The folowing are the new dates, places and times for the new series of Public InformationCentre's (PICs):
Wednesday November 26th, 4:00 pm to 9:00 pm,
Shakespeare and District Optimist Hall
Thursday November 27th, 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm,
New Hamburg Community Centre Tuesday
December 9th, 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm,
Festival Inn, Stratford
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
ABC Press Release for Nov. 18, 2008
Highway 7 and 8 Corridor Study
The Agricultural Business Communities of Perth East, Perth South and Wilmot West held an information meeting at the Shakespeare Optimist Hall on Tuesday November 18 to bring the community together to discuss the consultant’s plans for Highway 7 and 8 and to prepare landowners for the next step in the planning process.
This volunteer group formed in August and works on behalf of over 300 property owners to ensure adequate input into the planning of the Highway 7 and 8 corridor. The group has two goals. We act to inform rural landowners within the study area about the planning process and we act to influence the planning process by educating the consultants about the nature of agriculture. Previous community meetings in the summer brought together 250 concerned individuals.
The three Agricultural Business Committees are disappointed that in this day and age any arm of the provincial government or consultants working on their behalf could fail so dramatically to understand agriculture as anything but a business. The Phase 1 reports showed almost complete disregard for the local economy, businesses and community resulting from highway development through agricultural lands. The draconian, inaccurate and outdated methodology used to address agriculture must be changed.
The Agricultural Business Communities documented initial concerns from the community and submitted a Questions document in early September. A disappointing response was received November 7.
On September 30 a Brief was delivered to the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) identifying several inadequacies in the Phase 1 Consultant Reports. The Brief outlined the nature of agriculture within their study area and provided an accurate understanding of the losses and costs if they proceeded with their misguided options. We have not yet received a response to the Brief.
The Consulting Team claims to be receptive to our participation in the planning process and we feel we have experienced some success influencing the study approach
We will continue to work on behalf of our community and our rural business owners until this project is finalized.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Community Information Meeting
HWY 7 & 8 CORRIDOR STUDY UPDATE
COMMUNITY INFORMATION MEETING
Everyone Welcome!
This meeting is organized by the volunteers of the Agriculture Business Communities of Perth East, Perth South and Wilmot West.
Tuesday, NOV. 18TH, 2008
SHAKESPEARE OPTIMIST HALL, SHAKESPEARE, ON
DOORS OPEN: 7:30 PM
COFFEE: 7:45 PM
MEETING STARTS PROMPTLY AT 8 PM
We would appreciate a donation of $2.00 - $5.00 to defray cost of hall rental etc.
What are the next steps for the Ministry of Transportation and the Consultants?
What are our next steps and how should we respond?
Everyone Welcome. Bring your neighbours , your questions and ideas
THIS MEETING IS FOR YOU AND YOUR COMMUNITY.
THERE WILL BE NO MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION OR CONSULTANTS PRESENT.
COMMUNITY INFORMATION MEETING
Everyone Welcome!
This meeting is organized by the volunteers of the Agriculture Business Communities of Perth East, Perth South and Wilmot West.
Tuesday, NOV. 18TH, 2008
SHAKESPEARE OPTIMIST HALL, SHAKESPEARE, ON
DOORS OPEN: 7:30 PM
COFFEE: 7:45 PM
MEETING STARTS PROMPTLY AT 8 PM
We would appreciate a donation of $2.00 - $5.00 to defray cost of hall rental etc.
What are the next steps for the Ministry of Transportation and the Consultants?
What are our next steps and how should we respond?
Everyone Welcome. Bring your neighbours , your questions and ideas
THIS MEETING IS FOR YOU AND YOUR COMMUNITY.
THERE WILL BE NO MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION OR CONSULTANTS PRESENT.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Table of Contents
Introduction
Prologue
1. A Visitor’s View
2. Misleading Underlying Assumptions
a. Population projections as an underlying Assumption
b. Greater Stratford Area
c. When does the existing economy count?
d. Unsubstantiated Issues
e. Where is the existing community recognized?
f. We Applaud This Direction
g.Wetlands Trump Agriculture
h. Evaluation Principles Lacking
3. Provincial Legislation, Regulations and Policies Affecting Agriculture
a. Nutrient Management Act, 2002
b. Nutrient Management Strategy
c. Nutrient Management Plan (NMP), O. Reg. 267/03
d. Nutrient Management Protocol, August 12, 2005
e. Municipal Drains
4. Agribusiness in the Study Area
a. Agricultural Business in the Study Area
b. Industry Production Figures
5. The ‘Culture’ of Agriculture
a. The Land
b. The People
c. The Economy
6. Conclusions and Directions for Consulting Team and the MTO
Prologue
1. A Visitor’s View
2. Misleading Underlying Assumptions
a. Population projections as an underlying Assumption
b. Greater Stratford Area
c. When does the existing economy count?
d. Unsubstantiated Issues
e. Where is the existing community recognized?
f. We Applaud This Direction
g.Wetlands Trump Agriculture
h. Evaluation Principles Lacking
3. Provincial Legislation, Regulations and Policies Affecting Agriculture
a. Nutrient Management Act, 2002
b. Nutrient Management Strategy
c. Nutrient Management Plan (NMP), O. Reg. 267/03
d. Nutrient Management Protocol, August 12, 2005
e. Municipal Drains
4. Agribusiness in the Study Area
a. Agricultural Business in the Study Area
b. Industry Production Figures
5. The ‘Culture’ of Agriculture
a. The Land
b. The People
c. The Economy
6. Conclusions and Directions for Consulting Team and the MTO
Volume 2 Community Report
Submitted to Totten Sims Hubicki Associates (TSH) and the Ministry of Transportation for the response period ending Sept. 30th, 2008.
Introduction
Unfortunately, agriculture and impacts to it are often left out of many equations. The agricultural business community of the three townships decided this was not right or fair.
The townships of Wilmot, South Easthope and Downie are all key areas impacted by the Highway 7 and 8 Corridor Study. During the Public Information phase (# 2) very few area residents took advantage of the opportunity to visit the Centres and see what may be happening for themselves. A variety of reasons were the root causes of such seeming disinterest. The meeting times set for these information meetings were NOT appropriate for the rural community and farmers in particular. As well many in the community felt for the past number of years that something had to be done about the old highway and assumed it would be confined to the area already reserved for highway widening, since the Ministry of Transportation purchased land and moved homes many years ago for this purpose.
Some residents managed to attend the PIC’s and discovered the scope of the apparent plan. They took action, called a meeting of residents in the middle of the busy summer season and had 155 people show up to hear about what might be happening. The group met and formalized into the Agricultural Business Community of Perth East, the Agricultural Business Community of Perth South and the Agricultural Business Community of Wilmot West.
Each group decided on their focus, chose representative names, found volunteers in the community and began its work. Since that point, more and more residents in all three townships have joined their respective chapters. The ability to get information to members quickly was established via email. Other community meetings were organized and over 300 area residents and businesses are now part of these growing community organizations.
Introduction
Unfortunately, agriculture and impacts to it are often left out of many equations. The agricultural business community of the three townships decided this was not right or fair.
The townships of Wilmot, South Easthope and Downie are all key areas impacted by the Highway 7 and 8 Corridor Study. During the Public Information phase (# 2) very few area residents took advantage of the opportunity to visit the Centres and see what may be happening for themselves. A variety of reasons were the root causes of such seeming disinterest. The meeting times set for these information meetings were NOT appropriate for the rural community and farmers in particular. As well many in the community felt for the past number of years that something had to be done about the old highway and assumed it would be confined to the area already reserved for highway widening, since the Ministry of Transportation purchased land and moved homes many years ago for this purpose.
Some residents managed to attend the PIC’s and discovered the scope of the apparent plan. They took action, called a meeting of residents in the middle of the busy summer season and had 155 people show up to hear about what might be happening. The group met and formalized into the Agricultural Business Community of Perth East, the Agricultural Business Community of Perth South and the Agricultural Business Community of Wilmot West.
Each group decided on their focus, chose representative names, found volunteers in the community and began its work. Since that point, more and more residents in all three townships have joined their respective chapters. The ability to get information to members quickly was established via email. Other community meetings were organized and over 300 area residents and businesses are now part of these growing community organizations.
