|
Protectors of Pine Oak Woods · Current
Issues · High Rock |
|
Forest Restoration at High Rock, White Trail Forest Restoration Workshop
#184 October 15, 2011 Protectors’ Forest Restoration for October found us again
close to the Bluebelt retention pond at Meisner and Rockland where we had begun to remove English
Ivy (Hedera helix) many years ago. We assembled across the street on the road
to the Eger Home where we were joined by seven volunteers for It’s My Park Day.
Expecting the usual small group of regulars, we had planned this to be
an easy “touch-up” restoration where we would go after what Ivy had
re-sprouted from root remnants in the soil.
With extra volunteers I feared we would have too little to do, so I
had gone back to the area around the pond the week before to see what else we
might accomplish. Jeanne Paliswait, the High Rock Greenbelt volunteer coordinator
had done the same, and we both discovered that we had done a good job on the
woody vines in that area; for some distance along the trails there was just
nothing of note to remove. What an
ironic situation! As it worked out,
there were enough bits and pieces of English Ivy to occupy us for well over
an hour, and while pulling them we discovered another Ivy-like ground cover
newly flourishing in the gully that drains runoff from the street down toward
the pond. No doubt this was another
escape from local landscaping; some neighbors here are still accustomed to
treat the Park as a place to dispose of trimmings and unwanted cuttings, and
unfortunately some of this disposed stuff continues to grow where it is not
wanted. Since it was a cultivar and
not blooming I had some trouble placing a name on the new plant, but
tentatively identified it as Spotted Deadnettle (Lamium
maculatum), which has use as a groundcover and has
naturalized in the US. With large
patches of an introduced Pachysandra flourishing along the edge by London
Road, I didn’t think we needed yet another groundcover invading the area we
had so laboriously cleared of English Ivy.
It was localized in a few wet patches, and I made a note to see just
how much more we might find next year. Having done our touch-up on the Ivy, we went some distance
down the White Trail to where it crosses Elanor. The part of the trail past Nevada Avenue
had been terribly over-run with Oriental Bittersweet (Celastrus
orbiculatus), some of which had grown into the tree
tops as thick lianas 4 inches or more across at the base of the vines. Over several years we had cut away most of
these vines, but there were still plenty left off the trail,
and lots of Japanese Honeysuckle as well.
A trail exit at Elanor and Rockland was
heavily infested, so we spent our remaining time there cutting vines. Close by the road a large tree heavily encumbered
with bittersweet had been brought down in the last storm, and I suspect that
the additional burden of bittersweet high above had much to do with its
fall. There is plenty of work to do in
that corner, but we will have to consider whether we can really accomplish
much in that heavily degraded area. There were no takers for a walk after restoration, so
three of us leisurely made our way up Tonkin Road to Walker Pond. We did nothing much other than enjoy the
serene autumn afternoon by eating lunch by the pond and watching a few
Eastern Painted Turtles bask in the intermittent sun in the safety of the
pond. There wasn’t much moving except
for a few bugs, and while we sat on the float a brown, spiny cricket jumped
among us, leaping from coat to leg but pausing long enough to give us a good
look. This turned out to be a Jumping
Bush Cricket, a notable singer from the southern states - if it was
male. It seems that we are at the
northern extreme of this southern species range, but it has become common
around New York City. I suppose that
the phenomenon of a city “heat island”, whereby the average temperature in
cities exceeds that of the surrounding countryside by several degrees, makes
the micro habitat of the city more like that of southern areas. Our cricket had a long ovipositor, so it
was a female, and among crickets the females don’t sing. In a way, these high-pitched insect songs
are a counterpoint to the amorous singing of frogs. The cricket, katydid, grasshopper and cicada
serenades, however, are a phenomenon of fall, not spring, since the insects
have to grow through a series of nymphal stages
before they attain their adult, singing form late in the year. Without an extensive walk and having little
else to impart, I’ve decided to digress to another topic that has caught my
attention, and that “essay” follows. ----------- — ----------- One can see “Forever Wild” signage in green places almost
everywhere on Staten Island, and they evoke pride because they are evidence
that we in New York City value and want to protect what remains of our natural
areas. Here, we think, is a woody
corner of an occupied block that will stay just that way and be a place of
children to enjoy, a place for adults to escape to the “wild” and a haven for
small animals through the next and succeeding generations - and a few streets
away there is another entire forever wild block! So it goes in a patchwork of green spaces
across the island, but just what does that laudable designation imply? The question came to my mind regarding Four
Sparrow Marsh out by Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn. At that place there is a small area of
marsh bordered by a narrow screen of shrubs and trees and marked with a
“Forever Wild” sign at Flatbush Avenue.
