Sub-Issue 8: Silvicultural Benefits of Prescribed Fire

Transcription

1 Sub-Issue 8: Silvicultural Benefits of Prescribed Fire Fire was once an important, naturally-occurring component of several forested ecosystems. In the early 20 th century, efforts to suppress damaging wildfires resulted in dramatic change in these ecosystems, as virtually all fire was excluded, including that which occurred naturally. In recent decades, fire regimes in the south have changed once again through the re-introduction of fire in the form of prescribed burns. Since the 1970s, prescribed burning has become an integral part of forest management in the south. Although prescribed burns have been used by foresters to reduce hazardous fuels since the turn of the century, its use for other management objectives was not well accepted until much later. Today, public agencies are well aware of the integral role of fire in forested ecosystems and prescribed fire is applied to almost 4 million forested acres in the South each year (Wade and Lunsford 1988). Most of the operational guidelines for using prescribed fire in forests were developed in the flatwoods of the "deep" South. Early studies there showed the benefits of prescribed burning in the maintenance of longleaf pine and bobwhite quail habitat (VanLear and Waldrop 1989). For decades now, prescribed burning has been used in these flatwoods for hardwood control, fuel reduction, seedbed preparation, and wildlife habitat maintenance (Buckner and Turrill 1999). Prescribed fire has not been widely used in the southern Appalachians as compared to other areas in the South. Due to its highly variable topography, fire behavior is much more erratic in this region and operational guidelines developed in the southern flatwoods do not apply. Also, the benefits of prescribed burns in southern Appalachian forests, where hardwoods predominate, are not yet fully understood (Van Lear and Waldrop 1989). Buckner and Turill (1999) state that "establishing parameters (both fuel and weather conditions) and firing techniques for using fire for ecological and other management benefits in the southern Appalachians should be a major concern of federal agencies in this region." The use of prescribed fire in the southern Appalachians tends to differ according to land ownership. State agencies use prescribed fire primarily for silvicultural objectives. The US Forest Service uses prescribed fire in ecosystem management to achieve certain desired ecosystem conditions. In contrast, the National Park Service takes a more protective approach to land management and invasive actions such as prescribed fires have been rarely used, until recently (Buckner and Turrill 1999). The Appalachian (Allegheny Highlands) Fire Learning Network (refer to previous sub-issue) engages federal, state, and private land management organizations in a collaborative effort to enhance the capacity to implement ecological fire management in the Central Appalachian Forest, Western Allegheny Plateau, Cumberland Plateau, and Southern Ridge and Valley ecoregions. Together, these eco-regions include portions of six states, including 763,221 acres in Virginia and West Virginia (Map 5.23). They are characterized by rolling and mountainous terrain, hardwood and mixed pine-hardwood forest, pine-oak-heath shrub lands and woodlands, small-patch grasslands including hillside prairies, and cedar glades. The goal is to return this type of forest land back to its natural state, which at one point was dependent upon regular fire activity for species survival. It is also interesting to note that prescribed burns in recent years, on both the Monongahela National Forest and the Fernow Experimental Forest, shows significant promise in helping to establish oak regeneration on various sites. 244 Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 5: Wildfire Management

2 Sub-Issue 9: Property Values in the Wildland-Urban Interface As cities and urban populations continue to increase, there has been considerable development in rural areas of West Virginia. As this interest grows, property and land values increase. The Division of Forestry estimates that the damage caused by a typical wildfire is approximately $300 per acre. Currently, however, most wildfire damage is confined to natural resources, such as timber. As personal property values (primarily houses and related structures) increase in the wildland-urban interface, there will be a corresponding increase in the economic damage caused by wildfires (Map 5.24). Map 5.24: Structure density in rural areas of West Virginia (WVDOF GIS, 2009 using data from WV GIS Technical Center, 2009 e). Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 5: Wildfire Management 245

3 Issue 5: Priority Areas Although there are many places in West Virginia with wildfire potential, the following two areas have been identified as Priority Areas for the fire program covering the time period of this assessment "Hot" counties in the southern coal fields (Map 5.4). Year after year, over 50 percent of all the fires and over 90 percent of the acreage burned in the state occur in this area. Most fires in this area are caused by debris burning and incendiary actions. Fire investigators are based in these areas due to the high fire occurrence. The topography of this area contributes directly to the size and duration of fires which occur there. These areas can be very remote and difficult to access. The steep terrain makes it difficult to construct fire breaks by hand or by mechanical means. The steep terrain allows for fires to grow in size and move rapidly up and down slopes. This area of the state is also where the majority of the mining activity occurs, which results in the occurrence of mine breaks and mine break fires. 2. The Eastern Panhandle (Map 5.10 Potomac Highlands Counties) This area serves as the initial project area for the Hazard Mitigation and Wildland Urban Interface program and is where WVDOF has prepared most of the Community Wildfire Protection Plans. This area of the state shows the greatest potential for future population growth and increases in property values. The influx of people from the greater Washington DC / Baltimore area has led to an increase in housing development within the wildland-urban interface. 246 Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 5: Wildfire Management