Prologue
The Agricultural Business Community of Perth East, the Agricultural Business Community of Perth South and the Agricultural Business Community of Wilmot believe the nature of the Agricultural Sector within the study area is seriously misrepresented in the consultant reports. The criteria used as the foundation in the decision making model to determine the proposed corridor options is therefore inadequate and inaccurate.
We understand the study process moves from a more general level of information to more specific detail as the preferred corridor is chosen and the route selected. However, the beginning of the study is the time when fundamental planning principles and guidelines should be identified. These principles lay the foundation for the entire planning process. An accurate understanding of the study area is required to do this.
The community has come together using information collected from the agricultural producers, members of the community, Statistics Canada data, official plans, agricultural organizations and provincial legislation and regulations to present a more transparent understanding of the resources of the study area. Much of this was available to the consulting team in the development of the first round of reports.
The founding legislative and policy guidelines must be applicable to the area under study. Due to the significance of agriculture within the study area and its Provincial if not National significance, several key pieces of legislation governing the practice of farming are absent from the reports. These should have been recognized in the early identification of study principles and foundation documents that the study builds on. This is a major shortcoming and leads to an almost complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the resources and community within the study area.
We believe there are three distinct areas of investigation to be addressed under the broad heading of Agriculture. Agricultural land capability, the consultant has recognized, agricultural business which is completely missing and agri-culture, which has been mentioned but not understood. These factors intertwine within the study area.
If there was a land use category for Provincially Significant Agricultural Business Communities, much of the study area would be designated Class 1+.
A Visitor’s View
In order to appreciate the statistics to be presented in this report, it is useful to stand back from it all and take a bird's- eye view. Suppose we are a first-time visitor arriving at Pearson airport. We are picked up by car and driven to Stratford. What do we see?
For the first 50 kilometers or so of 401 West our visitor sees massive urban growth and heavy 24/7 traffic rushing by on one of the busiest urban corridors in the world. Around Milton our visitor sees the breathtaking Niagara Escarpment and traffic density reduces a little as green space increases. Past the Highway #6 exits (to Guelph and Hamilton) development and traffic density reduces further until the Cambridge interchanges, the gateway to Waterloo Region. Once again, heavy commercial, big box and factory activity is highly visible and this appearance of rapid urban development continues on the # 8 exit to Kitchener/Waterloo and along onto the # 7/8 West exit towards Stratford. When our visitor passes Trussler Road on 7/8 the highway and the landscape broadens into a more leisurely four lane 90 kilometer per hour pace. So far our hypothetical passenger has not stopped moving unless they got caught in gridlock.
At the New Hamburg exits a series of traffic lights slow up the four lanes and define a strong commercial zone. New housing developments are also visible, a response to the job dynamo that is Waterloo region. Then, just past Walker Road a big curve in the highway signals a significant qualitative change in the landscape and its use value. Looking west and north and south our visitor sees only farms and small rural residential properties. The big curve ends with a new set of traffic lights at Road 101 to Tavistock.
Highway 7/8 then dramatically changes into a two lane thoroughfare with traffic being forced to squeeze under the CN overpass. But, except for the village of Shakespeare, the landscape both north and south of 7/8 remains rural and agricultural with large wooded sections all the way to the edge of Stratford.
For our visitor, the highway from New Hamburg to Stratford may superficially look like a twenty-five kilometer corridor of 'green and pleasant land', and for many residents this is why they choose to live here. But in fact, as the statistics will show, it is a 25 kilometer corridor of very intensive agricultural business activity. This corridor contains several of the most productive farm operations in the province and some of the most expensive agricultural properties in North America. It is therefore no accident that our traveler occasionally notices a road-side sign that says, 'Farmers feed cities'.
Highly productive farms require good land, low surrounding population densities and minimal development pressures on the critical land and forest base. West of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), three counties have high agricultural land capabilities, low population densities and low development pressures. These are Perth, Oxford, and Huron. These three counties are undisputed agricultural business powerhouses and this applies particularly to the dairy, beef, hog, and poultry industries. While Waterloo region contains townships where agri-business is a dominant economic factor, and while Wilmot Township is certainly one of these, in the overall scheme of things, Waterloo region has evolved into a largely urbanized municipality.
Thus the municipal boundaries dividing the twin cities of Kitchener/Waterloo and Wilmot Township mark a definite qualitative shift in perceptions of land use from urban use to rural agricultural. The second municipal boundary that divides Waterloo Region and Perth County serves to reinforce that qualitative shift. Due to these very old settlement patterns it is therefore no accident that Wilmot, Perth East and Perth South are major provincial agri-business centres.
Misleading Underlying Assumptions
Point one: Population Projections as an Underlying Assumption
In “Report A: Study Plan Technical Work, Outreach and Consultation, June 2008” the Introduction to the Highway 7 & 8 Transportation Corridor Planning and Class EA Study, page 1, sites several areas to be addressed. We assume these were outlined in the Request for Proposal developed by the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and responded to by TSH and others bidding for this work.
We appreciate that consulting teams need to be provided with guidelines to undertake projects of this significance and that legislative and regulatory processes are required to avoid random approaches. We, like the MTO, want the best decisions to be made for the particular study area and not decisions based on a cookie cutter approach that could see the geographic names of the communities interchanged.
In the case of the Transportation Corridor Planning and Class Environmental Assessment (EA) study carried out in Perth County, we believe the (MTO), acting as an agent of the Province, negligent in not placing the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) Guidelines and the Provincial Policy statements relating to the importance and protection of agriculture, as a prerogative of the consulting team. This has more relevance than the population projections of the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH).
Item five states: “Address the transportation policies and directions of the “Growth Plan for Greater Golden Horseshoe” (recognizing that a portion of the analysis area for this project lies within the GGH”).
A portion of Wilmot Township falls within the boundaries of the GGH and discussions with the staff at the Region of Waterloo indicate that the Region is questioning the validity of the population projections for the Waterloo Region AND they point out that even if the population of Wilmot doubled within the GGH projection period, this would be insignificant as far as the Region. Other areas of the Region of Waterloo are identified as growth centers. In addition, the majority of the study area falls outside the GGH and within Perth County .
Population Growth Statistics
Tables A1, A2, and A3[1] summarize the 2006 census population growth statistics for the affected municipalities and compares them to Stratford, the region of Waterloo and Ontario as a whole. As can be seen, Wilmot has grown very rapidly (15%) over the five year intercensal period from 2001 to 2006. This is primarily due to residential growth in Baden and New Hamburg.
Wilmot's growth is a significant part of the overall 9% increase in the population of Waterloo region over the five year period. Perth East and Perth South both declined slightly in population between 2001 and 2006 and Stratford's growth at 2.3% has been quite modest, even when compared to the provincial aggregate growth of 6.6%. A large percentage of the labour force living in Perth South and Perth East work in the agricultural industries, 20% and 21% respectively, and this industry is the dominant means of employment. In contrast, in Wilmot, those working in agriculture are 5.6% of the experienced labour force.
Census statistics are generally used as a basis for population projections by cities, towns and other municipalities. However, population projections are often quite optimistic. Projections are based on 'assumption models' and the main problem is that people move around and make other decisions that cannot really be reflected in these models. Most projections are simply best guesses.
By way of example, Table A4 shows the projections made for the County of Perth, using 1991 as a base-line and the 1996 Census counts as a qualifier. As can be seen the model predicted a population for Stratford, in 2006, of 32,028 people. Census data for 2006 actually counted 30,461 Stratford residents. Similarly Perth East's growth to 2006 was overestimated in the model by 1545 people or nearly 13%. Perth South's projected 2006 population was overestimated by nearly 17%. County staff inform us that new projections will be devised based on 2006 Census data but these are some distance from being developed.
Table A5 is drawn from a long range plan developed by the province for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The GGH plan is an impressive expansion of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) concept and covers most of central Ontario, including Waterloo region. Within the plan the region of Waterloo is projected to grow from a base population of 456,000 in 2001 to 729,000 in 2031, a 60% increase over thirty years.
The GGH, in total, is projected to contain 11.5 million people by 2031. Whether these figures are credible depends on many assumptions built into the models, which are unavailable for examination.
