and subsoil.

Typically, the surface layer of the Nassau soil is brown shaly silt loam 6 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil ex-tends to a depth of 10 inches. It is very friable, yellowish brown very shaly silt loam.

This soil is used mainly for orchards, permanent pasture, and woodland. Potential is good for these uses. Orchards maintained in permanent sod cover are suited to these soils. Driving lanes are needed in some areas to avoid the hazard of machinery upset. Woodland productivity is moderately high on the Bath soils and poor on the Nas-sau soils. Machine planting of tree seedlings is practical in large areas of these soils.

This soil type is poor for cultivated crops. These soils can be cropped, but the cropping system needs to include a high proportion of sod-forming crops and pasture. Some areas of this unit are used for vineyards and hay. Because vineyards are clean cultivated, they are poorly suited to these soils because of the hazard of erosion. The variable depth to bedrock; irregular relief; and the dense, slowly permeable fragipan in the Bath soil limit intensive use of these soils.

Available water capacity varies within short distances. Ero-sion is a severe hazard. Conservation practices, other than sod-forming crops and minimum tillage, are very difficult to install because of the uneven topography.

The variable depth to bedrock, irregular relief, and the dense, slowly permeable fragipan in the Bath soil are severe limitations for most urban uses. Some aesthetic homesite areas are in this soil type but sites for sewage disposal can be very limiting. Most areas have potential for dwellings without basements if public sewers are avail-able. Erosion is a hazard during construction. A vegetative



The perched seasonal high water table and slow perme-ability in the subsoil and substratum are limitations for urban uses. This soil is better suited to buildings with-out basements. Footers need to extend to the underlying glacial till and below the depth of freezing. Foundation drains and protective coatings on the exterior walls are needed. The subbase for roads needs to be thicker than that commonly used. Effluent from septic tank absorption fields seeps to the surface in this soil. Therefore, the septic tank absorption field needs to be much larger than those commonly installed. A vegetative cover maintained on the site during construction helps prevent erosion.

CkC – Cayuga silt loam, 8-15% slope (2 acres). Best uses: hay, pasture, woodland, recreation (paths & trails, ponds), crops

This deep, well drained and moderately well drained slop-ing soil formed in 20 to 40 inches of lake-laid clay and silt deposits over glacial till.

Typically, the surface layer is brown silt loam about 7 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil extends to a depth of about 16 inches. It is firm, yellowish brown silty clay loam.

This soil has a perched seasonal high water table at a depth of 18 to 36 inches in spring and in other excessively wet periods. Roots are mainly confined to the upper 24 inches of the soil. Available water capacity in the root zone is moderate to high. Permeability is moderate in the surface layer and is slow in the subsoil. Runoff is rapid. Reaction is medium acid to neutral in the surface layer and in the main part of the subsoil.

Most of the acreage of this soil is used for crops, pasture, and woodland. This soil has fair potential for farming and limited potential for urban developments. It has poten-tial for woodland and for some recreational uses, such as paths and trails. Woodland productivity is high. Machine planting of tree seedlings is practical on this soil. Trails in recreational areas need protection from erosion and need

to be established across the slope wherever possible. In some areas these soils are a suitable site for ponds.

This soil is suited to cultivated crops, but is best suited to hay and pasture. Slope causes some difficulty in farm-ing operations. Seasonal wetness, high content of clay and silt in the subsoil, and slow permeability in the sub-soil also limit the suitability of this soil for special crops and fruit crops. If this soil is intensively used for intertilled crops, erosion is a major hazard. If proper management and conservation measures are practiced, intertilled crops can be grown, but the cropping system needs to include a high proportion of sod-forming crops and pasture. This soil needs to be cultivated at the proper moisture condi-tion because it is sticky when wet and fairly hard when dry. Hard clods and a crusty surface form if the soil is culti-vated when wet. Planting when the soil is very dry gener-ally results in poor seed germination. Standard manage-ment practices, for example, minimum tillage, use of cover crops, incorporating crop residue into the soil, contour farming, good fertilization, and pasturing and harvesting at the proper moisture condition, help to control erosion, improve tilth, and maintain the content of organic matter. The shallow waterways that cross some areas need special attention; some need permanent sod cover to control ero-sion, and some need drainage for wet spots.

The perched seasonal high water table, slope and slow permeability in the subsoil are limitations for most urban and recreational uses. Effluent from many septic tank ab-sorption fields seeps to the surface in this soil. Therefore, the absorption field needs to be much larger than those commonly used. Footers need to extend to the underlying glacial till and below the depth of freezing. Foundation drains and protective coatings on the exterior of walls of basements are needed. The subbase of roads needs to be thicker than that commonly used. The hazard of erosion is severe during construction. A vegetative cover maintained on the site during construction helps prevent erosion.

CvA – Churchville silt loam, 0-3% slope (125 acres) Best uses: woodland, hay, pasture,

MOHONK PRESERVE


water. For adequate drainage, subsurface drains need to be closely spaced in this slowly or very slowly permeable soil. Controlling erosion and maintaining good tilth are difficult in intensively cultivated areas. This soil needs to be cultivated at the proper moisture condition because it is sticky when wet and hard when dry. Hard clods and a crusty surface form if it is cultivated when wet. Planting when the soil is very dry generally results in poor seed ger-mination. Standard management practices, for example, minimum tillage, residue into the soil, crop rotation, good fertilization, and planting and harvesting at the proper moisture condition help to improve tilth and maintain the content of organic matter.

Because of the perched seasonal high water table, low strength, and slow or very slow permeability in the subsoil, only a small acreage of this soil is used for urban and rec-reational developments. Many dwellings have wet base-ments. Foundation drains and protective coatings on the exterior walls of basements help prevent wetness in base-ments. Footers need to extend to the underlying glacial till and below the depth of freezing. Specially designed septic tank absorption fields are needed. Roads need ar-tificial drainage and a thick subbase. A vegetative cover maintained on the site during construction helps to pre-vent erosion.

CvB – Churchville silt loam, 3-8% slope (175 acres) Best uses: woodland, pasture, crops, hay

This deep, nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soil formed in 20 to 40 inches of lake-laid clay and silt deposits over glacial till.

Typically, the surface layer is dark brown silt loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil extends to a depth of about 39 inches. The upper 4 inches is firm, mottled, yellow-ish brown silty clay loam; the next 20 inches is very firm, mottled, dark brown and olive brown silty clay and light silty clay; and the lower 5 inches is very firm, olive brown clay loam.

This deep, nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soil formed in 20 to 40 inches of lake-laid clay and silt deposits over glacial till.

Typically, the surface layer is dark brown silt loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil extends to a depth of about 39 inches. The upper 4 inches is firm, mottled, yellow-ish brown silty clay loam; the next 20 inches is very firm, mottled, dark brown and olive brown silty clay and light silty clay; and the lower 5 inches is very firm, olive brown clay loam.

The soil has a perched seasonal high water table at a depth of 6 to 18 inches in winter, in spring, and in other exces-sively wet periods. The depth of soil available for root ranges from 15 to 24 inches. Available water capacity in the root zone is moderate. Permeability is moderate in the surface layer, is slow or very slow in the subsoil. This soil is puddled and becomes cloddy if it is cultivated when wet. Runoff is medium. Reaction is medium acid to neutral in the surface layer and is slightly acid to mildly alkaline in the subsoil.

Most of the acreage of this soil is used for crops, hay, pas-ture, and woodland. Some areas are idle. Undrained ar-eas of this soil are suited to woodland and to wildlife habi-tat. Woodland productivity is moderately high. Machine planting of tree seedlings is practical on this soil. Wetness limits the suitability of this soil for some species. This soil has fair potential for farming and limited potential for ur-ban and recreational developments.

Drained areas of this soil are suited to cultivated crops, hay, and pasture. Wetness, slow or very slow permeability, and the high content of clay and silt in the subsoil limit the suitability of this soil for crops that are planted early in spring and for special crops and fruit crops. Control of excess water is a major management need. Undrained areas can be used for hay and pasture, but keeping soil compaction to a minimum and maintaining desirable for-age stands are difficult. Surface drains and diversion ter-races generally are effective in removing excess surface



The soil has a perched seasonal high water table at a depth of 6 to 18 inches in winter, in spring, and in other exces-sively wet periods. The depth of soil available for root ranges from 15 to 24 inches. Available water capacity in the root zone is moderate. Permeability is moderate in the surface layer, is slow or very slow in the subsoil. This soil is puddled and becomes cloddy if it is cultivated when wet. Runoff is medium. Reaction is medium acid to neutral in the surface layer and is slightly acid to mildly alkaline in the subsoil.

Most of the acreage of this soil is used for crops, hay, pas-ture, and woodland. Some areas are idle. Undrained ar-eas of this soil are suited to woodland and to wildlife habi-tat. Woodland productivity is moderately high. Machine planting of tree seedlings is practical on this soil. Wetness limits the suitability of this soil for some species. This soil has fair potential for farming and limited potential for ur-ban and recreational developments.

Drained areas of this soil are suited to cultivated crops, hay, and pasture. Wetness, slow or very slow permeability, and the high content of clay and silt in the subsoil limit the suitability of this soil for crops that are planted early in spring and for special crops and fruit crops. Control of excess water is a major management need. Undrained areas can be used for hay and pasture, but keeping soil compaction to a minimum and maintaining desirable for-age stands are difficult. Surface drains and diversion ter-races generally are effective in removing excess surface water. For adequate drainage, subsurface drains need to be closely spaced in this slowly or very slowly permeable soil. Controlling erosion and maintaining good tilth are difficult in intensively cultivated areas. This soil needs to be cultivated at the proper moisture condition because it is sticky when wet and hard when dry. Hard clods and a crusty surface form if it is cultivated when wet. Planting when the soil is very dry generally results in poor seed ger-mination. Standard management practices, for example, minimum tillage, residue into the soil, crop rotation, good fertilization, and planting and harvesting at the proper moisture condition help to improve tilth and maintain the content of organic matter.

Because of the perched seasonal high water table, low strength, and slow or very slow permeability in the subsoil, only a small acreage of this soil is used for urban and rec-reational developments. Many dwellings have wet base-ments. Foundation drains and protective coatings on the exterior walls of basements help prevent wetness in base-ments. Footers need to extend to the underlying glacial till and below the depth of freezing. Specially designed septic tank absorption fields are needed. Roads need ar-tificial drainage and a thick subbase. A vegetative cover maintained on the site during construction helps to pre-vent erosion.

Ma – Madalin silty clay loam, 0-2% slope (125 acres) Best uses: wetland, woodland, pasture

This deep, poorly drained and very poorly drained, nearly level soil formed in lake-laid deposits of clay and silt.

Typically the surface layer is black silty clay loam about 9 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil extends to a depth of about 35 inches. It is very firm, mottled, dark gray silty clay loam and silty clay. The lower part of the subsoil extends to a depth of about 45 inches. It is firm, mottled, brown silty clay.

The soil has a seasonal high water table that is on or just below the surface in winter, in spring, and in other exces-sively wet periods. The depth of the soil available for roots depends upon the height of the water table. The root zone is generally in the upper 10 to 18 inches, unless the soil has been adequately drained. Available water capacity in this zone is low. Permeability is moderately slow in the surface layer and is slow in the subsoil. Tilth in the silty clay loam surface layer is a concern in most areas. This soil receives runoff from surrounding soils and is often ponded during excessively wet periods. Runoff is very slow. Reac-tion is slightly acid or neutral in the surface layer and is slightly acid to mildly alkaline in the subsoil.

This soil is not intensively used. Wetness is the outstanding limitation. Most of the acreage is in woodland, is idle, or

MOHONK PRESERVE


elly silt loam, 25% Nassau shaly silt loam, and 15% other soils.

Typically, the surface layer of the Mardin soil is dark brown gravelly silt loam about 10 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil extends to a depth of about 17 inches. It is friable, yellowish brown gravelly silt loam that has mottles below a depth of 14 inches. A thin leached layer of firm, mottled, pale brown gravelly loam 4 inches thick separates the upper part of the subsoil from the lower part. Shale bedrock is at a depth of about 48 inches.

Typically the surface layer of the Nassau soil is brown shaly silt loam about 6 inches thick. The upper part of the sub-soil extends to a depth of about 10 inches. It is very fri-able, yellowish brown very shaly silt loam. Shale bedrock is at a depth of about 16 inches.

The Mardin soil has a temporary seasonal high water table that is perched above the slowly permeable fragipan late in fall, in winter and early spring. Roots are confined mainly to the 14- to 26-inch zone above the fragipan. Available water capacity of this zone is low to moderate. Depth to bedrock is more than 40 inches. Permeability is moderate above the fragipan and is slow in the fragipan.

Roots in the Nassau soil are confined mainly to the 10 to 20 inches of soil above the bedrock. A few roots pen-etrate fractures in the bedrock, available water capacity is very low, and plants wilt quickly during dry periods. The Nassau soil is moderately permeable.

Runoff is medium from both soils. In unlimed areas, the Mardin soil is very strongly acid to medium acid above the fragipan and is very strongly acid to slightly acid in the fragipan. In the Nassau soil, the surface layer and subsoil are very strongly acid or strongly acid.

Most of the acreage is in fruit crops, cultivated crops, hay, pasture, or woodland. These soils have fair potential for farming. The variable depth to bedrock, the slow perme-

is used for pasture. This soil has poor potential for farm-ing and good potential for wetland wildlife. Even though woodland productivity is poor, many areas of this soil are suited to woodland and to wetland wildlife habitat. Ma-chine planting of tree seedlings is not practical except dur-ing the drier part of the growing season. Species that are tolerant of wetness need to be selected for reforestation.

Undrained areas of this soil are too wet for cultivated crops and area limited mainly to pasture. If adequately drained, this soil is suitable for crops. Most areas are difficult to drain, and drainage outlets are difficult to locate in some areas. Open ditches and surface drains are the most effec-tive drainage practices because of the slow permeability in the subsoil. Subsurface drains must be closely spaced to give uniform drainage. Maintenance of good tilth is dif-ficult because the soil is sticky when wet and fairly hard when dry. If the soil is cultivated when wet, hard clods and a crusty surface form. Standard management practices, for example, minimum tillage, use of cover crops, incorpo-rating crop residue into the soil, from rotation and good fertilization help to improve tilth and maintain the content of organic matter.

Prolonged wetness and slow permeability in the subsoil se-verely limit community development and recreational uses. Even with artificial drainage and protective coatings on the exterior walls of basements, wet basements are common. Spread footings are needed. Roads need artificial drain-age and a very thick subbase. In many areas this soil is a suitable site for dugout ponds.

MgB – Mardin-Nassau complex, 3-8% slope (71 acres) Best uses: woodland, fruit crops, pasture, hay

This soil consists of a deep, moderately well drained Mar-din soil and a shallow, somewhat excessively drained Nas-sau soil. These gently sloping soils formed in glacial till. The Mardin soil is in slightly concave areas between the low ridges. The Nassau soil is on the tops and sides of the bedrock ridges. Mardin and Nassau soils form an intricate pattern. This soil is made up of about 60% Mardin grav-



ability in the fragipan, and the seasonal wetness of the Mardin soil limit intensive use. Woodland productivity is moderately high on the Mardin soil and poor on the Nas-sau soil. Machine planting of tree seedlings is practical on large areas of these soils.

Fruit crops are suited to these soils if irrigation is avail-able. During dry years, the very low available water capac-ity of the Nassau soils affects the size of fruit crops. Soil compaction is a continuous concern on the Mardin soil because spraying operations are often performed during wet periods with heavy equipment. Artificial drainage, maintaining good sod cover, and use of lighter machinery with wider treads or use of specially designed machinery help to prevent soil compaction.

The undulating topography, occasional bedrock outcrops, and gravel and shale fragments hinder tillage. Available water capacity varies within short distances. The uneven topography is not suited to conservation practices other than sod-forming crops, minimum tillage, use of cover crops, and incorporating crop residue into the soil. Tillage at the proper moisture condition, crop rotation, and good fertilization help to improve tilth and maintain the content of organic matter. Seasonal wetness of the Mardin soil delays planting in some areas. The included wetter soils need artificial drainage. The bedrock ridges make drain-age difficult in many areas.

The variable depth to bedrock; the dense, slowly perme-able fragipan; and seasonal wetness of the Mardin soil limit community development and recreational uses. The unit has potential for dwellings without basements if pub-lic sewers are available. A vegetative cover maintained on the site helps prevent erosion.

NMC – Nassau-Manlius shaly silt loams, rolling, 5-16% slope (1.6 acres) Best uses: woodland, recre-ation

This soil consists of a shallow, somewhat excessively

drained Nassau soil and a moderately deep, well drained and excessively drained Manlius soil. Relief is affected by bedrock and is very irregular. The soils formed in glacial till. Generally, the Nassau soil is on the sides of ridges and ridgetops, and the Manlius soil is in the areas between ridges.

This soil is made up of about 40% Nassau shaly silt loam, 35% Manlius shaly silt loam, and 25% other soils and rock outcrops. These Nassau and Manlius soils form intricate patterns.

Typically, the surface layer of the Nassau soil is brown shaly silt loam about 6 inches thick. The upper part of the sub-soil extends to a depth of 10 inches. It is very friable, yellowish brown very shaly silt loam. Shale bedrock is at a depth of about 16 inches.

Typically, the surface layer of the Manlius soil is dark brown shaly silt loam about 6 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil extends to a depth of about 15 inches. It is very friable, light olive brown shaly silt loam. The shale bedrock is at a depth of about 32 inches.

The root zone is confined to the 10 to 20 inches of soil above the bedrock in the Nassau soils. Because of shal-lowness to bedrock, available water capacity is very low, and plants wilt quickly during dry periods. Available water capacity is low to moderate in the 20- to 40-inch root zone above the shale bedrock in the Manlius soil. Excavations in the shale bedrock can be made by ripping with a heavy bulldozer or similar construction equipment. Other bed-rock formations that are below the shale generally require blasting. Permeability is moderate in both soils. Runoff is medium to very rapid. In unlimed areas, the surface layer and subsoil of the Nassau soils is very strongly acid or strongly acid. The Manlius soil is extremely acid to strongly acid in the surface layer and is very strongly acid to me-dium acid in the subsoil.

This soil is used mainly for woodland and for wildlife habi-

MOHONK PRESERVE


Typically, the surface layer of the Manlius soil is very dark brown shaly silt loam about 2 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil extends to a depth of about 15 inches and is very friable, light olive brown shaly silt loam. Shale bedrock is at a depth of about 32 inches.

The root zone is confined to the 10 to 20 inches of soil above the bedrock in Nassau soils. Because of this shal-lowness to bedrock, available water capacity is very low and plants wilt quickly during dry periods. Available water capacity is low to moderate in the 20- to 40-inch root zone above the shale bedrock in the Manlius soil. Excavations can be made by ripping with a heavy bulldozer or similar construction equipment. Other bedrock formations that are below the shale generally require blasting. Runoff is very rapid.

Permeability is moderate in both soils. In unlimed areas of Nassau soils, the surface layer and subsoil are very strongly acid or strongly acid. Manlius soils are extremely acid to strongly acid in the surface layer and are very strongly acid to medium acid in the subsoil.

Slope dominates the capabilities of this soil type, which is used mainly for woodland and for wildlife habitat. Wood-land productivity is poor on the Nassau soils and moder-ately high on the Manlius soil. Use of equipment is limited because of slope. Seedling mortality is high on the Nassau soils because of droughtiness. It has potential for some types of recreational development. The very steep slope, droughtiness, and limited root zone are very severe limita-tions for farming.

The very steep slope and bedrock within 40 inches of the surface make construction for urban uses difficult. The hazard of erosion is high when vegetation is removed. Some of the higher areas could be developed as lookout points. Trails in recreational areas need to be protected from erosion and established across the slope wherever possible.

tat. Woodland productivity is poor on Nassau soils and moderately high on Manlius soils. Seedling mortality is high on the Nassau soil because of droughtiness. These soils have potential for some types of recreational devel-opment. A few areas are used for hay and pasture. Be-cause of droughtiness and a limited root zone, the soils are poorly suited to fruit crops, pasture, and hay land. Irrigation, addition of organic matter, and proper liming and fertilization are necessary for adequate production of forage crops.

These soils have limitations for most urban uses because of slope and the depth to bedrock. There are some aes-thetic homesites, but the bedrock can be very limiting. A vegetative cover maintained on the site helps to prevent erosion. This soil has potential for some recreational uses even though the shallow depth to bedrock, slope, and shale fragments on the surface layer present limitations for some uses.

NNF – Nassau-Manlius, complex, very steep, 35-65% slope (105 acres). Best uses: woodland, recreation

This soil consists of shallow, somewhat excessively drained Nassau soils and a moderately deep, well drained and ex-cessively drained Manlius soil. This soil type is mainly on mountainsides. The soils formed in glacial till. Nassau soils generally are on the upper part of side slopes, and the Manlius soil is on the lower part.

This soil is made up of about 35% Nassau shaly silt loam and very shaly silt loam, about 35% Manlius shaly silt loam, and 30% other soils and rock outcrop. These Nas-sau and Manlius soils form intricate patterns.

Typically, the surface layer of the Nassau soil is brown shaly silt loam about 3 inches thick. The upper part of the sub-soil extends to a depth of 10 inches. It is very friable, yellowish brown very shaly silt loam. Shale bedrock is at a depth of about 16 inches.



NOD – Nassau-Rock outcrop complex, hilly, 10-25% slope (1.6 acres). Best uses: woodland, recreation

This soil consists of a shallow, somewhat excessively drained Nassau soil and rock outcrop on ridges. The Nas-sau soil formed in glacial till.

This soil type is made up of about 55% Nassau shaly silt loam, 20% rock outcrop, and 25% other soils. The Nas-sau soil and rock outcrop form intricate patterns.

Typically, the surface layer of the Nassau soils is brown shaly silt loam about 6 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil extends to a depth of 10 inches. It is very friable, yellowish brown very shaly silt loam. Shale bedrock is at a depth of about 16 inches.

The root zone in the Nassau soil is confined to the 10 to 20 inches of soil above the bedrock. Because of shallowness to bedrock, available water capacity is very low, and plants wilt quickly during dry periods. Permeability is moderate. Runoff is medium to very rapid. In unlimed areas, the sur-face layer and subsoil are very strongly acid or strongly acid.

This soil is used mainly for woodland and for wildlife habi-tat. It has potential for paths and trails. Woodland pro-ductivity is poor on the Nassau soil. Seedling mortality is high. The rock outcrops interfere with machine planting of tree seedling. A few areas are in unimproved native pasture. The soil has poor potential for farming and urban development.

Farm uses are affected by the droughtiness, shallow depth to bedrock, rock outcrops, and slope. Numerous outcrops make cultivation extremely difficult. They also hinder fer-tilizing and mowing of pasture.

Urban uses are severely limited by the bedrock exposures, shallow depth to bedrock, and slope. Large quantities of fill generally are needed for disposal of septic tank efflu-

ent. In some cases, effluent from septic tanks moves over the bedrock to streams or comes to the surface at very shallow areas. A vegetative cover maintained on the site during construction helps to prevent erosion.

VSB – Volusia very stony soils, gently sloping, 3-8% slope (21 acres). Best uses: woodland

These deep, very stony, somewhat poorly drained soils formed in glacial till. They are on foot slopes and on un-dulating hilltops and plains.

Typically, the surface layer is dark grayish brown very stony silt loam about 6 inches thick. The upper part of the sub-soil extends to a depth of about 15 inches. It is friable, mottled, yellowish brown gravelly silt loam.

These soils have a temporary water table within a few inches of the surface in spring and during wet periods. Many areas receive runoff and seepage from adjacent soils. Roots are confined mainly to the 15- to 20- inch zone above the fragipan. Available water capacity of this zone is low to very low. In periods of average rainfall, plants seldom are affected by lack of water, but during ex-tended dry periods these soils are droughty. Permeability is moderate above the fragipan and is slow in the fragipan and substratum. The stones are subrounded or angular and range from 10 inches to almost 4 feet across. They are spaced about 5 to 30 feet apart on the surface. Run-off ranges from slow to rapid depending on the slope. In unlimed areas, reaction generally increases with depth from very strongly acid or strongly acid in the surface layer to very strongly acid to medium acid in the subsoil above the fragipan.

Most of the acreage of these soils is used for woodland and for wildlife habitat. Woodland productivity is moder-ately high. Surface stones present some difficulty in ma-chine planting of tree seedlings. Wetness limits the suit-ability of these soils for some species. These soils have poor potential for farming. The potential for many uses

MOHONK PRESERVE


can be increased by the removal of surface stones and by drainage.

Some areas of these soils are used for hay and permanent pasture, but the stones hinder fertilizing and mowing. Till-age of intertilled crops is impractical. After stones are re-moved, these soils can be managed like other Volusia soils. Contour farming, use of cover crops, and minimum tillage help to control erosion. These measures and tillage at the proper moisture condition help to promote good tilth.

Slow permeability in the fragipan, seasonal wetness, and stoniness are limitations for urban and recreational devel-opments. Effluent from many septic tank absorption fields moves to the surface in these soils. Therefore, specially designed absorption fields are needed. These soils are better suited to dwellings without basements. Some areas have potential for recreational uses.

W – open water (1.5 acres)

WsB – Williamson silt loam, 3-8% slope (2 acres). Best uses: crops, hay, pasture, woodland, recreation (pic-nic areas, paths, trails)

This deep, gently sloping, moderately well drained soil formed in the wind- or water-deposited silt very fine sand and some clay. It is on lake plains and uplands.

Typically, the surface layer is brown silt loam about 8 inch-es thick. The upper part of the subsoil extends to a depth of about 18 inches. It is friable, strong brown silt loam and has mottles below a depth of 14 inches.

Late in winter, in spring, and in other excessively wet pe-riods, this soil has a seasonal high water table within a depth of 18 to 24 inches. This water table is perched on the slowly permeable fragipan. Maximum rooting depth is influenced by the depth to the fragipan and is mainly 15 to 24 inches. Available water capacity in the root zone is moderate. Permeability is moderate in the surface layer

and upper part of the subsoil. The surface crusts easily when the soil is intensively cultivated. Runoff is medium. In unlimed areas, reaction is very strongly acid to medium acid in the surface layer, is very strongly acid to slightly acid in the upper part of the subsoil.

Most of the acreage of this soil is used for crops, hay, and pasture. This soil has good potential for farming. This stone-free, silty soil is suited to cultivated crops, special crops, hay and pasture. Seasonal wetness delays plant-ing in some seasons. Artificial drainage is needed in areas of the wetter included soils. The hazard of erosion is se-vere in cultivated areas that are unprotected. Keeping the soil from crusting after rain and maintaining tilth and a high level of fertility are also main management concerns. Standard management practices, for example, minimum tillage, use of cover crops, incorporating crop residue into the soil, crop rotation, and tilling and harvesting at the proper moisture condition, help to control erosion, improve tilth, and maintain the content of organic mat-ter. Soil compaction is a concern in areas where this soil is used for special crops because harvesting is commonly performed during wet periods. Use of lighter machinery with wider tire treads or use of special machinery helps prevent soil compaction.

Woodland productivity is moderately high. Machine planting of tree seedlings is practical on this soil. This soil has potential for such recreational uses as picnic areas and paths and trails.

Fruit crops are moderately suited to this soil. Soil compac-tion is a continuous concern because spraying operations are commonly performed with heavy equipment during wet periods. Artificial drainage, maintaining good sod, and use of lighter machinery with wider tire treads or use of special machinery help prevent soil compaction.

The seasonal high water table and slow permeability in the fragipan and substratum are limitations for many urban uses. It is better suited to dwellings without basements. Foundation drains are needed. Streets and parking lots



2.3HABITAT TYPES

Vegetation types were mapped onscreen using ArcGIS 10 displaying 2009 orthophotos at 1 foot resolution (Figure 2.3.1). The area is predominately forested; however fields cover over 40% of the parcel. The ecological communities that presently exist on the site have been greatly impacted

from several centuries of human use, or are completely the result of human land use. Emily Southgate has been appointed as the 2012 Loewy-Mohonk Preserve Fellow to investigate the historical ecology of the site.

The site provides habitat for many species including those with large habitat requirements such as Bobcat, Fisher and Black Bear.

i. Forest and Woodland (398 acres)

Appalachian oak-hickory forest (Majority of forested area in parcel)

A hardwood forest that occurs on well-drained sites, usu-ally on ridgetops, upper slopes, or south- and west-facing slopes. The dominant trees are White Oak (Quercus alba)

Figure 2.3.1. Vegetation Types.

need artificial drainage. The subbase of roads needs to be thicker than that commonly used.

