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.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)