Document 2668127

Acknowledgements We would like to thank several parties for making this assessment possible. First, we
would like to thank Susanna Colloredo-Mansfeld for giving LANDS financial support as well as
the guidance that inspired our work based on her land ethic. Her ethic entails a commitment to
conserve land for the enjoyment of the community while also preserving natural areas. This ethic
entails caring for land as a responsible steward and passing it on to future generations with added
value, stories, love, and life.
…“Ask the questions that have no answers.
Invest in the millennium. Plant sequoias.
Say that your main crop is the forest
that you did not plant,
that you will not live to harvest.
Say that the leaves are harvested
when they have rotted into the mold.
Call that profit. Prophesy such returns.
Put your faith in the two inches of humus
that will build under the trees
every thousand years.
Listen to carrion - put your ear
close, and hear the faint chattering
of the songs that are to come.”…
-Wendell Berry
An excerpt from: “Manifesto: The Mad Farmer Liberation Front" from “The
Country of Marriage,” copyright © 1973 by Wendell Berry
We thank Colter Savage, the caretaker of the Colloredo-Mansfeld property, for answering
all inquiries about the property and generously offering his time and help during our visit to the
property. We also wish to thank Denis Schaffer of the Vermont Land Trust for his assistance in
combining our recommendations with Vermont Land Trust’s Common Lands Program.
LANDS work was also supported by the Conservation Leadership Seed Fund of the
Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Vermont. The
Student Conservation Association contributed administrative and program support, oversight,
time, and financial resources. Finally, thank you to the GreenHouse Residential Learning
Community staff at the University of Vermont for lending us their great facilities.
About the LANDS College Sustainability Corps The field of conservation is rapidly evolving to meet our growing understanding of
ecological health and sustainability. New ideas and strategies are changing how we protect and
steward land. The Land Stewardship Program (LANDS) is a new approach to today’s
stewardship challenges. During the Great Depression, the conservation corps model was
pioneered as a means to promote nationwide stewardship and provide jobs for the unemployed.
That idea has since been reinvented numerous times by local and state corps across the United
States. However, the general theme is the same – young people learning and growing through
service. LANDS is a partnership between the University of Vermont and the Student
Conservation Association in its fifth year of service that operates as an innovative College
Sustainability Corps designed to train tomorrow’s conservationist practitioners and leaders.
Thanks to college level education and prior experience in environmental science fields,
LANDS interns are able to take on projects that are more technical than the work traditionally
done by conservation corps crews. LANDS interns draft management plans; map areas of
interest using GPS and GIS; inventory resources; survey for non-native invasive species;
calculate carbon stocks; survey soils for forestry impact; and even find time to build trails and
perform public education and outreach. Municipalities, land trusts, state agencies, university
researchers, national forests and parks, and volunteer-managed conservation organizations all
benefit from LANDS’ high quality, affordable services. LANDS interns are advanced
undergraduates and recent graduates with natural resource experience from all over the world,
who bring a range of skills and interests to the program. For more information, visit:
http://www.uvm.edu/~conserve/lands_website/
The 2011 LANDS crew
3
Table of Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 2 About the LANDS College Sustainability Corps ........................................................................... 3 Project Overview ............................................................................................................................ 5 Project Background ..................................................................................................................... 5 Methods....................................................................................................................................... 5 Colloredo-Mansfeld Property Overview......................................................................................... 6 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 6 Cultural and Social Aspects ........................................................................................................ 8 Brief History of Chelsea ......................................................................................................... 8 Land-use history in Chelsea, VT ............................................................................................ 8 Landscape features on the Colloredo-Mansfeld property ..................................................... 13 Past Land Owners ................................................................................................................. 15 Natural Communities of the Colloredo-Mansfeld Property.................................................. 17 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................. 21 Sensitive Areas...................................................................................................................... 21 Recommendations for Land Use ................................................................................................... 28 Proposal for Wildlife Management ........................................................................................... 28 Public Access Proposal ............................................................................................................. 32 Trail System .......................................................................................................................... 32 Wild Edibles.......................................................................................................................... 35 Cultivation............................................................................................................................. 37 Other Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 39 Residency on the Colloredo-Mansfeld Property ....................................................................... 43 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 43 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 45 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 46 Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 46 Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 48 Wild Edibles and Medicinal Herbs Found on the Property ...................................................... 48 Further References for Rainwater Collection Systems ............................................................. 54 Wild Edible and Agriculture Partnerships ................................................................................ 54 Helpful Resources for Trails ..................................................................................................... 56 4
Project Overview Project Background The Colloredo-Mansfeld property is a 120-acre parcel of land located west of downtown
Chelsea, VT. Susanna Colloredo–Mansfeld, a resident of Massachusetts, owns the property and
donated a conservation easement to the Vermont Land Trust (VLT) in 2003. In an effort to
maintain the character of the land and balance both human access, wildlife, and functionality of
the landscape, Susanna hired the LANDS 2011 crew to inventory the land and make
recommendations for its future use. The Colloredo-Mansfeld property presents an exciting
opportunity to advance innovative land use, preservation, land stewardship, and community
involvement in the conservation of Vermont’s working landscape.
LANDS has performed an in-depth landscape assessment spanning the disciplines of
ecology, sustainable agriculture, permaculture, recreation management, conservation
stewardship, and landscape natural history. We aim to develop a blueprint for the multifunctional use of the property using Susanna Colloredo-Mansfeld’s land ethic, the property’s
history and location in Chelsea, Vermont, and Vermont Land Trust’s (VLT) Common Lands
concept paper as the guiding framework for our recommendations. The Vermont Land Trust is
developing a new program, Common Lands, to engage communities in long-term relationships
around local food, forest production, culture, and history while practicing and demonstrating
state-of-the-art land management and stewardship on the properties that VLT owns in fee. The
Colloredo-Mansfeld property is an excellent parcel on which to actualize many of these goals.
VLT has expressed its interest and support in having LANDS create a plan for the property
regarding its potential inclusion in the Common Lands program.
Our report presents concrete steps and recommendations
towards making the Colloredo-Mansfeld Property a vibrant,
innovative community conservation property.
Methods This assessment was created from a complement of fieldwork
on the Colloredo-Mansfeld property, conversations with the
landowner and caretaker, Vermont Land Trust’s Stewardship Program
Director, as well as GIS mapping, and topic-based computer and
library research. The LANDS team split the assessment into three
5
fields: public access, natural and historical features, and agriculture. Three teams of three interns
analyzed each field. The methods varied for each team:
Public Access Team:
• Created a map of existing and proposed trails
• Identified current local use of the property
• Developed a plan for future public access and use of the property
Natural and Historical Features Team:
• Identified and map natural communities
• Identified wildlife found on the property
• Identified sensitive ecological areas on the property
• Identified natural and historic features
• Researched past use of the property and surrounding area
• Developed a plan to preserve ecological integrity of the property
Edible Landscape Team:
• Identified potential areas for cultivation
• Tested the soil fertility
• Identified edible plants and the areas they are found on the property
• Developed a plan for promoting edible plants within the property
• Assessed feasibility of cultivation/permaculture on the property
After assessing the current condition of each of these categories, each team developed
recommendations for how the Colloredo-Mansfeld parcel could maintain public access and be
considered as a pilot for the Common Lands program.
Colloredo-­‐Mansfeld Property Overview Introduction The 120-acre Colloredo-Mansfeld property is a diverse landscape that includes open
fields kept in early succession by annual mowing; a dug pond and a remnant beaver pond;
Northern Hardwood forests; a sugar bush; Cattail marsh; and Spruce-fir forest. This landscape
provides many kinds of habitat for wildlife, and plant and tree species. Traversing the land, one
will encounter rolling hills, meadows full of abundant wildflowers and plants (some edible and
medicinal), diverse forests filled with signs of wildlife, patches of tall conifers, and large areas of
mature sugar maples. The built environment features two cabins, which currently house the
caretakers of the property, a barn, shed, and sugar shack.
6
Chelsea locator map.
7
Cultural and Social Aspects Brief History of Chelsea Chelsea is located on the first branch of the White River, 22 miles south of Montpelier
near the center of Orange County, Vermont. Chelsea is a shire town, or designated seat of the
county government. The province of New York first granted this area under the name of
Gageborough, but no settlements were ever made under this name. On November 2, 1780, the
area was granted to Bela Turner and associates by the legislature of Vermont and on August 4,
1781, was chartered by the name of Turnersburg. The charter encompassed 23,040 acres of land.