REFERENCE

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conserva-tion Service in cooperation with Cornell University Agri-cultural Experiment Station. 1979. Soil Survey of Ulster County, New York.

MOHONK PRESERVE


lenta) are also found.

These forests are heavily invaded by Multiflora Rose (Flora multiflora), Japanese Barberry (Berberis thunbergii) and other invasives. Management of these areas will need to address invasives.

REFERENCE

Edinger, G.J., Evans, D.J., Gebauer, S., Howard, T.G., Hunt, D.M., Olivero, A.M. Editors. 2002. Ecological Communi-ties of New York State. 2nd ed. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's ecological communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany (NY).

Russell, E. W. B. 2001. Three Centuries of Vegetational Change in the Shawangunk Mountains. Report to The Na-ture Conservancy. Rutgers University, Newark, NJ.

Thompson J. E. 1996. Vegetation Survey of the Northern Shawangunk Mountains, Ulster County, New York. The Nature Conservancy: Troy, NY.

ii. Woodland Seep* (West of Humpo Marsh)

A hardwood swamp that occurs in poorly-drained soils, along the bottom slopes of smaller valleys where rock frac-tures allow water to seep out of the mountainsides. The soil remains saturated to very moist throughout the year. The vegetation is typically forested with variable canopy composition typically with Red Maple (Acer rubrum) and Pin Oak (Quercus palustris). Other canopy species may include Shagbark Hickory (Carya ovata), Pignut Hickory (C. glabra), Swamp White Oak (Quercus bicolor) and Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana). Canopy coverage can be moderately dense to quite open. The shrub layer is often well-developed and characteristically includes Winterberry (Ilex verticillata), Hop Hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), Nan-nyberry (Viburnum lentago), Multiflora Rose (Rosa multi-flora), Northern Prickly Ash (Zanthoxylum americanum),

and Red Oak (Quercus rubra). Associated species are Hick-ories (Carya ovata and C. glabra), American Elm (Ulmus americana), White Ash (Fraxinus americana), Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Eastern Hop Hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), Flowering Dogwood (Cornus florida), Witch Hazel (Hama-melis viginiana), and Shadbush (Amelanchier arborea).

Characteristic low shrubs include Maple-leaf Viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium), Blueberry (Vaccinium angustifo-lium), and Red Raspberry (Rubus ideus). Ground cover may include Speedwell (Veronica officinalis), Tufted Sedge (Carex platyphylla), and Hog-peanut (Amphicarpaea brac-teata).

Characteristic birds include many species of state-des-ignated Species of Greatest Conservation Need: Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), Black-throated Blue Warbler (Dendroica caerulescens), Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea), Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea), Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus), Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) and Worm-eating Warbler (Helmitheros vermi-vorus). Louisiana Waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla) utilize stream corridors within this forested habitat, as do Wood Turtles (Clemmys insculpta). Many mammals, reptiles, am-phibians, and insects live in this forest type.

Areas of particular interest are the forested area south of the Testimonial Gateway and the area east of Hasb-rouck House. Both areas support significant populations of White Oak. White Oak is relatively rare in other areas of the Mohonk Preserve, and was historically the most common tree in the pre-European settlement forest (Rus-sell 2001). This area has great potential for research and careful management for oak regeneration.

A variant of this forest occurs on the slope west of the Humpo Marsh. This is a successional forest that developed from former agricultural fields. Canopy and shrub species are greatly variable. Besides the characteristic tree species of this type Pin Oak (Quercus palustris) is very common (even in uplands), Red Maple, Black Cherry (Prunus sero-tina), Bird Cherry (Prunus avium), and Black Birch (Betula



and Japanese Barberry (Berberis thunbergii).

Characteristic herbs include Sensitive Fern (Onoclea sen-sibilis), Lady Fern (Athyrium filix femina), sedges (Carex spp.), Spotted Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), and sev-eral species of Aster. Mosses are abundant.

Examples of forested seep fauna include Green Frog (Rana clamitans), Pickerel Frog (R. palustris), Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus), many species of woodpeckers (Downy (Picoides pubescens), Hairy (P. villosus), Flicker (P. villosus), Red-bellied (Melanerpes carolinus), Pileated (Dryocopus pileatus) and Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (Sphy-rapicus varius), Gray Treefrog (Hyla versicolor), Eastern Bluebird (Sialia sialis), bats, owls, and other cavity-using animals. The rare dragonfly, the Gray Petaltail (Tachop-teryx thoreyi) occur in hillside seeps.

* This habitat type was not included in any regional or international ecological community descriptions currently available. This habitat description is being developed, and will likely be revised.

REFERENCES

Blair, N., Loose, J. L., Burne, M. R. 2003. The Field Guide to the Dragonflies and Dameselflies of Massachusetts. Mas-sachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife: Westborough, MA.


Hudsonia Ltd. 2001. Biodiversity assessment manual for the Hudson River Estuary Corridor. New York State De-partment of Environmental Conservation: Albany, NY.

NatureServe. 2011. NatureServe Explorer: An online en-cyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. Nature-Serve, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.nature-serve.org/explorer. (Accessed: September28, 2011).

iii. Red Maple Hardwood Swamp (Small area South-west of Testimonial Gateway)

A hardwood swamp that occurs in poorly-drained depres-sions, usually on inorganic soils. This is a broadly defined community with many variants. The dominant tree is Red Maple (Acer rubrum), which may be mixed with Swamp White Oak (Quercus bicolor), American Elm (Ulmus ameri-cana), Pin Oak (Q. palustris) and Black Ash (Fraxinus nigra).

Characteristic shrubs include Swamp Azalea (Rhododen-dron viscosum), Spicebush (Lindera benzoin), Winterberry (Ilex verticillata), Black Chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa), Red Osier Dogwood (Cornus sericea), Arrow-wood (Vibur-num dentatum), Withe-rod (V. nudum), Mountain Laurel (Kalmia latifolia), and Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium cor-ymbosum).

Characteristic herbs include Cinnamon Fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), Sensitive Fern (Onoclea sensibilis), Lady Fern (Athyrium filix femina), Skunk-cabbage (Symplocar-pus foetidus), sedges (Carex spp.), Spotted Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), Marsh Bedstraw (Galium palustre), False Hellebore (Veratrum viride), and Reed Canary-grass (Phalaris arundinacea).

Examples of wetland fauna that occur in the glaciated northeast red maple-hardwood swamps include Wood Duck (Aix sponosa), American Black Duck (Anas rubripes), Northern Waterthrush (Seiurus noveboracensis), Bea-ver (Castor canadensis), and mink (Mustela vison). These swamps provide breeding habitat for many wetland-de-pendent species, such as Spring Peeper (Pseudacris cruci-fer), American Toad (Bufo americanus), Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica), and Spotted Salamander (Ambystoma macula-tum).

MOHONK PRESERVE


Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany (NY).

v. Upland Meadow (331 acres)

(Upper Brook Farm fields and Kleinekill Farm)

This habitat type, includes hayfield, pasture, crop field, fal-low crop field, herbaceous old field, and mowed grass-land, all on upland (non-wetland) soils. The most impor-tant types of field for rare species are the extensive grass or grass-and-forb dominated hayfields, pastures, mowed grassland, or herbaceous old field that serve as critical habitat for grassland-breeding birds. The bird species of particular interest are Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) (a threatened species that visits during migration), Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna), Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savanna-rum), and Henslow’s Sparrow (A. henslowii). Fields and field edges are important feeding habitats for Eastern Blue-bird (Sialia sialis), Blue-winged Warbler (Vermivora pinus) and Golden-winged Warbler (V. chrysoptera). Dry herba-ceous old field may be important habitat for rare butter-flies such as Aphrodite Fritillary (Speyeria aphrodite). Dry old fields with an abundance of Little Bluestem (Schizachy-rium scoparium) may have butterflies like Leonard’s Skip-per (Hesperia leonardus). Eastern Box Turtles (Terrapene carolina) depend on Upland Meadows for foraging.

Early successional habitats are the fastest declining habitat types in New York State and throughout the Northeast. As agricultural land uses declined through the Twentieth Cen-tury, there has been a consequent loss of large, contiguous hayfields and pasture. In the Northern Shawangunks, cul-tivated fields declined by 40% from 1948 to 1994 (Russell 2001). The decrease in farmland acreage has lead to the rapid decrease in population of many of the species that are dependent on open habitats (e.g. Smith and Marks 2008).

REFERENCE

Hudsonia Ltd. 2001. Biodiversity assessment manual for

REFERENCES



iv. Woodland (included in Forest acreage)

Successional red cedar woodland (Northwest of Humpo Marsh and Testimonial Gateway area)

A woodland community that commonly occurs on aban-doned agricultural fields and pastures, usually at elevations less than 1000 ft (305 m). The dominant tree is Eastern Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana), which may occur widely spaced in young stands and may be rather dense in more mature stands. Smaller numbers of Gray Birch (Betula populifolia), Hawthorn (Crataegus macrosperma), Buck-thorn (Rhamnus), and other early successional hardwoods may be present. On slopes, Red Cedar is commonly found mixed with White Ash (Fraxinus americana) and Black Wal-nut (Juglans nigra). Shrubs and groundlayer vegetation are similar to a successional old field; in some stands the groundcover consists of a nearly pure stand of non-native bluegrasses such as Canada Bluegrass (Poa compressa) and Kentucky Bluegrass (P. pratensis).

A characteristic bird is the Prairie Warbler (Dendroica dis-color), a Species of Special Conservation Need.

REFERENCE

Edinger, G.J., Evans, D.J., Gebauer, S., Howard, T.G., Hunt, D.M., Olivero, A.M. Editors. 2002. Ecological Communi-ties of New York State. 2nd ed. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's ecological communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage



the Hudson River Estuary Corridor. New York State De-partment of Environmental Conservation: Albany, NY.

Russell, E. W. B. 2001. Three Centuries of Vegetational Change in the Shawangunk Mountains. Report to The Na-ture Conservancy. Rutgers University, Newark, NJ.

Smith, C. R. and P. L. Marks. 2008. Land-use Change and Breeding Birds. Pages 59-68 In The Second Atlas of Breed-ing Birds in New York State, K. J. McGowan and K. Cor-win, eds. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

vi. Wet Meadow (38 acres)

(Testimonial Gateway, Pine Farm, lower fields of Brook Farm)

These are wetlands with acidic soils and groundwater where the soil is saturated for part or all of the growing season, but only shallowly and briefly inundated, if at all, and which support predominantly herbaceous (non-woody) vegetation. Wet Meadows occur where there is seepage, or accumulation of rainwater or runoff, on soils that are moderately to highly acidic. They usually occur where there is livestock grazing, mowing, hay cutting, recent abandonment of crops, or where woody vegeta-tion has been recently cleared. Wet meadows also occur in abandoned beaver ponds and some partially drained marshes. Wet meadows are often associated with the margins of marshes or swamps.

The vegetation of wet meadows is often dominated by such species as Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea), Purple Loosestrife, Common Reed, Rice Cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), Soft Rush (Juncus effusus), Woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), Joe-Pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum), Ar-rowleaf Tearthumb (Polygonum arifolium), Late Goldenrod (Solidago gigantea), Tall Hairy Goldenrod (S. rugosa ssp rugosa var. sphagnophila), or some combination of these and other herbs. Sparse woody plants, such as Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum), Wil-lows (Salix), or Alder (Alnus) may be present.

Quality of wet meadows is generally better where inva-sive plants (Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), Common Reed (Phragmites australis), Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea), Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora), etc.) are less abundant, although small amounts or mixed stands of these plants do not necessarily degrade the habitat. Low-intensity livestock grazing or hay cutting may be compat-ible with biodiversity conservation depending on the kinds of rare or uncommon species present (or potentially pres-ent).

Common animals of wet meadows include Meadow Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), Red-winged Blackbird (Age-laius phoeniceus), American Goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), Swamp Sparrow (Melospiza georgiana), Eastern Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), Green Frog (Rana clamitans melanota), and Pickerel Frog (R. palustris). Southern Bog Lemming (Synaptomys cooperi), a species of regional concern, may occur where there are certain rushes or sedges for food. Wet meadows with marshy spots could be breeding habitat for grassland or wetland birds like Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) and Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola). American Woodcock (Scolopax mi-nor), a declining species, use wet meadows for courtship display areas and possibly for foraging. Spotted Turtles (Clemmys guttata) are possibly present. Rare butterflies (Mulberry Wing (Poanes massasoit), Black Dash (Euphyes conspicuus), Meadow Fritillary (Boloria bellona), Baltimore (Euphydryas phaeton), Milbert’s Tortoiseshell (Nymphalis milberti), Eyed Brown (Satyrodes eurydice) are associated with larval food plants such as Blue Flag (Iris), sedges (Car-ex), and grasses, or nectar plants such as Swamp Milk-weed (Asclepias incarnata). Wet meadows also serve as winter habitat for Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) and Rough-legged Hawk (Buteo lagopus).

REFERENCE


MOHONK PRESERVE


The area of what is now known as Humpo Marsh was used as a hayfield, harvested during dry seasons, by Mo-honk since it acquired the property in 1922 (Smiley 1987). Invasion by Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in the 1950’s decreased the quality of the hay. Beavers built a dam to flood the area in 1983 and between 1986 and 1990, 102 species of birds were documented at the marsh. This became an important wetland used heavily during spring and fall migration of waterbirds like American Black Duck (Anas rubripes), American Coot (Fulica americana), Common Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus), Great Egret (Casmerodius albus), Northern Shoveler (Anas clypeata), Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) a Threatened Species, and Ring-necked Duck (Aythya collaris). Rare sightings include American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), Gadwall (Anas strepera), Glossy Ibis (Plegadis falcinellus), Black-crowned Night-heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) and Sora (Porzana carolina). Pied-billed Grebe are confirmed to breed in the marsh.

In 1987, Daniel Smiley recognized Humpo Marsh as an “important resource for nature education and interpre-tation” and proposed that the Mohonk Preserve manage the Humpo Marsh wetland by constructing a boardwalk around the marsh with an observation blind.

The Purple Loosestrife population in the marsh has de-clined over the past decade while patches of Phragmites are expanding. The hydrology of the marsh has been greatly impacted by humans and by beaver. Invasive spe-cies need to be monitored and further wetlands studies are needed. Exprimental treatments using combinations of cutting, livestock grazing, prescribed burning and other treatments could be performed to restore ecological pro-cesses in the marsh.

REFERENCES


Smiley, D. 1986. Natural Science Note No. 122: About Beaver and Water Birds. Mohonk Preserve, Inc. New Paltz, NY.

vii. Wetlands (63 acres)

Beaver Pond (Humpo Marsh, Brook Farm Pond)

Beaver Ponds are created by Beavers (Castor canadensis) building dams across small to medium-sized perennial streams. Beaver ponds flood portions of the riparian area for a few years or sometimes longer. During that time, the Beavers cut trees near the water, build lodges of sticks and mud in the pond or on the banks and dig burrows in the banks. Eventually the Beavers die or leave the pond, the dam deteriorates, and the water level of the pond draws down, leaving a Beaver meadow – a silty marsh or Wet Meadow. Beaver ponds and meadows are different from surrounding habitats and are used by many other animals and plants.

The area surrounding the pond is at least partly wooded, and live or dead trees and shrubs may stand in the pond itself. In addition, submerged, floating, and emergent herbaceous plants are present to a variable degree, often limited to pond margins or small patches within the pond. Common plants in and at the edges of Beaver ponds in-clude Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Alder (Alnus), Cattail (Ty-pha), Common Reed (Phragmites australis), Purple Loose-strife (Lythrum salicaria), Tussock Sedge (Carex stricta), Woolgrass (Scirpus), Bur-reeds (Sparganium), Spatterdock (Nuphar), and Pond Lily (Nymphaea).

Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), Mink (Mustela vison), River Otter (Lutra canadensis), Raccoon (Procyon lotor), Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), water birds (waterfowl, her-ons, shorebirds, Belted Kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), North-ern Watersnake (Nerodia sipedon), Eastern Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta), Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina), Green Frog (Rana clamitans melanota), Pickerel Frog (R. palustris), Bullfrog (R. catesbeiana), and many invertebrates use Beaver ponds. Leopard Frog was observed breeding at Humpo Marsh in 1955. Cavity-making and cavity-using birds like the Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes eryth-rocephalus) and small mammals are attracted to dead and dying trees in Beaver ponds and meadows. Red-headed Woodpeckers are confirmed to breed in Humpo Marsh south of NYS Route 299.



Smiley, D. 1987. Humpo Marsh Wetland. Daniel Smiley Research Center Archives.

viii. Reedgrass/Purple Loosestrife Marsh (East of Pine Farm House)

A disturbed marsh in which Reedgrass (Phragmites aus-tralis) or Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) has become dominant. These areas support amphibian populations and may serve as important habitat for some waterbirds.

REFERENCES



ix. Vernal Pool (Pin Oak Swamp (Kleinekill Reservoir Rd.), Unnamed pool between Turner House and Pine Farm House)

A small wetland that occurs within a shallow depression of an upland community. Vernal pools are flooded in spring and after high rainfall events, are normally dry by the end of summer, and may be full again in autumn. Vernal pools typically occupy a confined basin (i.e., a standing water-body without a flowing outlet), but may have an intermit-tent stream flowing out of it during high water.

This community includes a diverse group of invertebrates and amphibians that depend upon temporary pools as breeding habitat. Since vernal pools cannot support fish populations, there is no threat of fish predation on am-phibian eggs or invertebrate larvae.

Characteristic animals of vernal pools include species of amphibians, reptiles, crustaceans, mollusks, annelids, and insects. Vernal pool species can be categorized as either obligate (species that depend upon vernal pool habitat for their survival), or facultative (species that are often found in vernal pools, but are not dependent on them and can successfully reproduce elsewhere) (Colburn 1997). Obli-gate vernal pool amphibians include Spotted Salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), Blue-spotted Salamander (A. laterale), Jefferson’s Salamander (A. jeffersonianum), and Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica). Fairy shrimp (Anostraca) are obligate vernal pool crustaceans, with Eubranchipus spp. being the most common.

Facultative vernal pool amphibians include Red-spotted Newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), Spring Peeper (Pseud-acris crucifer), Gray Tree Frog (Hyla versicolor), Green Frog (Rana clamitans), American Toad (Bufo americanus), and Fowler’s Toad (B. woodhousei fowleri). Facultative ver-nal pool reptiles include Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta), Spotted Turtle (Clemmys guttata), and Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina). Facultative vernal pool mollusks in-clude freshwater fingernail clams (Sphaerium sp., Muscu-lium sp., and Pisidium sp.) and aquatic amphibious snails (Physa sp., Lymnaea sp., and Helisoma sp.). Facultative vernal pool insects include Water Scorpions, Predacious Diving Beetles (Dytiscidae), Whirligig Beetles (Gyrinidae), Dobsonflies (Corydalidae), Caddisflies (Trichoptera), Drag-onflies (Anisoptera), Damselflies (Zygoptera), Mosquitoes (Cuculidae), Springtails (Collembula) and Water Striders (Gerris sp.). Leeches (Hirudinea) are a facultative vernal pool annelid.

Floating and submergent plants may be common, but emergent plants should be sparse or lacking. Characteris-tic vascular plants may include Mannagrass (Glyceria sp.), Spikerush (Eleocharis acicularis), Water Purslane (Ludwigia palustris), Naiad (Najas sp.), Duckweed (Lemna minor), and Waterhemlock (Cicuta maculata). Characteristic moss may include Brachythecium rivulare, Calliergon sp. and Sphagnum spp.

MOHONK PRESERVE


REFERENCES

Colburn, E.A. 1997. A citizens step-by-step guide to protecting vernal pools. Seventh edition. Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln, MA.



x. Water (3.5 acres)

Reservoir /artificial pond (Testimonial Gateway Ponds, Kleinekill Reservoirs)

Aquatic communities created by excavation or impound-ment. These areas support amphibian populations and may serve as important habitat for some waterbirds.

Stream (Kleinekill, Mohonk Brook, Humpokill)

Kleinekill and Mohonk Brook are two high-quality rocky headwater streams provide habitat for a number of un-common insects and birds. Mohonk Brook needs more investigation of the species it supports. Kleinekill is the outlet of Duck Pond, and passes through the former Poor House Reservoir. Species and pH measurements for this stream are on file. The Humpokill drains from a large swamp south of Route 299, through Humpo Marsh and continues northeast through the site.

In order to farm this area, streams and wet areas were channeled. Vegetative species of interest along some of these streams include Cardinal Flower (Figure 2.3.2).

REFERENCES



Figure 2.3.2. Cardinal Flower along stream east of Hasbrouck House. Photo by John Thompson on July 27, 2011.



2.4SPECIES

i. SPECIES: Spotted Turtle (Clemmys guttata)

New York State Species of Special Concern; listed as Wild-life Species of Regional Conservation concern in the North-eastern United States; and has a New York Natural Heri-tage Program S-rank of S3:typically 21-100 occurrences.

Spotted Turtles typically inhabit wetlands below 700 feet in elevation, with heterogeneous, early-successional veg-etation (Figure 2.4.1). In the northeastern United States, Spotted Turtles typically use vernal pools in spring; upland forest for dormancy during part of the summer; and wet meadows, forested swamps, or sphagnum bogs for over-wintering. Most of the Spotted Turtle’s aquatic habitats have similar qualities – shallow, clear water, with a muddy substrate. Winter retreats include abandoned muskrat and beaver lodges and burrows, beaver dams, cavities un-der the roots of flooded shrubs and trees, and flooded sections of stonewalls that cross wetlands.

Spotted Turtles are quite tolerant of cold water and nor-mally emerge from their winter quarters in March or early April. Notably, Spotted Turtles have been observed bask-ing among snow patches in mid-winter during bouts of unusually mild weather. During spring they bask in full sunlight early in the morning and prowl about warm shal-lows in search of Spotted Salamander and Wood Frog egg masses, tadpoles, snails, slugs, worms, small crustaceans, and aquatic insects. In late May or early June, Spotted Turtles aestivate (become fairly dormant), a strategy to keep cool and avoid desiccation during the heat of the summer. Spotted Turtles burrow into wetland muck or depart for safe haven in sunny fields where they disappear under thatch, often for weeks. Egg-carrying females then move up to several hundred yards from their retreats to their nest sites during early June. Females lay two to seven eggs in a cavity dug in grass or sedge tussocks, sphagnum moss, or loamy soils in a sunny location. Incubation takes

about 7-12 weeks, depending on the warmth of the nest. Hatchlings appear in August or September, or the follow-ing April, after overwintering in the nest. Young that es-cape predation may grow rapidly during the first years of life but then more slowly as they approach sexual matu-rity at 10-15 years of age. When fall rains arrive, Spotted Turtles move to their winter retreats where temperatures remain stable and slightly above freezing. Spotted Turtles typically hibernate in groups at the same site year after year, occasionally with Snapping Turtles.

POTENTIAL THREATS: Spotted Turtles suffer from habi-tat fragmentation, wetland draining, suburban develop-ment, invasive wetland plants, and heavy highway mor-tality. Soaring predator populations – especially Crows, Raccoons and Coyotes – have also taken their toll. Green Frogs are also known to predate hatchlings. Commercial collection for the pet trade is a serious problem. Overgraz-ing by livestock, agriculture, pollution and habitat succes-sion can also be threats.

SPECIES-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT: Home ranges of the Spotted Turtle are at least 5ha, and can be up to 16 ha.

Figure 2.4.1. Spotted Turtle. Photo by Jamie Thompson.

MOHONK PRESERVE


Powerline right-of-ways have been found to be important areas for nesting sites. Clearing of the right-of-ways with heavy machinery should be done after the nestlings have hatched (earliest maintenance should occur after mid-Sep-tember). Uprooted trees are important areas for summer aestivation. Upturned roots should not be removed from the area.

OBSERVED: Humpo Marsh along Rt. 299, Pine Road and Butterville Road

REFERENCES

DeGraaf , J.D., Nein, D.G. 2010. Predation of Spotted Turtle (Clemmys guttata) Hatchling by Green Frog (Rana clamitans). Northeastern Naturalist (17): 667-670.

Gibbs, J. P., Breisch, A. R., Ducey, P. K., Johnson, G., Be-hler, J. L. & Bothner, R. C. 2007. The Amphibians and Reptiles of New York State: Identification, Natural History, and Conservation. Oxford University Press: New York, NY.

Litzgus, J.D., Mousseau, T.A. 2004. Home Range and Sea-sonal Activity of Southern Spotted Turtles (Clemmys gut-tata): Implications for Management. Copeia (4): 804-817.

ii. SPECIES: Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta)


Wood Turtles have extensive landscape-scale habitat re-quirements, requiring clean rivers and large streams with deeply undercut banks for hibernation, as well as extensive areas of floodplain, forest, and fields for summer foraging (Figure 2.4.2). Although Wood turtles are a forest species, they appear to prefer areas in which there are openings in the streamside canopy rather than unbroken forest. The Wood Turtle may occasionally be found in non-riparian habitats such as swamps, bogs, wet meadows, upland fields, and farmland. Winter dormancy takes place in wa-

ter. Some of the hibernacula reported for Wood turtles include muskrat burrows, under overhanging tree roots along banks, beaver ponds, and the bottom of streams. There are several reports of large numbers of Wood turtles found in the same hibernaculum.

Wood Turtles consume mostly animal material, specifically earthworms, snails and slugs, insects, amphibians (tad-poles and adults), mice, carrion, as well as some filamen-tous algae, moss, grass, willow and alder leaves, berries and fungi. They take over a decade to reach sexual ma-turity, and have a low egg output. Eggs are laid in sunny areas with well-drained yet somewhat moist and loose soil free of debris and not prone to flooding. Predators take most nests.

POTENTIAL THREATS: The building of roads through Wood turtle habitat can be harmful. Because of their extensive overland movements, they are very susceptible to road mortality. Because of its need for clear, flowing water, the Wood Turtle can be considered “pollution intolerant” and may be affected by pesticide use. Damming and chan-nelization of rivers and streams is destroying Wood Turtle habitat across its range. However, Wood Turtles can be tol-erant of mild habitat alteration such as small-scale open-ing of the streamside canopy that may create feeding and

Figure 2.4.2. Wood Turtle. Photo by John Thompson.



nesting areas.

Even when habitat is left intact, it may be degraded through human recreation. Increased numbers of humans often lead to increased numbers of Raccoons, which are an important predator of nests and adults. Several docu-mented cases of Wood Turtle populations in the Northeast have declined to extinction once they were exposed to large numbers of human recreationists. Once widespread, wood turtle populations have also suffered from overcol-lection for the pet trade (for which this species is avidly sought).

SPECIES-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT: Agricultural machinery can injure or kill Wood Turtles of all ages. Hatchlings have been found to use agricultural areas more than adults, and may be at higher risk. A management scheme to delay ag-ricultural harvesting until turtles have entered aquatic hab-itats for hibernation is advised. Wood Turtles are primarily terrestrial from late May to mid-September but return to aquatic overwintering sites in October and November.

OBSERVED: Pine Road & Pine Farm

REFERENCES

Bowen, K. D., Gillingham, J.C. 2004. R9 Species Conser-vation Assessment for Wood Turtle – Glyptemys insculpa.

Castellano, C.M., Behler, J.L., Ultsch, G.R. 2008. Terres-trial Movements of Hatchling Wood Turtles (Glyptemys insculpta) in Agricultural Fields in New Jersey. Chelonian Conservation and Biology (7) 1: 113-118.

Garber, S.D., and Burger, J. 1995. A 20-Yr Study Docu-menting the Relationship Between Turtle Decline and Human Recreation. Ecological Applications, (5), 4: 1151-1162.

Gibbs, J. P., Breisch, A. R., Ducey, P. K., Johnson, G., Be-hler, J. L. & Bothner, R. C. 2007. The Amphibians and

Reptiles of New York State: Identification, Natural History, and Conservation. Oxford University Press: New York, NY.

Kaufmann, J.H. 1992. Habitat Use by Wood Turtles in Cen-tral Pennsylvania

Journal of Herpetology (26) 3: 315-321.

iii. SPECIES: Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina)


Box Turtles live in open and logged-over woodlands, meadows, pastures, old fields and powerline cuts (Figure 2.4.3). The species seems to prefer habitat with sandy, well-drained soil, often near ponds or streams.

