Agriculture Business Community

4 Volume

AGRICULTURE BUSINESS COMMUNITY

Chapters: Perth East, Perth South & Wilmot West

Community Report

AGRI CU L TU RE BU S I NE SS COM MU NI T Y

Submitted to the Ministry of Transportation and AECOM for the response period ending October 30, 2009.

 Agriculture Business Community c/o 3649 Road 107, R.R. # 2 Tavistock, ON N0B 2R0 Phone 519.655.2613 • Fax 519.273.6367 Email [email protected]

A G R I C U L T U R E

B U S I N E S S

C O M M U N I T Y

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 2. Evaluation Criteria 3. Evaluation Factor - Agriculture 4. Considerations in Road Design 5. West of Stratford - Area of Special Interest 6. Satisfactory Compensation 7. Drainage 8. Sooner Rather Than Later

2

A G R I C U L T U R E

B U S I N E S S

C O M M U N I T Y

1

Chapter

Introduction The following represents the views and recommendations of the Agricultural Business Communities of Perth East, Perth South and Wilmot regarding Report F ( Part 2) Working Paper - Environmental Conditions and Constraints. This information was presented at Public Information Centres in August and September 2009 as part of the Highway 7&8 Transportation Corridor Planning and Class Environmental Assessment Study. We also suggest recommendations to set parameters for future phases in this work. This response builds upon the information provided in our previous submissions to the MTO on this project. 1 In this report we identify serious errors with some of the base-line data proposed for use by the consultants in their forthcoming evaluation of agriculture, along with faulty assumptions on their appraisal of agricultural buildings and the loss of land to producers who farm adjacent to existing roadways. We also highlight some areas of concern to the Agricultural Business Community (ABC) as this project proceeds to the selection of the preferred corridor. Before we outline our concerns for this particular stage in the Highway 7&8 Transportation Corridor Planning and Class EA Study, we want to recognize the MTO and their consultants for incorporating their new understanding of the “business of agriculture” into the study process. The core values of the Agricultural Business Community (ABC) include: 1. Recognizing agriculture as a business; 2. Protecting prime agricultural land (CLI Class 1, 2 & 3) for the business of agriculture; and 3. Minimizing impacts on agricultural business enterprises.

1

Volume 1, Questions, August 2008; Volume 2, Community Report, Sept. 2008; Volume 3, Community Report, Feb.2009 3

A G R I C U L T U R E

B U S I N E S S

C O M M U N I T Y

The revised set of agricultural evaluation criteria opens the door for a more informed understanding of the study area, as the consultants move forward in the selection of the preferred corridor and route within this corridor. We recognize and champion the critical importance of protecting class 1, 2 and 3 agricultural lands. It is also important for planning purposes to recognize that the long-term value of this land to society lies with the wise business practices of the individual producers. The introduction of the new criteria including farm infrastructure, farm operations and transportation linkages between multiple farm operations opens the way for an improved understanding of agriculture as it is practiced within the study area. The ABC is grateful for this addition. We do have concerns about the interpretation of these new criteria and their application in the selection of the preferred route and we will address these concerns in this report.

4

A G R I C U L T U R E

B U S I N E S S

C O M M U N I T Y

2

Chapter

Evaluation Criteria The evaluation criteria described in Report E Part 2 will be applied to the Preferred Corridor to determine the final route selection. Section 1.3 page 2 states that the “Purpose of Report F is to document existing environmental conditions and identify sensitivities and constraints….. Report F, Part 2…. documents (supplementary) field investigations”. It is therefore important that information presented in Report F Part 2 is accurate, as it will be used to compare the merits and drawbacks of one set of criteria versus another in order to select the final route. Exhibit 1-4 Preliminary Identification of Environmental Factors, Sub-Factors and Criteria to be Considered in the Generation, Assessment and Evaluation of Alternatives Report F (Part 2) page 5-6, lists 15 factors/sub-factors to be used in the identification of the preferred highway 7&8 corridor. Agriculture accounts for one of these factors. In addition, the agricultural land use designation also accounts for several of the other sub-factors e.g. heritage buildings, cultural heritage landscapes, specimen trees, aggregates, tourism attractions, source water protection areas, private wells, sensitive eco-systems, forests, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat.

