the maryland forest conservation act · the state forest conservation program has retained 2,528...

1

THE MARYLAND FOREST CONSERVATION ACT:

the law that conserves forests during development

A TEN YEAR REVIEWMD DNR Forest Service

September 2004

2

Summary

During the 10 years of implementing the Forest Conservation Act (1992 - 2002):

Statewide, the effect of the Forest Conservation Act on development has resulted in the retention of 79,174 acres of forest, the planting of13,611 acres of trees and the clearing of 42,906 acres. In other words, 65 % of forest has been retained and 35 % cleared.

Statewide, 55,120 acres of retained and planted forest have been placed under long-term protection.

The State Forest Conservation Program has retained 2,528 acres of existing forest on development sites, cleared 1,158 acres of forest andplanted 643 acres.

County Forest Conservation Programs have retained 54,741 acres of existing forest on development sites and cleared 29,320 acres, in otherwords, 65 % of forest has been retained and 35% cleared.

Municipal Forest Conservation Programs, in total, have retained 955 acres of existing forest, cleared 873 acres and planted 678 acres.

The State Forest Conservation Program, in addition to review activities, also:

Held 118 workshops that were attended by 3,350 attendees for a total of 17,040 seat hours. Attendees included localgovernment officials and staff, consultants, and others seeking information on forest conservation related topics.Approved 366 professionals to perform forest stand delineations and forest conservation plans as Qualified Professionals.Awarded $139,068 through the Urban & Community Forestry Grant Program to various groups for tree planting activities.Funding was made available through the State Forest Conservation Program Fee-In-Lieu Fund.

3

Why is there a Maryland ForestConservation Act?

During the 1980’s, a population increase in theState of Maryland led to the conversion of largetracts of agricultural and forest land to subdivisionand commercial areas. In response to the intensedevelopment pressure on the environment, theState adopted three laws: the Chesapeake BayCritical Area Law in 1984 to protect theChesapeake Bay and its tributaries; the NontidalWetlands Law in 1990 to protect the state’swetlands; and the Forest Conservation Actadopted in 1991 to stem the loss of forest in theState.

The Maryland Forest Conservation Act(Natural Resources Article 5-1601–1612,Annotated Code of Maryland) objectives are to:

• minimize the loss of forest land from development • ensure that priority areas for forest retention and

forest planting are identified and protected prior todevelopment.

The Forest Conservation Act, whichestablished standards for local authorities toenforce during development, is a means to protectnot only forest and trees in developing areas butalso any sensitive area identified during the localplanning or comprehensive land use plan adoptionprocess. Standards established in the Act foridentification, retention and replanting include thoseareas designated as sensitive areas under theGrowth Management, Resource Protection andPlanning Act of 1992. Sensitive areas includenontidal floodplains, streams and their buffers,steep slopes and critical habitats. Identifying andmapping of these areas is part of the Forest StandDelineation. Protection occurs through the

establishment of long-term protection agreementsas part of the local approval of ForestConservation Plans.

Successful forest conservation planningrequires collaboration between professionalforesters, planners, landscape architects,engineers, surveyors and developers, as well astwo-way communication between applicants andplan approval authorities.

When does it apply?

Any activity requiring an application for asubdivision, grading permit or sediment controlpermit on areas 40,000 square feet or greater issubject to the Forest Conservation Act and willrequire a Forest Conservation Plan.

What is required?

The Forest Stand Delineation identifies theexisting forest cover and environmental featureson the proposed development site. It is submittedat the initial stages of subdivision or project planapproval, before a grading permit application, orbefore a sediment control application is submitted.It is a snapshot, a 3-D narrative, that captures theproject area from the ground plane up through theforest cover. When the Forest Stand Delineation iscomplete and approved, the information it providescan then be used to prepare the ForestConservation Plan.

The Forest Conservation Plan indicates thelimits of disturbance for the proposed project andhow existing forested and sensitive areas will beprotected during and after development. It issimilar to a sediment and erosion control planwhich indicates how sediment will be retainedonsite. The submittal components include tree

protection specifications, mitigation planting plan,maintenance agreement and the long-termprotection agreement to be placed on the retainedforest and mitigation areas. This plan is part of thesite plan and construction bid document package.A Forest Conservation Plan shall be submittedwith the final subdivision or project plan, orapplication for a grading or sediment controlpermit.

There are exceptions to the Act. Theapplicability of the exceptions is determined by thelocal program or state program staff.

Who can do this work?

Forest Stand Delineations and ForestConservation Plans must be prepared by aMaryland licensed forester, Maryland licensedlandscape architect, or other qualifiedprofessionals.

10 Year Review -Forest Conservation Act’sImpact on Forest Cover Statewide

Since July of 1993, the Maryland Departmentof Natural Resources Forest Service (MD DNRFS) has received annual reports from localgovernments that contain data on theimplementation of their locally adopted forestconservation programs. The data submittedincludes: number, location, and types of projects;amount of acres cleared, conserved, and planted inconnection with development projects; the amountof reforestation and afforestation fees andpenalties collected and expended; and the costs ofimplementing the local program. The MD DNR FShas compiled the information for the time period ofJanuary 1993 through June 2002 into a ten year

4

summary of forest conservation activitiesstatewide. The data analyzed focused on theamount of:1) existing forest onsite prior to development2) existing forest retained onsite after development3) proposed mitigation onsite after development4) forest placed under long-term protection

The Report found that: • Statewide, 79,174 acres of forest were retained,

42,906 acres were cleared and 13,611 acres wereplanted.

• All Forest Conservation Programs, on average,retained 65% of existing forest on developmentsites and cleared 35%.

• County programs accounted for 69% of forestareas under review statewide.

• County Forest Conservation Programs, on average,retained 65% (54,741 acres) of existing forest ondevelopment sites and cleared 35% (29,320acres).

• Total amount of retained and planted forest placedunder long-term protection through County ForestConservation Programs is 26,822 acres.

• Municipal Forest Conservation Programs, in total,have retained 412 acres of existing forest, cleared289 acres and planted 180 acres.

• The State Forest Conservation program hasretained 23,479 acres (65%) of existing forest ondevelopment sites, cleared 12,713 acres (35%),4,613 acres planted onsite and 1,580 acres ofretained and planted forest has been placed in long-term protection.

Analysis of the data shows, as would beexpected, that the highest number of acres offorest cleared and retained occurred in thosecounties with the highest number of acres underreview.• At the 10-year mark, Prince George’s and

Charles Counties together accounted for nearly

40% of the total acres cleared.• Prince George’s, Montgomery, Baltimore and

Calvert Counties make up nearly half (47%) ofthe total number of acres retained.

• Prince George’s, Montgomery and CarrollCounties constitute half (47%) of the acres ofnew forest planted.

This marks a change from the first five yearsof the Act. At that point, Prince George’s,Montgomery and Charles Counties wereresponsible for the majority of all the forestretained, cleared and planted in the state. Whathas caused the change?

During the most recent five years, a numberof innovative new programs to retain and plantforests started to show results. For example,Calvert County requires cluster subdivisions withthe remaining acreage placed in easement.Baltimore County has various stream bufferrequirements and Carroll County has planted largeamounts of trees through their mitigation bankingprogram. These programs have dramaticallyincreased the number of acres of forest retainedand planted in these counties.

The graphic representations of the dataindicate that counties along the I95/Rt. 301corridor have the most forest conservation activityoccurring; from this can be inferred that this areaalso has more development pressure then the restof the State. So, forest conservation is notpreventing development but working in tandem toconserve the State’s forest resources duringdevelopment. Over the past 10 years, the ForestConservation Act has enabled the retention andplanting of 92,785 acres of forest land; 65% ofexisting forest has been retained. The ratio ofacres of forest retained and planted vs. cleared is

that nearly 2.2 acres are being protected for everyacre cleared!