Box Turtles are strictly diurnal and forage most actively in early morning for slugs, earthworms, wild strawberries, and mushrooms. The turtles do not roam far if habitat conditions are stable; an individual may spend its entire life in an area the size of a football field, and some indi-viduals have been found at sites where they were marked

Figure 2.4.3. Box Turtle. Photo by John Thompson.

MOHONK PRESERVE


decades previously. Box Turtles may soak in mud or water for hours at a time during the hottest periods of the sum-mer, but otherwise are largely terrestrial. During drought conditions, they burrow under logs or vegetation, or mi-grate to wet areas. When sudden summer rains arrive, Box Turtles may arrive in large numbers. Courtship is of-ten prolonged, and females can store sperm for extended periods; perhaps their small home ranges mean that these turtles infrequently encounter one another. Nesting oc-curs mostly in June, when females lay four to seven eggs in sunny, sandy, or loamy soils. Hatching normally occurs in September and October, although hatchlings may over-winter in the nest. Box Turtles have extended hiberna-tion periods in the soil and are only active typically from May through October. The species is freeze-tolerant. Box Turtles reach sexual maturity at 5-10 years and live to 30-40 years, with some individuals approaching the century mark.

POTENTIAL THREATS: Although Box Turtles respond favor-ably to land clearing, they suffer from overcollection and road mortality, which has resulted in long-term declines of the species in many parts of its range. There is a known correlation between organochlorine pesticide pollution and the level of bacterial infections in Box Turtle. Ranavi-rus has also been recorded in Box Turtles. Box Turtles have been observed to be killed by both mowing and prescribed burning.

SPECIES-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT: Mowing of fields should be done with blades set at least six inches above the sur-face to minimize injury or mortality of turtles. Timing of management should also be considered.

OBSERVED: Kleinekill Farm Field 15b (slope east of Duck Pond)

REFERENCES

De Voe, R., Geissler, K., Elmore, S., Rotstein, D., Lewbart, G. & Guy, J. 2004. Ranavirus-associated morbidity and mortality in a group of captive Eastern Box Turtles (Terra-

pene carolina carolina). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medi-cine 35 (4): 534-543.


Nazdrowicz, N.H., Bowman, J.L., Roth, R.R. 2008. Popu-lation ecology of the eastern box turtle in a fragmented landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72(3): 745-753.

iv. SPECIES: Northern (DeKay’s) Brown Snake (Storeria dekayi)

A species of regional interest.

Northern Brown Snakes are common in most terrestrial and marshy habitats of the state where there is an abun-dance of objects under which they can hide, such as rocks and logs, as well as a supply of earthworms and slugs, their favorite prey. Northern Brown Snakes are secretive and spend most of their active season (April-October) be-low ground, in leaf litter, or under logs and stones. These snakes feed mostly at night. They spend the winter in mammal burrows, rock crevices or rotting logs, returning to the same spot year after year. Northern Brown Snakes often aggregate in large numbers to hibernate and share space with other small secretive species such as smooth greensnakes and red-bellied snakes, and may emerge on warm winter days. Mating occurs immediately after emer-gence from the winter dens. Females give birth to live young in mid-August to September, and litter sizes aver-age 14 young.

POTENTIAL THREATS: Road kill

SPECIES-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT: Need to facilitate a mi-gration corridor across Pine Road near Tom Pine Barn



OBSERVED: Pine Road. We suspect there is a hibernacula in the area of Tom Pine Barn

REFERENCES


v. SPECIES: Black Rat Snake (Elaphe alleganiensis)

New York State DEC-designated Species of Greatest Con-servation Need.

Black Rat Snakes are active from April to mid-November in a variety of habitats (Figure 2.4.4). The snakes may be found in woodlands or the edges of forest-fields, especial-ly where exposed rocky outcrops occur. Old or abandoned buildings in rural areas are favorite haunts, probably be-cause these structures attract rodents (prey). One reason these large snakes are not often encountered by humans is that they are excellent climbers and spend much time up in trees. They are also accomplished swimmers. Black Rat Snakes hibernate in south-facing openings of rocky out-crops and talus slopes, in unused wells, and even in base-

ments of homes and buildings – in fact, almost anywhere they can escape freezing temperatures. Lack of suitable overwintering sites may be the primary factor limiting the distribution of these snakes. Some studies have suggested Black Rat snakes reach sexual maturity at about 4 years of age when they are 31-43 in. long. In southern New York, Black Rat Snakes mate in mid-May. They are oviparous and deposit an average of 14 eggs, with a gestation pe-riod of 5-8 weeks (usually by August). Nest sites include hollow decaying logs and stumps; piles of rotting vegeta-tion; underneath rocks; and compost, manure or sawdust piles. Several females may use nest sites; communal nests are warmer and produce more fit offspring than solitary nests. Black Rat Snakes use communal hibernacula where up to 50 snakes may be found in a single large overwin-tering site. These snakes often share this space with other snake species.

Black Rat Snakes eat rodents and other mammals as large as squirrels and small rabbits, although more commonly smaller mammals like shrews, voles, mice and chipmunks are eaten. Birds, especially eggs and nestlings, secured by climbing trees and shrubs are also a major part of Black Rat Snake’s diets. The snakes also consume other snakes and amphibians.

POTENTIAL THREATS: Habitat fragmentationcausing road-kill.

SPECIES-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT

OBSERVED: Brook Farm, and Pine Road on slope of Aq-ueduct.

REFERENCES

Gibbs, J. P., Breisch, A. R., Ducey, P. K., Johnson, G., Behler, J. L. & Bothner, R. C. 2007. The Amphibians and Rep-tiles of New York State: Identification, Natural History, and Conservation. Oxford University Press: New York, NY. .

Figure 2.4.4. Black Rat Snake. Photo by John Thompson.

MOHONK PRESERVE


vi. SPECIES: American Woodcock (Scolopax minor)

State-Protected Bird Game Species with Seasons Set, Pro-tected under Federal Migratory Bird Species Act , US Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, Audu-bon Watchlist 2002-2006 Yellow List Species, Partners-in-Flight High Continental Concern and Low Regional Re-sponsibility

The American Woodcock is a widespread breeder in New York and is confirmed to breed in Dutchess and Columbia counties (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Breeding Bird Atlas Project. 2000 – 2005).

The American Woodcock needs a mixture of successional old fields, viable wet areas, and adjacent cover to meet its needs for breeding and foraging (Salzman 1998, Post 2008) (Figure 2.4.5). American Woodcock breeding is re-lated to a suitable combination of habitats of young forest and old fields that are generally in close proximity to one another (Sepik et al. 1981 cited in Connor 1988, Keppie and Whiting 1994):

• A foraging habitat of alder (Alnus spp.) or young hardwoods (less than 20 years old), with 75 to 87% shrub cover on moist soils with abundant earthworms;

• springtime singing grounds of forest gaps or clearings;

• nesting and brooding habitat of young to mid-age, second-growth hardwoods with openings; and

• summer roosting habitat of large fields.

Crucial to American Woodcock habitat is an abundance of earthworms (Connor 1988). The American Woodcock is more likely to forage for earthworms in the leaf litter of alders and aspen or other hardwoods, and less likely in conifer forests, where the leaf litter is less palatable to earthworms (Reynolds et al. 1977 cited in Keppie and Whiting 1994). Roosting fields are used from the middle of June until migration in October and, in Maine, fields were found to be greater than three acres in size (Dunford and Owen 1973, also Sepik et al. 1981, cited in Keppie and Whiting 1994). The female chooses a nesting site separate from the male’s singing field, nests have been found from 300 ft. to greater than 900 ft. from the singing ground (Connor 1988). The nest is placed in a forest stand or in shrubby areas, elevated areas in wetlands, or in fields (Pettingill 1936, also Pough 1951, cited in Connor 1988).

Mean distance of movements by individuals has been found to be 1470 ft. for male woodcocks and 900 ft. for female woodcocks (Dunford and Owen 1973, also Sepik and Derleth 1993b, cited in Keppie and Whiting 1994).

POTENTIAL THREATS: Dogs off leash. In 2008, the spring arrival date of the Woodcock was observed on Farm Road from a bird that had been killed by a dog (bite marks to the head) and dropped in the road.


OBSERVED: Brook Farm Fields B-15, B-25, B-36, B-40b.

REFERENCES

Connor, P. F. 1988. American Woodcock Scolopax minor. Figure 2.4.5. American Woodcock. Courtesy of US Fish and Wildlife Service.



Pages 162-163. In The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State, R. F. Andrle and J. R. Carroll, eds. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Keppie, D. M. and R. M. Whiting, Jr. 1994. Ameri-can Woodcock (Scolopax minor). In The Birds of North America, No. 100 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences: Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

New York State Department of Environmental Conserva-tion Breeding Bird Atlas Project. 2000 – 2005. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY. Accessed on 7/8/2006.

Pettingill, Jr., O. S. 1936. The American Woodcock Philo-hela minor (Gmelin). Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 9:169-391.

Post, T. J. 2008. American Woodcock. Pages 246-247 In The Second Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State, K. J. McGowan and K. Corwin, eds. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Pough, R. H. 1951. Audubon water bird guide. Doubleday & Co. Garden City, NY.

Salzman, E. 1998. American Woodcock Scolopax minor. Pages 267-269 In Bull’s Birds of New York State (E. Levine, ed.) Comstock Publishing Assoc., Ithaca, NY.

Sepik, G. F., Owen, R. B., Jr., Coulter, M. W. 1981. A land-owner’s guide to woodcock management in the North-east. USFWS Miscellaneous Report no. 253. Washington, DC.

vii. SPECIES: Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus)

State-Protected Bird, Protected under Federal Migratory Bird Species Act

The Bobolink is a widespread and common breeder across most of New York, with the state including the eastern section of the bird’s core breeding range (Smith 2008). An obligate grasslands nesting species, Bobolinks, breed in upland and wet meadows, hayfields, and brackish marsh-es (Bent 1958) (Figure 2.4.6). Active hayfields greater than 8 years after seeding were found to provide opti-mum nesting habitat for Bobolinks in central New York, with 67% greater abundance in these older hayfields than lightly grazed pasture, younger hayfields, or native prairie (Bollinger and Gavin 1992). Important features of Bobo-link habitat are high litter cover and high grass/legume ra-tios with low total vegetation cover, low alfalfa (Medicago sativa) cover, and low legume cover (Bollinger and Gavin 1992). Bobolinks are area sensitive and breeding abun-dance is positively correlated with field size, Bollinger and Gavin (1992) suggested maintaining fields above 25-37 ac. to support Bobolink populations. Only pastures above 40 ac. were found to support Bobolinks in Finger Lakes National Forest, with an average size of pasture support-ing Bobolinks of 153 ac. (Smith 1997).

The Bobolink’s territory is usually closer to a field edge or fencerow than other grassland species (Arbib 1988). Mean territory size was found to be 1.2 ac. in New York

Figure 2.4.6. Male Bobolink at Brook Farm. Photo by Dave Johnson.

MOHONK PRESERVE


(Bollinger 1988a cited in Martin and Gavin 1995). Bobo-link nests are on the ground, often in wet areas of fields with denser vegetation (Martin and Gavin 1995). Bobo-link nests are often constructed at the base of forbs such as meadow rue (Thalictrum dasycarpum), golden Alexan-der (Zizia aurea), and clover (Trifolium spp.) (Martin and Gavin 1995).

Bobolink populations are declining significantly across its range, although the trend is more modest in New York State (Smith 2008).

OBSERVED: breeding in Fields Brook Farm Fields B-10, B-11, B-12, B-20, B-22, B-25, B-26, B-27, B-33, B-35, B-36, B-37, B-39, B-39a, B-40, B-46 and Kleinekill Farm Fields K-25 and K-26

REFERENCES

Arbib, R. 1988. Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus. Pag-es 466-467. In The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State,R. F. Andrle and J. R. Carroll, eds. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Bent, A. C. 1958. Life histories of North American black-birds, orioles, tanagers, and allies. U.S. National Museum Bulletin no. 211. Washington, DC.

Bollinger, E. K., and T. A. Gavin. 1992. Eastern Bobolink populations: Ecology and conservation in an agricultural landscape. Pages 497-506. In Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds (J. M. Hagan, II and D. W. Johnston, eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Wash-ington, D.C.

Bollinger, E. K. 1988a. Breeding dispersion and reproduc-tive success of Bobolinks in an agricultural landscape. Phd Thesis. Cornell Univ. Ithaca, NY.

Martin, S. G., and T. A. Gavin. 1995. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus). In The Birds of North America, No. 176 (A.

Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Smith, C. R. 1997. Use of public grazing lands by Henslow’s Sparrows, Grasshopper Sparrows, and associated grass-land birds in central New York State. Pages 171-186. In Grasslands of Northeastern North America: Ecology and Conservation of Native and Agricultural Landscapes (P. D. Vickery and P. W. Dunwiddie eds.). Massachusetts Audu-bon Society.

Smith, C. R. Bobolink. Pages 588-589 In The Second Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State, K. J. McGowan and K. Corwin, eds. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

viii. SPECIES: Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna)

State Protected Bird, Protected under Federal Migratory Bird Species Act

The Eastern Meadowlark is widespread over much of New York, with the exception of areas near New York City and higher elevations such as the Adirondacks and Catskills (Smith 2008). Populations have declined rapidly over the past 50 years.

The Eastern Meadowlark is an obligate grassland species requiring litter cover at ground level and prominent sing-ing perches such as fence posts, tall forbs, or isolated trees (Arbib 1988). The habitat of the Eastern Meadowlark includes pastures, hayfields, cropland, grassy soil banks, roadsides, orchards and golf courses (Arbib 1988, Lanyon 1995). In central New York, the average size of fields oc-cupied by Eastern Meadowlarks was 152 ac., which was greater than the average found for Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), Savannah Sparrow (Passer-culus sandwichensis), Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), and Henslow’s Sparrow (A. henslowii) (Smith 1997).

The nest of the Eastern Meadowlark is well-hidden on the



ground in thick vegetation, often in a shallow depression (Lanyon 1995).

Late mowing of hayfields, not before August, is benefi-cial to meadowlark breeding, but conflicts with harvesting high quality hay that would occur in June and July (Smith 2008).

REFERENCES

Lanyon, W. E. 1995. Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella mag-na). In The Birds of North America, No. 160 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadel-phia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Wash-ington, D.C.

New York State Department of Environmental Conserva-tion Breeding Bird Atlas Project. 2000 – 2005. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY. Accessed on 7/8/2005.

Smith, C. R. 1997. Use of public grazing lands by Henslow’s Sparrows, Grasshopper Sparrows, and associated grass-land birds in central New York State. In Grassland s of Northeastern North America: Ecology and Conservation of Native and Agricultural Landscapes. (P. D. Vickery and P. W. Dunwiddie, eds.). Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln, MA.

Smith, C. R. Eastern Meadowlark. Pages 592-593 In The Second Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State, K. J. McGowan and K. Corwin, eds. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

ix. SPECIES: Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus sa-vannarum)

Protected under Federal Migratory Bird Species Act, US Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern at the National Scale, State-listed Special Concern.

The male Grasshopper Sparrow is highly territorial within its preferred habitat of cropland and pastureland (Arbib 1988). The dominant vegetation of its habitat grows in clumps: orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), alfalfa (Medi-cago sativa), clover (Trifolium spp.) and lespedeza (Lespe-deza spp.) (Arbib 1988, Smith 1997). The breeding habitat often includes short vegetation and areas of bare ground (Wiens 1969 cited in Smith 1997) and the Grasshop-per Sparrow may require pasture that is actively grazed (Skinner 1975 cited in Smith 1997). The sparrow prefers habitat with few shrubs (Smith 1968 cited in Arbib 1988, Smith 1997). In central New York the smallest pasture used by Grasshopper Sparrows was 40 ac. (Smith 1997), while the minimum area required was found to be 74 ac. in Illinois (Herkert 1994 cited in Vickery 1996). In Maine, 50% incidence of Grasshopper Sparrows was found to be 250 ac. (Vickery et al. 1997). The number of Grasshopper Sparrows was positively correlated with increasing area, graminoids, and forbs in Maine (Vickery et al. 1997).

REFERENCES

Arbib, R. 1988. Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus sa-vannarum. Pages 448-449. In The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State (R. F. Andrle and J. R. Carroll, eds.). Cor-nell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

New York State Department of Environmental Conserva-tion Breeding Bird Atlas Project. 2000 – 2005. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY

Salzmann, E. and C. R. Smith. 1998. Pages 513-514 In Bull’s Birds of New York State (E. Levine, ed.) Comstock Publishing Assoc., Ithaca, NY.

Smith, C. R. 1997. Use of public grazing lands by Henslow’s Sparrows, Grasshopper Sparrows, and associated grass-land birds in central New York State. Pages 171-186 In Grasslands of Northeastern North America: Ecology and Conservation of Native and Agricultural Landscapes (P. D. Vickery and P. W. Dunwiddie, eds.) Massachusetts Audu-

MOHONK PRESERVE


bon Society, Lincoln, MA.

Smith, R. L. 1968. Grasshopper Sparrow. In Life histories of North American cardinals, grosbeaks, buntings, towhees, finches, sparrows, and allies, by A. C. Bent and collabora-tors, ed. O. L. Austin, Jr. U.S. National Museum Bulletin no. 237, pt. 2. Washington, DC.

Vickery, P. D. 1996. Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum). In The Birds of North America, No. 239 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and the American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Vickery, P. D., M. L. Hunter, Jr., and S. M. Melvin. 1997. Ef-fects of habitat area on the distribution of grassland birds in Maine. Pages 137-152 In Grasslands of Northeastern North America: Ecology and Conservation of Native and Agricultural Landscapes (P. D. Vickery and P. W. Dunwid-die, eds.) Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln, MA.

Wiens, J. A. 1969. An approach to the study of ecologi-cal relationships among grassland birds. Ornithol. Monogr. no. 8.

x. SPECIES: Yellow Ladyslipper (Cypripedium calceolus var. pubescens)

Yellow Ladyslipper is designated in New York State as a vulnerable species. Yellow Ladyslippers have historically been present in large stands in several areas on Mohonk lands. Many of these were concentrated in areas of major forest disturbance related to burning of hardwoods for the production of charcoal and related to extensive cordwood cutting for fuel. These areas have evolved naturally into a more closed canopy forest of Appalachian Oak Hickory dominance.

However, a sharp decline occurred 1969-1973, and since then there has been a practical cessation of bloom. In May 2005, a single flowering plant was discovered by Paul

Huth on the edge of Lenape Lane (Figure 2.4.7). It is the only wild plant of the species now known in the area. A search by the Research staff for other plants nearby and at former stands proved fruitless.

POTENTIAL THREATS: Mowing, ditch maintenance and White-tailed Deer browse

SPECIES-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT: Deer management to reduce population. Canopy has been breached from tree damage due to Hurricane Irene and other recent damag-ing storms, which may offer an opportunity in the historic stands to release the seed bank. Annual surveying of these sites is recommended.

Figure 2.4.7. Yellow Ladyslipper on May 12, 2009. Photo by John Thompson.



OBSERVED: Annual average bloom occurs approximately May 10th and later. Opposite Watering Trough on Upper Lenape Lane.

REFERENCES

Huth, P.C., Smiley, D. 1984. Yellow Lady-slipper Decline. Mohonk Preserve Natural Science Note No. 49. Mohonk Preserve: New Paltz, NY.

Huth, P.C., Smiley, S.F. 2006. 2005 Annual Outline of Re-search. Mohonk Preserve: New Paltz, NY.

xi. SPECIES: Small-flowered Agrimony (Agrimonia par-viflora)

Small-flowered Agrimony is a state rare plant that was first documented near the Hasbrouck House by Spider Barbour for the Natural Heritage Program in 1991. It continues to be present in this area, and appears to have increased in abundance, possibly spreading to other previously undoc-umented areas near the Testimonial Gateway and north-east of the Hasbrouck House.

POTENTIAL THREATS: Drainage of wet fields, intensive mowing, forest maturation and closure of canopy.


Delay mowing after bloom and seeds have set.

OBSERVED: Brook Farm Field #B-43 (West of Hasbrouck House, (Figure 2.4.8), possibly occurring in B-44 and B-35d. Surveys should be conducted for other wet fields in surrounding area .

Figure 2.4.8. Small-flowered Agrimony near Hasbrouck House on July 27, 2011. Photo by John Thompson.

page 63Planning Context

3PLANNINGCONTEXT

Overview

The Mohonk Preserve Land Asset Management Plan for the 857-acre former Smiley Brothers, Inc. property (referred to henceforth in this report as “Mohonk Preserve Foothills”) is not developed in an internally focused vacuum. Indeed, there are numerous external entities with various size spheres of overlapping in-fluence that, in Venn diagram fashion, encompass the Mohonk Preserve Foothills, and therefore shape the planning context. These spheres of influence include non-profit organizations with missions to protect natural, cultural, and historic resources; provide passive and active recreational opportunities; and support en-vironmental research and education. Dozens of state, county, and regional public agencies, along with the Town of New Paltz, disseminate policy, incentives, regu-lations, and funding to balance protection of open space with public access, all while fostering economic development and long-term environmental sustainabil-ity. Finally, the planning must acknowledge the already voiced, and any future, aspirations and concerns of numerous private land owners surrounding the Mo-honk Preserve Foothills.

MOHONK PRESERVE

Planning Contextpage 64

3.1STATEWIDE PLANNING CONTEXT

A wide array of overlapping spheres of influence of-ten compete for access, funding, and consideration of their issues in land-use decisions. This backdrop often presents an extremely fragmented planning process, as well as one that is often contentious. For-tunately, this is not the case for the Mohonk Preserve Foothills planning context. Without exception, when it comes to the future of the former Mohonk Moun-tain House resort lands, all the stakeholders noted in the following pages generally share a common set of active land management goals listed below:

Mohonk Preserve Foothills Land Asset Management Goals:

1. Ensure the historic open-space landscape and noteworthy scenic views are permanently pro-tected.

2. Safeguard fragile ecologically diverse areas by promoting biologically sensitive land use, and in-creasing research and understanding.

3. Preserve agricultural heritage by enhancing vi-ability and visibility of existing active farm land operations.

4. Provide managed public access for purposes of passive recreation, nature preservation, environ-mental research, and education.

5. Develop and implement management strate-gies that provide sufficient funding and staffing resources to ensure adequate land stewardship and facilities maintenance.

6. Accomplish the above in a manner that en-hances the property values and quality of life of the surrounding community.

The following is an overview of the primary, but not all, stakeholders that influence the Mohonk Preserve Foothills planning context, starting at the macro-level. When appropriate the direct influence on the Mohonk Preserve Foothills planning is noted.

The New York State Department of Environ-mental Conservation (DEC) is the state agency that has regulatory and planning responsibility for protection of New York’s land, air and water resourc-es, and related state programs designed to protect and enhance the environment. The Shawangunk Mountains, located in Region 3, are noted by DEC as “a popular recreational destination with a remark-able array of rare plant and animal species.”i New York State’s Open Space Conservation Program began in 1990, and was designed to protect and maintain systems of natural diversity, significant his-toric and cultural resources, and outdoor recreation resources. Their conservation goals include “sustain-ing NY’s ecological integrity and rich biodiversity by maintaining viable and representative samples of all ecosystem types."

The most recent NYS Open Space Conservation Plan (2009)ii identifies a list of “priority projects” eligible for funding from the State's Environmental Protec-tion Fund, and other state, federal and local funding sources. The plan notes that the Shawangunks con-stitute one of the highest priority areas for biodiver-sity conservation in the northeastern United States. It notes that the “Shawangunks have extremely high watershed protection value as well as high scenic and recreational value.” Among the cited examples of these natural linkages that the Plan consider as priorities for protection is the “Shawangunk/Wallkill


Planning Context page 65

Figure 3.1.1. Shawangunk Ridge and Skytop cliff.(Photograph by Susan Lehrer, Mohonk Preserve)

River connection in the Butterville Canaan Foothills in New Paltz.” This area’s “stream corridors, flood plains areas, forest blocks, wetland complexes and agricultural lands create wildlife migration corridor, provide flood control, and enhance habitat and trail connections across an increasingly developed land-scape.“

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation / State Historic Preserva-tion Officeiii (SHPO) helps communities identify, evaluate, preserve, and revitalize their historic, ar-cheological, and cultural resources. The SHPO ad-ministers programs authorized by both the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980. These pro-grams include the Statewide Historic Resources Survey, the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places, the Certified Local Government Program, the state historic preservation grants pro-gram, state and federal environmental review, and a wide range of technical assistance. The SHPO works with governments, the public, and educational and not-for-profit organizations to raise historic preserva-tion awareness and to encourage heritage tourism and community revitalization. The former Mohonk Mountain Resort land was classified as a National Historic Landmark (1986). During the SEQR Historic/Cultural resources review process required by the Town of New Paltz zoning regulations to sub-divide the Mohonk Preserve Foothills from the Mohonk Mountain holdings, the OPRHP recommended that any “any future development of [Mohonk Preserve Foothills] be subject to the review of the SHPO.”iv

The Nature Conservancy (TNC)v is the acknowl-edged leading conservation organization working around the world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people. TNC’s East-ern New York Chapter has protected more than

Figure 3.1.2. Recreational climbing at the Shawangunk Mountains. (Eventbrite.com)

12,000 acres on the Shawangunk Ridge, and TNC has named the Shawangunks among its 75 “Earth’s Last Great Places.” TNC classifies this ecoregion as one of seven distinct ecological systems within the state. The Shawangunks are mostly in the High Al-legheny Plateau ecoregion, but the very northern part falls into the Lower New England/Northern Pied-mont ecoregion.vi TNC also sees the Shawangunks among the “highest priority areas for biodiversity conservation in the northeastern US.”

MOHONK PRESERVE


The NY Natural Heritage Programvii is a partner-ship between the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and The Nature Conservan-cy. Their mission is to facilitate conservation of rare animals, rare plants, and natural ecosystems, com-monly referred to as "natural communities." NY Nat-ural Heritage Program maintains New York's most comprehensive database on the status and location of rare species and natural communities. The data-base is used to help assess and protect the biological diversity of the state along with ranking system for determining the conservation and management pri-orities. The database includes vegetation information and rare species occurrences onsite.

The NYS Scenic Byway Programviii is a program of the NY State Department of Transportation. Its mission is to provide “economic growth through a tourism distribution strategy, improve transportation, and preserve the scenic, natural, recreational and his-toric resources of the region.” By participating in the Scenic Byway Program, local governments have pri-ority access to certain federal transportation funding programs. Funds can be used for tourism, develop-ment, interpretation, resource management marking and physical projects (bikeways, scenic pull-offs and visitor centers). The Byways Program provides tools to assess scenic views in open space and to help min-imize the impact of potential development through considerations in regard to siting, use of materials, design of roads, landscaping and other site-review issues.

The Shawangunk Mountains Scenic Byway encircling the northern Shawangunk Mountains is an 88-mile network of roadways designated as such in the fall of 2006. The Corridor Management Plan, and the Re-gional Open Space Plan for the Shawangunk Moun-tains Scenic Byway, was developed with the cooper-ation of many conservation and community groups.

The Plan identifies goals, key strategies and projects for preservation of the region’s intrinsic resources. Particular importance is given in to protection of the Northern Shawangunks as the focal centerpiece of the Byway. Implementation of the Scenic Byway Cor-ridor Management Plan is the responsibility of the Shawangunk Mountains Regional Partnershipix, an inter-municipal organization of the nine towns and two villages that participates in the byway devel-opment and management.