One would think that being a wetland and adjacent - although
physically separated by the Belt Parkway - to the Jamaica Bay Unit of Gateway
National Recreation Area it would be sacrosanct, yet the NYCEDC has tendered
a request for proposals for commercial development for part of that area and
intends to utilize 15 of the 67 forever wild acres on the grounds that they
were never formally mapped as parkland.
Just what portion of that place, if any, was actually “forever wild”
seemed unclear to me, and I wonder if there were similar situations on Staten
Island. Which of our areas are actually
protected by the “forever wild” designation, what protection does that
designation actually entail, and how durable is that adjective
“forever”? Well, nothing really lasts
forever, but it seems that there are some lands whose longevity as a natural
area enjoys more legal status than others. [I should note here that within a week of writing the
draft of this essay notices appeared on the web about Four Sparrow Marsh
having been saved - more on this later.]
First we should be clear that we encounter at least two
kinds of “forever wild” sites in New York State: those in New York City under
the control of city government, and other areas in the north in the Catskills
and Adirondacks under state control.
Those state owned forest preserves, some 26 million acres, are
designated “forever wild” in the state constitution and enjoy formidable
protection because any development there would entail the difficult process
of amending the state constitution.
Nevertheless, since 1894 when the constitution was amended to decree
that those lands should be “forever kept as wild forest lands...not...
leased, sold, or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or
private” 14 different amendments have been passed allowing development or
transfer of part of those lands.
Moreover, as a matter of administration those forever wild areas have
been organized into groups allowing four or five different levels of human
impact (4 versus 5 because the Catskills group differs from that of the
Adirondacks). Some areas are restricted
to allow absolutely no development, only the impact of through hiking or
canoeing, while others permit substantial development for other public
purposes such as building campgrounds, administration buildings, fish
hatcheries, prisons, etc. Nevertheless,
the protection conferred by their “forever wild” status in the state
constitution is substantial. “Forever Wild” in New York City, however, is a much
different thing. An inquiry to the
Department of City Planning brought the response that “the Forever Wild
program... is administered by the New York City Department of Parks and
Recreation...” and that inquiries should be addressed to that agency. Duely inquired
of, Parks and Recreation then replied that “the Forever Wild program
constitutes an internal policy or set of guidelines that carries no legal,
regulatory, or administrative restriction on land use outside of the New York
City Parks Department (italics mine).”
Let me re-emphasize that last part: no legal restriction on land
use. Thus, unlike at the state level,
much of the protection afforded forever wild sites is voluntary, and should
the will of the department change, either by change of park administrators or
by pressure from levels higher in the government (the Department of Parks is a
Mayoral agency and operates under the direction of the Mayor’s office), we
may see encroachment or development of sites that we thought were and would
be “forever wild.” “Forever Wild” in New York City is a matter of
“administrative code,” regulations that are not enacted by legislation but
are instead devised and imposed by a government agency that has been
entrusted with such administration. In
this case that agency is the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation. The NYCDPR website lists 51 Forever Wild
sites in New York City, of which 24 are on Staten Island, among them parts of
the Greenbelt itself. Some of these
areas are parts of “dedicated” parks which have both natural areas and
recreational areas, while others seem to be solely nature preserves. Wolfe’s Pond for example is a 302 acre
park, of which 207 acres are listed as Forever Wild by the Natural Resources
Group, the division of the Department of Parks entrusted with administration
of Forever Wild areas. However,
finding details about Forever Wild sites is difficult. Department of Parks website maps don’t
indicate the precise boundaries of forever wild areas, and I have been unable
to find a document online that explains in what ways “Forever Wild” areas are
handled differently from other areas in a dedicated park. I have been told that there are specific
management guidelines for Forever Wild areas, but have not yet seen them
documented. This lack of information
is not to imply, however, that the Parks Department’s heart is not in the right
place regarding these natural areas.