On October 13, 1788, the charter name was changed to Chelsea (Comstock 1944).
Samuel Moore, Thomas Moore, and Asa Bond were the first pioneers to settle in Chelsea
in 1784, the first two being brothers and the latter being a brother-in-law. In the same year, four
brothers by the name of Wills settled on the West hill of Chelsea. Neither group knew of the
other’s existence. Thomas Moore built the first house in the township near the “old buryingground” which is located near the center of the modern village. In this house on October 16,
1785, Thomas Porter Moore was born, the first child to be birthed in the township (Comstock
1944).
Land-­‐use history in Chelsea, VT During its early years, Chelsea was described as “a township of good land with a pleasant
village in the center” (Comstock 1944). The topography of Chelsea makes farming difficult, but
its fertile soils make it productive. The bedrock of Chelsea is categorized in the calciferous mica
schist formation, which adds depth and strength to the soil. Chelsea's land-use history is
characterized by the clearing of forests for timber and grazing that prevailed throughout the state
with European settlement of the area. Due to Chelsea's hilly terrain, sheep and dairy farming
dominated the industry. By the mid-to-late 1800s, most hills were stripped bare, as the sheep
industry in Vermont faced competition from a booming industry in the Midwest, which drew
farmers away from Vermont via newly constructed railroads to this area of new opportunity.
From 1840 to 1900, Chelsea contained approximately 200 farms averaging about 128 acres in
size (Comstock 1944). During this time, continued use of the land for sheep farming caused
problems with soil fertility.
The main sources for timber in Chelsea were predominantly maple, elm, beech, birch,
and hemlock, it was common practice in Chelsea to leave a stand of sugar maple trees to serve as
a supply of firewood and a source for maple sap; nearly every farmer sugared on some scale
(Comstock 1944).
From 1900 to 1950, smaller and more diversified hill farms characterized Chelsea's
landscape. From 1950 to 1984, the diversity of livestock and crops diminished as farmers
bought neighboring land, increased their herd sizes and specialized in larger scale commercial
farming. During this time farming in Chelsea was dominated by dairy and cattle. On the
following page is a series of three aerial photographs which display the degree of deforestation
on the parcel over 35 years.
8
1939 Aerial Photo of Colloredo-Mansfeld Parcel
Note the homestead at the end of the access road. In this photo the property is approximately
20% forested.
9
1962 Aerial photo of Colloredo-Mansfeld Parcel
By 1962, an agricultural field just north of the homestead has appeared. To the east of this field
are three additional well defined fields.
10
1974 Aerial photo of Colloredo-Mansfeld Parcel
By 1974, the parcel is approximately 60% forested. The wetland in the northwest corner of the
property has grown considerably and there appears to be a creek flowing into the meadow south
of the wetland.
11
2009 Aerial photo of Colloredo-Mansfeld Parcel
By 2009, the property is 75% forested. The footprint of the old homestead is indiscernible and a
new cabin is visible in a small clearing near the center of the property. The wetland in the
northwest corner is now clearly beaver-influenced and has reached its greatest extent. The
stream flowing into the wet meadow is no longer visible.
12
Landscape features on the Colloredo-­‐Mansfeld property Wolf Trees: The property has areas of both ecological and historical significance. Much of the
forested landscape was cleared for agriculture and grazing. Historically, single trees were often
scattered around pastureland for shade. These trees would grow into wide-spreading pasture trees
since there was no competition for sunlight as in a forest canopy. When a forest grows up around
one of these trees, it becomes a wolf tree, or a tree that is wider and older than the trees
surrounding it. In addition to their historical value, the wolf trees found on this land stand as
relics of history and are useful to wildlife because they offer large limbs, horizontal branches,
cavities and hollows. Observations and experiments show that wolf trees are more heavily used
by wildlife in comparison to other trees, especially for foraging birds and songbirds.
Sugar Maple Ring: There is a ring of large sugar maple trees in the southwestern part of the
property. These maple trees are significantly older than surrounding trees in the area. This
perfect circle of trees is an area of historical significance because these trees were most likely
planted in this formation or selectively harvested to be in a ring. Ceremonies such as weddings
took place in this ring of trees.
Stone Wall: On the western edge of the property is a stone wall, covered in moss and lichen. It
is most likely evidence of a property boundary that existed when the entire property was a
working agricultural landscape.
Wild Strawberries: Wild strawberries grow in the fields, meadows, and forest edges. Wild
strawberries have value for wildlife and humans. Animals such as common crows, sparrows,
wild turkeys, cedar waxwings, blue jays, American robins, Northern cardinals, Eastern box
turtles, and meadow voles eat strawberries. Eastern cottontails, white-tailed deer, nematodes,
slugs, and various insects eat the leaves of the fruit. Additionally, wild strawberry flowers
provide nectar and pollen for many insect species including bees, flies, ants, and butterflies.
Since these plants grow close to the ground surface, their leaves can provide cover to small
animals such as toads, salamanders, and spiders.
Sugarbush: Along the southeastern portion of the property lies a sugarbush where 150 trees are
currently tapped for maple syrup production. The sap is collected in buckets from each tree and
poured into a main line that transports the sap to the sugar shack on the western side of the
driveway. The sugaring operation is managed by Amos Doyle. Occasionally families come to
the sugar bush to witness the sugaring activities and learn more about the process.
13
Hardy Place Cemetery
Hardy Place Cemetery
A cemetery dating back to 1788 is located on the southern portion of the property. The
forest has grown up around the burial ground and little remains to mark the graves. Only one of
the original gravestones remains standing and the writing is difficult to read. A newer gravestone
stands inside a small fence, and is engraved with the last names of the families whose kin is
buried there.
Current grave marker at Hardy Cemetery
A partial history of this cemetery follows which includes records and accounts dating as
far back as its inception. In July of 1788, a town meeting was called to designate the first official
burial grounds. Old Cemetery was the first appointed site and was located in the east hill
settlement of Chelsea. In the same year, a burial ground for the west hill settlers was designated,
known as Hardy Place. These two burial grounds may have been designated at the same town
meeting in 1788 according to some accounts, but no records can definitively state this (Comstock
1944). The modern day Wills cemetery is what was once known as Hardy Place (Committee of
Chelsea Historical Society 1984). All but one of the headstones at Hardy Place have long since
14
crumbled away. If there were headstones, they were probably made from local slate that
disintegrates quickly (Comstock 1944). Hira L. Bixby, a trustworthy authority on the history of
the West Hill, prepared a list of those who lie in Hardy Place for John Moore Comstock’s 1944
account of Chelsea’s history:
John Wills and wife (2)
Sally and Lydia Wills, two daughters of Jonathan Wills (2)
Jacob Perkins and one child (2)
Daniel Perkins’ five children, Lydia, Polly, Daniel and Polly (twins), and Nathan D. (5)
Jonathan Wood and wife (2)
Kate, wife of Pliny Allen (1)
Newell and Nabby Bixby (2)
William Perigo and wife (2)
Nabby Hackett (1)
Lucinda, wife of Benjamin Wright (1)
Lucius Howes’ child and his mother (or his father, Zechariah) (2)
Ira Hood, Amos Hood Sr.’s son (1)
Nathaniel Hood Sr.’s child (1)
Rachel Gunnison (1)
Joshua Booth Elderkin (1)
Stephen Smith (1)
Orilla Smith (1)
Benjamin Griswold (1)
Elisha Downing (1)
This list of 30 individuals matches the family names and numbers listed on the modern
grave marker. Some of these families, such as the Wills and the Hood families had been past
owners of the Colloredo-Mansfeld property. In 1858, A. Hood, most likely Amos Hood, had
owned the parcel. In 1877, the land had been passed down to R. Hood, whose exact family
relation is unclear.
Past Land Owners Amos Hood Sr. was the father of Amos R. Hood and Ira Hood. In 1858, Amos Hood
owned the Colloredo-Mansfeld property. Along with owning the land, the family also owned a
drug and grocery store in town and a boarding house across the street. Although the below photo
indicates that the Hood family did not buy the store until 1874, the 1858 Walling Map of Orange
County shows Amos R. Hood having owned the store in 1858 and Ira Hood owned the boarding
house. For much of the latter half of the 17th century, both businesses and the land were kept in
the Hood name In the late 1870’s, C.I. Hood made the drug store well known for producing
Hood’s Sarsaparilla. Below is a photo of two Hood family members in front of their store in
Chelsea’s town center (Comstock 1944).