Among the key scenic and natural lands in the Wallkill Valley are the 857-acre Mohonk Preserve Foothills. Approximately 6,000 feet of the southern edge of the Mohonk Preserve Foothills fronts NYS Route 299, a designated scenic byway.x Among the recommendations noted for the Shawangunk Mountains Scenic Byway, with potential application are concepts for signage improvements, consistent roadway guiderails, removal of all above ground utility lines, and “multi-modal travel” including bike lanes and ‘Park-n-Bike stations. The introduction of marked bike lanes along primary roadways is fully supported by the Gunks Mountain Biking Asso-ciation (GUMBA). Additional Scenic Byway recom-mendations call for removal for safety and aesthetic reasons, the “make-shift pull offs near Butterville Road” and the “elimination of the dangerous ‘Y’ intersection of Route 299-Gatehouse Road.” At the latter intersection is the historic entrance to the Mo-honk Mountain House resort’s Testimonial Gateway carriage road. The Byway Plan recommends ‘small radius traffic circles’ at congested intersections. Ei-ther a ‘T’ or ‘circle’ intersection could be explored to replace the existing unsafe ‘Y’ intersection. Other programmatic suggestions include creating a strate-gic visitor center on the west side of the Wallkill River Bridge, and satellite parking with shuttle for access to Mohonk Preserve lands during peak early spring and late fall seasons,



New York State Agriculture and Markets Law authorizes creations of agricultural districts which gives landowners “right-to-farm protections.” The agricultural district law was enacted in 1971 to help keep farmland in production by allowing protections to on-going farm operations from growing develop-ment pressure on adjacent properties. "Lands within Districts are protected from unreasonable local reg-ulation of farm practices, the acquisition by public entities through the use of eminent domain, and the advance of public funds to construct facilities that en-courage non-farm development." Additionally, land

Figure 3.1.3. Shawangunk Mountains Scenic Byway Map(library.byways.org)

Figure 3.1.4. Shawangunk Mountains Scenic Byway Signage(mtnscenicbyway.org)

used in agricultural production within an Agricultural District is not subject to "special assessments, ad va-lorem levies or other rates and fees for the financing of improvements such as water, sewer or non-farm drainage. The law requires people buying homes or land in districts be notified about sights, sounds, smells and other aspects of farming and offers lim-ited protections from private nuisance claims."xi In addition, mitigating the potential for future conflict between farming/grazing operations and surround-ing private landowners is achieved when nonprofit entities acquire outright, or put in place conservation

MOHONK PRESERVE


Figure 3.1.5. Brook Farm (Photograph by Carol Natoli, Mo-honk Preserve)

Figure 3.1.6. Grass-fed cattle at Brook Farm(Photograph by Dave Johnson, Mohonk Preserve)

3.2REGIONALPLANNING CONTEXT

Numerous Ulster County entities are focused on open space conservation including: Ulster County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board, Protected Open Space Partners: Planning Board, Department of the Environment, Environmen-tal Management Council, Ulster County Munici-palities, the Wallkill Valley Land Trust and other Ulster County land trusts conservation organizations with related missions. The influence of these enti-ties on the Mohonk Preserve Foothills planning and phased implementation of specific projects is likely limited to information, networking, and general sup-port.

The Ulster County Open Space Plan (2007)xii was de-veloped collaboratively by the Ulster County Envi-ronmental Management Council and the Ulster County Planning Board. The focus of this Plan is a framework for coordinated management and pro-tection of natural resources based on the following principles.

• Enhance viability of existing farming operations and agricultural businesses, and encourage new ones to be formed.

• Protect and enhance the County’s most valuable open space landforms and natural features with coordinated planning and safeguard policies.

• Safeguard priority biological diversity areas by promoting biologically-sensitive land use and in-creasing research and understanding.

• Create, preserve, enhance and provide managed access to parks, hiking trails, active and passive recreational facilities and historic resources.

• Protect water resources and critical watersheds areas.

easements limiting conflicting land uses.

In Ulster County there are four NYS Certified Agricul-tural Districts in the County comprised of 2000 par-cels totaling nearly 70,000 acres, plus approximately 34,000 acres recognized in local zoning codes as agricultural. The Mohonk Preserve Foothills lands ac-quired by Open Space Conservancy Inc. are currently listed in NYS Certified Agriculture District #2.



The Ulster County Open Space Plan recommends incentives to increase commitment to open space goals and policies in the form of an Open Space Fund and technical assistance for planning in accordance with Greenway Principles. The Plan identifies seven “resource categories”

1. Protected Open Space: Identify, permanently protect, and manage critical open space resourc-es and systems.

2. Water Resources: Protect and manage water resources.

3. Working Landscapes: Enhance the viability and protection of working landscapes (actively man-

aged agricultural and forest lands).

4. Landforms and Natural Features: Protect valu-able landforms and natural features.

5. Ecological Communities: Develop priority bio-diversity areas and ensure that land use decisions incorporate habitat protection and species diver-sity

6. Historic and Cultural Resources: Promote stew-ardship of historic and cultural resources.

7. Recreation Resources: Create, preserve, en-hance and provide managed access to parks, hiking trails, active and passive recreation facili-ties, and historic resources.

Figure 3.2.1. Protected Lands: Agricultural Districts and Conservation Easements

MOHONK PRESERVE


Figure 3.2.2. Biking along the Shawangunk Mountains(mtnscenicbyway.org)

Figure 3.2.3. Horse farm along the Shawangunk Mountains (Photograph by George Dagis, Mohonk Preserve)

Figure 3.2.4. Cross country skiiing through the Shawangunk Mountains (shawangunkridge.org)

Thanks to private land trusts and other nonprof-its, approximately 50,000 acres, representing 32 percent of Ulster County, is protected open space. The protected lands are primarily concentrated in the Catskills and along the Shawangunk Ridge. The county's ‘working landscapes’ are under consider-able development pressure yet constitute one of the most valued resources in community quality of life surveys. Ulster County has lost significant amounts of agricultural farmland since 1950, declining from 227,497 acres to 71,000 by the end of the last cen-tury, representing a drop from 35 percent to only 10 percent of the total land in the county.

The Wallkill Valley Land Trustxiii (WVLT) has con-cluded twenty four land preservation projects pro-tecting over 1,500 acres of land. The land trust seeks to “conserve the community's environmental heri-tage, to promote voluntary preservation of land, and to protect scenic, natural, recreational, and agricul-tural lands." In 2011, the WVLT focused on several new projects, including the Rosendale and Ulster extension of the Wallkill Valley Rail Trail. Once ex-tended, the Wallkill Valley Rail Trail will run almost continuously for 23.7 miles, providing recreational access for walkers, runners, equestrians, birders, bicyclists, and cross-country skiers. The rail trail will connect the hamlet of Gardiner to the Village of New Paltz and the hamlet of Rosendale, and to the Mo-honk Preserve in Rosendale, and will afford its users "outstanding views of open farmlands and the sce-nic Shawangunk Ridge.” WVLT could be a potential partner when advocating conservation of additional agricultural lands and pedestrian/bike access be-tween the Mohonk Preserve Foothill lands and the Wallkill River.



3.3SHAWANGUNK RIDGE PLANNING CONTEXT

There are several conservation groups actively pro-tecting significant pieces of land in or near the Shawangunk Ridge, either by direct ownership, or conservation easements on private lands. Most of the ‘Gunks’ are owned by nonprofit landowners in-cluding Minnewaska State Park Preserve (about 23,000 acres), Sam’s Point Preserve (about 1,200 acres), and The Mohonk Preserve (over 7,000 acres), the largest visitor and member-supported nature preserve in NY. The National Park Service’s National Natural Landmarks Program recognizes and encourages the conservation of biological and geo-logical features in both public and private ownership. National Natural Landmarks (NNL) are designated by the Secretary of Interior, with the landowner’s con-currence. Only Sam’s Point Preserve carries this des-ignation in Ulster County.

Shawangunk Mountains Regional Open Space Pres-ervation Planxiv (2008), developed by the Shawa-ngunk Mountains Regional Partnership, helps protect the intrinsic scenic and natural resources of over 115,000 acres. The plan characterizes and pri-oritizes the regionally-important open spaces and offer recommendations for preservation to the 11 local municipalities participating in this project. The plan notes that (as of 2008), 25 percent of the Sha-wangunk Ridge was protected by land preservation trusts, with 90 percent of this in the mountains. The plan suggests that it is “the valleys [such as the Mo-honk Preserve Foothills] that are now most vulner-able and where the challenges are complicated and the issues often conflicted.” The Preservation Plan recommends expansion of locally designated sce-nic road programs as part of the NYS Scenic Byways road system. The plan suggests that local planning

boards could consider these roads in their site review process or local SEQR review. Among roadways sug-gested for locally designation is “Butterville Road”, which bisects the Mohonk Preserve Foothills.

Composed of non-profit and public agencies, the Shawangunk Ridge Biodiversity Partnershipxv (SRBP) is a collaboration of the Cragsmoor Associa-tion, Friends of the Shawangunks, Mohonk Preserve, The Nature Conservancy, New York/New Jersey Trail Conference, New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Con-servation, New York State Museum, Open Space In-stitute, Palisades Interstate Park Commission, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, and the U.S. Fish & wildlife Service. The Partnership is dedicated to “protecting the sensitive wildlife habitat and other natural resources of the Shawangunk Mountains.” Informed by field research and scientific analysis, the Partnership manages over 40,000 protected acres of the Shawangunks, pro-vides environmental education, and work with local communities to preserve open space on the slopes of the ridge. SRBP’s Green Assets Program provides a series of maps for designating six natural community systems as well as base and overlay maps of eleva-tion and slope, protected lands, tax parcels and aerial photos.

Preservation of a good portion of the Shawangunk Ridge is directly attributed to four generations of open space stewardship by the Smiley family, owners of the Mohonk Mountain Housexvi, a National His-toric Landmark (listed 1986) resort, and a Historic Ho-tel of America. In the almost 100-year span between Albert K. Smiley acquiring the original 280-acres sur-rounding Mohonk Lake in 1869 to the early 1960’s, the Smiley family assembled over 17,500 scenic acres

MOHONK PRESERVE


over 7,000-acre Mohonk Preserve, and the 23,000-acre Minnewaska State Park Preserve

Since its inception as The Mohonk Trust, The Mo-honk Preserve has thrived and evolved as a center for nature discovery and public recreational access over the past 49 years. It is now New York State’s largest visitor and member-supported non-profit nature preserve, with over 13,000 members and 150,000 annual visits. It has become the second-most visited rock-climbing destination in North America, with over 50,000 climber visits. Over the last 25 years, the Preserve has served 100,000 area school children from more than 50 area elementary

on the Shawangunk Ridge. Beginning in 1963, plans were made by the Smiley family for the even-tual disposition of some 5,300 acres of land held by the then “Lake Mohonk Corporation” -- now Smi-ley Brothers Incorporated (SBI). The founding of The Mohonk Trust in 1963 started an “extraordinary experiment in conscientious, integrated natural area management.” The purpose of the Trust includes education, scientific study, inspiration and recreation activities. From 1963 through 1982 the Mohonk re-sort transferred and sold 5,300 acres into the then Mohonk Trust (today known as the Mohonk Pre-serve). As of spring 2011, all but about 2200 acres of the historic resort had been incorporated into the

Figure 3.3.1. Mohonk Mountain House (travelmeredith.com)



schools. Annually, over 500 college students and fac-ulty from many universities use the Preserve as an outdoor classroom, living laboratory, and job training opportunity for aspiring conservationists. The Pre-serve maintains an award-winning green design Visi-tor Center with exhibits and accessible nature trails, four trailheads providing access to over 30 miles of carriage roads and 45 miles of foot trails, and has an extensive program of long-term ecosystem research and science-based land management with over 30 academic and research agency partners. The pres-ervation of the Preserve’s 7,000 acres of watershed lands and mountainous forests also provides incalcu-lable “ecosystem services” to the surrounding com-munities at no cost to the taxpayers, including clean water and air, habitat protection, and access to out-door recreation.

As part of its Shawangunk Ridge Protection Program, the Open Space Institutexvii (OSI), a 40-year-old New York City-based land conservation organization, has protected more than 26,000 acres over the last two decades along the Shawangunk Ridge, and over 100,000 acres in NY State. OSI works throughout the Appalachian Range from Maine to Georgia as a conservation catalyst and partners with foundations, state and federal agencies, and local land trusts.

In September 2011 Smiley Brothers Incorporated sold the 857 acre Mohonk Preserve Foothill parcel to the Open Space Conservancy Inc., the land acqui-sition affiliate of the NYS Open Space Institute. The land includes three historic farms, hundreds of acres of open fields, rolling forest hills and streams, and important segments of a historic carriage road sys-tem that dates back to the 1800s. The land also con-tains the iconic four-story stone Mohonk Testimonial Gateway at the intersection of Gatehouse Road and Route 299 west of the village of New Paltz. In addi-tion to the Mohonk Preserve Foothills, OSI is under

Figure 3.3.2. Survival skills seminar at the Mohonk Preserve(bepreparedtosurvive.com)

contract to acquire 144 additional acres of farmland from the Valley Farms Corporation along the western bank of the Wallkill River. Together these acquisitions will not only protect one of last tracts of open space on the Shawangunk Ridge, but also protect more than 30 percent of active farmland in the Town of New Paltz.

The Open Space Conservancy plans to sell over time some, or all, of the Foothills lands to the adjacent Mohonk Preserve for the benefit of the general pub-lic. Over the past several years, OSI has teamed with the Mohonk Preserve to add more than 500 acres to the Preserve’s holdings. The transition of private land ownership to a non-profit entity continues a mutual commitment to land conservation stretching back al-most half a century.

Prior to the sale of Mohonk Preserve Foothills to the Mohonk Preserve, the OSC intends to encumber the land with an open space easement to protect in perpetuity the open space, historic, agricultural and natural values inherent in the property. The potential

MOHONK PRESERVE


long-term conservation easement will be fashioned in collaboration with the Mohonk Preserve, Town of New Paltz and other local stakeholders. Initial cov-enants being considered, subject to the findings of this report, include, but are not limited to, the fol-lowing:

• Preserve the scenic, historic, agricultural, natu-ral and aesthetic character of the property.

• Use of property will be limited to nature pre-serve, educational, recreational, and agricultural uses. Recreational uses may include non-motor-ized passive outdoor recreation such as walking,

hiking, hunting, cross country skiing, picnicking and the like.

• Structures will be limited to existing structures and new structures necessary for the mainte-nance and operation of the property, education-al, recreational, and agricultural uses. New struc-tures and /or expansion of or adaptive reuse of existing structures must be sited, designed and constructed to be compatible with the historic and agricultural nature of the landscape.

• Research and ecologically sound and sustain-able forestry practices may be implemented on the site to improve wildlife habitat or demon-

j

j

j")

")

j

j

j ")

jj

jj

j

j

jjj

j

j

j

jjj

j

j

j jj

jj

") ")

j

j

j")

j

j

j

j

j

j

jjj

j

jjj

j jjj

jj

j j

jj

jjj

jj

j

j j

j

j j

jj

jj

jj

j

")j

j

j

jj

j

jj

jj

")

")

j

j

")")j

")")")

")

jj

jj j

jjj

j

jj

j")

j

j

")

jj

j

j jj j

jj

j

jj")

j

j

j

")

")j

jj

j

j

jj

j

j

j

jj

jj

j

j

j

jjj j

j j

jj

jj

j

j j jjjjj

j

jjj

j

")")")")")")")")

")

")

jjj

j

j

jjj

")

")

")

")

")

jjjj

j")")

j

jj")

")

")

")

jj")

jj

j

jj

j

jj

jj

j

jjj

jj

j

jjj

j

j

jj

j

j

j j

j

j j

j

jj

j

j

j j

j

j j

jj

jj

j jj

j")

j")

j

j

j")

")

j

j

j ")

jj

jj

j

j

jjj

j

j

j

jjj

j

j

j jj

jj

") ")

j

j

j")

j

j

j

j

j

j

jjj

j

jjj

j jjj

jj

j j

jj

jjj

jj

j

j j

j

j j

jj

jj

jj

j

")j

j

j

jj

j

jj

jj

")

")

j

j

")")j

")")")

")

jj

jj j

jjj

j

jj

j")

j

j

")

jj

j

j jj j

jj

j

jj")

j

j

j

")

")j

jj

j

j

jj

j

j

j

jj

jj

j

j

j

jjj j

j j

jj

jj

j

j j jjjjj

j

jjj

j

")")")")")")")")

")

")

jjj

j

j

jjj

")

")

")

")

")

jjjj

j")")

j

jj")

")

")

")

jj")

jj

j

jj

j

jj

jj

j

jjj

jj

j

jjj

j

j

jj

j

j

j j

j

j j

j

jj

j

j

j j

j

j j

jj

jj

j jj

j")

j")

0 420 840 1,260 1,680 2,100210Feet

Location Map

.

SBI Acquisition

Mohonk Preserve

Structuresj house

") other structure

SBI Acquisition Parcel

Figure 3.3.3. Mohonk Preserve Foothills Land Aquisition Map (Map - Property of Mohonk Preserve)



Figure 3.3.4. Humpo Marsh in the Mohonk Preserve Foothills(Photograph by Dave Johnson, Mohonk Preserve)

Figure 3.3.5. Testimonial Gatehouse(Photograph by Celeste Brunell, Mohonk Preserve)

strate a working landscape. Other cutting and clearing of trees will be limited to removing those trees and limbs which are dangerous, or provide for the construction of permitted improvement, maintain structures, views, trails, driveways, parking areas, paths, and open space.

• No new quarry, gravel pit, surface for sub-strate mining or drilling, or other mining or drill-ing activities shall be permitted on or under the property."xix

The Mohonk Preserve’s Board of Directors has re-solved to commit to a “...high-level collaboration with OSI to create and implement a sustainable plan for the protection and viable long-term man-agement of the said lands.”xx The Mohonk Preserve, as anticipated future landowner, assumed mainte-nance and oversight responsibilities for the Mohonk Preserve Foothills and structures upon the sale from Smiley Brothers Inc. to the Open Space Conservancy in September 2011. In the interim, all existing ten-ancy and leases have been honored to the extent of their terms. Although there is currently no public ac-cess promoted on this property, Mohonk Mountain House has historically informally permitted Mohonk Preserve members and day pass holders access to the property. The Preserve has stated this will remain in effect as a management plan is developed.

In 1996, Mohonk Preserve adopted an ‘Old Field Management Policy’ for designated ‘managed natu-ral areas’ in the subsequent Unit Management Plans (Dec 2002). There are approximately 65 fields, total-ing 165 acres, of historic old fields currently on Pre-serve lands. These old fields, representing 2 percent of the Preserve holdings, are found mainly on the ‘upland hillsides’ of the Shawangunk Ridge. The old fields include Glory Hill and Home Farm located di-rectly up the ridge from the Mohonk Preserve Foot-

MOHONK PRESERVE


hills. Approximately 370 acres, or 40 percent of the 857 acre Mohonk Preserve Foothills, is being used for agriculture. These fields are currently managed by a tenant farmer in exchange for residency in one of the Mohonk Preserve Foothills farmhouses. If ac-quired, the additional agricultural lands will more than double the Preserve’s historic field acreage.

By and large, the Preserve’s old field management goals adopted in 2002 are applicable to the Mohonk Preserve Foothills.

• “Maintain historic viewshed diversity and open space that fosters biodiversity and landscape aesthetics;

• Establish species management priorities for in-dividual fields;

• Maintain inventories of existing fields’ flora and fauna;

• Evaluate the most viable and practical options for field vegetation alteration, and equipment needed to accomplish the task; and

• Create an educational program that offers chil-dren and adults the land use history old fields, and teaches the importance of field habitats and forest succession.”

The Old Field Plan acknowledges the need to “man-age certain natural areas to achieve a pattern of hab-itat diversity, or to preserve a historic landscape,” as well as for educational purposes. The Plan notes the “benefits for wildlife diversity by maintain varying succession stages of old field evolution ranging from recently mowed and supporting herbaceous plants, to predominately woody after 8 to 10 years follow-

ing mowing.” Fields can be maintained at their de-sired state on a rotating schedule alternating sched-ules with adjacent fields. Fields with “…exceptional views, or that are bisected by a trail or carriage road, should be maintained in early stage of succession by mowing every one to three years.”

The Plan does not preclude “pasturing sheep, goats or cows, or modification of nutrient regime if it was deemed a cost effective means of woody vegetation suppression.” The Plan also mentions the possibility for “nonprofit agriculture if it was deemed practical as an educational or experimental project.” However, acquisition of the Mohonk Preserve Foothills' leased active fields may require rethinking of the Preserve policy of not engaging in commercial farming.

In recognition of the inherent characteristics of the Mohonk Preserve Foothills, including wetlands, his-toric structures, and agricultural uses, upon acquisi-tion, the Preserve is committed to adopting an ap-propriate and responsive ‘Land Asset Management Plan’ based on the findings of this report. This new Land Asset Management Plan will also be adapted to complement and reinforce the Preserve’s overall Land Management Plan adopted in 2000.

The Hudson Valley Agribusiness Development Corporationxxi (HVADC) is the only economic devel-opment agency in the Hudson Valley with a specific focus on the viability of the agricultural economy in the region. HVADC, a not-for-profit organization, is charged with enhancing the agricultural sector in the Hudson Valley by “assisting both new and existing private and public agri-businesses, and supporting policies and regulations that recognize and support New York State’s agricultural economy." Their servic-es are carefully designed to promote the Hudson Val-



ley as an attractive, viable region for agriculture and to foster growth and development of the agricultural sector through a creative program or marketing, pro-motion and the provision and coordination of finan-cial and other resources. HVADC may prove to be a valuable supporter of Mohonk Preserve’s initiatives to preserve and enhance the Mohonk Preserve Foot-hills agricultural operations.

Glynwoodxxii, a nonprofit group that established the ‘Keep Farming Program, maintains that grass-fed husbandry and sustainable farming "...done in har-mony with the natural environment can be both ec-onomically viable and environmentally sustainable.” Glynwood regards “food produced, distributed, and consumed locally as beneficial to human health and community, and to the natural environment.” Keep Farming emphasizes stakeholder collabora-tion through Community Agriculture Partnerships, or CAPs, that become the foundation for commu-nity consensus and the political will needed to cre-ate and implement a plan for strengthening farming. Mohonk Preserve, along with other local stakehold-ers, might partner with Glynwood to fashion a lo-cal Keep Farming Action Plan. The Plan would be aimed at strengthening the local farm sector based on consensus among a motivated and well-informed constituency. The Keep Farming Program provides communities with hands-on training, guidance, and materials to:

• “Create and organize a constituency of com-munity volunteers – including farmers, business leaders, civic officials, planning and land trust pro-fessionals, environmentalists, and interested resi-dents.

• Research, assemble and use information to

quantify and evaluate the role of agriculture in [the] local economy – information that will be presented at open town forums.

• Explore and select economic-development and land-use policies for strengthening [the] commu-nity’s farm sector – which will be adopted in [a] Keep Farming Action Plan.”

MOHONK PRESERVE


3.4TOWN OF NEW PALTZPLANNING CONTEXT

The parcel subdivision of the Mohonk Preserve Foothills triggered a NYS SEQRA process, with the Town of New Paltz Planning Board assuming Lead Agency status for administering the State Envi-ronmental Quality Review Act.xxiii The SEQRA Part 3 submission prepared by Brooks & Brooks, PC – Sur-veying and Planning (Highland NY), contains written input from the OSI, Mohonk Preserve, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP), Town of New Paltz Historic Preservation Commis-sion, Town of New Paltz Building Department and County of Ulster Real Property Tax Service Agency.

The Town of New Paltz does not have a designated historic district. However, the entire Mohonk Preserve Foothills property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as District No. 73001280 within the Lake Mohonk House Complex, and is a National Historic Landmark. As part of the subdivision review process, the Town of New Paltz stipulated the follow-ing ‘conditions of approval’ for subsequent review of specific projects/improvements:

> Historic Preservation Commission requested from the Town Planning Board that a “…management plan be developed for the conservation and pres-ervation of the resources, with particular attention to the Testimonial Gateway”.xxiv In accordance with the Town of New Paltz Code 140-23, “consideration

MOHONK PRESERVE

Figure 3.4.1. Downtown New Paltz (en.wikipedia.org)



with any changes to the buildings and major land-scape features that affect the appearance and co-hesiveness of a historic district requires a Certificate of Appropriateness to be submitted to the Town’s Historic Preservation Commission, as well as appro-priate involved Preservation Officer(s) at the Federal and State level.”xxv

> The Town Building Department has stipulated that no building permit, demolition permit or sign per-mit shall be issued for such proposed work until a Certificate of Appropriateness has first been issued by the Historic Preservation Commission. In passing upon an application for a Certificate of Appropriate-ness, the Commission shall not consider changes to interior spaces.

• Under section 140-23, the criteria for approval of Certificate of Appropriateness shall be based on the following principles that read in part as fol-lows:

> Historic properties shall be retained with their historic features altered as little as possible.

> Any alteration of existing property shall be compatible with its historic character, and with the historic character of surrounding properties, if any. Changes that may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. Contemporary design for alterations and addi-tions to existing properties shall not be discour-aged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character

of the property, neighborhood or environment.

> New construction shall be compatible with the historic character of its surroundings. In deter-mining compatibility, the Commission shall con-sider the following factors:

(1) The general design, character and appro-priateness to the property of the proposed al-teration or new construction;(2) The scale of proposed alteration or new construction in relation to the property itself, surrounding properties, and the neighbor-hood;(3) Texture, materials and color and their rela-tion to similar features of other properties in the neighborhood;(4) Visual compatibility with surrounding prop-erties, including proportion of the property's front facade, proportion and arrangement of windows and other openings within the fa-cade, roof shape, and the rhythm of spacing of properties on the streets, including setback; and (5) The importance of historic, architectural or other features to the significance of the prop-erty.

• Town Code 140-128 also addresses the main-tenance and repair of Historic District properties summarized as follows:xxvi

> Permits ordinary maintenance and repair of any exterior architectural feature of a landmark within a historical district which does not involve a change in design, material, color, or outward appearance.

> No owner or occupant of real property desig-nated as a landmark or included within a historic district shall permit the property to fall into a

MOHONK PRESERVE


serious state of disrepair so as to result in the deterioration of any exterior architectural fea-ture which would, in the judgment of the Com-mission, produce a detrimental effect upon the character of a landmark or a historic district as a whole or the life and character of the property itself.

> Ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs or foundations, including broken windows or doors.

> Deterioration of any feature so as to create a hazardous condition which could lead to the claim that demolition is necessary for the public safety.

> The Building Inspector shall conduct an annual survey of all buildings designated as landmarks to determine that they are not in a state of dis-repair and that no alterations have been made in the features described in § 140-123 of this article without the owner having first obtained a certification of appropriateness.

The Town of New Paltz Open Space Plan (May 2006) notes the goal of acquiring an additional 500-acres of open space conservation in the Butter-ville-Canaan Foothills.

The Town of New Paltz has long recognized the fis-cally positive land use policy benefits of open space conservation in terms of social, cultural, environmen-tal, and economic return on investment. Among the “Top 10” important open spaces highlighted in the Plan are three areas overlapping the Mohonk Pre-serve Foothills: scenic view from Route 299 west of the Wallkill River, Kleinekill, and Humpo Marsh and Woodland in the Shawangunk foothills. While these open space resources are so much a part of the land-scape and life of residents and visitors, New Paltz is

poised for continued growth and development. The Open Space Plan notes that the “…future character of New Paltz and associated property values will be dependent, in a large part, on how well the com-munity manages that growth." Understanding that open space enhances property values, respondents to a 2003 community survey conducted by the New Paltz Open Space Committee indicated 67 percent support for open space conservation by way of a modest increase in property taxes.

Figure 3.4.2. View west from town towards Mohonk Pre-serve Foothills and Shawangunk Ridge beyond. (Image taken from New Paltz Open Space Plan)

MOHONK PRESERVE

Plan

nin

g C

on

sult

ing

20

11

MO

HO

NK

PR

ESE

RV

E


Figu

re 3

.4.3

. The

Moh

onk

Pres

erve

Foo

thill

s O

verla

p w

ith t

he B

utte

rvill

e-C

anaa

n Fo

othi

lls (

Imag

e ta

ken

from

New

Pal

tz O

pen

Spac

e P

lan)

MOHONK PRESERVE


MOHONK PRESERVE

The Plan’s Open Space Vision Map highlights the Butterville-Canaan Foothills consisting of woodlands and open lands at the base of the Shawangunk Ridge. The vision calls for conservation of active farmlands and agricultural heritage, utilizing conservation de-sign for new development to maintain open lands and views, and development of “transition buffers” in land along the break-in-slope.”

The Plan proposes ‘Resource or Character-based De-sign Guidelines/Standards’ to help landowners un-derstand how to create development that enhances New Paltz’s open spaces and preserves the “rural character” and other special character areas in New Paltz. It suggests that design guidelines should be based on “character areas” rather than universally applicable to the Town. For the Butterville-Canaan Foothills/Mountain Rest Road area, design guide-lines/standards might focus on “…preserving the natural, wooded and scenic views of the Shawan-gunk Mountains," and might include site planning guidelines that call for a compact building footprint while tucking development into wooded areas. They might also include architectural standards, such as roof and building color palettes that blend into the landscape.

The Plan encourages landowners to develop a Co-ordinated Area-specific Master Plan in cooperation with the Town and multiple adjacent landowners. Such an area-specific master plan might include an “… in-depth site analysis of potential conservation resources and identification of potential areas to frame the scale and location of future potential de-velopment and conservation efforts."