4 Bibliography Buckner, E. R. and N.L. Turrill Fire management. In: Peine, J. (ed.). Ecosystem 35 Management for Sustainability: principals and practices illustrated by a regional biosphere reserve cooperative. CRC Press, London. 500 pp Chavez, Quinn Personal communications regarding fire_final.zip, containing NA Wildfire Risk Assessment data, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry. Darnell, Richard Personal communications regarding Mine Break locations to Ben Webster, WVDOF fall 2009, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. Fisher, Keith The Fire Learning Network, US and WV/VA maps. The Nature Conservancy. Riemann, Rachel, T. Lister, A. Lister, D. Meneguzzo, and S. Parks a. Development of issue-relevant state level analyses of fragmentation and urbanization. In: McWilliams, Will; Moisen, Gretchen; Czaplewski, Ray, comps. Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Symposium 2008; October 21-23, 2008; Park City, UT. Proc. RMRS-P-56CD. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 24 p. GIS grid nrs_psizerc accessed at ftp://ftp2.fs.fed.us/incoming/nagis/assessments/forest_frag/riemann/ Riemann, Rachel, T. Lister, A. Lister, D. Meneguzzo, and S. Parks b. Development of issue-relevant state level analyses of fragmentation and urbanization. In: McWilliams, Will; Moisen, Gretchen; Czaplewski, Ray, comps. Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Symposium 2008; October 21-23, 2008; Park City, UT. Proc. RMRS-P-56CD. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 24 p. GIS grid NRS_dist2rds accessed at ftp://ftp2.fs.fed.us/incoming/nagis/assessments/forest_frag/riemann/ Theobald, D.M., and W.H. Romme Expansion of the US wildland-urban interface. Landscape and Urban Plan 83(4): USDA FS FIA Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program & Remote Sensing Applications Center (RSAC). Conterminous U.S. and Alaska Forest Type Mapping Using Forest Inventory and Analysis Data available at < USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry.2009 S&PF Grids Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 5: Wildfire Management 247

5 Van Lear, D. H. and T. A. Waldrop History, use, and effects of fire in the Appalachians. USDA Forest Service, Southeast Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report SE 54, Asheville, NC. Wade, Dale D., J.D. Lunsford, and M.J. Dixon A guide for prescribed fire in southern forests, rewritten in Technical publication R8; TP 11. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, Ga. WVDOF GIS, 2009 a. Weather Stations. WVDOF GIS, 2009 b. 14 Hot Counties. WVDOF GIS, 2009 c. Number of Fires by County WVDOF GIS, 2009 d. Acres Burned by County WVDOF GIS, 2009 e. Repeat Burn Areas WVDOF GIS, 2009 f. Community Wildfire Protection Plans. WVDOF GIS, 2009 g. County Summary of Patches ¼ Mile From Roads. WVDOF, Wildland Fire Occurrence Database WV GIS Technical Center, 2009 a. armyreservefacilities_wvng_200502_utm83.shp, downloaded September, 2009 available at WV GIS Technical Center, 2009 b. firedepartments_manysources_200809_utm83.shp, downloaded September, 2009 available at WV GIS Technical Center, 2009 c. airports_wvdot_1998_utm83.shp, downloaded September, 2009 available at WV GIS Technical Center, 2009 d. correctionalfacilities_manysources_2008_utm83.shp, downloaded September, 2009 available at WV GIS Technical Center, 2009 e. structurepointsnorth_samb_2003_utm83.shp and structurepointssouth_samb_2003_utm83.shp downloaded June, 2009 available at Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 5: Wildfire Management

6 Issue 6: Sustainability of Urban Forests The West Virginia Division of Forestry s Urban and Community Forestry (UCF) program has been working with cities and communities to manage important urban forest resources since The WVDOF recognizes the significant role urban trees play in enhancing the quality of life for all West Virginians. The WVDOF s urban forestry activities include: helping build program capacity at the municipal level; conserving energy and mitigating climate extremes; reducing the impacts of urban growth and loss of forest land; maintaining and improving water and air quality; conserving green spaces; and enhancing canopy cover in urban areas. Sub-Issue 1: Building Program Capacity at the Community Level The cornerstone of the UCF program is building and enhancing municipal tree care programs. Efforts to foster this capacity include technical assistance, skills training, financial assistance, and a variety of specifically targeted programs. Experience shows that communities must develop the infrastructure necessary to support an urban forestry program in order to have longterm success. A starting point for success is for communities to achieve three of the basic standards required for the Tree City USA award. These standards are: creating an advocacy group; passing a tree ordinance; and establishing a tree care budget. Two additional steps toward becoming an actively managing municipality are defined and tracked by the USFS Community Accomplishment Reporting System (CARS). These steps are: the development of a tree inventory with a corresponding management plan; and the addition of a professional staff. The UCF program strives to assist communities with the implementation of these five elements of success. Assessment Methods The assessment method to determine communities with the greatest priority needs involves summing their reclassified values for the presence of six input criteria (see below). The Maryland Method identifies communities with greater than state average populations, urbanized areas, and impervious cover with less than state average existing canopy cover. Additional criteria of equal value are the absence of an advocacy group, a tree ordinance, or a management plan. These tools of comprehensive urban tree management are the most critical to long-term success and were consequently given the greatest significance. The final criterion is the absence of a professional staff. This was given the least significance since many West Virginia communities have excellent urban forestry programs without professional staff. Often, they are financially unable to employ a professional forester or arborist. Instead, this need is met through professionals volunteering to serve on local tree boards and through assistance from WVDOF. Criterion 1 Maryland Method # of Criteria = 4 - Reclassified to 3 Criterion 2 Maryland Method # of Criteria = 3 - Reclassified to 2 Criterion 3 CARS - No Advocacy group - Reclassified to 2 Criterion 4 CARS - No Ordinance - Reclassified to 2 Criterion 5 CARS - No Inventory/Management plan - Reclassified to 2 Criterion 6 CARS - No Professional staff - Reclassified to 1 Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 6: Sustainability of Urban Forests 249

