Patch of Woods

Patch of Woods, Charlotte, NC

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 7 2008 11:28 am
From: "Edward Frank"

James,

I am looking forward to your descriptions of the site, small though it is. It is funny you brought this up. There was an article on the back cover of the Wal-Mart World Magazine (propaganda for Associates) I wanted to copy and post to the list.

The Highland Village, Texas, Pecan Tree As part of the planning for our third high-efficiency store (Store 4240 in Highland Village, Texas), we attended local city council meetings to listen to area residents and learn more about this North Texas community. Among the many things we learned: We needed to save a tree. One of the oldest examples of Texas state tree, a 125-plus-year-old pecan tree, had become a symbol of the community. Town residents spoke passionately about it; the city council said the tree could be removed, but we knew it had to stay. As store manager Brad Cullum says, "Wal-Mart, being the company that we are, said, 'We're going to make things right:" So now, customers and their families are treated to a unique experience: A quiet, sunken garden-built around the pecan tree-at the front of the store. At Wal-Mart, we are honored to be a partner in preserving the history of the communities we serve.

Learn more about the Highland Village, Texas, Wal-Mart Supercenter at walmartfacts.com .

I don't think they gave the Pecan enough room, but I wanted to post the image anyway.

Ed

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 7 2008 1:12 pm
From: "Will Blozan"

Ed,

Wal-Mart green and community minded? Whatever. Looks like they will kill it
anyway from root loss. Here in Asheville, NC, (and many other places) people
still believe to save a tree all you need to do is put a strip of flagging
tape on it so it doesn't get cut down. Somehow the roots get ignored. Soil
grade changes, underground utilities are cut in, and the tree dies. It will
be interesting to see how the tree does in the next few years. How will the
park look with a stump? What kind of symbol would it be then?

I know, I am talking a very negative look at this. Perhaps some efforts were
taken above and beyond simply not cutting it down.

Will

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 7 2008 1:54 pm
From: "Edward Frank"

Will, James, ENTS,

If you look on a broad scale, on a National Scale we have a tiny proportion of our best landscapes set aside as National Parks, Preserves, Monuments, and to a lesser extent forests. On a state scale we have state parks and preserves. Large cities have acres and acres of pavement, but also may have city parks in which some natural lands preserved.

On a smaller scale this pattern breaks down. Many small towns don't have any parks, or perhaps a highly manicured town square. There are numerous cookie cutter subdivisions in which the only trees all in a row are marking boundaries or surrounding the subdivision sign. In neighborhoods there are parks, but these are generally playgrounds or fields for organized sports. In Malls there are trees in the long skinny sections between the curbs delineating the road from the parking lot, or in small circular concrete containers. Our city streets, having been widened over the years, may have some large trees. Most have been mutilated by trimming for power lines, or have been killed and replaced by half dead saplings struggling to survive.

Why does this process breakdown on a smaller scale? It is because we do not expect or demand that smaller patches of natural woods to be preserved. Why do we not demand that new subdivisions preserve a patch of a few acres of natural woods for the members of those communities to enjoy and explore? They were able to "not build' over the former slave cemetery at the location James Robert Smith talked about. Why would they not have also been able to preserve within the mall complex an acre or two of the biggest and oldest trees to be found there. In the center of the Mall of America there is a large roofed over open space that contains an amusement park complete with Roller-Coasters - There must be space among the acres of parking lots, and courtyards, and sundry hardscaping to be able to keep a patch of natural forest. Perhaps fenced off, or traversed by winding walkways. (Did you know the Mall of America does not have a heating plant - it is heated completely by lights in the building and by thousands of shoppers even in the dead of the Minnesota winter.)

Are there examples of natural forest landscaping within subdivisions or mall complexes that you can think of that could serve as a model for more nature or tree friendly landscape design? Could these concepts be promoted by articles in Architectural Digest or various landscaping magazines? Something could be done if there was a popular voice calling for this type of design rather than manicured hardscapes with an occasional potted tree.

Ed

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 7 2008 6:10 pm
From: JamesRobertSmith

The patchwork nature of forests in the East is a recipe for disaster.
As Richard Leakey so eloquently put it in his excellent book, THE
SIXTH EXTINCTION, you cannot "preserve" species through the disjointed
sections of parkland that has long been considered as the best way to
"conserve" natural landscapes. Eventually, you get a genetic dead end
on your hands, one way or the other (whether it be from inbreeding, a
natural disaster such as a fire, an invasive species, etc.). You
cannot save any kind of ecosystem by turning it into a limited park.