Therefore: R 1: The protection of agriculture lands should be the number one priority in route selection. R 2: ABC recommends the final route make use of existing roads and avoid the use of agricultural lands.

5

A G R I C U L T U R E

B U S I N E S S

C O M M U N I T Y

3

Chapter

Evaluation Factor - Agriculture While the ABC is pleased with the development of the expanded criteria for the evaluation of agriculture, we are very concerned about the consultant’s interpretation and application of the new criteria to the agricultural landscape. Whereas spring and fall on-site inventories were made to document fish and wildlife species, the information for agriculture has been taken from secondary sources. As a result, some of the proposed information to be used is significantly out-of-date and other forms of analysis are misleading due to the subjective nature of how it was collected. Section 3.4.2 Agriculture Farm Infrastructure- rightly identifies farm drainage as a significant financial investment for agriculture. It also needs to be stated that an investment in drainage goes hand in hand with an increase in the land capability for agriculture. Lands with a lower inherent capability are greatly enhanced with drainage. The report presents several maps displaying agricultural lands with systematic and random field tile drainage. It is of course understood that there is significant financial investment in the construction of systematic tile drains. However, this data source is more than 5 years old. Significant acreages have been systematically tiled and drained since this data was collected. In one case ABC is aware that land was systematically tile drained in 2000 and yet this information does not appear on these maps. There will certainly be others. Farm drainage is a useful data set to access one aspect of farm infrastructure investment and improved land capability but only if the information is accurate. As it stands, these maps are out of date and not an accurate reflection of the study area. Therefore, they cannot be used to assess … “existing environmental conditions and identify sensitivities and constraints”. A second variable in the category of Farm Infrastructure is Exhibit 3.10 page 62 listing and describing farm buildings by farm fire address and ranking them. ABC is not in a position to comment on the accuracy of the list of buildings; however we do question the ranking system. The note at the bottom of the Exhibit states that “#1 building ranking is the best or highest apparent capital investment related to agriculture and #3 is limited apparent capital investment in agriculture.” 6

A G R I C U L T U R E

B U S I N E S S

C O M M U N I T Y

This ranking is subjective at best. A cursory review appears to show that all dairy barns are rated #1 while all others are either #2 or #3. What is the financial value range attributed to each category? Is there a significant difference between a category 1 and 3 or category 2 and 3? What of the capital investment within the barns livestock and equipment? This ranking system is subjective and arbitrary and not an accurate reflection of the relative value in capital investment between and among buildings. In its present form, this information cannot be used to assess relative impact of different road locations. More importantly, these buildings, and their land base, regardless of how you have rated them, are not stand alone investments but are necessary parts of an agricultural business. Section 3.4.3 page 70 states “the loss of small amount of farm frontage associated with widening/improvement will cause minimal disruption… within an individual farm.” This is a very general statement and does not reflect an understanding of the integrative nature of farm production, livestock and nutrient management. It also completely disregards the direct link between livestock numbers, nutrient management and income. Whenever/Wherever land is lost to the farm business; it has an impact on the farm operation. If the nutrient management plan is disrupted by loss of land, the producer has only two options - reduce livestock numbers or try to find additional adjacent land to compensate for this loss. This land may NOT be available and loss of income is not realistic. If biologists can be contracted to inventory the number of individual chorus frogs on properties within the corridor, why can’t an agricultural specialist be contracted to speak with producers within the corridor about the real costs to their operations if land is to be taken for highway development? The MTO Environmental Standards and Practices User Guide Checklist for Agriculture, item 4(e) specifically identify the need to determine the significance of a project activity on “nutrient management et al”. Considering the value of the agricultural lands and businesses that may be disrupted for use in the preferred corridor and subsequent route, this requirement in the MTO process comes far too late in the process to be of benefit to the community. ABC recognizes the principle stated in the MTO Environmental Standards and Practices User Guide “that transportation facilities cannot avoid all impacts and that some environmental protection requirements may not be feasible in every situation”……… BUT we expect that every effort should be made in the planning process to see that the best decisions are made on behalf of the community, environment and the population for whom the food is produced. We assume that these planning processes are designed in the best interests of the people of Ontario and their affected communities and that they are not simply arbitrary checklists to state that all bases have been covered regardless of how timely or how effective. At this stage in the planning process with the selection of the preferred route, detailed information is required. Groundwater is identified as evaluation criteria 1.3 on Exhibit 1-4. Page 30 states: “this chapter deals with the significance and sensitivity of ecological groundwater function and of groundwater as a resource, to the proposed widening, construction and operation of Highway 7&8.” Considering the number and size of the agricultural operations within this corridor and the importance to society of source water protection, it is a serious omission that the Nutrient Management Act is not cited in this section of the report review and that the potential implications to the alteration of the individual nutrient management plans along the corridor are not identified.

