Tree bylaw adoption up in air still

County council has sent its proposed forest conservation bylaw back to committee for further review, and the consultant for North Dufferin Agriculture and Community Taskforce, Garry Hunter, is continuing to ask why a new bylaw is needed in any event.

Two of the problems that had arisen in the application of existing Bylaw 2006-15 were the lack of a tree-cutting exemption for farming operations – when it appears such an exemption had been given as a matter of practice – and with the interpretation of what constitutes “woodlands” for the purpose of applying the one hectare limit on clear-cutting.

The county is mandated to control tree cutting in all woodlands of one hectare or greater. But where a woodland straddles the boundary of adjacent properties, does this create two woodlands for the determination of size?

The old bylaw makes no reference to ownership, whereas the proposed one would specify that the determination would be irrespective of ownership. Mr. Hunter, in emails and in an interview outside the council, said the specification is unnecessary as the Ministry of Natural Resource’s mapping of forested areas should apply.

He alleged that the county itself had violated its own bylaw by allowing the removal of 200 trees from a 5.3 ha stand that straddles the boundary between “the Lloyd Farm” and a property owned by the Highland Companies. In that case, he alleged, “clearing has taken place up to the property boundary without notice to the adjacent land owners of the common woodland. The woodland interior is now left exposed to damage.”

Additionally, Mr. Hunter alleged in an interview that Highland had dumped demolition materials into a wooded area it had clear-cut, although the cutting had ostensibly been to expand farming operations.

Highland Companies spokesman Michael Daniher responded thus when questioned about Mr. Hunter’s allegations:

First, “dumping demolition materials on cleared wooded areas”: In the absence of any specific incident you can mention can say that, in general, when you remove a building in the winter, not every piece of the remaining material is removed right there and then. It’s not unusual to wait until the snow melts and the weather improves before the final clean up occurs, or to move material to another site before final disposition and clean up.

Secondly, “the County Forest Manager has allowed THC to cut areas of up to .999 ha”: I can’t speak for the County or its officials. What I can say is that we’ve been subjected to numerous allegations, all of which have been investigated and held to be unfounded. We work to manage our land, including trees, in an appropriate manner as part of an active and ongoing farming operation. We’ve followed the appropriate procedures as required and will continue to do so. It’s been well documented and supported by surveys that we’ve removed areas of less than 1 hectare, but I’m not aware of any at the specific scale you’ve mentioned.

In his emails, Mr. Hunter says, “The NDACT concern continues to be destruction of the sparse residual natural woodlands in wind exposed areas of the County. NDACTs primary concern is not with regulation of silvicultural management or the clearing of conifer reforestation planted as a timber crop. NDACT acknowledges and accepts that clearance of fence and hedge rows are not included in either the existing or the new proposed By-law.

“Inexplicably, the proposed By-law that I previously reviewed, front loads layers of regulatory control on routine forest management but removes almost all oversight for clear cutting tree destruction.

“Approval of the new Forestry By-law is premature at this time. NDACT would be prepared to meet and assist in final drafting of the new By-law within the established framework to ensure that all ratepayer and stakeholder interests and concerns are equitably achieved in a balanced way,” his email states.