In summary, recent growth of Wilmot Township is quite dramatic and the agricultural sector must obviously compete much more vigorously for its fair share of land. This pattern may continue for many years to come. Perth East and Perth South are showing small declines in total population and these two municipalities remain dominantly agricultural. No readily available evidence currently exists to support the notion that population growth in any part of Perth County may suddenly accelerate along the lines of Waterloo region. While recent projections for the Greater Golden Horseshoe suggest massive population growth in various Toronto centered region, these trends do not currently extend to Perth.
The GGH does not mirror the conditions, population, growth and development conditions of the majority of the study area. Neither does the condition of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge mirror the development or potential for the City of Stratford.
The consultant may be required to cite this initiative but the development of growth strategies for this heavily urbanized and urbanizing area of Ontario seems inappropriate to be used to set the stage for Perth County with distinctively different resources, economy and population dynamics. The influence of the policies for the GGH should have only a limited if any influence on the study area.
[1] See all Tables beginning with page 27
Point Two: Greater Stratford Area
On page 2 of the Introduction to Report A the geographic area “Greater Stratford” is introduced and used throughout the reports but does not identify what is meant by this. The term implies a metropolitan area and not a slow growing city. What does the consultant define as the boundaries of the Greater Stratford Area? It is hard to comment on something we don’t know about.
Point Three: When does the Existing Economy Count?
Six objectives are identified in Report A (pages 3-6). Objective 2, identifies the need to address long term needs for the movement of goods and people and stimulate economic growth and create jobs and Objective 4, identifies the need to conduct planning and design with an approach to avoid or minimize overall environmental impacts.
These statements imply the environment and the creation of new jobs are of higher priority than the protection of the local existing economy.
Where is the objective to avoid or minimize impacts on existing economic generators within the study area that will lead to the loss of jobs and reduced economic growth and impact the local cultural landscape?
Point Four: Unsubstantiated Issues
Report A, section 1.3 Preliminary Statement of Transportation Problems and Opportunities, page 6 identifies six problems and opportunities to be addressed by the study. Item 6 states” Area transportation planning and local land use planning in the analysis area need to be co-ordinated, in order to ensure new/intensified development associated with forecasted population and employment growth in the Analysis Area does not negatively affect or even preclude alternatives to address transportation problems and opportunities”.
Where in the report do the consultants address the “forecasted population and employment growth”? This is raised as a problem to be addressed but nowhere in all of the reports is any information provided and the implications discussed. This is just assumed. If this is considered one of six problems surely it merits being addressed.
Point Five: Where is the existing community recognized?
Report A, pages 15 - 16 identifies the Principles for Conducting the Study. It appears that the process of undertaking consultation is more important than the community being consulted. Where is the principle of doing the least harm to the community?
Point 6: We Applaud this Direction
Report A section 2.4.1 identifies the transportation engineering principles to be applied to the alternatives. Item (j) page 16 states “minimize property requirements and impacts on adjacent properties”
This is the first statement in the report that hints to the possible disruption in the community and the negative impact of this work on landowners. We applaud this principle and will hold the consulting team and MTO to this. We will be interested in the approach used to do this.
Point 7: Wetlands Trump Agriculture
Report A, under the heading Environmental Protection Principles, item (h) page 17 states:” balance the approaches to environmental protection, recognizing that the general order of decreasing preference is as follows:
. avoidance/prevention
. control/mitigation ( reducing the severity of the environmental impacts)
. compensation ( provision of equivalent or countervailing environmental features)
. enhancement ( improvement over previous environmental conditions)
It is interesting that in the provincial Greenbelt rhetoric we are all working together as land stewards but it appears no so in the case of highway development. The environment has priority in this set of priorities and the members of the community who have been stewards of the land for several generations are ignored.
We recommend that the consultants use the same template developed for reviewing environmental impacts to develop a similar priority and approach to Agricultural Business landscapes in the study area. In future studies the Ministry of Transportation must change the approach of any study protocol involving agriculture.
Point 8: Evaluation Principles LackingReport A, section 2.4.3, Evaluation Principles – (item e) page 18
“evaluation criteria to be comprehensive, fundamental, relevant, independent, measurable and well defined.”
The consulting reports reference agricultural land capability and touch on the generic features of culture within the study area.
In section 7.3, Evaluation Factors, agriculture is identified in two of the list of sixty-two criteria. Under the broad factor of Land use, agriculture is mentioned on page 110 regarding the potential to affect specialty crop areas and /or areas of CLI class 1, 2 and 3 lands. The second reference is 4.4 Agriculture, where the road has “potential to support the agricultural industry by efficient movement of goods”.
Agriculture must have a higher priority at this stage in the evaluation.
Provincial Legislation, Regulations and Policy Affecting Agriculture
Several pieces of provincial legislation that direct the activities of the agricultural industry are completely missing from the analysis. They are fundamental to understanding the impact of any changes in land use within the study corridor.
They are:
* Nutrient Management Act, 2002
* Nutrient Management Strategy (NMS)
* Nutrient Management Plan (NMP), O. Reg. 267/03
* Nutrient Management Protocol, August 12,2005
Nutrient Management Act, 2002
The Nutrient Management Act provides for the management of nutrients to enhance protection of the natural environment and provide a sustainable future for agricultural operations and rural development. The "Nutrient Management Strategy" describes the generation, storage and destination of prescribed materials. As per Part 5 of the Nutrient Management Protocol, the required content of a NMS includes:
· farm unit information and identifier number;
· description of the operation;
· Farm Unit Declaration Form, detailing property information such as geographic location and stating if the property is a manure generator and/or receiver;
· Broker or Nutrient Transfer Agreements;
· Farm Unit sketch;
· list of the type of prescribed materials generated or received;
· analysis of nutrient content or nutrient values of those prescribed materials;
· destinations for nutrients generated;
· storage information, such as annual amount stored , number of days of storage available, and amount remaining, including storage sizing calculation;
· Contingency Plan;
· sign-off form; and
· where prescribed materials are to be land applied as part of the NMS, a demonstration of adequate land base to provide assurance that these materials can be managed within the amount of land available.
Nutrient Management Plan O. Reg. 267/03
A Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) describes the management of the nutrients that are received or applied on the land. As per Part 7 of the Nutrient Management Protocol, the required content of a NMP includes site-specific information on:
· nutrients, including types generated, used and received, if applicable;
· nutrient application rates, methods and timing, including fertilizer and prescribed materials;
· land base and Farm Units, including demonstration of adequate land base for land application;
· cropping practices, including crop rotations and yields; and
· field information, including field sketches, soil information, sensitive features and application setbacks from surface waters (as defined under O. Reg. 267/03, as amended).
A farm unit can be a number of separate parcels of farmland identified in a Nutrient Management Strategy or Plan and compliance means adequate access to the parcels that make up the farm unit.
All of the requirements fall under the Nutrient Management Act, 2002.
The act is administered and monitored by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA).
Nutrient management plans are basically written proof that all nutrients produced or brought onto the farm are stored and applied to the land in a safe manner, without any adverse effects on water quality, soil quality or any other environmental issues. This is usually done by paid, certified consultants.
Many factors are taken into consideration about how much land is required, including type and amount of nutrients produced as well as how and when they are applied. Hydrologic soil types and available soil nutrients will adjust amount of nutrients, which can be applied to each acre of land. Distances from sensitive features such as wells, watercourses, neighbors and roads are also factors, which could affect the amount of land required.
The physical separation of parcels of land that make up current farm units has a significant impact on operators meeting their obligations under the Act, and reduces the potential for future livestock development in the area.
Farms that currently have a nutrient management plan would need to be updated as all plans must be renewed and re-certified every 5 years after their last certification.
Farms, which have lost land due to construction, may not have enough land when re-certification is required to apply all of the nutrients to the land base which is currently available. At this point they would have to either buy more land to apply the nutrients to, or reduce their number of livestock they have in order to have the proper land base, which would reduce their income.
Farms which may need a nutrient management plan in the future would have to reduce the amount of livestock they would be allowed to have according to the remaining land base they have available for nutrient application. Or, increase their land base. This would permanently reduce the available income that the farm can produce in the future.