Once again, this is why I spend so much of my free time exploring the
wild. I want to see these places before it's too late. So much of it
will be gone forever within a generation.

I hope to get some photos of the nugget of urban forest on my route
tomorrow, if the weather cooperates.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 7 2008 6:14 pm
From: "Edward Frank"

James,

I was thinking more along the line of giving people a small patch of the natural world in which to interact, flawed though it may be, rather than simply an occasionally half dead tree in a concrete pot.

Ed
-

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 7 2008 8:47 pm
From: James Parton

Will,

I think as you do. Before building our local Hendersonville Super Wal-
Mart there was a beautiful forest dominated by White Pine, Pitch Pine
and Oak at that location. Now, hardly a tree remains except for a few
small planted ones among the masses of cars in the parking lot. Yes,
they paved paradise!

The old Wal-Mart was fine by me.

James Parton.

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 3:59 pm
From: Carolyn Summers

Ed, you might be just in time. If you could spend the time, and other ENTS,
as well, google LEEDS landscape standards. This will be incorporated into
the new green building standards and they are currently in draft form,
awaiting comments. If google doesn¹t produce, get back to me, and I¹ll
track down the URL. I have to confess that this was on my to do list, but I
have gotten hopelessly behind. Thanks for bringing this up.
--
Carolyn Summers
63 Ferndale Drive
Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 6:12 pm
From: "Edward Frank"

Re: [ENTS] Re: Patch of woodsCarolyn, ENTS,

The address is: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=222

The relevant section is the one on neighborhood development. Thanks. I will look into it.

Ed

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 7:02 pm
From: "Edward Frank"

James Robert (I don't know what to call you)

I always find you posts insightful, and respect your passion for the environment. I don't always agree, but I look forward to reading your posts. This is one of those cases where I agree and disagree with you at the same time. Ideally it would be great if we had a large unbroken track of forest in which various species were free to roam and breed. The fact is we don't have that, and are unlikely to achieve that goal. At the present we have the patchwork of parks and preserves and we need to make the best of it. The only way I see to remedy the situation would be if half the population were lost, and those remaining looked inward at areas previously developed, and abandoning the outlying land to nature. I don't see that as happening. We can make some progress, by working toward getting areas of some of the National Forests designated wilderness to provide a broader patchwork, for as long as that political designation is left unchanged.

I would agree that you can not let the patchwork of parks to their own devices and hope to preserve species. Even with efforts to the contrary some species will be lost, but it is not a complete dead end. On their own there will be species losses to plants and as deaths drop the populations below sustainable numbers. You need some many pairs of most species to maintain a viable breeding population (It is unfortunate that the HWA is parthenogenic and doesn't have a lower limit to breeding viability). Over time the species diversity of both plants and animals will decrease. [This is one of the reasons you can tell that the Caribbean Islands were populated by rafting of species, rather than ever having been a part of a land bridge]

But as I said the outlook is not hopeless. Look at the work being done in zoos. They provide the public a place to see these exotic animals and form a foundation for the general public to want to see these species saved from extinction. [or at least the charismatic megafauna] There are a number of species that have been saved from complete extinction by breeding efforts at zoos - the California Condor for one - with the goal in many cases to eventually re-release these species back into the wild. There are genetic bank that document the genetics of species with low populations and exchanges between zoos so that inbreeding does not bring out bad genes. I would agree we are loosing species faster than we are preserving them, but we still are preserving some of them. For animals that require a large range, to live, we may not be able to succeed, but for others we can.

An active management strategy would need to be implemented for the smallest parcel, with less management for larger portions. Smaller patches of land that are preserved can serve as gene banks that can be swapped with other areas if an active management strategy is used. each individual patch of land could potentially be destroyed by a single windstorm or fire event. The key would be redundancy. The more smaller patches you have the less likely they all would be destroyed at once.

I believe that for the purposes of species preservation, that creating large numbers of small patches would be a useful, if not perfect strategy. In addition these patches might serve as touchstones for people to become more aware of the natural environment. A few small patches will not achieve much, but large numbers of small patches could do much more.

Ed Frank

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 7:35 pm
From: "Joseph Zorzin"

That being the case, people must decide if they'll just accept it- or do something! Previous generations liberated themselves from Churches and aristocracies. Ralph Nader is right, we're now subjects of the international corporations- he has the guts to keep saying that, a very revolutionary statement- which others don't deny- but nobody does anything about it. There's little hope without risk.