7 The 30 communities with the highest priority needs for assistance with urban forestry programs are identified in Map 6.1 and Table 6.1. Map 6.1: Location of top priority communities in West Virginia for Building Program Capacity at the Local Level (WVDOF GIS, 2009). Table 6.1: Ranking of the 30 top priority communities in West Virginia for Building Program Capacity at the Local Level. Place Name Rank Place Name Rank Place Name Rank Chesapeake 1 Pea Ridge (CDP) 11 Spencer 21 Moundsville 2 Chester 12 Monongah 22 Paden City 3 Bancroft 13 Point Pleasant 23 Wellsburg 4 Weston 14 Pratt 24 Sistersville 5 Fairmont 15 Nutter Fort 25 Westover 6 Belmont 16 Sophia 26 Dunbar 7 New Martinsville 17 Mason 27 Ridgeley 8 Newell (CDP) 18 Beckley 28 Keyser 9 Stonewood 19 Nitro 29 Star City 10 Princeton 20 Poca Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 6: Sustainability of Urban Forests

8 Sub-Issue 2: Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Conservation According to a 2001 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on climate change, the average temperature in Charleston, West Virginia has increased 1.1 F over the past century and precipitation has increased by up to 10 percent in many parts of the state. Even more dramatic changes are possible based on projected increases in levels of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and aerosols, according to a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Data from the HadCM2 climate model indicates that over the next century, temperatures in West Virginia could increase by 1 to 6 F. Precipitation may increase by as much as percent (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001). Much is still uncertain regarding the future extent of climate change in West Virginia. However, trees and surrounding forests will certainly continue to play a significant role in mitigating seasonal temperature changes and energy consumption in communities. Strategically planted trees in urban areas provide many direct benefits relevant to climate change, including shade for buildings and air conditioning units, increased pervious surface area, carbon storage, reduced storm water runoff and a reduction in energy used for heating and cooling. These same urban trees will indirectly reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel-based power plants, as energy demands for heating and cooling are lowered. This reduction of carbon emissions from power plants could be four times greater than direct carbon storage over the life of a mature tree (Nowak, 1993). West Virginians are fortunate that approximately 80 percent of the state is covered by forests. Rural and urban residents benefit tremendously from living in close proximity to an abundance of trees. However, many additional and significant benefits could be realized simply by increasing the canopy cover in communities. Several West Virginia communities have conducted inventories to identify available planting spaces and are working to optimize tree planting on these sites. Many more municipalities need to assess existing canopy cover, set goals, and begin strategic tree planting programs to minimize the potential effects of future climate change. Assessment Methods To prioritize urban areas for climate change mitigation and energy conservation efforts, three criteria were created, as summarized below: Criterion 1 Communities with a Priority Planting Index (PPI) of > 59 percent (mean PPI) Reclassified to 6 Criterion 2 - Development Level of > 1 (mean) housing unit/acre Reclassified to 2 Criterion 3 Forest Cover of < 56 percent (mean) within ½ mile of polygon perimeter expressed as percent of land area by community Reclassified to 2 The Priority Planting Index (PPI) incorporates population density, canopy green space, and tree canopy per capita into one index, and received the greatest reclassified value of 6. This layer Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 6: Sustainability of Urban Forests 251

9 identifies areas with low existing canopy cover and greater than average population densities, and identifies communities with the most potential to increase canopy cover per capita. Higher than average Development Levels (reclassified with values of 2) are indicative of areas with high and increasing carbon emissions, high energy demands, and great need for strategic tree planting. It has been determined that increasing canopy cover to 30 percent will provide 66 percent as much cooling to a site as full vegetation coverage (Coder, 1996). Surrounding Forest Cover is a measure of the capacity of adjacent forest lands to store large amounts of carbon and buffer residents from climate changes. Communities with less than average surrounding forest cover were reclassified with values of 2. Using the above criteria, 30 communities in the state were identified as priority areas for climate change mitigation and energy conservation efforts (Map 6.2 and Table 6.2). Map 6.2: Locations of high priority communities in West Virginia for climate change mitigation and energy conservation efforts (WVDOF GIS, 2009). 252 Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 6: Sustainability of Urban Forests

