Report to / Rapport au:

Joint Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee and

Planning and Development Committee

Réunion conjointe du Comité chargé de l’agriculture et des questions rurales et du Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement

and Council / et au Conseil

25 June 2002 / le 25 juin 2002

Submitted by / Soumis par: Ned Lathrop, General Manager / Directeur général

Development Services Department / Services d’aménagement

Contact / Personne-ressource: Richard Kilstrom, Manager, Community Design and Environment / Gestionnaire, Conception et milieu communautaire

580-2424, ext, 22653; richard.kilstrom@ottawa.ca

Ref N°: ACS2002-DEV-POL-0020

SUBJECT: PROPOSED NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF OTTAWA SITE PLAN CONTROL BY-LAW AND TO THE ZONING BY-LAWS OF THE FORMER MUNICIPALITIES AND TOWNSHIPS OF NEPEAN (SOUTHERN SECTION), GLOUCESTER, CUMBERLAND (RURAL), OSGOODE, RIDEAU, GOULBOURN, KANATA (MARCH RURAL COMMUNITY) AND WEST CARLETON.

OBJET : STRATÉGIE PROPOSÉE RELATIVEMENT À LA GESTION DES ÉLÉMENTS NUTRITIFS ET MODIFICATIONS AU RÈGLEMENT MUNICIPAL DE RÉGLEMENTATION DES PLANS D’IMPLANTATION DE LA VILLE D’OTTAWA ET AUX RÈGLEMENTS MUNICIPAUX DE ZONAGE DES ANCIENNES MUNICIPALITÉS ET DES ANCIENS CANTONS DE NEPEAN (SECTEUR SUD), GLOUCESTER, CUMBERLAND (RURAL), OSGOODE, RIDEAU, GOULBOURN, KANATA (COMMUNAUTÉ RURALE DE MARCH) ET WEST CARLETON

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the Agricultural and Rural Affairs and Planning and Development Committees recommend that Council approve the nutrient management strategy, including revision to the site plan control process to require preparation and implementation of a nutrient management plan as a condition of site plan approval, as detailed in Document 1.

2. That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council amend the Site Plan Control By-law to make intensive livestock operations subject to Site Plan Control approval as detailed in Document 2.

3. That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council amend the comprehensive zoning by-laws of the former municipalities and townships of Nepean (Southern Section), Gloucester, Cumberland (Rural), Osgoode, Rideau, Goulbourn, Kanata (March Rural Community) and West Carleton to define intensive livestock operation and to list the use in all zones where agricultural uses are permitted as detailed in Document 3.

4. That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council amend the comprehensive zoning by-laws of the former townships of Osgoode, Rideau and West Carleton in order to require a Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) for agricultural uses as detailed in Document 3.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

1. Que le Comité chargé de l’agriculture et des questions rurales ainsi que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement recommandent au Conseil d’approuver la stratégie relative à la gestion des éléments nutritifs, y compris la révision du processus de réglementation des plans d’implantation en vue de requérir la préparation et la mise en œuvre d’un plan de gestion des éléments nutritifs comme conditions pour l’approbation des plans d’implantation, tel qu’il est expliqué dans le Document 1.

2. Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement recommande au Conseil de modifier le Règlement municipal de réglementation des plans d’implantation afin que les exploitations d’élevage intensif soient assujetties à l’approbation des plans d’implantation, tel qu’il est expliqué dans le Document 2.

3. Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement recommande au Conseil de modifier les règlements généraux de zonage des anciennes municipalités et des anciens cantons de Nepean (Secteur Sud), Gloucester, Cumberland (rural), Osgoode, Rideau, Gloubourn, Kanata (communauté rurale de March) et West Carleton en vue de définir l’exploitation d’élevage intensif et d’en répertorier l’usage dans tous les secteurs où les usages agricoles sont permis, tel qu’il est expliqué dans le Document 3.

4. Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement recommande au Conseil de modifier les règlements généraux de zonage des anciens cantons d’Osgoode, de Rideau et de West Carleton en vue de requérir une distance de séparation minimale (DSM) pour les usages agricoles, tel qu’il est expliqué dans le Document 3.

BACKGROUND

On September 12, 2001, City Council enacted Interim Control By-law 2001-371 prohibiting the use of land, buildings or structures for the establishment of new intensive livestock operations or the expansion and conversion of existing farm operations into intensive livestock operations in the Cumberland Ward for a period of one year. The purpose of the interim control by-law is to facilitate a review of the land use impact of intensive livestock operations and, if necessary, to recommend zoning controls that would regulate these uses. This review was initiated in response to an application for a building permit for the conversion of an existing dairy farm located on Lafleur Road, north east of Sarsfield, to a large hog farm.

The establishment of large livestock farms raises concerns about the potential impact on the environment due to a higher concentration of livestock and the associated volumes of manure to be applied to the land. Environmental concerns often raised by the surrounding community relate to odour and its effect on public health, and the quality and quantity of surface and ground water.

Concerns are also raised related to the size and location of intensive livestock farms. Should intensive livestock farms be limited in size given the intensity of the use? Should greater separation distances be provided between this type of farming operation and villages and rural residential developments than those that would currently apply under the Minimum Distance Separation formula? Should they be allowed anywhere in the agricultural area or be restricted in some manner?

A proposed nutrient management by-law and suggested zoning regulations, which were drafted to respond to these concerns, were tabled with the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee on April 15^th, 2002, together with a recommended consultation process. The consultation process was approved and undertaken.

This report represents the culmination of this review and recommends the approval of:

- a nutrient management strategy;

- amendments to the City of Ottawa Site Plan Control By-law to make intensive livestock farms subject to site plan control approval; and

- amendments to the zoning by-laws

1. of former municipalities and townships which allow agricultural uses in order to define intensive livestock operation and to list the use in the agricultural and rural zones; and

2. to require the use of the Minimum Distance Separation in the calculation when siting proposed developments within the former townships of Osgoode, Rideau and West Carleton.

The recommended nutrient management strategy and amendments to existing by-laws replace the earlier draft nutrient management by-law.

DISCUSSION

What is nutrient management?

Nutrient management consists of identified best practices for safe nutrient handling and containment and optimal use of the nutrients as a resource or input to crop production. Nutrients vary in their form and include chemically produced granular fertilizers, fertilizer solutions, compost, biosolids, manufacturing process by-products and manure.

For livestock operations, manure is the form that is of the greatest interest for ensuring effective nutrient management. Its use as a resource consists predominantly of land-based application. Determination of land application rates involves balancing the relationship between the volume and nutrient concentration of the manure, the nutrient content of the soil, and the nutrient requirements of the crop.

Why regulation on nutrient management now when the Province is preparing its own nutrient management legislation?

Why adopt municipal nutrient management regulations dealing with intensive livestock operations now when the Province has introduced a Bill (Bill 81 – Nutrient Management Act) to regulate such agricultural uses?

Bill 81 – A Nutrient Management Act has received Third Reading. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) plans to consult on the regulations under this Act during the summer and fall of 2002 with the Act and associated regulations to come into effect on Janaury 1, 2003.

Implementation of the Act and regulations is expected in a phased approach, with the largest livestock operations, potentially those larger than 450 livestock units, to be the first group subject to the new legislation. Details of the regulations are not yet known, however, they will require all livestock farms to prepare and employ nutrient management plans. Farms will have varied filing requirements, based on size, ranging from on-site filing to submission to the Province. It is also expected that this legislation will attempt to incorporate the recommendations of the Walkerton Inquiry; recommendations specific to farms included the preparation of on-site source protection plans.

In the meantime, an application has been received by the City for the establishment of an intensive hog farm near Sarsfield. The City has no regulations to deal with such an intense land use and, for that reason, adopted an Interim Control By-law on September 12, 2001. This by-law prohibits any new intensive livestock operations to be established within Cumberland Ward for a period of one year so that an analysis of the issue can be undertaken and, if appropriate, regulations can be implemented.

Current trends in agriculture show a decline in the overall numbers of farm operations balanced by a compensating increase in farm size. There is, therefore, a need to ensure that these large farming operations adopt farming practices which continue to be sustainable in terms of their impact on the environment.

In addition, the agricultural and rural communities have expressed the need to ensure the use of best farm practices and the compatibility of adjacent land uses. Reasons for this interest include:

- the ability to practice successful agricultural business operations;

- the ability to enjoy the benefits of rural surroundings as a quiet, peaceful and clean place to live;

- a reasonable assurance of a healthy environment – air, water and soil – that contributes positively to the health and safety of the residents who live there; and

- a desire to accommodate various land uses in the rural community, without conflict.

These key objectives of the rural community have been expressed through various public consultation processes and feedback sources related to nutrient management, both within Ontario and the City of Ottawa. Similar objectives are captured in policies within our current and developing Official Plans and their achievement represents a responsibility in which the City has a significant role.

Some 70 municipalities in Ontario have adopted or are in the process of adopting nutrient management by-laws in order to regulate intensive livestock operations within their boundaries. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food supports this action as an interim measure until provincial standards are in place and supercede local nutrient management by-laws.

Results of Public Consultation

Between April and June 2002, the City sought public input on a draft nutrient management by-law and associated zoning regulations. A listing of the comments received at the May and June sessions, as well as a summary of comments and how these were considered in the final strategy, are provided in Documents 4, 5 and 6.

In general, public feedback represented both the agricultural and non-farm residential parts of the rural community. Rural residential concerns related to the size of intensive livestock operations and their location near villages, rural residential subdivisions and institutional uses. They also expressed concerns about the possible concentration of such uses in any given rural areas of the City. Many emphasized that they were not against farming but did wish to ensure that their environment, particularly their air and water, remained healthy. Many of the farmers who attended the public sessions expressed support for nutrient management planning. Their concerns related mainly to practical application and economic impacts of limiting the size and location of farms and regulating the distance which manure could be hauled for land application. In addition, most farmers strongly opposed specifying hog farms for specific rules, expressing that other livestock types would likely be targeted in later regulations.

Provisions that were initially proposed but which are not included in the current nutrient management strategy are described below along with the rationale for their status. The following section on the Proposed Nutrient Management Strategy highlights those provisions recommended for adoption.

Size and Intensity of Livestock Operation

It is important to note that an intensive livestock operation, as proposed in the City, is not a “factory farm”. The term “factory farm” is widely used in the United States to designate concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO). The United States’ Environmental Protection Agency defines an animal feeding operation (AFO) as a facility where “animals are stabled/confined, or fed/maintained, for 45 days or more within any 12-month period, and the facility does not produce any crops, vegetation or forage growth.” Generally, a limited land base is associated with these operations. A CAFO is defined as “an AFO which: 1) has more than 1,000 animal units, or 2) has 301-1000 animal units and waste are discharged through man-made conveyance or directly into US waters; or 3) is designated a CAFO by the permitting authority on a case-by-case basis.”

In Ontario, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) has defined an intensive livestock operation as an agricultural operation accommodating livestock which either exceeds 150 livestock units, or exceed 50 livestock units with a livestock density of more than 5 livestock units per tillable hectare. The livestock are not necessarily fed/maintained in a confined environment. OMAF encourages livesock farms to prepare a nutrient management plan. Through this process, an intensive livestock operation is required to own and/or have sufficient land to apply the manure produced by the livestock it accommodates and, more significantly, has to balance the crop nutrient requirements with the nutrient concentrations of the soil and manure. An intensive livestock operation is, therefore, an agricultural use actively involved in crop production, which is not the case for “animal feeding operations” or “concentrated animal feeding operations” (also referred to as “factory farm”) as defined by the United States’ Environmental Protection Agency.