The Forever Wild designation is a very good thing but since it is an
administrative matter, details of its protection do not seem to be very
accessible to the public. Parkland in general though, whether state or city, is
supposed to enjoy a measure of protection under state common law. Common law is law not enacted by the
government, but derived from decisions of the courts in preceding cases. Jurists consult those previous decisions
and use them as guidelines to decide current issues. Common law regarding parklands in New York
State has held rather consistently that once dedicated as parkland, land
cannot be turned to other use without the approval of the state legislature. Parkland has been viewed as a non-renewable
resource held in public trust by its municipality. However, there are procedures by which
parkland can be converted to other uses.
The process of turning parkland to other use is called “alienation,”
and includes not only selling public land to private developers, but to
almost any change in the use of parkland.
(Let me emphasize here that I am in no way a lawyer and have no
particular understanding of these legalities other than a realization that
legal details can become very, very complicated. However, the New York State Office of
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation has
published a very readable handbook about the process of converting city
parklands that is available online. If
you want, go online to: www.nysparks.com/publications/documents/AlienationHandbook.pdf
or just Google “alienation of municipal parkland in New York.”) As far as the status and protection of any particular park
or natural area the devil, of course, is in the details. One of these devilish details is the matter
of “dedication.” “Dedicated” is not
generally defined. The New York State
Handbook’s definition says that ‘“dedicated” is often used in referring to
municipal parkland subject to State alienation,” but that definition seems a
little circular. The Handbook goes on,
however, to explain that “dedication” may be either formal through an
official act of government, or implied by actions that recognize an area’s
status as a park though “common and accepted use.” In the case of Four Sparrow marsh it would
seem that the NYCEDC assumed that a formal dedication should have been made
if all of that area was to be preserved as natural environment. If an area has been officially dedicated as
a park, common law regarding alienation of parkland is supposed to apply, but
the status of other areas, should they come under litigation, would depend on
how much and by whom they are recognized to have been used as parkland. Since the Parks Department has recognized
sites on Staten Island as forever wild and so listed them on the web it would
seem that those sites should have common law protection in the case of a
later desire to turn them to other use.
But should controversy arise over who administers these areas or
should the attitude of administrators change regarding their use and untoward
alienation of these sites be proposed, the unfortunate remedy is recourse to
law by some interested, injured party... unfortunate because it entails
effort, expense and, as in any legal proceeding, the possibility of failure. Staten Island currently is home to 25% of the approximately 296 million acres of city parkland and almost half of the city’s 51 Forever Wild sites. No wonder Senator Lanza has introduced a bill to formally recognize SI as the “Borough of Parks” - what else could it be having the largest percentage of parkland of any New York City borough (even though a goodly portion of that acreage includes 2,200 acres of the as yet under-utilized Freshkills Park of which 50% are wetlands)? We are extraordinarily fortunate in our parklands and Forever Wild sites... One has to wonder, however, how protected these Forever Wild actually are. We are extraordinarily fortunate also in having had a series of environmentally sensitive administrators, but New York City has not always been so “park friendly” regarding natural areas, nor is there any guarantee that new administrators will remain so. Since I began this essay, Four Sparrow Marsh has been reprieved by the withdrawal of its main developer, Forest City Ratner. An announcement on the Mayor’s website stated, “the Four Sparrow Marsh Retail Center at Mill Basin project has been withdrawn as of September 2011.” Various columnists and bloggers reported that the developer withdrew being unable to find a profitable and compatible tenant for the property, although some implied that taints of corruption involving elected State officials and implications of bribery also influenced the withdrawal. Whatever the cause, this was reason for celebration among those lobbying to preserve the marsh from the looming presence of a shopping center or big-box store. To my knowledge, however, the Forever Wild status of the contested part of Four Sparrow Marsh has not been resolved, and its long-term survival as a natural area still remains uncertain. For those who care about preserving our natural areas, Four Sparrow Marsh is a cautionary tale; it is a reminder that, as nice as it sounds, “Forever Wild” is not necessarily forever. View adjacent to the White
Trail close to Meisner and Lighthouse Avenue: Note
the lack of Ivy! DfR 07-23-11 |
©2004 PPOW