Maryland led the Nation with the adoption of alaw to conserve forests during development andthe result is exciting. A key factor needed toprotect the Chesapeake Bay, forest cover, is beingmaintained without preventing land development.

Case Study: Before and After Development

5

Majority of forest area under development review occurred within the Route 301/I95 Corridor

Acres of Existing Forest Under Review by CountyForest Conservation Programs 1993-2002

42% occurred in 3 counties:Prince George’s County 19,896.8 acresCharles County 8,936 acresCalvert County 8,090.7 acres

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Anne A

rundel

Co.

Baltim

ore C

ity

Baltim

ore

Calvert

Carolin

e

Carroll

Cecil

Charle

s

Dorches

ter

Frederi

ck

Harford

Howard Ken

t

Montgo

mery

Prince

Geo

rge's

Queen A

nne's

St. Mary'

s

Somerset

Talbot

Was

hingto

n

Wicomico

Worc

ester

County

Acr

es

6

Majority of development-related clearing in Maryland occurred within the Route 301 / I95 Corridor

Acres of Forest Clearing Approved Under CountyForest Conservation Programs 1993-2002

40% occurred within 2 counties:Prince George’s County 6,969.2 acresCharles County 4,815.8 acres

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Anne A

runde

l Co.

Baltim

ore C

ity

Baltim

ore

Calvert

Carolin

e

Carroll

Cecil

Charle

s

Dorche

ster

Frederi

ck

Harford

Howard Ken

t

Montgo

mery

Prince

Geo

rge's

Queen

Ann

e's

St. Mary

's

Somers

et

Talbot

Was

hingto

n

Wico

mico

Worc

ester

County

Acr

es

7

Majority of forest retention also occurred within the same geographic area while a majority of planting occurred along the I95 corridor.

Acres of Forest Retained Under CountyForest Conservation Programs 1993-2002

47% occurred within 4 counties:Prince George’s County 10,127 acresMontgomery County 5,492.8 acresCalvert County 5,449.8 acresBaltimore County 4,677 acres 0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Anne A

runde

l Co.

Baltim

ore C

ity

Baltim

ore

Calvert

Carolin

e

Carroll

Cecil

Charle

s

Dorche

ster

Frederi

ck

Harford

Howard Ken

t

Montgo

mery

Prince

Geo

rge's

Queen

Ann

e's

St. Mary

's

Somers

et

Talbot

Was

hingto

n

Wico

mico

Worc

ester

County

Acr

es

8

Acres of Forest Planted Under CountyForest Conservation Programs 1993-2002

47% occurred within 3 counties:Montgomery County 1,445.5 acresPrince George’s County 1,234 acresCarroll County 1,203.2 acres

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Anne A

runde

l Co.

Baltim

ore C

ity

Baltim

ore

Calvert

Carolin

e

Carroll

Cecil

Charle

s

Dorche

ster

Frederi

ck

Harford

Howard Ken

t

Montgo

mery

Prince

Geo

rge's

Queen

Ann

e's

St. Mary

's

Somers

et

Talbot

Was

hingto

n

Wico

mico

Worc

ester

County

Acr

es

9

State Forest ConservationProgram Highlights

FY 1993 - 2002

• A total of 310 Forest Conservation Plans(FCP) were reviewed and approved with18,140 acres of forest being reviewed,1,158 acres of forest proposed for clearing,2,528 acres of forest proposed forretention and 643 acres proposed forplanting.

• The State Forest Conservation ProgramFee-In-Lieu Fund, (fees paid in lieu ofmitigation planting), collected $215,648 ofwhich $139,068 has been rewardedthrough the Urban & Community ForestryGrant Program, to various groups for treeplanting projects.

• The State Forest Conservation Programhas collected a total of $94,500 inenforcement fines.

• By 2002, 21 counties had adopted forestconservation ordinances; 12 municipalitieswere under the State Program; 9jurisdictions were not exercising theirauthority and 2 counties and 18municipalities were exempt.

• MD DNR FS staff held 188 workshopswhich were attended by 3,350 attendeesfor a total of 17,040 seat hours.

• Washington County’s Forest ConservationFund Program received the 1998Distinguished Achievement Award fromthe Chesapeake Bay Local GovernmentAdvisory Committee’s Innovative AwardsProgram for their use of fee-in-lieu fundson CREP sites.

• Since 1993, 366 individuals have becomeQualified Professionals.

• Assistance Provided to LocalPrograms included:o Assisted in the development of local

programs’ policies, procedures andguidelines such as Worcester County’sVoluntary Environmental Guidelines forGolf Courses and Carroll andFrederick Counties’ Forest MitigationBanking Program policies.

o Assisted the local jurisdictions in thedevelopment and adoption of theirForest Conservation Ordinances.

o Reviewed proposed revisions to theforest conservation ordinances insixteen counties and fourmunicipalities, as these jurisdictionsmoved to further refine their existingforest conservation programs.

o Provided technical assistance duringthe review of development proposalsand plan and field reviews in sixteencounties and 14 municipalities acrossthe state.

o Assisted Frederick County in plantingtheir fee-in-lieu funds on 170 acres ofriparian buffer plantings along theMonocacy River.

o Conducted training in ChesapeakeCity and Cambridge on thedevelopment of urban forestmanagement plan in order forjurisdictions to manage their trees andforests.

o Assisted the Towns of Vienna andNorth Beach in developing a forest

conservation ordinance that combinesforest conservation and critical arearequirements.

• Presentations:o “Forest Conservation through the

Maryland Forest Conservation Act”poster presentation, Keep AmericaGrowing, Balancing Working Landsand Development Conference, June 6-9, 1999, Philadelphia, PA.

o Maryland’s Forest Conservation Act:A Process for Urban GreenspaceProtection During the DevelopmentProcess for the Urban Greening andLandscape Research Symposium heldin Copenhagen, Denmark, June 23-25,1999.

o “Forest Conservation Act Update”,MAC-ISA By the Bay (Mid AtlanticChapter of the International Society ofArboriculture) Conference, September26-29, 1999, Annapolis, Maryland.

o “Maryland’s Forest Conservation Act:Five Years of Forest Conservation”,Baltimore Ecosystem Study AnnualMeeting, October 14-15, 1999,Baltimore, Maryland.

o “Case Studies in ForestConservation”, ReconnectingLandscapes – Rebuilding ForestFragments in the Chesapeake BayWatershed Conference, November17-19, 1999, Annapolis, Maryland.Also contributed to the conferenceproceedings.

o “Forest Conservation”, 2000American Planning Association

10

National Planning Conference, April15-19, 2000, New York, New York.Also contributed to the conferenceproceedings.

o “Forest Conservation Through theMaryland Forest Conservation Act”,Fragmentation 2000: SustainingPrivate Forests in the 21st CenturyConference, September 17-20, 2000,Annapolis, Maryland. Alsocontributed to the conferenceproceedings.

o “Forest Conservation Toolbox”,Maryland Community Forest Council’s8th Annual Community ForestWorkshop, October 24, 2000,Westminster, Maryland. Alsocontributed to conferenceproceedings.

o “Cross Creek Golf Course HousingDevelopment and FCA”, field portionof the Society of American Foresters2000 Conference, November 20,2000.

o “Forest Conservation Through theMaryland Forest Conservation Act”,2001 National Urban ForestConference, September 5-8, 2001,Washington DC. Also contributed tothe conference proceedings.

o Maryland Municipal League’s April2002 meeting, Annapolis, Maryland.

o “Forest Conservation Act – ProtectingTrees and Forests DuringDevelopment”, 2002 NAUFCOmeeting, May 8-10, 2002, Annapolis,Maryland.

