Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
June 4, 2009
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.
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:
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.
• Rural heritage will continue to be covered under the cultural environment sub-factors, which
include, but are not restricted to:
o buildings or standing sites of architectural or heritage significance, or Ontario
Heritage Foundation easement properties;
o heritage bridges; and
o 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
2
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.
Sincerely,