Trees and exurban sprawl.

Ed Macie, Arborist in Fulton County, Georgia, won AFA'S 1988 Urban Forestry Award for a professional. Gary Moll is AFA'S own Vice President of Programs and Director of Urban Forestry.

Environmental upheaval needn't result as development spreads across a rural landscape. Here's a look at present successes and future challenges.

In Anne Arundel County, Maryland, home of the state's capital and the U.S. Naval Academy, 175,000 acres of trees covered the rolling landscape in 1950. By 1985, that acreage had dwindled to about 110,000. In the same period, Fairfax County, Virginia, situated on the outskirts of Washington, DC, lost about 80,000 acres of tree cover. The likely culprit? Exurban sprawl-the building boom in near-metropolitan areas that has created what Time magazine calls "megacounties. "

In the Atlanta area, land-use changes were estimated at 50 acres per day last year. Forest cover in Fulton County, just outside Atlanta, has literally fallen by almost 50,000 acres since 1972, and the rate of loss is increasing, according to forest-inventory data collected by the U.S. Forest Service.

Many counties in the West are experiencing the same trend. The Douglas-fir and hemlock that once crowded the countryside just outside Seattle, Washington, have largely been replaced with homes and businesses. Building permits there in King County increased from 864 in 1987 to 1,956 in 1989. Forest cover decreased substantially, with 42 percent of development occurring on the outer fringe of existing suburbia.

In these places and other areas all across the country, the decision-making authority in control of the spreading development is not a city government but a county commission or board of supervisors. The most pressing issue is not planting or maintenance of street and park trees, but the protection of a pre-existing forest cover from the ravages of bulldozers as new development replaces a rural economy and rural land uses.

Sometimes the loss of forest cover is' gradual, a one-acre lot at a time. Other times-when large tracts near a highway are logged and bulldozedthe change is both visible and dramatic. Hills are flattened, soils displaced, watercourses altered, and whole new communities constructed. A few decisions in the planning office can transform the ecology of the surrounding countryside. The assets in hundreds, even thousands of trees can be obliterated as an "obstacle to building. "

In each of the four counties named above, awareness of the effects of rapid development resulted in some policy changes. In Maryland, forest expertise is weaving its way into development decisions. The state forestry agency is assisting a number of county planning agencies with technical reviews of development plans. The opportunity to save trees is being considered along with the need for roads, utilities, and other engineering concerns.

Maryland lawmakers, for example, took an aggressive step by establishing a protective forest buffer around the Chesapeake Bay. Development in that strip is restricted, and forestry focuses on managing trees for clean water, not sawlogs.

In the first few months of 1989, two of Maryland's most populated counties, Montgomery and Prince George's, have placed new development ordinances in front of county councils. Prince George's County Executive, Parris Glendening, has thrown his support behind this precedent-setting legislation designed to limit the loss of forestland in the county and assure tree cover when new development takes place.

In Fairfax County, Virginia, a development ordinance that affects all property slated for development has been in effect for about 10 years. Sediment and erosion requirements are the strongest element of the law, and tree protection is part of the solution. A county arborist office has been established and staffed. The county arborist must sign off on each plan, showing that forestry requirements have been met.

In 1985, Fulton County, Georgia, enacted a strong ordinance, taking a lesson in part from Virginia's Fairfax County. The Fulton County tree preservation ordinance and its strong enforcement are now considered a model by many urban foresters. The ordinance applies to an properties subject to development within unincorporated portions of the county, although single-family home construction is excepted. The county hired a full-time arborist to enforce the ordinance and work with developers. Every application for a land-development permit must be accompanied by a tree-protection plan, which is reviewed during a site-inspection by the arborist.

Last year, the Fulton ordinance resulted in active protection of over 700 acres of trees and the planting of over 39,000 trees. That represents an 11 percent reforestation of land developed in the county since 1985. On the average, developers have exceeded the requirements of tree protection and planting by 50 percent.

One example of how a county can grow without complete destruction of the natural environment is seen in the Chick-fil-a headquarters, winner of a Fulton County Award for design and land development. Chick-fil-A's executive, Truett Cathy, requested that his architects and construction team work to save every possible tree. Tree-protection guidelines were established by the architectural team. During construction, red "save tree" banners went up across the acreage. As a result, mature trees continue to shade the building and employees walk through a stand of mixed hardwoods on their way to and from the parking lot.

In a second model development within the county, Life of Georgia's corporate headquarters, the tree-protection program included a $500 contractor's fine for every tree lost from a 'tree save" area. Life of Georgia proudly announced that it never had to levy the first fine.

These two successes, and others, didn't result from simply passing an ordinance. They are the result of a wise and flexible regulation combined with a strong education program and an interested and positive outreach to the business and development community.

Land development is a complicated process, and so are the biological processes of trees. needs of trees can restrict the options of the developer, and obviously, a developer's intentions can kill trees. So a key element of the Fulton County program is flexibility. The original ordinance called for "administrative guidelines" that allow adjustments to the program without going through a new legislative process.

