Overview of the Woodlands Conservation By-law + Weed Act - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Overview of the Woodlands Conservation By-law

+ Weed Act Enforcement

County Council September 24, 2013

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 1 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

• 1. By-law History
• 2. County’s By-law
• 3. The Challenges
• 4. + The Weed Act
• 5. Discussion

Agenda

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 2 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

• Following European settlement, Southern Ontario was

largely deforested for timber and potash production and cleared for agriculture.

• The regulation of tree removal on private property was a

response to widespread flooding and erosion in the early 1900s caused by this deforestation.

• Counties Reforestation Act (1911), Tree Conservation Act

(1946), the Tree Act (1950), etc.

History of Conservation By-Laws

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 3 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

• The estimated amount of woodland cover within Middlesex

has significantly changed :

• 1851 above 80%
• 1951 below 10%
• 2011 almost 15%
• There are currently approximately 42,000 hectares (104,000

acres) of woodlands within Middlesex County.

History of Conservation By-Laws

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 4 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

• Many complex and inter-related environmental, economic,

and cultural benefits of woodlands including: – Clean water – Erosion prevention – Storm water retention and flow reduction – A biologically diverse ecosystem with over 2/3 of terrestrial wildlife relying on woodlands – Renewable raw materials production and diversified farm income from timber harvest

History of Conservation By-Laws

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 5 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

– Air quality improvement as air pollutants linked to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases are filtered – Carbon storage related to climate change – The County Official Plan places an emphasis on the protection of the natural environment, including woodlands, as being tied to the preservation of agricultural land and the agricultural economy – Temperature abatement – Many more …

History of Conservation By-Laws

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 6 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

• Woodlands Conservation By-laws are now passed under the

Municipal Act to ‘prohibit or regulate the destruction or injuring of trees’ on private property.

• To prevent deforestation, overharvesting and to promote

good forestry practices.

• Most municipalities in Southern Ontario have by-laws.

History of Conservation By-Laws

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 7 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

History of Conservation By-Laws

May Not Be Current

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 8 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

• In 1986, By-Law 4672 was passed by the County under the

Trees Act and approved by the Minister of Natural Resources to ‘restrict and regulate the destruction of trees’.

• The purpose of By-law 4672 was to ‘maintain and improve

the forest, game and fish resources of the County by preserving and improving woodlands’.

• In 2001 the Trees Act was repealed and the Municipal Act

was amended to include Woodlands Conservation.

History of County’s Conservation By-Law

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 9 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

• Section 135 of the Municipal Act authorizes local

municipalities and/or counties to prohibit or regulate the destruction or injuring of trees.

• County Council passed By-law 5738 in 2004.
• By-law 5738 was developed with nearby Counties as a means
• f standardizing by-laws in this region, however the area by-

laws are not identical.

History of County’s Conservation By-Law

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 10 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

• By-law 5738 defines woodlands based on area and meeting

certain Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) tree measurement thresholds.

• No person may injure or destroy living trees within regulated

woodlands unless it is done in accordance with: – Good Forestry, or – Circumference Limit, or – As a result of an ‘exemption’

• Does not apply to singular trees, for example, in urban areas.

Woodlands Conservation By-Law 5738

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 11 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

• Selective cutting / commercial timber harvest is permitted

within regulated woodlands under either Good Forestry or Circumference Limit practices.

• Good Forestry harvesting is where a woodlot is marked by

professional forester to enable the forest to maintain ecological processes and wildlife habitats.

• Good Forestry encourages sustainable forest management

by improving forest health and forest products over time.

Woodlands Conservation By-Law 5738

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 12 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

• Circumference Limit harvesting allows trees of a minimum

size be harvested, subject to detailed requirements.

• Circumference Limit harvesting is the more traditional

approach to woodland management but is generally considered less desirable than Good Forestry harvesting because it removes the largest and best trees and is typically more aggressive.

• Good Forestry harvesting is generally considered the better

approach for managing Southern Ontario woodlands.