15
Photograph of store in downtown Chelsea circa 1890 (Comstock 1944). Store owned by previous ColloredoMansfeld property owner.
16
Natural Communities of the Colloredo-­‐Mansfeld Property
17
Abandoned Beaver Pond An abandoned beaver pond heavily influences the northwest corner of the property. The
pond is no longer occupied by beavers, but does have the potential to attract a population back
once the vegetation recovers. A flooded marsh area surrounds the small pond. A few tamaracks
are growing along the southern edge of the marsh, but no trees are standing within the flooded
area. Herbaceous vegetation is diverse in the marsh. At the time of our visit, we found sensitive
fern, horsetail, sedges, cow vetch, wild strawberries, ragwort, purple iris, cattails, bittersweet
nightshade, meadow rue, and red-osier dogwood within the flooded area.
Although the entire flooded area is broadly classified as a Shallow Emergent Marsh two
natural communities exist in distinct patches around the pond: Sedge Meadow and Cattail Marsh.
Abandoned beaver pond in the northwest quadrant of property.
Shallow Emergent Marsh A Shallow Emergent Marsh is a broadly defined natural community that may encompass
other distinct wetland communities. This marsh type has variable soils, mostly shallow mucks or
mineral soils high in organic content. Abandoned beaver habitats are often associated with this
natural community. Grasses, sedges, and other herbaceous plants heavily dominate along with
some scattered shrubs. A Shallow Emergent Marsh generally floods seasonally from a few
inches to a couple feet. By summer, the standing water usually drops leaving a saturated, spongy
soil. Shallow Emergent Marshes are generally a complex mosaic of other wetland communities.
The area is in an early-successional stage due to the beaver disturbance and may morph into a
forested wetland within decades. It is important to keep in mind the changing nature of this area
(Thompson, 2005).
A Sedge Meadow is a common wetland community in Vermont that usually occurs
along stream and pond margins. Sedge Meadows grow over saturated or seasonally flooded soils.
These areas are dominated by sedge species with some grasses and herbaceous species present,
but never dominant. This natural community provides breeding habitat for many species,
including the sedge sparrow and the rare sedge wren. Mink can also be found in this natural
community. On the Colloredo-Mansfeld property, Sedge Meadow surrounds most of the old
beaver pond.
18
A Cattail Marsh is a wetland area heavily dominated by the familiar cattail. Common
cattail and narrow-leaf cattail populate these wetlands close to the point of monoculture. These
communities are often overlooked, but provide crucial ecological functions. Cattail Marshes
store floodwater, improve surface water quality, and provide wildlife habitat. A Cattail Marsh
may have between zero and eighteen inches of standing water depending on the recent hydrology
of the area, and always feature saturated soils. Cattail Marshes are important habitats for a
diverse range of wildlife. Muskrats are often found in this community using the cattails as either
food or building material. Many rare birds, such as least bitterns, common moorhens, pied-billed
grebes, soras, and black terns, use these areas to breed. Other bird species that use Cattail
Marshes as breeding habitat include marsh wrens, red-winged blackbirds, swamp sparrows,
American bitterns, Virginia rails, and several species of dabbling ducks. Great blue herons and
black-crowned night herons use Cattail Marsh communities for hunting. Amphibians living in
Cattail Marshes include bullfrog, green frog, leopard frog, gray tree frog, painted turtle, snapping
turtle, and northern water snake (Thompson, 2005). On the Colloredo-Mansfeld property,
distinct patches of Cattail Marsh are scattered around the beaver pond area.
Red Spruce-­‐Northern Hardwood Forest This is a variable forest community where softwoods and hardwoods occur in mixed
stands. The canopy in this natural community is usually dominated by red spruce, yellow birch,
American beech, and sugar maple. This community may be a early successional stage of what
will ultimately become a softwood forest. Early to mid-successional species include balsam fir,
paper birch, white pine, red maple, aspen, pin cherry, and gray birch (Thompson 2005). We
identified a significant amount of balsam fir in this community. At the time of our visit this
natural community had little herbaceous cover with the exception of Canada mayflower,
sarsaparilla, intermediate wood fern, cinnamon fern, and twinflower. This natural community is a
variant of the Northern Hardwood Forest and often occurs adjacent to it.
Cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea)
Lowland Spruce-­‐Fir Forest A Lowland Spruce-Fir Forest is usually found in a cold microclimate and adjacent to
wetlands. This natural community is dominated by red spruce and balsam fir. On the Colloredo19
Mansfeld property, tamarack, quaking aspen, red maple, sugar maple, paper birch, and American
beech were found in addition to red spruce and balsam fir. Herbaceous species such as club
moss, juniper, milkweed, strawberries, and cherry were also found in this area. This natural
community contained areas that were almost entirely balsam fir in addition to a Norway spruce
stand that was most likely part of early 1900’s reforestation efforts.
Northern Hardwood Forest The Northern Hardwood Forest is Vermont’s most abundant natural community. The
Northern Hardwood Forest natural community on this property is dominated by sugar maple,
American beech, yellow birch, Eastern hemlock, and red spruce. There are very few Northern
Hardwood Forests in Vermont that have not been logged or cleared at some time. Areas not
cleared were most likely used for maple sugar production (Thompson 2005). Adjacent to the
Northern Hardwood Forest community is a large area of predominantly sugar maple trees.
Included in this area are dense stands of young sugar maples. Part of this area is currently used
for maple sugar production and was probably used for that purpose in the past. The Northern
Hardwood Forest community on this property is in a healthy condition with an abundance of
native species.
Northern Hardwood Forest
Hemlock-­‐Northern Hardwood Forest Hemlock-Northern Hardwood Forests are mixed forests of hemlocks, pines, and
hardwoods that do not require enriched soils. They are often found in areas of shallow bedrock.
This natural community is similar to a hemlock forest except hardwoods comprise 25 to 75
percent of the canopy. On the Colloredo-Mansfeld property eastern hemlock, American beech,
yellow birch, sugar maple, red maple, white pine, and paper birch were found in this community
(Thompson 2005).
Hemlock Forest A Hemlock Forest natural community consists of nearly pure stands of hemlock, usually
covering small areas of locally favorable conditions. Hemlocks are shade-tolerant, latesuccessional, long-lived species that are stable over long periods of time. Early-successional
species in hemlock forests include red maple, paper birch, aspen, and white pine. Midsuccessional species include hemlock, yellow birch, red maple, and red spruce (Thompson
2005). The Hemlock Forest community on this property is dominated by hemlock with sugar
20
maple, beech, and yellow birch. Herbaceous plant species such as ground cedar, Canada
mayflower, intermediate wood fern, shining club moss, and princess pine were also found in this
community.
Hemlock Forest
Wildlife An abundance of wildlife has been spotted on the Colloredo-Mansfeld property. Most
visible are the many birds that live in and around the property. On our day in Chelsea we spotted
hummingbirds, a blue jay, red-winged blackbirds, and heard a thrush singing; however, there are
sure to be many other avian species. A bald eagle was seen by a representative from the Vermont
Land Trust and owner Susanna Colloredo-Mansfeld.
Beavers once had a pond in the northwestern corner of the property and although this
habitat is abandoned there is potential for the beaver population to come back. The current
caretaker of the property has reported sightings of: black bear, moose, fisher, foxes, coyotes,
mice, and deer. Frogs, newts and leeches were spotted in the manmade pond.
Sensitive Areas Introduction The sensitive areas on this property provide rich habitat for uncommon plant and animal
species and are easily disrupted by human activity. Two areas have been recognized on this
property; (1) the remnant beaver pond/meadow and (2) the seep-meadow adjacent to the beaver
pond to the south.
21
22
The Beaver Pond/Meadow Currently, no beavers inhabit the pond. However, this remains a sensitive area because of
it’s ability to attract many bird species and to provide the ecological functions of a wetland such
as nutrient retention, floodwater attenuation, and water filtration. This habitat would not exist
without its former beaver inhabitants, and with proper management they will likely return
following their natural cycles (see Recommendations for Wildlife Management).