Secondly, the Fulton County program incorporates tree protection directly into the land-development permit process. This involves two major steps: the petition for rezoning and the application for land-disturbance permits.

Zoning ordinarily categorizes land into classifications of residential, commercial, and industrial areas. Each class of zoning carries with it a set of restrictions and guidelines. Much negotiation goes on when zoning is changed, and during that discussion there is an opportunity to protect trees. In Fulton County, the ordinance and its guidelines outline conditions for rezoning that prohibit premature tree removal (removal prior to obtaining a permit); require a site visit by the enforcing agent to discuss tree protection; and provide additional space for trees such as buffers, landscape strips, and parking-lot islands. Compliance with these conditions can also be a precondition for a development permit.

The permit process usually involves two stages, a conceptual and a final stage. In Fulton County, tree-protection plans are required as part of the conceptual plan submitted by developers. They are carefully reviewed along with the other construction drawings, since grading, drainage, road improvements, utilities, and erosion can all affect the survival of trees. A land-disturbance permit is not issued in Fulton County until a treeprotection drawing has been approved along with the other development drawings.

On some projects, protection of existing trees is just not possible. Although it may be a hard decision, it is often more practical to remove a tree whose survival is doubtful and replace it with a new tree. A newly planted tree will remain functional for a longer period of time than a tree suffering from construction damages.

A "tree-point system," based on a tree's basal area and developed as part of the administrative guidelines, has been an effective tool in Fulton County. Developers are required to demonstrate a prescribed density of trees per acre upon a project's completion. This required density can be satisfied with existing trees, with replacement trees, or both.

As an example of the importance of flexibility in protection ordinances, consider the process of trying to save a 40-inch-diameter white oak on a one-acre tract that has a 10 percent slope and is slated for development as a convenience store. The extensive grading required to stabilize the site for building would destroy substantial portions of the tree's roots. No matter how articulate you may be in describing the environmental values of the tree, other interests will perceive a greater value in the development project and the parking spaces associated with it.

With the tree-replacement formula used in the Fulton County ordinance, the developer who cut that tree would have to replace it with about 30 two-inch-diameter trees, comparable in species quality to the pre-existing one. Even if the site had had no trees, a Fulton County developer would still be required to plant the 30 trees. The conditions for zoning and permits outlined above would suggest space for tree plantings in the form of strips, buffers, and parking islands.

All developers in Fulton County need to provide the same density, regardless of the pre-development condition of a site. Keep in mind, for example, that an open pasture converted to another land use may need trees that didn't exist earlier. During the first year under the ordinance, Fulton County developers exceeded these tree-dinsity requirements by almost a third.

Perhaps the most important key to a successful program in Fulton County has been its education component. As soon as the tree-protection ordinance was passed, an seminar was held for developers and engineers; 250 attended. The seminar brought to bear the fact that tree protection can improve the marketability of projects, and in some cases save the developer money otherwise tied up in clearing and grading costs. Many developers are aware of the possible benefits of protection but don't understand why the trees they leave on a site end up dying. Education by site demonstration is by far the most effective way to teach this lesson, but this requires an almost continuous field presence. Land-development newsletters, seminars, and the use of local media are also valuable tools.

Tree protection in land development should be a shared responsibility in the community. Developers need to approach their projects with some environmental sensitivity. Citizens need to understand the needs of developers. And local governments must be flexible, yet recognize and support the need for tree protection and replacement. If all three sectors cooperate, our cities-and countes-can grow while remaining beautiful and environmentally healthy.

The projects in Maryland, Georgia, and Virginia show that the benefits of forestland can be mixed into new development and improve the communities that result. However, we would be naive to think that the ordinances discussed solve aU the conflicts between urban development and the local ecology. They are a good start toward reducing conflicts considerably; yet the ordinances and the individuals who lead the protection programs are fragile, while development companies and the hunger for urban expansion are often overpowering.

The written law must generalize solutions for some very complex situations, and be put into practice by individuals who are easily out-gunned by the opposition. The laws require changes in standard development practices. These changes will continue to activate the confrontational juices in some seasoned developers, start many battles, and result in a lot of uncertainty in government agencies. Some of the challengers will find holes in the arguments that rationalize the ordinances, and then use their community influence to weaken the law or create special exceptions. To meet these and other challenges, we will undoubtedly have to rethink and revise many of the methods and models we are using today.

It is possible, even desirable, to gain some tree protection through voluntary cooperative programs that complement the intentions of full-fledged ordinances. Some developers will always understand the economic as well as environmental values of protecting trees and go the extra mile to improve the quality of the communities they are building. But the need to protect the forest resource of an area as a living whole is presently much bigger than the cooperative spirit of the development community. In this climate, an ordinance appears to be the best method to assure countywide protection.

AFA and the National Urban Forest Council are offering assistance to communities facing the ordinance dilemma through an urban-forestry information system called TreeNet. Information on TreeNet can be obtained by writing TreeNet, P. 0. Box 52105, Durham, NC 27717, or calling [phone]. AF