The Town of New Paltz Farmland Protection Plan aims to conserve active farmlands and agricul-tural heritage. The Plan also addresses the need to maintain working farmland in part to provide water-

shed projection, wildlife habitat, scenic views, and educational opportunities for both town residents and tourists. New Paltz has 3,000 recorded farmland acres divided into 53 parcels, making up less than 13 percent of the town’s total land area, half of which are actively farmed. This is almost half what it was in 1960. The smallest percent of farmlands are used for horse farms and field crops (among them wheat and hay), each one percent of farmland inventory. It is worth noting that just less than 400 acres of Mohonk Preserve Foothills are historically dedicated to hayfields.

Despite the limited agricultural base, the New Paltz agricultural economy is diverse. Small operations produce supplemental income through agritourism, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), market gardening, horse boarding, and alternative livestock boarding. However, much of the area's agricultural lands are owned by “transitional landowners,” that especially now given the recession, are at risk of tran-sitioning out of agriculture.”

The Town has embraced new entrepreneurs into the farming community who enhance these ideas of growth and change which set it apart from many other communities. In response to the growing ‘lo-cal food culture’, area farms have been quick to adapt to community demands for local foods in all four seasons through the growth of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), roadside stands, value-added processing, and direct wholesale delivery of local produce. The Farmland Protection Plan calls for the creation of a “small farm university program” that would combine “market gardener education (production) with farm business basics, including marketing, distribution, quality control, and general business.” The Plan also notes that “agricultural in-cubators” might act as a catalyst to attract new agri-cultural enterprises and to grow existing ones. There



are currently no such incubators in the Town or Ul-ster County. The target audience would be individu-als with an interest in cottage foods, urban organic farming, or small-scale rural production.

Both the Town and the Ulster County Open Space Plans support “agritourism development” based on cultural, historical and agricultural assets. Building on the existing success as a proven tourist attraction, the concept is to create ”agricultural education clusters” offering family, private and corporate events, sea-sonal farm festivals, farm museums, entertainment, and education programs on existing working farms and forestland.

The Brooks & Brooks, PC ‘Full Environmental Assess-

ment Form – Part 3 Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts’ (August 11, 2011) developed as part of the Mohonk Preserve Foothills subdivision approval included additional ‘considerations’ not covered above:

> Historic Preservation: The current information on the National Register of Historic Places Inven-tory focuses on the resort hotel structures and not each of the farm and accessories buildings on the Mohonk Preserve Foothills. The Town’s Historic Commission has called for the submission of ‘His-toric and Natural District Inventory Forms,’ or the equivalent, for inclusion in their On-Line Historic Property Map. Noting that the long term use of the Testimonial Gateway will be determined as part of

Figure 3.4.4. Brook Farm Project - Community Supported Agriculture (Photograph by Dave Johnson, Mohonk Preserve)

MOHONK PRESERVE


3.5PLANNING CONTEXT CONCLUSION

The transition of the 857-acre private land owner-ship to a non-profit land trust continues a Smiley family commitment to Shawangunk Ridge land con-servation stretching back almost half a century to the formulation of The Mohonk Trust in 1963. The preceding pages provide an overview of numerous state, regional, county, and town spheres of influ-ence that, in varying degrees, shape the planning context of the Land Asset Management Plan for the Mohonk Preserve Foothills. From this summary we conclude that the eventual transition of the Foothills to the Mohonk Preserve is in general accord with the Smiley family 4th generation legacy of ethical land stewardship, a range of statewide and regional open space policies, the Open Space Institute’s Shawan-gunk Ridge land conservation initiatives, Mohonk Preserve’s conservation management mission, and the open space protection goals of the Town of New Paltz.

Figure 3.5.1. Pine Oak Allée with Testimonial Gateway(Photograph by Gregg Swanzey, Mohonk Preserve)

this planning effort, the Town specifically stipu-lated that, “in the interim, all [Testimonial Gate-way] maintenance and upkeep will be undertaken by the Open Space Conservancy and/or Mohonk Preserve in order to prevent deterioration of the building and maintain surrounding grounds in an orderly conduct.”

As part the of the Mohonk Preserve Foothills sub-division, a ‘Post Appraisal Conservation for Rent-able Residential Units’ was developed by R.P. Hub-bell and Company, Inc., a market analyst and real estate appraiser with an office in Poughkeepsie, NY, for the Open Space Conservancy, Inc. This re-port provides some the farm building inventory in-formation sought by the Town.

> Land Use Management: All existing [Mohonk Preserve Foothills] tenancy and leases “will be hon-ored to the extent of their terms.”

> Roadways: • Consideration of the potential abandonment of Pine Road “as raised at the public hearing dur-ing the SEQRA process and has been discussed with the Town Supervisor. The Open Space Con-servancy and Mohonk Preserve will collaborate with the Town Board and highway Superinten-dent regarding this issue.”

• The roadways abutting and crossing the Mo-honk Preserve Foothills are currently “roadways by use” and not dedicated highways. The Town is looking for the owners along the roadways to dedicate a “fifty foot wide strip of land centered on Butterville Road and Pine Road, and a twenty five foot wide strip for the southerly portion of Gatehouse Road to facilitate the widening, im-provement, or utility installation along said road-ways should it be necessary in the future.”



ReferencesThe below referenced websites access the primary source documents._______________________

i http://www.dec.ny.gov/about/607.htmlii http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/47990.htmliii http://www.nysparks.com/shpo/iv Letter from K. Markunas, Historic Sites Coordinator, NYS OPRHP to P. Brooks, Brooks & Brooks Land Surveyors, P.C., dated June 29, 2011. v http://www.nature.org/vi http://east.tnc.org/east-file/61/LNEplanwithAppendices.pdfvii http://www.nynhp.org/viii https://www.nysdot.gov/scenic-bywaysix http://www.behanplanning.com/bpafiles/slipsheets/Shawangunk_Mountains_Regional Partnership.pdfx http://mtnscenicbyway.org/xi New York's Agricultural District Law (Article 25-AA of NYS Agriculture and Markets Law)xii http://www.co.ulster.ny.us/planning/ucpb/envi/ospace/ospace_pres.pdfxiii www.wallkillvalleylt.orgxiv http://www.bywaysonline.org/grants/funded/detail.html?id=53424xv http://www.gunksfireplan.org/files/srbp_general.pdfxvi http://www.mohonk.com/xvii www.osiny.orgxviii http://www.mohonkpreserve.org/xix Memorandum from B. Anderberg, VP and General Counsel OSC to P.Brooks dated July 12, 2012 regarding Subdivision of Lands of Smiley Brothers excludes existing shale pit.xx Board of Directors Meeting, dated December 5, 2010. xxi www.hvadc.orgxxii www.glynwood.orgxxiii The SEQRA Part 1, recorded under the ‘T/New Paltz, Ulster County, 11PR04607, was undertaken in 2001 by Brooks & Brooks Land Surveyors, P.C. on behalf of Smiley Brothers Inc. xxiv Excerpt from a July 25, 2011 Letter from John A. Orfitelli, Chairman, Town of New Paltz Historic Preservation Commission to Mike Calimano, Chairman of the New Paltz Town Planning Board. xxv General Code E-Code: Town of New Paltz, NY http://www.e codes.generalcode.comxxvi General Code E-Code: Town of New Paltz, NY adopted by the Town Board of the Town of New Paltz 12-6- 1976 by L.L. No. 3-1976, including noted amendments.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Overview

Goals and Objectives page 87

4

The six primary goals first presented in the beginning of Chapter 3 – Planning Context reflect the collective missions of the Mohonk Preserve and numerous non-profit entities and public agencies who share a common commitment to open space conservation, farmland preservation, and land stewardship educa-tion and research. The ‘value-oriented goals’ are fashioned as permanent prin-ciples to evaluate, guide and monitor management strategies for the Mohonk Preserve Foothills into the future.

Supporting objectives for each of the individual goals were developed by the Preserve’s Planning Task Force. The supporting ‘action-oriented’ objectives set forth specific tasks to be pursued as time and resources allow. The objectives under each goal are listed with the highest priority first. This relative ranking suggests an order of initiation that may evolve, along with new objectives, over time in light of new opportunities and circumstances. The Task Force felt that assignment of implementation responsibilities, priorities and monitoring is best left to the Preserve’s operational management team.

MOHONK PRESERVE

Goals and Objectivespage 88

4.1LAND ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN GOALS & OBJECTIVES

1. ENSURE THE HISTORIC FEATURES, OPEN-SPACE LANDSCAPE AND NOTE- WORTHY SCENIC VIEWS ARE PERMA- NENTLY PROTECTED.

1.1 Opportunities to “brand” iconic vistas.

1.2 Identify and celebrate primary views.

1.3 Identify and maintain historic structures.

1.4 Offer guided interpretive programs and

displays of cultural landscape history.

1.5 Develop old farm field maintenance program.

1.6 Document existing conditions.

1.7 Survey, resolve boundary discrepancies, if

any, and post property boundary lines.

2. SAFEGUARD FRAGILE ECOLOGICALLY DIVERSE AREAS BY PROMOTING BIO- LOGICALLY-SENSITIVE LAND USE AND INCREASING RESEARCH AND UNDER- STANDING.

2.1 Conduct and publicize ongoing funded field

research & educational programs.

2.2 Offer guided interpretive programs and displays

to educate visitors about fragile micro-ecologies.

2.3 Organize and conduct a “BioBlitz.”1

2.4 Secure nonprofit educational and research

partnerships to support plan implementation.

2.5 Assist neighbors to conduct biodiversity

assessments of their private properties.

___________

1 An intense period, typically 24 hours, of biological field

survey by scientists, naturalists and volunteers conducted

in an attempt to record all the living species within a

designated area. There is a public component to many

bioblitzes with the goal of getting the public interested in

biodiversity.

Figure 4.1.2. Humpo Marsh (Photograph by Dave Johnson, Mohonk Preserve)

Figure 4.1.1. Testimonial Gateway (Photograph by Celeste Brunell, Mohonk Preserve)



3. PRESERVE AGRICULTURAL HERITAGE BY ENHANCING VIABILITY AND VIS- IBILITY OF EXISTING ACTIVE FARM- LAND OPERATIONS.

3.1 Develop a viable Farm Management Plan.

3.2 Build strategic agricultural public and private

partnerships to maintain working farms.

3.3 Adapt these lands into the Preserve’s deer

management plan and program.

3.4 Develop funded animal and insect husbandry

programs and infrastructure.

3.5 Offer guided interpretive programs and displays

of the Mohonk Eastern Foothills' cultural and

agricultural heritage.

3.6 Ensure all farm operations have either educational,

research or training components to support non-

profit tax-exempt status.

3.7 Develop farming strategies that complement and

support local agriculture businesses and initiatives.

4. PROVIDE MANAGED PUBLIC ACCESS FOR PURPOSES OF PASSIVE RECREATION, NATURE PRESERVATION, ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION.

4.1 Take the lead in support of safer bicycle access

along Route. 299 from the Wallkill River Bridge

to the Foothills.

4.2 Periodically monitor visitor counts and seasonal

use patterns.

4.3 Establish the property’s visitor carrying capacity/

impact thresholds and likely circulation patterns

by season and by location.

4.4 Work with Town and County to restrict public

roadside parking along Gatehouse Road, Route

299, and Butterville Road.

4.5 If offered by the Town of New Paltz, acquire

Pine Road.

4.6 Support public transportation options to bring

visitors to the property.

4.7 Improve and maintain property carriage roads to

Mohonk Preserve standards.

4.8 Extend property trails and carriage roads to

connect with Mohonk Preserve.

4.9 Provide opportunities to shuttle visitors from

central parking lots to the Preserve's Visitor Center

and other Preserve Trailheads during peak periods.

4.10 Encourage public access to Testimonial Gateway

Area to promote Mohonk Preserve’s mission and

membership benefits.Figure 4.1.3. Brook Farm (Photograph by Carol Natoli, Mo-honk Preserve)

MOHONK PRESERVE


5. DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT LAND USE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES THAT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT FUNDING AND STAFFING RESOURCES TO ENSURE ADEQUATE LAND STEWARDSHIP AND FACILITIES MAINTENANCE

5.1 Develop a business plan prior to incremental

property ownership to ensure self-sufficiency,

including staffing, of the acquired property

within a 5 year goal of purchase from OSI.

5.2 Utilize current lost timber values by periodic

sale of saw logs and fuel wood using

sustainable forestry practices on appropriate

areas.

5.3 Conduct a ‘membership blitz’ to promote the

management plan with the objective to double

the Preserve's local membership base.

5.4 Develop complementary infrastructure and

programs that do not take away from existing

Preserve programs and resources.

5.5 Develop special event revenue opportunities

that support Mohonk Preserve’s mission.

6. ACCOMPLISH THE ABOVE IN A MANNER THAT ENHANCES THE PROPERTY VALUES AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY

6.1 Continue a community engagement process.

6.2 Publicize how implementation of the

management plan will enhance local property

values and quality of life by ensuring resources

for long-term land stewardship.

6.3 Assist local property owners to evaluate and

voluntarily pursue conservation easements and

other land protection options.

Figure 4.1.4. (Left) Farm Maintenance (Photograph by Fred Gerty, Mohonk Preserve), Figure 4.1.5. (Top) Pine Farm (Pho-tograph by George Dagis, Mohonk Preserve), Figure 4.1.6. (Bottom) Pine Farm (Photograph by George Dagis, Mohonk Preserve)



4.2BALANCING POTENTIALLY CONFLICTING OBJECTIVES

Inherent in the above objectives are potentially di-vergent policies requiring constant monitoring and adjustment to achieve the appropriate balance over time. Primary among these potential conflicting land management objectives are the following four:

1. Managed Conservation versus Natural Succession:

Ecological succession is the natural process of ecosystems to progressively transform them-selves into a more stable community. For ex-ample, without mowing, prescribed burning, or grazing, the Kleinekill farm old fields will prog-ress in stages from perennial grasses to shrub thicket to ‘early successional’ forest. Managed conservation, in contrast, involves actively con-trolling or maintaining the successional stages for the benefit of conservation, research, and education.

2. Public Access versus Protected Lands:

There is increasing and justifiable pressure to take proper account of human needs when set-ting up protected areas and these sometimes have to be “traded off” against conservation needs. Providing public access to the Testimo-nial Gateway Area promotes increased Preserve support and membership. This results in more revenues, enabling the Preserve to invest in ad-ditional conservation staff, research, and edu-cation to ensure long term stewardship of the entire foothills and the ridge. Finding the ap-propriate balance between the inherent capaci-ties of the land versus the demand is, and will remain, a primary land management challenge.

3. Land Protection versus Management versus Ownership:

Land ‘protection’ is a legal mechanism that lim-its land development and fosters conservation in perpetuity, typically through conservation easements, or through the chartered perpetual mission and purposes of a qualified non-profit owner. ‘Management’ is the active stewardship of the property’s resources for desired program-matic and land use benefits. Outright ‘owner-ship’ by the Preserve ensures maximum protec-tion and flexibility of management policies. The Preserve’s typical land management approach falls into two categories: direct ownership and management, or protection using conservation easements on non-owned lands.

The Mohonk Preserve Foothills raises a third al-ternative -- land leases to other parties. The ac-quisition of active farmlands provides a new op-portunity to expand the Preserve’s mission over a wider range of ecological typologies. Howev-er, managing the active farm and pasture lands requires a level of operational expertise and fi-nancial resources that are currently beyond the Preserve’s capacity.

Mohonk Preserve may acquire the land, then employ long-term land leases of Preserve hold-ings to entities who will manage the farmlands and farm related structures in accordance with preset parameters.2 The Preserve would overlay compatible education and research programs on the leased lands.

Alternatively, the Open Space Conservancy (OSC) might hold a portion of the farmlands or sell directly to one or more appropriate third-parties after ensuring conservation protection, access easements and the ability of the Preserve

MOHONK PRESERVE


to engage in specified educational programs and research initiatives. For example, Glynwood Center is a nonprofit farm operation that owns or leases 250 acres of farmland in the Hudson Valley. Glynwood’s operation demonstrates the economical viability of environmentally sustain-able farming that seeks to optimize production while operating as an ecological unit. There are also local CSA models, private farming arrange-ments, and other alternatives that warrant fur-ther exploration and planning consideration.

4. Balancing Structured Education and Self-Discovery

Structured education is a proven means to convey general knowledge to small and me-dium-sized groups within a pre-set time span and format. The pedagogy takes the form of informational boards and interactive displays supplemented by Preserve staff/volunteer-led topical talks and interpretative nature excur-sions. Self-discovery, as the name suggests, im-merses individuals, or very small groups, into the environment to heighten their awareness and understanding of nature through self-dis-covery. Armed with sufficient foreknowledge, and possibly simple observation tools to height-en the senses, individuals engage in experienc-ing nature by doing. The Preserve successfully employs both means of education that are not mutually exclusive. The Foothills provide many opportunities to expand the Preserve education and research programs. Balancing structured learning and self-discovery modes of learning within the relatively small micro-ecologies will be a challenge.

Figure 4.2.1. Self Discovery Activity (Photograph by Pam Uihlein, Mohonk Preserve)___________

2 If the tenant is not a qualified 501(C) sharing the mission

of land projection, the land lease will likely need a land

protection clause; and possibly a means for the Preserve

to retain primary educational and research programmatic

responsibility. Income generating use of Preserve owned

land by for-profit entities raises tax issues best addressed

in the land lease agreement.



4.3CONCLUSION

The Mohonk Preserve is committed to achieving and maintaining a sustainable balance among potentially complementary, and in some cases conflicting, land management objectives. The purpose of the Land Asset Management Plan is to create a long-term land use framework, with short-term flexibility. The objectives are purposefully fashioned as guidelines that can evolve over time in response to changing internal and external circumstances. What will remain constant is the Preserve’s commitment to open space conservation, farmland protection, and sustainable land stewardship as expressed in the above land management goals.

LAND ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

Overview

Land Asset Management Plan page 95

5The 856.59-acre Mohonk Preserve Foothills represent 12.5 percent of the Mohonk Preserve’s total 6,800 acres. However, the potential of the Foothills to contribute to the Preserve’s mission – land protection, passive recreation, conservation re-search, and public education – is far greater than its relative size might suggest.

As stewards of the land, Mohonk Mountain House (MMH), Open Space Institute (OSI) and Mohonk Preserve, Inc. (Preserve) share a common goal to protect the Foothills in perpetuity. Their shared intent for the land is threefold: open space conservation, habitat protection and farmland preservation. The permanent pro-tection of these lands will fulfill a legacy that was first articulated nearly fifty years ago. In 1963, the Smiley family founded the Mohonk Trust to “…demonstrate that a valuable acreage of open space can be maintained for purposes of public benefit through a combination of contributions and fees collected from visitors.”1

In October 2011, the Open Space Conservancy, Inc. (OSC) acquired the Foot-hills from Smiley Brothers, Inc. The Mohonk Preserve intends to purchase all, or a portion, of the former Smiley Brothers, Inc. (SBI) land from the Open Space Conservancy over a three-to-five year period as the Preserve’s financial resources, spending priorities, and programmatic capacity warrant. In the interim, the Mo-honk Preserve has agreed to assume management responsibilities for the lands including security and maintenance of the land and structures, with capital main-tenance costs to be accrued to OSI. In accordance with a letter of understand-ing, “…OSI and the Preserve will jointly develop a conservation and manage-ment plan for the land...”. The Land Asset Management Plan (LAMP) will suggest

MOHONK PRESERVE

Land Asset Management Planpage 96

what portions of the land should be held in conser-vation organization ownership in perpetuity and/or what portions of the land, if any, should be sold to alternative, conservation-oriented buyers subject to conservation easements designed to protect the scenic integrity of the property.2 The transfer of the land from OSC is subject to a conservation easement mutually agreed to by OSI, the Preserve and Town of New Paltz that will ensure perpetual protection of the land regardless of future ownership.

___________

1Burgess, Larry E., ‘Mohonk: Its People and Spirit’, page

93. Purple Mountain Press, Ltd. Fleischmanns NY, 4th

Printing 1996. ISBN 0-935796-42-8.

2December, 15, 2010 Letter from Martens, Joseph J. –

President OSI to Ronald G. Knapp, President – Mohonk

Preserve.

5.1PURPOSE OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Figure 5.1.1. Mohonk Preserve Foothills aerial photo (Photograph by John Hayes, Mohonk Preserve)

The purpose of the Land Asset Management Plan (LAMP) is to create a long term sustainable framework with short term flexibility to achieve it. The 'goals' set forth in the previous section establish the foundational principals for the framework. The 'objectives' supporting each goal are achieved through 'implementation strategies' presented in this section that provide short term flexibility in response to future opportunities and constraints.

The Open Space Conservancy, (OSC) owns the land until such time as it purchased by the Preserve, or other conservation land purchaser. In the interim, “….all building maintenance and upkeep will be [managed] by the Mohonk Preserve in order to prevent deterioration of the buildings and maintain the surrounding grounds in an orderly condition.”3



Underlying the Land Asset Management Plan is the intent of the Preserve to fund and staff the mixed-use conservation strategic initiatives and programs in a manner that achieves self-sufficiency within five years from purchase of portions of the Foothills property. Success in implementing the plan will also be measured by how well the Mohonk Preserve manages to maintain a balance between potentially competing objectives as noted in the earlier Section 4 – ‘Land Asset Management Goals & Objectives.’

In 2002, the Preserve adopted a science-based Unit Management Plan for eleven areas in its core holdings on the ridge. The Foothills parcel naturally falls into ‘Group 2’ of the existing Preserve’s Unit Management Plan. The primary difference between Group 1 and Group 2 is that the former does not encourage public access or new infrastructure. Group 2 consists of three management units totaling 2,830 acres, or 43 percent of the Preserve's holdings. The addition of the 857-acre Foothills increases the size of Group 2 by just under a third to 3,687 acres.

“In keeping with its conservation mission, and those of the Shawangunk Ridge Biodiversity Partnership, the Preserve’s Land Management Plan employs active land management strategies. This existing framework for integrated natural areas protection in balance with public access has guided continual planning at the Preserve and will guide the assimilation of the Foothills tract in cooperation with OSI and the surrounding community.”4 The August 2011 memorandum, by G. Hoagland (Mohonk Preserve Executive Director), further states that “[H]igh priorities will be for balancing continuation of agriculture with public access, environmental education, scientific study supporting land management and historic cultural landscape and structure preservation.”

The Foothills contain both the most durable and most

fragile lands that the Mohonk Preserve manages. This is due to the dramatic diversity of micro-ecologies found in the relatively small area including:

> 398.02 acres of forests whose autumn foliage attract hundreds of visitors, or ‘leaf-lookers,’ who spend money locally. The hardwood forests also represent a potential program focus and possible revenue stream through sustainable forestry management.

> 331.40 acres of agricultural land, mostly working hayfields that once fueled the ‘horsepower’ driven seasonal resort. Recently an increasing number of untended upland meadows are exhibiting early stages of forest succession. Most of this land is leased for hay to a family that is a tenant of Kleinekill Farm. Approximately 70 acres are used for a grass-fed beef operation. Brook Farm, a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), leases 20-acres for their vegetable garden operation.

> 37.74 acres of seasonal ‘wet meadows’ with poor draining Fragipan5 subsurface soil best suited for harvested grasses and pasturing.

> 66.85 acres of ‘open water’ and wetlands including a hidden woodland swamp, beaver dam marsh and several 100 year old, constructed lily ponds. The untended ponds, originally built to heighten a romanticized setting, now support both local and migratory species.

> Three culturally historic farms and barns, roadways and carriage roads that date back to the 1800s on the remaining approximately 23.58 acres. The information in this report as the condition of the existing houses is based on a January 2011 Rentable Residential Unit

MOHONK PRESERVE


Appraisal.6

[Data Source: Historic Preservation Commission – Historic

Property Information, filed by Larson Field Associates,

Woodstock, NY, September 2006.]

The NYS Department of Environmental (DEC) ‘Environmental Resource Map’ has classified the open areas of the Foothills as habitats for ‘rare plants and rare animals.’ The woodlands are classified as ‘natural communities.’ The marsh land is classified as a ‘state regulated freshwater wetlands’ protected by a 100-foot ‘wetlands check zone’ buffer. Any significant disturbance or alteration within these areas will require NYS DEC review.

Given the wide diversity of micro-ecologies, a single land management approach would not be applicable to all 857 acres. Consequently, the Foothills land management plan is separated into four (4) distinct management areas: Testimonial Gateway, Farmland, Marshland, and Ridgeland.

___________

3December, 15, 2010 Letter from Martens, Joseph J. –

President OSI to Ronald G. Knapp, President – Mohonk

Preserve.

4August 15, 2011, Memorandum from G. Hoagland,

Executive Director – Mohonk Preserve to Town of New

Paltz Planning Board.

5Fragipan is a dense natural subsurface layer of hard soil

with relatively low permeability to water, mostly because

of its extreme density or compactness rather than its high

clay content or cementation.

6Consultation Report done for the Open Space Conservancy,

Inc, by R.P. Hubbell and Company, Inc., Poughkeepsie NY,

January 24, 2011.

5.2LAND MANAGEMENT: PUBLIC ROADS AND HUNTING

The public roads within and abutting the Foothills property are currently ‘road ways by use’ and not formally dedicated Town of New Paltz roads. As part of the MMH-OSC land transfer, the “…owners [are required to provide] to the Town of New Paltz a fifty-foot wide strip of land centered on Butterville Road and Pine Road, and a twenty-five foot wide strip for the southerly portion of Gatehouse Road to facilitate the widening, improvement, or utility installation along said roadways should it be necessary in the future.”7 Nothing in the Mohonk Preserve Foothills management plan suggests, or supports, widening of Gatehouse Road or Butterville Road. The management plan discourages road-side

Figure 5.1.2. Testimonial Gateway (Photograph by Susan Lehrer, Mohonk Preserve)



parking along all public and private roads within and surrounding the Foothills. This will be supported by developing controlled on-site parking and eliminating excessively wide road edges such as along Butterville Road near the Lenape Lane Bridge.

A legacy of deer herbivory has greatly altered and simplified the composition and structure of the ground and shrub vegetation layers and eliminated regeneration in much of the forests of the Northern Shawangunks. High deer impacts have decreased species diversity or completely eliminated the shrub and sapling layer. These deer-attributed changes to forest structure and composition may translate directly to acute, negative effects on the diversity and abundance of forest fauna reducing food, cover, and nesting sites, while increasing nest predation rates, even in large forest tracts. Due to impacts by deer and lack of openings in the forest canopy, oak regeneration is severely limited in the Shawangunks, jeopardizing the future of these forests. Without active management, future forests on the ridge will become even less diverse and will in turn support less biological diversity, threatening the sustainability of some species populations. This threat will worsen unless forest health is improved through active management.

Deer hunting is an important management tool used by the Preserve to reduce the negative impacts of deer on forest habitat. Hunting on the Preserve takes place during the New York State Southern Zone Bowhunting, Regular, and Muzzleloading Deer Seasons (mid-October through mid-December). All New York State Hunting Laws, Rules, and Regulations apply in addition to the following Preserve-specific restrictions:

Hunters must obtain a Mohonk Preserve Hunting Permit. The rules are as follows:

• No rifles• Only deer may be taken• No target shooting/sighting in• No hunting in specific areas (shown on annual hunting map and posted with signage)• No hunting within 500 feet of private land abutting the Preserve, or within 500 feet of any buildings and dwellings.• No hunting on the approximately 70 acres of leased Brook Farm property• No firing across any roads, established trails or paths• No hunting on specific days (outlined in annual hunting calendar and guidelines)• No hunting during specific hours (outlined in annual hunting calendar and guidelines)

Hunting applications, guidelines, calendars, and maps are available each fall on Mohonk Preserve’s website and at the Preserve’s Visitor Center. Hunting season notices are also posted at the trailheads.

Additional information on deer hunting at the Preserve is available at http://www.mohonkpreserve.org/index.php?hunting Additional information on New York State’s hunting regulations and season dates is available athttp://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/hunting.html

___________

7Brooks & Brooks, PC, NYS SEQRA Part 3 –EAF ‘Evaluation

of the Importance of Impacts,’ dated August 11, 2011

filled with the Town of New Paltz Planning Board as Lead

Agency of the sub-division review process.