Shallow Emergent Marsh The saturated soils in the Shallow Emergent Marsh support plant species that are specific
to this natural community. These species grow abundantly in this area, however, they are highly
vulnerable to soil disturbance; because the soil is so wet they can easily be uprooted. Restricting
vehicle traffic and minimizing foot traffic in this area is advised to ensure a healthy environment.
Conversely, carefully visiting this area by foot is highly encouraged to explore the wonders of
wetland plant species. Among others, the following plants were found in the area:
Round-leaved Sundew (Drosera rotundifolia): This is an insectivorous plant, which amends the
nutrient deficient soil. The plant is an important food source for ants. Ants are opportunistic
predators of insects trapped in the leaves, scavenging up to 2/3 of the prey they catch by the
plant. Sundew is generally associated with sphagnum mosses, growing on floating sphagnum
mats or hummocks.
Round-leaved sundew (Drosera rotundifolia)
Sphagnum Moss (Sphagnum sp.): This moss has the
ability to absorb and retain twenty times its weight in
water. There are many areas throughout the U.S. that
have mined sphagnum moss for its ability to retain
water and, more currently, for its use in cleaning oil
spills.
23
Sphagnum moss (Sphagnum sp.)
Invasive Plant Species
24
Non-­‐native Invasive Species Non-native invasive species (NNIS) crowd out native plants, degrade habitat for wildlife,
and decrease biodiversity. Having not coevolved with the native flora and fauna in the area nonnative invasive species grow aggressively as a result of having few natural predators or controls.
Common buckthorn and Japanese barberry are two invasive species that exist on the
property. Even though the relative number of these species is low, it is highly recommended that
proper management be implemented to reduce the threat of further spread of the two species.
Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) Common buckthorn is a shrub or small tree that grows 10-25 feet tall. It can be identified by
broad oval or rounded leaves with jagged edges and 3-4 pairs of up-curved veins that are
arranged opposite or sub-opposite along the branches. There is a short, sharp spike at the end of
twigs or at the fork of branches. The leaves appear glossy and are dark green. Greenish berries
(1/3 inch) grow from the female trees in spring and change to purple-black in late summer.
Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica)
Japanese Barberry (Berberis thunbergii) Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii)
Japanese barberry is a dense, woody shrub with arching spine-bearing branches. It
typically grows to be three feet tall, occasionally reaching six feet in height. The leaves are
wedge-shaped and grow off the stem in clusters. Beneath each cluster of leaves is a single spine.
Small yellow flowers can be seen in May and contain four parts that either grow alone or in
25
small clusters. The flowers bear red, oblong berries that remain on the plant into the winter.
During fall foliage the leaves turn shades of red and orange.
Proposal for Invasive Management Buckthorn can be managed by the following:
•
•
•
•
Cutting the tree close to the ground during fall or winter to minimize stump sprouting.
Smaller plants can be pulled from the ground to remove the roots.
Girdling can be an effective method for killing the plant.
Removal of the female seed-bearing plants before the seeds are mature can reduce the
spreading of seeds.
Japanese barberry can be removed by hand-pulling the smaller plants since the root system is
fairly shallow. It should be removed when the soil is damp and loose, being careful to remove
the entire root system. Wearing thick gloves for hand-pulling is advised to avoid injury from the
thorns. Mechanical removal using a hoe or Weed Wrench is an effective method for removing
plants 1-3 feet high if the root system is loosened around the primary taproot before removing
the plant.
Nonnative Plants of interest Black Knapweed (Centaurea nigra) Two plant species on the property can be mistaken for invasive species: Black knapweed
and wild madder (white bedstraw). Black knapweed is native to Europe and was introduced to
the United States in 1895. It is not invasive to Vermont, but has been classified as invasive in
other states. This plant can be mistaken for the invasive relative, spotted knapweed. Black
knapweed can be distinguished by its slightly toothed leaves in comparison to the highly divided
leaves of spotted knapweed.
Black knapweed (Centaurea nigra)
26
Wild Madder (Galium obtusum) Wild madder, commonly known as white bedstraw, is also
native to Europe. It has been classified as a widely spread nonnative plant in Vermont, but is not currently listed as invasive
Wild madder (Galium obtusum)
LANDS crew delineating wetland plants within the meadow
27
Recommendations for Land Use Meadow on Colloredo-Mansfeld property
.
Proposal for Wildlife Management The management recommendations offered in this section could be practiced in forested
areas, edges and open fields. The recommendations are as follows:
Planting for Wildlife Planting specific tree, shrub and herbaceous species for wildlife is a great way to bolster
food supplies, especially in Vermont where winters can be harsh and food can be scarce.
Planting tree and shrub species can also offer a greater diversity of nesting and shelter options for
many small mammals and non-game-birds. This list contains a variety of plant species native to
Vermont that would supply shelter and/or food.
Tall Trees: • Black walnut supplies nuts for small mammals September through December, a potential
food supply during the cold winter months.
• Oak trees also supply nuts during September through November for game birds, nongame-birds, and small mammals. Oaks trees thrive in moist to dry soils.
28
Small Trees: • Flowering dogwood fruits from August through December, providing food for game
birds, non-game-birds, deer and small mammals. Flowering dogwoods thrive in moist to
dry soils and light shade to sunny spots.
• Plum Trees fruit from June through August providing food for non-game-birds and small
mammals. Plum trees thrive in moist to dry soil and sunny areas.
• Hawthorn is a great species both for winter food supply and shelter for non-game birds;
they fruit from October through March. Hawthorn thrives in moist to dry soils and sunny
spots.
• Red mulberry fruits June through July and is beneficial to all types of birds and small
mammals. Moist soil and sunny areas are ideal.
Shrubs: • Red-osier dogwood is useful both for shelter, fruit and browse for non-game-birds and
deer. It fruits August through October, thrives in moist to dry soils and moderate amounts
of sun.
• Chokeberry would be a great species for both food and shelter of non game birds and
small mammals. It fruits September through January (providing food during winter
months) and thrives in moist to dry soil and full sun.
A Note On Beavers
The beaver is a keystone species in temperate ecosystems. Not only do they create
habitat for other wildlife, but their habitat construction recycles nutrients, abates regional
flooding, breaks up monocultures, and promotes plant diversity. The beaver dam creates a pond
of standing water that soaks up rain during wet periods and releases water slowly during dry
periods. The creation of a wet area and the promotion of plant diversity along the pond edges
allows fish and waterfowl to prosper. High diversity of plant food resources in active and
abandoned beaver ponds attract many bird species that would otherwise not be found on the
property. Promotion of beaver habitat would be of great benefit to the overall ecosystem.
The integrity of a beaver population depends mostly on habitat quality and food supply.
Beavers are most vulnerable to predation on dry land which is why they need a food supply in
close proximity to their pond. In order of preference the following trees are among the beavers
favorite foods: trembling aspen, red maple, willow, oak, birch, alder, and white pine. In many
instances they prefer aquatic plants such as St. Johnswort, duck potato, duckweed or
pondweed. Ideal beaver habitat has 40-60% tree or shrub cover, with 100% of the trees in a
2.5-15.2 cm dbh size class, with 40-60% shrub crown cover and greater than 50% of the plant
species willow, alder or aspen. On average, one colony needs an area with 7,000 square feet,
circumference of 4,000 square feet for an adequate habitat. A buffer of 100-150 feet around the
beaver pond is recommended to allow for adequate growth of these plants. (Hardinsky 2010)
Because beavers create their own habitat, they cycle through areas on a roughly 30 year
cycle. Prescribed burnings along the edges of beaver ponds can help promote the growth of
aspen as a food source as well as intentional plantings of relevant tree species such as red
maple, alder and willow. Allowing the preferred plants, trees, and shrubs to grow around the
beaver pond will promote habitat for returning beaver populations.
29
Woodland Edge Enhancement Forest edges can be managed to promote wildlife diversity and strengthen wildlife
populations. A transition zone between the forest edge and an open area is important for many
species of wildlife. Large trees on the forest edge can be cut or girdled to open up the canopy,
thereby promoting growth of shrubs and providing sunny areas for wildlife to use during winter.
This type of management is most effective on south and east-facing forest edges, where morning
sunlight is best and where annual sunlight is highest.
