news-record.com

I listened to the presenters at this week's urban forestry conference in Winston-Salem and couldn't help but think about how much of a geologic force human being are, a modern reality pointed out by cultural historian Thomas Berry and others.

But rarely did I think about how much control people - particularly urban dwellers - have over their natural surroundings until I started writing about green living and sustainability last year. Instead of letting trees grow and replenish themselves, city residents now have to inventory, plant, prune, cut down, uproot and otherwise manage trees throughout the community in order to ensure reasonable quality of life and habitat health. As if we humans don't have enough on our plates.

Of course, people have managed trees in a basic way for millenia, using the wood for shelter and fuel, trading this resource with others in exchange for goods and services. But the current scale of urbanization has had such a devastating effect on trees and wildlife that government agencies, utilities and civic organizations have assumed responsibility for the survival of these habitats as they try to persuade residents that our quality of life depends on healthy forests.

The N.C. Urban Forestry Council, which co-sponsored the conference, is a key regional organization that works to educate citizenry about the value of maintaining urban tree canopy. The organization has more than 200 members and aims to help communities preserve and incorporate forests during a time of rapid population growth.

I'm still thinking about what I learned at the conference, but a few things stood out to me that I wanted to share in the meantime: 

* The N.C. Division of Forest Services is working on a federally required assessment that should tell the public a lot about the health of North Carolina forests. The division and its partners have until mid-2010 complete the assessment.

* Communities might be able to take advantage of existing carbon trading markets and the potential "cap and trade" bill to offset greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere. Notice I wrote "might." Getting credit for sequestering carbon in urban forests is complicated, for one, and in some ways hard to justify since the planting, maintenance and decomposition of the trees releases carbon into the atmosphere. Also, the property owner only gets credit for sequestering carbon that would not have been stored in the first place and the owner has to protect the trees in perpetuity, which seems like a tall order in urban areas with higher property values. (Check out this site for some background.)

"We need to be honest when we're talking about this," said Melissa McHale, who is researching this at N.C. State University. "Urban trees are not going to save the world from global climate change."

* N.C. State is also studying the potential for conservation subdivisions to protect forests and habitat. Conservation subdivisions aim to keep 50-70 percent of a development as open space. These special subdivisions can reduce infrastructure costs for developers and provide flexibility in lot size. But developers have tried them out in only a handful of North Carolina communities.

Steve Allen, a masters student at N.C. State, identified these barriers to implementing conservation subdivisions:

1. A lack of incentives for developers, which can include tax breaks, density bonuses, expedited permit review process and reduced setback requirements;

2. Perception that they are more expensive to build (it's certainly the case that "green" residential developments tend to outprice low- to moderate-income families; however Blue Sky Acres is an example of a development designed for low-income homebuyers);

3. Lack of interest from elected officials to change ordinances;

4. Smaller lot sizes for homeowners;

5. Difficulty obtaining long-term management of the open space portion (HOAs are not a big fan of taking on this responsibility).

The Woodlands at Davidson   is an example of wildlife-friendly development (it includes only 38 percent open space), if you want to check it out. Could you afford to live there?

From the Web site: 

"The Woodlands at Davidson is intended to serve as a model of ecological sustainability with the preservation of significant hardwood trees, the protection of creeks and wetlands, and the preservation of paths for woodlands creatures. We hope to extend this ethos of sustainabilty to each lot with a strong desire for energy-efficient home design, natural stormwater filtration and drainage, wildlife habitat protection, and the use of drought-resistant, environmentally friendly landscaping materials and practices.

"Owners are required to landscape their lots with plant material which is indigenous to the area and leave untouched as much as possible the existing vegetation and natural amenities:"