Land in this three township region is in such high demand; the area has some of the highest agricultural land prices in the province. Farmers who may be impacted by any loss of land will not be able to easily replace those acres. To dismiss this concern without understanding the implications to farmers on the possible loss of income associated with reduced acreages, is simply not responsible.
Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Formulae 2006
The 2005 Provincial Policy Statement requires new land uses, such as the creation of lots and new or expanding livestock facilities, to comply with the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) formulas. The MDS is used to determine a recommended separation distance between a livestock or permanent manure storage facility and another land use. The MDS is incorporated into municipal zoning by-laws and official plans.
The 2006 version of the MDS formulae came into effect on January 1, 2007. MDS is made up of two separate, but related formulae (MDS I and MDS II).
* MDS I - used to determine a minimum setback distance between proposed new development and existing livestock facilities or permanent manure storages, intended to protect farmers from non-farm land uses
* MDS II - farmers wanting to build a new barn, or expand a barn will have to meet MDS II before a building permit is issued. MDS II setbacks are also calculated from rear lot lines, side lot lines and road allowances.
The separation distances calculated by MDS vary depending on the type of livestock, size of the farm operation, type of manure system and the form of development present or proposed. Changes in lot lines may result in existing livestock structures being non-compliant and limiting future development. Of particular note, the MDS I Calculation Table requires a factor to be created using the maximum tillable hectares on the lot with the livestock facilities. Fewer hectares will change this calculation.
Municipal Drains affected would need to be reviewed when the highway is built. The province, via MTO will need to commission and cover the costs for new drainage reports to be done on all those Municipal Drains affected. Changes in Municipal drains have direct implications to private tile systems and landowners will need to be reimbursed for new costs associated with these changes.
They are:
* Nutrient Management Act, 2002
* Nutrient Management Strategy (NMS)
* Nutrient Management Plan (NMP), O. Reg. 267/03
* Nutrient Management Protocol, August 12,2005
Nutrient Management Act, 2002
The Nutrient Management Act provides for the management of nutrients to enhance protection of the natural environment and provide a sustainable future for agricultural operations and rural development. The "Nutrient Management Strategy" describes the generation, storage and destination of prescribed materials. As per Part 5 of the Nutrient Management Protocol, the required content of a NMS includes:
· farm unit information and identifier number;
· description of the operation;
· Farm Unit Declaration Form, detailing property information such as geographic location and stating if the property is a manure generator and/or receiver;
· Broker or Nutrient Transfer Agreements;
· Farm Unit sketch;
· list of the type of prescribed materials generated or received;
· analysis of nutrient content or nutrient values of those prescribed materials;
· destinations for nutrients generated;
· storage information, such as annual amount stored , number of days of storage available, and amount remaining, including storage sizing calculation;
· Contingency Plan;
· sign-off form; and
· where prescribed materials are to be land applied as part of the NMS, a demonstration of adequate land base to provide assurance that these materials can be managed within the amount of land available.
Nutrient Management Plan O. Reg. 267/03
A Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) describes the management of the nutrients that are received or applied on the land. As per Part 7 of the Nutrient Management Protocol, the required content of a NMP includes site-specific information on:
· nutrients, including types generated, used and received, if applicable;
· nutrient application rates, methods and timing, including fertilizer and prescribed materials;
· land base and Farm Units, including demonstration of adequate land base for land application;
· cropping practices, including crop rotations and yields; and
· field information, including field sketches, soil information, sensitive features and application setbacks from surface waters (as defined under O. Reg. 267/03, as amended).
A farm unit can be a number of separate parcels of farmland identified in a Nutrient Management Strategy or Plan and compliance means adequate access to the parcels that make up the farm unit.
All of the requirements fall under the Nutrient Management Act, 2002.
The act is administered and monitored by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA).
Nutrient management plans are basically written proof that all nutrients produced or brought onto the farm are stored and applied to the land in a safe manner, without any adverse effects on water quality, soil quality or any other environmental issues. This is usually done by paid, certified consultants.
Many factors are taken into consideration about how much land is required, including type and amount of nutrients produced as well as how and when they are applied. Hydrologic soil types and available soil nutrients will adjust amount of nutrients, which can be applied to each acre of land. Distances from sensitive features such as wells, watercourses, neighbors and roads are also factors, which could affect the amount of land required.
The physical separation of parcels of land that make up current farm units has a significant impact on operators meeting their obligations under the Act, and reduces the potential for future livestock development in the area.
Farms that currently have a nutrient management plan would need to be updated as all plans must be renewed and re-certified every 5 years after their last certification.
Farms, which have lost land due to construction, may not have enough land when re-certification is required to apply all of the nutrients to the land base which is currently available. At this point they would have to either buy more land to apply the nutrients to, or reduce their number of livestock they have in order to have the proper land base, which would reduce their income.
Farms which may need a nutrient management plan in the future would have to reduce the amount of livestock they would be allowed to have according to the remaining land base they have available for nutrient application. Or, increase their land base. This would permanently reduce the available income that the farm can produce in the future.
Land in this three township region is in such high demand; the area has some of the highest agricultural land prices in the province. Farmers who may be impacted by any loss of land will not be able to easily replace those acres. To dismiss this concern without understanding the implications to farmers on the possible loss of income associated with reduced acreages, is simply not responsible.
Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Formulae 2006
The 2005 Provincial Policy Statement requires new land uses, such as the creation of lots and new or expanding livestock facilities, to comply with the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) formulas. The MDS is used to determine a recommended separation distance between a livestock or permanent manure storage facility and another land use. The MDS is incorporated into municipal zoning by-laws and official plans.
The 2006 version of the MDS formulae came into effect on January 1, 2007. MDS is made up of two separate, but related formulae (MDS I and MDS II).
* MDS I - used to determine a minimum setback distance between proposed new development and existing livestock facilities or permanent manure storages, intended to protect farmers from non-farm land uses
* MDS II - farmers wanting to build a new barn, or expand a barn will have to meet MDS II before a building permit is issued. MDS II setbacks are also calculated from rear lot lines, side lot lines and road allowances.
The separation distances calculated by MDS vary depending on the type of livestock, size of the farm operation, type of manure system and the form of development present or proposed. Changes in lot lines may result in existing livestock structures being non-compliant and limiting future development. Of particular note, the MDS I Calculation Table requires a factor to be created using the maximum tillable hectares on the lot with the livestock facilities. Fewer hectares will change this calculation.
Municipal Drains affected would need to be reviewed when the highway is built. The province, via MTO will need to commission and cover the costs for new drainage reports to be done on all those Municipal Drains affected. Changes in Municipal drains have direct implications to private tile systems and landowners will need to be reimbursed for new costs associated with these changes.
Agribusiness in the Study Area
Section 6 of Report B: Overview of the Transportation, Land Use and Economic Conditions within the Analysis Area describes the socio economic conditions of the area. This section of the report is completely inadequate in its review of the Agricultural Sector. Equally obtuse is the conclusion on page 32 which states “Given this diversity, the Analysis Area is considered quite sustainable, and as such, it is important that the Ministry plan for future improvements to Highway 7&8 to support this sustainability.”
Section 10 of Report B sets out a series of goals to be used to verify and define transportation system problems and opportunities. AGRICULTURE IS MISSING!!!!!!! There is mention of tourism. There is mention of providing a mix of land uses. There is mention of encouraging residential and employment intensification and there is mention of discouraging development along transportation corridors in rural areas. There is no goal for agriculture.
Agricultural Business and Production Statistics
This section of the brief will begin at the county and regional level and then work down to the affected township levels. This method is chosen in order to clearly identify the scale of surrounding agri-business activity since this directly influences the four most affected townships of Wilmot, North and South Easthope and Downie.
Table A6 is a snapshot portrait, prepared by OMAFRA and using 2006 Agricultural Census data, of the overall agri-business activity in Perth County. In 2006 there were 2,438 farms in Perth with a total acreage of 201,599 hectares or about 498,000 acres. This is predominantly Class 1 and 2 farmland as well as woodlots, wetlands and stream beds. Farm sales receipts for 2006 for Perth were $ 558.5 Million and the largest four components of these receipts in rank order of dollar worth are dairy, hogs, beef cattle, and poultry. Nearly ten percent of all the dairy cows in Ontario are in Perth as well as nearly 17% of all the hogs and nearly 10% of all the poultry. Critters clearly abound here.