Timber Stand Improvement Management techniques can be implemented in the depths of any forest. The release of
good wildlife trees (trees with a lot of fruits or nuts like oaks, hickories, beech) by removal or
thinning of ‘undesirable trees’ will increase crown development, leading to greater mast seed
production. These food supplies are critical for many wildlife species in the winter, or when food
is in short supply.
Creating Woody Corridors To connect forests across a meadow or field, woody corridors could be created to allow
safe passages for a variety of animals. A woody corridor would require a 35 ft. wide strip of two
middle rows of trees, and two outer rows of shrubs (Ohio Division of Wildlife). Fruit or nut
bearing trees and shrubs would provide an additional food source as well as shelter (consider
oak, beech, pine or hickory). The Colloredo-Mansfeld Property already has the beginnings of
woody corridors on the premises, but in order to achieve
highest functionality, these areas could be improved. The
northeast field has a thin strip of vegetation running from
a riparian buffer along the stream up to the edge of the
forest, making it an ideal woody corridor.
Conservation hay mowing The meadows provide invaluable habitat for a
number of native species, including bobolinks and wild
turkey. These species rely on the meadows for nesting
and feeding their young in the early summer, May
through June. Since this is also during haying seasons,
there are specific methods to mow while not disturbing
the bird’s behavior. The first cut should be done before
June 2nd and a period of 65 days left between cuts to
allow bird nesting and feeding. There are two safe
methods to mow; first along the structures, then moving
in rows to the open fields, or by starting at the center of
the field and mowing in concentric circles out. These
two methods allow the birds the most time to escape.
Two other recommendations for mowing are to not cut
any areas where birds are observed coming and going ,
Green Frog found in man-made pond
at least until the next cut, and to set the blade at a
minimal of six inches, to preserve the nests.
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program Grassland Bird Initiative and the Wildlife
Habitat Incentives Program will compensate farmers $100 per acre if they follow conservation
30
mowing. The Vermont Land Trust provides information to landowners looking to conserve
wildlife in hay fields. The meadows don’t require yearly haying to be maintained as open spaces.
Mowing the fields every three years keeps an area at an “early successional” stage of
development and allows coarse grass and tree seedlings to get started. This kind of habitat is
preferred by many species such as woodcocks, snipe, warblers, hawks, deer, fox and coyote.
The Northern Woodlands Magazine published an article about keeping meadows open and a link
is provided in the appendix.
Riparian buffers expansion Riparian buffers provide important habitat for a wide range of plants and animals, including
migrating and nesting birds. Audubon Vermont recommends that buffers should be 200 to 300
feet wide to maximize habitat, but a minimum of 50 feet. More information can be found from
the Bird-Friendly Management Recommendations Fact Sheet via a link in the Appendix.
Additional resources on these topics can be found in the appendix.
Buttercups (Ranunculus sp.) in meadow.
31
Public Access Proposal Trail System Current condition of trails The Colloredo-Mansfeld property has significant evidence of trail use based on
observation and information gathered from an interview with the property owner. Some of the
uses include hiking, skiing, and horseback riding. The primary users of the trails are community
members and the current caretakers. Most of the existing trails appear to be on old logging and
maple sugaring roads.
The existing trails (logging roads) are difficult to access by foot because vegetation has
sprung up within this disturbed area. Pruning and clearing the plants that have grown into the
existing trails, which include coarse woody debris, grasses, wild strawberry patches and
blackberry, will make the existing trails favorable for recreation.
Community Access (Hunting and Recreational Use) Because local residents currently use this property, we recommend keeping access to it
open. This includes allowing hunting by permission during regulated seasons, hiking, horseback
riding, dog walking, bird watching, and other recreational activities. Passive access for the
public will maintain the peaceful nature of the property. In the past local residents have used the
land for sugaring, haying, etc. by permission of the landowner and caretakers.
32
33
34
Edible Landscape Proposal Wild Edibles Do not think, then, that the fruits of New England are mean and insignificant while those of
some foreign land are noble and memorable. Our own, whatever they may be, are far more
important to us than any others can be. They educate us and fit us to live here. Better for us
is the wild strawberry than the pine-apple, the wild apple than the orange, the chestnut and
pignut than the cocoa-nut and almond, and not on account of their flavor merely, but the
part they play in our education.
-Henry David Thoreau, Wild Fruits
In taking our first walk through the meadows that make up the heart of the ColloredoMansfeld property, we were delighted to find ripe, delicious wild strawberries underfoot.
Throughout the rest of the day we kept our eyes open for other wild edibles and found more than
fifteen wild plants that provide sustenance and medicinal benefit to humans. When considering
the future of the property, we suggest making this edible landscape layer visible to visitors and
residents.
Learning to forage for food wild foods can foster a healthier, more place-based land ethic.
When foraging for food, humans are forced to observe and listen to the landscape, rather than
dominating or changing it. Using local resources also lessens our collective dependence on oil
and can help make the mental and physical transition toward local self-sustainability. A few of
the wild edibles we discovered are considered nuisance plants, if not non-native invasive species.
Harvesting them for food is a way to control and monitor populations of these undesirable plants,
while also benefiting from their presence.
Recommendations
Vermont edible food harvesters Nova Kim and Les Hook spearheaded the Canary Project
in 2006 in order to make scientific observations about how changes in the climate are affecting
local plants. The Colloredo-Mansfeld property could participate in this project in order to support
their findings and bring awareness to this important issue from an unusual angle.
LANDS intern sampling the edible portion of cattail (Typha sp.)
35
In order to promote accessibility and knowledge about wild edibles and utilize the
available resources, we suggest hosting annual, guided wild edibles tours. These should be made
available first and foremost to the local community, as they will have the most to benefit from
the knowledge. These opportunities should also be open to those in residence at the retreat. Wild
edible themed dinners could be hosted as fund-raising events as well. Partnerships with regional
environmental universities and herbalist schools could also be explored, perhaps exchanging
service on the property for access to the land and its bounty. Finally, local wild edibles and
medicinal herbs will be incorporated into a garden microcosm that reflects the greater natural
macrocosm of the Colloredo-Mansfeld property.
Wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana)
See appendix for contact information of possible partners in these programs and a complete table
of wild edible plants on the property.
36
Cultivation Introduction In order to deepen the property’s potential as an edible landscape, we propose the
addition of gardens for: medicinal herbs, wildflowers, and wild edibles, vegetable production,
and an orchard.
Agroecology is an emerging field that draws upon the wisdom of natural ecosystems as
well as pre-industrial farming techniques in order to create farms that work in harmony with their
surroundings. Landscape multifunctionality is a way to evaluate a farm’s whole value, based not
only on commodity production, but also on its cultural functions (including history, recreation,
beauty, and education) and ecosystem services (such as pest and nutrient management, water
quality and quantity control, and improved biodiversity). Cultivation on the property would
remain consistent with its historical character as a homestead and use as grazing lands. In this
way, food production could bridge the gap between the past and future and build a viable
connection between the human and natural elements on the land.
Plan for Cultivation The proposed gardens are in scale with the property, producing the amount of food
demanded at the local farmers’ market or the residents of the property. All of the ideas presented
below are adjustable to meet the ambitions of the farmer and the needs of the community.
There are four potential fields that are appropriate for agricultural use. All the fields have
good drainage, minimal slope, and fertile soil. Attached in the Appendix are the results of a soil
test conducted by the UVM’s Agricultural and Environmental Testing Laboratory. The South
East field is 1.23 acres, the Middle field 0.5 acres, the North East field 0.69 acres and the North
West field is 1.02 acres.
A diverse operation of mixed vegetables, fruit tress, and animals is envisioned for the
property to mimic natural systems and offer an assortment of food and habitat to native wildlife.
The property falls in USDA Hardiness Zone 4a. Some crops that are well adapted to this zone
are; spinach, brassicas, carrots, lettuce, potatoes, garlic, asparagus, and rhubarb. The last three
crops are perennials, requiring less maintenance and yearly inputs.
We recommend planting an orchard in the middle field on the high knoll. This half-acre
has good drainage and a scenic location. It is the most visible field from the main cabin and
would blend in well with the surrounding landscape, thus preserving the natural, peaceful beauty
of the property. The knoll will also provide a warmer microclimate than the surrounding stream
valley and slopes, allowing for a wider variety of fruits to flourish in this location. We
recommend such trees as apples, quince, Montmorency cherry, and black walnut.