Joe

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 8:43 pm
From: Phil

Let's hope they did not include underground sprinklers near the pecan
tree.

The sad issue is that in Dallas we're facing another large scale tree
removal and creek burial to remove affordable housing and add a new
retail center. I've becoming too shell-shocked at these vast projects
to have any joy or wonder for the preservation of one old pecan tree.
In the past year, I've watched a pecan grove removed for a multifamily
site and old growth post oaks for the same. In the old Dallas prairie
lands, the post oak is the hardest to replace and their losses are
difficult to bear.

Pavers or sprinklers or not. I fail to find the passion to save one
tree when I see acres mowed down in one swoop.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 8:50 pm
From: "Edward Frank"

Phil, Everyone else,

I never said that preserving this pecan tree was a great thing, I was just passing on a note about it that appeared in the Wal-Mart Magazine. I felt it was a curious comment on the overall problem of suburban and urban sprawl.

Ed

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 9 2008 6:16 am
From: Phil Erwin

I understand your comment, Ed. I'm with you on this. I think most
members of this group recognize the sprawl issue. I guess the main
point we might derive from this chain is the Wal Mart folks...and I
think most Americans...have an 'artificial' concept of priorities when
it comes to a responsible land ethic versus economics. The market
always prevails because stronger forces requires it and manipulates
our regulatory powers to make it so. I watch it daily. Sprawl can only
be addressed appropriately when the general (maybe common) philosophy
for our land uses is not money-driven but addresses more reasonable
'realistic' attributes of the land and the real need of the welfare of
the community. Wal Mart is an 'artificial world' for the masses with
the sole interest of making money. Our (or any human) economy is a man-
made process that contradicts the natural processes of life. If Wal
Mart was truly interested in land conservation, they would have done
far more than insufficiently spare a single tree. Even if they thought
about doing more, they don't know how, nor do most of the minions that
work for them that plan these sites. Any personal attributes to be
dedicated to the needs of the community and the common good that might
have existed was left long ago in Arkansas when others besides Sam
took over the shop. A little propaganda never fixes that - it just
magnifies the lie to those who recognize the truth and makes the
manipulative force (that does not) a little more bold to do more and
all the while believing they have been generous.

The sprawl is the issue because we have no mindset to do otherwise. We
will deceive ourselves to ruin.

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 9 2008 6:59 am
From: Lee Frelich

Ed:

You have hit on some of the main points for conservation of forests in a
changing and fragmented environment listed by Connie Millar and co-workers
in their recent paper:

Millar, CI, N.L Stephenson, and S.L. Stephens. 2007. Climate change and
forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological
Applications 17: 2145-2151.

The paper is about global warming, but the points it makes would apply
equally well even if the climate were not changing. Connie has been one of
the premiere forest conservation geneticists in the world for the last 3
decades, and I was lucky enough to see her at a meeting in Washington DC
last year, during which she gave an elegant presentation based on this
paper. She gave me a copy of it and told me to make as much use of it as
possible. Connie and coworkers list resistance options to forestall
changes, resilience options to allow forests to return to previous
conditions after disturbance, and response options to facilitate transition
to new conditions. This last includes nine points with my interpretation of
what each means in parentheses:
1. Assisted migration (help species move to other fragments by transferring
seeds or seedlings)
2. Increase redundancy and buffers (larger number of natural areas or
stands of each forest type)
3. Expand genetic diversity guidelines (mix together seeds from bigger seed
zones, let natural selection act on them)
4. Manage for asynchrony (multi-aged forests and/or landscapes)
5. Establish neo-native forests (new forests in areas where the climate is
now suitable)
6. Promote connected landscapes (more corridors, less fragmentation by
development)
7. Realign disrupted conditions (may need new ecosystem classification to
take into account new conditions, new expectation of what forest type will
grow in a given area)
8. Anticipate surprises and threshold effects (severe droughts and storms
may overwhelm a given forest and necessitate change)
9. Experiment with refugia (species may be able to hold on in areas with
microclimates such as north slopes or moister soils or algific talus slopes)

Two members of the Conservation Biology faculty at the U of MN (Sue
Galatowitsch and I) are using these as a basis for a workshop June 4-5 on
Conservation of Native Species in Minnesota, which we hope will lead to
conservation plans for the state, including forests, wetlands, and
prairies. We have invited some experts from around the country, and will
have a wide variety of people leading discussions during the workshop
including members of the MN state legislature, Director of conservation
science for The Nature Conservancy, head of the Natural Areas Program at
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, etc., and significant presence
of the news media. We will write a paper for publication addressing the
nine points above.

