From the Environmental Registry: Updating the Schedule of Noxious Weeds in Ontario

Regulation Proposal Notice: Updating the Schedule of Noxious Weeds in R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 1096 - General made under the Weed Control Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. W-5.

Description of Regulation:

The Weed Control Act and Regulation 1096 prohibit listed noxious weeds from being grown where they have the potential to negatively affect agricultural land. The list in the regulation’s Schedule of Noxious Weeds is outdated. Proposed revisions include the removal of nine weeds that are no longer considered to be significant threats to agriculture or horticulture in Ontario and the addition of nine new weeds that are considered emerging threats to the agriculture industry within Ontario.

Purpose of Regulation:

The Schedule of Noxious Weeds in Regulation 1096 includes nine weed species that are no longer considered to be significant threats to agriculture or horticulture in Ontario. Designating some of these plant species as noxious weeds may be in conflict with conservation initiatives, most notably the restoration and conservation of habitat to support pollinator health. The nine plant species can be managed through modern management practices upon farmed land.

It is proposed that the following species currently listed in the Schedule of Noxious Weeds under R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 1096 be removed:

1. Colt’s-foot (Tussilago farfara L.)
2. Dodder spp. (Cuscuta spp.)
3. Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense (L.) Persoon)
4. Black-seeded proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L. (black-seeded biotype))
5. Yellow rocket (Barbarea spp.)
6. Cypress spurge (Euphorbia cyparissias L.)
7. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L. (complex))
8. Russian thistle (Salsola pestifer Aven Nelson)
9. Tuberous vetchling (Lathyrus tuberosus L.)

Removing some of the above weed species from the Schedule of Noxious Weeds would demonstrate support for sustaining biodiversity in Ontario. Some species, such as Colt’s-foot and yellow rocket, are also known to attract pollinating insects, such as bees.

The Schedule of Noxious Weeds in Regulation 1096 has not been subject to a comprehensive update for many years. Nine weed species have been identified that are considered to be emerging threats to the agriculture industry in Ontario. Some of the species recommended for addition have previously caused large losses in crop revenues in other jurisdictions (e.g., kudzu) and are of growing concern to Ontario farmers.

It is proposed that the following weed species are added to the Schedule of Noxious Weeds:

1. Smooth bedstraw (Gallium mollugo (L.))
2. Wild chervil (Anthriscus sylvestris)
3. Common crupina (Crupina vulgaris Cass.)
4. Jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrical Host)
5. Kudzu (Pueraria lobata)
6. Wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa)
7. Serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma)
8. Tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobeae)
9. Wolly cup grass (Eriochloa villosa (Thunb.) Kunth)
These proposed changes would support initiatives related to invasive alien species control, biodiversity, and the environment.

Public Consultation:

This proposal has been posted for a 33 day public review and comment period starting September 26, 2014. If you have any questions, or would like to submit your comments, please do so by October 29, 2014 to the individual listed under "Contact". Additionally, you may submit your comments on-line.
All comments received prior to October 29, 2014 will be considered as part of the decision-making process by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs if they are submitted in writing or electronically using the form provided in this notice and reference EBR Registry number 012-2634.
Please Note: All comments and submissions received will become part of the public record. You will not receive a formal response to your comment, however, relevant comments received as part of the public participation process for this proposal will be considered by the decision maker for this proposal.

Contact:

All comments on this proposal must be directed to:

Mike Cowbrough
Weed Management Field Crops Program Lead
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Economic Development Division
Agriculture Development Branch
Field Crops - University of Guelph Office
50 Stone Road East
Crop Science Building, University of Guelph
Guelph Ontario
N1G 2W1
Phone: (519) 824-4120 Ext. 52580

Ontario: Provincial Planning Act Policy Statement undergoing 5-year review

The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), the document that guides municipalities in planning decisions (including severances from farm properties) is undergoing its regular 5-year review.  Draft policies have been released for public review (see Draft Policies).  The main draft policy on agricultural areas is as follows:

2.3 Agriculture

2.3.1 Prime agricultural areas shall be protected for long-term use for agriculture.

Prime agricultural areas are areas where prime agricultural lands predominate. Specialty crop areas shall be given the highest priority for protection, followed by Canada Land Inventory Classes 1, 2, and 3, and any associated Class 4 to 7 soils within the prime agricultural area, in this order of priority.

2.3.2 Planning authorities shall designate prime agricultural areas and specialty crop areas in accordance with guidelines developed by the Province, as amended from time to time.

2.3.3 Permitted Uses

2.3.3.1 In prime agricultural areas, permitted uses and activities are: agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses.

Proposed agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses shall be compatible with, and shall not hinder, surrounding agricultural operations. Criteria for these uses may be based on guidelines developed by the Province or municipal approaches, as set out in municipal planning documents, which achieve the same objectives.

2.3.3.2 In prime agricultural areas, all types, sizes and intensities of agricultural uses and normal farm practices shall be promoted and protected in accordance with provincial standards.