Table A7, drawn up from the 2006 agricultural census, draws a sharper portrait for Perth East which has the largest land area of the three affected municipalities. Total gross farm receipts for Perth East in 2006 were $ 202.3 million. This is a lot of money but it is the capitalization of agriculture today that really opens people's eyes. For Perth East the total farm capital (machinery, livestock, poultry, land and buildings) accounted for in 2006 was $1.24 billion. As Table A8 shows a large number of farm operations, over 40%, have capitalization of over $1 million and 16% have capitalization exceeding $2 million. It would be a mistake to imagine that these costs of production are mainly in the land base. By way of example, Perth East has 155,584 acres in farm land. If this were nominally valued at $ 4,500 a bare acre, -then land capitalization would be about $ 700 million. This means that $ 350 million of farm capitalization in Perth East rests in the buildings, another $ 120 million in machinery and equipment, and another $ 63.5 million in livestock and poultry and so on.
Perth South has a similar profile even if geographically it has a smaller footprint with 33,844 hectares or 83,628 acres of farm land as shown in Table A9. Gross farm receipts were $ 104.8 million and farm capitalization was $ 666 million. As Table A10 shows, 53% of farm operations in Perth South have capitalization over $ 1 million and 24% have capitalization exceeding $ 2 million. This suggests that farm operations are even more costly here than in Perth East.
Table A11 shows the same data for Waterloo region as we examined earlier for Perth. In 2006 in Waterloo region there were 1,444 farms with total acreage of 91,614 hectares or 226,400 acres. In Waterloo region, farm receipts in 2006 totaled $ 307.7 million with beef cattle, dairy, poultry and hogs being the top four producer areas when rank ordered.
Table A12 isolates data for Wilmot Township where there were 247 farms with 48,695 acres of farm land in 2006. The sales receipts for Wilmot were $ 98.5 million (one third of all receipts for Waterloo region) and the total capitalization was close to $ 438 million. Looking at Table A13, nearly 15% of these Wilmot township farms reported total capitalization for their operation exceeding $ 3.5 million.
Thus the combined annual farm sales receipt, for these three municipalities, is $ 405.6 million and the combined total farm capitalization is $ 2.3 billion dollars.
Industry Production Figures
Some statistics have been gathered by community representatives from the livestock and poultry marketing boards and commissions. These boards and commissions keep detailed records of farm production as they are responsible to manage the supply of commodities like eggs and milk. Sometimes these data allow one to see farm operations at a finer level of detail.
Since dairy production is such a dominant factor in the affected area, and since it is capital intensive, data has been solicited from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO). Tables A14 and A15 break down the dairy production figures for Perth County and Waterloo region by township. These tables also highlight the four targeted townships.
In Wilmot nearly 30 million litres of milk are shipped annually by 33 dairy farmers with annual milk revenues of over $ 21 million. In Downie, 28 million litres are shipped by 37 farmers with milk revenues rising to over $ 20 million. This gives an average of $ 586,000 in milk revenue per farm per year for producers in these two townships. South Easthope has 25 milk producers with a little less than 20 million litres being sold. North Easthope has 30 producers and an annual production of 14 million litres. Milk production is, of course, the central feature of dairy operations but cash crops are another important element that will be commented on below. However, while the average dairy revenue stream may superficially look exciting, no one should underestimate the enormous capitalization, livestock and labour costs required for a farm to produce a half million litres of milk a year.
Pork industry figures have been supplied by Ontario Pork and are digested in Table A16. Perth East has 198 pork farm premises and the biggest inventory of pigs, with 219,000 animals on the books currently valued at $31.5 million. This is down from a 2006 census count of 251,000 pigs, but pork production as an industry is down overall due to reduced animal values in the past two years. Perth South with 39 pork premises and Wilmot with 18 pork premises are more modest pork producers.
Sows are very prolific producers of off-spring and this is reflected in the Estimated Annual Sales Value figures for pork farms. Like the dairy business, buildings and equipment to house and manage pigs are very costly and capital intensive as the Estimated Pork Producer's Building Values also show. Pork production is a dominant farm industry in Perth East.
Information on broiler chickens has been supplied by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) and is digested in Table A17. There are sixty-one sites that produce broilers in the three municipalities. Perth East has 51 broiler barns with an inventory of over 796,000 birds valued at $ 2.38 million. Wilmot has 31 producers with 52,800 birds housed and valued at $1.58 million. Perth South has 17 producers with an inventory of 36,000 birds and a value of a little over $1 million. As Table A17 clearly shows, when combined, the annual sales value of these operations, over the three municipalities, is estimated at $ 30.3 million with combined building values of $33.6 million.
Even though it is a very significant component of local farm activity, information on beef cattle is very hard to obtain because supply is not regulated. The value added by cash crops is noted in Table A18 where estimates for the 2008 crops have been calculated at the township level. From a cash crop perspective Downie Township plays a leading role in local production with an estimated $17.6 million harvest coming this crop year. Combined sales of cash crops for all four townships are estimated at close to $30 million.
Our conclusion is simple and straightforward. In the three municipalities of Perth East, Perth South and Wilmot, agriculture is very big business.
But we would be remiss in not mentioning that shear size and volume are not the only parts of agriculture that need protection from pavement. In the last two decades or so a new agricultural trend has emerged involving small scale farming, specialty crops and market garden ventures, as well as other livestock such as goats, heritage strains of pigs, cows, chickens and farmers raising crops, animals and poultry using other reduced environmental impact methods.
Of late there has been a sharp increase in consumer concern about the food-chain, both what goes into its production and where it is cropped. The new small scale trend where consumers take a more active and selective interest in the food commodities they use and consume is now unlikely to disappear. Gourmet restaurants and grocery stores are now locally sourcing fresh food items.
Demand for goat milk and cheese as well as other gourmet cheeses is rapidly rising and so on. While we do not have a complete inventory, we know that within the three affected townships many, many small producers are defining and serving selective niche markets and that these markets are expanding. Thus an important new trend in food production is towards small, local and fresh whenever possible.
The ‘Culture’ of Agriculture
The base for our culture is always the land. There are sound reasons for this, not romantic, old fashioned imaginings.
The Land
Naturally Fertile Soils:
By the late 19th century, South Easthope’s soils were highly regarded. The Beldon Historical Atlas of 1879 declared that in proportion to its acreage “it is the most valuable piece of territory within the whole of the Huron District.”
Today, these soils enable South Easthope to be part of one of Ontario’s most productive agricultural regions. And while their potential fertility was recognized by surveyors and settlers right from the beginning, the township’s soils have always needed good management to become fully productive, especially the more level parts which are often so flat they’ve been described as resembling the floor of an ancient lake.[1]
***
Almost two hundred years after these lands were settled; the land has been nurtured and remains some of the most productive farmland in Ontario, if not Canada. It is difficult to find a farm that is not viable, in economic terms. This exceptional soil is the underlying reason farms have stayed profitable and remained largely in the hands of generational farm families who know the value of this land.
The People
Report F Cultural Heritage, section 5.0, identifies built remnants but not the existing cultural landscape. Cemeteries garner recognition but not members of the founding families who CONTINUE to farm, build community and remain stewards of the land.
For example, the Dietrich’s are original settlers arriving in the area between 1780-1800 . Seven generations have continued to farm.
Over time, these families have developed the skills and knowledge needed to continue this prosperity while passing on their experience from fathers to sons or daughters. The desire to retain this land in the family has also created a ‘culture’ of growth and investment by these same families.
For example, the Dietrich’s are original settlers arriving in the area between 1780-1800 . Seven generations have continued to farm.
Over time, these families have developed the skills and knowledge needed to continue this prosperity while passing on their experience from fathers to sons or daughters. The desire to retain this land in the family has also created a ‘culture’ of growth and investment by these same families.
Founding Families for the purposes of this report are those who settled in Wilmot West, South Easthope and the Gore of Downie townships. Their great-great grandfathers and/or grandmothers cleared the land, built the first homes, churches and schools of the region and their names dominate the cemeteries of our local churches.