Lan

d A

sset

Man

agem

ent

Plan

MO

HO

NK

PR

ESE

RV

E

page 100 Land Asset Management Plan

Figu

re 5

.2.1

. Moh

onk

Pres

erve

Foo

thill

s Ba

se M

ap

Lan

d A

sset

Man

agem

ent

Plan

MO

HO

NK

PR

ESE

RV

E

page 101Land Asset Management Plan

Figu

re 5

.2.2

. Moh

onk

Pres

erve

Foo

thill

s La

nd T

ype

Map

Lan

d A

sset

Man

agem

ent

Plan

MO

HO

NK

PR

ESE

RV

E


Figu

re 5

.2.3

. Moh

onk

Pres

erve

Foo

thill

s La

nd M

anag

men

t A

reas

MOHONK PRESERVE

The name for this 108 acre area of the Foothills is taken from the iconic 100-year old stone Testimonial Gateway tower that overlooks this 108 acre area. The roughly triangular park-like area is clearly defined by Route 299 to the south, Gatehouse Road on the North and Butterville Road to the west. Carved out of this isosceles triangle-shaped area, is a much smaller equilateral triangular shaped private residential area at the north-east corner of the intersection of Route 299 and Butterville Road

The former Mohonk Mountain House resort carriage road bisects the Testimonial Gateway Area east to west. One hundred years ago, horse-drawn carriages ferrying guests from the local train station passed under the Testimonial Gateway stone arch that symbolized their arrival at the resort. West of the tower the carriage road is flanked on either side by a row of Pin Oaks creating a once continuous canopied allée, that now has gaps due to the loss of aging trees. Just past the Testimonial Gateway, the carriage road bisects the ‘lily ponds’ that once contained gravity fountains fed from an up-ridge pond. On either side of the Pin Oak Allée are the ‘north’ and ‘south’ grassy meadows that are mowed seasonally. The carriage road ends at the 1920s Lenape Lane stone bridge spanning Butterville Road.

Primary Objective: Capitalize on ‘front yard’ location to introduce and promote Mohonk Preserve mission and membership, and to orient visitors to the Shawangunk Mountains Region.

MOHONK PRESERVE

Primary PurposeThe primary purpose of the Testimonial Gateway Area is to capitalize on the visible stone tower and iconic vistas to create a readily accessible ‘front yard.’ The Testimonial Gateway will become an access, orientation, and sorting point for out-of-area visitors coming to the Shawangunk Ridge and local residents accessing the Mohonk Preserve Foothills. The Testimonial Gateway Area open space is a relatively durable park-like setting that, with proper management, will serve this purpose well.

During peak weekends, this fifth trailhead for the Preserve, the only one in New Paltz, will serve to protect the ridge-proper and surrounding secondary and tertiary roadways from over-use. It will do this by providing a centralized initial clearing point for balancing visitor distribution to avoid peak-loading of the limited access trailheads of the ridge. During the fall foliage season it will serve to re-direct visitors from the over-crowded ridge back to the villages, rail trails, local farm stands, and other ecological and heritage attractions around the Shawangunk Mountains Scenic Byway.

Implementation Strategies:

1. Gateway Ponds: Built in 1909, the constructed lily ponds created a romantic era-inspired vista for arriving resort guests. Several now defunct gravity driven fountains in the ponds were fed by a spring pond up on the ridge. Restoring the ponds, including clearing the surrounding banks and installing solar-powered fountains, to their former elegance is recommended. Providing a pond edge trail with interpretative stations provides a convenient brush with nature. Scattered picnic tables along the east bank of the north pond provide visitors an idyllic spot for lunch.

5.3TESTIMONIAL GATEWAY AREA



2. Lenape Lane Bridge: According to a 2012 bridge assessment report7, replacement of the badly deteriorated stone and reinforced concrete bridge is required to ensure safe passage of pedestrians, horse driven carriages, and sleighs above and public vehicles beneath. Since the bridge crosses a town public road, local approval will be required to preferably restore, versus replace, the historic structure that does not meet today’s NYS DOT overpass standards.

3. Breezy Lawn Barn: The red wood barn off Gatehouse Road was once affiliated with the nearby corner farmhouse of the same name and is now leased to the Brook Farm CSA for equipment storage. Restoration of the barn offers opportunities for sleigh and carriage operations, CSA, or Mohonk Preserve seasonal storage of picnic tables, benches and the like.

4. Pin Oak Allée: The carriage road running east-west is lined with 100-year old Pin Oaks. With

Figure 5.3.4. Pin Oak Allée (Photograph by DiMella Shaffer)

Figure 5.3.1. Testimonial Gateway (Photograph by Celeste Brunell, Mohonk Preserve), Figure 5.3.2. Breezy Lawn Barn (Photograph by DiMella Shaffer), Figure 5.3.3. Lenape Lane Bridge (Photograph by DiMella Shaffer)



MOHONK PRESERVE

on-going tree maintenance, and periodic tree replacement as needed, the picturesque allée will be retained for future generations. Spacing dedication benches along the allée provides a respite for contemplation and appreciation of the longer vistas, as well as a potential revenue source. Given the close proximity of the controlled parking lot off Route 299, the Pin Oak Allée is especially attractive those looking for a 'quick walk' to stretch their legs and admire the vistas. Maintaining the carriage road for horse-driven carriage and sleigh third-party leased operations provides an opportunity for almost year-round weekend revenue. 5. Gateway Meadows: Leasing of the farm fields to a farmer could provide an annual revenue to help maintain the Gateway Area. An interpretive nature trail meanders through the larger ‘south meadow’ providing a seasonally changing experience.

6. Hardwood Forest and Swamp: The dense deciduous woods covering the southeast portion of the area have a stand of historic white oaks, and also hide a small hardwood swamp that few know about, and even fewer have seen. An interpretive nature trail/boardwalk along the swamp edge could provide an instructive self-learning experience.

7. Hillside Parcel: The 20-acre stand-alone ‘Hillside Tract’ east of Butterville Road is a likely candidate to be sold by OSC to a private buyer subject to a conservation easement, or held by OSC in contemplation of future conservation land connections.

8. Intersection of Route 299 and Gatehouse Road: Realigning the confusing, and accident-prone, ‘Y’ intersection, see figure 5.3.6, is supported by several groups, including the Shawangunk

Mountains Scenic Byway which specifically highlights this corner for reconfiguration. Emphasizing the views of the Testimonial Gateway from traffic coming west on Route 299 is desired by Mohonk Preserve. The abutting neighbors along Gatehouse Road have expressed the need to retain the acoustical and visual buffer from Route 299 provided by the existing vegetation. Two conceptual-level alternative road re-configuration options, presented here only for documentation, have been identified at this stage as pre-design conceptual ideas.

Option A - Provides access to the proposed parking area directly off Route 299. This option, see figure 5.3.7, requires preliminary review by a traffic engineer to ensure adequate sight distance requirements for ingress and egress at the proposed entrance point. The extended Pin Oak Allée is limited to pedestrian and bicycle traffic. This approach does not improve the current Route 299 and Gatehouse Road intersection.

Option B - Realigns Gatehouse Road to create a safer right angle intersection with Route 299, while providing vehicle gateway access aligned with the Pin Oak Allée (off of the new Gatehouse Road). This approach, see figure 5.3.8, provides a gated entrance aligned with the Testimonial Gateway tower. This solution requires several Gatehouse Road private driveways to be extended to either Route 299 or to the realigned Gatehouse Road.

Proposing realigning a portion of Gatehouse Road requires extensive and time consuming review and approval process. Further discussions with abutting neighbors and with county and state DOT agencies are called for to bring this discussion to a closure. The project may be eligible for state, county or town infrastructure funds aimed at dangerous

MOHONK PRESERVE

MOHONK PRESERVE

page 106


intersections. The Preserve stands ready to assist in bringing this project forward as local and state interests and resources allow.

Mohonk Preserve joins such groups as the Gunks Mountain Biking Association who have called for improving bicycle safety along Route 299 from the Wallkill River Bridge to the Foothills. Appropriate signage along Route 299 will announce arrival and provide directions to the controlled parking turn off.

9. Testimonial Gateway: The four-story stone tower will be stabilized and secured in the short term. This work includes roof repairs, boarding up of openings and masonry re-pointing.

Renovation of the interior, historically appropriate window and door replacements, along with a complete overhaul of the building's mechanical and electric systems, is needed once an appropriate use is determined. Proper ADA accessibility provision to the main floor is required if the use is a public one. Considered uses include local land-use cultural history display. Access to the upper viewing platform, if desired, is restricted to the able-bodied as an elevator is not feasible. Branding the tower as a Mohonk Preserve iconic image for the Foothills is a distinct possibility.

Funds to renovate the U.S. Department of Interior 'National Landmark Status' building will likely come from a combination of special fundraising efforts and federal and state historic renovation grants.

10. Gatehouse Parking and Trailhead: A controlled 100-plus space surface lot with a horse trailer parking lane in the south of the Testimonial Gateway woods is accessible off Route 299. A small

shelter could house seasonal public ‘green’ toilets, Preserve seasonal contact station, wall-mounted orientation map, and bike racks. The shelter's roof overhang provides a covered bus shuttle stop for transporting visitors to the Preserve’s Visitor Center or other Preserve trailheads during peak periods. Potential third-party revenue-producing operations include a bike and/or cross-country ski rental and seasonal horse drawn carriage and sleigh rides.

Short-Term Priorities:

Short term priorities prior to acquisition by the Preserve includes stabilization and securing of the Testimonial Gateway, Lenape Lane Bridge, and Breezy Lawn Barn to address ‘high priority’ improvements to ensure asset preservation.

Selective pruning, and replacement planting, of the Pin Oak Allée trees will ensure preservation

Figure 5.3.5. Testimonial Gateway (Photograph by DiMella Shaffer)




MOHONK PRESERVE

of this important cultural artifact. Tree pruning and removal is allowed under the MMH-OSI land transfer agreement to “…maintain views, trails, driveways, parking areas paths and open space, and to research-based forest management and silviculture in conjunction with nature preserve conservation and land stewardship.”8 The agreement also permits cutting and clearing of trees to “...provide for the construction of any permitted improvement, such as agriculture or preserve buildings.”

Renew the leased seasonal hay field harvesting of the South Meadow due to expire in 2013. The North Meadow is currently mowed and available for use by reservation by Preserve members and other groups for dog training and the like.

___________

7'Butterville Road Bridge Assessment Report' prepared for

OSI by Meddenbach and Eggers, Stone Ridge, NY. March

26, 2012.

8Memorandum to Patricia Brook, Brooks & Brooks, PC,

from B. Anderberg, OSI dated July 12, 2011. Document

was included in the August 11, 2011 SEQRA EAF, Part 3:

‘Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts’ submitted to the

Lead Agency during the Town of New Paltz sub-division

application process.

Lan

d A

sset

Man

agem

ent

Plan

MO

HO

NK

PR

ESE

RV

ELa

nd

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t Pl

anM

OH

ON

K P

RE

SER

VE

Figu

re 5

.3.6

. Exi

stin

g co

nditi

ons



Lan

d A

sset

Man

agem

ent

Plan

MO

HO

NK

PR

ESE

RV

ELa

nd

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t Pl

anM

OH

ON

K P

RE

SER

VE

Figu

re 5

.3.7

. O

PTIO

N A

: A

cces

s di

rect

ly o

ff R

oute

. 299

PRE-

DES

IGN

CO

NC

EPTI

AL

IMA

GES

ON

LY

Lan

d A

sset

Man

agem

ent

Plan

MO

HO

NK

PR

ESE

RV

E

Figu

re 5

.3.8

. O

PTIO

N B

: Re

alig

nmen

t of

Gat

ehou

se R

oad

+ N

ew c

onne

ctin

g ro

ad a

cces

sPR

E-D

ESIG

N C

ON

CEP

TIA

L IM

AG

ES O

NLY


" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )

" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )

" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

054

01,

080

1,62

02,

160

2,70

027

0Fe

et

.

The

phot

ogra

phic

imag

e sh

own

onth

is m

ap \

is a

dig

ital

orth

opho

tom

osai

c pr

oduc

ed fr

om \c

olor

" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )

" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )

" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

054

01,

080

1,62

02,

160

2,70

027

0Fe

et

.

The

phot

ogra

phic

imag

e sh

own

onth

is m

ap \

is a

dig

ital

orth

opho

tom

osai

c pr

oduc

ed fr

om \c

olor

" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )

" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )

" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

054

01,

080

1,62

02,

160

2,70

027

0Fe

et

.

The

phot

ogra

phic

imag

e sh

own

onth

is m

ap \

is a

dig

ital

orth

opho

tom

osai

c pr

oduc

ed fr

om \c

olor

BUTTERVILLE ROAD

GAT

EHO

USE

RO

AD

SOU

THM

EAD

OW

HIL

LSID

EPA

RCEL

STAT

E RO

AD

299

(CO

UN

TY R

OA

D 8

)

HAR

DW

OO

D

SWAM

P

GAT

EWAY

PO

ND

S

NO

RTH

MEA

DO

W

B-35

a

B-35

b

B-35

c

B-35

d

B-32

B-29

B-11

B-12

PATH

TRAIL

8. IN

TERS

ECTI

ON

RT

299

AN

D

GAT

EHO

USE

RO

AD

A. A

ssis

t in

the

reco

n�gu

ratio

n to

impr

ove

s

afet

yB.

Inst

all a

ppro

pria

te M

ohon

k Pr

eser

ve

s

igna

ge to

par

king

C. O

pen

view

s to

Test

imon

ial G

atew

ay

c

arria

ge ro

ad fr

om R

oute

299

10. G

ATEW

AY P

ARK

ING

A. C

ontr

olle

d pu

blic

par

king

(100

+

spa

ces)

and

acc

ess

road

- $

B. S

hutt

le s

top

and

shel

ter (

seas

onal

pea

k tim

es) -

$C.

Ran

ger V

isito

r Con

tact

Sta

tion

/ Pub

lic

"

gree

n" to

ilets

(sea

sona

l)D

. Way

�ndi

ng a

nd S

igna

geE.

Bik

ing

acce

ssF.

Hor

se tr

aile

r par

king

9. T

ESTI

MO

NIA

L G

ATEW

AY

A. S

tabi

lize

and

secu

re s

truc

ture

B. R

enov

ate

for u

se to

be

dete

rmin

edC.

MP-

MM

H c

ultu

ral l

ands

cape

his

tory

d

ispl

ay

4. P

IN O

AK

ALL

EE

A. C

arria

ge ro

ad s

urfa

cing

B. T

ree

mai

nten

ance

and

repl

acem

ent

C. S

easo

nal c

arria

ge /

slei

gh /

hayr

ide

- $D

. Wal

king

/ eq

uest

rian

trai

l / b

ike

trai

lE.

"Qui

ck w

alk"

esp

ecia

lly fo

r sen

iors

/

mob

ility

impa

red

F. D

edic

atio

n be

nche

s - $

1. G

ATEW

AY P

ON

DS

A. R

econ

ditio

n po

nds

and

bank

sB.

Rep

rodu

ce h

isto

ric fo

unta

ins

C. P

ond

natu

re tr

ail /

boa

rdw

alk

/ sig

nage

D. P

ond

gran

t driv

en re

sear

ch s

tatio

ns -

$E.

Pic

nic

tabl

es o

verlo

okin

g po

nds

6. H

ARD

WO

OD

SW

AM

P

A. H

ardw

ood

swam

p na

ture

trai

l

5. G

ATEW

AY M

EAD

OW

S

A. M

eado

ws

natu

re tr

ail

B. O

pen

�eld

man

agem

ent -

$C.

Dog

trai

ning

gro

up a

cces

s in

Sou

th

Mea

dow

3. B

REEZ

Y LA

WN

BA

RN

A. S

tabi

lize

and

secu

re s

truc

ture

B. B

uild

ing

adap

tatio

n or

reno

vatio

nC.

MP

Win

ter s

tora

ge (p

icni

c ta

bles

,

sea

sona

l sle

ds, a

nd s

leig

hs)

2. L

ENA

PE L

AN

E BR

IDG

E

A. B

ridge

rest

orat

ion

base

d on

eng

inee

ring

stud

y B.

Elim

inat

e si

de o

f roa

d pa

rkin

g af

ter

a

ltern

ativ

e pa

rkin

g pr

ovid

edC.

Con

nect

car

riage

road

to W

awar

sing

Tur

npik

e Co

rrid

or

7. H

ILLS

IDE

PARC

EL

A. O

SC la

nd o

r priv

ate

land

with

con

serv

atio

n ea

sem

ent

TEST

IMO

NIA

L G

ATEW

AY

PIN

OAK

ALL

EE

Land

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t Pla

n (L

AM

P)

MO

HO

NK

PRES

ERV

E FO

OTH

ILLS

0

2

50

500

10

00N

ORT

H

TESTIMONIAL GATEWAYLand Asset Management Plan (LAMP)

MOHONK PRESERVE FOOTHILLS

Figu

re 5

.3.9

. Te

stim

onia

l Gat

eway

Are

a



5.4FARMLAND AREA

The 288 acre Farmland Area is roughly defined to the east by Butterville Road, the marshlands to the south, break-in-slope to the west, and the Foothills north-east property line. The Farmland Area contains two farms dating back to the mid-1800s. The Brook Farm and Pine Farm were merged in 1906 under Mohonk Mountain House ownership. Their working fields are maintained by tenant farmers in exchange for rights to operate a hay field operation. Approximately 90 acres of active agricultural fields and pasture lands are leased to other private and nonprofit entities.9

Agricultural fields represent the second largest land use in the Foothills behind forest cover. The bulk of the working fields are found in the Farmland Area that once were associated with the Brook Farm or Pine Farm, and are now primarily used to grow hay. Approximately 70 acres of southern fields are used by a private grass-fed beef operation that sells to local restaurants and individuals. The Brook Farm Project, a non-profit Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) leases 20 acres for a member-supported vegetable garden. The Farmland Area's predominantly poorly draining top soil can be enhanced to support an expanded variety of organic crops and animal husbandry programs generating additional revenue.10 Manure from animal husbandry operations can contribute to increasing the productively of the surrounding fields.11 (Soil Drainage Class Map, Figure 2.2.1, Page 37.)

A century ago, these fields provided the hay, wheat, and vegetables for the Mohonk Mountain House seasonal resort. In many ways, the current ‘local food’ movement is actually a reflection of the cultural history of the land, and the goal of having farming practices that regenerate the biological health of the

land, treating the farms and surrounding wetlands and forests as a part of an integrated ecosystem.

Primary PurposeThe primary purpose of the Farmland Area going forward is to engage in revenue-producing or grant-funded private and nonprofit partnerships that operate sustainable organic agriculture, animal husbandry operations, farm educational, and incubator farm internship programs. The land has the potential to attract research grants and institutional partners to improve productivity of hydric soil fields. The Preserve will overlay these operations with educational programs to heighten public awareness of the local agricultural heritage and the growing ‘local food’ movement.


1. Brook (George DuBois) Farm House: The two-story 2,850-square-foot two-family wood frame house with basement, and a later one-story kitchen addition, sits on Town of New Paltz, Parcel 86.1-1-40,-1. The house, reportedly in ‘average condition,’ has been divided into two dwelling units containing 3 bedrooms, 2 kitchens and 2 baths.12

In the short term, review the rental agreements with residential tenants and farmers that

Primary Objective: Engage in partnerships that support sustainable organic agriculture, demonstrate soil improvement, promote incubator farm internships, and celebrate local agricultural heritage.


MOHONK PRESERVE


maintain the land and structures to ensure short-term goals for continuity of land use are achieved and that any leases pass non-profit standards for balancing the fair market value of tenant services rendered in exchange for rent income. Longer term, consider renovating a portion of the farm house for non-residential research and education revenue generating options. Alternatives identified include: sustainable organic farm research center, youth farm education center, farm day camp, year round herb greenhouse, and organic farm food cooking or baking classes. Explore partnering with the Hudson Valley based Glynwood Center to establish a farming education program similar to their ‘Keep Farming Program.’ Another potential farm program partner is SUNY New Paltz, which is discussing establishing a curriculum thrust for food, farming, and food marketing.

2. Brook Farm: Non-Residential Buildings: The original barn associated with the house burned in 1935. The remaining smaller hay house and numerous farm outbuildings are located north of the house across Lenape Lane that bisects the farm. Depending on the evolving use of the surrounding agricultural fields, the barns and ancillary buildings will be used to store hay, house livestock, farm equipment storage, and maintenance bays, and potentially demonstration space for various farm education programs and classes.

3. Lenape Lane: The unpaved Lenape Lane needs road edge and culvert repairs. A gravel parking lot with up to thirty spaces in the vicinity of the farmhouse and the CSA plot will be needed to accommodate CSA members and possibly others should Brook Farm offer programs to the general public. Program-related traffic is permitted

Figure 5.4.1. Hay (Photograph by John Litts, Mohonk Preserve), Figure 5.4.2. Brook Farm (Photograph by Carol Natoli, Mohonk Preserve)

MOHONK PRESERVE



to Brook Farm, beyond which only Preserve members can proceed by foot, horseback or bicycle.

4. Brook Farm CSA Gardens: Brook Farm Project, a nonprofit Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), operates an organic 6.5 acre vegetable, herb, berry, and flower garden on their 20 acre leased parcel. The CSA also offers members local grass-fed beef and free-range chickens. The CSA has an established relationship with SUNY New Paltz and has operated a farmers' market on campus. The CSA runs a member supported research and educational operation dedicated to the development and teaching of sustainable farming practices. Their ‘local farm’ mission resonates with the goals of the Farmland Area to keep the land in active sustainable agricultural use that generates revenue contributing to the land management goals. Going forward, the Preserve will continue to seek the best and highest use of the 28 percent of the agriculture fields classified as ‘well draining."

5. Brook Farm: Livestock Pasture: A private grass-fed beef operation uses approximately 70 acres of fenced pasture land south of Lenape Lane. This ongoing farm operation will be reviewed in the same light as the Brook Farm Project to ensure a continuity of agricultural operations. There is the future potential to expand animal pasture use on other farm fields within the Farmland Area, and the Ridgeland Upland Meadows.

6. Pine Road Hay Barn: The barn, date unknown, sits off Pine Road west of Pine Farm. The badly deteriorated timber structure is still used to store hay harvested in the Farmland Area. Unless structural and weather-proofing repairs are undertaken in the short-term, natural forces

Figure 5.4.3. Brook Farm Structures (Photograph by DiMella Shaffer), Figure 5.4.4. Pine Farmhouse (Photograph by DiMella Shaffer), Figure 5.4.5. Hay barn (Photograph by DiMella Shaffer)

MOHONK PRESERVE


will cause the collapse of the barn. If renovation does occur, continued use for hay storage is recommended.

The barn’s historic significance is limited beyond a contributing element in the larger cultural landscape story. If significant funds are not available in the short-term, or within five years after purchase of the surrounding land by the Preserve, removing the barn is likely the best course of action to eliminate potential liability.

7. Pine Road: Consideration for the potential of the Town of New Paltz ‘abandonment’ of Pine Road was raised at the SBI subdivision public hearings, and reportedly is being actively considered by the Town. Both OSI and the Mohonk Preserve defer to the Town’s decision, but neither objects to accepting ownership of Pine Road if the Town is so inclined.

Northern Brown Snakes migrate to a common spot for their annual hibernation period. Reportedly, the Old Hay Barn foundation is such a gathering spot along with other hibernating snake species. Even with relatively low-level-traffic along Pine Road, the seasonal toll on snakes moving across the road is of some concern. Posting signs to slow traffic during peak migration periods is recommended. Program related traffic is permitted to Pine Farm, beyond which only Preserve members can proceed by foot, horseback or bicycle.

8. Pine (Mullinex) Farm House: The 1886 two-story 2,240-square-foot, 3 bedroom 2 bath, wood frame house with basement was originally designed for the owner to house summer boarders. The barn and hay house were constructed two years prior. The property along

Pine Road is filed in the Town of New Paltz as Parcel 86.1-1-40. The farm house, as seen from the road, appears in ‘good condition.’

In the short term, continue the rental agreements with residential tenant farmers that maintain the land and structures. Longer term, consider investing in deferred maintenance to keep the house for continued residential and/or farm education-related use. In contrast to the potential farm education and research uses for Brook Farm, Pine Farm is thought better suited to support a ‘small farm intern training program’ possibly affiliated with a local university or community college program. A related use is an ‘incubator farm’ as a catalyst to attract younger would-be farmers looking for hands on experience. Interns in similar paid field programs share a goal of owning a cottage farm with small scale sustainable food production.13

A good portion of the nearby fields north of Pine Road are poorly draining soils suitable for grasses such as hay, whereas the fields south of Pine Road, and west of the Pine Farmhouse, are classified as “well draining” soils that are better suited for vegetable or herb gardens.

9. Pine Farm: Barn and Ancillary Structures: The non-residential structures include a large barn and several outbuildings. The farm is used by the farm tenants to stable horses, raise pigs for a 4H project, and hay storage. Depending on the evolving use of the surrounding agricultural fields, the barns and ancillary buildings will continue to store hay, farm equipment, and house livestock. Portions of the working barns provide potential demonstration space for various farm immersion programs.




Short-term priorities prior to acquisition of the Farmland by the Preserve, or possibly other third-party, include revisiting the current farm house rental/maintenance and agricultural field lease agreements to ensure short-term stability and predictable revenue stream. Addressing priority deferred maintenance and life safety code issues are necessary to preserve the asset and limit liability.

The Farmland might best be managed by partnering with private or non-profit outside entities who can bring to the fields their sustainable farming expertise. Potential partners include research and education institutions or private farming and animal husbandry operations. Exploratory discussions with prospective partners has already begun and should be concluded in the near future.

The Foothills property is listed under the Ulster County Agriculture District 2 (Parcel 86.1-1-40 listed in the AG 2 district includes portions of Parcel 77.3-1-40 and 66.4-1-40, the Kleinekill Farm). If OSC, or eventually, Mohonk Preserve derives taxable Income from leased farm operations, the landowner may be eligible for AG 2 tax abatement from the local assessor if certain criteria are met including verifiable farming income.

10. Agricultural Fields: The streams bisecting the land and the high ground water table result in ‘wet meadows’ or hay fields with poorly draining hydric soil (Soil Drainage Class Map, Figure 2.2.1, Page 37). This limits productive crop options to grasses (hay, rye, wheat and barley) or pasture lands. Most of the working fields are dedicated to organically grown hay sold by the current farm tenant to the Mohonk Mountain House and other local purchasers.

11. New Paltz-Wawarsing Turnpike: The former private toll road's raised berm still exists, though overgrown. Only minor investment is required to restore the former carriage road from the Lenape Lane Bridge to the Hasbrouck House in the Marshland Area. This provides a recreational connection for hikers, bicyclists, and equestrians between the Testimonial Gateway, Farmland, and Marshland areas. Its scenic views out toward the ridge and over the pasturelands are important vistas.

___________

9The Full Environmental Assessment Form – SEQRA ‘Part

3: Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts’, prepared by

Brooks & Brooks Inc., Highland NY, dated August 11, 2011

stipulates that “In the short term, all existing tenancy and

leases will be honored to the extent of their terms….until

a long term plan is adopted.”10In accordance with the NYS Real Property Tax Law Section

420-a, any portion of the parcel used for a non-exempt

purpose, or from which revenue is derived exceeding the

carrying and maintenance charges, it is not eligible for tax

exempt status. 11Manure is a by-product containing many plant nutrients

and organic matter. Besides providing valuable macro- and

micronutrients to the soil, manure supplies organic matter

to improve the soil’s physical and chemical properties. It

also increases infiltration of water and enhances retention

of nutrients, reduces wind and water erosion, and

promotes growth of beneficial organisms.12Post Appraisal Consultation Report prepared for Open

Space Conservancy, Inc. by R.P. Hubbell and Company,

Inc., Poughkeepsie, January 24, 2011. 13Examples of farm immersion programs include the

University of Vermont’s Hort Farm, Iowa State University’s

Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, and similar

programs at University of California at Santa Cruz and

Michigan State University.

" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

054

01,

080

1,62

02,

160

2,70

027

0Fe

et

.

The

phot

ogra

phic

imag

e sh

own

onth

is m

ap \

is a

dig

ital

orth

opho

tom

osai

c pr

oduc

ed fr

om \c

olor

" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

054

01,

080

1,62

02,

160

2,70

027

0Fe

et

.

The

phot

ogra

phic

imag

e sh

own

onth

is m

ap \

is a

dig

ital

orth

opho

tom

osai

c pr

oduc

ed fr

om \c

olor

" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

054

01,

080

1,62

02,

160

2,70

027

0Fe

et

.