7

A G R I C U L T U R E

B U S I N E S S

C O M M U N I T Y

This section of the report further states: “It is recommended that every effort be made to mitigate any potential impacts….” This type of statement is too vague and conjectural as it provides no direction to the community on the options for mitigation that may be considered. How are we to provide informed responses to these proposals? We need details. R 3: ABC recommends the MTO consultants need to develop and apply an accurate inventory strategy to adequately define the impact on farm businesses along the corridor to be used in their evaluation and selection of the preferred route.

8

A G R I C U L T U R E

B U S I N E S S

C O M M U N I T Y

4

Chapter

Considerations in Road Design “We grow food for human consumption. Specialized equipment is used, such as bean pullers, windrowers, dryer wagons and combines. Trucks and huge grain trains take crops such as wheat, white beans, kidney beans and Soya beans from our fields. Peas and sweet corn are taken to canneries. Farm equipment is as vital to our operations as the land.” ABC member. The Necessary Movement of Farm Equipment For the non-farm population a general increase in the size of farm equipment, over the past three decades, has probably been the most visible feature of change in agriculture. While it is undeniable that tractors and combines and crop sprayers are larger today than even a decade ago it is not their size that presents the main challenge. It is an increase in their necessary movements, often across concessions and main highways that must be planned for carefully. In earlier decades most farms, even larger ones, were primarily contiguous. Lanes and side-roads were used to access fields but tractors and other equipment rarely strayed too far from the homestead except to move grain wagons to elevators. This model of farming hardly exists today. Instead, farmers often own as well as rent land that forms a patch-work quilt separated by several concessions and by regional and provincial highways. The feed requirements of large herd operations often entail several hundred acres of crops; crops that rotationally fill huge silos, with several silos per farm operation. What goes in must come out, and under nutrient management guidelines and directives, large acreages are needed to safely integrate manure back into the soil. All this can only be achieved through the road movement of assorted pieces of equipment to and from separated and non-contiguous acreages. The main equipment being constantly moved down roads are tractors, forage harvesters, forage wagons, large square and round balers, heavy duty bale wagons, as well as both solid and 9

A G R I C U L T U R E

B U S I N E S S

C O M M U N I T Y

liquid manure wagons. Farmers may crop alfalfa as many as four times per summer/fall as well as taking off thousands of tons of corn and corn silage in the fall. Corn is moved to drying facilities and silage moved to various silos. Seasonally, crop sprayers and combines need to get to the fields as well as plows and discs and cultivators and planters, often with 'wings' that hydraulically actuate. Some operators specialize in certain crops, such as forage, using a large base of rented land that is often owned by non-farming rural residents. Turnover of rented land is continuous and these specialty operators often must cover large territories of twenty or more miles. Other operators own special purpose equipment, such as large square balers, or combines, and hire themselves out as custom operators to their neighbors. Still others offer specialty farm services such as custom crop spraying which is environmentally regulated. As can be gleaned from the above it is the necessary movements of farm equipment, particularly at critical harvest points, that must be accommodated in highway planning throughout our townships. Traffic specialists might be quite surprised at the levels of agricultural equipment movement on all roads adjacent to and intersecting Highway 7/8 from New Hamburg to Stratford in all directions and beyond.

