Title:
Permit under clause 17(2) (c) of the Endangered Species Act, 2007 for Removal of one Butternut tree by Hydro One
Members of the public are invited to submit their written comments by June 21, 2010 to the contact person listed in this notice.
Rationale for Exemption to Public Comment:
This proposal is not prescribed by Ontario Regulation 73/94 under the Environmental Bill of Rights as a classified proposal for an instrument.
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is voluntarily posting this notice to advise the public of the proposal and to invite the public to submit written comments on this proposal to the contact person identified in this notice.
Description:
Hydro One (applicant) has applied for a permit for the removal of one Butternut tree (Juglans cinerea) for the purpose of clearing and maintaining a transmission corridor beneath a transmission line located in Ottawa, Ontario.
Butternut is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List, in Ontario Regulation 230/08 under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA), as an endangered species. Clause 9 (1)(a) of the ESA, provides that no person shall kill, harm, harass, capture or take a living member of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an extirpated, endangered or threatened species.
The health of the Butternut tree at this site has been assessed by a qualified Butternut Health Assessor and was determined not to be severely affected by Butternut Canker and therefore retainable. The identification of retainable trees is based on an assessment of crown dieback and the coverage of the stem and root flare by cankers conducted by a qualified Butternut Health Assessor. Retainable trees do not qualify for the exemption in section 5 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA and can not be removed without an authorization. The retainable Butternut tree within this project area would be removed.
The Minister may issue a permit to an applicant under clause 17(2)(c) of the ESA that authorizes the person to engage in an activity that would otherwise be prohibited by section 9 or 10 of the ESA if the Minister is of the opinion that the main purpose of the activity authorized by the permit is not to assist in the protection or recovery of the species specified in the permit, but,
(i) the Minister is of the opinion that an overall benefit to the species will be achieved within a reasonable time through requirements imposed by conditions of the permit,The options of leaving the tree in its current location and avoiding or transplanting it have been examined. The location of the Butternut tree would cause it to come in contact with overhead hydro-electric lines and potentially cause a future safety risk. Transplanting the tree has been considered as an option, but the tree is too large to be transplanted successfully.
(ii) the Minister is of the opinion that reasonable alternatives have been considered, including alternatives that would not adversely affect the species, and the best alternative has been adopted, and
(iii) the Minister is of the opinion that reasonable steps to minimize adverse effects on individual members of the species are required by conditions of the permit;
An overall benefit could be achieved for Butternut by planting and tending replacement trees. Based on the size of the Butternut tree threatened with removal (i.e. diameter at breast height), the Forest Gene Conservation Association guidelines recommend that the applicant plant 5 seedlings from a local seed source in suitable sites. The ratio of five seedlings planted per tree removed is intended to provide an overall increase to the seed production capacity of the species. Establishing and tending to these seedlings in a protected area will result in a net increase in the local reproductive potential for the species.
To achieve overall benefit for Butternut, the applicant is proposing to plant a total of five new Butternut seedlings in Coronation Park, owned by the City of Ottawa. Hydro One would plant, tend and monitor the seedlings for a period of five years from the time of planting. Under the supervision of a qualified professional biologist or forester, the five Butternut trees would be planted in locations suitable to support Butternut. Tending and monitoring of the Butternut seedlings on site would take place over a five year period to ensure that at least half of the planted trees will be alive (e.g., a minimum of three Butternut trees at the end of five years). These newly planted Butternut trees will receive protection under the ESA.
Purpose of the Notice:
The purpose of this notice is to ensure that the public is made aware of, and given an opportunity to comment on, the proposal, including the proposed conditions and outcomes of the permit for which the Hydro One is applying in order to remove one Butternut tree. The proposed permit would be issued under clause 17(2)(c) of the ESA.
Decision:
This notice will be updated when more information is available.
Other Information:
Please email comments to Esa.permits.agreements@ontario.ca and quote the registry number in the subject line.
The following web-links provide additional information about this notice:
Endangered Species Act, 2007 (Section 9 and 17 are sections of the Endangered Species Act that are referred to in this posting)
Butternut Tree Regulation Section 5 of general regulation 242/08 addresses the exemptions pertaining to Butternut
This is nothing short of stupidity, cut the darn tree down and be done with it.
ReplyDeleteIf this tree is into the high line (600 volts and up to 13,800 or more) it is dangerious to life and limb and don't think for a second that it won't KILL you because it could be the last thought you ever have.
There is another issue that should be in play here, to whom dose the tree belong.
If I purchase a small tree with my money and plant it on my land that tree now belongs to me, not the Government but me and if I so choose to cut it down that is my God given right to do so, now on the other hand if that tree was paid for by the Government then it is theirs and can't be cut down but remember this it allso makes the responseability of the tree to the Government and if one is killed from electrical shock due to contact with the hydro wires and the Hydro was not allowed to remove said tree the the Government is now liable for anything that ocours!
Planted butternut trees are not protected unless planted as a condition under an ESA 2007 permit as replacement trees for one previously cut down.
DeleteMost of the time, the trees were there long before the wire lines; so maybe move the wire, and save the tree for once. It takes hundreds of years to grow these, and creates a gaping hole when you cut them down.
DeleteThere is no such thing as a God given right to cut down trees.
It might be easier to take your point seriously if you save the "to whom" and "said tree" and concentrate on dangerious (dangerous), allso (also) responseability (responsibility), ocours (occurs), and the best one dose(does).
Safety first. If human life is at stake and there are no alternative areas to run wire then it must be done.
ReplyDeleteBut all this carrying on about God given rights. You're crazy.. Doesn't God care about every living thing equally? A tree's life and existance that is one of the few of it's kind and on the brink of extinction that is alive and well is up to you whether it dies or lives? You bought land from someone that didn't own it in the first place and that tree and it's ancestors have been the rightful holders of that land for time eternal.
5 saplings do not replace the environmental benefits or an adult tree in terms of carbon mitigation and from 5 years from now the 3 saplings still wouldn't haven't developed enough to do this yet, either.
Just because we don't have the technology to substantively quantify the benefits of that tree socially doesn't mean you can just hack away at one of "god's" miracles.