Local Government Training and Projects in Georgia

1. 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

2. Land Use Change in Georgia: Impacts on Ecosystem Services Liz Kramer Alliance for Quality Growth (AQG) GMA Quality Growth Training July 25, 2007

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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 The Indirect Jobs Effect Quality of Life

14. 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 Thomas County 1895 Gwinnett County 1912 Franklin County 1954

15. Recently…..

24. Forest Canopy from the NLCD

25. Impervious Surface from NLCD 2001

26. 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

30. Tree Canopy 1991 - 2001 All Values are in Acres

31. Impervious Surface 1991 -2001 All values are in Acres

32. 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) Impervious Change: Top 10 Counties in Acres Per Day

34. 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

35. 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

38. 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

39. 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.

40. Model Components 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.

41. Component One Identified wetland functions and values (ecological services): • Water quality / water quantity • Flow regulation / flood control • Wildlife habitat (includes Biodiversity Conservation) • Recreation • Education • Connectivity • Ease of restoration • Scenic value

42. 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)

44. Potential Wetland Restoration Areas Layer 1.1 Non Restorable Areas Layer 1.2 + Layer 1.3 + Layer 1.4 + Layer 1.5 + Layer 1.7 + Layer 1.8 + Layer 1.9 + Layer 1.10 Flow Chart for Component One

45. Potential Wetland Restoration Areas

46. Component 2 • Threats Assessment • 12 – Digit Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC) within a basin • HUC’s with highest cumulative threats will have highest priority (9)

47. 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

48. Layer 2.1 + Layer 2.2 + Layer 2.3 + Human Disturbance Index Layer 2.4 + Layer 2.5 + Layer 2.6 + Layer 2.7 + Layer 2.8 Flow Chart for Component Two

49. Human Disturbance Index (draft)

50. Georgia encompasses 37 million acres of land