The

phot

ogra

phic

imag

e sh

own

onth

is m

ap \

is a

dig

ital

orth

opho

tom

osai

c pr

oduc

ed fr

om \c

olor

TEST

IMO

NIA

L G

ATEW

AYA

REA

LEN

APE

LAN

E

BRO

OK

FARM

HIL

LSID

EPA

RCEL

PINE

ROAD

UPL

AN

DM

EAD

OW

S

HUMPOKILL

KLEI

NEKIL

L

DU

CK P

ON

DTR

AIL

WAW

ARSING TU

RNPIKE

CSA

GA

RDEN

S CATT

LEPA

STU

RE

FARM

FIEL

DS

FARM

FIEL

DS

BUTTERVILLE ROAD

PIN

EFA

RMD

UCK

PON

DW

HIT

E O

AK

BEN

D

B-43

B-43

B-38

B-37B-

36

B-39

a

B-39

b

B-40

a

B-40

b

B-35

a

B-35

b

B-35

c

B-35

d

B-29

B-31

B-26

B-25

B-23

B-22

B-47

b

B-47

a

B-10

B-24

B-11

B-12

B-18

B-13

B-17

B-16

B-15

B-6

B-7

K-12

K-13

K-11

a

K-12

K-11

b

FARMLAND Land Asset Management Plan (LAMP) MOHONK PRESERVE FOOTHILLS

9. P

INE

FARM

: BA

RN &

AN

CILL

ARY

STR

UCT

URE

S

A. W

orki

ng fa

rm fo

r lea

sed

hay

�eld

ope

ratio

ns -

$B.

Ren

ovat

e an

d le

ase

for '

sust

aina

ble

f

arm

incu

bato

r' - $

3. L

ENA

PE L

AN

E

A. P

rivat

e ro

adw

ay fo

r veh

icle

acc

ess

to

B

rook

Far

mB.

Ped

estr

ian,

equ

estr

ian,

and

bik

e ac

cess

to

Pres

erve

car

riage

road

s an

d tr

ails

10. A

GRI

CULT

URE

FIE

LDS

A. H

ay �

elds

leas

ed o

pera

tions

(hab

itat

s

ensi

tive

mow

ing

cycl

e) -

$B.

Sea

sona

l hay

rides

- $

NO

TE: 3

68 a

cres

of �

elds

4. B

ROO

K FA

RM: C

SA G

ARD

ENS

A. C

omm

unity

Sup

port

ed G

arde

ns (C

SA) -

$B.

Add

ition

al g

arde

ns fo

r org

anic

“poo

r soi

l”

gar

den

gran

t res

earc

h - $

5. B

ROO

K FA

RM: L

IVES

TOCK

PA

STU

RE

A. G

rass

-fed

beef

leas

ed o

pera

tions

- $

7. P

INE

ROA

D

A. T

own

conv

erts

road

way

ow

ners

hip

to

O

SC/M

ohon

k Pr

eser

veB.

Nor

ther

n Br

own

Snak

e se

ason

al P

ine

R

oad

cros

sing

miti

gatio

n

8. P

INE

FARM

: HO

USE

A. M

aint

ain

and

leas

e fo

r ren

tal r

esid

entia

l

use

- $

6. P

INE

FARM

RO

AD

: HAY

BARN

A. S

tabi

lize

and

secu

re s

truc

ture

B. C

ontin

ue u

se a

s ha

y ba

rn s

tora

ge -

$

1. B

ROO

K FA

RM: H

OU

SE

A. M

aint

ain

2 un

it le

ased

rent

al

r

esid

entia

l - $

B. R

enov

atio

n fo

r non

-res

iden

tial u

se

B.1

Sus

tain

able

Org

anic

Far

m R

esea

rch

Cent

er -

$

B.2

You

th F

arm

Edu

catio

n Ce

nter

(s

umm

er, e

veni

ngs,

wee

kend

s) -

$

B.3

Far

m D

ay C

amp

(sum

mer

onl

y) -

$

B.4

. Far

m c

ooki

ng c

lass

es, w

reat

h

m

akin

g, �

ower

arr

angi

ng, e

tc. -

$

C. C

ontr

olle

d pa

rkin

g (1

2 sp

aces

)

2. B

ROO

K FA

RM: B

ARN

& A

NCI

LLA

RY

S

TRU

CTU

RES

A. S

tabi

lize

and

secu

re a

ll st

ruct

ures

B. W

orki

ng b

arn

tour

s - $

C. G

reen

hou

se fo

r gra

nt d

riven

rese

arch

- $

Land

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t Pla

n (L

AM

P)

MO

HO

NK

PRES

ERV

E FO

OTH

ILLS

0

2

50

500

10

00N

ORT

HFARM

LAN

D

Figu

re 5

.4.5

. Fa

rmla

nd A

rea

MOHONK PRESERVE



5.5MARSHLAND AREA

The 225 acre Marshland Area is the most fragile of the four management areas. The area, centered on Humpo Marsh, is roughly bounded by the Wawars-ing Turnpike to the east, the forested seep to the west, and agricultural fields to the north. The Humpo Marsh south inlet extends through a culvert under Route 299 to a wet meadow off the Foothills prop-erty. A smaller downstream Reed Grass Marsh, is located east of Pine Farm, just north of Pine Road, in the Farmland Area. The only structure, Hasbrouck House, situated at the south end of the old New Paltz-Wawarsing Turnpike, is all that remains of the former 105-acre farm.

Primary Purpose

The primary purpose of the Marshland Area is to pro-tect the marsh habitat enabling marsh-related field research, interpretive nature trails, and public educa-tion. Developing controlled access to the Marshland will support birders and other wildlife enthusiasts coming for marsh observations, education, and in-terpretation programs.


1. Humpo Marsh: Humpo Marsh is a ‘beaver dam’ pond in transition. In 1983, beavers damned the north flowing Humpo Kill.14 Now that the bea-vers have reportedly moved on, the dam has de-teriorated.

Maintaining the marsh in order to encourage bea-vers to return, once their food source recovers. Retaining the marsh pond provides a rich micro-ecology for local and migratory waterbirds and other species. Retaining the marsh also provides

opportunities for grant-driven field research and public environmental education opportunities. Construction of a raised boardwalk skirting the marsh with several observation blinds provides controlled access to the marsh edge without damaging the surrounding fragile wetlands.

Any access structures, or dam remediation efforts, require permitting by the NYS Department of En-vironmental Conservation (NYS DEC). According to the NYS DEC, the marsh standing water is clas-sified as a ‘state regulated freshwater wetlands.’ A 100-foot buffer encompassing the marsh banks is classified as a ‘wetlands check zone’ requiring that NYS DEC be contacted and invited to the site to confirm whether or not their jurisdiction ex-tends into the buffer area.

2. Forested Slope: Along the lower edges of the forested hills west of Humpo Marsh are ‘forest seeps.' These are small, shallow ground water de-pressions that percolate life-giving nutrients such as amino acids and salt to the smaller animals of the woods. For purposes of land management, the upper wooded uphill slope west of Humpo Marsh can be considered part of the Ridgeland Area discussion. Sustainable timber manage-ment, and possibly maple syrup production, are potential revenue streams from this area.

Primary Objective:

Protect marsh habitat enabling marsh-related field research, interpretive nature trails, and public education.



MOHONK PRESERVE

3. Route 299 Humpo Marsh Bridge: The State Route 299, or County Route 8, spans the Humpo Kill on a raised berm roadway. Ulster County maintains the two-lane roadway though capital improvements are eligible for state funding.

Despite the stream culvert beneath the road, traf-fic takes a significant toll on Painted Turtles trying to migrate across the busy road to nesting beds, and other animals such as Canada Geese that breed on the marsh annually. Provisions to miti-gate this seasonal situation needs further research and study to adequately address. A special wild-life culvert and related road improvements chan-neling wildlife to pass under the road safely may be a viable option. Cautionary "wildlife corridor" signage on Route 299 is needed.

Further studies are recommended to create a saf-er pull-off that could utilize the vista and wayside interpretive opportunities along the marsh bridge.

4. Reed Grass Marsh: The ‘disturbed marsh’ in the Farmland Area, north of Pine Road, is relatively small and inaccessible but supports amphibians and other wildlife. Grant-driven field research is a more sustainable land use than public access for educational purposes at this site. 5. Hasbrouck House: Built circa 1851, the 1,744-square-foot, 3 bedrooms and 1 bath, two-story wood frame dwelling with basement is reportedly in ‘average condition.’ The house is currently rented to a Mohonk Preserve staff mem-ber. Renovating the lower level of the Hasbrouck House could provide Preserve educational pro-gramming space and conduct marshland orienta-tions.

Figure 5.5.1. Humpo Marsh (Photograph by DiMella Shaf-fer), Figure 5.5.2. View of Wawarsing Turnpike (Photograph by DiMella Shaffer)



Figure 5.5.3. Hasbrouck House (Photograph by DiMella Shaffer), Figure 5.5.4. Humpo Marsh (Photograph by Susan Lehrer, Mohonk Preserve)

Developing a Preserve Education Program outpost to facilitate collaborations with local bird watch-ers clubs (such as John Burroughs Natural History Society), Audubon, and others, with electronic means for the public to record bird sightings online, are examples of compatible uses for the building. Public access necessitates the construc-tion of a wooden ramp up to the front porch to meet ADA standards. Converting the upstairs to Education or Land Stewardship staff offices pro-vides year round Preseve presence on the site.

6. New Paltz-Wawarsing Turnpike Corridor: Built around 1856, the raised former toll roadway potentially extends the Pin Oak Allée carriage road from Lenape Lane Bridge to the Hasbrouck House. Restoring the carriage road provides a non-motorized connection between the Testimo-nial Gateway and Marshland Areas.

7. Humpo Marsh Parking: Off street parking for up to twenty vehicles along with a school bus turnaround can be provided in the open meadow. Regrading and resurfacing the existing dirt access road off of Route 299 to the parking lot is rec-ommended to accommodate vehicle traffic. Provi-sions for a bus drop-off allows the parking lot to serve as another managed lot for shuttling visitors to the Visitor Center or other Preserve trailheads during peak periods.


MOHONK PRESERVE



A short-term priority prior to acquisition of the Marshland by the Preseve includes stabilizing the Hasbrouck House to prevent further deterioration.

Selective pruning of overgrown trees along the Wawarsing Turnpike, that has already begun, will allow better pedestrian, bike, and equestrian access to Lenape Lane. As noted earlier, tree pruning and removal is allowed under the SBI-OSI land transfer agreement to “…maintain views, trails, driveways, parking areas paths and open space, and to re-search-based forest management and silviculture in conjunction with nature preserve conservation and land stewardship.”8 It is also recommended field re-search be undertaken to preserve the Humpo Marsh for the future.

___________

14 The word ‘kill’ comes from the Middle Dutch word kille, meaning "riverbed" or "water channel.'

MOHONK PRESERVE

" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

054

01,

080

1,62

02,

160

2,70

027

0Fe

et

.

The

phot

ogra

phic

imag

e sh

own

onth

is m

ap \

is a

dig

ital

orth

opho

tom

osai

c pr

oduc

ed fr

om \c

olor

" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

054

01,

080

1,62

02,

160

2,70

027

0Fe

et

.

The

phot

ogra

phic

imag

e sh

own

onth

is m

ap \

is a

dig

ital

orth

opho

tom

osai

c pr

oduc

ed fr

om \c

olor

" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

054

01,

080

1,62

02,

160

2,70

027

0Fe

et

.

The

phot

ogra

phic

imag

e sh

own

onth

is m

ap \

is a

dig

ital

orth

opho

tom

osai

c pr

oduc

ed fr

om \c

olor

GAT

EHO

USE

RO

AD

STAT

E RO

AD

299

(CO

UN

TY R

OA

D 8

)

TEST

IMO

NIA

L G

ATEW

AY

SOU

THM

EAD

OW

FORE

STED

SLO

PE

LENAPE

LANE

BRO

OK

FARM

HIL

LSID

EPA

RCEL

PIN

OAK

ALLE

E

HU

MPO

MAR

SH

HUMPOKILL

KLEI

NEKIL

L

HA

SBRO

UCK

HO

USE

WAW

ARSING TU

RNPIKE

BUTTERVILLE ROAD

DUCK POND ROAD

HIS

TORI

CD

UCK

PO

ND

TRAI

L

B-43

B-38

B-37B-

36

B-39

a

B-39

bB-

40a

B-40

b

B-44

B-35

a

B-35

b B-35

c

B-35

d

B-29

B-31

B-27

B-26

B-25

B-23

B-22

B-47

b

B-47

a

B-10

B-24

B-11

B-12

B-18

B-13

B-17

B-16

B-15

B-6

K-6

1. H

UM

PO M

ARS

H

A. R

esto

ratio

n of

mar

shla

nds

to s

tabi

lize

a

nd e

nsur

e ha

bita

t sur

viva

lB.

Boa

rdw

alk

natu

re tr

ail w

/ obs

erva

tion

p

oint

s / i

nfor

mat

ion

disp

lays

C. B

ird w

atch

ers

blin

dsD

. Mar

sh re

sear

ch s

tatio

ns -

$

3. R

T 29

9 / H

UM

PO M

ARS

H B

RID

GE

A. P

aint

ed tu

rtle

sea

sona

l Rou

te 2

99

c

ross

ing

miti

gatio

nB.

Res

tric

t edg

e of

road

par

king

7. H

UM

PO M

ARS

H P

ARK

ING

A. C

ontr

olle

d pu

blic

par

king

(20

spac

es) a

nd

a

cces

s ro

ad- $

6. W

AWA

RSIN

G T

URN

PIKE

CO

RRID

OR

(

to L

enap

e La

nd B

ridg

e)

A. W

alki

ng /

eque

stria

n tr

ail /

bik

e tr

ail

5. H

ASB

ROU

CK H

OU

SE

A. S

tabi

lize

and

secu

re s

truc

ture

B. R

enov

ate

for p

ublic

edu

catio

nal o

r res

earc

h

pro

gram

use

- $

C. B

ird w

atch

ing

cent

er /

volu

ntee

r sta

�ed

i

nfor

mat

ion

and

disp

lay

D. J

unio

r Nat

ural

ist o

r doc

ent p

rogr

am

4. R

EED

GRA

SS M

ARS

H

A. N

ativ

e ha

bita

t res

tora

tion

B. R

esea

rch

only

2. F

ORE

STED

SLO

PE

A. S

usta

inab

le ti

mbe

r man

agem

ent -

$B.

For

est s

eed

gran

t res

earc

h - $

Land

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t Pla

n (L

AM

P)

MO

HO

NK

PRES

ERV

E FO

OTH

ILLS

0

2

50

500

10

00N

ORT

HMA

RSH

LAN

D

MARSHLAND Land Asset Management Plan (LAMP) MOHONK PRESERVE FOOTHILLS

Figu

re 5

.5.6

Mar

shla

nd A

rea

MOHONK PRESERVE



5.6RIDGELAND AREA

The mostly forested sloped Ridgeland Area is defined as the 201-acre portion of the Foothills property above the Catskill Aqueduct Right-of-Way (ROW), plus a horizontal band of forest below the aqueduct running parallel to the break-in-slope. This succes-sional woodland micro-ecology is similar in nature to the Preserve’s other forest ridge-land holdings. Significantly, the Ridgeland connects the Preserve’s isolated ‘Woodside Watershed Tract’ with the ‘Duck Pond & Glory Hill’ management areas as identified in the Preserve’s 2002 ‘Unit Management Plan.’ The Ridgeland formally knits together the Preserve's his-torical carriage roads and trails as a continuous cir-culation system.

The Ridgeland also contains the Kleinekill Farm build-ings and several 'Upland Meadows'. Restricting ve-hicles and trailhead parking in the Ridgeland should minimize the impact of any increased public traffic on Lenape Lane and Pine Hill Road.

Primary Purpose

The primary purpose of the Ridgeland Area going forward is to seamlessly incorporate the land, along with the historic carriage roads and trails, into the surrounding Mohonk Preserve holdings. The impor-tance of this objective suggests that the Kleinekill Farm and surrounding ridgeland would be among the first portions of the Foothills to be acquired by the Preserve.

The Foothills' sloped forest can be managed differ-ently than the Preserve's older, more fragile and ecologically sensitive ridgetop forests. The Foothills forest can be used to better involve the community in forest education and support such uses historically

Figure 5.6.1. Stone Foundations (Photograph by DiMella Shaffer), Figure 5.6.2. Equestrian Trail (Photograph by Renee Zernitsky, Mohonk Preserve)

MOHONK PRESERVE

to evaluate existing conditions. Renovation of the barn structure to house a Forestry Manage-ment Program is worth exploring.

3. Kleinekill Old Fields: The Preserve’s ‘Old Field Management Policy’ (adopted in 1966) desig-

MOHONK PRESERVE


attendant to agriculture such as sugar bush, selec-tive tree harvest for firewood and timber, and other sustainable forestry practices.


1. Kleinekill Farm House: The 1850s two-story 1,827-square-foot, 2 bedrooms and 1 bath, wood farm house with basement is reportedly in ‘fair to poor condition.’ Of the three historic farms of the property, Kleinekill Farm, at the in-tersection of Lenape Lane and Farm Road, is the smallest and most secluded. The house is cur-rently rented to a tenant in exchange for work-ing the Ridgeland fields, use of the barns for hay, horses, and livestock, and maintaining the property. To the best of our knowledge, a ‘His-toric and Natural District Inventory Form’ for the Kleinekill Farm House is not on file with the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preserva-tion. Renovating the structure to serve as a Pre-serve staff or rental residence is considered the best use of the structure going forward.

Public access to Kleinekill Farm should be limited to Preserve members and authorized day visitors for hiking, biking, or riding.

2. Kleinekill Farm: Barn & Ancillary Structures:The large wooden Kleinekill barn, still in use as a horse stable and feed hay storage, and smaller ancillary buildings lack adequate documentation

Primary Objective:

Manage old farm fields combining vista maintenance, research, education, forest management, and access to Preserve carriage roads and trails.

Figure 5.6.3. Wooded Ridgeland (Photograph by Susan Lehrer), Figure 5.6.4. Wooded Ridgeland (Photograph by DiMella Shaffer)



nates abandoned agricultural fields as ‘managed natural areas.’ The Kleinekill upland meadows are in various stages of succession ranging from seasonal horse pastures to totally abandoned fields. While forest restoration of the old fields is a possible option, the LAMP calls for active man-agement, such as introducing goat grazing, to maintain the upland fields in various stages of succession.

Each forest successional stage typically supports a variety of different wildlife species. Some spe-cies use old fields for all or part of their lives, while others rely on them for particular seasons or parts of the day. As plant communities change in the old field, so do many of the wildlife spe-cies that use them. However, some animals are always present. For example, the grasses and plants that grow during early stages of succes-sion provide food for deer but little shelter from winter’s cold and snow. On the other hand, shrub thickets provide shelter but limited food. A combination of periodic tractor, brush hog, hand brush cutting, and prescribed burns as advisable, will maintain the historical viewsheds of the val-ley below.

4. Turner House: The 1830 Turner House is a 920-square-foot, 1.5 stories, 2 bedroom and 1 bath, wood frame dwelling with basement in ‘fair to poor’ condition. The house, located at the end of Pine Road, has been non-structural-ly modestly improved in the interior to make it more habitable and leased to a private tenant who will have some on-site maintenance and monitoring duties. To the best of our knowledge, a ‘Historic and Natural District Inventory Form’ for the Turner House is not on file with the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preserva-tion. However, the structure has been so severely modified that its historic integrity and the fea-sibility of its cost-effective, more comprehensive


rehabilitation needs further study.

The house can be eventually renovated to serve as a year-round Preserve Ranger or other Pre-serve staff residence. Their presence provides a form of oversight to monitor use of the nearby small Preserve member-only 10-12 car gravel parking area. This parking formalizes what is currently occurring by a few local neighbors who historically have used Pine Road to gain access to the ridge's carriage roads and trails.

Sufficient room for a three-point bus turn around accommodates school field trips who park near the Turner House to access Duck Pond by way of the 'historic road' that once connected Pine Road to Glory Hill Road.

5. Woodlands: The sloped forested Ridgeland above the break-in-slope has well draining soil suitable for maintaining carriage roads and trails if proper erosion precautions are taken. These carriage roads and trails link the Foothills to Mohonk Preserve land and maintaining them is an on-going labor intense endeavor. The treed slopes could be sustainably harvested for fire wood, timber, and seasonal maple syrup to pro-vide a stream of revenue.

The Foothills property offers a unique opportuni-ty for Mohonk Preserve to grow and sustainably harvest forest products in a way that comple-ments the ecology and biological diversity of the land. The site quality, forest type, topography, accessibility, character, and history of the proper-ty distinguish it from other parts of the Preserve and make it an ideal location to practice sustain-able forest management. A well-managed forest will provide the area with open space, wildlife habitat, water protection, outdoor recreation, education, research, and local economic growth. Listed below are some recommended steps,

MOHONK PRESERVE


Figure 5.6.4. Historic stone foundation (Photograph by DiMella Shaffer)

ideas, and resources for moving forward:

• Conduct a preliminary forest resource inven-tory to identify existing resources and e x p l o r e potential opportunities.

• Identify the core values Mohonk Preserve and its partners wish to promote through for-est management. Create a vision for the future of the forest that is founded on these values.

• Develop and implement a forest management plan to accomplish this vision. Potential compo-nents include designing new marketing strate-gies to promote local, sustainably harvested for-est products, facilitating local value-adding and niche marketing of forest products, and creating or joining a regional forest cooperative for niche marketing of sustainably harvested forest prod-ucts. Other strategies include marketing wood from Mohonk Preserve and other partners under a unique brand similar to HomeGrown WoodTM (Massachusetts Woodland Cooperative) and Pure CatskillsTM (Catskill WoodNet), investigating potential of growth and marketing of non-tim-ber forest products (i.e., maple sugaring, mush-rooms, ginseng, etc.), examining the potential for eco and agro-tourism opportunities, and de-signing an educational program that promotes working farms and forests.

• Pursue partnerships with organizations that promote sustainable forestry as an important conservation tool for preserving economically and socially vibrant forest landscapes. (Potential part-ners include the Watershed Agricultural Council, Catskill Forest Association, Catskill WoodNet, Cornell Cooperative Extension Agroforestry Re-source Center, Northern Woodlands, Massachu-setts Woodlands Institute, and Massachusetts Woodlands Cooperative.)

MOHONK PRESERVE

There are several historical stone foundations among the trees on the ridge. These are being researched and documented by the Preserve to determine their cultural significance to the sur-rounding landscape. One of these stone foun-dations in the vicinity of the aqueduct off Pine Road was the early 1900s aqueduct 'Engineer's House,' which was an adaptation from the earli-er William H. Pine House (Figure 5.6.4). Unstable stone structures that present a safety concern need to be shored up or, after documentation, removed leaving an appropriate stone footprint marker of the former building.


Short-term priorities prior to acquisition of the Ridge-land Area by the Preserve include securing and sta-bilizing the Kleinekill Farm structures and Turner House to assure asset preservation. Developing an upland meadows management approach aligned with the Preserve's Old Field Management Plan cur-rently under revision is a priority to maintain the val-ley vistas. Improving the historic carriage roads and trails, then adding them to the Preserve's ongoing annual cycle of carriage road and trail maintenance, will knit together the adjacent Preserve lands.

" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )

" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )

" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

054

01,

080

1,62

02,

160

2,70

027

0Fe

et

.

The

phot

ogra

phic

imag

e sh

own

onth

is m

ap \

is a

dig

ital

orth

opho

tom

osai

c pr

oduc

ed fr

om \c

olor

" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )

" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )

" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

054

01,

080

1,62

02,

160

2,70

027

0Fe

et

.

The

phot

ogra

phic

imag

e sh

own

onth

is m

ap \

is a

dig

ital

orth

opho

tom

osai

c pr

oduc

ed fr

om \c

olor

" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )

" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" ) " )" ) " )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" ) " ) " )

" )" )" )" )

" )

" ) " )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )

" )

" )

" )" )

" )

" )" )

" )

054

01,

080

1,62

02,

160

2,70

027

0Fe

et

.

The

phot

ogra

phic

imag

e sh

own

onth

is m

ap \

is a

dig

ital

orth

opho

tom

osai

c pr

oduc

ed fr

om \c

olor

LENAPE LANE

PINE

ROAD

WH

ITE

OAK

BE

ND

FARM ROAD

UPL

AN

DM

EAD

OW

S

KLEI

NEKIL

L FAR

M

ROAD

MM

HSK

YTO

P

DU

CKPO

ND

MO

HONK

BRO

OK

CATSKILL AQUEDUCT R.O.W.

OAKWOOD DRIVE

DU

CK

PON

DTR

AIL

HAY

BARN

PIN

EFA

RM

OAKWOOD DRIVE

KLEINEKILL ROAD

KLEI

NEK

ILL

FARM

WO

OD

SID

E TR

AIL

B-11

B-12

B-18

B-13

B-17

B-16

B-15

B-14

B-6

B-7

K-12

K-13

K-11

a

K-12

K-10

K-11

b

K-15

a

K-15

b

K-18

K-17

K-14

K-2

K-4

K-3

K-19

a K-6

RIDGELAND Land Asset Management Plan (LAMP) MOHONK PRESERVE FOOTHILLS

4. T

URN

ER H

OU

SE

A. S

truc

tura

l ass

essm

ent,

stab

ilize

and

sec

ure

stru

ctur

eB.

Ren

ovat

e fo

r MP

rang

er o

r ren

tal

r

esid

entia

l use

- $

C. P

rese

rve

mem

ber t

railh

ead

park

ing

(1

0-12

spa

ces

+ bu

s tu

rnar

ound

)

2. K

LEIN

EKIL

L FA

RM: B

ARN

AN

D

AN

CILL

ARY

STR

UCT

URE

S

A. S

tabi

lize

and

secu

re

B. R

enov

ate

barn

str

uctu

res

for F

ores

try

M

anag

emen

t or A

gric

ultu

re P

rogr

am

3. K

LEIN

EKIL

L O

LD F

IELD

S

A. D

evel

op O

ld F

ield

Man

agem

ent P

lan

B. V

iew

shed

man

agem

ent o

f Upl

and

M

eado

ws

5. W

OO

DLA

ND

S

A. W

oodl

ands

nat

ure

trai

lB.

Con

nect

trai

ls a

nd c

arria

ge ro

ads

to

e

xist

ing

Moh

onk

Pres

erve

land

sC.

Exp

erim

enta

l silv

icul

ture

D. S

usta

inab

le ti

mbe

r man

agem

ent -

$

Land

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t Pla

n (L

AM

P)

MO

HO

NK

PRES

ERV

E FO

OTH

ILLS

0

2

50

500

10

00N

ORT

H

RID

GEL

AN

D

OPE

N T

O

HU

NTI

NG

1. K

LEIN

EKIL

L FA

RM: H

OU

SE

A. S

tabi

lize

and

secu

re

B. R

enov

ate

for r

enta

l res

iden

tial o

r

pro

gram

use

Figu

re 5

.6.5

Rid

gela

nd A

rea

Implementation Strategy page 131

6IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

OverviewThe Mohonk Preserve Foothills is a historically significant and ecologically unique land asset. Over the next five-plus years the Mohonk Preserve intends to purchase in phases portions of the 857-acre Foothills from the Open Space Conservancy as priorities and resources warrant. The land acquisition monies will come from the Preserve's current capital campaign and other fund raising initiatives. Once ac-quired, the Preserve's revenue goal is to derive additional memberships from this new point of access for education and passive recreation. Secondarily is the de-velopment of revenue through mission-appropriate leases and rentals, programs and events, program grants, and strategic partnerships.

In the interim, prior to ownership, the Preserve is actively managing the land with support from the Open Space Institute. A three-phase implementation strategy for the four land management areas establishes relative priority and preliminary budgets for each strategic initiative discussed in the preceding section.

• 'Pre-Acquisition' Phase during which the Preserve will actively manage the OSC owned land to ensure asset preservation while assembling land acquisition fund-ing and support.

• 'Short-Term' Phase starting at the time the Preserve acquires the land and un-dertakes strategic initiatives to achieve financial self-sufficiency for each portion of the Foothills acquired within a goal of five years from acquisition.

• 'Long-Term' Phase commencing after completion of the short-term phase. Dur-ing this phase the Preserve will implement the remaining Foothills strategic initia-tives and programs contained in the Land Asset Management Plan.