Animals provide a crucial link in the nutrient cycling on the farm, converting food scraps
and waste to nutrient rich manure and fertilizer. Chickens are perhaps the most effective at this
process by eating seeds, grain, food scraps, insects, and grubs to produce eggs, meat, and
manure. They thrive in a rotational grazing system, which ensures that their impact is evenly
spread throughout the field. In orchards they eat the dropped fruit, help control pests cycles, and
spread fertilizer.
Bee keeping can be an exciting way to ensure the successful pollination of crops as well
as a source of honey. Learning about how to keep bees can be an intensive process, but once the
hive is up and running, bees are low maintenance, requiring roughly 30 minutes of work a week
and a day or two of harvesting per year. Access to the property could also be allowed to local or
regional beekeepers in exchange for honey and the pollination services their bees provide.
37
38
Other Recommendations Rainwater collection systems To supplement the garden’s need of water, we propose the construction of a rainwater
collection system on the roofs of the existing and any new buildings. Although the water
supplied would not be enough to support a whole agricultural field, it should provide enough
water for the small garden.
The average monthly rainfall in Chelsea, VT is about 3.23in. (NOAA 2007). Therefore,
one would expect about 465in3/month of water for each square foot of roof. These systems are
fairly inexpensive and prices vary depending on the size of the collection system. One can also
collect rainwater for drinking purposes. However, this would require a filter and a special type
of collection barrel, which would increase the price of such system.
Perennials One way that a farm or garden can imitate nature is by planting as many perennials as
possible. In general, perennial crops are less wasteful of both time and resources than annuals.
Soil and nitrogen in perennial cultivation are lost at a rate of less than 5 percent of that in annual
cultivation (Jordan and Warner 2010). These crops are less labor intensive, as they do not require
seed starting. They also use less water, tap into deeper nutrients by virtue of their larger root
system, and provide year round habitat for wildlife and beneficial insects. Perennial plants
sequester more greenhouse gasses and allow nutrient cycling to continue as it would in a mature
ecosystem.
No till Although an initial tilling of the land will be necessary, as the garden becomes
established, we would suggest a no-till system. Tilling actually decreases soil quality by
increasing the soil microbes and insects’ access to oxygen, which then burn off more organic
matter. Tilling, especially in wet soil, causes soil compaction, resulting in reduced percolation of
water and air exchange with the atmosphere, as well as restricted area for root growth. Tilling
promotes erosion by wind and rain.
Season extension Vermont’s growing season is short but greenhouses, high tunnels and hoop houses
significantly increase the growing season, by about two weeks of either side of the season, and
control the growing environment for increased yields. We recommend the use of at least one of
these to increase the diversity of crops that can be grown. Below we describe three types of
controlled growing environments:
•
•
A greenhouse is the conventional structure for creating a highly controlled growing
environment. Greenhouses can be quite costly to erect and maintain. While a
greenhouse would extend the growing season and produce crops during the colder
months, the agricultural benefits are minimal and the costs may be high at this scale.
A high tunnel is a large structure of metal bows connected to posts, covered by a
greenhouse grade polythene fabric that enhances light quality for photosynthesis. The
sides can be rolled up or down to control the temperature on the sides for ventilation.
They create a warm growing environment protected from rain. High tunnels are designed
39
to allow a tractor to cultivate inside the structure. They are different from a greenhouse
in that they are not heated and require fewer inputs to erect.
High tunnel at Rockville Market Farm
•
Hoop houses are much like high tunnels though generally are simpler in design and too
smaller to use tractors inside.
Farmer-­‐Access Programs There are many programs in Vermont designed to pair aspiring farmers with fertile land.
They include: the Vermont Land Trust Farmland Access Program, UVM Center for Sustainable
Agriculture’s Vermont New Farmer Project, and Land for Good’s Land Here Program. Contact
information and a brief description of the services they provide can be found in the appendix.
The Keyhole Garden The idea for this garden was inspired by the peaceful nature of the Colloredo-Mansfeld
Property. Gardens can be areas of great reflection, and we hope that by highlighting the native,
and wild species in the surrounding ecosystems we can create a small microcosm of the property.
Through careful species selection—using only native plants—the garden will attract butterflies,
bees, and birds while providing a source of herbs and medicinal plants. The Keyhole Garden
offers a place of rest, reflection, solitude, and inspiration.
We chose a keyhole mandala design layout that makes
efficient use of space and allows the visitor to experience separate
enclaves of the garden by either walking through or stopping to sit
at different areas. By positioning the garden with the central path
pointing south and a hedgerow of taller plants at the back, a Ushaped heat pocket is created providing sunlight and warmth. A
mix of small deciduous and coniferous trees and shrubs should be
used for the northern hedgerow, providing shelter and fruits
during all months. A hedgerow also creates a wind barrier needed
by butterflies. Wildflowers would be planted throughout the
garden, as well as medicinals and edibles. An herb spiral will
maximize space and concentrate the herbs into one small area.
To read more refer to Gaia’s Garden (see Appendix).
Herb spiral
40
Artwork by Isabel Beavers
41
Keyhole Garden Species Selection To encourage wildlife on the property—the birds and the bees included— we suggest a
menu of trees, shrubs, wildflowers, grasses and herbs to be considered in the garden. We focus
on planting native species to ensure the ecological integrity of the surrounding ecosystem and to
prevent the introduction of non-native and/or invasive species. We hope to encourage native
plant growth through providing seed banks of native species in the garden that will eventually
travel outside the garden’s boundaries, carried by wind or birds. We also focus on perennials
wildflowers—over ornamental landscaping flowers. To improve the functionality of the garden
for humans, and to highlight species found on or near the property, a suite of medicinal plants are
suggested.
Wildflowers One of the most magical aspects of this property is the myriad of wildflower species
found throughout the meadows. A representation of the native flower population in the garden
includes the abundant red clover, cotton grasses, buttercups, wild matter, aster, lesser stitchwort
and hawkweed.
Medicinal and Edible Plants When exploring the Colloredo-Mansfeld property our group came across both native
medicinal plants (yarrow, St. Johns wort) and native edible plants (strawberries, blackberries,
black raspberries, blueberries). Including these in the garden
will provide residents or visitors with convenient and natural
herbal remedies and edible treats, as well as showcase the
variety of interesting plant life on the property.
For the Bee and Butterflies… Bees are especially interested in blue and yellow
flowers. Yarrow, dandelion, goldenrod, marigold and alfalfa
will attract bees and other insects and provide aesthetic value.
Purple and yellow are butterflies’ favorite colors. Suggested
Species: butterfly weed, daylilly, Echinacea, false indigo,
heliotrope, marigold, sweet alyssum, holy hock
For the birds… Trees and shrubs that produce fruit through the winter supply birds with much needed food
during the cold months. Suggested Species: flowering dogwood
(fruits in winter), red mulberry, sassafras, blackberry, blueberry,
chokecherry (fruits in winter), elderberry, aster, sunflower,
echinacea, goldenrod, beebalm
Bee balm (Monarda sp.)
42
Residency on the Colloredo-­‐Mansfeld Property Introduction As a pilot project for the Vermont Land Trust’s Common Lands concept, we hope the
Colloredo-Mansfeld property can illustrate how giving meaningful and intentional access to land
can offer a valuable learning experience to the public while promoting sustainable land use.
Through this model, we demonstrate how experiential learning can manifest a renewed
connection to nature and encourage change towards a more sustainable culture.
Eco-­‐Residency Program The core of the Colloredo-Mansfeld Common Lands program is the Eco-Residency
Program for visual and performing artists, philosophers, naturalists, and writers to pursue their
work in an inspirational setting and to strengthen their connection to the land. The goal of this
program is to allow guests to draw creative and spiritual energy from the land while giving back
to the environment, program and community.
Through an application process, applicants will discuss why they would like to stay in
residency, what they can give back to the program and community, and what they will be
working on. Guests who propose to pursue self-designed projects which relate directly to the
Colloredo-Mansfeld property will be favored in the application process, however guests can
propose to pursue or continue working on an unrelated project while in residency. Guests will
pay a weekly fee, which will cover their living expenses, however grants will be available for
those with fewer resources.