Woodlands Conservation By-Law 5738

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 13 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

• The Woodlands Conservation Officer, appointed by

Council, administers and enforces the By-Law.

• A Notice of Intent (NOI) for selective cutting / commercial

timber harvest must be filed with the Officer no less than 14 days prior to the start of any destruction or injury of trees.

• NOI are reviewed by the Woodlands Conservation Officer

and inspections before and after harvesting are often carried out to ensure compliance.

Woodlands Conservation By-Law 5738

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 14 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

Notice of Intents Received Year Received Acres 2007 111 2566 2008 108 2220 2009 79 1338 2010 73 1763 2011 60 1261 2012 125 2713 2013 130 2800* *projected: 105 NOI and 2220 Acres as of Sept 17th

Woodlands Conservation By-Law 5738

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 15 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

• On average, about 2,000 acres of woodlands are selectively

harvested in the County each year.

• The estimated annual timber volume exceeds 3,000,000 fbm

(foot board measure).

• The estimated annual value of the harvest is in excess of two

million dollars.

• An important component of the local economy.

Woodlands Conservation By-Law 5738

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 16 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

• The By-law also provides exemptions for certain activities

that can cause the destruction of trees, including: – A licensed aggregate pit or quarry – Cutting of trees for own use (firewood) by a property

• wner that has owned the lands for at least two years

– Municipal Drain maintenance – Where County Council approves an exemption – Others…

• The Conservation Officer should be consulted prior to the

destruction or injury of regulated woodlands.

Woodlands Conservation By-Law 5738

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 17 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

• County Council has the authority to grant exemptions to the

By-law to allow a property owner to clear woodlands.

• This is seldom exercised:

– eight applications since 2006 By-law enacted – seven have been granted – total of 14 acres; less than 2 acres per year on average

• County Council has established a policy of ‘no net loss’ when

considering exemptions, requiring the re-planting of an equivalent area.

Woodlands Conservation By-Law 5738

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 18 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

• If the re-planting of an equivalent area cannot practically be

undertaken, Council can instead permit clearing subject to money being paid into the Tree Bank Reserve Account.

• Fee is currently set at $2000 per acre (increased in 2011).
• Given the few applications for exemptions approved, the

current Tree Bank Reserve Fund balance is $3000.

• This money is to be used for tree planting or related activities.

Woodlands Conservation By-Law 5738

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 19 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

• While most landowners and the logging industry generally

comply with the By-law, there are some cases where enforcement of the by-law, including legal prosecution is necessary.

• The County averages less than one prosecution annually.
• It is a time extensive and costly legal undertaking for all

parties, and often leaves both parties with an unsatisfactory resolution.

Woodlands Conservation By-Law 5738

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 20 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

• Penalties can include re-planting, fines, prohibition orders, etc.
• Fines per count are not more than $10,000 on first conviction

and up to $25,000 per count on second conviction.

• Prosecutions typically require not only the Officer’s time, but

also the hiring of a Registered Professional Forester as well as legal counsel.

Woodlands Conservation By-Law 5738

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 21 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

• Approximately $90,000 annual cost to administer the By-

law including 80% of Woodlands Officer’s time.

• Back-up arrangements have been made with Elgin County,

however this is infrequently used.

• The County takes an ‘active’ approach to By-law

monitoring and enforcement, with over 350 woodlot inspections undertaken annually.

Woodlands Conservation By-Law 5738

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 22 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

• Succession planning.
• Passive vs Active By-law monitoring.
• Cost of By-law administration.
• MNR downsizing their forestry services.
• Increasing land prices may increase pressure for woodlot

clearing and for timber harvests.

• Invasive species such as the Hickory Bark Beetle and the

Emerald Ash Borer.

• Updates to the Conservation By-law.

The Challenges

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 23 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

The Challenges

• Use of the Tree Bank.
• Notice of Intent – Species at Risk, etc.
• Council Exemption Applications – Species at Risk and

Development Assessment Reports.

