• By Stephanie Free
• October 16, 2020

Incorporating Public Feedback into NCPC’s Draft Tree Preservation and Replacement Policies

On July 9, NCPC initiated a 60-day public comment period on proposed draft updates to its Tree Preservation and Replacement policies and Submission Guidelines. The draft policies propose to strengthen tree preservation guidelines, clarify replacement quantities and standards, and provide alternatives in cases when these standards can’t be met. The public comment period closed on September 16, and we received 17 letters and emails. This resulted in 75 total comments that staff will use to shape the final policies, which the Commission will be asked to adopt at its November meeting.

Comment Themes
Comments received primarily fall into two categories:
1) Further strengthen the tree preservation and protection policies.
2) Clarify the exceptions and the process for receiving an exception.
As noted in the comments, government policies related to trees and development often focus on replacement practices. While replacement is a necessary part of the equation, it assumes that development will lead to tree removal, and preservation can be perceived as secondary.

Strengthening Tree Preservation and Protection Policies
NCPC’s draft policy amendments propose to strengthen tree preservation in several ways. First, the policies under review are now referred to as NCPC’s “Tree Preservation and Replacement Policies.” While this may seem like just a title change, by identifying tree preservation in the front of the title it reinforces preservation as an equally important, if not greater, part of the equation.

Second, the draft policies call for the federal government to “preserve existing trees, especially individual trees, stands, and forests of healthy, native, or non-invasive species.” The policies further direct applicants to “account for existing trees early in the planning and design processes when development occurs to maximize preservation and incorporate the natural landscape into the design.”

This policy is stated before any mention of tree replacement to acknowledge that tree preservation should be considered before contemplating removal and replacement. Additional new procedures are also proposed for preservation of large trees where their diameter measures 31.85 inches or greater, similar to the District of Columbia’s heritage tree regulations.

Public comments encouraged NCPC to consider tree protection in concert with tree preservation and to ensure that any effort to preserve trees must also consider methods to protect trees. There are several methods used to protect trees, including protection fencing, root pruning, and root protection matting. These methods can be used in combination or alone and must always follow industry standards to ensure successful preservation. For example, the location of tree protection fencing at, or beyond, a tree’s critical root zone is essential to ensure that a tree is actually protected during construction.

Other comments encouraged NCPC to include language that considers the preservation and protection of trees in areas determined to be critical to the health of tidal waters, tidal wetlands, and tributary streams of the Chesapeake Bay or Potomac River watersheds, and on sites with old growth forests and/or significant ecosystems.

Clarifying Exceptions and the Process to Receive an Exception
These comments recommended that NCPC clarify and better define the exceptions criterion and process. The draft policies proposed that applicants may offset the balance of replacement trees required with other sustainable practices if the total quantity of replacement trees cannot be provided, as long as other sustainable practices provide similar benefits as those provided by trees. These could include reducing the urban heat island effect, carbon sequestration, and capturing stormwater runoff.

The open-ended nature of the proposed exception in the draft policies initiated several comments from advocacy groups and federal agencies. Advocacy group comments related to the exceptions process were primarily concerned with ensuring that the benefits provided by the alternative sustainable practices are at least equal to those lost by the trees removed.

Federal agency comments requested additional clarity on those sustainable practices, and a defined set of criteria to ensure consistent direction for agencies and NCPC staff to follow when an exception is requested. Additionally, federal agencies highlighted the need for flexibility on cultural landscape project sites and those located in the monumental core. For example, the restoration of a cultural landscape may require removal of trees to return it to its original historic character, and the addition of new trees or other sustainable practices on that site may not be appropriate. In addition, projects in the monumental core often face constraints such as limited site areas and minimal options for off-site planting. The comments further highlighted that projects in the monumental core will often plant fewer large caliper trees rather than several small trees as a design feature for a more “monumental” impact or to support the design narrative, such as in commemorative works projects.

Creating the Exception(s) to the Rule
With the requests for clarity on exceptions, the question becomes how does one create exceptions that are clear, well-defined, comprehensive, and effective without inadvertently discouraging compliance with the policies? Some may argue that an exception that is too clear and too well defined creates a pathway that automatically undermines the policies in place. On the other hand, others may argue that a policy is not stringent enough if compliance is high and exceptions are not sought.

In creating exceptions, it is important to reflect on precedent cases where exceptions were sought and identify the commonalities. Applicants seeking plan approval from NCPC are typically federal or District government agencies implementing individual capital improvement projects or those identified in a campus or installation master plan. Federal projects are mission-oriented, meaning that they are proposed to further the mission of the agency and therefore fulfill the responsibilities of the agency to the federal government and citizens of the United States. Examples include expansion of a reservist’s headquarters facility on a military base, installation of perimeter security around a sensitive site, construction of health research laboratories, installation of a new memorial or museum, or rehabilitation of an aging cultural landscape.

While the majority of NCPC projects achieve tree replacement goals, there are a few instances where it can be more challenging to do so. While they are infrequent, the most typical challenges include the lack of space, particularly in urban areas, and the clearing of large tracts. When exceptions do occur, it is not meant to give an “out” to projects, but to better recognize and respond to challenges. NCPC staff work with applicants to identify opportunities to achieve the tree replacement goals in other ways if necessary.

For exception criteria to be effective without undermining the rule, they must acknowledge conflicts that result from impractical application of the policies. NCPC’s Transportation Element update did just that in creating a list of four defined deviation criteria for projects seeking an exception from the element’s parking policies. The deviation criteria provide a clear and predictable process for allowing such deviations from the parking ratios that assist applicants and staff to navigate the approval process more effectively.

While the new deviation criteria for the Tree Preservation and Replacement Policies are in the early stages of being implemented, a consensus was reached between NCPC and applicant agencies that will apply the policies to their projects.

New Comprehensive Plan Guidance and More Information
A complete list of the comments received is available on the project initiative page. Staff will include a response to each comment in the Executive Director’s Recommendation when the policies are presented to the Commission for final approval.

Initiative Page