Ministry of Transportation Ministère des Transports
Engineering Office Bureau du génie
Planning and Design Section Section de planification et de conception
West Region Région du Ouest
659 Exeter Road 659, chemin Exeter
London, Ontario N6E 1L3 London (Ontario) N6E 1L3
Telephone: (519) 873-4550 Téléphone: (519) 873-4550
Facsimile: (519) 873-4600 Télécopieur: (519) 873-4600
June 4, 2009
Agriculture Business Community of
Perth East, Perth South and Wilmot West,
c/o 3649 Road 107
RR#2
Tavistock, ON
N0B 2R0
Dear Ms. Dietrich:
RE: Highway 7&8 Transportation Corridor Planning and Class EA Study
Greater Stratford to New Hamburg Area, GWP 13-00-00
Thank you for the Agricultural Business Community (ABC) letter of May 29, 2009 regarding the captioned study. We are pleased to provide a response.
As you indicated, your letter reiterates your main positions, and for the most part, our April 21, 2009 response on those issues stands. However, we feel that it is appropriate to provide you with new information regarding the consideration of agriculture in the evaluation process, and with clarification regarding the status of the study team response to the ABC ‘Volume 1’ and ‘Volume 2’ submissions of September, 2008.
Consideration of Agriculture in the Evaluation of the Short List of Corridor Alternatives
As we indicated in our letter of April 21, 2009, we have modified our evaluation process by giving agriculture its own evaluation factor (rather than being a sub-factor under “land use resources”).
In preparing for the evaluation of the short list of corridor alternatives that is currently under way, the study team has further enhanced the process by consolidating elements of other evaluation factors/sub-factors under agriculture, which provided it with four evaluation criteria (and associated indicators), as follows:
1. Agriculture - Canada Land Inventory Class 1, 2, 3 land
-Potential to affect specialty crop areas and/or areas of Canada Land Inventory Classes 1,2,3 land
2. Agriculture - Farm Infrastructure
-Potential to affect farm infrastructure (field tile systems/outlets, irrigation systems, barns/silos/structures, etc)
3. Agriculture - Operations on Individual Farms
-Potential to sever/disrupt in-farm field operations (planting, harvesting, grazing, nutrient management, etc.)
4. Agriculture – Transportation Linkages Between Multiple Farm Operations
-Potential to sever/disrupt transportation linkages between multiple-farm operations (movement between linked multiple-farm operations of equipment, materials, workers, etc.)
While this expansion of agriculture evaluation criteria has resulted in a minor degree of duplication relative to some issues, we believe that it has also resulted in agriculture (and “the business of agriculture”) being given a more appropriate level of consideration in the evaluation of the short list of corridor alternatives. Some of the other elements of the evaluation process that are of interest/concern to stakeholders beyond the agriculture community remain unchanged, as follows:
· With respect to farm infrastructure (criterion #2 above), the broader issue of wells will continue to be addressed under the groundwater factor, and the broader issue of drainage along and across transportation rights-of-way will continue to be addressed as part of “drainage and hydrology engineering” that is undertaken for the selected alternative.
· With respect to transportation linkages between multiple-farm operations (criterion #4 above), the generic issue of shipments to/from farms will continue to be covered under the broader transportation sub-factor “movement of goods”; and the generic issue of farm resident/worker movement to/from farms will continue to be covered under the broader transportation sub-factor “movement of people”. The movement of equipment, materials and workers between multiple-farm operations will occur in the context of increased overall traffic within the analysis area regardless of the alternative selected.
· Rural heritage will continue to be covered under the cultural environment sub-factors, which include, but are not restricted to:
buildings or standing sites of architectural or heritage significance, or Ontario Heritage Foundation easement properties;
heritage bridges; and
areas of historic 19th century settlement.
We look forward to sharing the results of this evaluation at Public Information Centre #3, which will present the preferred corridor, and new route or highway widening alternatives that will be generated for each section of the preferred corridor.
All of the above clearly indicates that the study recognizes the importance of agriculture, agricultural land, agricultural operations, and the associated provincial policies. However, it must also be recognized that the transportation policies of the province require corridors to be identified and protected to meet current and projected needs for various travel modes. We suggest that the evaluation process provides recognition and transparency relative to both of the above.
Study Team Response to ABC ‘Volume 1’ and ‘Volume 2’ Submissions of September 2008
As you will recall, the ABC ‘Volume 1’ submission dated September 15, 2008 consisted of 26 specific questions, and the ABC ‘Volume 2’ submission dated September 30, 2008, consisted of a community report arranged under six major headings.
Receipt of the ABC Volume 2 submission was acknowledged by Brenda Jamieson on September 30, 2009, by email to ABC members Gail Stacey, Gary Wagler, Jamie Gibb, Linda Dietrich, Marg Van Nes, Paula Neice, Sharon Weitzel and Wayne Wagler.
The study team carefully reviewed both submissions, and because of the obvious overlap of issues, interpreted the Volume 2 submission to be background information for the preparation of its responses to each of the questions in the ABC ‘Volume 1’ submission. We apologize that this was not made clear in our response.
The ongoing input from ABC is much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Charles Organ, C.E.T.
Project Manager
Ministry of Transportation, West Region
Planning and Design Section
MTO Response Letter 0609