10 Table 6.2: The 30 highest priority communities in West Virginia for climate change mitigation and energy conservation efforts. Place Name Rank Place Name Rank Place Name Rank Chesapeake 1 Vienna 11 Athens 21 Corporation of Ranson 2 Kenova 12 Fairmont 22 Huntington 3 Dunbar 13 Belmont 23 Paden City 4 Ridgeley 14 Middlebourne 24 St. Albans 5 Parkersburg 15 Buckhannon 25 Wellsburg 6 Star City 16 Masontown 26 Windsor Heights 7 Pea Ridge (CDP) 17 Williamstown 27 Sistersville 8 Morgantown 18 Shepherdstown 28 Westover 9 Chester 19 Elkins 29 Martinsburg 10 Bancroft 20 Ravenswood 30 Sub-Issue 3: Population Dynamics and Resource Allocation Population estimates for 2008 from the U.S. Census Bureau indicate that West Virginia s total population has remained relatively static since 2000, increasing by only 0.3 percent. Of the 14 municipalities with a population greater than 10,000, only Martinsburg (12 percent increase) and Morgantown (10 percent increase) have experienced population growth since In fact, the other 12 largest cities have all experienced a decrease in population, some significantly. Charleston, the state s largest city, has seen a decrease in population by an average 400 residents per year since 2000 and may fall below 50,000 residents by The same trends can be observed at the county level, with only eight of the state s 55 counties having noteworthy population growth. All but two of these counties are in the Eastern Panhandle, with Berkeley (26 percent increase), Jefferson (18 percent increase), Hampshire (11 percent increase) and Morgan (eight percent increase) showing the largest increases. Accordingly, these counties are seeing the greatest rise in urban development, with housing units increasing by 25 percent in Berkeley, 21 percent in Jefferson, 16 percent in Morgan and 12 percent in Hampshire. Modest growth occurred around Morgantown, as Monongalia County increased in population by seven percent and housing units by four percent. In the Kanawha Valley, Putnam County had a population increase of seven percent and an eight percent increase in housing units. Counties adjacent to Monongalia and Putnam had very little population change and some experienced decreasing population (US Census Bureau, 2008). The population dynamics of West Virginia present several unique challenges to the delivery of urban forestry programs. The Eastern Panhandle and Morgantown are experiencing rapid urbanization and will need to be specifically targeted with resources to address issues including the loss of forest land, decreasing canopy cover, threatened watersheds, wildland urban interface (WUI) risk, and other impacts of urban development. These regions have been highlighted by the Maryland Method in Sub-Issue 1 and will benefit tremendously through strategies identified in other issues. However, it is equally important to deliver services to other regions of the state for the benefit of citizens of more rural communities. The vast majority of West Virginia s Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 6: Sustainability of Urban Forests 253

11 residents live in rural areas and communities of less than 5,000 people. Often these areas face severe economic challenges including lower household income levels, higher unemployment rates, strained municipal budgets, and inadequate tree care resources. The result is a substantial need to provide financial and technical assistance to enhance urban forestry efforts in these regions. The challenge will be to determine how to invest limited resources, while answering the question Where does it matter most in West Virginia? Assessment Methods The assessment method for this sub-issue is intended to identify smaller communities with economic roadblocks to establishing urban forestry programs. The WVDOF seeks a balance between addressing the needs of regions undergoing significant development, while still bringing the benefits of urban forestry to a majority of West Virginia s citizens that live in small communities. The regions experiencing rapid urbanization were previously identified and prioritized in Sub-Issue 1. Criterion 1 Communities with population < than 10,000 - Reclassified to 3 Criterion 2 Median household incomes < than State average of $29,696 - Reclassified to 2 Criterion 3 CARS - No Advocacy group - Reclassified to 2 Criterion 4 CARS - No Ordinance - Reclassified to 2 Criterion 5 CARS - No Inventory/Management plan - Reclassified to 1 Using the above assessment methods, 30 smaller communities within the state were identified as high-priority areas for urban forestry resource allocation (Map 6.3 and Table 6.3). Urban tree in Ritter Park, Huntington, West Virginia. (Dave Fattaleh, WV Department of Commerce (retired)). 254 Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 6: Sustainability of Urban Forests

12 Map 6.3: Location of highest priority smaller population communities in West Virginia for urban forestry resource allocation needs (WVDOF GIS, 2009). Table 6.3: Top 30 smaller population communities in West Virginia with the highest priority for urban forestry resource allocation needs. Place Name Rank Place Name Rank Place Name Rank Chesapeake 1 Bancroft 11 Spencer 21 Moundsville 2 Weston 12 Monongah 22 Wellsburg 3 Piedmont 13 Hamlin 23 Windsor Heights 4 Belmont 14 Point Pleasant 24 Sistersville 5 Middlebourne 15 Sophia 25 Westover 6 Masontown 16 Mason 26 Ridgeley 7 West Union 17 West Liberty 27 Keyser 8 Stonewood 18 Hambleton 28 Star City 9 Princeton 19 Mannington 29 Chester 10 Elizabeth 20 Chapmanville 30 Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 6: Sustainability of Urban Forests 255