• Enforceability of the Woodlands By-Law.
• Prosecution cost, time, and effort.
• Education for landowners and the logging industry.
• Awareness of the Woodland Conservation By-law.

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 24 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

Weed Act Enforcement

• The Weed Control Act regulates noxious weeds that are

growing in close proximity to agricultural crop lands and commercial horticultural lands.

• Weeds growing in urban areas (that are not close to

agricultural crop lands or commercial horticultural lands) are addressed through municipal property standards by-laws.

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 25 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

Weed Act Enforcement

• The intent of the Weed Control Act is:
• To reduce the infestation of noxious weeds that negatively

impact the industries of agriculture and horticulture.

• To reduce plant diseases by eliminating plant disease

hosts such as common barberry and European buckthorn.

• To reduce health hazards to livestock (and humans)

caused by poisonous plants.

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 26 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

Noxious Weeds

• Common Barberry
• European Buckthorn
• Bull Thistle
• Canada Thistle
• Wild Carrot
• Colt's Foot
• Dodder
• Goat's Beard
• Johnson Grass
• Knapweed
• Milkweed
• Nodding Thistle
• Poison Hemlock
• Poison Ivy
• Proso Millet
• Ragweed
• Yellow Rocket
• Russian Thistle
• Scotch Thistle
• Sow Thistle
• Cypress Spurge
• Leafy Spurge
• Tuberous Vetchling
• Giant Hogweed
• Note: municipalities may also designate local noxious weeds,

however there are currently none within Middlesex.

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 27 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

Weed Inspector

• The Weed Act provides for Counties to appoint ‘Area Weed

Inspectors’ and municipalities to appoint ‘Municipal Weed Inspectors’.

• Within Middlesex, the County’s Area Weed Inspector is also

appointed by each local municipality to be the Municipal Weed Inspector.

• Having one Inspector has been seen as an ‘economy of scale’.
• The Area Weed Inspector also has authority within London.

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 28 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

Weed Inspector

• The Weed Inspector has relatively broad powers to:
• enter and inspect land, buildings (except dwellings),

implements, machinery, vehicles, and crops

• order a person to destroy noxious weeds
• if the noxious weeds are not destroyed, may have them

destroyed and apply the cost of that work to the property via the local municipality

• There is an opportunity for a resident to appeal the decision
• f the Weed Inspector to the Provincial Chief Weed Inspector.

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 29 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

Weed Act Enforcement

• Responding primarily to complaints, the Weed Inspector

works with landowners and staff from local municipalities and

• ther agencies to address weed issues.
• Middlesex employs a flexible enforcement model, first

speaking to landowners to encourage compliance (which works 90% of the time) and then utilizing the authority of the Weed Act when necessary (10% of the time).

• The noxious weed Giant Hogweed has garnered public

attention in recent years and resulted in more public interest.

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 30 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

Weed Act Enforcement

• Although not directly related to woodlands, Weed Act

Enforcement has been seen as complimentary to the Woodlands Conservation By-law work of the Officer.

• Historically, many properties were cut under the Weed Act (as

many as 600 annually in the 1980s) however this has been drastically reduced with the reliance of property standards within urban areas (now less than 10 properties cut annually).

• The approximate annual cost of this service is $10,000 (not

counting the costs passed along to the land-owners) and this cost is included in the County levy.

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 31 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

• Succession planning.
• County vs municipal responsibility.
• Public awareness of ‘noxious weeds’ vs ‘annoying weeds’.

The Challenges

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 32 of 33 11 A.1 - CW

• The Woodlands Conservation By-law and the Weed Act

Enforcement (along with the County Forest) are to be discussed at the October 8th 2013 Council Visioning Session.

• More information will be provided at the Visioning Session

concerning the ‘Challenges’.

• Additional information for the Visioning Session?
• Discussion?

Discussion

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Page 33 of 33 11 A.1 - CW