The Economy
These founding family names still dominate our community farms to this day. A cursory review of local history books reveals a substantial number of families, who settled in this region and still farm here today. Like the Dietrich family mentioned above, they are raising the 6th and 7th generation of farmers.
The area has also attracted newer farm families from many countries. They settled here in the decades after WWII and have the same ‘culture’ of raising and establishing, the 3rd generation into agriculture. The same desire to retain the land in the family continues to create a ‘culture’ of growth and investment, like those before them. This phenomenon is not accidental.
The area has also attracted newer farm families from many countries. They settled here in the decades after WWII and have the same ‘culture’ of raising and establishing, the 3rd generation into agriculture. The same desire to retain the land in the family continues to create a ‘culture’ of growth and investment, like those before them. This phenomenon is not accidental.
To put a business face on this, compare our family businesses, their large numbers and the length of time they have remained, viable, economic drivers of our economy, to the number of generational family businesses in an urban environment.
The Economic Planning Department of Stratford has informed us that only about six businesses in their community still survive from the early 1900’s. This tends to follow a known pattern for family companies that are well documented. While in the three townships, at minimum we have 50, in the relatively small area south of highway 7 and 8.
In addition, these family businesses have survived and prospered far, far longer than the norm. Many dating from the early 1800’s. This also demonstrates a trend for Perth County at large.
****
The stretch of land from South of New Hamburg between highway 7 and 8 and the old Huron road, along line 33 and line 29, to the other side of the City of Stratford, is some of the very best farmland in Canada. It is the foundation of the high number of generational family farm businesses that dominate the area.
The land is valuable, in high demand and coveted for a variety of business related reasons. There is no more to be had. It is our industrial and economic engine and its impact and worth to our communities cannot continue to be ignored.
To the uneducated eye land is just land. Even with its higher priority in the Provincial Policy Statement, few urban residents or governments really understand what that means. We believe that by defining our culture, in real terms others may begin to understand who we are, why we value this land and what we contribute. Our hope is that better methods can be found for other planners, consultants and governments to use in the future.
Conclusion
No one can read this overview and avoid noticing the implications. The three townships targeted for corridor and route planning for highway 7/8 contain many hugely important capital intensive farm operations. No municipality would seriously consider drawing up road plans to pave over the top of or wreak havoc on its established factories and existing industrial zones.
Urban businesses with sales receipts and capitalization on the scale outlined above are considered 'protected species'.
In our townships, agricultural business is our mainline activity. Multi-million dollar farm operations in North and South Easthope, Wilmot and Downie deserve the same respect for their contribution to economic life as their urban business counterparts and require the same sensitivity to its potential disruption.
Urban businesses with sales receipts and capitalization on the scale outlined above are considered 'protected species'.
In our townships, agricultural business is our mainline activity. Multi-million dollar farm operations in North and South Easthope, Wilmot and Downie deserve the same respect for their contribution to economic life as their urban business counterparts and require the same sensitivity to its potential disruption.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Community Questions Document
The Agriculture Business Communities of Perth East, Perth South and Wilmot West submitted a "Questions" document to the consultants and MTO on Sept. 17th, 2008. While some people have had some questions answered during site visits, not all the residents have had all their questions answered. On their behalf, the Business Community collected these questions and submitted them formally to the MTO and Totten,Sims,Hubicki Associates. This will require research and documentation as these will be on the record. The 6 sections follow in separate posts.
From the Introduction:
In order to make response and research more organized we have Categorized all Questions into 6 groups.
The Agriculture Business Community has collected questions from our membership and three Chapters to facilitate the collation and research that may be necessary for an accurate answer. Our membership have many questions they have not all received answers for.
This is a business submission to be entered into the record and we require response on all questions from the Ministry of Transportation AND Totten, Sims, Hubicki Associates.
It is imperative these questions are answered prior to any decision about a preferred Corridor.
From the Introduction:
In order to make response and research more organized we have Categorized all Questions into 6 groups.
The Agriculture Business Community has collected questions from our membership and three Chapters to facilitate the collation and research that may be necessary for an accurate answer. Our membership have many questions they have not all received answers for.
This is a business submission to be entered into the record and we require response on all questions from the Ministry of Transportation AND Totten, Sims, Hubicki Associates.
It is imperative these questions are answered prior to any decision about a preferred Corridor.
Terms and Definitions
Map design and discussions with the Consultants are filled with terms we would like defined.
Q.# 1 Please define the many Terms used in describing any corridor or route such as : Limited access; No access ; On or off ramps ; Service roads
Q. # 2. What is the meaning of “best use” in describing a business or property?
Q.# 1 Please define the many Terms used in describing any corridor or route such as : Limited access; No access ; On or off ramps ; Service roads
Q. # 2. What is the meaning of “best use” in describing a business or property?
Traffic Density
Smart Growth Discussions...
Q.# 1. What documentation did you use for current and estimated future traffic volumes?
Q.# 2. Are these numbers valid considering the current/future prices for gas?
Q. # 3. Has MTO consulted with VIA rail around a collaborative approach to moving more passenger traffic on to the railroad through a frequent, convenient and affordable [subsidized] commuter service?
Q. # 4. Has MTO consulted with freight rail services around a collaborative approach to moving more freight on the railroad?
Q. # 5. Why do we need 8 lanes of traffic in a mile and a quarter ( 2 on highway 7&8, 4 new ones and 2 on Line 33) plus a railway track? I would like to know where all this traffic is supposed to go to? (that's even more than the 401)
Q.# 1. What documentation did you use for current and estimated future traffic volumes?
Q.# 2. Are these numbers valid considering the current/future prices for gas?
Q. # 3. Has MTO consulted with VIA rail around a collaborative approach to moving more passenger traffic on to the railroad through a frequent, convenient and affordable [subsidized] commuter service?
Q. # 4. Has MTO consulted with freight rail services around a collaborative approach to moving more freight on the railroad?
Q. # 5. Why do we need 8 lanes of traffic in a mile and a quarter ( 2 on highway 7&8, 4 new ones and 2 on Line 33) plus a railway track? I would like to know where all this traffic is supposed to go to? (that's even more than the 401)
Safety of the Community
According to Provincial legislation firefighters must have a response time of 10 minutes.
Q. #1.
How will the Fire Department get from Shakespeare to the rest of Perth East if the firefighter happens to live on the wrong side of the highway and there is no access to that highway (restricted access).
The Fire Station is in Shakespeare. Firefighters have to get to the station from all over Perth East.
Q. # 2. School busing on Line 29 and Line 33 covers 3 boards, the Avon-Maitland Public School Board, the Huron-Perth Catholic Board and the Christian School Board. Who is mapping this use of our roads to ensure the safety of Our children?
Q. #3. How will any new or changed roads impact the costs, distance and safety for the children of our communities?
Q. #1.
How will the Fire Department get from Shakespeare to the rest of Perth East if the firefighter happens to live on the wrong side of the highway and there is no access to that highway (restricted access).
The Fire Station is in Shakespeare. Firefighters have to get to the station from all over Perth East.
Q. # 2. School busing on Line 29 and Line 33 covers 3 boards, the Avon-Maitland Public School Board, the Huron-Perth Catholic Board and the Christian School Board. Who is mapping this use of our roads to ensure the safety of Our children?
Q. #3. How will any new or changed roads impact the costs, distance and safety for the children of our communities?
Financial and Equity Issues
Young farm business owners are frequently highly leveraged .
Financial arrangements for farm corporations & businesses are complex. The value of the land is the underpinning for the business. Many parcels of land can have a complex set of financial arrangements with first, second and third mortgage holders.
Q #1. My various properties have different mortgages on them. How will I be compensated if a property is split in half and the resulting smaller properties are not worth the same amount as my mortgage?
Q. #2. If you farm on a proposed or final route are there land use issues that can limit my ability to retain a viable, saleable business and thus my eqity? Ie) land freeze issues , development issues .
Q. #3. If any proposed highway may be 30 years out, who will compensate a landowner for any loss of future equity or business growth?
Q. #4. If a person owns property in one of the proposed corridors do they need to disclose that part of their property was within the 1 km wide potential corridor, if they are thinking of selling that property?