Lee

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 9 2008 5:05 pm
From: Beth Koebel

James and Will,

I just love it when a developer buys some acreage of
woods, clears all the trees off of the property,
builds the houses, then plants trees where there had
been trees before.

Beth

"Information is moving--you know, nightly news is one way, of course, but it's also moving through the blogosphere and through the Internets."
Washington DC, May 2, 2007 George W. Bush

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 9 2008 6:33 pm
From: JamesRobertSmith

The best example of what can go wrong with the patchwork system was
illustrated perfectly by an example in Leakey's THE SIXTH EXTINCTION
A species of sparrow which lived exclusively on beachfront dunes was nearing
extinction. The authorities finally were able to preserve a stretch of
beach and the sparrow numbers increased dramatically. Subsequently,
there was a drought and an ensuing fire which swept up the beach,
burning every growing thing along the dunes. The sparrows who were not
burned outright were left with nowhere to live and nowhere to feed.
Since the fire, the species has been declared extinct, since no
individuals have been seen since shortly after the fire.

On the surface, it seemed as if this nubbin of ecosystem would do the
job and save the species from extinction due to the fact that the rest
of its environment had been developed into oblivion by human expansion
into its habitat. However, having only the one location, the
fatalistic die was cast and the sparrow went down that black hole into
history.

Yes, this is merely an example, but a telling one. If habitat
continues to shrink, no haphazard method of preserving habitat here
and there, will-nilly, is going to suffice to save vast numbers of
species from extinction and this will ultimately cause the collapse of
entire ecosystems. If HUGE tracts of land are not set aside
permanently, and bridged to one another via rural corridors that will
remain inviolable, then untold numbers of animals and plants are going
to go extinct. Followed by Homo sapiens at some point.

That's the ultimate problem, of course. We're going to eat the world
at such a pace and to such a degree that our own existence is going to
be rendered unsupportable.

Maybe that's the best course for life on Earth: for humans to go
extinct as soon as possible. That way, what's left will diverge in an
explosion of species diversity and repopulate the ecological niches
made empty by the stupid naked apes.

== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 1:50 pm
From: "Edward Frank"

Bob,

Did you happen to catch the program "Life After People" on the History Channel?

"Explore the tantalizing question of whether all the remnants of mankind will eventually disappear from our planet. What would happen to the earth if humans ceased to exist? Would ocean life flourish, the buffalo return to the Great Plains and our skyscrapers yield to the wear and tear of time. Visit the ghostly villages surrounding Chernobyl, which were abandoned by humans after the nuclear disaster in 1986 and then travel to the remote islands off the coast of Maine to search for traces of abandoned towns that have vanished from view in only a few decades. Learn from experts in the fields of engineering, botany, ecology, biology, geology, climatology and archeology as they provide answers for many thought provoking questions.

Rating: TVPG

Running Time: 120 minutes "

There aren't any re-airings in the next couple of weeks, but it is worth catching when it does air again.

Ed

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 2:09 pm
From: JamesRobertSmith

Closer to home, there's an old NAScar racetrack that had sanctioned
races up until about twenty years ago. Bleachers, press box,
concession stands, parking lots, the works. The track was abandoned
and the county and state bought up the property to make a new park. In
just that short amount a time, it's hard to find the old track. You
can find the concrete bleachers, but even those are overgrown. The
press box and concession stands are covered in new growth and all but
obliterated and destroyed by weather, rot, and vegetation.

I didn't catch that show about humans fleeing this mortal coil, but
I'll catch it on rerun.

== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 6:17 pm
From: Randy Brown

In a similar vein is book called 'World without us' that tracks how
long it would take our various constructs to disintegrate:.

http://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Us-Alan-Weisman/dp/0312347294/
ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205197713&sr=8-1

If I recall correctly, this book claimed skyscrapers won't stand for
long (a couple of decades) because their foundations can't tolerate
being waterlogged and the sewers are the first things to clog. This
quite frankly surprised me because I assumed their steel frame would
last a very long time.