A cap of 450 livestock units was suggested, for discussion during the consultation process, under the zoning regulations. This number corresponded to the upper limit of the Category 2 farms (150–450 livestock units) defined by the Task Force on Bill 81 – The Nutrient Management Act. Requirements for these operations include compliance with the MDS formula, a nutrient management plan approved by a third party, and adequate storage capacity for the manure. The intent of the cap was to prohibit any large intensive livestock operations from establishing in the City of Ottawa due to the large amount of land required by such operations and their potential impact on surrounding land uses.

However, land zoned for agriculture is meant to accommodate farming activities and this use should remain a priority for the City. In the establishment of an intensive livestock operation, if the Minimum Distance Separation formula II is met, a nutrient management plan is completed, and there is sufficient manure storage capacity, the size of the operation should not be an issue. The establishment of a maximum number of livestock units would affect the ability of existing farms to expand and compete in an agricultural industry where the size of farms tends to increase. Any expansion of existing farms by more than 1,000 metres is currently subject to Site Plan Control approval. It is proposed that site plan control also apply to farms expanding by 30%, if they currently are or become an intensive livestock operation and that these operations prepare a nutrient management plan.

Given the above noted regulations and application requirements as well as the requirement for Site Plan Control approval, a limit in the zoning by-law on the maximum number of livestock units that can be established for intensive livestock farms is unnecessary.

Concentration of Intensive Hog Farms and Separation From Non-agricultural Uses

With regard to the location of intensive hog farms, the rural non-farm community expressed concern with the potential impact of the buildings forming a part of intensive hog farms being located adjacent to existing villages, rural residential developments, institutional uses, commercial uses not associated with agriculture, and urban growth areas.

The Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) formula does provide a separation distance between those uses, which increases with the size of the livestock operation and the type of livestock manure storage facility and adjacent land use. For instance, the minimum distance separation for a new intensive hog farm with 150 livestock units (750 sows) from the nearest residential dwelling would be 285.6 metres for the barn and 327 metres for the manure storage facility, and 571.2 metres and 654 metres, respectively, from existing villages, rural residential developments, institutional uses, commercial uses not associated with agriculture, and urban growth areas. The minimum distance separation for a new intensive hog farm with 450 livestock units (2,250 sows) from the nearest residential dwelling would be 448 metres for the barn and 465 metres for the manure storage facility, and 896 metres and 930 metres, respectively, from existing villages, rural residential developments, institutional uses, commercial uses not associated with agriculture, and urban growth areas.

Although the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) formula may seem adequate to minimize the impact of intensive livestock farms on surrounding uses due to odour, many residents of villages and rural residential subdivisions do not see the MDS as adequate for intensive hog farms. Reasons include the particular pungency and potential health problems associated with odours originating from hog manure.

Studies on intensive hog farms have shown that concentrated manure fumes cause asthma, bronchitis, depression and other health troubles to farmers and to workers in the barns. Also, a study, completed in August 2001 by the Veterinary Infectious Disease Organization (VIDO) in Saskatoon, that examined the impact of airborne microbial DNA and endotoxins in dust external to and downwind from hog barns have shown that air 600 metres downwind of swine barns is as “fresh” as air upwind of a swine barn.

The health problems associated with the working conditions in barns are not addressed here. The MDS does, however, provide a separation distance equivalent to or greater than 600 metres from the barn and manure storage facilities of intensive livestock operations and villages or rural residential subdivisions. Coupled with the proposed provision to require a cover on manure storage facilities, this separation would be adequate to minimize the impact of odour on surrounding uses. Therefore, greater minimum separation distances than those provided by the MDS formula are not recommended.

With regard to the motion from Council stating “that the new Official Plan for the City of Ottawa be developed with the consideration of a provision that pig feed lot operations be located no closer than 5 kilometres to any residential zone, major recreational area, environmental area or school within the City of Ottawa.”, the inclusion of such a provision in the Official Plan has been considered and is not seen as appropriate. Its specificity makes it more a regulation than a policy direction to include in the City’s new Official Plan.

Furthermore, a 5-kilometre separation distance would virtually eliminate any possibility for the establishment of intensive hog farms within the City. The only area within the City boundaries that would not be affected by such a distance would be an area in the Marlborough Forest, a conservation area. Prohibiting the City’s farmers from growing their business by blocking their opportunity to expand is inequitable and should not be considered as part of the Official Plan or zoning by-law.

A 3-kilometre separation distance, which was also suggested during the public consultation process and the 1.4-kilometre separation included in the draft by-law for consultation purposes impose similar limitations and, therefore, are not recommended.

Separation Distance Between Intensive Hog Farms

A 20-kilometre separation distance between intensive hog farms was also suggested as a possible means of eliminating any potential concentration of such farming operations in any part of the City. There was no scientific basis for this separation. It simply related to the 10-kilometre radius for the land base requirement that was set out in the initial nutrient management by-law.

This zoning regulation is not seen necessary. The distance between the livestock facilities and the fields receiving manure is to be addressed in a nutrient management plan. Intensive livestock operations require a substantial amount of land in order to effectively use the nutrients contained within the manure. Two or more intensive livestock operations located close to one another would compete for the same lands or would require the hauling of the manure over greater distances resulting in significant hardships on the farming operation. A concentration of intensive livestock farms in any given area of the City is, therefore, unlikely.

Distance Limit for Land Application

The draft by-law included a provision to require that all the tillable land used by the owner and/or operator of an intensive livestock farm must be located within a 10-kilometre radius of the livestock farm. The reason for this provision was to limit the distance for hauling of manure to reduce the risk of spills and to indirectly limit the number of livestock units by limiting lands available for manure application. Staff do not recommend that this provision be carried forward in the nutrient management by-law for the following reasons:

1) all lands used for the application of the nutrients must be identified in the required nutrient management plan;

2) all lands used for the application of the nutrients not owned by the operator require a signed agreement as part of the nutrient management plan;

3) many existing farms already apply their manure beyond a 10-kilometre distance from their operations; also, other nutrient products, such as the City’s own bio-solids, are transported distances further than 10 kilometres; and

4) the transportation of goods on public highways is regulated by the Ministry of Transportation.

Rationale for Proposed Approach to Nutrient Management

Initially, a nutrient management by-law was proposed as an interim measure that would regulate the establishment of new intensive livestock operations, or the expansion of existing farms, within the City. An evaluation of the municipal authority provided to regulate farm nutrient management under the Municipal Act and, specifically, how the City would enforce the proposed by-law provisions, revealed limited legislative and inspection authority. Details include:

- Limited authority to verify implementation of the documented nutrient management plan – The City could require preparation of a complete plan, verified through a third party review, prior to receipt of a building permit. Once the building permit is issued, however, the City loses the ability to require further action by the applicant. Ability to inspect would be provided by the Building Code and would be limited to viewing facility construction specified in the building permit. This inspection could not include nutrient management elements such as verification of livestock units, manure storage capacity, manure handing practices, land application rates, use of setbacks, tile drainage monitoring, etc.

- Limited ability to require concrete or steel manure storage facilities – the Building Code allows the construction and use of earthern manure storage facilities. Also, the requirement for covers, permanent or a floating cover, on manure storage exceeds Building Code requirements.

- Difficult to determine/verify if a farm is an intensive livestock operation and subject to nutrient management requirements, based upon the information provided by the applicant as part of the building permit process;

- The City does not have the authority to require renewal of Nutrient Management Plans.

In establishing new regulations, such as those proposed for nutrient management, City staff recommend that the resulting legislation be effective and enforceable. Staff who are responsible for legislation, policy development, inspection and enforcement agree that establishing regulations that can be reasonably enforced will foster a greater level of trust and confidence from the public and would limit municipal liability. Conversely, implementing regulations that the City cannot enforce could result in liability should an incident occur that could be linked to our inability or non-activity in enforcing a required activity.

As a result, it is proposed that the requirement of intensive livestock farms to prepare and implement a nutrient management plan be established as part of the approval required under the City’s Site Plan Control By-law. Presently, new or expanding agricultural operations greater than or equal to 1000 square metres in floor area are subject to site plan control approval under Section 4(1)(iv) of the City of Ottawa’s by-law. Section 41(4) of the Planning Act specifies that in areas subject to site plan control, no development may take place without municipal approval of a site plan. Section 41(7) state that the municipality may require the landowner to provide a number of things, including the following, as a condition of site plan approval:

- (6) Walls, fences, hedges, trees, shrubs or other groundcover or facilities for the landscaping of the lands or the protection of adjoining lands;

- (7) Vaults, central storage and collection areas and other facilities and enclosures for the storage of garbage and other waste material;

- (9) Grading or alteration in elevation or contour of the land and provision for the disposal of storm, surface and waste water from the land and from any buildings or structures thereon.

Using these provisions of the Planning Act and the City’s Site Plan Control By-law, it is proposed that the City specify manure storage and nutrient management requirements of intensive livestock farms as a condition of site plan approval. The specific requirements to be satisfied are documented within the Nutrient Management Strategy (Document1) recommended for approval with the proposed amendment to the City’s Site Plan Control By-law detailed in Document 2.

It is proposed that all development within the rural area be required to meet the Minimum Distance Separation between farm and non-farm uses, as specified in the City’s zoning by-laws. Document 3 provides the amendments required to the City’s existing zoning by-laws.

Proposed Nutrient Management Strategy (Recommendations 1 & 2)

A review of initiatives within other jurisdictions and of farm nutrient management practices, as well as consultation with both the agricultural and non-farm rural community led to the development of this Nutrient Management Strategy and accompanying zoning and site plan control by-law amendments. This Strategy aims to address the concerns expressed by residents regarding the production, storage and utilization of nutrients derived from livestock manure. The Strategy is also complementary to existing City initiatives and Official Plan policies relating to water resource protection.

The Nutrient Management Strategy, as detailed in Document 1, sets standards for agricultural nutrient management. These standards are based upon work conducted by various organizations within Ontario, led by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF), as the basis for the Model Nutrient Management By-Law for municipalities and the proposed Provincial Nutrient Management Act. The intent is to permit the agriculture industry to continue to thrive with minimal environmental and societal concerns. The Nutrient Management Strategy puts particular emphasis on ensuring that water quality and soil health are maintained or improved on new and expanding intensive livestock farms throughout the City and that conflicts between land uses are reduced to the extent possible.

Key provisions within the proposed nutrient management strategy include:

- Intensive livestock farm is defined as a livestock operation where land, buildings and structures are used for the purpose of accommodating livestock which either exceed 150 livestock units, or exceed 50 livestock units where the livestock density is more than 5 livestock units per tillable hectare. A livestock unit is defined to mean the equivalent values for the various types of animals and poultry based on manure production and production cycles. The unit equivalencies used are the same as those used by OMAF in calculating the Minimum Distance Separation.

- Nutrient Management Plans must be prepared by the operator of an intensive livestock farm as a condition of site plan approval. The intensive livestock operation will become subject to site plan control when applying for a building permit to construct a new livestock barn and/or manure storage facility, or to alter an existing livestock barn or manure storage facility

- Components of a Nutrient Management Plan include adequate land base for manure use, balancing of crop nutrient requirements with the nutrient concentrations of the soil and manure, and best management practices for manure and nutrient application.

- Standards for Manure Storage Facilities: When constructing or altering manure storage facilities, the proposed facility must meet specified design and capacity standards. The design standards specify the construction of concrete or steel manure storage tanks when new facilities are established.

