Local Government Training and Projects in Georgia

Local Government Training and Projects in Georgia

Understanding ecosystem services provided by forests and

greenspace

Liz KramerOdum School of EcologyUniversity of GeorgiaFREMO 2007

Land Use Change in Georgia: Impacts on Ecosystem Services

Liz KramerAlliance for Quality Growth (AQG)

GMA Quality Growth TrainingJuly 25, 2007

Ecosystem Services

• Benefits people obtain from ecosystems– Provisioning services

• Food, water, fuel, and fiber

– Regulating services• Climate, water, disease regulation, and pollination

– Supporting services• Soil formation, nutrient cycling, and decomposition

– Cultural services• Educational, aesthetic, cultural heritage, recreation and

tourism

Green Infrastructure

• “the substructure or underlying foundation, especially the basic installations and facilities on which the continuation and growth of a community depend” – gray infrastructure - roads, sewers, utility lines,

hospitals, schools, prisons, etc– Green infrastructure – waterways, wetlands,

woodlands, wildlife habitats, natural areas, greenways, working farms, ranches and forests, wilderness, etc.

Trees are Important to Human Health

• 1000 Trees remove 100 tons of CO2/year

• 1000 trees removes 5 tons of pollutants/year– 4000 lbs of ozone– 3000 lbs of particulates

Trees reduce power plant emissions

• In summer they can save 30% of Air Conditioning Costs

• In winter they can save up to 25% of heating costs

Wildlife Habitat

• Trees provides wildlife habitat when:– Whenever green and open space is protected– Forestland is protected, especially large tracts– Open and green spaces are connected– A mix of trees and stand ages are present– Water sources are present

Economic Benefits of Trees

• Trees saves local governments money on servicing development

• Trees raises property values (and taxes) for surrounding properties

• Trees attracts businesses, thereby creating jobs

• Trees attracts educated, skilled workers, indirectly attracting businesses

How Green Space Saves Money

• Different land uses require different amounts of service expenditures per dollar of revenue paid to local government

• Using results compiled by AFT, the national averages are:– Residential: $1.15– Commercial/Industrial: $0.29– Farmland/Forestland/Open Space:$0.37

How Trees Make Money

• Trees has been shown to increase property values by about 5% on average based on studies around the country

• This effect holds for about 1/4 mile around green space

• Parks, greenbelts, etc., near homes can generate enough additional property taxes to be self-financing in some cases

Green Space Attracts Business

• Small business owners ranked proximity to open space, parks, and recreational areas as the number one factor in choosing a business location (national survey)

• Attractive green spaces near business locations attract shoppers, making businesses more profitable and attracting more businesses

Green Space for Economics

• To maximize economic benefits from green space, you should look for parcels:– near houses or businesses– welcoming to people (parks, greenbelts, etc.)– that offer connectivity to other neighborhoods,

libraries, shopping, and schools– that are spread throughout the community

The Indirect Jobs Effect Quality of Life

• Sociologist are finding that today more and more high skill workers are choosing where to live first, then finding jobs (creative class)

• Because businesses want high skill workers, they follow these workers to places with good quality of life

• If you attract good workers, good jobs follow

Thomas County1895

Gwinnett County 1912

Franklin County 1954

Historically as well as today Georgia’s economyHas been dependent upon it’s abundant naturalResources: the 3 P’s (Pine, Poultry, and Peanuts)

Pine = $20 billion/year

Recently…..

Forest Canopy from the NLCD

Impervious Surface from NLCD 2001

Development of Multi-date Canopy and Impervious density datasets

• Pilot for 16 counties in Metro Atlanta– 1991 - 2001

• Funded by Georgia Urban Forestry Council (Georgia Forestry Commission – USFS)

• Georgia 1991, 2001, 2005– Funded by Georgia Urban Forestry Council and GA-

EPD (DNR)• Southeastern Cities 1991 and 2001

– Funded by NUCFC (National Urban and Community Forestry Council – USFS)

• Birmingham AL, Charlotte NC, Jackson MS, Charleston SC, Jacksonville FL, Lexington KY, Nashville TN, Washington DC, Raleigh-Durham NC, and Greenville SC

County canopy area 1992 canopy area 2001

Total change (Lost)

change/year (Lost)

change/day (Lost)

Bartow 161,107 152,903 -8,203 -820 -2

Cherokee 189,944 168,734 -21,210 -2,121 -6

Clayton 39,392 35,851 -3,541 -354 -1

Cobb 106,877 97,049 -9,828 -983 -3

Coweta 162,093 157,513 -4,580 -458 -1

Dekalb 82,422 75,713 -6,709 -671 -2

Douglas 78,305 72,463 -5,842 -584 -2

Fayette 64,690 61,652 -3,038 -304 -1

Forsyth 91,451 75,986 -15,466 -1,547 -4

Fulton 178,800 164,942 -13,859 -1,386 -4

Gwinnett 142,360 111,245 -31,115 -3,111 -9

Hall 167,999 133,451 -34,548 -3,455 -9

Henry 104,998 93,575 -11,423 -1,142 -3

Paulding 128,762 126,109 -2,653 -265 -1

Rockdale 45,375 41,140 -4,235 -424 -1

Walton 105,332 84,663 -20,670 -2,067 -6

total 1,849,911 1,652,989 -196,921 -19,692 -54

All Values are in Acres

Tree Canopy 1991 - 2001

County

Total Impervious

Surface 1992

Total Impervious

Surface 2001

Total Change(Gain)

Change/Year(Gain)

Change/Day(Gain)