13 Sub-Issue 4: Air Quality West Virginia has 10 counties and portions of two additional counties that currently do not meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Standards for air quality known as Non-attainment Areas. The current federal standard for particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in size is no more than 35 micrograms per cubic meter, averaged over a 24-hour period, and an annual mean of no more than 15 micrograms per cubic meter. Counties not in compliance with this standard are: Marshall, Ohio, Brooke, and Hancock in the northern panhandle; Kanawha, Putnam, Cabell, Mason and Wayne in the Kanawha Valley; Wood and Pleasants along the Ohio River; and Berkeley in the eastern panhandle. Not surprisingly, these regions are the most industrialized, and contain some of the most densely populated urban centers in the state (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2008). On the positive side, West Virginia only exceeds federal standards in one category of air pollutant -- particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers. The state s air quality is within U.S. EPA standards for other common pollutants, including carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter between 2.5 and 10 micrometers, and lead. However, other counties are close to exceeding federal standards for some of these pollutants and may do so within the next decade, if action isn t taken soon (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2008). On the negative side, additional airborne pollutants are currently present at hazardous levels in population centers with significant industrial development. In 2007, there were 78 West Virginia facilities involved in a reported release incident of one of 20 known EPA carcinogens. Potential community exposure to these 20 chemicals was estimated through modeling within four distinct geographic zones: Belle, Charleston/South Charleston, Institute, and Nitro. The study was designed to provide an initial understanding of selected toxic pollutants which are present in the ambient environment of the Kanawha Valley; to identify possible sources of these pollutants; and to provide a sense of the nature and relative priority of potential health risks associated with public exposure to these chemicals. The pollutants of greatest concern were identified as: chloroform (Belle), ethylene oxide, acrylonitrile (both at Charleston), ethylene oxide, and 1,3 butadiene (both at Institute). The study estimates that current exposure levels to these pollutants will cause a range of increased lifetime cancer risk as high as 5 in 1,000 in some neighborhoods, and as low as 6 in 1,000,000 in other areas (US EPA, Kanawha Valley toxics Screening Study, 2008). Urban tree planting programs can be part of the solution for certain air quality problems. Trees within communities, as well as surrounding forest land, have significant capacity to filter and reduce particulate matter and airborne pollutants. UFORE (Urban Forest Effects) modeling, developed by Dr. Nowak of the USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, estimates that urban trees in Morgantown remove 60 metric tons of air pollutants every year, providing an annual benefit to the city of $311,000. West Virginians would realize many health and environmental benefits from efforts to increase urban canopy cover and conserve adjacent forests (Nowak, 2006). 256 Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 6: Sustainability of Urban Forests

14 Assessment Methods This assessment method prioritizes areas based on current levels of air pollution, population density, and the need for increased tree canopy cover, using the following four criteria: Criterion 1 - Communities within EPA particulate matter area (< 2.5 μm) - Reclassified to 3 Criterion 2 - Priority Planting Index of > 59 percent (mean PPI) Reclassified to 3 Criterion 3 - Communities within 5 miles of a facility releasing one of 20 known EPA carcinogens in 2007 Reclassified to 2 Criterion 4 - Forest cover < 56 percent (mean) within ½ mile of polygon perimeter expressed as percent of land area by community - Reclassified to 2 EPA non-attainment areas for particulate matter and areas within 5 miles of facilities releasing toxic airborne pollutants indicate regions of immediate concern. The Priority Planting Index incorporates population density, canopy green space, and tree canopy per capita, focusing planting efforts in areas that would receive the greatest air quality benefits from an increased canopy cover. Communities with below-average acres of surrounding forest land have a diminished capacity to filter airborne pollutants. This assessment method will direct resources into regions with the greatest potential for air-quality improvement from strategic tree planting and forest conservation (Map 6.4 and Table 6.4). Map 6.4: Location of areas in West Virginia with the highest priority needs for urban forestry projects to improve air quality (WVDOF GIS, 2009). Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 6: Sustainability of Urban Forests 257

15 Table 6.4: Top 30 communities in West Virginia with the highest priority needs for urban forestry projects to improve air quality. Place Name Rank Place Name Rank Place Name Rank Chesapeake 1 Williamstown 11 Cross Lanes (CDP) 21 Huntington 2 East Bank 12 New Haven 22 St. Albans 3 Glen Dale 13 Buffalo 23 Wellsburg 4 Nitro 14 Inwood (CDP) 24 Martinsburg 5 Poca 15 Moundsville 25 Dunbar 6 South Charleston 16 McMechen 26 Parkersburg 7 Jefferson 17 Windsor Heights 27 Pea Ridge (CDP) 8 Belle 18 Vienna 28 Bancroft 9 Follansbee 19 Kenova 29 Belmont 10 Eleanor 20 Chester 30 Sub-Issue 5: Public Drinking Water Quality and Quantity Community water systems (CWS), typically operated by municipalities, supplied drinking water to 82 percent of West Virginians in Drinking water sources are classified as either: a) surface water, including streams, rivers, lakes, and impoundments; or b) ground water from subsurface aquifers. Approximately 80 percent of CWS customers in West Virginia receive drinking water from a surface source and the remaining 20 percent from ground water sources. These numerous surface and ground water resources are increasingly threatened by a variety of pollutants and contaminants from many sources. Health-based violations of drinking water standards reported to the U.S. EPA in West Virginia impacted 148,356 citizens in 2008, representing 10 percent of all CWS customers (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2008). Some of the most problematic threats to safe drinking water in West Virginia involve contamination from fecal coliform bacteria and acid mine drainage. Many state waters contain elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria. Contributors to the problem include: leaking or overflowing sewage collection systems; illegal homeowner sewage discharges; failing septic systems; runoff from urban or residential areas; and discharge from agricultural lands. Based on probabilistic data, about 17 percent of the stream miles in the state have fecal coliform bacteria levels that exceed the criterion of 400 colonies/100ml. Watersheds in the more urbanized regions of the state have a greater proportion of stream miles exceeding this fecal coliform limit. Drinking water sources with mine drainage tributaries are often impaired by low ph and/or elevated concentrations of metals, including iron, aluminum, and manganese. Other dissolved ions such as sulfate may also be present in concentrations above ambient levels. A sulfate concentration greater than 50 mg/l is indicative of sites influenced by mine drainage. Following this guideline, approximately 18 percent of the stream miles statewide are influenced by mine drainage (WVDEP, 2008). 258 Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 6: Sustainability of Urban Forests