• Outreach Opportunitieso Cosponsored “The Forest

Conservation Act: Opportunities forProfit and Progress” with The HomeBuilders Association of Maryland,Maryland Chapter of the ASLA,American Society of Civil Engineersand Carroll Community College, 1998.

o Cosponsored the National Arbor DayFoundation’s “Building With TreesWorkshop” at the Patuxent WildlifeVisitor Center, October 15, 1998.

o Cosponsored with Worcester CountyDepartment of ComprehensivePlanning, “Forest Mitigation BankingWorkshop”, at Adkins Arboretum, July28, 2000.

o Contributed two articles, MarylandDNR-Concerns With Forest StandDelineations, and MDNR HoldsWoodland Symposium, the MarylandASLA landscape architecturenewsletter.

o Cosponsored, Randall Arendt:Conservation Planning and Designwithin a Smart Growth Framework, atUniversity of Maryland–College Park,April 18, 2001. Other cosponsors:MD Chapter of the American Societyof Landscape Architects, UMD–Landscape Architecture Program, MDChapter American PlanningAssociation, Anne Arundel County –Office of Planning and theChesapeake Trust.

o The Forest Conservation Course,required by all professionals who wishto receive qualified professional status,

was conducted jointly by MD DNRand 10 community colleges across thestate with 159 attendees in FY94 andFY95. Since FY96, the 25 courseshave been conducted solely by thecommunity colleges and John HopkinsUniversity with 300 attendees.

• Technology assistanceo Revised the Forest Conservation

Technical Manual to streamline themanual and reflect statutoryamendments.

o Wrote Chapter 3: Site DevelopmentOptions: Forests as part of theConserving and Enhancing the NaturalEnvironment: A Guide for Planning,Design, Construction andMaintenance on New & ExistingSchool Sites, 1999 Manual byMaryland Department of Education.

o Developed The Forest ConservationToolbox, a multi-paged brochure thatdiscusses the various programs withinthe MD DNR Forest Service and howthe programs can be combined.Copies were distributed statewide toall local governments with planningand zoning authority.

o Conducted the 1998 and 2003 Surveyof Qualified Professionals to evaluatethe forest conservation course’seffectiveness, continuing educationalneeds, input as to customer service ona local and state level and feesgenerated in the private sector.

o Cosponsored the Forest Conservationand Land Development Symposium

11

with the University of MarylandCollege of Agriculture held biennuallyfrom 1995 through 2001 (2003’ssymposium was cancelled due to lowregistration). The symposium providededucational and technical informationconcerning compliance with the ForestConservation Act and showcasedforest conservation efforts.

o Presented Excellence in ForestConservation and Land DevelopmentAwards which showcase developmentprojects that exhibit best compliancewith forest conservation goals andobjectives at the biennual symposiums.

• Additional activities include:o In June 1993, the first issue of Forest

Conservation Update newsletter wasmailed and continued to be sentbiannually through 2002.

o Reviewed proposed revisions of theMD Department of Environment’sSediment and Erosion Control Manualfor FCA-related compliance issues.

o Assisted in the development of BWIAirport’s Reforestation Master Plan,US Army’s Fort Meade Long-TermProtection Master Plan and AndrewsAir Force Base’s Forest StandDelineation Plan.

o Assisted other state and federalagencies, such as National Institute ofHealth, University of MarylandSystem, Towson University, MorganState University, Martin State Airport,State Highway Administration withunderstanding and complying with the

Forest Conservation Act.o Staff assisted with numerous

continuing education seminars,classroom presentations in elementaryand secondary schools science andenvironmental education classes, andat professional and local government(MACo, Soil Conservation District)conventions, etc.

o Maintained a listing of ForestConservation Service providers,including a list of licensed landscapearchitects, licensed foresters and otherqualified professionals. The list, whichcontains 400 names, is available bycounty and type of work theprofessionals are willing to perform.

Woodspring at New Market, Frederick CountyDeveloper: Seawright Corporation (submitted photo)Excellence in Forest Conservation and Land DevelopmentAward Winner, 2001 White Oak Award

12

Qualified Professionals

The Forest Conservation Regulations, COMAR08.19.06.01B, limit those individuals authorized toperform forest stand delineations and forestconservation plans to Maryland licensed foresters,Maryland licensed landscape architects and otherqualified professionals approved by MarylandDepartment of Natural Resources Forest Service(MD DNR FS).

According to COMAR 08.19.06B (1)-(4) (amendedJuly1996),

An individual may be approved by the Departmentas a qualified professional if the individual:

(1) Possesses the following education orexperience requirements:a) A 4-year degree in the natural resourcessciences, natural resource management,landscape planning, or environmentalplanning,b) 4-years of professional experience innatural resources sciences, naturalresource management, landscapeplanning, environmental planning, orthe equivalent as determined by theDepartment, orc) A graduate degree in natural resourcessciences and 1-year professionalexperience;

(2) Has shown the ability to meet the obligationsrequired by the Department to prepare aforest stand delineation and a forestconservation plan; and

(3) Has satisfactorily completed a forestconservation training program approved bythe Department.

Previous to 1996 the requirements stated that a 4-year degree and 2-years experience or a master’sdegree and 1-year experience in addition to thecourse were required.

Analysis of applications

An analysis of the qualified professionals’applications indicate that a total of 416 applicationsfor Qualified Professional status have beenreceived with 366 (88%) being approved. Of theapproved applicants, 306 (84%) applicants met theeducation requirements in contrast to 60 (16%)applicants that met the experience requirements. Itshould be noted that experience was not an optionprior to 1996. Educational degrees were analyzedalong with the field of study and 227 (74%)applicants received undergraduate degrees withthe majority of applicants with degrees in Biology(59), Landscape Architecture (40) and Geography(29). The majority of graduate degrees were inBiology (14), Landscape Architecture (11) with atie between Planning (10) and Natural ResourceManagement (10).

This does not include Maryland licensed foresters orMaryland licensed landscape architects.

2002-8991ecneirepxE

gnireenignEliviC 9

royevruS 3

tsirobrA 3

yrtseroF 3

ecneicSlatnemnorivnE 2

rehtO 02

latoT 04

slanoisseforPdevorppA

7991-3991 2002-8991 latoT

noitacudE 222 48 603

ecneirepxE 02 04 06

latoT 242 421 663

eergeDyB

7991-3991 -8991 2 200 latoT

etaudargrednU 761 06 22 7

etaudarG 55 42 97

latoT 222 48 603

Undergraduate degrees

Landscape Architecture

Geography

Other

Natural Res. Mgmt.

Biology

Wildlife

Forestry

Graduate degrees

Biology

Landscape ArchitecturePlanning

Natural Res. Mgmt.

Environ. Science

Forestry

Other

13

Analysis of the 2003 Qualified ProfessionalSurvey

In the spring of 2003, a survey was mailed to theMaryland Qualified Professionals in order to learnmore about the practicing professionals such asthe number of plans completed per year, theirexperiences with the local jurisdictions and theirplace of business. Of the 340 surveys mailed, 66were returned completed (a 22% response rate)and 50 were returned undeliverable.

Question 2: Have you done any FSD or FCP inthe past year? If so, how many FSD? Howmany FCP? An average of 11 FSD and 11 FCPare completed in the past year per QualifiedProfessionals. The number of FSD ranged from 2– 36 and the number of FCP ranged from 2 – 40.(Per 46 responses; this does not include those thatresponded as government reviewers).

Question 10: How would you characterize yourplace of business or firm? a) LandscapeArchitecture, b) Environmental Consultant, c)Engineering, d) Forest Industry, e) LocalGovernmentThe sixty four responses state the following typesof firms: Environmental Consultant (18),Engineering (17), Local Government (12), acombined Landscape Architecture/EnvironmentalConsultant/Enginerring (6), a combined LandscapeArchitecture/Environmental Consultant (4),Landscape Architecture (2), Forest Industry (2), acombined Engineering/Local Government (1).

Question 1 & 6: On a scale from 1-5 (1 is themost negative rating and 5 the most positive):how would you rate your overall experiencewith local reviewers?