- Odour controls: The three main sources of odours from livestock operations are the manure storage facility, the buildings housing the livestock and the method of manure application. The Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) II is intended to minimize the impact of odour, however, further odour reduction from manure storage and land application activities are recommended and are relatively practicable for larger livestock operations. Intensive livestock operations will be required to provide a cover, of any appropriate form or substance, on their manure storage facilities at all time and to use methods that reduce the occurrence and duration of odours during land application. Options include injection into the ground without tilling of by covering the manure shortly after application.

- Leak Detection from Manure Storage: To prevent undetected leakage of manure from storage facilities, electronic monitoring devices are recommended around the storage facilities of all intensive livestock farms. These devices will provide early warning of leakage and an opportunity for early remediation.

- Plan Renewal: A nutrient management plan must be renewed and updated every three years, with review and approval by a third party. This will ensure the regular upkeep of plans.

- Conditions of Site Plan Control Approval: Satisfaction of the conditions of Site Plan Control approval will include:

1. completion of a nutrient management plan, according to the standards established within the Nutrient Management Strategy;

2. successful third party review;

3. implementation of the plan, as submitted to the City;

4. compliance with the Minimum Distance Separation II formula; and

5. compliance with the construction standards and sizing requirements for manure storage facilities.

Verification that the plan has been implemented as designed will be conducted by City staff prior to the one year expiry date of the site plan control approval. Non-compliance with the conditions will result in municipal holding of the applicant’s letter of credit until satisfactory implementation.

As specified in the Site Plan Control By-law, nutrient management provisions will apply only to new intensive livestock operations and not to existing operations, unless they expand by 30% or more. Existing farms will not be impacted by these provisions until they expand by at least 30%. The by-law will also not apply to farms accommodating less than 50 livestock units where the livestock density is less than 5 livestock units per tillable hectare.

Zoning Regulations

In order to implement the nutrient management strategy, the existing zoning by-laws need to be amended as described below.

Defining intensive livestock operation and listing the use in agricultural zones (Recommendation #3)

In order to implement Recommendation #2 whereby an intensive livestock operation would have to prepare a nutrient management plan as a condition of Site Plan Control approval, the use has to be defined in the zoning by-laws of the former municipalities and townships to distinguish it from other agricultural uses which are currently permitted, and listed in all the agricultural and rural zones. (See details in Document 3).

An intensive livestock operation would be defined as meaning a livestock operation where land, buildings or structures are used for the purpose of accommodating livestock which either exceed 150 livestock units, or exceeds 50 livestock units with a livestock density of more than 5 livestock units per tillable hectare. Livestock units would be defined using the livestock units equivalencies established by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food for the calculation of the Minimum Distance Separation.

Minimum Distance Separation (Recommendation #4)

Municipalities have the authority, under the Planning Act, to require minimum distance separation between barns and manure storage facilities, and non-agricultural uses in the zoning by-law. Most of the former townships and municipalities have policies in their Official Plans requiring compliance with the Minimum Distance Separation and have provisions dealing with the Minimum Distance Separation requirements in their respective zoning by-laws.

Two former municipalities, however, do not have provisions in their zoning by-laws to require agricultural uses to meet the MDS requirements although they have related policies in their Official Plans. They are the former townships of Osgoode and Rideau. As this is one of the requirements to be met in order to obtain a building permit, it is, therefore, recommended that the respective zoning by-laws be amended accordingly, as detailed in Document 3.

The former township of West Carleton does not have provisions requiring compliance with the MDS but, instead, sets out fixed minimum separation distances of 30 metres to any street and of 215 metres to any residential use on another lot for any livestock buildings, feedlots and manure storage facilities. Most intensive livestock operations would require greater distances under the Minimum Distance Separation requirements (i.e. 285.6 and 327 metres from the barn and manure storage facility, respectively, of an intensive hog farm of 150 livestock units), distances that would increase proportionately with the type and size of livestock buildings and manure storage facilities.

In order to ensure consistency in zoning throughout the City and have regulations that are complementary to the nutrient management plan, it is recommended that the subject provision of the Rural Zone (RU) of the former Township of West Carleton zoning by-law be replaced by the Minimum Distance Separation requirement as set out under Document 3.

Enforcement

Enforcement of this regulation will include both a complaint-driven process and inspections by City staff. With regards to complaints received from the public, all will be investigated. A proactive inspection program is also proposed. Elements would include the following:

- Inspection to verify that the nutrient management plan has been implemented as documented in the plan submitted to the City. This site visit would occur before the site plan control approval expires (one year). The applicant’s letter of credit would not be released until satisfactory implementation of the plan. Inspection activities during the site visit would include:

1. physical review of the individual plan components with the owner/operator;

2. water samples from the monitoring wells adjacent to the manure storage facility;

3. water samples from the tile drains, if present;

4. water samples from watercourses or ditches adjacent to or that could receive runoff from farms fields;

5. verification of the livestock numbers; and

6. identification of any potential contaminant sources that could affect the quality of water or air.

- Location and as-built construction of facilities would be verified by Building Inspectors, as currently occurs under the Building Code;

- Water samples are proposed to be taken on an annual basis from the monitoring wells adjacent to the manure storage facilities. This sampling procedure will be incorporated into the routine inspection conducted by the Public Health Inspectors.

- Periodic inspections, perhaps twice per year to coincide with normal manure land application times of spring and fall, are also suggested to confirm nutrient management activities are conducted as planned. These site visits could include any or all of the activities noted in the plan inspection identified within the first year. Authority for this inspection is proposed as a verification of the ongoing compliance with conditions under the site plan control approval.

Unless noted otherwise, these inspection and enforcement activities are recommended to be conducted by a dedicated resource. One staff is expected to be adequate initially, given that there are currently approximately 40 intensive livestock operations within the City. No more than 5-8 applications for new or expanding intensive livestock operations would be expected within a one-year period. The expertise of the individual dedicated to this program, however, is critical. This person would require experience and expertise in agricultural practices such as livestock management, crop production, land management and manure handling as well as environmental matters such as existing legislation, pollution prevention and natural system interactions and processes of air, water and soil.

Sarsfield Proposal

The proposed nutrient management strategy and amendment to the Site Plan Control by-law will allow the establishment of the proposed hog farm near Sarsfield.

Under the Interim Control By-law, the owner has a legal non-conforming right to accommodate 209 livestock units (1,045 sows) and is not subject to the provisions of the Site Plan Control by-law. The owner has modified his application for a building permit to allow this size of operation to proceed. To accommodate the intended 560 livestock units (2,800 sows), the owner/operator will have to comply with the Minimum Distance Separation requirements and obtain Site Plan Control approval for which a nutrient management plan would be required as a condition of approval, before a building permit is granted to expand the barn or manure storage facility or build new ones.

The proposed 560 livestock unit (2,800 sows) hog farm meets the Minimum Distance Separation II formula. In fact, the existing and proposed barns and the proposed manure storage facility will be located 570 metres and 665 metres, respectively, from the nearest residential dwelling. This would exceed the MDS requirements (442 metres and 459 metres respectively) by 22% or more. Furthermore, the barns and manure storage facility will be located 1.68 and 1.81 kilometres from the Village of Sarsfield boundaries whereas the MDS requirements would amount to slightly less than one kilometer (884 metres and 918 metres respectively).

If Council finds that these separation distances are not considered sufficient to minimize the impact of odour on surrounding uses, it may require, in the nutrient management plan prepared for Site Plan Control approval, the owner to provide a structural cover on the manure storage facility and to provide adequate filters to the ventilation system of all buildings accommodating livestock.

The owner/operator is also in the process of preparing a nutrient management plan to be approved by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and will construct a structural manure storage facility of a capacity of 240 days in accordance with the Ministry’s requirements. The size of the proposed hog farm (560 livestock units or equivalent to 2,800 sows) is proportionate to the land base required for the application of the manure that will be produced by the livestock.

A hydro-geological study of the area where the hog farm is proposed (Preliminary Hydrogeologic Investigation – Proposed Hog Farm, Sarsfeild, Ontario, WESA, April 2002) has demonstrated that most of the farm property has a low vulnerability for surface-borne contamination of groundwater due to the relatively thick marine clay and glacial till deposits (+/- 30 metres) that act as confining layers over the fractured bedrock aquifer. One area of the farm, located in the southwest corner near the intersection of Lafleur Road and Colonial Road, has a higher potential for exposure to surface contamination due to the presence of shallow bedrock which underlies a thin glacial till layer. The former dug and/or drilled wells, in particular, the deeper drilled wells, also have the potential to act as pathways for surface contamination. The nutrient management plan will identify these sensitive areas and appropriate setbacks will be established for the application of the nutrients in order to avoid any contamination.

The potential for exposure of the surface water regime to surface-borne contamination is considered to be higher than the groundwater environment. The relatively low hydraulic conductivity of the marine clay soil likely results in a significant proportion of direct runoff to surface watercourses during rainfall events, especially at times of the year when the soil is at or near saturated conditions. Again, these conditions will be identified in the nutrient management plan and addressed appropriately through setbacks and restrictions on manure spreading at certain times of the year.

If Council wishes to address the concerns with the size and location of the proposed intensive livestock farm in close proximity to the Village of Sarsfield, it has the authority under the Planning Act to limit, under zoning, the farm to the 209 livestock units the owner is entitled to under legal non-conforming rights, and to establish a minimum separation distance of 1.4 kilometres from the village boundaries in order to prevent the farm from accommodating livestock in existing or new buildings closer to the village of Sarsfield. If this is the case, Council is advised that staff would not be in a position to support such a zoning amendment should it be appealed by the owner to the Ontario Municipal Board.

A mixed chicken and hog farm is located approximately 1.5 kilometres northwest, hence, upwind from the Village of Sarsfield. This farm replaced an intensive dairy farm some ten years ago when the barn was destroyed by fire. No complaints related to the operation of the chicken and hog farm were reported over the years.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

The proposed nutrient management plans are an environmentally-based management practice. They require farmers with intensive livestock operations to be more proactive in addressing the potential impact of their farming operations, particularly in the land application of the manure, in order to reduce emissions to the air and to the surface and groundwater resources.

The individual plans prepared for each of the intensive livestock operations tailors the operation of the farm to the existing natural features (soil type, slope, location of streams, tile drains), location and topography, location of wells, location of property lines and neighbouring residences. Through the implementation of these plans for manure management, the manure components will be retained in the soil layer and be taken up by crops rather than becoming a contaminant in local water resources.

Potential environmental impacts from odours or emissions to the air will be reduced by implementation of controls to the main sources of manure odours. The proposed strategy includes measures for controlling odours, including covers for manure storage and procedures that cover manure during or shortly after land application.

Land application of manure is a common farming practice and provides for the return of a valuable nutrient resource to the land to be used by crops. It also reduces the need for farmers to apply expensive chemical fertilizers to their crops. Manure enhances soil structure and tilth through the addition of organic matter which results in improved nutrient and moisture holding capacity of the soil, increased crop productivity and reduced potential for soil erosion.

The proposed strategy and amendment to the Site Plan Control by-law will complement other City initiatives and policies that aim to retain, protect and restore the City’s valuable natural environmental assets.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

A significant amount of land in the five rural wards of West-Carleton, Goulbourn, Rideau, Osgoode and Cumberland, as well as some portions of Kanata, Bell-South Nepean and Gloucester-Southgate wards, are zoned agriculture and general rural. The agricultural activity consists largely of crop and livestock production.