16 Population centers with a large portion of the land area covered by impervious surfaces are also major contributors of contaminants and sedimentation to drinking water sources. These pollutants include sewage, motor oil, deicing salt, fossil fuels, antifreeze, heavy metals, fertilizers, pesticides, and many other toxic chemicals. Additionally, a concentration of impervious surfaces negatively impacts ground water by causing storm water to overwhelm municipal drainage systems with little water infiltrating to recharge ground water reserves. According to the WV Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), a 15 percent reduction in porous ground surface area in a watershed will increase flooding and damage habitat, water quality, biological diversity, and stream bank stability (WVDEP, 2009). This is of particular concern in communities utilizing combined sewer overflows, where both storm water and sewage is carried in the same pipe. Under normal discharge rates, these combined drains separate sewage from storm water and direct it to treatment facilities. During storm events, these systems are rapidly inundated and discharge untreated sewage into surface waters. The WVDEP estimates that 390,000 state residents live in 56 communities where combined sewer overflows routinely contaminate drinking water sources (WVDEP, 2006). Of special concern are West Virginia s Potomac tributaries that drain into the Chesapeake Bay. The Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia is developing faster than any other region of the state, making improving water quality a priority. In June 2002, Governor Bob Wise signed the Chesapeake Bay Program Water Quality Initiative Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and committed West Virginia to nutrient and sediment load reductions. The West Virginia Potomac Tributary Strategy, developed in November 2005, includes plans for nutrient and sediment reductions from a variety of West Virginia point and nonpoint sources. The Chesapeake Bay is impaired by nutrients and sediment from multiple sources originating locally and in upstream states. This large and biologically diverse water body is an important economic and recreational resource. The desire to restore the Bay is a high priority for many agencies, organizations, and the public in general. Fourteen percent of West Virginia s waters drain into the Potomac River and on into the Chesapeake Bay (WVDEP, 2008). Planting additional urban trees, employing wise land use practices, and maintaining forested riparian buffers will significantly improve drinking water sources, while helping to protect critical watersheds like the Chesapeake Bay. Increasing canopy cover over impervious surfaces is a key role urban forestry can play to mitigate storm water runoff, slow water flow within urban areas, promote groundwater infiltration, and reduce flooding, while decreasing contaminants entering the state s waters. Many positive economic benefits would also result from municipal forestry efforts, including reduced cost of flood control structures, reduced road and property damage, less expensive drinking water treatment, and greater recreational opportunities. Assessment Methods High priority areas for focusing water quality improvement efforts were determined by analyzing four weighted criteria. Communities located within U.S. EPA 303(d) watersheds (Reclass = 4) supply public drinking water from an impaired source and are targeted by this assessment. Impervious surfaces greater than 15 percent (Reclass = 3) indicate areas where urban development can significantly impact water quality. Less-than-average adjacent forest cover (Reclass = 2) reflects a reduced buffering capacity and negative impacts to water resources. Finally, communities located along a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay (Reclass = 1) will receive Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 6: Sustainability of Urban Forests 259

17 special attention due to the high priority placed on this valuable resource. The criteria are summarized below: Criterion 1 Communities within a US EPA 303(d) impaired watershed - Reclassified to 4 Criterion 2 Communities with impervious surfaces > 15 percent of total area - Reclassified to3 Criterion 3 Forest cover of < 56 percent (mean) within ½ mile of polygon perimeter expressed as percent of land area by community Reclassified to 2 Criterion 4 Communities within the Chesapeake Bay drainage - Reclassified to 1 Based on the above criteria, 30 areas were identified as having the highest priority needs to improve public drinking water quality and quantity (Map 6.5 and Table 6.5). Map 6.5: Location of high priority areas for efforts to improve public drinking water quality and quantity in West Virginia (WVDOF GIS, 2009). 260 Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 6: Sustainability of Urban Forests