The Implications From an agricultural perspective there are three areas of design for an improved Highway 7/8 that require special attention. These are (1) operational access to non-contiguous acreages which will be influenced by the closure of any side-roads and farm lanes; (2) the design of highway grade separations and shoulders to ensure the safe movement of very heavy equipment; and (3) clarity with regard to appropriate use of a provincial highway for the movement of farm equipment including liability. (1) Farm Operational Access The members of ABC have serious concerns about the closure of north/south side-roads and farm lanes leading to restrictions on access to farm properties and non-contiguous acreages. While ABC realizes that 'access management strategies' will be deployed in order to use the existing 7/8 corridor there are still concerns that farm 'islanding' may happen in some instances. The MTO must realize that by limiting farm access and creating barriers to the movement of equipment and crop produce they are, in effect, dissecting farm businesses and therefore influencing daily operations and long-term farm business viability. Besides the necessary movement of farm equipment as detailed above, there are safety issues related to the intense winter snow squalls that begin at Road 101 and carry through to Stratford. The sections of Highway 7/8 under study are often closed to traffic and side-roads are used as alternate routes or as alternates for emergency vehicles if they are passable. R 4: ABC recommends that during detailed route planning along the corridor considerable effort be directed to minimize any barriers to the movement of agricultural equipment and to retain the highest possible levels of unimpeded access via concession roads and regional highways. (2) Road Intersection Design and Shoulders Let us assume for a moment that highway 7/8 remains two lanes for several years. What is needed to make it safer under current conditions given current traffic types and counts? From the perspective of the movement of agricultural equipment there are two features that need attention. First, left turn lanes are needed for 'at grade' intersections with all municipal crossroads. This improvement alone would take some pressure off the route as it is the habit of drivers (even truckers) to pass vehicles turning left by going around them on the right hand shoulder, a practice that is not really legal. For agricultural equipment, left turn lanes would enable farmers to wait for traffic to open up and not be worried that they are holding up those behind them.

10

A G R I C U L T U R E

B U S I N E S S

C O M M U N I T Y

Second, road shoulders do not need to be paved but they do need to be wide enough so that large equipment can safely traverse and transition across both paved and unpaved sections of road. In the case of avoidance actions taken by all types of vehicles, a wider shoulder is a safer shoulder. The angle of the shoulder grade is also a factor. Farmers pulling heavily loaded grain forage and bale wagons down the road do not want to encounter any steep gradients in the transition from pavement to shoulder. Any sharply falling gradient introduces lateral instability in the load and may cause either tipping or tail-wagging. R 5: ABC recommends special attention be paid to turning lanes at grade intersections and to wider and gentler shoulder designs, regardless of whether these features are incorporated as 'access management strategies' for a future four-lane highway or even if the road remains two lane but is eventually improved or repaved.

(3) Appropriate Highway Use and Liability 2 What happens when a licensed vehicle is in a highway accident with a piece of agricultural equipment? What are the rules that govern the road use of agricultural equipment and what determines the direction of liability in cases of claims? The movement of farm equipment on roads and highways is regulated, in part, by provisions within Ontario's Highway Traffic Act. The main sections of the act that apply are summarized in a document available on-line.3 The impression one has, when reading this document, is that farm equipment enjoys a very large number of exceptions to normal practice.4 For certain there are some sensible restrictions, such as the fact that farm equipment is banned from all 400 series highways, including sections of Highway 7/8 that qualify as controlled access portions. Indeed, should the province proceed with its original vision of a controlled access route for 7/8 from New Hamburg to Stratford, the travel logistics presented to ABC farmers in our area would be huge. However, selection of the existing corridor will open up other possibilities. The Province allows unlicensed farm vehicles to travel all roads and highways (except 400 series) almost without restriction. There are no length, width5, height or weight limits for farm vehicles on these roads. A farmer with a tractor and grain-wagon combination cannot be ordered to a weigh scale and issued a ticket as can truckers. Additionally, farmers moving agricultural equipment are not required to observe any half-load or weight restricted load conditions (such as class B bridges) when traveling. Any combination of tractor and wagons or implements is possible for any total length provided that each connecting section is secured by safety chains, and that the final rear section is provided with a slow moving vehicle sign. Farm vehicles are entitled to use the full right of way on paved highways as long as they do not impede the right of way for traffic in the opposite direction. Farm vehicles can also use the road shoulder, as this is defined as part of the roadway, or any combination of both pavement and shoulder in order to accommodate large pieces of equipment. Like all licensed vehicles, when farm vehicles use public roads the active use of signals is required for all turns and for stopping, but hand signals will suffice. In the interests of safety from well before dusk until well after dawn farm vehicles must also abide by rigorous vehicle lighting rules as do other vehicles.

