ABC submits a Response to PIC6

On November 15,2013 the Agriculture Business Community (ABC) submitted its response to PIC 6.  Entitled Volume 9, it is available below and on our website under its own page for anyone interested  to view, copy or download.

It is short, direct and to the point, and lists a variety of concerns that have been problems from the inception of this Environmental Assessment (EA).

ABC has distributed this document to all the affected municipalities for their information.

Volume 9 Final by hwy7and8

Report F Checklist

IMFORMATION SHEET

In reviewing material ABC has found errors that relate to agricultural properties in the proposed corridor. The Consultants and MTO WILL USE the information they have in Report F OR the corrected information from YOU to identify the FINAL ROUTE for Hwy. 7 & 8.We urge you to verify your property status and descriptions in Report F.

See page 52 in the Report for Agriculture.Go to http://www.7and8corridorstudy.ca/ Look under STUDY DOCUMENTATION and then Working Papers ONLY IF you have a high speed connection (file size is 17.81 MG)!

Anyone who cannot access this report via the Internet, please contact hwy7and8@gmail.com for details .

Below is a form to help quide property onwers on the information they need to provide.

Check List


1. My Fire Code #:....................

2. The information on tile drainage is (accurate) or (inaccurate)

3. The description of my farm buildings: (accurate) or inaccurate)
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................

4. The proposed corridor will impact my farm transportation needs in the following ways:

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................

5. My farm is located along an existing roadway. I estimate that the proposed loss of land will impact my operation in the following ways:
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................

6. I have reviewed the evaluation criteria proposed for Agriculture, and see that the proposed corridor will adversely affect my:

planting yes........... no .........
grazing yes........... no .........
nutrient management plan yes........... no .........
movement of farm equipment yes........... no .........
access to land and equipment yes........... no .........
field tile drainage yes........... no .........
harvesting yes........... no .........
total production due to loss of land yes........... no .........
other(.............)

Please provide details of each of the implications on your operation from the proposed corridor:

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................

More media

From the New Hamburg Independant:
New highway corridor proposal saves farms

New - PIC # 3 dates

The timing for the next round of Public Information Centres (PICs) is now confirmed. The PICs will be held on:

• Tuesday July 21, 2009 at the Festival Inn in Stratford from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm
• Wednesday July 22, 2009 at the Wilmot Recreation Complex in Baden from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm
• Tuesday August 11, 2009 at the Shakespeare and District Optimist Hall in Shakespeare from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm
  

The following information will be presented:

• Evaluation of the short list of corridor alternatives and the selection of the preferred corridor;
  
• Environmental conditions and constraints within the preferred corridor;
  
• Highway widening / route alternatives that have been generated for the various sections of the preferred corridor; and
  
• Process and criteria to be used for the assessment and evaluation of these highway widening / route alternatives.

MTO Responds to ABC's May 29th letter

We have copied the MTO letter to this website and for the record the origional is available through the Scribd window.

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

Perth Federation of Agriculture May 22,2009

Below is the PFA response to PIC 2c. Very good questions! Lets see if they answer them!


MTO Response Letter 0609

National Farmers Union Responds

Perth-Oxford Local, National Farmers Union
c/o Ann Slater,

Tuesday, May 19, 2009-05-19

To: Ms Brenda Jamieson, P. Eng.,
Consultant Project Manager
AECOM,
300 Water Street,
Whitby, ON,
L1N-9J2

Mr. Charles Organ, C.E.T.,
Project Manager
Ministry of Transportation, West Region
Planning and Design Section
659 Exeter Road,
London, ON
N6E-1L3

Re: (PIC)#2C Stratford Area Highway 7&8 Transportation Corridor Planning and Class EA Study

Perth-Oxford Local, National Farmers Union has already commented on proposed changes to the Highway 7 and 8 corridor in the Stratford area. None of our previously expressed concerns appear to have been addressed in (PIC)#2C. We continue to press for increased public transportation to reduce traffic on our roads and highways. Increased public transportation that reduces road traffic will preserve prime farm land and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

(PIC)#2C also presents additional concerns for farmers in our area. The proposed new road that angles from 7&8 to Perth Line 33, Lorne Ave., east of Stratford will cut through more than 1000 acres of prime farm land. Farmers in the effected area will lose access to parts of their farms. Other farmers outside the directly effected area who need to move machinery north and south across the corridor will be severely inconvenienced also.