This amendment to the Site Plan Control by-law will introduce the need for farmers, who propose to establish new intensive livestock farms or to expand existing operations, to provide additional supportive information and analysis on their proposed farming practices. This information will necessitate a more rigorous analysis of the terrain and the ability of the farm to support the operation, particularly the management of manure. In some cases the farmer may have to gain access to additional land, or may develop very specific operational procedures to achieve the level of environmental sustainability that is being requested.

The Site Plan Control approval process will also impact the cost of doing agribusiness. There will be costs associated with site analysis and the preparation of the nutrient management plans. Manure spreading practices may have to be tailored to suit the land and will dictate how and when spreading will occur. These practices may necessitate the purchase of new machinery. Upgraded standards for the construction of manure storage areas and the addition of odour controls may also require additional retrofit costs.

Most large-scale farming operations already incorporate best management practices because these are good business practices, and build these costs into the development of new farms. The farmer develops the nutrient management plan so that the solutions and the practices can be tailored to suit the individual operation. The costs that the Nutrient Management Plan may impose are considered reasonable given the scale of intensive livestock farms. They are also necessary costs if we are to ensure that agricultural activity, like other industries, is in proportion with the environment’s ability to accommodate it.

CONSULTATION

On April 15^th, 2002, a proposed nutrient management by-law was tabled with the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and a six-week consultation process was approved. Consequently, three public meetings were held on May 1^st, 2^nd and 6^th, 2002, to seek comments from the farming community and the public.

The three meetings were well attended with approximately 70, 120 and 140 in attendance respectively. The meetings held in Kinburn and in North Gower were largely attended by the farming community and they overwhelmingly opposed the special provisions proposed for intensive hog farms and the suggested zoning regulations. The meeting in Navan was attended primarily by people from the non-farm community and they were largely opposed to the establishment of any intensive hog farms within the City of Ottawa, and particularly near Sarsfield.

Associations involved in the agricultural industry were also consulted. This is the case with the Ottawa-Carleton Federation of Agriculture, the Carleton Milk Producers Committee, the Russell Milk Producers Committee, the Carleton-Grenville Cattlemen’s Association, the Carleton-Lanark Pork Producers Association, and the National Capital Business Alliance. No written comments were received from these associations but the majority of them attended the public meetings and have voiced their opposition to the special provisions related to intensive hog farms and to the suggested zoning regulations.

A highlight of the comments registered at the three public meetings is provided in Document 4. A summary of these comments by groups of originators and a response is provided in Document 5.

Two additional public meetings were held June 3^rd and 4^th at the request of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee. The comments received at those two meetings are detailed in Document 6.

Comments from OMAF

The draft nutrient management by-law was also circulated to the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) for review. Generally, the Ministry did not agree with the special provisions dealing with the covering of the manure, the upgraded ventilation systems for the barns, and the application of the nutrients. It states that the Minimum Distance Separation was established to minimize odour conflicts between livestock operations and development and, for that reason, the special provisions should be deleted. The Ministry did not agree also with the 10-kilometre radius requirement for the land base or the suggested zoning regulations, stating that these provisions conflict with provincial policy.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

As detailed under the Enforcement section, one dedicated resource is required to implement this program. It is recommended that the expertise required be obtained on a contract basis, mainly because the timing and details of the Provincial legislation on nutrient management are currently unknown. An estimated cost for this contracted expertise is $60,000.00 – 70,000.00 per year + program costs such as travel and sample analysis.

It is very possible that Provincial legislation will be enacted within the next year or two and is likely to adequately address the elements proposed in the City’s Nutrient Management Strategy. Should the City determine that the Provincial regulations, once in place, meet our objectives for nutrient management, Council may repeal the by-law amendments recommended in this report. This would result in a limited duration for this program.

ATTACHMENTS

Document 1 – Nutrient Management Strategy

Document 2 – Details of Amendment to the Site Plan Control By-law.

Document 3 – Details of Zoning Amendments.

Document 4 – Highlights of Comments Received at Public Meetings Held on May 1^st, 2^nd and 6^th, 2002

Document 5 – Summary of Comments From the May Public Meetings and Response

Document 6 – Highlights of Comments Received at Public Meetings Held on June 3^rd and 4^th, 2002 (to be provided in an addendum report)

DISPOSITION

Legal Services to submit to Council for adoption a by-law amending the Site Plan Control By-law as set out in Document 2, by-laws amending the zoning by-laws of former municipalities and townships as set out in Document 3, and a by-law repealing Interim Control By-law 2001-371.

Development Services Department to implement the nutrient management strategy, as outlined, including amendment of the site plan control approval process and review, and inspection of nutrient management plans submitted by intensive livestock operations.

DOCUMENT 1

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

CITY OF OTTAWA

1.0 Intent

The Nutrient Management Strategy sets standards for agricultural nutrient management. These standards are based upon work conducted by various organizations within Ontario, led by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF), as the basis for the Model Nutrient Management By-Law for municipalities and the proposed Provincial Nutrient Management Act.

The intent is to permit the agriculture industry to continue to thrive with minimal environmental and societal concerns from the surrounding community. The Nutrient Management Strategy puts particular emphasis on ensuring that water quality and soil health are maintained or improved on new and expanding intensive livestock farms throughout the City and that conflicts between land uses are reduced to the extent possible.

The Strategy is complementary to existing City initiatives and Official Plan policies relating to water resource protection.

2.0 Definition of Terms

All terms defined in the existing City of Ottawa Site Plan Control By-Law and zoning by-laws shall have the same meaning in this Strategy. Additional definitions specific to nutrient management are included in Annex A (Definitions) and B (Livestock Unit Equivalencies by Livestock Type).

3.0 Strategy Objective

The objective for nutrient management plans is to provide for the optimal application by intensive livestock farms of nutrients to soil in such a way as to protect the City's water resources, while maximizing the economic and biological value of the nutrients.

The existing Regional Official Plan policies recognize the importance of the agriculture industry to the City's economy. Objectives of the Agricultural Resource Areas policy are to:

· Protect the major areas of agricultural production and other lands suitable for agriculture from loss to other uses;

· Ensure that uses that would result in conflicts with agricultural operations are not established in productive farming areas.

The agricultural resource area policy also states that agricultural areas will be protected through designation of prime agricultural areas (determined through combination of soil capability for agriculture, land use, parcel size and presence of conflicting land uses) and the implementation of policies for their protection.

The Official Plan also recognizes the importance of the City’s water resources, both surface and groundwater. The Natural Environment section of the existing Regional Official Plan provides for policies to protect groundwater and surface water through the following:

• Conduct of an aquifer management study to assess the existing groundwater quality and quantity, potential threats to groundwater and the issues associated with a change in groundwater quality and quantity;
• Review existing erosion control guidelines and practices, identify gaps and require application of current standards and practices for erosion control during construction activities;
• Control the removal of topsoil;
• When reviewing development proposals, require measures to maintain vegetative cover and setbacks from surface waters and to protect communal well and recharge areas;
• Support other agency initiatives that encourage sound agricultural land management and soil conservation practices that minimize or eliminate the entry of contaminants such as silt, pesticides and nutrients to surface and ground waters;
• Support private landowners in the management of their properties by encouraging stewardship initiatives in natural areas and in the agricultural community (e.g. environmental farm plans and other initiatives which maintain or enhance environmental quality;
• Conduct of watershed plans and subwatershed plans that identify effective management strategies for natural resource protection and enhancement within individual watersheds.

The City of Ottawa Nutrient Management Strategy is consistent with the approach adopted by OMAF for nutrient management and is based upon the following components:

• nutrient management planning;
• minimum separation distance; and
• appropriate sizing of manure storage facilities.

By establishing a Nutrient Management Strategy and associated by-law controls to implement these three components, the City will be implementing policy direction established by the Official Plan by encouraging sound agricultural land management practices. In addition, the strategy and by-law are complementary to other City initiatives directed by the plan, such as supporting stewardship initiatives, both City-wide and through Subwatershed Plans.

3.1 Guiding Principles for Farmers

The Province of Ontario has recognized the need to address nutrient management through

development of a Provincial strategy by the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition. The City of Ottawa Nutrient Management Strategy, adopts the Coalition's guiding principles, as follows:

1. Farmers do not have the right to violate pollution laws, and anyone doing so should be held accountable.
2. Farmers should document and periodically review their nutrient management plans.
3. Farmers support having the agricultural industry and governments work cooperatively to achieve a consensus on pollution prevention standards with respect to agricultural nutrients.
4. Farmers should follow acceptable nutrient management standards for pollution prevention.
5. Farmers will be encouraged to maintain or enhance their stewardship goals relating to nutrient management."

4.0 Purpose and Implementation of the Nutrient Management Strategy

The purpose of Nutrient Management Strategy is to provide a uniform policy for nutrient management across the City of Ottawa. This Strategy is consistent with the Provincial strategy, as detailed in their documents related to development of the Nutrient Management Act. This Strategy and accompanying controls within the zoning and Site Plan Control by-laws are the City’s primary tools for implementing the Nutrient Management Strategy to mitigate environmental risks associated with the application of manure nutrients to soil. Manure management practices will be regulated on all new or expanding intensive livestock farms. Such operations are a permitted use on lands designated within the former Regional Official Plan as Agricultural or General Rural.

5.0 Components of a Nutrient Management Strategy

The Nutrient Management Strategy consists of three components:

i) satisfaction of the Minimum Distance Separation Formula II (MDS II);

ii) proper containment of agricultural nutrients during storage and a requirement for standardized storage facilities, including a minimum storage capacity of 240 days and concrete facilities; and

iii) development and implementation of a Nutrient Management Plan.

All of these components must be in place to satisfy site plan control approval for a new or expanding livestock facility on an intensive livestock farm. An Intensive Livestock Farm is defined as an operation that has greater than 150 Livestock Units or has at least 50 Livestock Units and a livestock density greater than 5 livestock units per hectare of tillable land base.

5.1 Minimum Distance Separation Formula II (MDS II)

The MDS II provides for adequate distances between new or expanding livestock barns and manure storage facilities and existing or approved development. The MDS II shall be calculated in accordance with the guidelines published by the OMAF[1], and the prescribed distances shall be satisfied by the proposed building plans. The prescribed distance(s) may occasionally be varied by a municipal Committee of Adjustment, through the Minor Variance process should it not be possible for the farm owner to satisfy the prescribed distance(s) for either the livestock barn or the manure storage.

5. Manure Storage Requirements

In order to provide for a minimum of 240 days storage of livestock manure, the farm owner and/or operator is required to calculate the volume of any existing storage as well as determine the additional volume necessary to reach 240 days storage. The City of Ottawa adopts OMAF's standard method for calculating manure storage capacity. OMAF provides farmers with both a computer-based application and a manual method for determining a farm’s required manure storage capacity. The computer application, MSTOR99, calculates tank dimensions using livestock type and numbers; tank dimensions using actual volumes of manure or storage volume from known manure storage dimensions. Data sheets to manually calculate manure storage capacity are also available.

The storage capacity requirement shall be considered to be satisfied once the farm owner and/or operator has successfully completed Third Party Review of his/her plans. In addition, the Nutrient Management Strategy requires that the farm owner and/or operator provide contingency plans for use in the event of a manure spill or manure storage system failure. Guidelines for the preparation of such contingency plans should be obtained from the local OMAF office. The MSTOR99 computer-based program or data sheets are also available from OMAF offices.