Speaking of chernobyl here a site that give a chilling photo tour of
the deserted area:

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl%2Drevisited/
(Kinda like Pompeii without the ash)

== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 7:01 pm
From: JamesRobertSmith

I've long been suspicious of the kiddofspeed site. Something about it
never rang true for me. I did read something about a year ago claiming
that it was a hoax site. One thing that always bothered me about the
photos was that all of the roads are in good repair and scenes of
fields shows them all freshly mowed with no sapling growing up. I
think some of the city photos are legitimate, but the taken as a whole
it seems to be a hoax.

== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 7:29 pm
From: Randy Brown

Well I don't know. I've read from other sources that there are a fair
number of older people who have returned
to the area and the authorities have left alone. Here a similar sites
linked at the bottom of the wikipedia article:

"There is life now in Chernobyl, some people decided to return despite
the radiation hazard. The members of this trip have noticed even one
building was being renovated."
"Still people are very rare on the streets of Chernobyl."

http://englishrussia.com/?p=293

One 'tour' states that people still do maintenance work at the old
chernobyl nuclear plant:

"Though the site is no longer functioning, people still work at the
plant to perform necessary and ongoing maintenance."

http://nikongear.com/Chernobyl/Chernobyl_4.php

So that is at least a plausible explanation for some of the occasional
maintenance you see. I also assume the light traffic probably helps
quite a bit too. So in short, I didn't look too suspiciously. Here's
the wikipedia references if you wish to trawl through different
accounts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl#See_also

== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 7:58 pm
From: JamesRobertSmith

I do know from reading various articles that the wildlife populations
are amazing. All kinds of large animals that were rare are now there
in great numbers.

== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 9:25 pm
From: James Parton

Randy,

Thanks for all the links on Chernobyl. I have spent the last hour and
a half looking them over. It really makes you think. What if it
happened here?

James P.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Patch of woods
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/8df3bfc55a3a1075?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 5:39 am
From: Randy Brown

In a way it did at the Rocky Flats Plant where they manufactured
nuclear material for the US atomic weapons program
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats
In 2000, Congress proposed transforming Rocky Flats to a wildlife
refuge, setting aside 6,400 acres (25 km²) after cleanup and closure.
The Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act passed in 2001.[2]
The last contaminated building was removed and the last weapons-grade
plutonium was shipped out in 2003, ending the cleanup based on a
modified cleanup agreement. The modified agreement required a higher
level of cleanup in the first 3 feet (1 m) of soil in exchange for not
having to remove any contamination below that point unless it posed a
chance of migrating to the surface or contaminating the groundwater.[3]
About half of the 800 buildings previously existing on the site had
been dismantled by early December 2004.
Due to fires (principally the fire in 1957) and other inadvertent
releases (principally due to wind at a waste storage area) the site is
contaminated with plutonium. The other major contaminant is carbon
tetrachloride. Both of these substances affected areas adjacent to the
site. There were also small releases of dioxin (from incineration),
beryllium and tritium.
Clean-up was declared complete on October 13 2005. About 1,000 acres
(4.0 km²) of the new wildlife refuge (the former Industrial Area) will
remain under DOE control to protect the ongoing environmental
monitoring and remedy.
In February of 2006, after a 16-year legal battle, a federal jury
ruled against Dow Chemical and Rockwell International in a class-
action lawsuit brought by 12,000 property owners living downwind from
Rocky Flats. The jury awarded $110 million in punitive damages against
Dow Chemical, $89 million against Rockwell International, and $177
million against each company in actual damages. Lawyers for the two
companies said they would appeal.[4]
On June 13, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency announced it had
certified the cleanup of the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant,
another step toward the planned conversion of the site to a wildlife
refuge.[5]
[edit]

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 12:40 pm
From: "Joseph Zorzin"

It was interesting, but since it is highly unlikely it's not as thought provoking as the future of an every more degraded planet and remnants of the naked apes.

Joe

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 13 2008 6:23 am
From: "Joseph Zorzin"

Ed,

Do you bring your Geiger counter?

Joe

James:

You feel the way I do about humanity - we really are ruining the
planet. The sad irony is that so much of the waste is not needed and
that beyond a certain point "things" - and the resulting waste that
comes with producing them and disposing of them - don't make a person
happy. But we have been conditioned to be consumers first and people
second, and it is a sad state of affairs.

Now, I am not saying we should go back to cavemen times or even horse-
drawn carriages, but I do wonder how long the current system dependent
upon: cheap energy, endless resources, and ever-expanding growth can
sustain itself. I also wonder just how much better the world would be
if people just conserved and focused on the important things in life,
not the latest shiny, new toy.

Mathew Hannum

Home