BWG Agenda 4/9

[Emma Terwilliger]

Hi All,

We are meeting this Thursday at 6:30 pm virtually. Meeting Link here.

Below is the agenda I have put together. Please feel free to reply with anything else you'd like us to discuss.

Biodiversity Working Group Agenda:

Review the current form of the mission statement

Review Erin’s Biodiversity Brochure

• We will need Sustainability Commission approval for the final version

Review the Garden Protection Act

• https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S879/amendment/A

[Skye van der Laan]

Howdy all, sorry I can’t make it tonight. 

Skye

On Apr 7, 2026, at 4:37 PM, 'Emma Terwilliger' via ASC Biodiversity <asc-biod...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Hi All,

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ASC Biodiversity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to asc-biodiversi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/asc-biodiversity/d0fe483d-5349-4d29-bbea-1e9455a56664n%40googlegroups.com.

[Zack Davis]

Hi all,

I had made a comment to my assembly member regarding the Garden Protection Act. It is still in committee at the moment, so he was unaware of it, but they have forwarded it to the backing member/committee as well. I hope that you'll read the proposed bill, and my generalized comments below to reach your own conclusions. 

---------------

My comment is on S879A  - The Garden Protection Act

With some amendments to the proposed bill, I express support for it. All citizens should have the right to garden and steward the environment in the manner they are willing and capable of. I hope that you will propose these amendments, and support this bill with those suggested changes. I hope that you will continue to promote conservation endeavors for the duration of your tenure.

To summarize my comment, from my perspective, the verbiage on the proposed amendment is 1) too restrictive, which is counter to the scope and intent, 2) has lofty and unnecessary stipulations in definition, and 3) it does not extend protections for best practices which jeopardizes conservation efforts.

In terms of restrictiveness and being counter to intent, the definition's language is restrictive in scope. Section 2 of the act elaborates that "The purpose of this act is to encourage and protect the sustainable cultivation of fresh produce at all levels of production, including on residential property".  However, as written, the definition provided under the proposed Subdivision 8 limits the definition to only those "located on residential property". This limitation is counter to the proposed intent of to "protect...  at all levels of production", and limits the extended protection under 5. 31-k. To satisfy the intention, protection for gardeners must be extended beyond residential property. Entities gardening in business districts, industrial areas, subjected to homeowners associations, etc, should have these protections extended to them as well. We should imagine a New York where a small-time gardener can broker a deal with any entity to facilitate their conservation and gardening with permission. Therefore, I would suggest the removal of the "residential property" criteria.

In terms of lofty and unnecessary wording, the proposed definition ostensibly mandates biodiversity considerations (e.g. size, shape, color) to have protection extended under Subdivision 8. Biodiversity considerations are important, and indeed they are best practice for conservation gardening. However, necessitating such practices to meet a legal definition for protection puts undue burden on gardeners without the space to support multiple species; those who have limited experience working with multiple species; and furthermore it subdues personal aesthetic considerations for garden design. While monocultures are not best practice, nor would I suggest them for aesthetics or large scale ecological value, monocultured gardens still ought to be protected as these will provide some support for species. Some support is better than no support, and therefore aspects of the size, scale, temporality, compositional arrangement, and species composition, or other facets of biodiversity should not be considered in the definition.. All native plant gardens ought to be protected regardless of any of the characteristics comprising the ecological community, even if that community has a species richness of 1. Furthermore, I argue that the proposed definition in Subdivision 8 is needlessly redundant and confusing. Including in the definition that a garden "may also include other native plants... including those without flowers" is tautological in light of the "variety" wording. "Other" and "including those without flowers" are already included in the definition of "native plants".  Therefore, I would suggest the removal of these qualifiers to protect the breadth of access to practice. 

Lastly, and most importantly, I believe this definition does not go far enough to facilitate and protect best practices. As best practice, leaving exposed soil facilitates nesting substrate for many native bee species; having some interstitial space between plantings promotes complexity in the landscape; leaving dead or senescing standing material enables nesting and overwintering substrate for many species; leaving leaves helps to suppress nuisance species, and it facilitates the overwintering of numerous insect populations. It is conceivable that these or other practices which facilitate habitat may be considered a nuisance, and sought to be prohibited or to have enforcement actions taken to rectify perceived blight within a given protected garden—negating the intention of the conservation garden practice. It is therefore crucial to explicitly elaborate on the legality of these practices to protect the space of practice and its components, not simply the plants and the right to garden in and of itself. 

With all of the above considerations, I would support this bill should changes to the proposed Subdivision 8 occur to something similar to the following:

"Native plant garden shall mean any garden composed of one or more native plant species, regardless of species characteristics, and it shall include any features which increase the potential habitat of native species within and among the garden, including but not limited to: standing dead or senescenced plant material, fallen and decaying leaves, and exposed substrates or soils."

I believe inclusion of "increase the potential habitat" to be paramount in protecting those best practices. It is my understanding that, at federal levels, potential habitat is not protected. We would be wise to elaborate, here, that it is. The realized occupancy of species does not negate the intention of the practice, which is what ought to be protected.

Thank you for your consideration.