2

References supplied by Ontario Federation of Agriculture

3

. http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pubs/farm-guide/index.shtml

4

Certain definitions apply to farm vehicles, so self-propelled combines and forage harvesters etc. are referred to as a SPIH – Self-Propelled Instruments of Husbandry and so on. 5

Over-dimensional farm vehicles (wider than 12.5 feet) do have certain lighting requirements but there is no actual width restriction.

11

A G R I C U L T U R E

B U S I N E S S

C O M M U N I T Y

Generally ABC believes that farmers are often unsure about the Traffic Act provisions. Many farmers think they don’t have the right to drive on the paved portion of highways and so they drive on the shoulder to allow others to pass. Certainly there is some social pressure on farmers when using heavily traveled Highways, as cars and trucks pile up quickly and danger arises from vehicles wanting to urgently pass. But when moving agricultural equipment farmers are still driving a vehicle (or a combination of vehicles) and the same general right of way rules apply despite speed differences. If a police officer investigates an incident or accident, the same set of rules, responsibilities and liabilities pertain as for other drivers. However, accident or damage liability is normally provided through farm insurance policies and liability claims are adjusted by Insurance Companies. For instance, while the total weight of farm vehicle loads is unregulated should a farmer damage or destroy a road shoulder or a bridge as a result of gross vehicle weight then liability may be assigned.6 Instances of accident avoidance where grain wagons may overturn and tractors may end up hitting culvert abutments and so on may also have liability assigned. The circumstances of accidents are investigated as if the drivers and the farm vehicles were any other general road user. The Traffic Act clearly states that all drivers are responsible for ensuring the vehicles they conduct are neither dangerous nor unsafe to any person and this applies equally to farm equipment. As a rule, good signage helps drivers anticipate trouble. If the existing corridor is used for future expansion of 7/8 and if access management strategies are deployed, we believe it would be prudent to also provide signage that alerts other drivers that farm equipment frequently uses the corridor and may be turning. We are not sure this is a regular practice of MTO, although signs indicating that horse drawn vehicles may be encountered are found on some regional and possibly provincial highways. R 6: ABC recommends that any future highway designs for 7/8 along the existing corridor takes into special consideration the inevitable ‘mixed’ nature of traffic – cars, trucks, and farm equipment – and for safety, that design features and signage be tailored to these mixed needs.

6

In cases where there is no farm liability insurance coverage, negligence, liability and damages are handled through civil court.

12

A G R I C U L T U R E

B U S I N E S S

C O M M U N I T Y

5

Chapter

West of Stratford - Area of Special Interest The ABC believes the section of the proposed Highway 7 &8 Transportation Corridor west of Erie Street in Stratford needs to be highlighted as an Area of Special Interest and further work needs to be completed before MTO proceeds with the selection of a preferred route. The preferred corridor identified in PIC 3 in the area west of Erie Street and connecting with Highway 8 will create a no-win situation for agricultural producers whose farms are within or adjacent to this corridor. Valuable agricultural land will be lost and the farm businesses on those lands will be stalled. We believe this to be an unintended result of the planning process that was initiated in 2006 and one that must be rectified now that relevant information has come to light. The proposed MTO corridor for the stretch of Highway 7 &8 west of Erie Street calls for “geometric improvements to existing 2-lane highway and municipal roads - Highway 8, Perth Road 125, Perth Road 32/Lorne Avenue.” The geometric improvements include very wide curves at the intersections of Lorne Avenue and Road 125 and the intersection of Highway 8 and Road 125 to meet provincial highway standards. These large intersections will destroy active farm businesses as well as taking land from the fronts of several farms along these existing roads. From the beginning of this study in 2007/2008 the community has been told repeatedly: . No funds have been set aside by the Province for road development. . The earliest road construction could begin would be 2012 if all approvals are granted. . Road development will be made in stages. . Construction priorities will be based on need. . Construction will not begin until need is justified. . The final plan will sit in a file until funds are activated. The need for this stretch of highway has never been presented to the community and our information suggests that a need cannot be justified today, and furthermore we doubt that sufficient need will arise in 13