2.3.3.3 New land uses, including the creation of lots, and new or expanding livestock facilities shall comply with the minimum distance separation formulae.

2.3.4 Lot Creation and Lot Adjustments

2.3.4.1 Lot creation in prime agricultural areas is discouraged and may only be permitted for:

a) agricultural uses, provided that the lots are of a size appropriate for the type of agricultural use(s) common in the area and are sufficiently large to maintain flexibility for future changes in the type or size of agricultural operations;

b) agriculture-related uses, provided that any new lot will be limited to a minimum size needed to accommodate the use and appropriate sewage and water services;

c) a residence surplus to a farming operation as a result of farm consolidation, provided that:

1. the new lot will be limited to a minimum size needed to accommodate the use and appropriate sewage and water services; and

2. the planning authority ensures that new residential dwellings are prohibited on any vacant remnant parcel of farmland created by the severance. The approach used to ensure that no new residential dwellings are permitted on the vacant remnant parcel may be recommended by the Province, or based on municipal approaches which achieve the same objective; and

d) infrastructure, where the facility or corridor cannot be accommodated through the use of easements or rights-of-way.

2.3.4.2 Lot adjustments in prime agricultural areas may be permitted for legal or technical reasons.

2.3.4.3 The creation of new residential lots in prime agricultural areas shall not be permitted, except in accordance with policy 2.3.4.1(c).

2.3.5 Removal of Land from Prime Agricultural Areas

2.3.5.1 Planning authorities may only exclude land from prime agricultural areas for:

a) expansions of or identification of settlement areas in accordance with policy 1.1.3.8;

b) extraction of minerals, petroleum resources and mineral aggregate resources, in accordance with policies 2.4 and 2.5; and

c) limited non-residential uses, provided that:

1. the land does not comprise a specialty crop area;

2. the proposed use complies with the minimum distance separation formulae;

3. there is a demonstrated need within the planning horizon provided for in policy 1.1.2 for additional land to be designated to accommodate the proposed use; and

4. alternative locations have been evaluated, and

i. there are no reasonable alternative locations which avoid prime agricultural areas; and

ii. there are no reasonable alternative locations in prime agricultural areas with lower priority agricultural lands.

2.3.5.2 Impacts from any new or expanding non-agricultural uses on surrounding agricultural operations and lands are to be mitigated to the extent feasible.

There are also other aspects of the proposed PPS that deal with agriculture, such as extraction of petroleum or aggregates from prime agricultural lands.

You can participate in the PPS review up to November 23, 2012:

Ontario is holding workshops in communities across the province. Please visit the regional workshops page or call 1-877-711-8208 if you have any questions.

To submit your comments electronically, complete this online questionnaire, or you can send written comments to:

Provincial Policy Statement Review
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Provincial Planning Policy Branch
777 Bay Street, 14th Floor
Toronto, ON M5G 2E5
Tel: 416-585-6014 or 1-877-711-8208
Fax: 416-585-6870
E-mail: PPSreview@ontario.ca

Please note: All comments and submissions received will become part of the public record.

Comments must be received no later than November 23, 2012.

NEB posts summary of abandonment estimates filed by pipeline companies

The National Energy Board has posted a "Summary of Group 1 Companies Physical Information Filed", setting out data related to the mode of pipeline abandonment proposed by Group 1 companies (large pipeline systems) that filed cost estimates with the NEB.  The chart provided juxtaposes the total km contained in pipeline systems against the km of pipeline that companies propose to remove upon abandonment.  The contrast is pretty striking.  At least in agricultural areas, companies propose to remove almost no pipe.  CAEPLA had proposed that cost estimates should be based on a conservative assumption of 100% removal.  Even the NEB had proposed 20% removal as the assumption to be used.  The pipeline industry obviously disagreed. 

TransCanada plans removal of 5.6% of 14,000 km of pipelines on abandonment

TransCanada Pipelines Limited has also submitted its application to the NEB for approval of its abandonment costs estimates.  TCPL has over 14,000 km of pipelines in Canada (not including the Keystone), more than half of which run through agricultural land.  Of the almost 8,000 km of pipe through agricultural lands, TCPL proposes to remove 1.7% on abandonment.  The rest of the pipe will be left in the ground with no continuing protection going forward. 

Read TransCanada's application at: TransCanada Preliminary Abandonment Costs Estimates. 

Enbridge plans to remove 0.6% of its pipelines on abandonment

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. plans to remove only 0.6% of its nearly 8,000 km of pipelines in Canada at the time of abandonment.  For agricultural land, only lands with "prospective future development" would have pipelines removed.  Pipelines would be abandoned in place in all other agricultural land with no "special treatment" for the pipelines.  This would include pipelines with a diameter of up to 48 inches.  More than 5,000 km of Enbridge pipelines run through cultivated land.   The 0.6% figure contrasts sharply with the 20% number identified by the National Energy Board (NEB) in its abandonment funding documentation.