When constructing a manure storage facility, the owner will be required to follow the provisions of the Building Code, with specific reference to CAN/CSA A23.3 – M84 Design of Concrete Structures for Buildings” and the National Farm Building Code. As new manure storage facilities are established, the owner and/or operator will be required to erect a concrete, steel or other permanent structure. The intent of this approach is to phase out the use of earthen manure storage facilities, over time. This will reduce the potential risk to the environment that could occur as a result of inadvertent and undetected leakage of manure from earthen manure storage facilities.

5.3 Nutrient Management Plans

The preparation and implementation of a nutrient management plan will be required of intensive livestock operations as a condition of site plan control approval. A nutrient management plan shall be consistent with the Guidelines attached in Annex C of this Strategy, as well as with best management practices for nutrient management published by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture & Food. Plan components and data requirements shall include, but is not limited to, the following:

(a) identification of proposed or existing odour control mechanisms to be implemented at livestock barns;

(b) identification of proposed or existing manure spreading practices to be implemented;

(c) identification of proposed or existing methods for elimination or management of solid or liquid livestock manure;

(d) identification of proposed or existing perimeter monitoring devices such as test wells, to be installed at a manure storage facility or an earthen manure storage facility;

(e) identification of sufficient livestock manure storage for proposed or existing manure storage facilities or earthen manure storage facilities, consisting of a minimum of 240 days storage;

(f) farm and field identification for the purposes of manure application;

(g) information for each field, including: soil type, slope, size, proposed crop, anticipated yield, previous crop, soil test results, previous manure applications;

(h) type, blend and application rate of commercial starter fertilizer, if used;

(i) type and volume of manure (i.e. dairy, hog, poultry, etc.), its form (solid or liquid) and dry matter content;

(j) Manure nutrient content;

(k) application information such as season of application, timing of soil incorporation, weather conditions around the time of land application;

(l) conditions, method of application and calibration of application system;

(m) identification of proposed or existing alternative dispositions of livestock manure;

(n) the cost of application to the land and financial value of the manure nutrients;

(o) any other requirements of the City’s Nutrient Management Strategy; and

(p) any other requirements identified by the City of Ottawa.

Annexes D to H provide forms to be completed and submitted by the applicant to fulfill plan requirements, when applicable, including:

• Certification of the nutrient management plan by the person preparing the plan, the farm owner/operator and the third party reviewer (Annex D);
• Identification of proposed lands for the nutrient management plan (Annex E);
• Off-Site Manure Application Agreement (Annex F);
• Agreement for sale of manure (Annex G);
• Farm Unit Declaration Form (Annex H).

As with manure storage, OMAF also provides a computer-based tool to assist in preparing nutrient management plans, the NMAN99 program.

For intensive livestock operations greater than 450 livestock units in size, the owner or operator will be required to prepare and submit a hydrogeological study as part of their nutrient management plan. This requirement will be included as a condition of site plan control approval. A Terms of Reference for conducting a hydrogeological study is included in Annex I. The nutrient management plan must demonstrate how these study results have been incorporated into development and implementation of the plan.

Intensive livestock farm owners and/or operators are required to enter into written agreements for fields receiving manure which are not owned by him/her. In all cases, the fields to be used for manure application must only be used by one farmer under one nutrient management plan (NMP). Should lands outside the City be proposed for the application of manure, it is incumbent on City staff to notify the neighbouring municipality of the plans to apply manure to properties in their jurisdiction. Alternative arrangements to dispose of solid livestock manure off-site, such as sale to mushroom producers or composting operations may also be permitted. The municipality may take direction from the OMAF regarding the acceptability, terms and conditions of such alternative arrangements for solid livestock manure.

Nutrient Management Plan records shall be kept by the owner/operator for a minimum of 6 years as evidence of due diligence in the implementation of the NMP. It is expected that the owner and/or operator will implement the practices of the approved NMP. If, for unforeseen circumstances or Acts of God this is not possible, the owner and/or operator is required to document any change in practice from the approved NMP. Such documentation must be maintained by the owner and/or operator and made available to the municipality in the event of a complaint. The owner and/or operator will not be permitted to operate under any circumstances without the land base prescribed by the approved NMP.

6.0 Nutrient Management Planning Process

Any new intensive livestock farms or existing farms expanding to the scale of an intensive livestock farm in the City of Ottawa will be required to submit a nutrient management plan as part of the process required to satisfy site plan control requirements when they apply to erect, modify or enlarge a livestock facility, i.e. barn or manure storage facility. If expanding an existing livestock operation, the owner or operator is subject to site plan control approval under the following situations:

· if the farm is currently an intensive livestock operation and is expanding by 30% of its floor area; or

· if the farm becomes an intensive livestock operation with the proposed expansion.

Farmers who do not have an intensive livestock operation are required to satisfy the MDS II requirements of the existing municipal Zoning By-Laws.

The intensive livestock farm owner and/or operator is responsible for meeting the requirements as indicated within the Nutrient Management Strategy on his/her own or by hiring a qualified consultant to assist in fulfilling these requirements. Should the farm owner be unable to satisfy the MDS II requirement, s/he has the option of applying for a Minor Variance to the municipal Committee of Adjustment. If the Committee is supportive of the requested relief, the Minor Variance application can be granted and this will be the equivalent of satisfying the MDS II component of the strategy.

The manure storage component of the strategy will be considered to be satisfied once the owner and/or operator has calculated the size of manure facility required for a minimum of 240 days storage, has incorporated this facility into his/her building plans or has verified that the existing facility has sufficient manure storage capacity for the proposed operation. The farmer is also required to prepare a contingency plan for accidental manure spills or manure system failure.

OMAF or a qualified agricultural consultant must be satisfied with the proposed manure storage system as part of the Third Party Review of the NMP. The MSTOR99 program, as amended, can be used to calculate manure storage capacity and will be used by OMAF to review this component.

The NMP component of the strategy requires the farm owner and/or operator to provide the information detailed in Section 5.3 of this strategy and to develop a NMP for his/her farm operation. It is the farm owner's and/or operator's responsibility to locate sufficient lands for the application of manure and obtain written agreements with landowners for this purpose .

Alternatively, it is the farm owner's and/or operator's responsibility to find other acceptable arrangements for the disposition of solid livestock manure such as sale to composting companies or to mushroom producers. Such alternative arrangements must be recommended by the OMAF and written agreements for these alternative arrangements will be required. Any outstanding concerns with the alternative arrangements must be addressed to the satisfaction of the City.

Prior to the approval of a NMP, the City will verify using that all parcels of land to be party to a NMP have not yet been committed for use by any other NMP, so that lands are registered for use by only one farm operation for manure application. Should the farm be previously registered to another NMP, the farmer will be notified and provided with the opportunity to find alternative lands for the application of manure or an alternative arrangement for the disposition of solid manure. The NMP must have undergone successful Third Party Review prior to submission to the City of Ottawa. Once all three components of the strategy are completed satisfactorily, the Chief Building Official will be in a position to issue the building permit.

6.1 Renewal Process

Best environmental management and land stewardship practices require that nutrient management plans be updated on a regular basis to reflect both changing circumstances and new approaches and technologies. Accordingly, the City of Ottawa will establish a formal renewal process for nutrient management plans. This process will involve the following:

• At the time of approval of the nutrient management plan, the municipality shall advise the owner and/or operator of an intensive livestock farm that is his/her responsibility to implement the plan. Plans should also be renewed every 3 years.
• The farm owner and/or operator must obtain a Third Party Review by a Consultant in Agriculture or with OMAF, prior to submitting a renewed nutrient management plan.
• Six months prior to the renewal date for a nutrient management plan, the local municipality shall send a letter to the farmer providing notice of the deadline for renewing the nutrient management plan, together with the request that the renewed plan be submitted prior to the deadline.

The importance of renewing nutrient management plans will be stressed as part of the education process outlined in Section 8 of this Strategy.

7.0 Compliance with the Nutrient Management Strategy

New or expanding intensive livestock farms must comply with current best nutrient management practices as established in this Strategy. Conditions of site plan control approval will include the preparation and implementation of a nutrient management plan and the construction of manure storage facilities of an adequate size and appropriate structural material, either concrete or steel.

Figure 1 outlines the compliance process for the City’s Nutrient Management Strategy.

Enforcement of this regulation will include both a complaint-driven process and inspections by City staff.

7.1 Site Inspections

A proactive inspection program is proposed for implementation of the City’s Nutrient Management Strategy. Elements would include the following:

• Inspection to verify that the nutrient management plan has been implemented as documented in the plan submitted to the City. This site visit would occur before the site plan control approval expires (one year). The applicant’s letter of credit would not be released until satisfactory implementation of the plan. Inspection activities during the site visit would include:

1. physical review of the individual plan components with the owner/operator;

2. water samples from the monitoring wells adjacent to the manure storage facility;

3. water samples from the tile drains, if present;

4. water samples from watercourses or ditches adjacent to or that could receive runoff from farms fields;

5. verification of the livestock numbers; and

6. identification of any potential contaminant sources that could affect the quality of water or air.

• Location and as-built construction of facilities would be verified by Building Inspectors, as currently occurs under the Building Code;
• Water samples are proposed to be taken on an annual basis from the monitoring wells adjacent to the manure storage facilities. This sampling procedure will be incorporated into the routine inspection conducted by the Public Health Inspectors.
• Periodic inspections, perhaps twice per year to coincide with normal manure land application times of spring and fall, are also suggested to confirm nutrient management activities are conducted as planned. These site visits could include any or all of the activities noted in the plan inspection identified within the first year.

Failure by the applicant to satisfy the conditions of site plan control approval will result in the City holding and not releasing securities submitted by the applicant as part of the site plan control requirements.

7.2 The Complaint Process

Complaints related to nutrient management are to be directed to the municipality. The Complaints process will be activated by a telephone call, provided that the caller submits a written complaint that is received within 24 hours by the City of Ottawa. Failure to submit a written complaint may result in the investigation being halted, unless it has already been determined that there is a violation of the City’s by-laws or of Provincial legislation.

Figure 1: NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT COMPLAINT PROCESS

City assumes compliance unless complaint registered

Complaint Received

Investigation of Complaint by Municipality

Non-compliance with City regulations

• City directs corrective action
• Advice may be sought from Agricultural and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee
• Prosecution initiated as appropriate

Non-compliance with Provincial legislation is referred to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

• Complaint related to noise, smoke, vibration, light, flies, odour is enforced under Environmental Protection Act, if appropriate
• or may be referred to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board, established under the Farming and Food Protection Protection Act

Upon receipt of the complaint, a By-Law Enforcement Officer will initiate an investigation within 24 hours. He/she will first assess whether the complaint involves a violation of provincial legislation. If it does, the complaint will be directed to the MOE, who will then re-assess the complaint to determine which legislation, if any, it concerns. If the MOE finds the complaint involves a violation of legislation, staff will forward it to the appropriate Ministry for further action. If the MOE or OMAF finds that the complaint does not involve a violation of provincial legislation, staff will send the complaint back to the City.

All complaints will be investigated. For those complaints determined to be invalid, a written response is provided to the Complainant and copied to the farm owner and/or operator implicated in the complaint.

For valid complaints, a farm owner and/or operator is informed of the potential breach of the City’s By-Laws, site plan control approval or provincial legislation. The City will recommend actions to remediate the problem based on the principles of agricultural Best Management Practices (BMP's), good farm management practices and proper land stewardship. When appropriate, advice from provincial Ministry staff or the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee may be sought. Such recommendations will be provided in writing to the farm owner and/or operator and a specified time period will be provided for the farmer to correct the problem(s). Once the farmer has corrected the problem, the matter is considered to be resolved and the Complainant is notified in writing.