18 Table 6.5: Top 30 high priority areas for efforts to improve public drinking water quality and quantity in West Virginia. Place Name Rank Place Name Rank Place Name Rank Shepherdstown 1 East Bank 11 Bruceton Mills 21 Franklin 2 Glen Dale 12 Union 22 Chesapeake 3 Mason 13 MacArthur (CDP) 23 Westover 4 Jefferson 14 Bath (Berkeley Springs) 24 Vienna 5 Follansbee 15 Romney 25 Dunbar 6 Friendly 16 Paw Paw 26 Pea Ridge (CDP) 7 Jane Lew 17 McMechen 27 Chester 8 Eleanor 18 Paden City 28 Masontown 9 Peterstown 19 West Union 29 Newell (CDP) 10 Mabscott 20 Hamlin 30 Sub-Issue 6: Recreation West Virginians are fortunate to live in a state with abundant forest recreation opportunities. Most urban centers are less than an hour drive from one of 40 state managed parks or forests that provide opportunities for hiking, camping, mountain biking, hunting, fishing, canoeing, caving, rock climbing, and other activities. Additionally, 1.4 million acres, representing eight percent of the state's total land area, are managed by the WV Division of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Section for public wildlife-associated recreation. The Monongahela National Forest provides a variety of recreation settings and opportunities and consists of over 919,911 acres of federally-managed land in 10 West Virginia counties. Small portions of the Jefferson and George Washington National Forests also lie within the borders of West Virginia. (See sub-issue 6: Public Lands within Issue 3: Forest Sustainability for more information about public lands). Outdoor recreation within urbanized areas is also important and usually occurs in parks, open spaces, and along a variety of trails and riparian corridors. Adequate green infrastructure is not only vital for urban recreation, but also significantly contributes to social values, public health, education, economic development, community image, and critical environmental functions. This infrastructure can be created and enhanced through urban forestry efforts that include community assessments, management plans, green spaces, and trail networks. An excellent recreational opportunity exists with the many miles of abandoned railroad lines that lie within or connect to many communities. Over 25 rails-to-trails projects have been successfully completed in West Virginia and there are many more additional segments with potential for development. These trails provide a unique recreational resource with gentle or level grades and wide rights-of-way suitable for multiple uses, including walking, bicycling, and horseback riding. With bridges over streams and tunnels through hills, rail-trails also offer clear and easy means to negotiate geographic obstacles. Rail-trails can also serve as non-motorized transportation corridors between communities and often follow riparian corridors that provide access to surrounding forests (WV Rails to Trails Council, 2009). Developing communities will experience increasing demands for urban recreation. Urban forestry can play a role by providing technical and financial assistance to encourage Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 6: Sustainability of Urban Forests 261

19 municipalities to designate new green spaces and to improve existing parks, arboretums, and trail systems. Investing in urban recreation will afford communities many additional environmental benefits addressed in previously described sub-issues. A recent study of urban parks by The Trust for Public Land identified the following linkages between specific types of recreational areas and the environmental impacts: 1) bike paths, river parkways, and rail-trails reduced nonmotorized transportation and reduced carbon emissions from vehicles; 2) neighborhood parks, river parkways, and city parks provided pedestrian-accessible urban parks, also reducing carbon emissions from transportation; 3) river parkways, neighborhood parks, city parks, storm water ponds, and community gardens increase permeable surface area, ground water recharge, and storm water retention, positively impacting water quality; 4) neighborhood parks, city parks, river parkways, wetlands, urban forests, and school campuses stored significant amounts of carbon, while reducing energy consumption due to a mitigation of heat island effects (ICF International, 2008). Assessment Methods The assessment method for identifying recreation priority areas is based on a combination of assessments done for Sub-Issues 1 through 5. Recreational demand was estimated by identifying population centers and land features from the results of Sub-Issue 1. The correlation between recreation areas and the potential to positively impact climate change and energy consumption was determined from Sub-Issue 2. Opportunities for improving air quality and water quality and quantity by developing and preserving parks, riparian areas, and trails are represented in Sub- Issues 4 and 5. Different methods were used to assess larger urban areas and smaller communities. Maps 6.6 and 6.7, as well as Tables 6.6 and 6.7 identify priority areas for recreation as part of the following combined assessment. Street tree scene in the city of Parkersburg, West Virginia. (Ron Snow, WV Department of Commerce). 262 Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 6: Sustainability of Urban Forests

20 Issue 6: Combined Assessments Methods and Priority Areas Combined Assessment 1 Identifying Large, Urbanized Priority Areas The assessment method to prioritize larger urban areas is summarized below by combining high priority areas for the following sub-issues: Criterion 1 High priority communities of Sub-Issue 1 analysis: Building Program Capacity at the Community Level - Reclassified to 1 Criterion 2 High priority communities of Sub-Issue 2 analysis: Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Conservation - Reclassified to 1 Criterion 3 High priority communities of Sub-Issue 4 analysis: Air Quality - Reclassified to 1 Criterion 4 High priority communities of Sub-Issue 5 analysis: Public drinking water quality/quantity - Reclassified to 1 Map 6.6: Locations of large high priority urban areas in West Virginia based on composite scores from Sub-Issues 1, 2, 4 and 5 (WVDOF GIS, 2009). Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 6: Sustainability of Urban Forests 263

21 Table 6.6: Top 50 large high priority urban areas in West Virginia. Place Name Rank Place Name Rank Place Name Rank Chesapeake 1 Friendly 18 Belle 35 Dunbar 2 Franklin 19 Clarksburg 36 Pea Ridge (CDP) 3 Mabscott 20 McMechen 37 Jefferson 4 Huntington 21 Ridgeley 38 East Bank 5 Masontown 22 Williamstown 39 Chester 6 Poca 23 Beverly 40 Newell (CDP) 7 Hurricane 24 New Haven 41 Glen Dale 8 Jane Lew 25 Milton 42 Westover 9 Peterstown 26 Union 43 Mason 10 Bruceton Mills 27 Sistersville 44 Eleanor 11 Paden City 28 Ravenswood 45 Wellsburg 12 Windsor Heights 29 New Martinsville 46 Bancroft 13 Martinsburg 30 Bolivar 47 Belmont 14 Vienna 31 Stonewood 48 Nitro 15 Star City 32 Princeton 49 South Charleston 16 Fairmont 33 Point Pleasant 50 Follansbee 17 Nutter Fort 34 Combined Assessment 2 Identifying Smaller, Urbanized Priority Areas The assessment method to prioritize smaller communities is summarized below by combining high priority areas for the following sub-issues: Criterion 1 High priority communities of Sub-Issue 2 analysis: Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Conservation - Reclassified to 1 Criterion 2 High priority communities of Sub-Issue 3 analysis: Population Dynamics and Resource Allocation - Reclassified to 1 Criterion 3 High priority communities of Sub-Issue 4 analysis: Air Quality - Reclassified to 1 Criterion 4 High priority communities of Sub-Issue 5 analysis: Public Drinking Water Quality and Quantity - Reclassified to Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 6: Sustainability of Urban Forests

