Sequestering carbon and supporting biodiversity on private lands: an opportunity for everyone

The discussion above identifies approaches for local governments, NGOs and agencies, and the potential for a renewed partnership among them.  But more can be done at the level of individual landowners, to improve the ecosystem health on existing properties. 

Private and public lands alike can be locations for demonstrating new practices in soil health and carbon sequestration as these fast moving fields advance.  Ninety percent of land in the US is privately owned.  This means that home gardeners, land trusts and institutional landowners alike can play a major role with new landscaping practices that reduce climate impacts and help at-risk species to thrive. The ‘perfect’ lawn requires significant energy and resources in the form of irrigation, mowing, pesticides, chemicals, and time. Mowing, and fertilization in particular, leads to large-scale pollution in the form of fossil fuel use and chemical runoff into local and national water systems. By contrast, perennial gardens and meadows require very little upkeep and benefit biodiversity. And they can be beautiful. 

Homegrown National Park, a “just do it” program launched by renowned biologist Douglas Tallamy, provides how-to guidance, plant lists and a map for landowners to showcase the action they are taking as this movement builds. Over 37,000 sites in the U.S. and Canada have registered as participants. Some Climate Smart teams - notably Columbia County’s – are encouraging this in Hudson Valley communities. 

This decentralized vision has also given rise to a vigorous movement whose labors have resulted in a “Pollinator Pathway” for the Hudson Valley,  from new meadows on the SUNY New Paltz campus and to regenerative plantings – fittingly – at the Regeneron corporate headquarters in Westchester County. Partners for Climate Action Hudson Valley has published an action guide, Pollinate HV, and is driving an outreach campaign.  Sophisticated tools are publicly available for planning afforestation and sustainable landscaping at the property scale, such as USDA’s i-Tree and Tree Atlas. Some new land management practices are easy for amateurs to take on – for example, pollinator plantings.  However, scaling up the re-greening of cities is complex and expensive.  Trees capable of surviving in urban environments have higher costs, $250 and more for a single shade tree.  Serious investment in these kinds of programs by philanthropies and economic development organizations, especially for supplies, equipment and workforce development, could be a major job-creation opportunity in the landscape and horticulture sector while achieving restoration goals on private lands.  The missing element is coordination of programs, though elements are falling into place. For example, Groundwork Hudson Valley is leading the maturing  of this industry with a multi-year urban forestry workforce development program. 

Land and Water:  New Challenges and Strategies

Sea level rise, extreme rain events, flooding and drought are all signs of the need for new approaches to planning for land use with increased attention to the role of water.  We devote the entire following section to discussing water and climate change in depth, including flood and drought considerations and conservation of water resources. To summarize, planning for much more dynamic and dramatic movements of water through the landscape is becoming essential to prevent extreme weather and sea level rise from taking even worse tolls in our communities.  Healthy natural systems such as wetlands and watersheds, and constructed “green infrastructure” in developed areas, are equally critical elements.  Visionary projects such as Rainproof NYC help to show the way.   

The practice of watershed-scale planning is evolving to take climate change better into account.  This work is often undertaken by volunteers and appointed local government commissions, and guided by strong but small organizations such as the Hudson River Watershed Alliance.  Watershed planning generally involves multiple political jurisdictions, meaning that a great deal of political will is required in order to implement a watershed plan.  Increased financial support for integrated watershed planning, and for inter-municipal agreements to implement them, would be a high-value investment by state agencies and philanthropy.  

One tactic for setting local conservation priorities is to focus on mapping actual wildlife corridors in and around a community. The town of Bedford is an interesting case study for its extensive open space (although much of it consists of large estates).  Bedford’s Conservation Board is mapping wildlife habitat and migration corridors with the intention of preparing the town to adopt a wildlife conservation plan. Shining a light on the movements and needs of wildlife is also a way to identify linkages across political boundaries.  Planning with wildlife and biodiversity in mind could give rise to intermunicipal agreements for resource management, even opening up new ways to transfer development rights among towns.  Models exist, including the Moodna Creek Intermunicipal Watershed Council and the Eastern Westchester Biotic Corridor.  This could be a strategy for re-energizing the land conservation movement. 

Comprehensive planning in highly developed areas is another focal point for fresh thinking. Most population centers in the Hudson Valley are several hundred years old.  Buildings and infrastructure carry the legacy of uninformed and biased decision making: lead paint and water pipes; expanses of impervious pavement and limited tree cover contributing to flood vulnerability; compacted and contaminated soils, including brownfields;  and development patterns that reflect power disparities (such as displacement of populations by eminent domain in Newburgh, Poughkeepsie and elsewhere under Urban Renewal).   Environmental restoration and climate resilience planning efforts  in highly developed areas have been visionary but small scale.  in Newburgh, for example, a Rotary-funded effort to plant 50 shade and fruit trees, 2000 pollinator plants, rain gardens and shoreline stabilization plantings achieved its goals but uncovered a deeper issue:  that the City has 3,800 empty tree “lawns” - those gaps in the pavement designed for trees - that were created a century ago and are too small to house a healthy tree, but are built into the infrastructure.  Kingston has taken the pragmatic step of planting hibiscus which at least are beautiful. 

But the larger issue is how cities and town centers can scale up restoration of green infrastructure in light of the realities of their paved areas.   New York City has similar issues on a much greater scale, and has developed a Million Tree initiative that may provide some guidance for the Hudson Valley.  What is needed is a comprehensive approach to afforestation planning for the small cities of the region, a model that can be widely replicated. Such a plan should address the mix of plant species that are most likely to thrive, the location options for planting them, and the cumulative impacts of these plantings to determine what is necessary to achieve meaningful cooling, stormwater management and related benefits.  

Flooding has devastated numerous Hudson Valley communities.  There are real limits to what planning can do in the face of events that overwhelm infrastructure and communities’ ability to respond.  Preparation and response have been advanced by the Flood Resilience Network, a partnership between NY Sea Grant and the Hudson River Watershed Alliance. This network has been working with local governments, organizations and everyone interested, to create - first - a communication system to document what happens in floods, and to help everyone plan and prepare to respond. Building participation in this network and support for its work is critical.