On the west side of Stratford the (PIC)#2C diagram shows the proposed corridor following existing roads. However we wonder if wide, high speed curves will be placed at the corners of Perth Line 32 and Perth Road 125, and also at Perth Road 125 and Highway 8. Such curves would result in considerable loss of access to farm lands and likely destruction of buildings as well.

We request a clear undertaking that (PIC)#2C does not actually include those sort of curves west of Stratford.

Ann Slater, Secretary Perth-Oxford Local, NFU

Perth County Response to 2c

2009-05-22 Letter - PIC#2C

May 22, 2009 ABC Sends response to PIC 2c

May 22, 2009

Charles Organ C.E.T.
MTO South Western Region
Project Manager
Planning and Design Section
659 Exeter Road
London ON
N6E 1L3

Brenda Jamieson, P.Eng.
Consultant Project Manager
AECOM
300 Water Street,
Whitby, Ontario
L1N 9J2

Our first brief to the Consultants and MTO was intended to enlighten the planning team on the nature and reality of today’s agriculture business within the study area. The business data in that report still stands and is relevant to this stage in the planning process.

In our Feb. 6th report, we identified serious flaws in the development of the Short List of Corridors and flagrant biases against the rural community in the weighting of pros and cons for the different options. Furthermore, we identified the neglect of critical items that are almost completely missing in the consultant’s list of criteria that are fundamental to the development or upgrading of any highway corridor.

We are very dissatisfied with the response the Agriculture Business Community received from AECOM dated April 22, 2009 to our report dated Feb. 6th, 2009. We will be forwarding you additional comments in reference to this in the near future. There were significant elements that were NOT addressed.

We are disappointed that the MTO and Consultants refuse to support our Recommendation #15 from the Feb. 6th report therefore, in the interests of meeting the needs of the community we will organize and facilitate a public meeting to discuss and review your recommendations for a preferred corridor. We appreciate your commitment to attend and we will forward you our agenda outlining your presentation topics once the dates for the PICs have been chosen, the community has had time to digest your recommendations, and we have a venue booked.

The Agriculture Business Community recognizes that you have extended the duration of your PICs by one hour to facilitate our participation. Now we need to point out again that the May to August period is a very poor time of year for the MTO or the consultants to expect anything from our businesses or members in the way of constructive criticism with your plans.

The next PIC will present your proposed Preferred Highway Corridor. This step in your process may determine the fate of many producers and therefore it is critical that their schedules be accommodated to allow them to respond.

A sixty day response time is not adequate if you are truly interested in receiving comments. Farmers are working over 100 hours a week, planting this year’s crop. It is crucial to any success that an extended review period is allotted during this phase in our business cycle if you expect, and count on hearing from the ABCs. Therefore we strongly suggest that you move the response date to your proposed June PIC to September 30, to allow producers a fair chance to respond.

In response to PIC 2c, the Agriculture Business Community reiterates:

The work to be approved by MTO in Highway 7&8 corridor planning and development needs to:

1. Recognize agriculture as a business

2. Protect prime agricultural land (Canada Land Inventory Class 1, 2 & 3) for the business of agriculture

3. Minimize the impact on agricultural business enterprises

4. Assume financial responsibility for all drainage costs of highway development, before and after construction

5. Acknowledge and protect our rural heritage.

We believe these principles are still valid and have not been addressed. They need to drive the planning process for future highway development within this study area. They represent more than idle words. They represent this community and our livelihoods.

We have attached a copy of an article prepared for the Ontario Farmer by Tanya Brouwers and we ask that you reflect on its direction before you go back to the drawing board.

Sharon Weitzel
Communications Officer, p.p.

Agriculture Business Community of Perth East, Perth South and Wilmot West

***********

Canada’s Disappearing Farmland
by Tanya Brouwers

Canada is a nation of vast spaces and varied terrain. Nationwide, however, this seemingly endless land base has limited agricultural potential. In fact, 94% of Canada’s lands are unsuitable for farming. Of that small percentage of land that will support agricultural endeavours only 0.5% is designated as class 1, where there are no significant limitations to farming activity. Unfortunately, due to urbanization, poor farming practices and other non-agricultural activities, this small percentage of viable farmland is shrinking at an alarming rate. Statistics Canada, for example, reported that between 1971 and 2001, over 14,000 square kilometres of our best agricultural land had been permanently lost to urban uses. Fortunately, as more individuals recognize the importance of healthy agricultural landscapes in matters of food security, recreation and habitat conservation they are asking Canada’s policy makers and politicians why this precious yet limited land base is allowed to disappear.