Should the farm owner and/or operator choose to continue his activity, the liability of the owner and or operator will be increased. Should the situation demonstrate a clear threat to public health, the City’s Medical Officer of Health unit could require the farm owner and/or operator to cease and desist his activity immediately, in accordance with the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

In the unlikely event that the farm owner and/or operator chooses not to comply with the recommendations made by the City, the municipality may request implementation of the complaint remediation process under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act. This process can be used if the complaint relates to the following areas of nuisance dealt with by this legislation: noise, odour, dust, flies, light, vibration and smoke. Should this avenue be appropriate, an attempt will be made by the Ministries involved to resolve the complaints without a hearing, however, the option of a hearing with the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board is also available if required.

In all cases, it is the policy of this Strategy to notify the Complainant in writing of the outcome of his/her complaint.

8.0 Education

It is generally agreed that the success of the Nutrient Management Strategy relies on the commitment of the farming community to comply with the requirements of the Strategy and its accompanying by-laws. In an effort to reinforce the Nutrient Management Strategy, it is strongly recommended that the City of Ottawa develop a communication and education strategy for nutrient management.

Annex A

Definitions – Nutrient Management

“construct” means to do anything in the erection, installation, extension or material alteration or repair of a building and includes the installation of a building unit fabricated or moved from elsewhere and “construction” has a corresponding meaning;

“Consultant in Agriculture” means a practicing agricultural professional specializing in all aspects of sound agronomical, economical and environmental crop production and who has been certified and/or recommended by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture & Food for the purposes of reviewing and approving nutrient management plans;

“Consultant in Hydrogeology” means a Professional Engineer or Professional Geoscientist registered with the Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) or the Association of Professional Geoscientists of Ontario (APGO) licensed to practice in the field of hydrogeology;

“earthen manure storage facility” means an earthen containment system with or without a roof or covering enclosing the surface area of the container, used for the storage of liquid or solid livestock manure and includes a manure pit;

“Farm Unit” means the composite of all parcels operated as a farm, the principal farm residence, any accessory residences, woodlot, barns and other structures necessary to support agricultural and ancillary uses and as per a duly completed and signed Farm Unit Declaration Form as per attached Annex “H”;

“Hydrogeological Study” means a study prepared by a Consultant in Hydrogeology in accordance with the City’s “Terms of Reference for Preliminary Water Quality Impact Assessments for Proposed Intensive Livestock Operations Farms” attached as Annex “I”, as amended from time to time;

“intensive livestock farm” means a livestock operation where land, buildings or structures are used for the purposes of accommodating livestock which either exceed 150 livestock units, or exceed 50 livestock units with a livestock density of more than 5 livestock units per tillable hectare;

“liquid livestock manure” means livestock manure with average dry matter content less than 20% by weight;

“livestock” means poultry, ratites, cattle, hogs, horses, mink, rabbits, sheep, goats, fur bearing animals, or any other domestic animal;

“livestock barn” means a building used for the housing, feeding or keeping of livestock;

“livestock manure” means livestock feces and urine and may include some bedding material and some dilution water;

“livestock unit” means the equivalent values for the various types of animals and poultry based on manure production and production cycles as outlined in Annex “B”;

“manure storage facility” means a steel or concrete containment system, with a roof or covering enclosing the surface area of the container, used for the storage of liquid or solid livestock manure;

“nutrient management plan” means a report prepared using a science-based process for optimizing the relationship between the land-based application of nutrients, farm management techniques, crop requirements, and land use;

“operator” means a person who owns the livestock, or is responsible for the care, control and management of the livestock on an intensive livestock farm, or is a person who is responsible for the care, control and management of a manure storage facility or an earthen manure storage facility;

“owner” means a person who owns the land or buildings on which an intensive livestock farm is operated or a person who is responsible for the care, control or management of a manure storage facility or an earthen manure storage facility;

“person” means any individual, association, partnership, corporation, municipal corporation, agent or trustee and the heirs, executors or other legal representative of a person to whom the context can apply according to law;

“solid livestock manure” means livestock manure with an average dry matter content ranging from 20 to 100 percent by weight;

“tillable land base” means the total area to which nutrients can be safely applied without compromising ground water or surface water conditions;

“Third Party Review” means a review of a nutrient management plan by staff of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture & Food or a Consultant in Agriculture that the proposed nutrient management plan is consistent with best management practices for nutrient management plans as published by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture & Food and is consistent with this strategy.

Annex B

Equivalent Livestock Units by Livestock Type

Animal Group	Animals Per Livestock Unit	Animals
Beef	1 2	Beef Cow^1- barn confinement or barn with yard Beef Feeders- barn confinement or barn with yard
Chicken	125 200 500	Layers- Caged Layers or Chicken Breeder Layers Chicken Broilers or Roasters Pullets or Replacement layers)
Dairy	1 2	Milking Cow^1,2 - tie stall or free stall Dairy Heifer- barn confinement or barn with yard
Duck	100	Ducks
Emu	5	Emu
Fox	40	Adult Fox^4
Goat	4 10	Adult Goats^3 Feeder Goats (>20 kg each)
Horse	1	Horse^3
Mink	80	Adult Mink^4
Ostrich	3	Ostrich
Rabbit	40	Adult Rabbits^4
Sheep	4 10	Adult Sheep^3 Feeder Lambs (>20 kg each)
Swine	5 4 20	Sows or Boars Feeder Hogs (30-120 kg each) Weaners (4-30 kg each)
Turkey	50 75 100 500	Meat Turkeys (>10 kg each) Meat Turkey (5 – 10 kg each) or Turkey Breeder Layers Meat Turkeys (<5 kg each) Pullets or Replacement Breeders
Veal	6 3	White Veal Red Veal (<300 kg each)
All other animals or poultry		1 livestock unit per 450 kg housed at one time, except that where milking cows and dry calves, heifers and calves or any combination thereof are kept on the same operation, each milking cow is 1.5 livestock units and each dry cow, heifer or calf is 0 livestock units.

¹ Includes calf to 150 kg

² A dairy/cow-calf farm usually has milking cows, dry cows, heifers and calves. Multiply the number of milking/nursing cows by 1.5 to account for the followers when they are kept on the same farm

³ Includes offspring until weaned

⁴ Includes offspring to market size

⁵ Multiply number of sows by 2.4 to determine the number of weaners.

Annex C

GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING A NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN

Nutrient Management Plan

for

X Farm , Ontario

By: X. XXXX

Date:

NMP Table of Contents

Nutrient Management Plan Information:

Introduction (1)

Spill Contingency Plan (2)

Nutrient Management Plan Certification Form-Signed form (3)

Farm Stead Information:

Maps: Location Map (s) (4) , Farmstead Layouts (5)

Barn Plan (lay out )- Livestock Numbers (6)

MDS 2 Calculations Sheet (7)

Manure Production and Storage:

Required data, & Definitions

-Animal weights (8), Storage Freeboard (10), Manure volume(11), Stockpiling (12), Location of Stock piles (13)

Manure Storage(s) sizing – (MSTOR) (6)- -(Livestock information , Livestock Numbers (6))

Nutrient Analysis: Manure, Biosoilds, feed additives

Manure / Biosolids Tests (14), Feed add documentation (15)

Field Information

Land and /or Manure Application Agreement (16)

Remote field transportation documentation , Hauling manure (17)

Field Sketch(s) (18)

Land available for spreading (19)

Soil sample tests (20) & Phosphorous test (21)

Cropping Practices:

Yield documentation: continuous crop(22), yield above 120 % of ave. (23)

Crop Balances (24), manure application rates(25)

NMAN print out or Nutrient Management Workbook (26)

Field crop and Manure summary (26)

§ List all fields to receive manure with application rates

and total applied.

§ List all fields not receiving manure

Appendix

Data files ( )

NMAN and MSTOR data files on disk

Other: ( )

Calibration of Nutrient Applicators, Record Keeping , Good Neighbour Policy

COMPONENTS OF A NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (NMP) for

____________________________________Date:_________________

(applicant) (yy/mm/dd)

Note: One box on each line must be checked.

Attached				Not Applicable	Default Values	Components
			A. Nutrient Management Plan Information
							Nutrient Management Plan Description
							Spill Contingency Plan
							Signed NMP Certification Form
		B. Farm Information
							Location Map(s)
							Farmstead Layout(s)
							Minimum Distance Separation II (MDS II) Calculations
		C. Manure Production and Storage
							MSTOR Printout or Manure Sizing Sheet(s)
		D. Nutrient Analysis of Manure
							Manure and/or Biosolid Analysis Test Results
							Documentation Verifying Feed Additive Effects
		E. Field Information
							Land Leases and/or Manure Agreements
							Remote Field Transportation Documentation
							Field Sketch(es)
							Soil Test Results
	F. Cropping Practices
							Yield Documentation (if limits are exceeded)
							NMAN Printout or Nutrient Management Workbook
							Field Crop and Manure Summary

DESCRIPTION OF NMP COMPONENTS

The numbers below correspond to the OMAFRA Checklist for

Third Party Review of Nutrient Management Plans

A. Nutrient Management Plan Information

1. Written Description

This section identifies the applicant, the size and type of livestock facilities and manure storages, total acres, summary of crop rotation, and a brief project description. This description should include any unusual details or issues requiring additional explanation. This cover letter should indicate if the plan is new or a 3-year renewal.

2. Spill Contingency Plan

A written plan that outlines the required equipment, contacts and safety measures to be taken in the event of a manure spill is a requirement of all NMPs. The phone number for the Spills Action Centre (1-800-268-6060) should appear in the Spill Contingency Plan. Provisions for a wet spring/ wet fall when spreading manure is difficult should also be included.

3. Signed NMP Certification Form

The certification form serves as a sign-off document for the Nutrient Management Plan preparer, the applicant and the third party reviewer. The form is often available at your local township office, or at the OMAFRA NMAN Software Homepage under the heading “NMP Forms”

www.omafra.gov.on.ca/scripts/english/engineering/nman/default.asp

B. Farm Information

4. Location Map(s)

This map serves to indicate where all properties, owned or leased are located and where the fields are situated. In many cases local building officials can provide copies of county maps showing the lines and concessions around the farm.

Maps should clearly mark the location of livestock facilities, fields in the plan (including the name of the field used in the software and on manure agreements), county roads, neighbours, nearby towns, and other local features.

Additional details for individual field sketches are discussed in point # 18 of this document.

All maps and sketches provided should be presented with the direction north to the top of the page and include a north symbol on each map or sketch.

5. Farmstead Layouts

A farmstead sketch should be drawn to locate all buildings (existing and proposed) and their dimensions. All existing livestock facilities on the farmstead and on other properties in the plan should be indicated, with dimensions.

5. Farmstead Layouts (continued)

Old barns which do not currently house animals must be identified. If the old barn is used as a shed or storage, a “change of use” permit from your building official is required to demonstrate that the barn will no longer house animals.

Show all manure storages (existing and proposed) and indicate type (liquid or solid, covered or open), including dimensions.

Show all wells, surface water sources (i.e. streams, lakes, ponds) tile outlets, laneways, septic systems and any other physical features on or near the farmstead.

Orient the sketch in the same direction as the location map (i.e. north to the top of the page).