Added together, the Task Force has identified approximately $3.4M worth of capital improvement costs. Capital improvement costs exclude land acquisition estimated between $2 and $4M depending on acreage of the Foothills purchased by the Preserve. The capital improvements also do not include costs associated with professional consultants and financing services, property taxes, insurance, utilities, Preserve staffing, and annual maintenance-related expenses.

This plan represents an initial vision for mixed-use conservation on the Mohonk Preserve Foothills lands based on a collaborative process which included neighbors, partners, and the public. Realization and implementation of the component projects is predicated on securing necessary funding, further public input, design, planning, and appropriate permits.

MOHONK PRESERVE

Implementation Strategypage 132

As of Fall 2011, the Mohonk Preserve began actively managing the Foothills property owned by the Open Space Conservancy Inc, (OSC), the land acquisition arm of the NYS Open Space Institute (OSI). The em-phasis of this initial implementation phase is histori-cal structures and habitat ecology asset preservation to prevent further deterioration. Secondarily, this initial phase allows time for the Preserve to refine specific strategic initiatives and marshal financial re-sources to start acquiring portions of the land.

During the Pre-Acquisition Phase, the Preserve with support from the OSI, will undertake the following implementation strategies:

• Adoption of the Mohonk Preserve Foothills Land Asset Management Plan by the Mohonk Preserve Board of Directors.

• Identify and address high priority deferred main-tenance, asset preservation and life safety issues. Structures to be assessed for high priority improve-ments include Testimonial Gateway, Lenape Lane Bridge, Hasbrouck and Turner Houses, Brooks, Pine and Kleinekill farmhouses and their major ancillary buildings.1

• Site improvements during the Pre-acquisition Phase include tree pruning and maintenance of Pin Oak Allée and Wawarsing Turnpike corridors, road bed and culvert repairs, property boundary signage, and implementation of the Old Field Management Plan.

• Work with OSI and Town of New Paltz to fash-ion an OSC conservation easement to ensure per-petual protection of the Foothills based on mutually

agreed-upon terms and conditions for implementing the Land Asset Management Plan.

• Conduct a public assisted 'bio-blitz' on the Foot-hills involving an intense period of biological survey-ing to record all the living species within designated areas.

• Develop a land acquisition strategy and business plan for each area of the Foothills to be acquired. Plans will define area boundaries, purchase price, anticipated five-year capital improvements, operat-ing costs, and staffing requirements; along with the potential revenue from increased membership and daily fees, research grants, donations, and leases.

• Secure the necessary capital to acquire from OSC designated areas of the Foothills based on priorities to be determined.

• Secure Mohonk Preserve and OSC Board approval for the land transfer of designated areas of the Foot-hills. This process will be repeated for each individual area of the Foothills to be acquired by the Preserve.

Pre-Acquisition Capital Budgets

Anticipated capital improvement costs assume con-struction work at Winter 2012 prices based on con-tracted services using a Construction Manager and competitive sub-bidding. Capital budgets for each of the four land management areas during the pre-acquisition phase are summarized below:

• Testimonial Gateway Area : $ 93,500• Farmland Area: $ 97,500 • Marshland Area: $ 40,000• Ridgeland Area: $ 70,500

6.1PRE-ACQUISITION PHASE



Total Pre-Acquisition Capital Budget: $ 301,500** Sub-totals may not add up to total dollars due to rounding

of sub-totals amounts.

See Table 6.4.1 for detailed project list under land management area entitled 'Implementation 'Phase Budgets and Goals.'

__________

1 Any significant changes to the buildings and structures

will require a Certificate of Appropriateness be submitted

to Town of New Paltz Historic Preservation Commission

under Article XIV of the Code of the Town of New Paltz,

Chapter 140-123A; and potentially Preservation Officer(s)

at the Federal and State level.

Figures 6.1.2, and 6.1.3. Mohonk Preserve Task Force Group (Photograph by DiMella Shaffer)

Figures 6.1.1. Glenn Hoagland, Mohonk Preserve Executive Director and Bob Anderberg, OSI Task Force Group represen-tative, finalizing the Land Asset Management Plan

MOHONK PRESERVE


6.2SHORT-TERM PHASEWithin 5 Years of Acquisition

Upon acquisition of individual areas of the Foothills, the Preserve will commence implementation of short-term investments including capital improve-ments, program initiatives and increased staffing commitments. The emphasis of this implementation phase is increased public access and resultant rev-enue generation. The Preserve has a stated goal for each acquired area to become financially self-suffi-cient on an annual basis within five years of acquisi-tion, excluding initial purchase cost.

The Preserve will undertake the following implemen-tation strategies during the short-term phase as re-sources permit:

• Renovation of primary residential and ancillary farm structures to ensure long-term asset preservation, life safety conformance, and increased rental value.

• Major renovation of primary structures including Lenape Lane Bridge and Testimonial Gateway, the latter for a use to be determined.

• Construction of controlled parking areas, eques-trian trailer parking, bike racks, nature trails and boardwalks, seasonal visitor contact stations, dedica-tion benches, picnic tables, public toilets, wayfinding signage, cultural landscape history displays, and oth-er amenities to support increased access by Preserve members and paid day guests.

• Restoration and recreation of both natural and constructed features including Gateway Ponds, Wawarsing Turnpike corridor, carriage roads and pri-vate roadways.

• Generating revenue to offset operating costs for

each acquired parcel is an important land asset man-agement strategy. These strategies include revenue from increased donations, grants, membership, and day passes. Agricultural and animal husbandry- based partnerships with private or educational enti-ties along with residential rents are anticipated on-going incomes. Outside vendor lease income might come from horse drawn carriage, haywagon and sleigh rides, bike and cross-country ski rentals, and the like. Special event fees might come from running events, corporate outings, seasonal farm festivals, etc.

Short-Term Capital Budgets

Anticipated capital improvement costs assumes construction work at Winter 2012 prices based on non-union contracted services using a Construction Manager and competitive sub-bidding. Capital bud-gets for the each of the four land management areas during the first five years of Preserve ownership after acquisition are summarized below:

• Testimonial Gateway Area: $ 1,830,500• Farmland Area: $ 297,500• Marshland Area: $ 272,500• Ridgeland Area: $ 2,000 Total Short-Term Capital Budget: $ 2,402,500** Sub-totals may not add up to total dollars due to rounding


See Table 6.4.1 for detailed project list under land management area entitled 'Implementation 'Phase Budgets and Goals.'



6.3LONG-TERM PHASE:6+ Years After Acquisition

Five years after initial acquisition of individual areas of the Foothills, and assuming all the short-term cap-ital investments are in place, the Preserve will com-mence implementation of the longer term strategic initiatives and programs to complete the Land Asset Management Plan. These include further capital im-provements, and additional program initiatives that may require further staffing resource commitments.

The emphasis of this third implementation phase is mostly on developing grant-driven research oppor-tunities centered around ecological habitats, sus-tainable timber management, regenerative organic farming on 'poor soil' fields, and animal husbandry. The unique breath and depth of local ecological re-cord keeping by the Smiley family dating back to the late 1800s suggests that researchers will value the opportunity to gain access to the Foothills property. Additional revenue from these initiatives, though modest in comparison with the short-term phase revenue increase, will be used for maintaining finan-cial self-sufficiency achieved in the short-term phase.

The Preserve will start undertaking the following implementation strategies for each parcel after com-pletion of all the short-term improvements, with an assumed goal of starting this phase five years after acquisition.

• Focused effort to gather all historical and recent field ecological documentation into a digital data retrieval systems allowing researchers to cross refer-ence and update with links to county and state-wide records.

• Solicit grant funding for internal research and pro-vide external field research access opportunities to affiliated scientific organizations, higher education

institutions, and other parties dedicated to environ-mental sustainability, habitat projection, and organic local farming.

Long-Term Capital Budgets

Anticipated capital improvement costs assumes con-struction work at Winter 2012 prices based on con-tracted services using a Construction Manager and competitive sub-bidding. Capital budgets for the each of the four land management areas after the first five years of Preserve ownership, or after com-pletion of all short-term improvements are summa-rized below:

• Testimonial Gateway Area: $ 87,500• Farmland Area: $ 160,000• Marshland Area: $ 27,000• Ridgeland Area: $ 430,500

Total Long-Term Capital Budget: $705,000** Sub-totals may not add up to total dollars due to rounding


See Table 6.4.1 for detailed project list under land management area entitled 'Implementation 'Phase Budgets and Goals.''

6.4IMPLEMENTATION BUDGET AND GOALS

The following ‘Mohonk Preserve Foothills: Implemen-tation Budget and Goals’ lists the anticipated capital costs by phase for each of the individual strategic initiatives described in Section 5-Land Asset Manage-ment Plan. The chart also indicates the associated ‘Land Asset Management Framework Goals’ noted in Section 4 – Goals and Objectives for each indi-vidual strategic initiative.

Lan

d A

sset

Man

agem

ent

Plan

MO

HO

NK

PR

ESE

RV

E


Moh

onk

Pres

erve

Foo

thill

sIm

plem

enta

tion

Phas

e Bu

dget

s and

Goa

ls

TASK

FO

RCE

WO

RK S

HEET

: REL

ATIV

E PR

IORI

TIES

& G

OAL

S1

23

45

6AreaProjec t #Project

Impl

emen

tatio

n Bu

dget

s and

Goa

ls

($ =

Pot

entia

l Rev

enue

)

('X' i

ndic

ates

non

-cap

ital i

nitia

tives

)

Pre-Acquistion

Short-Term (1-5 Yrs After Acquisition)

Long-Term (6+ Yrs After Acquisition)

Maintain Historic Features, Open Space & Vistas

Safeguard Ecology, Supports Research & Public Education

Preserve Agricultural Heritage

Provide Managed Public Access

Ensure Funding & Staffing Resources

Enhance LocalCommunity

Quality of Life

ATE

STIM

ON

IAL

GATE

WAY

ARE

A1

Gate

way

Pon

dsa

Reco

nditi

on p

onds

and

ban

ks$7

5,00

0b

Repr

oduc

e hi

stor

ic fo

unta

ins

$10,

000

cPo

nd n

atur

e tr

ail /

boa

rdw

alk

/ sig

nage

$17,

500

$d

Pond

gra

nt d

riven

rese

arch

stat

ions

X

ePi

cnic

tabl

es o

verlo

okin

g po

nds

$2,5

00$1

05,0

002

Lena

pe L

ane

Brid

gea

Brid

ge re

stor

atio

n ba

sed

on e

ngin

eerin

g st

udy

$3,5

00$7

5,00

0b

Elim

inat

e sid

e of

road

par

king

aft

er a

ltern

ativ

e pa

rkin

g pr

ovid

ed$2

0,00

0c

Conn

ect c

arria

ge ro

ad to

Waw

arsin

g Tu

rnpi

ke C

orrid

or

$5,0

00$1

03,5

003

Bree

zy L

awn

Barn

aSt

abili

ze a

nd se

cure

stru

ctur

eX

bBu

ildin

g ad

apta

tion

or re

nova

tion

$50,

000

cM

P W

inte

r sto

rage

(pic

nic

tabl

es, s

easo

nal s

leds

and

slei

ghs)

X$5

0,00

04

Pin

Oak

Alle

ea

Carr

iage

road

surf

acin

g $2

0,00

0$2

,500

bTr

ee m

aint

enan

ce a

nd re

plac

emen

t$4

0,00

0$1

5,00

0$2

,500

$c

Seas

onal

car

riage

/ sle

igh

/ hay

ride

Xd

Wal

king

/ eq

uest

rian

trai

l / b

ike

trai

lX

e"Q

uick

wal

k" e

spec

ially

for

seni

ors /

mob

ility

impa

ired

$10,

000

$f

Dedi

catio

n Be

nche

sX

X$9

0,00

05

Gate

way

Mea

dow

sa

Mea

dow

s nat

ure

trai

l$7

,500

$b

Ope

n fie

ld m

anag

emen

tX

Xc

Dog

trai

ning

gro

up a

cces

s in

Sout

h M

eado

wX

X$7

,500

Land

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t Fra

mew

ork

Goal

sIm

plem

enta

tion

Phas

e

Idea

Mat

rix C

hart

_Goa

ls &

Prio

ritie

s_w

ith $

.xlsx

4/3/

2012 1

Figu

re 6

.4.1

. Moh

onk

Pres

erve

Foo

thill

s: Im

plem

enta

tion

Phas

e Bu

dget

Goa

ls

Lan

d A

sset

Man

agem

ent

Plan

MO

HO

NK

PR

ESE

RV

E


Moh

onk

Pres

erve

Foo

thill

sIm

plem

enta

tion

Phas

e Bu

dget

s and

Goa

ls

TASK

FO

RCE

WO

RK S

HEET

: REL

ATIV

E PR

IORI

TIES

& G

OAL

S1

23

45

6

AreaProjec t #Project

Impl

emen

tatio

n Bu

dget

s and

Goa

ls

($ =

Pot

entia

l Rev

enue

)

('X' i

ndic

ates

non

-cap

ital i

nitia

tives

)

Pre-Acquistion









Quality of Life

Land

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t Fra

mew

ork

Goal

sIm

plem

enta

tion

Phas

e

6Ha

rdw

ood

Swam

pa

Hard

woo

d sw

amp

natu

re tr

ail

$15,

000

$15,

000

7Hi

llsid

e Pa

rcel

aO

SC la

nd o

r priv

ate

land

with

con

serv

atio

n ea

sem

ent

X$0

8In

ters

ectio

n Rt

299

and

Gat

ehou

se R

oad

aAs

sist i

n th

e re

conf

igur

atio

n to

impr

ove

safe

ty$1

50,0

00b

Inst

all a

ppro

pria

te M

ohon

k Pr

eser

ve si

gnag

e to

par

king

$10,

000

cO

pen

view

s to

Test

imon

ial G

atew

ay c

arria

ge ro

ad fr

om R

t. 29

9 $5

,000

$165

,000

9Te

stim

onia

l Gat

eway

aSt

abili

ze a

nd se

cure

stru

ctur

e$5

0,00

0b

Reno

vate

for

use

to b

e de

term

ined

$250

,000

cM

P-M

MH

cultu

ral l

ands

cape

hist

ory

disp

lay

$75,

000

$375

,000

10Ga

tew

ay P

arki

ng$

aCo

ntro

lled

publ

ic p

arki

ng (1

00+

spac

es) &

acc

ess r

oad

$750

,000

$b

Shut

tle st

op a

nd sh

elte

r (se

ason

al p

eak

times

)X

cRa

nger

Visi

tor C

onta

ct S

tatio

n / P

ublic

"gre

en" t

oile

ts (s

easo

nal)

/ $3

10,0

00d

Way

findi

ng a

nd S

igna

ge$4

0,00

0e

Biki

ng a

cces

s$5

00f

Hors

e tr

aile

r par

king

X$1

,100

,500

Sub-

Tota

l$2

,011

,500

$93,

500

$1,8

30,5

00$8

7,50

0B

FARM

LAN

D AR

EA1

Broo

k Fa

rm: H

ouse

$a

Mai

ntai

n 2

unit

leas

ed re

ntal

resid

entia

lX

bRe

nova

tion

for n

on-r

esid

entia

l use

:$2

50,0

00$

b.1

Sust

aina

ble

Org

anic

Far

m R

esea

rch

Cent

erX

$b.

2Yo

uth

Farm

Edu

catio

n Ce

nter

(sum

mer

, eve

ning

s wee

kend

s)X

$b.

3Fa

rm D

ay C

amp

(sum

mer

onl

y).

X$

b.4

Farm

coo

king

cla

sses

, wre

ath

mak

ing,

flow

er a

rran

ging

, etc

. X

cCo

ntro

lled

park

ing

(12

spac

es)

$5,0

00$2

55,0

00

Idea

Mat

rix C

hart

_Goa

ls &

Prio

ritie

s_w

ith $

.xlsx

4/3/

2012 2

Figu

re 6

.4.1

. Moh

onk

Pres

erve

Foo

thill

s: Im

plem

enta

tion

Phas

e Bu

dget

Goa

ls

Lan

d A

sset

Man

agem

ent

Plan

MO

HO

NK

PR

ESE

RV

E


Moh

onk

Pres

erve

Foo

thill

sIm

plem

enta

tion

Phas

e Bu

dget

s and

Goa

ls

TASK

FO

RCE

WO

RK S

HEET

: REL

ATIV

E PR

IORI

TIES

& G

OAL

S1

23

45


Impl

emen

tatio

n Bu

dget

s and

Goa

ls

($ =

Pot

entia

l Rev

enue

)

('X' i

ndic

ates

non

-cap

ital i

nitia

tives

)

Pre-Acquistion









Quality of Life

Land

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t Fra

mew

ork

Goal

sIm

plem

enta

tion

Phas

e

2Br

ook

Farm

: Ba

rn &

Anc

illar

y St

ruct

ures

aSt

abili

ze a

nd se

cure

all

stru

ctur

es$3

5,00

0$

bW

orki

ng b

arn

tour

sX

$c

Gree

n ho

use

for g

rant

driv

en re

sear

ch$1

25,0

00$1

60,0

003

Lena

pe L

ane

aPr

ivat

e ro

adw

ay fo

r veh

icle

acc

ess t

o Br

ook

Farm

$27,

500

bPe

dest

rian,

equ

estr

ian

and

bike

acc

ess t

o Pr

eser

ve c

arria

ge ro

ads a

nd tr

ails

X$2

7,50

04

Broo

k Fa

rm:C

SA G

arde

ns$

aCo

mm

unity

Sup

port

ed G

arde

ns (C

SA)

XX

X$

bAd

ditio

nal g

arde

ns fo

r org

anic

"poo

r soi

l" ga

rden

gra

nt re

sear

ch$1

5,00

0$1

0,00

0$2

5,00

05

Broo

k Fa

rm: L

ives

tock

Pas

ture

$a

Gras

s-fe

d be

ef le

ased

ope

ratio

nsX

XX

$06

Pine

Far

m R

oad:

Hay

barn

aSt

abili

ze a

nd se

cure

stru

ctur

e$3

0,00

0$

bCo

ntin

ue u

se a

s hay

bar

n st

orag

eX

XX

$30,

000

7Pi

ne R

oad

aIf

Tow

n co

nver

ts ro

adw

ay o

wne

rshi

p to

OSC

/ M

ohon

k Pr

eser

ve$1

2,50

0b

Nor

ther

n Br

own

Snak

e se

ason

al P

ine

Road

cro

ssin

g m

itiga

tion

$5,0

00$1

7,50

08

Pine

Far

m: F

arm

hous

e$

aM

aint

ain

and

leas

e fo

r ren

tal r

esid

entia

l use

$5,0

00$1

0,00

0$1

0,00

0$2

5,00

09

Pine

Far

m: B

arn

& A

ncill

ary

Stru

ctur

es$

aW

orki

ng fa

rm fo

r lea

sed

hay

field

ope

ratio

nsX

XX

$b

Reno

vate

and

leas

e fo

r 'su

stai

nabl

e fa

rm in

cuba

tor'

$15,

000

$15,

000

10Ag

ricul

tura

l Fie

lds

$a

Hay

field

s lea

sed

oper

atio

ns (h

abita

t sen

sitiv

e m

owin

g cy

cle)

XX

X$

bSe

ason

al h

ayrid

esX

X$0

Sub-

Tota

l$5

55,0

00$9

7,50

0$2

97,5

00$1

60,0

00

Idea

Mat

rix C

hart

_Goa

ls &

Prio

ritie

s_w

ith $

.xlsx

4/3/

2012 3

Figu

re 6

.4.1

. Moh

onk

Pres

erve

Foo

thill

s: Im

plem

enta

tion

Phas

e Bu

dget

Goa

ls

Lan

d A

sset

Man

agem

ent

Plan

MO

HO

NK

PR

ESE

RV

E


Moh

onk

Pres

erve

Foo

thill

sIm

plem

enta

tion

Phas

e Bu

dget

s and

Goa

ls

TASK

FO

RCE

WO

RK S

HEET

: REL

ATIV

E PR

IORI

TIES

& G

OAL

S1

23

45

6

AreaProjec t #Project

Impl

emen

tatio

n Bu

dget

s and

Goa

ls

($ =

Pot

entia

l Rev

enue

)

('X' i

ndic

ates

non

-cap

ital i

nitia

tives

)

Pre-Acquistion









Quality of Life

Land

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t Fra

mew

ork

Goal

sIm

plem

enta

tion

Phas

e

CM

ARSH

LAN

D AR

EA1

Hum

po M

arsh

a

Rest

orat

ion

of m

arsh

land

s to

stab

ilize

and

ens

ure

habi

tat s

urvi

val

$25,

000

bBo

ardw

alk

natu

re tr

ail w

/ obs

erva

tion

poin

ts /

info

rmat

ion

disp

lays

$40,

000

cBi

rd w

atch

ers b

linds

$15,

000

$e

Mar

sh re

sear

ch st

atio

ns$1

2,00

0$9

2,00

02

Forr

este

d Sl

ope

$a

Sust

aina

ble

timbe

r man

agem

ent

XX

$b

Fore

st se

ed g

rant

rese

arch

X$0

3Rt

299

/ H

umpo

Mar

sh B

ridge

aPa

inte

d tu

rtle

seas

onal

Rou

te 2

99 c

ross

ing

miti

gatio

nX

bRe

stric

t edg

e of

road

par

king

X

$04

Reed

Gra

ss M

arsh

aN

ativ

e ha

bita

t res

tora

tion

Xb

Rese

arch

onl

yX

$05

Hasb

rouc

k Ho

use

aSt

abili

ze a

nd se

cure

stru

ctur

e$1

5,00

0$

bRe

nova

te fo

r pub

lic e

duca

tiona

l or r

esea

rch

prog

ram

use

$125

,000

cBi

rd w

atch

ing

cent

er /

volu

ntee

r sta

ffed

info

rmat

ion

and

disp

lay

Xd

Juni

or N

atur

alist

or D

ocen

t Pro

gram

X$1

40,0

006

Waw

arsi

ng T

urnp

ike

Corr

idor

(to

Len

ape

Land

Brid

ge)

aW

alki

ng /

eque

stria

n tr

ail /

bik

e tr

ail

$7,5

00$7

,500

7Hu

mpo

Mar

sh P

arki

ng$

aCo

ntro

lled

prog

ram

par

king

(20

spac

es) a

nd a

cces

s roa

d$1

00,0

00

$100

,000

Sub-

Tota

l$3

39,5

00$4

0,00

0$2

72,5

00$2

7,00

0

Idea

Mat

rix C

hart

_Goa

ls &

Prio

ritie

s_w

ith $

.xlsx

4/3/

2012 4

Figu

re 6

.4.1

. Moh

onk

Pres

erve

Foo

thill

s: Im

plem

enta

tion

Phas

e Bu

dget

Goa

ls

Lan

d A

sset

Man

agem

ent

Plan

MO

HO

NK

PR

ESE

RV

E


Moh

onk

Pres

erve

Foo

thill

sIm

plem

enta

tion

Phas

e Bu

dget

s and

Goa

ls

TASK

FO

RCE

WO

RK S

HEET

: REL

ATIV

E PR

IORI

TIES

& G

OAL

S1

23

45


Impl

emen

tatio

n Bu

dget

s and

Goa

ls

($ =

Pot

entia

l Rev

enue

)

('X' i

ndic

ates

non

-cap

ital i

nitia

tives

)

Pre-Acquistion









Quality of Life

Land

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t Fra

mew

ork

Goal

sIm

plem

enta

tion

Phas

e

DRI

DGEL

AND

AREA

1Kl

eine

kill

Farm

: Hou

se

aSt

abili

ze a

nd se

cure

$2

5,00

0$

bRe

nova

te fo

r ren

tal r

esid

entia

l or p

rogr

am u

se$2

50,0

00$2

75,0

002

aSt

abili

ze a

nd se

cure

$1

0,00

0b

Reno

vate

bar

n st

ruct

ures

for F

ores

try

Man

agem

ent o

r Agr

icul

ture

Pro

gram

$100

,000

$110

,000

3Kl

eine

kill

Old

Fie

lds

aDe

velo

p O

ld F

ield

Man

agem

ent P

lan

Xb

View

shed

man

agem

ent o

f Upl

and

Mea

dow

s $2

,000

$2,0

00$2

,000

$6,0

004

Turn

er H

ouse

aSt

ruct

ural

ass

essm

ent,

stab

ilize

and

secu

re st

ruct

ure

$3,5

00$

bRe

nova

te fo

r MP

rang

er o

r ren

tal r

esid

entia

l use

$75,

000

cPr

eser

ve M

embe

r tra

ilhea

d pa

rkin

g (1

0-12

spac

es +

bus

turn

arou

nd)

$25,

000

$103

,500

5W

oodl

ands

aW

oodl

ands

nat

ure

trai

l$3

,500

bCo

nnec

t tra

ils a

nd c

arria

ge ro

ads t

o ex

istin

g M

ohon

k Pr

eser

ve la

nds

$5,0

00c

Expe

rimen

tal s

ilvic

ultu

reX

$d

Sust

aina

ble

timbe

r man

agem

ent

X$8

,500

Sub-

Tota

l$5

03,0

00$7

0,50

0$2

,000

$430

,500

TOTA

L$3

,409

,000

$301

,500

$2,4

02,5

00$7

05,0

00

Klei

neki

ll Fa

rm: B

arn

& A

ncill

ary

Stru

ctur

es

Idea

Mat

rix C

hart

_Goa

ls &

Prio

ritie

s_w

ith $

.xlsx

4/3/

2012 5

Figu

re 6

.4.1

. Moh

onk

Pres

erve

Foo

thill

s: Im

plem

enta

tion

Phas

e Bu

dget

Goa

ls



6.5NEXT STEPS

The Mohonk Preserve Foothill taskforce identified several next step initiatives subsequent to the adop-tion of the Land Asset Management Plan by the Preserve Board of Directors in the Spring of 2012. These next steps, listed in no particular order, are as follows:

1. Communication Plan

The Preserve will develop a multi-year communica-tion plan setting forth how the Mohonk Preserve Foothills Land Asset Management Plan will be rolled out to the public once approved by the Preserve's Board. These initiatives might include posting the Land Asset Management Plan or an executive sum-mary on the Preserve's website and establishing a single point of contact for all public inquiries and comments.

2. Ensure Preserve Interest at Farmland Area

As indicated in Section 5.4 under 'Short-Term Pri-orities (page 119), the Farmland Area may be leased or sold by OSI to a third party entity experienced in organic agriculture, biological soil amendment re-search, new farmer's education, and farm incubator programs. The obvious advantage of this approach would be that the Preserve's limited resources could then focus on in-house expertise related to recre-ational visitor management, open space conserva-tion, wildlife habitats, and ecological research, versus agricultural production. So as to avoid public confu-sion, any third party land could be referred to as the "XYZ Farm at the Mohonk Preserve Foothills."

Under this possible third-party arrangement Mohonk Preserve would work with OSI to ensure the Pre-serve's interests and goals are maintained. Among the Preserve's interests that could be integrated into the third party agreement are ensuring member and

staff access along Lenape and Pine Roads, securing forest management rights, and retaining the ability to provide educational and cultural historic programs in and around the farmland structures and fields. If the third party agreement is a sales versus lease transaction, the Preserve would be interested in se-curing right-of-first-refusal and a conservation ease-ment should the property come on the market in the future.

3. Management Area "Business" Plans

Develop Business/Fundraising/Financial Resource De-velopment Plans for each of the four Foothills Man-agement Areas covering Pre-Acquisition, Acquisition and Short-Term Implementation Phases. Each Area Business Plan will address the anticipated Pre-Acqui-sition annual costs for managing and implement-ing priority capital improvements and repairs, initial Acquisition Cost, and five-year short term Capital Improvements Costs based on the ‘Implementation Phase Budget and Goals’ (See Figure 6.4.1).

The Business Plans will include projected Annual Op-erating Budget for each Area during Pre-Acquisition and for the first five-year period after acquisition. Annual Operating Budgets will include deferred maintenance and capital improvement expenditures, insurance, utilities, professional fees, and administra-tive overhead and operating costs.

The Business Plans will also include off-setting an-nual revenue goals and potential sources to cover the expenditures for Pre-Acquisition, Acquisition and Short-Term Phases. Potential revenue sources include OSI underwriting repairs during Pre-Acquisi-tion Phase, increased Mohonk Preserve memberships and day visitor fees, leases and special event fees, donations, grants, and endowment return on invest-ments.

4. Land Acquisition

Refine and negotiate terms of land acquisition from OSC.

Documents

Mohonk Preserve Land Asset Management Plan