County Rating (# responses)

Anne Arundel 3.0 (11 )Baltimore 3.5 (10)Calvert —— (0)Caroline 5.0 (2)Carroll 3.8 (8)Cecil 3.5 (6)Charles 3.6 (8)Dorchester 4.0 (1)Frederick 3.5 (4)Harford 3.7 (6)Howard 3.6 (14)Kent —— (0)Montgomery 4.0 (17)Prince George’s 3.7 (21)Queen Anne’s —— (0)St. Mary’s 3.3 (3)Somerset —— (0)Talbot 4.5 (4)Washington 3.0 (2)Wicomico 4.3 (4)Worcester 4.0 (2)

All the counties received a rating of 3 or higherindicating that the qualified professionals havegeneral satisfaction or better with the localgovernment reviewers. Prince George’s, Howardand Montgomery Counties had the highest numberof responses with a majority of those ratings beingin the 4 –5 range.

Questions 12 & 13: What is your company’sstandard fee for a Forest Stand Delineation(FSD)? What is the standard fee for a ForestConservation Plan (FCP)?

Of the 66 returned surveys, 46 included this information.Some surveys indicated multiple responses.

The highest fees were found in Prince George’sand Charles Counties while the lowest appear tobe found in Caroline and Talbot Counties. (Only 1survey was returned indicating the fees in Carolineand Talbot Counties.)

A conclusion could be drawn by the responses toQuestion 2 and Questions 12 & 13 that the numberof qualified professionals (31) each completing 11FSD per year has a potential to generate between$480,810 and $1,047,211 of income per year. Thesame number of qualified professionals eachcompleting 11 FCP yearly has a potential togenerate between $447,051 to $904,673 of incomeper year.

Of the 66 returned surveys, 31 included information aboutstandard fees.

serca01-1 serca05-11 serca+05

DSFegnar

014,1$0052$-003$

774,2$0055$-004$

170,3$000,01$-007$

PCFegnar

113,1$000,3$-003$

000,2$005,5$-004$

356,2$000,6$-007$

14

Summary of Legislative Changes tothe Forest Conservation

Act & Regulations

From FY93 - FY02, there has been legislative activity inthe form of 22 Senate Bills and 28 House Bills proposedto amend the MD Forest Conservation Act. Out of 50attempts, only 7 were adopted. The following is adescription of the adopted changes to the statute andregulations.

Amendments to the Forest Conservation Act

Senate Bill 915 Forest ConservationRequirements - Local Programs

Effective June 1, 1993

NRA 5-1603 Local Forest Conservation Program* Allows local forest conservation programs to useclustering and other innovative land use techniques toprotect and retain forests and sensitive areas.* Allows for the recovery of all costs incurred in theadministration of the local forest conservation program.

NRA 5-1607 Preferred Sequence for Afforestation andReforestation* Allows for the use of street trees and offsite protec-tive easements on existing forested areas as mitigationtechniques.

Added Section 2 which establishes an Advisory Groupon Forest Conservation that will serve through May 31,1994.

House Bill 360 Forest Conservation Require-ments - Paved Surfaces - Waiver

Effective October 1, 1994NRA 5-1603 Local Forest Conservation Program

* Waives forest conservation requirements for areaspreviously developed and covered by paved surfaces atthe time of subdivision, grading, or sediment controlpermit application.

House Bill 63 Forest Conservation - Navi-gable Airspace - Exemption

Effective May 1995

NRA 5-1602 Applicability of Subtitle* Adds to the list of exceptions: the cutting or clearingof trees that affect navigable airspace as per FAArequirements.

Senate Bill 33 Forest ConservationEffective October 1, 1997

NRA 5-1601 Definitions* Adds to definitions: forest mitigation banking andlinear project.* Revises definitions: net tract area and reforestation.

NRA 5-1602 Applicability of subtitle* Adds the extension of Critical Area forest protectionmethods outside of critical area.* Revises the single lot exception to include linearprojects.

NRA 5-1603 Local Forest Conservation Program* Allows the State when administrating the forestconservation program in place of the local jurisdiction torecover administration costs.

NRA 5-1604 Forest Stand Delineation* Establishes alternative methods of forest standdelineations such as simplified forest stand delineationsand other substitute plans.

NRA 5-1606 Afforestation; Forest ConservationThresholds

* Revises the afforestation requirements to not includelinear projects.

NRA 1607 Preferred Sequence for Afforestation andReforestation* Revises the preferred sequence for afforestation andreforestation to include the use of forest mitigationbanks.* Adds coastal bays and their buffers to priority areasfor retention and protection and priority areas forafforestation and reforestation.* Adds forest areas in 100 year floodplains to priorityareas for afforestation or reforestation.

NRA 5-1610 Forest Conservation Fund; Local ForestConservation Fund* Revises the amount of time fee-in-lieu money canremain in fund.* Revises the manner in which it is returned to theapplicant* Adds forest mitigation banks as a method of spendingfee-in-lieu money.

NRA 5-1610.1* Adds section that discusses forest mitigation banks ingreater detail.

NRA 5-1613 Annual Report* Adds forest mitigation banks to the reporting require-ments.

Also amended NRA 5-103.

House Bill 1183 Coastal Bays ProtectionProgram - Worcester County


* Creates a Coastal Bay Protection Program similar tothe Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Law in WorcesterCounty. This Bill may exempt the land that falls underthis criteria from FCA compliance.

15

Senate Bill 895 Forest Retention Banks- Pilot Program

Effective July 1, 2002

NRA 5-1610.2* Establishes a 2-year pilot program, effective only inCarroll and Frederick County, in which a landowner canuse forested stream buffers established under thefederal Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program tocreate forest retention banks.

House Bill 470 Forest ConservationEffective October 1, 2002

NRA 5-1605 (d)* Clarifies the forest conservation plan’s review timeframe as determining the plan to be complete only.

NRA 5-1607 (e)* Adds the State as also requiring protective agree-ments as part of the forest conservation program.

NRA 5-1610 (c)* Clarifies that all enforcement funds collected aredeposited in the Forest Conservation Fund.

Revisions to the Forest ConservationRegulations

MD Register Volume 23 Issue 6 March 15,1996 pg. 490-501

Effective July 1, 1996

Includes the recommendations of the Advisory Groupon Forest Conservation. Modifications include require-ments for linear projects, provisions for mitigation banksas an off-site planting alternative and extends fee-in-lieuexpenditure time period. These regulation changesbasically became SB33.

MD Register Volume 25, Issue 8 April 10,1998 pg. 624-634


COMAR 08.19.01 General* Removes the edition number that is referenced withthe Forest Conservation Manual.* Adds definitions for forest mitigation bank, forestmitigation bank agreement, and forest mitigation bankplan.* Deletes definition for linear project, net tract for linearproject, and reforestation.* Revises the application section to include the exten-sion of Critical Area forest protection methods outsideof critical area as part of the critical area exemption.* Revises the mining Natural Resources Article refer-ences to Environmental Article.

COMAR 08.19.02 State Review and Approval of a LocalProgram* Removes the date referenced that a localjurisdiction’s forest conservation program must besubmitted for Department review and approval.* Adds simplified forest stand delineation or substituteplan as an alternative form of forest stand delineationwherever forest stand delineation is mentioned.* Revises the amount of time fee-in-lieu money canremain in the fund and the manner in which it is returnedto the applicant.* Adds forest mitigation bank requirements (ie long-term protection, priority areas, submittal requirements)* Revises the biennial review section to include thereporting of forest mitigation bank applications.