Dormitories, a group kitchen, and a bathroom would provide space for up to 5 residents
to stay for between two weeks and three months. This period of time will encourage a rotation of
residents, and encourage residents to stay for a period of time long enough to develop a
connection to the land.
Seminars Reciprocity is an important concept within the Eco-Residency Program. The residents
will receive great benefits from the built and natural environment. Therefore, the benefit should
be passed along to the greater community. Guests will be encouraged to interact with the public
by leading daylong workshops and talks with small-groups. Philosophers and thinkers could
lead talks and facilitate discussions; naturalists could guide walks and teach skills such as
foraging; and writers and artists could hold public showcases of their work. Agriculturalists, land
stewards and foresters in residency could also provide workshops on subjects such as sustainable
timber harvesting, chainsaw skills, sugaring and permaculture. A website would provide a
calendar of events and offer a signup system. Seminars would have a size limit as to preserve the
peaceful nature of the property.
Retreat Businesses, organizations, and other groups seeking a peaceful environment for meetings
and work could rent the Colloredo-Mansfeld residential space for periods of time up to one
week. The use of the eco-residency space for such retreats would generate revenue for the
Common Lands program as a whole and for the Eco-Residency grant program. Retreats would
be planned well in advance so that they fell between breaks in the Eco-Residency Program.
Facilities for the retreat would include a conference room, an outdoor meeting space, the trail
43
system, and the eco-residency living space. Members of retreat groups would be encouraged, but
not required, to take part in community activities such as stewardship and farming.
Library / Gallery An important aspect of the Eco-Residency Program would be sharing creative endeavors
between past, current and future guests. A small library and gallery would be housed in the EcoResidency building. The library would contain works written by visiting authors and naturalists,
informational displays pertaining to the ecosystem and Eco-Residency and seminar programs
and would also contain general ecological books and field guides for visitors to use. Here,
historical and ecological findings relating to the land would be collected so that visitors could
gain a deeper understanding of the land and Eco-Residents could build off each other’s work to
create a more comprehensive understanding of the property. Visiting writers, thinkers and artists
would also be asked to leave a piece of work or summation of their studies during their residency
so that others could gain a sense of their time and growth at the center. An annual gallery open
house fundraiser could also generate funds for the Eco-Residency grant program. We hope that
the building could act as a collective think-tank for any eager minds.
Staffing A wing of the Vermont Land Trust’s Common Lands Program would manage all the
programs listed above. This specific pilot project would be known as the Colloredo-Mansfeld
Common Lands. Within this organization, a property manager and a program manager would
oversee day-to-day details. The property manager would oversee the operation of the farm and
stewardship of the land. The program manager would handle reading applications and selecting
Eco-Residents, managing the events calendar and website, facilitating the use of the space by
retreat groups, helping out with chores and managing food needs for the residency program. The
property manager would be someone who lives and works on the land while the program
manager would be a remote position within the Vermont Land Trust. The program manager
position would be responsible for managing multiple common lands programs as they are
established.
Funding would come from Eco-Residents, retreat groups, seminars and grants. This
would go towards general upkeep and property expenses, a stipend for the property manager and
program manager.
The southern cabin would house the property manager, and could house additional
agricultural residents if desired. The northern cabin would be used by Eco-Residents and other
visitors, with living space for five. An addition would be built onto this cabin, which would
provide space for artist studios, a writing lounge and a meeting room which could be used during
retreats or as a speaking area during seminars.
44
Conclusion In this report, we have attempted to form a link between the Colloredo-Mansfeld
property’s ecological value and the surrounding communities. This link fulfills the primary goal
of the Common Lands Program, whose focus is centered on community relations, land
stewardship and the promotion of public use.
The Colloredo-Mansfeld property is an excellent opportunity through which the Vermont
Land Trust can accomplish its implementation of the Common Lands philosophy. This, in part,
is dictated by the property’s abundant diversity of landscapes, ecological makeup, community
involvement (past, present and future), rich history and the property’s potential to model a new
vision of the planet’s future. The novelty of the Eco-Residency Program lies in its integration of
stewardship to the land and public access.
It is our sincere hope that the careful implementation of this report will allow for the
enormous potential of the Colloredo-Mansfeld property and the Vermont Land Trust Common
Lands Program to create a new land stewardship model.
Common cottongrass (Eriophorum angustifolium)
45
Bibliography
Appalachian Mountain Club. (2008). AMC's Complete Guide to Trail Building & Maintenance.
Appalachian Mountain Club Books.
Committee of Chelsea Historical Society. (1984). Chelsea Vermont 1784-1984: Shire Town:
Chelsea Historical Society . Chelsea, VT.
Comstock, John Moore. (1944). The Origin of Chelsea, Vermont.
Hardinsky, Tom. "Beaver Management in Pennsylvania". Pennsylvania Game Commission.
October, 2010. retrieved from:
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=812843&mode=2 . July, 2011.
NOAA (2007). Chelsea Vermont Climatography
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/btv/climo/stations/chelsea.shtml>
Ohio Division of Wildlife. (n.d.). Woodland Habitat Management for Wildlife. Retrieved June
2011, from www.dnrstate.oh.us/portals/9/pdf/pub398.pdf
Thompson, E. & Sorenson, E. (2005). Wetland, Woodland, Wildland: A Guide to the Natural
Communities of Vermont. Lebanon, NH: The Nature Conservancy and the Vermont Department
of Fish and Wildlife.
Walling, H. F. (1858) "Map of Orange County Vermont." Map.
Resources Audubon Vermont
Audubon Vermont will provide technical assistant to landowners to assess, monitor, and partner
with other organizations. The assessment is a free service with no obligation to implement the
recommendations. To find out more and contact them go to [email protected] or (802)-4343068.
Audubon Vermont’s Forest Bird Initiative
http://vt.audubon.org/fbi.html
Birds with Silviculture in Mind: Birder’s Dozen Pocket Guide for Vermont Foresters
http://vt.audubon.org/PDFs/Bird-Guide.pdf
46
Bird-Friendly Management Recommendations Fact Sheet
http://vt.audubon.org/PDFs/FactSheet_BirdFriendlyMngmntRecommendations.pdf
Northern Woodlands Magazine
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/custom?q=cache:4UtAY35PE80J:northernwoodlands.or
g/pdf/PYCH_UPVALLEY_SPREADS.pdf+the+place+you+call+home&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk
&gl=us&client=google-coop-np&source=www.google.com
Vermont Coverts: Woodlands for Wildlife Inc.
PO Box 81, Middlebury, Vermont 05753
[email protected]
802-388-3880
Vermont Land Trust
http://www.vlt.org/news-publications/publications-archive/archived-articles/birds
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)
http://www.vt.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/WHIP/Index.html
Contact: Heather Wetzstein
Phone: 802-951-6796 ext. 223
Email: [email protected]
47
Appendix Wild Edibles and Medicinal Herbs Found on the Property Blackberry
Latin name: Rubus spp.
Habitat: Open, sunny areas at forest margins, and along
lakes, streams and roads
Abundance: Found in forest clearings and along stream
banks
Uses: Fruits and peeled young shoots are edible; leaves
may also be used to make tea
Notes: Tea made from dried root bark has medicinal
properties; identifiable by angular stem
Black Raspberry
Latin name: Rubus occidentalis
Habitat: Open, sunny areas at forest margins, and along
lakes, streams and roads
Abundance: Found in forest clearings
Uses: Fruits and peeled young shoots are edible; leaves
may also be used to make tea
Notes: May be used as dye or to flavor liquors
Bladder Campion
Latin name: Silene cucubalus
Habitat: Dry soils; fields, waste places, roadsides
Abundance: Found throughout meadows
Uses: Young leaves may be eaten as a cooked
green
48
Blueberries
Latin name: Vaccinium spp.
Habitat: Open, sunny areas; wet or dry acidic soils
Abundance: Found one dense patch in forest
clearing near graveyard
Uses: Fruits edible raw or dried, or may be cooked
for use in sauces, jellies
Burdock
Latin name: Arctium lappa
Habitat: Open, waste areas
Abundance: Found along driveway and scattered
in meadows
Uses: Tender leaf stalks may be eaten raw or
cooked as a green; roots edible boiled or baked;
flower stalks can be used to make candy
Notes: Liquid from root has medicinal properties;
dried stalk fiber can be used to weave cordage
Cattails
Latin name: Typha latifolia
Habitat: Found along riparian corridors and
beaver pond
Abundance: Scattered patches along wet areas
Uses: Tender shoots edible raw or cooked;
rhizome can be pounded to make flour; pollen
is rich source of starch etc.