Some might answer that it is Canada’s political structure itself that lends itself perfectly to this rapid reduction of agricultural land. Federal policy initiatives, like Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Growing Forward program, emphasize the “how” of agricultural practices by focussing on those elements vital to a healthy and viable agricultural economy, specifically innovation, local need and best management practices. These programs fall short, however, in addressing the “where” of agricultural activity. Currently, it is the role of the provinces, regions and municipalities, along with a host of other non-agricultural interests, to decide whether keeping agricultural land available for production best meets “community need”. Unfortunately, the competitive nature of this multi-tiered, “bottom-up” approach to farmland preservation has resulted in a nationally fragmented land use system with some provinces adopting agricultural land reserve and zoning models while others, quite simply, do not.

For example, the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, home to 99% of Canada’s Class I farmland, are without centralized models of farmland preservation, the results of which have been devastating. Ontario, for instance, with over 56% of the nation’s Class I land has lost, in the two decades between 1976 and 1996, over 150,000 acres or 18% of the province’s Class I land to urban encroachment and non-agricultural interests. In the absence of protective policies even those provinces with a relatively scarce amount of dependable farmland continue to report losses. Nova Scotia, for example, between 1921 and 2006, has seen over 80% of its working farmland used for purposes other than agriculture.

Sadly enough, even the provinces with established farmland preservation policies are not without reproach. BC’s Agricultural Land Reserve and Quebec’s Act to preserve agricultural land, both benchmark planning policies designed to protect the provinces’ small amount of prime farmland from encroaching development, have seen a slow erosion of their original principles. Since its inception, BC’s reserve, encompassing only 5% of the province’s land, has seen a net loss of over 35,000 hectares, 72% of that in the more fertile, valuable lands of the south. Quebec, too, where only 2% of the province’s land can be cultivated, is considering removing over 514 hectares of valuable farmland around the Montreal area to make room for a highway.

In the absence of binding legislation to protect Canadian agricultural land, many concerned farmers and citizens are taking the responsibility of farmland preservation upon themselves. Some individuals are using covenants and agricultural easements to prohibit future development and division of their land. Others are donating part or their entire agricultural land base to trusts. The Ontario Farmland Trust, BC’s The Land Conservancy and Saskatchewan’s Genesis Land Conservancy are some examples of organizations that are not only conserving farmland but are ensuring that that the land is farmed in a sustainable or, in the case of Genesis, in an organic manner. Unfortunately, implementing these measures can be time consuming and cumbersome. It also puts the onus on individual farmers and non-governmental organizations, rather than the governments themselves, to preserve the fertility and biodiversity of Canada’s agricultural landscape.

Canada’s farmland is a finite resource. Once removed it cannot be recovered. Yet urban encroachment and development, poor farming practices and, loosely structured land use planning policies continue to erode the small amount of viable agricultural land available to Canadians. Ultimately, Canadians are losing the ability to feed themselves. Our federal government can justifiably be called upon to initiate legislation that will preserve farmland, indefinitely, for the good of present and future generations of Canadians. This is, indeed, a matter of national security.

Tanya Brouwers is a Consultant for the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada. Please send comments or questions by phone to 902-893-7256 or by email to oacc@nsac.ca. One month after publication, OACC newspaper articles are archived at www.oacc.info

Christian Farmers Federation Responds to Pic 2c

More responses to PIC 2c.


Perth CFA Letter Regarding Highway 7&8

NEW Public Information Centre (PIC) #2c

The Consultants and the MTO have brought forward another PIC:

Wednesday April 22, 2009
Festival Inn - Shakespeare Room
1144 Ontario St. Stratford
4:00 pm - 8:00 pm

All details have been in the paper and some of us have received a mailing. For anyone else see below.

Hwy7_8PIC2CNotice

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Business & Law pic

NEW PIC's !!!

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