A G R I C U L T U R E

B U S I N E S S

C O M M U N I T Y

the planning horizon to 2031. Table 1 on the following page shows MTO Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes for the study area for the thirty-year period 1976-2006. The 2006 figures for these traffic volumes at the west boundary of Stratford are the same as those recorded for the Waterloo-New Hamburg section in 1980 - over 26 years ago. The figures for the boundary of Perth and Huron Counties are less than half those figures recorded for the New Hamburg intersection thirty years ago! MTO 30 Year Traffic Volume Summary 1976-2006* Annual Average Daily Traffic (The average 24 hour, two-way traffic for the period January 1 – December 31)

Location

1976

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2006

7,050

8,050

7,000

10,450

14,800

17,700

20,700

21,300

6,650

8,700

6,900

9,250

7,750

10,000

10,800

10,700

6,450 4,300 3,400

6,300 4,200 3,400

5,700 4,400 3,100

7,500 5,650 3,700

7,050 6,250 3,650

7,600 6,500 3,800

7,950 6,550 3,800

8,000 6,550 3,800

Highway 7 Waterloo Rd 51-New Hamburg Waterloo Rd 1Waterloo/Perth Boundary

Highway 8 Stratford West Limits Perth Road 135 Perth-Huron Boundary * Data provided by MTO Highway 8 leaves Perth County and enters Huron County where the population has continued to decline in the census years 2001 to 2006 and also from 1996 to 2001.7 Even the Province’s Drive Clean program defines Huron County as a slow growth area.89 Our previous report documented population declines in Perth East and Perth South between 2001 and 2006 and Stratford's growth at 2.3% was quite modest, even when compared to the provincial average growth of 6.6%. Population projections made for the County of Perth predicted a population for Stratford, in 2006, of 32,028 people whereas 2006 census data counted 30,461. Similarly, Perth East's growth up to 2006 was overestimated by nearly 13% and Perth South's by nearly 17%. Both 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. ABC understands the MTO requires that new highway development connect ‘a Kings highway to a Kings highway’ and we note that the Terms of Reference developed for this study in 2006 identify the study westerly boundary as “a north/south line joining Highway 8 at the intersection of Perth County Road 125 (Sebringville) and Highway 7 at the intersection of Perth Road 20 (near St. Paul’s Station). This stretch of highway seems to be caught in a “no-mans land”. It was included in the original study area as defined in the RFP and so the consultant is mandated to identify a route to connect Highway 7 through 7

Huron County Health Unit, 2009, Huron County Community Health Status Report ;page 14 http://www.huroncounty.ca/econdev/workforce.php

8

Ontario Drive Clean Home Page; paragraph 2

9

Drive Clean Program Map 14

A G R I C U L T U R E

B U S I N E S S

C O M M U N I T Y

Stratford to Highway 8 and Sebringville. However, upon analysis, this section of the study area does not generate the traffic numbers to trigger highway development. In addition this stretch of highway connects Perth County with Huron County, an area with ongoing population decline. There appears to be no trigger in the MTO funding process to warrant development of this end of the study area, now and in the long distant future. Yet agriculture and several individual producers are in the line of this ill-defined process. This stretch of highway may hang in limbo for untold years. During this same time, farm producers who will be identified within the selected route will have their businesses left in limbo as time marches on. Designating this as a future highway will impact farm financing, potential land sale, sale price and the investment model the individual producers are prepared to risk with an unknown future in their horizon. In our October 30, 2008 submission to the MTO we questioned the need for a four-lane highway based on the provided trip records and population projections for the landscape that the highway will pass through. It was comforting to hear the Consultant Project Manager, Brenda Jamieson at the ABC public meeting in September 2009, state that the population figures for the Perth County stretch of this highway will be based on Perth County population growth statistics and not information developed for the Greater Golden HorseShoe. ABC now needs the same level of recognition of the lack of need for the stretch of highway west of Erie Street, Stratford. The MTO and the consultants need to step back from this process and develop a creative approach to protect the future of the agricultural producers in this area, the community, and to maintain the integrity of the planning process. Practically speaking, the MTO is talking about using existing roads and since there appears to be no need for 4 lanes west of highway 7 why not consider just improving the roads that are there now and let traffic continue to flow as it does ? .

