|
Montebello Condominium Unit Owners Association |
|
Advisory committee on Landscape Design and Management |
|
Committee Meeting |
|
1. The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members present: 5
Members absent: 2
Board Liaison: Present
Guest: Ray Smith, a Habitat Steward from the National Wildlife Federation
2. Ray Smith: Mr. Smith, a real estate developer and builder by profession, is certified as a Habitat Steward of the National Wildlife Federation and is a Master Naturalist with the Audubon Society of Northern Virginia (a five-year program). He has helped several associations, including Reston, South Ridings in Loudoun County, and Landsdowne in Fairfax County, transform their common areas into Certified Community Habitats. In Fall 2005, he taught part of the Audubon at Home Program with the National Audubon Society through the Audubon Society of Northern Virginia. Currently, Mr. Smith is working with Heritage Hunter Dominion, an active retirement community in the Shenandoah Valley (1000 acres).
3. The Chair reported that she, the Facilities Plant Manager, and another committee member had escorted Mr. Smith on a walk-about during which he saw our turf areas and walked the nature trail. She also noted that our committee’s charge was not to create a habitat for wildlife; however, in moving to a chemical-free environment, we are likely to see more wildlife return to our grounds. She asked what we might do to plan for and manage that potential result, as well as achieve our overall goal of reducing/eliminating the use of pesticides.
4. Mr. Smith brought several publications for us. (A list is provided as an attachment to these minutes.) The Chair will ensure that all committee members have a chance to see the documents at their leisure. The publications will become part of Montebello’s library.
Mr. Smith defined a pesticide as chemicals that kill what we consider pests. He defined pests as insects, fungi, invasive plants, weeds, et al. Mr. Smith said that his preference for reducing/eliminating the amount of pesticides was to reduce the areas where we use them. He advised us to make sure we have healthy soils, which lead to healthy plants if they are planted in the right place. Native plants do not require pesticides and fertilizers if they are maintained correctly and should be used instead of plants requiring chemicals. In the first year, new native plants may require watering until they are established. Insects and other animals all have a relationship with native plants. They do not have a relationship with non-native plants. As a result, when we use non-native plants, we contribute to the reduction of songbirds and butterflies.
6. While impressed with our nature trail, Mr. Smith noted that we are overrun with invasive English ivy, Japanese honeysuckle, ailantha and other invasives that are taking over our nature trail and woods. He also thought the level of bio-diversity, i.e., different species of trees, shrubs, and plants, was low. He recommended we could solve that problem by taking out the invasive species and re-planting with native plants and suggested redbud as one we should plant in some of the open space areas. While on the walk, he also recommended planting berry-producing American hollies instead of Nellie’s hollies
7. He gave several examples of better opportunities for plant replacements. For example, an individual might choose to plant a Bradford pear tree without realizing that only one bird, the European starling, eats its fruit. No birds use it for nesting. No butterfly hosts on it. And it falls apart in 20 years. However, if one planted a hackberry tree (native to the area) instead, one could expect to see any of 57 different bird species that eat hackberry fruit and 9 species of butterflies that use it to host eggs and caterpillars, with the added benefit that the hackberry tree lasts well beyond 20 years and doesn’t require the use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides.
8. He recognized, as a builder, that a major concern for property owners is the value of their property. He further noted that the biggest segment of the U.S. population comprises pre-baby-boomers and baby-boomers, all of which are moving into their retirement years. He reported that in years past, when developers undertook surveys to find out what potential buyers of recreational communities wanted as amenities, the top three were tennis, swimming, and golf. Today the top three are hiking, biking, and nature walks. (Tennis, swimming, and golf have moved to 7th, 8th, and 12th in terms of desirability.)
9. Pesticides can be minimized although perhaps not completely eliminated. Mr. Smith supports the use of narrow bands of grass used as borders. (Borders are between defined areas, e.g., between the parking lot and a natural area or between areas designated for formal and informal uses.) Research has shown that a border designates to the casual observer that the property is being managed.
10. Signage was also important. In Reston, the coordinator of a project in which 75,000 residents decided to move to a more natural environment, discovered that when residents did not know that the grounds were being tended in a particular way for a particular reason, residents assumed they knew better and would cut plants that they thought were not being taken care of properly. A sign indicating that the planted area was part of a re-forestation or re-planting project solved the problem.
11. Mr. Smith said that, in his opinion, we did NOT have a natural landscape in our woods. He felt that we had about 60% invasive plants in our understory. He recommended removing the invasive plants and replacing them with native plants that would benefit the rest of the environment. How do we get rid of the invasive species? Mr. Smith said they could be pulled out or killed with an herbicide. We would need to consider the density of the plant area and the presence of surrounding healthy native plants. Mr. Smith noted that the invasive species did not have to be removed from the property all at one time. The factors to be considered included: the size, density, and location of the area and cost. We might identify discrete areas or address a quarter of the total area at a time. If the size of the invasive problem is too great, the “pulling out” option might be impractical. Herbicides, like Round-up, will probably not kill our big trees, however, it will kill the rest of our understory (and a lot of our understory—not most of it—is OK). Round-up does not have to be sprayed to be effective; it can be applied to the growing part of the top of a plant and destroy the plant. Any application of an herbicide would need to take into account the effectiveness of the herbicide selected, and the effect of the herbicide on surrounding plants we might want to retain.
12. If we remove the invasives and replace them with a wide variety of native plants, we will keep the invasives away and obtain the added benefits of a more diverse landscape and drawing more birds and butterflies.
|
|
If we remove the invasives and replace them with a wide variety of native plants, we will keep the invasives away and obtain the added benefits of a more diverse landscape and drawing more birds and butterflies. |
February 8, 2006 |