22 Map 6.7: Locations of smaller high priority communities in West Virginia based on composite scores from Sub-issues 2, 3, 4, and 5 (WVDOF GIS, 2009). Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 6: Sustainability of Urban Forests 265

23 Table 6.7: Top 50 smaller high priority communities in West Virginia. Place Name Rank Place Name Rank Place Name Rank Chesapeake 1 Peterstown 18 Milton 35 Jefferson 2 Mabscott 19 Huntington 36 Dunbar 3 New Haven 20 Paden City 37 Pea Ridge (CDP) 4 Bruceton Mills 21 Sistersville 38 Chester 5 Union 22 Middlebourne 39 East Bank 6 Windsor Heights 23 Stonewood 40 Eleanor 7 Nitro 24 Princeton 41 Westover 8 Belle 25 Elizabeth 42 Mason 9 Follansbee 26 Point Pleasant 43 Wellsburg 10 Franklin 27 Nutter Fort 44 Bancroft 11 Star City 28 Sophia 45 Belmont 12 Beverly 29 South Charleston 46 Newell (CDP) 13 McMechen 30 Sutton 47 Glen Dale 14 Ridgeley 31 Buffalo 48 Masontown 15 Poca 32 Moundsville 49 Friendly 16 Hurricane 33 Martinsburg 50 Jane Lew 17 Wayne 34 Trees planted in an urban pedestrian mall, Parkersburg, West Virginia. (Ron Snow, WV Department of Commerce). 266 Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 6: Sustainability of Urban Forests

24 Bibliography Bedker, Peter USDA Community Accomplishment Reporting System (CARS), USDA Forest Service, Office of Knowledge Management, St. Paul Minnesota. Available at: ftp://ftp2.fs.fed.us/incoming/nagis/assessments/urban/cars/ Coder, Kim D Identified Benefits of Community Trees and Forests", University of Georgia p7. Available at: df Greenfield, Eric, J Priority Planting Index (PPI). UNRI, Urban Natural Resources Institute. Calculated for RPA report. Reports available at: USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station Unit 08, Syracuse, NY. Groth, Philip, R. Miller, N. Nadkarni, M. Riley, and L. Shoup Quantifying the Greenhouse Gas Benefits of Urban Parks. The Trust for Public Land. Available at: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report, Climate Change, and Hadley Centre for Climate Change UK. Available at: Nowak, D.J Atmospheric carbon reduction by urban trees, Journal of Environmental Management. 37: ). Nowak, D.J. 2006, Institutionalizing urban forestry as a "biotechnology" to improve environmental quality. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. Volume 5, pp ). US Census Bureau Census 2000 Urban and Rural Classification. Available online at: (accessed fall 2009). US Census Bureau Population Estimates, West Virginia. Available online at: ds_name=pep_2008_est&context=gct&mt_name=pep_2008_est_gctt1_st9&- tree_id=808&-redolog=false&-geo_id=04000us54&-format=st-9 ST-9S&-_lang=en US EPA, Monitor Values Report, West Virginia. US Environmental Protection Agency. 7EWest+Virginia&pol=PM25&year=2008&fld=monid&fld=siteid&fld=address&fld=city&fld= county&fld=stabbr&fld=regn&rpp=25 US EPA US Environmental Protection agency, Kanawha Valley toxics Screening Study, West Virginia). Available at: &Index=1986+Thru+1990&Docs=&Query=903R87106+US+Environmental+Protection+agenc y%2c+kanawha+valley+toxics+screening+study%2c+west+virginia&time=&endtime=&s earchmethod=3&tocrestrict=n&toc=&tocentry=&qfield=pubnumber%5e%22903r87106% 22&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=pubnumber&IntQFieldOp=1&Ext QFieldOp=1&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C86thru90%5CTxt% Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 6: Sustainability of Urban Forests 267

25 5C %5C2000WALS.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod= h%7c- &MaximumDocuments=10&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425& Display=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Res ults%20page&maximumpages=1&zyentry=1&seekpage=x US EPA, FACTOIDS: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for US Environmental Protection Agency. Avaialable at: WVDEP. n.d Urban Runoff, WV Department of Environmental Protection, Enviro Factsheet. Available at: WVDEP. n.d. Combined Sewer Overflows, WV Department of Environmental Protection, Enviro Factsheet Available at: Overflows.pdf WVDOF GIS, Issue 6: Sustainability of Urban Forests, Priority Area Analysis. WV Rails to Trails Council. Available at: Left photo: Potomac Valley Project CommuniTree tree planting and workshop at Baker Park in Hardy County, West Virginia. (Carla Hardy, WV Conservation Agency) Right photo: Ranson Elementary Arbor Day tree planting in Jefferson County, West Virginia. (Herb Peddicord, WVDOF) 268 Issues, Sub-Issues, and Priority Area Identification Issue 6: Sustainability of Urban Forests