R 7: ABC recommends that the section of the proposed Highway 7 & 8 Transportation Corridor west of Erie Street in Stratford needs to be identified as an Area of Special Interest and further work needs to be completed to address these issues before MTO proceeds with the selection of a preferred corridor and route in this part of the study area.

15

A G R I C U L T U R E

B U S I N E S S

C O M M U N I T Y

6

Chapter

Chapter 6: Satisfactory Compensation The consultants and MTO will present a preferred route for community review and comment in the winter of 2010. At that time, the ABC will know the route the highway development will take and its broad impact on the agricultural business communities of Perth East, Perth South and Wilmot. Individual producers will know if their land is affected. They will need to determine how much land will be lost to production; whether the route will also take their homes; what farm infrastructure will be impacted; if drainage will be infringed on and the impact on their nutrient management plans. They will need to assess future farm income from a decreased property base and calculate the impact it will have on their business. It will be a complicated assessment and a frustrating one as the majority of producers are not willing venders. They didn’t plan on selling any or all of their land base and the market can no longer play a role in their future. Their land is now a highway and their future will depend on their negotiations with a single party – the Province. One of the key questions from producers throughout this process is to understand how compensation will be determined. Throughout the life of the ABC, we have not heard any comments from landowners about their great success in negotiating compensation from the Province on other projects. The question of fairness is always foremost on their minds. Many have built businesses over several generations; many are young and hoping to expand. Farm land is sold by word of mouth in this community and few opportunities arise to expand one’s land base. Land sells for a premium as its value is recognized. The ABC understands that the Province has a method of land purchase and they follow the rules applied under the Expropriations Act. Early discussions on this matter indicate compensation is based on the appraised value of land and buildings and equipment and the impacts that fall under the general heading of “injurious affection”.

We understand that injurious affection is the right or ability of a landowner to claim compensation from a public authority when they, such as the MTO construct a public work, such as a highway, or when they take other steps that adversely affect the value of the landowner's property, even in cases when no land is physically taken from the landowner. 16

A G R I C U L T U R E

B U S I N E S S

C O M M U N I T Y

Basically landowners are compensated for the market value of the land, “disturbance damages”, “damages attributable to injurious affection”, special difficulties in relocation and business loss. We also understand from a quick review of internet resources, that the question of the compensability of claims under the heading “injurious affection” is unclear and leads to legal battles, time and lengthy court cases. The ABC endeavors to educate the MTO and their consultants in the area of agricultural business in order for them to make better decisions in the Highway 7&8 Transportation Corridor Planning and Class Environmental Assessment Study on behalf of the community.

The ABC would like to offer the skills and experience of our members to work with the consultants and MTO in the development of a set of principles to be applied in the approach to compensation of agricultural lands and businesses. In turn we will inform our members of the obstacles they will face on an individual basis. Our members can assist in identifying the agricultural issues affecting market value, identifying and describing the nature and impact of damages attributable to disturbances and agricultural business losses, and foreseeable damages attributable to injurious affection. MTO and their specialists can inform the community of the types of accurate records they should be maintaining, time lines and other strategic information. R 8: ABC recommends the MTO initiate a study process to work with the ABC in the development of compensation principles to be applied to agricultural business that will be affected by the highway development in and along the final route. The ABC brings the expertise of this community to this important question and can assist the MTO in defining the study process and clarifying issues faced by the agricultural business community. The MTO can educate the ABC members in the responsibilities of the Province in the wise use of tax dollars in providing compensation to landowners for highway development.

