In a twist that seems like a joke, the Holly Springs, NC mayor held a “tree planting ceremony” to celebrate Arbor Day on March 21st.
What about the countless trees that will be sacrificed to create their urban park on the woodland that is Mims Property? A few tiny ornamental trees planted in 2026 are nothing compared to the damage they plan to inflict on the Mims Forest. 

—————

Please share these details with friends, neighbors, and those able to help preserve Mims. Some of us worked to put together the framework of a letter that you can send to the town to voice your concerns. Help yourself to the details below and call, email, visit town council meetings, etc.  You don’t have to live in Holly Springs to care about preservation. Please speak up before it’s too late. 
—————-

Holly Springs has a Tree Preservation Area (TPA) framework within its development ordinance but these protections are applied only within the context of approved development plans. This allows developers to destroy significant, mature forested areas if they aren’t designated as TPAs during the planning process. This has led to substantial canopy loss even when ordinances are technically being followed.

Compliance with minimum standards in our area does not result in meaningful environmental protection.

The commonly referenced 30% tree canopy benchmark is insufficient to sustain biodiversity, protect wildlife habitat, or meaningfully mitigate heat, noise, air, and light pollution—especially in a region that is naturally forested.  

Leading experts in urban forestry and ecology stress that far higher levels of tree canopy are critical to sustaining ecosystem function, supporting wildlife, and preserving biodiversity—especially in the rapidly developing Southeastern United States, where ongoing land conversion is eroding remaining forest cover and threatening the very ecological integrity of our communities. A target of at least 50% retained canopy would better reflect the environmental realities of our area and provide a more responsible balance between growth and conservation.

The loss of mature trees cannot be offset by replanting alone. Replacing established forest with grass lawns or young saplings results in:

Severe habitat loss for wildlife
Fragmentation of ecosystems
Declines in biodiversity
Increased stormwater runoff and reduced soil stability
Higher surface temperatures and reduced air quality
Grass lawns, in particular, are not an ecological substitute for mature woodland. They provide little to no habitat value and often exacerbate environmental degradation rather than mitigate it.

Additionally, converting forested land on the Mims property into turf grass and developed landscapes will place the area’s natural springwater creeks at risk. These creeks depend on intact forest ecosystems to function properly. Tree cover regulates water temperature, stabilizes stream banks, filters pollutants, and allows rainwater to infiltrate slowly into the ground.

When forests are cleared and replaced with grass or impervious surfaces:

Runoff increases significantly, carrying sediment and pollutants into streams
Water temperatures rise due to loss of shade, harming aquatic life
Stream banks become unstable and more prone to erosion
Natural groundwater recharge is disrupted

Undisturbed spring-fed creeks like those in Mims Forest are especially sensitive systems. They provide critical habitat for amphibians, insects, and other wildlife that depend on clean, cool, and consistently flowing water. Efforts to “clean out” or “revamp” natural creek beds can actually be extremely damaging. Scientific studies demonstrate that activities such as dredging, clearing, or reshaping streams can:

Destroy aquatic and riparian habitat
Increase sedimentation downstream
Remove natural woody debris that provides cover and food for fish, amphibians, and invertebrates
Alter water flow and temperature, destabilizing the ecosystem
For example:

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Removing woody debris and vegetation from stream channels reduces habitat complexity, which is essential for fish and invertebrate species” (EPA, 2013, Protecting and Restoring Stream Habitat).

The North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute notes that “channelization, cleaning, and dredging of natural streams often lead to long-term declines in biodiversity, increased erosion, and reduced ecological function” (North Carolina State University, 2019, Stream Ecology and Restoration Guidelines).

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission emphasizes that “natural streams with intact structure, including fallen trees and organic debris, are critical to maintaining healthy aquatic and riparian ecosystems” (NCWRC, 2021, Best Practices for Stream Habitat Protection).

While I understand and support the town’s goal of expanding public green space, an urban park could be more appropriately developed on land that is already cleared or previously disturbed. There are suitable sites within Holly Springs that would allow for recreational use without requiring the removal of mature forest. Choosing the Mims property primarily because it is already owned by the town risks sacrificing a high-value natural ecosystem when less environmentally sensitive alternatives exist.

It is important to emphasize that preserving only nine of the 17 acres is not sufficient to maintain the ecological integrity of the site—especially given the type and intensity of development being proposed. Developing the adjacent portions of the forest by removing mature trees, displacing or killing wildlife, introducing open lawn and entertainment areas, and constructing walkways will significantly alter the conditions of the remaining forest.

Increased foot traffic, noise, lighting, and human activity will further degrade the preserved area. Constructed walkways and features such as a proposed “wetland walk” will fragment habitat, disturb soil and root systems, and draw sustained foot traffic directly into the most sensitive parts of the ecosystem. Wetland and riparian areas are particularly vulnerable to disturbance, and increased human presence can degrade water quality, disrupt wildlife behavior, and accelerate erosion. Such features are not necessary to appreciate natural areas and, in this case, would significantly increase pressure on an already fragile environment.

In ecological terms, the remaining 9 acres would not function as an intact forest. The impacts of clearing and development do not stop at the boundary line—they extend well into the preserved area. This means that preserving a portion of the land does not equate to preserving its ecological function.

For this reason, reducing a 17-acre forest to a partially preserved 9-acre section—surrounded by development and high human use—can effectively result in the loss of the forest ecosystem as a whole. The damage to the remaining acreage is cumulative and, in many cases, irreversible.

I formally request that the Mims property, in its entirety, be designated as a protected preserve. It should not be developed now, nor should it be reserved for development in the future. The removal of any portion of the mature forest will degrade and destabilize the entire ecosystem. Partial clearing is not a neutral compromise—it is a permanent alteration of the forest’s structure, function, and habitat value.

For these reasons, I strongly urge the Town to:

Adopt a higher canopy retention goal of at least 50%, particularly for large or previously forested parcels.
Strengthen the criteria and application of Tree Preservation Areas to prioritize contiguous, mature forest stands.
Limit the use of replanting as a substitute for preserving existing canopy.
Ensure that wildlife habitat and ecosystem continuity are treated as primary factors in development decisions—not secondary considerations.

Most urgently, I ask that the Mims 17-acre property be designated as off-limits to development. This parcel represents a valuable and irreplaceable natural resource within our community. Preserving it intact would:

Protect an existing, functioning ecosystem
Maintain biodiversity and wildlife habitat
Safeguard sensitive spring-fed creek systems
Avoid the harmful effects of fragmentation and edge-driven ecosystem decline
Prevent additional degradation from unnecessary constructed features, foot traffic, or “stream cleaning”
Serve as a long-term environmental asset for the town
Demonstrate Holly Springs’ commitment to responsible and forward-thinking stewardship. 

Once mature forest is removed, it cannot be meaningfully restored within any human-relevant timeframe. The decisions made now will shape the environmental health of Holly Springs for generations.