Tree Conservation Legislation Strategy Session

1
Tree Conservation Legislation Strategy Session

• How do we prepare for the next Virginia State
  Legislative Assembly?

2
Overview

• Background
• Present authority
• Pressures and limitations
• Recent legislative actions
• Desired outcomes
• Strategies and tactics
• Whats missing?
• Next Steps?

3

• Present Authority
• Direct
• 10.1-1127.1. Conservation of Heritage,
  Specimen, Memorial and Street Trees
• Indirect
• 15.2-961. Replacement of Trees during
  Development Process
• 10.1-562. Erosion and Sediment Control
• 10.1-2100. Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and
  the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation
  and Management Regulations 9 VAC 10-20-10
  through -230

4
Pressures

• The ability of Virginias jurisdictions to meet
  Federal and State air and water quality
  regulations is dependent on their ability to
  protect and manage their communitys tree cover
• Federal Clean Air Act
• Regional and Local State Implementation Plans
• Federal Clean Water Act
• Chesapeake 2000 Agreement
• Chesapeake Bay Act of Virginia State Code
• Chesapeake Bay Regulations of Virginia State Code
• Public Awareness especially in areas with rapid
  development

5
Limitations

• Despite research demonstrating that trees
  provide significant ecological environmental and
  socio-economical benefits, present VA State Code
  that can be used to require tree preservation
  during land development is limited
• Chesapeake Bay and Erosion and Sedimentation
  Control Code provide the legal basis for many
  local ordinances
• Tree preservation is not primary focus
• Water quality, erosion control is focus
• Tree replacement is given more weight that
  preservation
• Preservation of higher quality vegetation is not
  ensured
• Heritage, memorial, specimen and street tree VA
  State Code does not provide for the preservation
  of forested tracts

6
Strengthening Enabling Authority

• Attempts to strengthen tree conservation
  authority have failed repeatedly
• The land development and wood products industry
  have influenced these legislative actions

7

• Recent Legislative Proposals
• Proposals to amend 15.2-961. Replacement of
  Trees during development process
• 2002 session, Sen. Howell SB 484 (left)
• 2002 session, Del Marshall HB 105 (continued to
  2003)
• 2003 session, Sen. Howell SB 1013 (passed, but
  with no tree preservation)
• 2004 session, Del. Sickles introduced HB 1479
  (left)
• 2006 session, Sen. Ticer SB 246/236 (passed by
  indefinitely)
• All considered by Committee on Counties, Cities
  and Towns
• Proposal for DEQ to study tree-related measures
  in Clean Air Act state implementation plans to
  avoid loss of future federal transportation funds
• 2005 session, Sen. Mims, SJ 343
• Left in Committee on Rules

8
Desired Outcomes

• Legislation that directly empowers jurisdictions
  to require the preservation of tree and forest
  resources in higher levels than that currently
  realized
• Legislation that acknowledges the ecological
  environmental and socio-economical benefits
  provided by trees
• Enabling language that communicates that it is
  lawful and reasonable for a jurisdiction to limit
  property development rights, especially where
  land development proposals (individually or
  collectively) could significantly impact the
  quality of life experienced by the community at
  large
• Legislation that links to State and Federal
  environmental mandates

9
Desired Outcomes (the sequel)

• Legislation is based on a predictable core
  mechanism
• Legislation that is flexible, allows for
  modifications and deviations to facilitate other
  social and political considerations
• Legislation that compliments efforts to conserve
  productive forest lands
• Legislation that will not experience significant
  opposition by other jurisdictions or special
  interests groups
• Legislation that meets the needs of all
  jurisdictions where it can be used

10
Questions Asked July 21, 2006

• Who are the partners?
• Who/what are the road blocks?
• What other Bills are on the horizon?
• What are pros and cons of statewide versus
  limited geographical application
• Should we continue to pursue same amendment or
  generate new proposal?
• Should we submit this year or what till 2008?
• Should we link to air quality and non-attainment
  areas?
• What are other jurisdictions/states doing?
• How do we engage other jurisdictions?

11
Strategies and Tactics

• Influencing state/local policy makers
• Conduct regional ecosystem service analysis and
  combine into one report
• Educate and engage private citizens and
  organizations
• Letter writing campaign
• Identify key members of VA Legislative Assembly
• Meet with critical members
• Letters to State Forester supporting UF program
  within VDOF
• Find support within the building and wood
  products industry
• Continue Building inter-jurisdictional consensus

12
What did we miss?

• What other strategies can we use to promote
  stronger tree conservation legislation?
• Should we attempt to identify/quantify levels of
  jurisdictional support?
• How does Urban Tree Canopy Goals figure into the
  equation?

13
What are the Next Steps?

• Linkage to Air Quality Plans is this possible,
  advisable?
• How can we get more folks to participate?
• How can we support each other?
• Should work continue within subcommittee
  arrangement?
• How soon should we start working on this?