17

A G R I C U L T U R E

B U S I N E S S

C O M M U N I T Y

7

Chapter

Drainage ABC continues to have concerns about the drainage implications of an expanded Highway 7/8 even if the existing corridor is used. We will reiterate the main points we touched on in our earlier briefs and the points, which you provided in response. 1) The impact on public drains due to highway development is a serious municipal concern and municipal councils require assurance that surface water can be brought to 'sufficient outlet'. 2) This assurance may require municipal appointment of drainage engineers to investigate and review municipal drains in light of highway designs. 3) MTO believes such assurance is essentially a 'peer review' of MTO’s own 'reference standard' engineering expertise in drainage and hydrology and does not expect to fund the cost of such work. 4) ABC does not dispute the engineering expertise or standards MTO applies. Our concern, based on past experience, is with the full implementation of all drainage and hydrology design features during construction phases by road building contractors. ABC will continue its efforts to press for complete satisfaction for the landowner. 5) Both ABC and MTO agree that the impact of highway development on private tile drainage systems and their mitigation must be incorporated into future detailed design steps. 6) MTO has committed to address any specific impacts to private drainage systems and to pay for the cost associated with system modifications by licensed drainage contractors. After the Public Information Centres held in August and September, concern was expressed by ABC members, that MTO and the consultants are working with either inadequate or outdated representations of existing drainage lines and routes. ABC members note that the OMAFRA Drainage maps in Report F, pages 58 to 61, are seriously out of date. The date on the map used in Report F is 2006 yet for some producers drainage work they completed in the year 2000 is not represented on the base maps. Municipal drainage plans and maps often lag actual activity and the plans for private drainage systems are frequently held at the farm. With the selection of the preferred corridor ABC has urged its members,

18

A G R I C U L T U R E

B U S I N E S S

C O M M U N I T Y

both by email and public meetings, to identify the potential impact of the selected corridor on their drainage systems and to communicate these concerns in writing to the study team. It is beyond the capacity of ABC's volunteers to canvas all affected landowners or to consolidate comprehensive drainage maps. However, in some instances we have assisted landowners in identifying their drains. We believe that for matters of drainage liability and their associated costs the individual landowners must become engaged in the highway planning process. At this time we do not know how many landowners will communicate their concerns to the study team. Your feedback on this matter is solicited so that we may encourage our members to respond in future as appropriate. R 9: ABC recommends when route selection is complete, but certainly before the Class EA study is finalized, all landowners along the final route are systematically contacted by the study team and all drains, both public and private, along the route are clearly identified for future engineering input.

19

A G R I C U L T U R E

B U S I N E S S

C O M M U N I T Y

8

Chapter

Sooner Rather Than Later ABC has from its very beginnings had issues with the time-lines being proposed by MTO for Highway 7/8 redevelopment. When the project was initially presented, the study consultants were suggesting that this was 'just a Class EA study' and that actual highway development might be twenty or thirty years away, depending on traffic counts, and maybe never. Our issue with this approach is two-fold. On the one hand ABC has never been a 'stop the road' group, and we strongly favour highway improvements. Many of us live on the road or close to it and use it routinely and all are aware of the dangers and deficiencies. Many have lost relatives or friends in horrendous accidents. Public highway safety has always been a major consideration in the positions ABC has put forward. It seems to us that favourable outcomes are predicted for the current Class EA process and that these outcomes involve so much time, energy and money, that important decisions should not be delayed until later decades. On the other hand, for land-owners adjacent to the selected route, we believe it is not fair that their properties and businesses go into a suspended period of uncertainty. Closure of the process, as expeditiously as possible, is the preferable course. In other words, it is the view of ABC that further development of the corridor, initially with road allowance acquisitions, should begin immediately after the Class EA study is filed and approved. We will encourage and press for this outcome. The main idea is to keep the movement rolling and start the improvements sooner rather than later. Since the presently preferred corridor will not require a closed access design, this opens many possibilities for the road to be improved and developed in a series of phased or staged sections. The priority assigned to phases would depend on the completion of road allowance acquisitions, on traffic counts, and on congestion issues. R 10: ABC recommends MTO develop a strategy to facilitate moving forward with new phases of highway design and development immediately after the Class EA study is approved. Land acquisition in the stretches of heaviest use should be a preferred starting point. Another possibility, where some work should be launched quickly, is to seek access to infrastructure funding available for rehabilitation of roads and highways. A simple repaving of sections of the current 7/8 would be beneficial to all highway users for many years.

20