Local Government Training and Projects in Georgia Understanding ecosystem services provided by forests and greenspace Liz Kramer Odum School of Ecology University of Georgia FREMO 2007

Land Use Change in Georgia: Impacts on Ecosystem Services Liz Kramer Alliance for Quality Growth (AQG) GMA Quality Growth Training July 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 CO 2 /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 County 1895 Gwinnett County 1912 Franklin County 1954 Historically as well as today Georgia’s economy Has been dependent upon it’s abundant natural Resources: 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 – 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

Countycanopy area 1992 canopy area 2001 Total change (Lost) change/year (Lost) change/day (Lost) Bartow161,107152,903-8, Cherokee189,944168,734-21,210-2,121-6 Clayton39,39235,851-3, Cobb106,87797,049-9, Coweta162,093157,513-4, Dekalb82,42275,713-6, Douglas78,30572,463-5, Fayette64,69061,652-3, Forsyth91,45175,986-15,466-1,547-4 Fulton178,800164,942-13,859-1,386-4 Gwinnett142,360111,245-31,115-3,111-9 Hall167,999133,451-34,548-3,455-9 Henry104,99893,575-11,423-1,142-3 Paulding128,762126,109-2, Rockdale45,37541,140-4, Walton105,33284,663-20,670-2,067-6 total1,849,9111,652, ,921-19, All Values are in Acres Tree Canopy

County Total Impervious Surface 1992 Total Impervious Surface 2001 Total Change (Gain) Change/Year (Gain) Change/Day (Gain) Bartow4,5177,5193, Cherokee4,0408,4654, Clayton12,76818,3505, Cobb21,79935,83814,0391,4044 Coweta3,8787,2513, Dekalb22,68731,4478, Douglas4,0787,0292, Fayette3,3586,7183, Forsyth2,7867,8775, Fulton34,71352,27617,5631,7565 Gwinnett21,77541,47219,6971,9705 Hall5,72010,1574, Henry4,2569,1374, Paulding2,2104,5152, Rockdale3,5995,7062, Walton2,3504,0511, total154,536257,809103,27310,32728 All values are in Acres Impervious Surface

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)

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 O 3, SO 2, NO 2, CO and PM10 –Average hourly pollutant flux Calculates externality values dollars/unit pollution removal –1994 median values for the US

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 One Identified 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 One Component 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 FunctionSecondary Functions Layer 1.1Restorability Layer 1.2Ease of RestorationJurisdiction Layer 1.3Jurisdiction Layer 1.4Water Quality and QuantityFlood Control and Flow Regulation Layer 1.5ConnectivityWildlife Habitat Water Quality and Quantity Flood Control and Flow Regulation Recreation Education Layer 1.7Wildlife HabitatConnectivity Layer 1.8Water Quality and QuantityFlood Control and Flow Regulation Connectivity Restorability Wildlife Habitat Layer 1.9Wildlife HabitatWater Quality and Quantity Connectivity Layer 1.10Water Quality and QuantityFlood 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

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 fragmentation 2.2 Impaired waters 2.3 Wetland density change 2.4 Project population growth 2.5 Impervious surface cover 2.6 Wetland fragmentation – Contiguity 2.7 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