Q. #5. During the study process, land values for businesses and residents will be impacted. Who will compensate for loss of equity while the consultation process moves forward?
Q.#6. When the route is selected and the government gives its support to the route, I understand that it may be years before the road construction begins.
I want to know what the land acquisition process is that the government initiates once the route has been selected?
Q. #7. Do they start to approach landowners within the new route about their willingness to sell?
Q. #8. What arm of the government does this?
Q # 9. Will landowners within the chosen corridor be approached by the government when the study is completed to confirm that their land
will be needed for this new route?
Financial arrangements for farm corporations & businesses are complex. The value of the land is the underpinning for the business. Many parcels of land can have a complex set of financial arrangements with first, second and third mortgage holders.
Q #1. My various properties have different mortgages on them. How will I be compensated if a property is split in half and the resulting smaller properties are not worth the same amount as my mortgage?
Q. #2. If you farm on a proposed or final route are there land use issues that can limit my ability to retain a viable, saleable business and thus my eqity? Ie) land freeze issues , development issues .
Q. #3. If any proposed highway may be 30 years out, who will compensate a landowner for any loss of future equity or business growth?
Q. #4. If a person owns property in one of the proposed corridors do they need to disclose that part of their property was within the 1 km wide potential corridor, if they are thinking of selling that property?
Q. #5. During the study process, land values for businesses and residents will be impacted. Who will compensate for loss of equity while the consultation process moves forward?
Q.#6. When the route is selected and the government gives its support to the route, I understand that it may be years before the road construction begins.
I want to know what the land acquisition process is that the government initiates once the route has been selected?
Q. #7. Do they start to approach landowners within the new route about their willingness to sell?
Q. #8. What arm of the government does this?
Q # 9. Will landowners within the chosen corridor be approached by the government when the study is completed to confirm that their land
will be needed for this new route?
Nutrient Management
According to Provincial legislation Minimum Distance Guidelines must be followed for existing and new facilities. The issue of Nutrient Management has become an important management issue, associated with appropriate land use activity. All large animal operations in the province are governed by the Nutrient Management Act. According to the Nutrient Management Act 2002, any farm with more than 5 nutrient units that are building, expanding or renovating are required to file a Nutrient Management Strategy(NMS). All farms with livestock have animal units. The number of animals that can be used in any agricultural Business is dictated by the amount of land a farmer has available for the operation.
Q. #1.
Will the new highway follow minimum distance separation (MDS) guidelines as set out by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs. (OMAFRA)?
Q. #2.
If the new highway does not follow MDS guidelines how will a farmer be compensated for loss of future expansion opportunities?
Q. #3.
If the new highway does not follow MDS guidelines and passes close to a nutrient storage facility will MTO take responsibility if the pit cracks from vibrations from traffic and results in a manure leak and possible contamination?
Q. #4.
If the property is split by the new highway how will a property with the majority of its land on the opposite side of the highway from its nutrient storage have access to this land in order to meet its Nutrient Management Strategy requirements stipulated by OMAFRA?
Environmental
Some properties in the area have special Environmental designations.
Q.# 1. If the property owner is not available when field visits occur, how will you ensure special designations for rare or endangered flora/fauna are researched/documented?
Q.# 1. If the property owner is not available when field visits occur, how will you ensure special designations for rare or endangered flora/fauna are researched/documented?
Newsletter # 3
Hwy 7 & 8 Newsletter Update Sept. 18, 2008 Volume # 3
At our last volunteer meeting many issues were discussed. We wrote up a list of our discussion results from both the community volunteers and the Consultants of the Study, who were guests at that meeting. Below are 7 items that the Consultants and volunteers agreed were the outcome of the discussion.
*********
Discussions Results
1. The consultants and the Ministry have NOT taken cost into consideration in the generation of the corridors.
2. Cost will not be part of the considerations in the selection of the preferred corridor.
3. The consulting team has the approval of MTO to consider highway designs OTHER THAN four lane controlled access when they are selecting the preferred corridor and selected routes within that corridor. Different levels of access will be considered by the consulting team.
4. Brenda Jamieson will send a revised planning schedule for us to send along to members.
5. Charles Organ will forward the planning protocol for highway plans for us to send on to our members. This will include the timing of presentations to municipal councils prior to PICs .
6. Land ownership did not influence the location of the different corridor options. An additional corridor alternative has been identified for a southern by-pass of Stratford. The alternative is situated closer to the City limits in the vicinity of the existing hydro corridor. The public lands owned by the City of Stratford may be considered in a future corridor..
7. The consultants had considered a workshop on September 17 but that is under re-consideration.
Point 7: Post meeting note: The Corridor Alternatives Workshop will be rescheduled to late October
"Please note that the revised planning schedule and planning protocol documentation are being prepared and will be provided to you later this week for distribution to your members."- B. Jamieson
The municipality of Perth South was already on record with their concerns, as stakeholders in this portion of the study. Their response will be taken to County Council by the Warden, on behalf of the citizens. The municipality of Perth East held a meeting with representatves of the Agricultural Business Community of Perth East and has also responded for the record with their concerns and reservations.
Other Items
Please forward or print this newsletter for members who do not have e-mail.
-- contact:
hwy7and8@gmail.com
Perth South: Marg Van Ness 519-393-6479
Gail Stacey 519-271-0218
Jamie Gibb 519-393-6219
Perth East: Paula Neice 519-662-4847
Linda Dietrich 519-655-2613
Sharon Weitzel 519-273-0918
Wilmot West: Wayne Wagler 519-662-3658
Gary Wagler 519-662-3384
-- Agriculture Business Community of Perth East, Perth South, Wilmot West
At our last volunteer meeting many issues were discussed. We wrote up a list of our discussion results from both the community volunteers and the Consultants of the Study, who were guests at that meeting. Below are 7 items that the Consultants and volunteers agreed were the outcome of the discussion.
*********
Discussions Results
1. The consultants and the Ministry have NOT taken cost into consideration in the generation of the corridors.
2. Cost will not be part of the considerations in the selection of the preferred corridor.
3. The consulting team has the approval of MTO to consider highway designs OTHER THAN four lane controlled access when they are selecting the preferred corridor and selected routes within that corridor. Different levels of access will be considered by the consulting team.
4. Brenda Jamieson will send a revised planning schedule for us to send along to members.
5. Charles Organ will forward the planning protocol for highway plans for us to send on to our members. This will include the timing of presentations to municipal councils prior to PICs .
6. Land ownership did not influence the location of the different corridor options. An additional corridor alternative has been identified for a southern by-pass of Stratford. The alternative is situated closer to the City limits in the vicinity of the existing hydro corridor. The public lands owned by the City of Stratford may be considered in a future corridor..
7. The consultants had considered a workshop on September 17 but that is under re-consideration.
Point 7: Post meeting note: The Corridor Alternatives Workshop will be rescheduled to late October
"Please note that the revised planning schedule and planning protocol documentation are being prepared and will be provided to you later this week for distribution to your members."- B. Jamieson
Other Community Meetings
On Thursday, Sept. 11th,Gail and Larry Stacey (east side of Hwy 7) hosted the Consultants' team . The intent was for any and all members of Perth South , who might be impacted by any of the proposed Corridors, to bring their property information in, meet with members of the Consultants team, ask their questions and/or make an on farm appointment for their portion of the Agricultural Survey.By all accounts it was a busy day and many residents took the opportunity to attend. On Sept. 24th, Jamie Gibb hosted a similar event for the west side of Hwy 7.
Municipal ResponsesThe municipality of Perth South was already on record with their concerns, as stakeholders in this portion of the study. Their response will be taken to County Council by the Warden, on behalf of the citizens. The municipality of Perth East held a meeting with representatves of the Agricultural Business Community of Perth East and has also responded for the record with their concerns and reservations.
Other Items
Please forward or print this newsletter for members who do not have e-mail.
-- contact:
hwy7and8@gmail.com
Perth South: Marg Van Ness 519-393-6479
Gail Stacey 519-271-0218
Jamie Gibb 519-393-6219
Perth East: Paula Neice 519-662-4847
Linda Dietrich 519-655-2613
Sharon Weitzel 519-273-0918
Wilmot West: Wayne Wagler 519-662-3658
Gary Wagler 519-662-3384
-- Agriculture Business Community of Perth East, Perth South, Wilmot West
Newsletter # 2
Hwy 7 & 8 Newsletter September 7, 2008 Volume #2
CURRENT OPERATING STRUCTURE
Hello again to everyone.