COMAR 08.19.03 Model Forest Conservation Ordinance* Adds definitions for forest mitigation bank, forestmitigation bank agreement, forest mitigation bank plan,and linear project.* Revises definitions for net tract area and reforestation.* Revises the application section to include the exten-sion of Critical Area forest protection methods outsideof the project’s critical area as part of the critical area

exemption, and linear projects to the single lot exemp-tion.* Revises the mining and nontidal wetland NaturalResources Article references to Environmental Article.* Adds forest management plan and amended sedimentand erosion control plan to the forms of declarations ofintent.* Revises the simplified forest stand delineationlanguage to include other appropriate documents thatmay substitute for a forest stand delineation if certaincriteria are met.* Adds the purchasing of forest mitigation bank creditsas an alternative to payment into local forest conserva-tion fund wherever the fund is mentioned. (i.e. forestconservation plans, reforestation)* Removes references to the Forest ConservationTechnical Manual.* Adds coastal bays and their buffers to the priority forretention areas.* Removes the sequence for afforestation and reforesta-tion and replaces it.* Adds to the priority for afforestation and reforesta-tion.* Revises the time frame that fee money can remain inthe fund and adds forest mitigation bank as an alterna-tive to payment.* Revises the annual report to include forest mitigationbank requirements.

COMAR 08.19.04. State Forest Conservation Program* Revises the mining and nontidal wetland NaturalResources Article references to Environmental Article.* Removes references to the Forest ConservationTechnical Manual.* Adds coastal bays and their buffers to the priority forretention areas.* Adds the purchasing of forest mitigation bank creditsas an alternative to payment into local forest conserva-tion fund wherever the fund is mentioned. (i.e. forestconservation plans, reforestation)* Adds to the priority for afforestation and reforestation

16

* Revises the amount of time fee-in-lieu money canremain in the fund and the manner in which it is returnedto the applicant.* Adds forest mitigation bank requirements (ie long-term protection, priority areas, submittal requirements)* Adds enforcement provisions regarding violations,noncompliance and enforcement of forest mitigationbanks’ long-term protection agreements and setspenalty.

COMAR 08.19.06 Additional Requirements for Stateand Local Programs* Adds enforcement provisions regarding violations,noncompliance and enforcement of forest mitigationbanks long-term protection agreements and sets apenalty.

MD Register Volume 28, Issue 12 June 15,2001 pg.1124 - 1128

Effective August 20, 2001

COMAR 08.19.01 General* Revises the definition for lot* Revises the single lot exemption to read residentialconstruction activity on a lot.

COMAR 08.19.02 State Review and Approval of a LocalProgram* Revises the local authority’s forest mitigation bankprogram to remove the extra planting required in order todebit prior to 2 years.

COMAR 08.19.03 Model Forest Conservation Ordinance* Revises the definition for lot* Revises the single lot exemption to read residentialconstruction activity on a lot.* Revises the time frame money is to remain in the fundfrom one year or two growing seasons to two years andthree growing seasons.* Removes from the forest mitigation banking languagethe requirement of extra planting in order to debit prior

to 2 years.

COMAR 08.19.04 State Forest Conservation Program* Revises the preliminary forest conservation plansubmittal procedure to allow this information to besubmitted with the final forest conservation plan.* Revises the public notice requirement to occur afterthe forest conservation plan is determined to becomplete.* Revises the public information hearing language toreflect the public notice language.

COMAR 08.19.05 Forest Conservation Maintenanceand Management Agreements* Adds the requirement for the recordation of a legallybinding protective agreement.

COMAR 08.19.06 Additional Requirements for State andLocal Programs* Adds the process of “unqualifying” professionals.* Updated the geographical regions listed in thissection to reflect current DNR Forest Service regions.* Removes the required time frame for statewide forestresource inventories.

WMATA Branch Avenue (F) Route,Prince George’s CountyDeveloper: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority(WMATA) (submitted photo)Consultants: Gannett Fleming, Inc., Whitman, Requardt andAssoc., Rummel, Klepper & Kahl Inc., Mahan, Rykiel Assoc.,Daniel, Mann Johnson & Mendenhall and Johnson, Mirmiran &Thompson.Excellence in Forest Conservation and Land Development AwardWinner, 1999 Flower Dogwood

Before:April 1994Scotchtown Hills Elementary School, Laurel,Prince George’s CountyPhoto, Marian Honeczy, MD DNR Forest Service

After:November 1995Scotchtown Hills Elementary School,Laurel, Prince George’s CountyPhoto, Marian Honeczy, MD DNR Forest Service

17

TCEJORPEPYT NOITACOL SUTATS NOITALOIV NEKATNOITCA SETON

8991snoitcAtnemecrofnE

etatS .oCs'egroeG.rP desolcesac89/71/21

otroirplavorppapcfonnoitcurtsnoc renwohtiwgtm ueil-ni-eefdiapdnadettimbuspcf

etavirP .oCretsecroW 99/21/3desolcesac noitpmexetolelgnis nekatnoitcaonswallatnemnorivne-itlumoteud

noitagitimderedro-truocsnoitaloivstnemeriuqerruodellifluf

etavirP .oCretsecroW 99/21/3desolcesac refsnartylimaf-artni.tpmexe nekatnoitcaon evisulcnocninoitagitsevni

noisividbuS .oCretsecroW 99/41/5desolcesac tnemesaenihtiwgniraelc tnalperotsrenwoemohotrettel noitcepsnignitnalpdessapgnitnalper


retneCgnippohS nwotsregaH 00/9/5desolcesac otroirplavorppapcfonnoitcurtsnoc

enifhtiwretteltnialpmocpots99/6/4deussidesopmi

99/8/4deussirettelkrow)yada000,1$(diapytlanep005,52$

tnaruatseR ytiCnaecO desolcesac00/11/21

otroirplavorppapcfonnoitcurtsnoc

enifhtiwretteltnialpmocHAO;99/22/4deussidesopmi

gniraeH

)yada000,1$(diapytlanep000,51$noisicedtruoCtiucriCrep


esruoCfloG .oCeniloraC 00/6/21desolcesac lattimbuspcfrodsfon enifhtiwdeusiretteltnialpmoc99/51/7desopmi

ni005,21$dnadiapytlanep005,21$tnemelttesfotlusersaderiuqergnitnalp

etavirP .oCeniloraC 00/9desolcesac slattimbuspcfrodsfon enifhtiwdeussiretteltnialpmoc99/72/7desopmi denimretedytlanepon

gnisuoHtnedutS .oCocimociW 00/32/5desolcesac otroirplavorppapcfonnoitcurtsnoc

enifhtiwretteltnialpmoc.99/72/7deussidesopmi diapytlanep000,6$

gnisuoHtnedutS .oCs'egroeG.rP 00/3/3desolcesac otroirplavorppapcfonnoitcurtsnoc

enifhtiwretteltnialpmoc99/81/8deussidesopmi diapytlanep000,51$

Enforcement Action

18

TCEJORPEMAN NOITACOL SUTATS NOITALOIV NEKATNOITCA SETON


kraPlairtsudnI .oCretsehcroD desolcesac00/42/01


deussiretteltnialpmoc00/61/7 diapytlanep000,7$

etavirP .oCeniloraC 10/51/5desolcesac otroirplavorppapcfonnoitcurtsnoc


loohcS .oCretsehcroD 10/03/3desolcesac otroirplavorppapcfonnoitcurtsnoc

deussiretteltnialpmoc10/91/3 denimretedytlanepon


etatS .oCdrofraH 20/4/9desolcesac otroirplavorppapcfonnoitcurtsnoc


etatS .oClednurAennA desolcesac20/01/6

otroirp.gtmnoitcurtsnoc-erponnoitcurtsnoc


laredeF .oCyremogtnoM desolcesac20/02/3




etatS .oClednurAennA 30/6/5desolcesac roirplavorppatnemdnemapcfongniraelcot

enifhtiwretteltnialpmocdeussideussidesopmi

ecnerefnocHAO20/32/9

dnadiapytlanep005,7$saecnayebanidleh005,2$

tnemelttesfotluser

etatS .oClednurAennA 20/3/01desolcesac dnoyebderaelcnoitcetorpeert


fcp - forest conservation planfsd - forest stand delineationmtg. - meetingCo. - county