6. Livestock Numbers

The number of livestock and/or poultry in the NMP must be equal to or greater than standard OMAFRA housing capacity guidelines. If the numbers are less than the guidelines, then a written explanation must be included to verify why fewer animals are in the barn.

NMPs are approved according to the capacity of the barn and not the number of animals currently housed in the barn. This is to ensure that sufficient landbase exists for the capacity of the farm should the operator choose to fill the barn and expand the size of their herd.

7. Minimum Distance Separation II Calculations

A copy of the MDS II calculations issued or approved by the local building official must be enclosed if required for a building permit. For plans that are being renewed without a change in the livestock or facilities, no MDS calculation is required.

C. Manure Production and Storage

8. Animal Weights

When the NMP utilizes animal weights that are lower than the default MSTOR values, a written explanation must be included to explain the lower weights.

9. Days of Manure Storage

A minimum of 240 days of manure storage is required unless the nutrient management plan shows that fields are available to manage 200 days. The storage should contain manure, rainfall run-off from uncovered solid manure piles, milkhouse washwater, barnyard runoff and any other nutrient-containing solids or liquids generated in the operation.

10. Storage Freeboard

Liquid manure storages must have a minimum freeboard of 1 foot. This includes any gutters or channels being accounted for in the calculation of storage capacity. The only exception is a permanently covered non-slatted storage where 0.5 feet of freeboard is acceptable.

11. Manure Volume

The volume of manure, biosolids and other liquids included in the plan must equal or exceed the yearly volume of manure produced by all livestock and poultry facilities on the landbase of the plan or brought in from off-site.

The fields included in the NMP cannot be used for the application of manure or biosolids that are not included in the NMP.

12. Stockpiling of Manure

The plan specifies that if solid manure is temporarily stockpiled away from the manure storage for more than 30 days, the pile must be covered. A written description of the covering system must be included. This information could be included in the written description from Section #1.

13. Location of Stockpiles

The plan specifies that stockpiled solid manure must be located at a distance greater than 650 ft from the nearest neighbour’s house, and greater than 100 ft from the nearest road or surface water source (i.e. streams, municipal drains, ponds, surface inlets, etc).

D. Nutrient Analysis of Manure

14. Nutrient analysis

A nutrient analysis for each manure type should have been completed within the last 3 years. The nutrient content of the tested manure should be within 30% of the NMAN data bank results, or else documentation must be included explaining differences in management practices or feed additives.

If a test was not completed, the data bank average for the specific manure type and projected dry matter range calculated in the MSTOR calculation is to be used.

15. Feed Additives

If manure nutrients were modified due to the use of feed additives, adequate information must be attached to verify that the feed additive was existingly used, and to verify the effectiveness of the additive on the nutrient content of the manure.

E. Field Information

16. Land Leases or Manure Agreements

Landbases under a lease or manure agreement need to be properly documented. Forms are available at the locations indicated above in Section #3.

17. Hauling Equipment

Documentation is required indicating that properly approved and adequately sized hauling equipment is available to transport manure when the distance from the farmstead to the field exceeds 20 km.

18. Field Sketch Features

Field sketches must show the location of water features that are known to the field owner, including: surface water sources (creeks, streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, etc), surface inlets (riser pipes, catchbasins, sink holes, etc), tile outlets, tile access points for monitoring such as catchbasins, and wells that are in the field or within 100 feet of all field boundaries (including wells on the farm property).

All features which present the opportunity for manure to leave the property, or to directly enter the groundwater should have manure application setbacks (including the distance of the setback) clearly identified on the map. Setback distances are shown in the "Field Output" and "Field Summary" sections of the NMAN software.

The minimum manure application setback from drilled wells with a casing depth of 100 feet or more is 50 feet. For all other wells, the setback is 100 feet. These setbacks should be marked on the maps for all wells

Where steep slopes exist beside water features, the setbacks should start from the upper edge of the slope or bank beside the water (even when the sloped area is wooded or thickly vegetated). Where little slope exists beside the water, setbacks may include vegetated or wooded areas, depending on topography and drainage conditions.

Areas which flood regularly must not receive manure and must be deducted from the available area for manure (see Section # 19 below).

Field slopes within 500 feet of all surface water sources, surface water inlets and wells must be indicated.

If there are no wells, water sources, surface water inlets or tiles, the field sketches must have a written comment to indicate that they are not present. e.g. “This field is not tiled.”

19. Land Available For Spreading

Setback distances to water features identified in Section # 18 should be subtracted in the calculation of the land base available for spreading. Thus “Tillable Area” and “Available Area for Manure” often differ. Area can be calculated by knowing that one acre equals roughly 43500 square feet.

20. Soil Samples

Soil samples are to have been analyzed by an OMAFRA-approved lab within the last 3 years. A single soil sample should represent 25 acres or less. The list of approved OMAFRA labs can be found at the following OMAFRA website: www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/crops/resource/soillabs.htm

The default phosphorous test level of 101 ppm is to be used only if this plan was completed at a time when a soil test could not be taken (i.e. frozen ground). For plans being renewed, it is expected that all fields be soil tested in the last 3 years.

21. Phosphorous Test

A sodium bicarbonate test is to be used to determine the phosphorus level of the soil.

F. Cropping Practices

22. Yield Documentation for Continuous Cropping

Documentation supporting stated yields is required for fields where the same crop is grown continuously for 3 or more years on the same field and the estimated yield exceeds township averages. Crop insurance records are suitable documentation.

23. Yield Documentation for High Yields

Documentation supporting stated yields is required for fields where the estimated crop yields exceeds 120% of the township average. Crop insurance records are suitable documentation.

24. Proper Crop Balances

Agronomic balances must be completed for nitrogen and phosphorous.

24. Proper Crop Balances (Continued)

If the nitrogen agronomic balance is exceeded by 15 lbs/ac, a crop removal balance for nitrogen needs to be completed. This balance must show that for each acre no more than 30 lbs of nitrogen is applied over crop removal and no more than a total of 200 lbs of nitrogen is applied.

If the phosphate agronomic balance is exceeded by 15 lbs/ac, a crop removal balance for phosphate needs to be completed. This balance must not exceed 70 lbs/ac if manure is applied every year, 170 lbs/ac for bi-yearly applications or 270 lbs/ac if the manure is applied once every three years.

In addition, a phosphorous index is to be completed and accounted for if the soil test level exceeds 30 ppm.

The NMAN Software completes all of these crop balance calculations for the user.

25. Manure Application Rates

The manure application rates must be below recommended maximum levels for the soil type and slope.

26. NMAN and MSTOR Printouts

The full plan, including summary and detailed NMAN and MSTOR printouts, or equivalents for the first year of the plan are to be submitted for third party review by OMAFRA.

The summary pages for the 2^nd and 3^rd year of the plan are also to be submitted for review. In some cases, summary pages are not required if the plan clearly shows a balanced crop rotation is present.

27. Sufficient Landbase

If the manure application frequency is every 2, 3, 4 or 5 years, sufficient landbase is required so that manure can be spread each year as specified.

For Frequently Asked Questions about NMPs, please visit the NMAN Software Homepage at :

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/scripts/english/engineering/nman/default.asp

For more information about Nutrient Management Plans you can also contact the Agricultural Information Contact Centre at 1-877-424-1300, your local OMAFRA Engineer, or your OMAFRA Nutrient Management Planning Best Management Practices booklet.
Annex D

SIGNED STATEMENTS TO ACCOMPANY A NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN

A. Certificate Signed by the Person who Prepared the Nutrient Management Plan

I,_____________________, hereby certify that based on relevant information provided in good faith and excluding unforeseen or uncontrollable circumstances, the recommendations contained in the attached report will, if implemented, result in acceptable management practices. Acceptable management practices refer to normal farming practices that do not contravene any applicable law.

________________________________ ____________________________________

Signature Date

B. Certificate Signed by Farm Owner and/or Operator

The farm owner and/or operator who is submitting or renewing his Nutrient Management Plan and who has authorized a Consultant in Agriculture to review their nutrient management plan shall append the following statement to the report.

I,_____________________, hereby certify that I have reviewed my Nutrient Management Plan and I shall, in good faith, follow and implement the recommendations as set out within the Nutrient Management Plan.

________________________________ ____________________________________

Signature Date

C. Certificate signed by OMAF or a Consultant in Agriculture Reviewing the Nutrient Management Plan.

I,_____________________, have reviewed the Nutrient Management Plan as submitted and confirm that it meets the Nutrient Management review criteria and best management practices of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture & Food and the City’s Nutrient Management Strategy.

_______________________________ ____________________________________

Signature Date

Annex E

PROPOSED LANDS FOR NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN

In accordance with the City of Ottawa Nutrient Management Strategy, the City requires the following information to determine compliance of lands which are included in a Nutrient Management Plan.

APPLICANT

NAME ______________________

ADDRESS ______________________ POSTAL CODE_____________

TELEPHONE ______________________ FAX_______________________

PROPERTY LOCATION: ROLL#___________________ PIN#_____________

LOT___________ CONC_________ 911 ADDRESS___________

PROPOSED LANDS FOR NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN

Please attach completed page 2

I,__________________________ hereby certify that the above and attached information is true, as if taken under oath.

Dated:______________________ Signed: _________________________

NOTES

1. Approval and/or notification for any lands not within the City of Ottawa that are to be used in the calculation of the Nutrient Management Plan will be submitted to the appropriate authority

2. Off-Site Manure Application Agreement(s) must be submitted with this form.

3. Form must be submitted in triplicate.

Annex E PROPOSED LANDS FOR NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 2

Applicant____________________________

Roll No.

PIN No.

Former Township

Owner

Distance to Subject Property

Tillable Hectares

Agreement in Place (Y/N)

Annex F

OFF SITE MANURE APPLICATION AGREEMENT

___________________________

(Intensive Livestock Farm Name)

Lot ______ Concession._______

PIN # ________________________

FORMER TOWNSHIP_______________

(Intensive Livestock Farm Location)

A Nutrient Management Plan is being prepared for our _____________________

(Type of Livestock Operation). Our goal is to carry out an environmentally sound program. In order to accomplish this, we need more land than we currently own. The proper application of livestock manure, following a Nutrient Management Plan shall be carried out to minimize the impact on the environment.

To register lands in the Nutrient Management Plan of______________________, please complete this forms as follows: (Intensive Livestock Farm Owner/Operator)

I_______________________ give permission to _______________________________

(Landowner) (Intensive Livestock Farm Owner/Operator)

to incorporate my lands in the Nutrient Management Plan of ______________________________

(Intensive Livestock Farm Owner/Operator)

and to apply manure on land owned at the following locations:

1. Lot_______ Conc.___________ Former Twp.____________

Tillable Hectares ________________

Roll# _________________________ PIN_____________

Estimated Total amount of manure to be Received ________________________

2. Lot_______ Conc.____._______ Former Twp.____________

Tillable Hectares ________________

Roll# _________________________ PIN_____________

Estimated Total amount of manure to be Received ________________________

3. Lot_______ Conc.___________ Former Twp.____________

Tillable Hectares ________________

Roll# _________________________ PIN_____________

Estimated Total amount of manure to be Received ________________________

4. Lot_______ Conc.___________ Former Twp.____________

Tillable Hectares ________________

Roll# _________________________ PIN_____________

Estimated Total amount of manure to be Received _______________________

(if more space is required, please attach a separate list including the same information as requested above.)

The landowner gives permission to the livestock farm to do soil sampling on the above-noted property (s) to determine the condition of the soil, as required for the purpose of a Nutrient Management Plan.