The community has been very busy trying to keep everyone informed, having on farm Ag visits, individual property appointments and trying to fine tune how a large group of volunteers from 3 townships, can work effectively. The 20 Volunteers, who signed up to assist have met twice. Our second meeting was to work on some administration issues requiring some fine tuning and to strategize. We met at Claynook Farms in Wilmot Township.
The Community Group has agreed to this structure:
· 2 to 3 agreed representatives from each township are consulted prior to any major decision or strategy being launched
· the full group of volunteers will meet from time to time to engage in further strategy work or when necessary
· other work and contributions will be electronic as we compile data necessary for a full Brief the combined Business Communities will be submitting
· volunteers are signing up for research to include in our brief
The Volunteer Committee also met with Mr. Charles Organ, Ms. Brenda Jamieson and Janette Smilderle. The opportunity arose for us to meet with them and we took advantage of it. We hoped for much clearer understanding of the next public phase and to discuss some issues that have come forward from the community.
As a result a new schedule /timeline for this phase with an explanation of the general protocol for any public announcement of a preferred corridor, will be coming from TSH (The Consultants).
OFFICIAL COMMUNITY RESPONSE
We are also assembling data for our formal submission on behalf of Perth East, Perth South and Wilmot West for the Sept. 30th deadline. Areas we will cover include:
· Economic figures and stats from dairy, pork, cash crop and poultry for our townships
· Provincial regulations and legislation impacting farmers
· Misleading assumptions used in original Study documents
Other strategies are being discussed and we will disseminate those as soon as possible.
CONNECTING COMMUNITIES
Volunteers are continuing to contact neighbors in all 3 townships to ensure as many as possible are informed and able to contribute data from their properties and their concerns, to the Consultants by the Sept. 30th deadline.
-- contact:
hwy7and8@gmail.com
Perth South:
Marg Van Ness 519-393-6479
Gail Stacey 519-271-0218
Jamie Gibb 519-393-6219
Perth East:
Paula Neice 519-4847
Linda Dietrich 519-655-2613
Sharon Weitzel 519-273-0918
Wilmot West:
Wayne Wagler 519-662-3658
Gary Wagler 519-662-3384
Agriculture Business Community of Perth East, Perth South, Wilmot West
CURRENT OPERATING STRUCTURE
Hello again to everyone.
The community has been very busy trying to keep everyone informed, having on farm Ag visits, individual property appointments and trying to fine tune how a large group of volunteers from 3 townships, can work effectively. The 20 Volunteers, who signed up to assist have met twice. Our second meeting was to work on some administration issues requiring some fine tuning and to strategize. We met at Claynook Farms in Wilmot Township.
The Community Group has agreed to this structure:
· 2 to 3 agreed representatives from each township are consulted prior to any major decision or strategy being launched
· the full group of volunteers will meet from time to time to engage in further strategy work or when necessary
· other work and contributions will be electronic as we compile data necessary for a full Brief the combined Business Communities will be submitting
· volunteers are signing up for research to include in our brief
The Volunteer Committee also met with Mr. Charles Organ, Ms. Brenda Jamieson and Janette Smilderle. The opportunity arose for us to meet with them and we took advantage of it. We hoped for much clearer understanding of the next public phase and to discuss some issues that have come forward from the community.
As a result a new schedule /timeline for this phase with an explanation of the general protocol for any public announcement of a preferred corridor, will be coming from TSH (The Consultants).
OFFICIAL COMMUNITY RESPONSE
We are also assembling data for our formal submission on behalf of Perth East, Perth South and Wilmot West for the Sept. 30th deadline. Areas we will cover include:
· Economic figures and stats from dairy, pork, cash crop and poultry for our townships
· Provincial regulations and legislation impacting farmers
· Misleading assumptions used in original Study documents
Other strategies are being discussed and we will disseminate those as soon as possible.
CONNECTING COMMUNITIES
Volunteers are continuing to contact neighbors in all 3 townships to ensure as many as possible are informed and able to contribute data from their properties and their concerns, to the Consultants by the Sept. 30th deadline.
-- contact:
hwy7and8@gmail.com
Perth South:
Marg Van Ness 519-393-6479
Gail Stacey 519-271-0218
Jamie Gibb 519-393-6219
Perth East:
Paula Neice 519-4847
Linda Dietrich 519-655-2613
Sharon Weitzel 519-273-0918
Wilmot West:
Wayne Wagler 519-662-3658
Gary Wagler 519-662-3384
Agriculture Business Community of Perth East, Perth South, Wilmot West
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Municipal Letters for Sept. 2008
Below are Municipal letters that were sent in response to the summer PIC's.
8.5.1 7-8 Corridor Study Comments
8.5.1 7-8 Corridor Study Comments
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Monday, August 11, 2008
Hwy 7 & 8 Update Newsletter # 1
Hwy 7 & 8 Update August 11th, 2008 Newsletter #1
It has been just 2 weeks since we had our first meeting about the Hwy 7 & 8 issue. The results are nothing short of amazing in the time we have been working on this.
Thank you all for attending and your help.
We estimate that 155 people were in attendance at Larry & Linda Dietrich's on July 22 and the phones have been ringing off the hook from producers and residents who could not attend.
Our meeting attendees signed and we mailed 80 letters the very next day.
We had people from Wilmot and Perth South present.
Wilmot Township copied the Perth East letter and distributed it. They told us they have had a tremendous response and mailed out 100 letters.
A volunteer is trying to ensure North Easthope residents are aware of the project's scope and collect contact information.
Another volunteer is doing the same thing for Perth South.
Other people who attended have been asking for copies of the letter to help inform their neighbors.
As the August 15th date was such a short time frame, we decided to see what we could do to have that date moved. It was the date the Consultants were using as a yardstick for the next phases (eliminating corridors or plans?!?!). In order to correspond with the MTO and Highway Study team we needed a name to call our group. We decided that "Agricultural Business Community of Perth East" (ABCOPE) best described the majority and we have included everyone in this group.
We are very pleased to report we have been successful in moving the date to Sept. 30th, 2008.
This was only possible because of your interest and the numbers present. Together, we can have an impact.
We now have adequate time to educate ourselves, notify people and work on getting the information (land use issues, detailed agricultural business information, nutrient management issues, etc.), that will be critical for a successful outcome.
We will be convening a meeting of all volunteers to discuss strategy and bring everyone up to date on the most recent information and activities. We also need to decide who and how we can divide up any work to be done. Let us know if you would like to volunteer some time.
As soon as possible, we WILL be in touch with you all with another UPDATE. Please take the time to speak with your neighbors to ensure everyone is up to date on what is happening and ask them to call or email their contact information to add to our master list.
Contact: Linda Dietrich tel: 519-655-2613
email: hwy7and8@gmail.com
Sharon Weitzel tel: 519-273- 0918
***********
Agricultural Business Community of Perth East Committee
August 8, 2008
In Newsletter #1 we were able to report the response date for the Proposed Highway 7/8 Corridors has been moved from August 15 to September 30. The Committee wants to use this extra time to collect information to be able to influence the consultant's recommendations to the MTO on the next step of the plan which is the selection of the preferred corridor.
To do this we need to hear from you. We need to know any and all questions you have for the consulting team before they proceed.
At the gathering on July 22 at the Dietrich's farm, several questions were asked but there was no way to respond to them. e.g.
Is the consultant considering the workability of the farms, nutrient management requirements etc. as part of their selection criteria?. How will the government determine market value for properties that are identified for the final route? How will owners be compensated if the loss of part of their property results in the farm business becoming not viable?
Please mail, email or call us with your questions by August 18. We will prepare a master list of questions and get it to the consultant and MTO to respond to.
Thanks for your help.
Contact: hwy7and8@gmail.com
Tel:
519-273-0918
Or
519-662-4847
Or
519-655-2613
Mail:
Sharon Weitzel
R.R. # 2
TAVISTOCK,ON
N0B 2R0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)