19

Appendix A:

Analysis of State Forest Conservation Program

20

Forest Conservation Review in State Forest Conservation Programduring fiscal years 1993- 2002 resulted in:

-average of 61% of existing forest onsite is retained onsite-average 33% of existing forest onsite is cleared-average 6% more existing forest is retained than required-average 2.2 times as much forest is planted and retained as cleared

-during the first 5 years 36,397 acres of existing forest were reviewedcompared to 2,217.66 acres during the next 5 years,(This reflects the State Programs’ review of local programs projectsfrom 1993 -2000)-per the 5 Year Report an average of 58% forest was retained and33% cleared, and 9% more existing forest retained than required

Statewide Total

128,629.7479,174.1342,905.6513,610.62

2,081,182**37.8%

State Program

38,614.6623,478.8312,713.274,612.86

Forest

ExistingRetained+

ClearedPlanted

2002 Data*%Land Area

Stat

e For

est C

onse

rvat

ion

Prog

ram

FY 1

993

- 200

2

+Retention implies long-term protection (LTP); additional onsite retention may have occurred without LTP*Maryland Generalized Land Use/Land Cover Statistics, Maryland Department of Planning, water classification not included.**Statewide estimate minus Allegany and Garrett Counties

State Forest Conservation Program reviews projects thatare State funded, by a federal or State agency, on Stateland and projects in jurisdictions without a local forestconservation program.

Forest Acreage Under Review

05000

10000150002000025000300003500040000

Existing Forest Retained Forest Cleared Forest Planted Forest

Fore

st A

cres

Impact of Forest Conservation

Cleared33%

Retained61%

Retained over

required6%

Retained vs. Cleared Forest

21

Appendix B:

Analysis of Individual County Forest Conservation Programs

22

Ann

e Aru

ndel

Cou

nty

FY 1

993

- 200

2

Forest Conservation Review in Anne Arundel Co. during fiscal years1993 through 2002 resulted in:

-average 62% of existing forest onsite is retained onsite-average 38% of existing forest onsite is cleared-average 1.74 times as much forest is planted and retained as cleared


Retained62%

Cleared38%


All Counties

88,186.754,740.729,319.98,319.7

2,081,182**37.8%

Anne Arundel

3,091.821,902.361,189.46

170.6

109,110.641%

Forest

ExistingRetained+

ClearedPlanted




0100200300400500600700800

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Fore

st A

cres Existing Forest

Retained ForestCleared ForestPlanted Forest

FY93-95data notreported

23

Baltimore C

ityFY

1993 - 2002

Forest Conservation Review in Baltimore City during fiscal years 1993through 2002 resulted in:

-average 66% of existing forest onsite is retained onsite-average 35% of existing forest onsite is cleared-average 3.3 times as much forest is planted and retained as cleared-during the first 5 years 75 acres of existing forest were reviewedcompared to 69.6 acres during the next 5 years-per the 5 Year Report an average of 40% forest was retained and60% cleared

All Counties

88,186.754,740.729,319.98,319.7

2,081,182**37.8%

Baltimore City

144.696.0550.1570.17

3,755.37%

Forest

ExistingRetained+

ClearedPlanted



Retained66%

Cleared34%



0

10

20

30

40

50

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Fore

st A



FY96data notreported


24

Balti

mor

e Cou

nty

FY 1

993

- 200

2

Forest Conservation Review in Baltimore Co. during fiscal years 1993-2002 resulted in:

-average of 67% of existing forest onsite is retained onsite-average 31% of existing forest onsite is cleared-average 2% more existing forest is retained than required-average 2.4 times as much forest is planted and retained as cleared

-during the first 5 years 3,361 acres of existing forest were reviewedcompared to 3,622 acres during the next 5 years-per the 5 Year Report an average of 68.5% forest was retained and25% cleared, and 6.3% more existing forest retained than required

All Counties

88,186.754,740.729,319.98,319.7

2,081,182**37.8%

Baltimore

6,983.14,677.02,174.1

618.4

129,440.434%

Forest

ExistingRetained+

ClearedPlanted



0200400600800

1000120014001600

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Fore

st A




Retained over

required2%

Retained67%

Cleared31%



25

Calvert C

ountyFY

1993 - 2002

Forest Conservation Review in Calvert Co. during fiscal years 1993through 2002 resulted in:


-during the first 5 years 3,108 acres of existing forest were reviewedcompared to 4,983 acres during the next 5 years-per the 5 Year Report an average of 62% forest was retained and38% cleared

All Counties

88,186.754,740.729,319.98,319.7

2,081,182**37.8%

Calvert

8,090.675,449.82,661.0

246.2

69,499.751%

Forest

ExistingRetained+ClearedPlanted



Retained67%

Cleared33%

Retained vs. Cleared ForestForest Acres Under Review

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Fore

st A



FY93&94data notreported


26

Car

olin

e Cou

nty

FY 1

993

- 200

2

Forest Conservation Review in Caroline Co. during fiscal years 1993through 2002 resulted in:

-average 69% of existing forest onsite is retained onsite-average 31% of existing forest onsite is cleared

-during the first 5 years 192 acres of existing forest were reviewedcompared to 279 acres during the next 5 years-per the 5 Year Report an average of 79% forest was retained and21% cleared

All Counties

88,186.754,740.729,319.98,319.7

2,081,182**37.8%

Caroline

470.5261.6115.7521.46

63,610.031%

Forest

ExistingRetained+

ClearedPlanted



0

50

100

150

200

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Fore

st A



FY00 & 02data notreportedFY01negligible



Retained79%

Cleared21%


27

Carroll C

ountyFY

1993 - 2002Forest Acreage Under Review

0200400600800

100012001400

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Fore

st A




Retained over

required1%

Retained82%

Cleared17%


Forest Conservation Review in Carroll Co. during fiscal years 1993through 2002 resulted in:

-average 82% of existing forest onsite is retained onsite-average 17% of existing forest onsite is cleared-average 1% more existing forest is retained than required-average 6.9 times as much forest is planted and retained as cleared

-during the first 5 years 1,243 acres of existing forest were reviewedcompared to 2,464 acres during the next 5 years-per the 5 Year Report an average of 77% forest was retained and19% cleared, and 4% more existing forest retained than required

All Counties

88,186.754,740.729,319.98,319.7

2,081,182**37.8%

Carroll

3,707.43,042.9

619.51,203.2

67,975.124%

Forest

ExistingRetained+

ClearedPlanted



28

Cec

il C

ount

yFY

199

3 - 2

002

Forest Conservation Review in Cecil Co. during fiscal years 1993through 2002 resulted in:



All Counties

88,186.754,740.729,319.98,319.7

2,081,182**37.8%

Cecil

4,529.913,081.671,000.01

346.76

84,851.938%

Forest

ExistingRetained+

ClearedPlanted



0

200

400

600

800

1000

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Fore

st A




Retained over

required10%

Retained68%

Cleared22%



29

Charles C

ountyFY

1993 - 2002

Forest Conservation Review in Charles Co. during fiscal years 1993through 2002 resulted in:

-average 46% of existing forest onsite is retained onsite-average 54% of existing forest onsite is cleared

-during the first 5 years 4,672 acres of existing forest were reviewedcompared to 4,264.66 acres during the next 5 years-per the 5 Year Report an average of 46% forest was retained and54% cleared

All Counties

88,186.754,740.729,319.98,319.7

2,081,182**37.8%

Charles

8,968.664,167.474,815.79

100.27

178,472.161%

Forest

ExistingRetained+

ClearedPlanted


Forest Acres Under Review

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Fore

st A




Retained46%Cleared

54%



30

Dor

ches

ter C

ount

yFY

199

3 - 2

002

Forest Conservation Review in Dorchester Co. during fiscal years1993 through 2002 resulted in:


-during the first 5 years 86 acres of existing forest were reviewedcompared to 94.34 acres during the next 5 years-per the 5 Year Report an average of 90% forest was retained and 5%cleared, and 5% more existing forest retained than required

All Counties

88,186.754,740.729,319.98,319.7

2,081,182**37.8%

Dorchester

180.34140.0919.2137.80

126,759.536%

Forest

ExistingRetained+

ClearedPlanted



Retained over

required12%

Retained78%

Cleared10%

Retained vs. Cleared ForestForest Acreage Under Review

0102030405060

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Fore

st A



FY93StateProgram


31

Frederick County

FY 1993 - 2002

Forest Conservation Review in Frederick Co. during fiscal years 1993through 2002 resulted in:


All Counties

88,186.754,740.729,319.98,319.7

2,081,182**37.8%

Frederick

2,190.01,308.6

881.4778.6

145,432.334%

Forest

ExistingRetained+

ClearedPlanted



Retained60%

Cleared40%


0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Fore

st A



FY93datanotreported


32

Har

ford

Cou

nty

FY 1

993

- 200

2

All Counties

88,186.754,740.729,319.98,319.7

2,081,182**37.8%

Harford

5,918.154,090.151,805.76

664.99

95,892.134%

Forest

ExistingRetained+

ClearedPlanted



Retained69%

Cleared31%


Forest Conservation Review in Harford Co. during fiscal years 1993through 2002 resulted in:


-during the first 5 years 1,418 acres of existing forest were reviewedcompared to 4,500 acres during the next 5 years-per the 5 Year Report an average of 77% forest was retained and 19%cleared, and 4% more existing forest retained than required


0200400600800

1000120014001600

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Fore

st A



FY93datanotreported


33

How

ard County

FY 1993 - 2002

All Counties

88,186.754,740.729,319.98,319.7

2,081,182**37.8%

Howard

3,860.01,897.01,897.0

793.4

49,517.944%

Forest

ExistingRetained+

ClearedPlanted



Retained over

required 2%

Retained49%

Cleared49%


Forest Conservation Review in Howard Co. during fiscal years 1993through 2002 resulted in:




0100200300400500600700800

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Fore

st A



FY93datanotreported


34

Ken

t Cou

nty

FY 1

993

- 200

2

All Counties

88,186.754,740.729,319.98,319.7

2,081,182**37.8%

Kent

327.0307.8

7.249.9

44,734.825%

Forest

ExistingRetained+

ClearedPlanted


Forest Conservation Review in Kent Co. during fiscal years 1993through 2002 resulted in:

-average 94% of existing forest onsite is retained onsite-average 2% of existing forest onsite is cleared-average 4% more existing forest is retained than required-average 49 times as much forest is planted and retained as cleared

-per the 5 Year Report an average of 93% forest was retained and2.4% cleared, and 5% more existing forest retained than required


Retained over

required4%

Retained94%

Cleared2%


010203040506070

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Fore

st A



FY00 & 02data notreported


35

Montgom

ery County

FY 1993 - 2002

All Counties

88,186.754,740.729,319.98,319.7

2,081,182**37.8%

Montgomery

7,884.455,492.812,434.551,445.5

91,929.529%

Forest

ExistingRetained+

ClearedPlanted


Forest Conservation Review in Montgomery Co. during fiscal years1993 through 2002 resulted in:




0200400600800

100012001400

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Fore

st A




Retained70%

Cleared30%



36

Prin

ce G

eorg

e’s C

ount

yFY

199

3 - 2

002

Forest Conservation Review in Prince George’s Co. during fiscal years1993 through 2002 resulted in:


-during the first 5 years 6,856 acres of existing forest were reviewedcompared to 13,040.8 acres during the next 5 years-per the 5 Year Report an average of 61% forest was retained and 32%cleared, and 7% more existing forest retained than required


Retained over

required14%

Retained51%

Cleared35%


All Counties

88,186.754,740.729,319.98,319.7

2,081,182**37.8%

Prince George’s

19,896.810,127.06,969.21,234.0

131,391.142%

Forest

ExistingRetained+

ClearedPlanted




0500

100015002000250030003500400045005000

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Fore

st A


Retained Forest

Cleared Forest

Planted Forest

1993 - 2002

37

Queen A

nne’s County

FY 1993 - 2002

All Counties

88,186.754,740.729,319.98,319.7

2,081,182**37.8%

Queen Anne’s

2,615.72,345.6

290.9220.7

63,068.127%

Forest

ExistingRetained+

ClearedPlanted


Forest Conservation Review in Queen Anne’s Co. during fiscal years1993 through 2002 resulted in:


-during the first 5 years 513 acres of existing forest were reviewedcompared to 2,102.7 acres during the next 5 years-per the 5 Year Report an average of 88% forest was retained and12% cleared


Retained89%

Cleared11%


0100200300400500600700800

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Fore

st A



FY93&94StateProgram


38

St. M

ary’

s Cou

nty

FY 1

993

- 200

2

Forest Conservation Review in St. Mary’s Co. during fiscal years 1993through 2002 resulted in:


-during the first 5 years 2,249 acres of existing forest were reviewedcompared to 2,237 acres during the next 5 years-per the 5 Year Report an average of 70% forest was retained 23%cleared, and 7% more existing forest retained than required

All Counties

88,186.754,740.729,319.98,319.7

2,081,182**37.8%

St. Mary’s

4,486.43,163.0

994.4101.9

118,501.851%

Forest

ExistingRetained+

ClearedPlanted



0200400600800

1000120014001600

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Fore

st A




Retained over

required7%

Retained71%

Cleared22%



39

Somerset C

ountyFY

1993 - 2002

Forest Conservation Review in Somerset Co. during fiscal years 1993through 2002 resulted in:


-during the first 5 years 236 acres of existing forest were reviewedcompared to 218 acres during the next 5 years-per the 5 Year Report an average of 79% of forest was retained and21% cleared

All Counties

88,186.754,740.729,319.98,319.7

2,081,182**37.8%

Somerset

454.4354.667.953.5

82,518.340%

Forest

ExistingRetained+

ClearedPlanted



Retained over

required7%

Retained78%

Cleared15%


020406080

100120140160

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Fore

st A



FY93&94StateProgram


40

Talb

ot C

ount

yFY

199

3 - 2

002

Forest Conservation Review in Talbot Co. during fiscal years 1993through 2002 resulted in:


All Counties

88,186.754,740.729,319.98,319.7

2,081,182**37.8%

Talbot

710.98582.83116.1549.09

41,443.924%

Forest

ExistingRetained+

ClearedPlanted



Retained over

required2%

Retained82%

Cleared16%


0

50

100

150

200

250

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Fore

st A



FY93-96StateProgram


41

Washington C

ountyFY

1993 - 2002

Forest Conservation Review in Washington Co. during fiscal years1993 through 2002 resulted in:

-average 79% of existing forest onsite is retained onsite-average 21% of existing forest onsite is cleared-average 4 times as much forest is planted and retained as cleared

-per the 5 Year Report an average of 77% forest was retained and11% cleared, and 12% more existing forest was retained than required

All Counties

88,186.754,740.729,319.98,319.7

2,081,182**37.8%

Washington

804.1636.3174.7365.8

116,953.740%

Forest

ExistingRetained+

ClearedPlanted



Retained79%

Cleared21%



0

50

100

150

200

250

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Fore

st A



FY99-02no datareported


42

Wic

omic

o C

ount

yFY

199

3 - 2

002

Forest Conservation Review in Wicomico Co. during fiscal years 1993through 2002 resulted in:


-during the first 5 years 698 acres of existing forest were reviewedcompared to 925 acres during the next 5 years-per the 5 Year Report an average of 52% forest was retained and38% cleared, and 10% more existing forest was retained than required