Notes: Leaves also make good weaving
material; seeds can be used as stuffing,
insulation, tinder and insect repellent when
burned
49
Dandelion
Latin name: Taraxacum officinale
Habitat: Open, sunny areas
Abundance: Found throughout meadows
Uses: All parts are edible; leaves edible raw or
cooked; roots boiled as vegetable or roasted and
ground as coffee substitute
Notes: White juice in flower may be used as glue
Juniper
Latin name: Juniperus spp.
Habitat: Open, dry, sunny areas
Abundance: One stand noted in clearing of
forest at northern edge of property
Uses: Berries edible raw, roasted as coffee
substitute, or dried and crushed as meat
seasoning; young twigs used to make tea
Notes: Juniper is considered a nuisance, if not
invasive; edible harvesting may serve to control
its population
50
Milkweed
Latin name: Asclepius syriaca
Habitat: Dry soil areas in fields and on roadsides
Abundance: Relatively abundant throughout meadows
Uses: Cooked or fried; boiling removes mild toxicity of
milky juice in leaves and stems
Notes: Both buds and stems edible; easily confused with
dogbane and Butterfly weed
Narrow-Leaved Plantain
Latin name: Plantago laceolata
Habitat: Found in waste places and on disturbed soil
Abundance: Found in small abundance in meadows
Uses: Tender young leaves edible raw; mature leaves
should be cooked
Notes: Leaves also have a number of medicinal
properties when brewed as a tea or used as a poultice on
wounds
Oyster Mushroom
Latin name: Pleurotus ostreatus
Habitat: Grow on wood in forest areas; prefers maple and poplar as
hosts
Abundance: Variable; found one occurrence on property
Uses: Delicious and aromatic cooked; excellent mushroom for
pickling
Notes: Found in spring, summer, fall and warm spells in winter
51
Raspberry
Latin name: Rubus spp
Habitat: Open, sunny areas at forest margins, and
along lakes, streams and roads
Abundance: Found in forest clearings
Uses: Fruits and peeled young shoots are edible; leaves
may also be used to make tea
Notes: Differentiated from blackberry by its round
stem with glaucous bloom
St. John’s Wort
Latin name: Hypericum perforatum
Habitat: Sunny areas with dry, limy, rocky soils; waste areas on fallow
land, field edges and by stone walls
Abundance: Small patch found in forest clearing at northern edge
Uses: Medicinal herb used to treat depression and other ailments
Notes: Recognizable by tiny perforations in leaves when held up to light;
native of Europe but naturalized in U.S.
Wild Mint
Latin name: Mentha spp.
Habitat: Various
Abundance: Dense patch found at seep in center
of meadows
Uses: Leaves, fresh or dried, make excellent tea
and may be used to flavor jellies, sauces,
dressings, drinks, etc.
52
Wild Strawberries
Latin name: Fragaria virginiana
Habitat: Fields and open places
Abundance: Found in dense patches
throughout the meadows
Uses: Fresh or cooked fruit, jam, tea
Notes: Rare; similar to cultivated
strawberries but with smaller fruit; flower
from April to June
Yarrow
Latin name: Achillea millefolium
Habitat: Fields and roadsides
Abundance: Relatively abundant throughout meadows
Uses: Dried leaves may be steeped for tea; used medicinally
for many purposes
Wild Edibles that May Occur on Property
Various mushrooms, including chanterelles and lobster mushrooms
Queen Anne’s lace
Wild leeks
Wild chervil
Narrow-leaved plantain
Ox eye daisy
Mallow
Wild grapes
Chicory
Wapato
Wild rice
Carrion flower
Butternut
Stinging nettle
Sheep sorrel
53
Lamb’s quarters
Cowslip
Swamp saxifrage
Serviceberry
Chokecherry
Pin cherry
Sumac
Black locust
Basswood
Evening primrose
Parsnip
Thistle
Highbush cranberry
Ground bean
Hopniss
Further References for Rainwater Collection Systems National Science Foundation:
http://www.nsf.org/consumer/rainwater_collection/index.asp?program=WaterTre
Buying a rainwater collection system:
http://www.NTOTank.com/?gclid=CKrb-Mvu1qkCFYrb4AodNERMOg
Wild Edible and Agriculture Partnerships Farmer Access Programs
Vermont Land Trust
Farmland Access Program
The mission of the Farmland Access Program is to facilitate opportunities for farmers to
lease or buy affordable farmland. This accomplish this by either buying and reselling the land,
holding conservation easements to make the land affordable, facilitating farm-lease
opportunities, and maintaining a list-serve to alert people who are looking for land when it
becomes available. More information can be found at VLT’s website,
http://www.vlt.org/initiatives/affordable-farmland, or by contacting Jon Ramsay, the director of
the Farmland Access Program at (802) 533-7705 or [email protected].
UVM Center for Sustainable Agriculture
Vermont New Farmer Project
The goal of this program is to “broaden the scope and improve the quality of land access
opportunities for new farmers”. They do this by connecting farmers looking to buy or lease land
and landowners looking for a steward for their property. More information can be found at
54
http://www.uvm.edu/~susagctr/?Page=begland.html= or by contacting Ben Waterman at
[email protected] or (802) 656-9142.
Land for Good
Land Here Program
The Land Here program assists people looking for affordable farmland. The program
offers education, planning and coaching support to new farmers and will broker deals between
landowners and potential farmers. For more information go to
http://www.landforgood.org/land_here.html. They can be contacted at 603-357-1600,
[email protected]
Edibles and Medicinals
http://www.northeastherbal.org/
http://www.sagemountain.com/
http://www.herbshealing.com/
http://www.unitedplantsavers.org/
http://www.vtherbcenter.org/
Gardening/Agriculture/Permaculture
http://www.honeygardens.com/
Could provide connections with beekeepers looking for places to keep their bees.
http://nofavt.org/
Community Access/ Fostering connecting to Nature /Survival Skills
http://www.rootsvt.com/
School based in Montpelier that “reconnects [students] to [their] birthright and ancestral lineage
of survival, tracking and awareness, and earth based philosophies.”
http://earthwalkvermont.org/
A non-profit organization based in Plainfield that seeks “to inspire and empower children,
families and communities to reconnect with and care for one another and the Earth through longterm community and nature-based mentoring.”
http://www.transitionnetwork.org/
55
Transition Network supports community-led responses to climate change and shrinking supplies
of cheap energy, building resilience.
Helpful Resources for Trails •
Resources for labor include:
o Non profit clubs such as Appalachian Mountain Club
o Youth Conservation Corps
o Student Conservation Association (SCA) (www.thesca.org)
o National Park Service
o Local National Guard Units (www.vtguard.com/)
•
Resources for funding include:
o American Trails (www.americantrails.org/resources/index.html)
o Donations from locals, business or foundations.
o Grants from federal and state agencies such as Vermont Department of Forest,
Parks and Recreation. (www.vtfpr.org/recgrant/trgrant.cfm)
Note: Be aware of deadlines, award dates and reporting process
Maintenance resources
o Audubon Vermont
Audubon Vermont will provide technical assistant to landowners to assess,
monitor, and partner with other organizations. The assessment is a free
service with no obligation to implement the recommendations. To find out
more and contact them go to [email protected] or (802)-434-3068.
 Audubon Vermont’s Forest Bird Initiative
http://vt.audubon.org/fbi.html
1. Birds with Silviculture in Mind: Birder’s Dozen Pocket Guide for
Vermont Foresters
http://vt.audubon.org/PDFs/Bird-Guide.pdf
2. Bird-Friendly Management Recommendations Fact Sheet
http://vt.audubon.org/PDFs/FactSheet_BirdFriendlyMngmntRecomme
ndations.pdf
o Vermont Converts: Woodlands for Wildlife Inc.
PO Box 81, Middlebury, Vermont 05753
[email protected]
802-388-3880
o Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
http://www.vt.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/WHIP/Index.html
Contact:
Heather Wetzstein
Phone: 802-951-6796 ext. 223
Email: [email protected]
•
56