Bartow 4,517 7,519 3,002 300 1

Cherokee 4,040 8,465 4,425 443 1

Clayton 12,768 18,350 5,582 558 2

Cobb 21,799 35,838 14,039 1,404 4

Coweta 3,878 7,251 3,373 337 1

Dekalb 22,687 31,447 8,760 876 2

Douglas 4,078 7,029 2,951 295 1

Fayette 3,358 6,718 3,360 336 1

Forsyth 2,786 7,877 5,092 509 1

Fulton 34,713 52,276 17,563 1,756 5

Gwinnett 21,775 41,472 19,697 1,970 5

Hall 5,720 10,157 4,436 444 1

Henry 4,256 9,137 4,881 488 1

Paulding 2,210 4,515 2,304 230 1

Rockdale 3,599 5,706 2,107 211 1

Walton 2,350 4,051 1,701 170 0

total 154,536 257,809 103,273 10,327 28

All values are in Acres

Impervious Surface 1991 -2001

Impervious Change: Top 10 Counties in Acres Per Day

• 1991 – 2001– Gwinnett (6)– Fulton (5)– Cobb (4)– Dekalb (2)– Forsyth (1)– Clayton (1)– Henry (1)– Chatham (1)– Cherokee (1)– Richmond (1)

• 2001 – 2005– Gwinnett (9)– Fulton (8)– Cobb (6)– Dekalb (5)– Henry (4)– Clayton (3)– Chatham (3)– Paulding (3)– Cherokee (3)– Muscogee (2)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

County

Per

cen

t

percent canopy 1992

percent canopy 2001

Percent canopy 2005

UFORE Model

• Urban Forest Effects Model (USFS)– Nowak and Crane

• Quantifies urban forest structure and function• Multiple components

– Forest structure (anatomy)– Biogenic VOC emissions– Carbon storage and sequestration– Dry Deposition– Energy Effects

UFORE Model

• Dry Deposition– Calculates hourly effects for O3, SO2, NO2, CO

and PM10– Average hourly pollutant flux

• Calculates externality values dollars/unit pollution removal– 1994 median values for the US

Pollutant Removal

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

CO SOx PM10 O3 NO2

tons removed 91

tons removed 01

tons removed 05

Metro Atlanta

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

CO SOx PM10 O3 NO2

1991 Dollars Saved

2001 Dollars Saved

2005 Dollars Saved

A Statewide Approach for Identifying Potential Areas for

Wetland Restoration and Mitigation Banking in Georgia:

An Ecosystem Functional Approach

Funding from Georgia EPD via

EPA Region 4 Wetland Development Grant Program

Project Purpose

The development of a GIS model of potential areas for wetland mitigation banks, conservation activities and restoration projects that natural resource managers can use to help guide wetland management efforts.

The model is comprised of two components:

Component 1: Identification of potential wetland restoration areas based on mappable wetland functions and values.

Component 2: Prioritization of 12 Digit HUC watersheds based on threats to the overall health of the watershed.

Model Components

Component OneIdentified wetland functions and values (ecological

services):

1. Water quality / water quantity

2. Flow regulation / flood control

3. Wildlife habitat (includes Biodiversity Conservation)

4. Recreation

5. Education

6. Connectivity

7. Ease of restoration

8. Scenic value

Component OneComponent one is comprised of nine layers:

1.2 Hydric soils

1.3 Areas potentially regulated under 404 by the USACE

1.4 Water quality improvement and flood control

1.5 Connectivity to existing conservation areas (GAP)

1.6 Removed (biodiversity conservation)

1.7 Biodiversity conservation – Average weighted species richness model (SWAP)

1.8 Connectivity to existing wetlands

1.9 Percentage of natural upland vegetation

1.10 Maintenance of high water quality – Natural Heritage Program high priority streams (SWAP)

Primary Function Secondary Functions

Layer 1.1 Restorability

Layer 1.2 Ease of Restoration Jurisdiction

Layer 1.3 Jurisdiction

Layer 1.4 Water Quality and Quantity Flood Control and Flow Regulation

Layer 1.5 Connectivity Wildlife Habitat

Water Quality and Quantity

Flood Control and Flow Regulation

Recreation

Education

Layer 1.7 Wildlife Habitat Connectivity

Layer 1.8 Water Quality and Quantity Flood Control and Flow Regulation

Connectivity

Restorability

Wildlife Habitat

Layer 1.9 Wildlife Habitat Water Quality and Quantity

Connectivity

Layer 1.10 Water Quality and Quantity Flood Control and Flow Regulation

Aquatic Habitat

Flow Chart for Component One

Layer 1.2

Layer 1.3

Layer 1.4

Layer 1.5

Layer 1.7

Layer 1.8

Layer 1.9

Layer 1.10

Layer 1.1 Non Restorable Areas

Potential Wetland Restoration Areas

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Potential Wetland Restoration Areas

• Threats Assessment

• 12 – Digit Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC) within a basin

• HUC’s with highest cumulative threats will have highest priority (9)

Component 2

Creation of a Human Disturbance Index by summing the ranking of eight separate threats to the health of a watershed.

• Used to prioritize potential wetland restoration areas identified in component 1.

• Identified threats:2.1 Stream fragmentation2.2 Impaired waters2.3 Wetland density change2.4 Project population growth2.5 Impervious surface cover2.6 Wetland fragmentation – Contiguity2.7 Wetland fragmentation – Proximity

2.8 Riparian forest fragmentation

Component 2

Flow Chart for Component Two

Layer 2.1

Layer 2.2

Layer 2.3

Layer 2.4

Layer 2.5

Layer 2.6

Layer 2.7

Layer 2.8

Human Disturbance Index

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Human Disturbance Index (draft)

Georgia encompasses 37 million acres of land