All Counties

88,186.754,740.729,319.98,319.7

2,081,182**37.8%

Wicomico

1,623.3941.0673.164.9

106,236.344%

Forest

ExistingRetained+

ClearedPlanted



Retained58%

Cleared42%


050

100150200250300

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Fore

st A



FY93StateProgram


43

Worcester C

ountyFY

1993 - 2002

Forest Conservation Review in Worcester Co. during fiscal years 1993through 2002 resulted in:

-average 53% of existing forest onsite is retained onsite-average 28% of existing forest onsite is cleared-average 19% more existing forest is retained than required-average 2 times as much forest is planted and retained as cleared

-during the first 5 years 577 acres of existing forest were reviewedcompared to 714.6 acres during the next 5 years-per the 5 Year Report an average of 63% forest was retained and37% cleared

All Counties

88,186.754,740.729,319.98,319.7

2,081,182**37.8%

Worcester

1,291.6678.5356.435.4

159,987.753%

Forest

ExistingRetained+

ClearedPlanted



Retained over

required19%

Retained53%

Cleared28%


0100200300400500600700

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Fore

st A



FY01&02no datareported

FY93&94stateprogram

FY99insignificant datareported


44

Appendix C:

Analysis of Individual Municipal Forest Conservation Programs

45

Land Area (ac): 1,542.8 acres

All Municipalities

1,828.38954.60872.48678.06

Centreville

51.428.3

0.00.0

Forest

ExistingRetainedClearedPlanted

Queen Anne’s -Centreville - only reported FY97 - 99


All Municipalities

1,828.38954.60872.48678.06

Laurel

88.827.365.623.0

Forest


Prince George’s -Laurel - not reporting FY99-01

Land Area (ac): 6,409 acres

All Municipalities

1,828.38954.60872.48678.06

Gaithersburg

292.4187.5203.398.1

Forest


Montgomery -Gaithersburg - not reporting FY96 & 97


All Municipalities

1,828.38954.60872.48678.06

Havre de Grace

72.435.835.820.5

Forest


Havre de Grace -


All Municipalities

1,828.38954.60872.48678.06

Bel Air

113.367.227.75.9

Forest


Bel Air -

Dorchester -Cambridge - not reporting FY93 - FY96


All Municipalities

1,828.38954.60872.48678.06

Aberdeen

38.129.4

8.72.9

Forest


Harford -Aberdeen - only reported in FY97

Land Area (ac): *****

All Municipalities

1,828.38954.60872.48678.06

North East

30.210.319.9

0.0

Forest


North East - only reported in 2001, delegatedauthority to County in 2002

Municipalities Summary

Ten year summary of forest acreage under review:

Anne Arundel -Annapolis - not reporting ‘93, ‘00, ‘01


All Municipalities

1,828.38954.60872.48678.06

Annapolis

71.1424.2646.987.98

Forest



All Municipalities

1,828.38954.60872.48678.06

Perryville

29.218.211.012.7

Forest


Perryville - delegated authority to county in 2002

Forest



All Municipalities

1,828.38954.60872.48678.06

Elkton

191.7113.2

83.817.9

Cecil -Elkton -


All Municipalities

1,828.38954.60872.48678.06

Cambridge

45.160.5

10.0410.59

Forest


Rockville -


All Municipalities

1,828.38954.60872.48678.06

Rockville

234.8127.7102.126.2

Forest



All Municipalities

1,828.38954.60872.48678.06

Frederick

210.9294.3790.32

356.25

Forest


Frederick -Frederick -

46


All Municipalities

1,828.38954.60872.48678.06

Hagerstown

146.0818.2579.5452.24

Forest


Washington -Hagerstown - only reported FY01 & 02


All Municipalities

1,828.38954.60872.48678.06

Easton

112.48172.2887.743.8

Forest


Talbot -Easton- not reporting FY97, 00 & 02

The following municipilaties have either submitted areport of no Forest Conservation reviews or did notsubmit a report:

Allegany - Exempt

Anne Arundel -Highland Beach - Exempt

Calvert -Chesapeake Beach - AdoptedNorth Beach - Exempt

Caroline -Denton - AdoptedFederalsburg - CA/FCA ProgramGoldsboro - State program reviewGreensboro - AdoptedHenderson - Not exercising planning & zoningHillsboro - Not exercising planning & zoningMarydel - Not exercising planning & zoningPreston - State Program reviewRidgely - State Program review

Carroll -Hampstead - AssignedManchester - AssignedMount Airy - AssignedNew Windsor - AssignedSykesville - AssignedTaneytown - AssignedUnion Bridge - AssignedWestminster - Assigned

Cecil -Cecilton - AssignedCharlestown - AdoptedChesapeake City - AdoptedPort Deposit - State Program reviewRising Sun - Adopted

Charles -Indian Head - AdoptedLa Plata - AdoptedPort Tobacco - Exempt

Dorchester -Brookview - Not exercising planning & zoningChurch Creek - Not exercising planning & zoningEast New Market - AssignedEldorado - Not exercising planning & zoningGalestown - Not exercising planning & zoningHurlock - State Program reviewSecretary - State Program reviewVienna - Assigned

Frederick -Brunswick - AssignedBurkittsville - AssignedEmmitsburg - AdoptedNew Market - AdoptedMiddletown - AssignedMount Airy - AssignedMyersville - AssignedRosemont - AssignedThurmont - AssignedWalkersville - AssignedWoodsboro - Assigned

Garrett - Exempt

Howard - No Municipalities

Kent -Betterton - AssignedChestertown - AdoptedGalena - AssignedMillington - AssignedRock Hall - Assigned

Montgomery -Barnesville - AdoptedBrookeville - State Program reviewLaytonsville - AdoptedPoolesville - AdoptedWashington Grove - Adopted

Queen Anne’s -Barclay - Not exercising planning & zoningChurch Hill - State Program reviewQueen Anne - State Program reviewQueenstown - AdoptedSudlersville - State Program reviewTempleville - Not exercising planning & zoning

St. Mary’s -Leonardtown - Adopted

Somerset -Crisfield - AssignedPrincess Anne - Assigned

Talbot -St. Michael’s - State Program reviewTrappe - State Program reviewOxford - Adopted

Washington -Boonesboro - Assigned

47

Clear Spring - AssignedFunkstown - AssignedHancock - AssignedKeedysville - AssignedSharpsburg - AssignedSmithsburg - AssignedWilliamsport - Assigned

Wicomico -Delmar - AssignedFruitland - AssignedHebron - AssignedMardela Springs - AssignedPittsville - AssignedSalisbury - AssignedSharptown - AssignedWillards - Assigned

Worcester -Berlin - AssignedOcean City - AdoptedPocomoke City - AssignedSnow Hill - Assigned

48

The facilities and services of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources are available to all without regard to race, color, religion,sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin, physical or mental disability.

This document is available in alternative format upon request from a qualified individual with a disability.

Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., GovernorMichael S. Steele, Lt. Governor

C. Ronald Franks, Secretary

Steven W. Koehn, Director, Forest Service

Maryland Department of Natural ResourcesTawes State Office Building

580 Taylor AvenueAnnapolis, MD 21401

Phone 410-260-8531, Forest ServiceTTY via Maryland Relay: 711 Within MD) (800) 735-2258 (Out of State)

Toll Free#: 1-877-620-8DNR ext 8531http://www.dnr.maryland.gov

Forest Service MissionTo restore, manage, and protect Maryland’s trees, forests, and forested ecosystems

to sustain our natural resources and connect people to the land.

The Mission of the Maryland Department of Natural ResourcesThe Department of Natural Resources preserves, protects, enhances and restores

Maryland’s natural resources for the wise use and enjoyment of all citizens.

the maryland forest conservation act · the state forest conservation program has retained 2,528...

Documents