Enbridge has applied to the NEB for approval of its plan for abandonment funding purposes.  The documents comprising Enbridge's application can be found at: Physical Plans for Abandonment and Preliminary Cost Estimates. 

Enbridge's application includes excerpts from a Praxis Research study conducted for the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA).  The study consisted of a landowner survey, and Enbridge says that its abandonment plans took the results of the survey into consideration.  However, more than 50% of respondents with Enbridge pipelines expressed concern about Enbridge pipelines being left in the ground.  Read the study excerpt at: CEPA Landowner Survey.

Saskatchewan Court allows recreational development in ranchland to go forward

A number of ranch land owners in the R.M. of Loon Lake, Saskatchewan asked the Court of Queen's Bench to quash or overturn by-laws that rezoned 44 acres owned by Kenneth and Patricia Prosser from agricultural to recreational use.  In order to allow for development proposed by the Prossers, the R.M. needed to change the Land Use Concept Map and Zoning District Map, which establish the general land use and development goals of the R.M. as set out in its Basic Planning Statement.

The landowners first challenged the by-laws on the basis that they were illegal due to a lack of substance.  They asserted that the bylaws were passed for an illegal purpose, that being solely for the economic consideration of allowing the recreational development.  The Court ruled that economic considerations were not the sole considerations of the R.M. council in passing the by-laws.

The second challenge was on the basis that the by-laws were not passed according to the proper process.  The Court disagreed.

The third challenge was that the by-laws were inconsistent with the general goal of the Basic Planning Statement, which is to maintain the agricultural character of the municipality by protecting prime agricultural land from being taking out of production, restricting lakeshore development to properties already zoned lakeshore development and not allowing lakeshore development within one mile of intensive livestock operations.  The R.M. acknowledged the importance of these points in the Basic Planning Statement, but argued that they should not be to the absolute exclusion of all other development contemplated within the Statement.  The Court agreed this was a reasonable interpretation of the Statement.

The fourth challenge by the landowners was based on minimum distance separation requirements related to intensive livestock operations.  The Court found that the requirements did not preclude development of a recreational subdivision and noted that the proposed development was to be on marginal grazing land rather than prime agricultural land.  The livestock facilities affected were not considered intensive by the R.M. council.  The Court reviewed this issue and found that this decision of the council was reasonable.

The fifth challenge to the by-laws was that they lacked landowner support.  The Court confirmed that it was for the R.M. council to decide what is in the best interests of the R.M. as a whole.  The public had been given an opportunity to be heard on the proposed development, but the decision was to be made by the councillors.

The sixth challenge by the landowners was that the site conditions were not suitable for the proposed development.  The Court found there was a lack of evidence to support this position.  The members of council viewed the site and the conditions of the site and reached a "constructive and reasonable decision" that the site was suitable for the development.

The seventh basis for challenging the by-laws was that there was insufficient demand for development of this sort to warrant a new development.  The Court found this was a "narrow and unrealistic approach" to what is in the best interest of the R.M. as a whole.  Members of council were aware of a "strong demand for lakeshore lots in this area of Saskatchewan".

The eighth and final basis for challenge by the landowners was an alleged failure by the council to have regard to concerns set out in section 10.1 of the Basic Planning Statement (development review criteria).  Based on affidavit evidence from the R.M., the Court found that those concerns were considered in the passing of the by-laws.

Justice Acton of the Queen's Bench concluded as follows:

Based upon the law in Saskatchewan as previously stated, the decision of council in amending the Land Use Concept Map and the Zoning Bylaw must be reasonable.

The decision of the council of the R.M. was reasonable, transparent and well thought out based on its jurisdiction and the reasons set out earlier in this judgment. Council has shown an understanding of the sometimes competing concerns respecting the maintaining of primary agricultural land, the encouragement of development of agricultural activities, and the need to develop lakeshore developments on marginal lands adjoining bodies of water for recreational purposes.

The applicants are unhappy with the proposed development. They have ranched for generations in the peaceful solitude and tranquillity of the area.

Their desire to maintain this lifestyle is understandable.

However, council has a responsibility to all inhabitants of the R.M. It must make decisions based on the best interests of all of the inhabitants of the R.M. As stated in s. 31 of the PDA, the Official Community Plan is to provide a comprehensive policy framework to guide the physical, environmental, economic, social and cultural development of the municipality. This is a broad and general policy which must guide the R.M.

Council has decided that the approval of this recreational development is in the long-term best interest for the advancement of the respondent municipality without preventing the continued use and development of the ranch lands in the area by local residents.

Council’s decision is in a range of reasonable, possible decisions.

Read the decision at: Morton v Loon Lake (Rural Municipality No 561).

Ontario Energy Board releases latest version of guidelines for pipeline construction in Ontario

The Ontario Energy Board has released the 6th edition of its guidelines concerning the construction and operation of energy pipelines in Ontario:
Environmental Guidelines for the Location, Construction and Operation of Hydrocarbon Pipelines and Facilities in Ontario.