The landowner does not give permission to use the land identified above for the application of livestock manure or biosolids (sewage sludge) originating from any other livestock farm or other source during the term of this agreement.

The landowner also agrees that any livestock manure application to the land identified above must be incorporated into a Nutrient Management Plan.

The Agreement shall be in force for a minimum period of one (1) year, commencing on _____________________ and ending on______________________.

Pollution liability insurance will be carried by________________________________ to cover spill cleanup and liability. (Intensive Livestock Farm Owner/Operator)

The landowner is notified by this agreement will become part of the public record and may be subject to disclosure under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56.

NAME OF INTENSIVE LIVESTOCK FARM ______________________________

(please print)

INTENSIVE LIVESTOCK FARM OWNER/OPERTOR_____________________

Signature

NAME OF LANDOWNER__________________ _______________________

(please print) Signature

WITNESS _________________ ______________________

Date Signature

Note: Permission to use these lands for the purpose of a Nutrient Management Plan is required from all property owners listed on title for the affected lands. For properties owned by more than one person, permission may be given by additional owners in the form of a signature on this form or a signed letter accompanying this form.

Annex G

AGREEMENT FOR THE DISPOSAL OF SOLID/LIQUID LIVESTOCK MANURE FARMER TO BROKER SALE

The following is an Agreement for the sale of solid livestock manure to meet the requirements of Nutrient Management Plan.

This Agreement is made between: _________________________________

(Intensive Livestock Farm Owner/Operator)

hereinafter referred to as the “Applicant”

And

__________________________________

(Purchaser of Solid Livestock Manure)

hereinafter referred to as the “Purchaser”.

WHEREAS the Applicant has prepared a Nutrient Management Plan indicating the sale of a quantity of solid livestock manure;

AMD WHEREAS the Purchaser agrees to store and apply the solid livestock manure in accordance with recognized best environmental and agricultural practices;

NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. The Applicant has contracted to the Purchaser for the disposal of ___________ tonnes of solid livestock manure at a value of $_____________ per tonne.

2. The Purchaser warrants that s/he has adequate manure storage that:

· provides for the elimination or management of any liquid run-off from the solid livestock manure such that it is not entering a municipal drain, an open watercourse or a field tile bed;

· the total combined manure storage of the Applicant and the Purchaser shall meet or exceed 240 days capacity; and

· the Purchaser’s manure storage facilities satisfy manure storage guidelines published from time to time by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture & Food.

3. This agreement shall be in force for a minimum period of one (1) year commencing on __________________________ and ending on ______________________________.

4. The terms of this agreement shall strictly apply to the present Purchaser. Should the Purchaser use the solid livestock manure in a manner which is demonstrated to cause environmental harm, the agreement ceases to apply.

5. The Purchaser is notified by this agreement that any lands within the City of Ottawa on which the solid livestock manure is to be stored in accordance with this agreement, will be registered by the City of Ottawa.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have affixed their hands and seals this ____________ day of ___________________, 20__.

Signed, Sealed and Delivered )

In the presence of )

)

_____________________ ) ______________________________

) Applicant (Intensive

) Livestock Farm

) Owner/Operator)

)

)

Signed, Sealed and Delivered )

In the presence of )

)

______________________ ) ______________________________

) Purchaser

Annex H

FARM UNIT DECLARATION FORM

Nutrient Management Plan # _______________

Intensive Livestock Farms are required to develop the nutrient management plan for the entire farm unit. Within the City of Ottawa’s Nutrient Management Strategy, the term, “farm unit” means all parcels of land, whether owned or rented, which are operated as one farm operation. This will include the principal farm residence, any other farm residences, barns and any other structures necessary to support the farm operation.

In order to determine which livestock must be accounted for, the farm unit includes all livestock on the same deeded property where the barn(s) is located as well as livestock from other deeded properties owned by the same person/corporation, if the manure from these properties is utilized on the land base of the farm unit. All of these livestock units must be accounted for in the Nutrient Management Plan.

The farm unit includes the land base on the same deed as any livestock barns to which the Nutrient Management Plan applies. It also includes any other deeded properties owned by the same person/corporation as well as any non-owned or jointly-owned lands used for manure application. Non-owned lands may be rental lands or leased lands or share-crop lands. Jointly-owned lands may be lands owned by the farmer and his/her spouse, children or partners. In short, the lands which are to be used for the application of manure from any livestock barns included in the Nutrient Management Plan make up the farm unit. These lands must be accounted for in the Nutrient Management Plan.

The farm unit does not have to include livestock from other deeds if the manure from livestock on the other deeds is handled on a completely separate and definable land base. The owner must sign this document to indicate his/her intent to keep the different farm units (livestock and land bases) separate.

In accordance with this information, I, ________________________________________

(Livestock Owner/Operator) declare that the following properties comprise the farm unit. Should this farm unit constitute an Intensive Livestock Farm, I acknowledge that I am required to complete a Nutrient Management Plan, and that such Nutrient Management Plan shall include all of the lands identified on this form.

Annex I

TERMS OF REFERENCE – PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENTS FOR PROPOSED INTENSIVE LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS

The following Terms of Reference are intended as a guide for preliminary water quality impact assessments that are to be submitted in support of applications for intensive livestock operations.

Objective of Study

The objective of the preliminary water quality impact assessment is to compile and interpret site-specific geologic and hydrogeologic information in order to provide a preliminary evaluation of the potential for groundwater and surface water impacts that may arise from a proposed intensive livestock operation. The assessment should provide an indication of the overall environmental suitability of the site for the intended land use based on a review of the available information carried out by a qualified hydrogeologist.

The assessment should generally address the following:

i) the proposed type of agricultural operation, the size of the facility, and the proposed density;

ii) the suitability of the terrain (eg., soil type, drainage, topography, etc.) for the proposed land use; and

iii) any environmental constraints for the proposed land use (eg., groundwater resources, surface watercourses, natural environmental features, etc.).

Information Sources

A review of all background geologic and hydrogeologic information should be completed at the initial stage of assessment. The information should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:

- Topographic maps on a suitable scale (eg., 1: 1 0,000 to 1:50,000)

- Regional geologic mapping and reports (bedrock and overburden mapping; drift thickness, aquifer vulnerability, etc.)

- Agricultural soil capability reports and maps

- Regional water resources studies, if available

- Hydrogeologic reports for adjacent developments, if available

- Aggregate resources reports and mapping

- Water well records compiled by the MOE

- MOE hydrogeologic reports and files

- Aerial photography for stereographic terrain interpretation

- Flood-risk mapping

- Municipal land use designations under the Official Plan and pertnitted uses in zoning bylaws

- Water quality testing results from on-site wells

- Soil testing results associated with the nutrient management plan

Following the review of the information listed above, a preliminary field assessment of the site conditions should be completed in order to confirm and enhance the background information. General observations should be made regarding the site physiography and apparent drainage, geomorphology, vegetation conditions, and neighbouring land use.

A detailed water well inventory of the applicant's farm should also be completed at this stage. Well construction details and information on water usage should be obtained, and the presence (and status) of abandoned water wells should be identified.

Report Requirements

The preliminary water quality impact assessment report must include the following information and interpretations to support the intended land use. Any of the documents outlined above or calculations used in the assessment should be referenced in detail.

a) Location and Physical Setting:

- Identify the site location and orientation with municipal address, lot and concession numbers, and roads along site boundaries.

- Identify the present land use, Official Plan designation and permitted uses in the site zoning. Provide a description of the surrounding land use within one kilometre of the property boundaries.

- Describe the topography and site drainage conditions; identify any wetlands, surface watercourses, flood plains, or other significant natural environment features within one kilometre of the site.

b) Site Geology & Hydrogeology:

- Describe the site geology and hydrogeology, based on the information obtained from the background review and confirmed in the field. Identify the soil & bedrock types and thicknesses, areas of shallow depth to bedrock, hydrostratigraphy, agricultural capability, etc. using written descriptions, maps and cross-sections.

- Identify any groundwater resources, depth to water-bearing zones, regional and local groundwater flow information, well information (construction details, yields, usage), aquifer characteristics, etc. The assessment should include a statistical evaluation of the information contained in the MOE Water Well Record database for the study area.

- Provide references for all reports and information sources used in the impact assessment.

c) Impact Assessment:

The primary purpose of the water quality impact assessment is to make a preliminary determination of the suitability of the site for an intensive livestock operation, and to assess the potential for surface-bome sources of contamination to impact any local surface watercourses or aquifers. Of particular concern are the potential effects on groundwater and surface water from the storage and land application of animal manure and other nutrients, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, etc. The following considerations should therefore be addressed in the impact assessment report submitted to the City of Ottawa.

- Preliminary assessment of the existing groundwater resource (quantity and quality) and surface water environment.

- Include an assessment of the potential risk to groundwater resources through an evaluation of the migration of potential contaminants. Describe the subsurface conditions relevant to migration and the expected attenuation of contaminants.

- Identify sensitive downgradient receptors for both the groundwater and surface water regimes.

- Evaluate the potential impacts from contaminants entering agricultural tile drainage systems and discharging into surface watercourses.

- Evaluate the potential for other surface water impacts from the proposed fanning operation.

- Identify any current or former on-site wells that will require setbacks or abandonment to prevent contamination.

- Describe any mitigative measures that are required to reduce the potential for water quality impacts, and the monitoring programs that will be conducted to ensure the adequacy of the impact assessment and any mitigative measures.

Based on the results of the preliminary water quality impact assessment and a review of the report by City of Ottawa staff, a determination will be made regarding municipal approval for the land use, or the need for further information. Detailed site-specific evaluation may be required in the event that there is significant potential for water quality impacts from the proposed operation. Specific terms of reference for detailed site evaluations will be developed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the type and extent of potential impacts that require further study.

Document 2

Details of Amendment to the Site Plan Control By-law

1. That Section 2. DEFINITION, of the Site Plan Control By-law, 2002, be amended to include the following definitions:

“intensive livestock operation” means a livestock operation where the land, buildings or structures are used for the purposes of accommodating livestock which either exceed 150 livestock units, or exceed 50 livestock units with a livestock density of more than 5 livestock units per tillable hectare.

“livestock units” means in the case of,

(i) beef, 1 beef cow, including 1 calf to 150 kilograms, or 2 beef feeders,

(ii) chicken, 125 caged layers, 125 chicken breeder layers, 200 chicken broilers or roasters, or 500 pullets or replacement layers,

(iii) dairy, 1 milking cow, including 1 calf to 150 kilograms, or 2 dairy heifers,

(iv) duck, 100 ducks,

(v) emu, 5 emus,

(vi) fox, 40 adult fox, including offspring to market size,

(vii) goat, 4 adult goats, including offspring until weaned, or 10 feeder goats weighing more than 20 kilograms each,

(viii) horse, 1 horse, including offspring until weaned,

(ix) mink, 80 adult mink, including offspring to market size,

(x) ostrich, 3 ostrich,

(xi) rabbit, 40 adult rabbits, including offspring to market size,

(xii) sheep, 4 adult sheep, including offspring until weaned, or 10 feeder lambs weighing more than 20 kilograms each,

(xiii) swine, 5 sows or boars, 20 weaners, or 4 feeder hogs,

(xiv) turkey, 50 meat turkeys weighing more than 10 kilograms each, 75 meat turkeys weighing between 5 and 10 kilograms each, 75 turkey breeder layers, 100 meat turkeys weighing less than 5 kilograms each, or 500 pullets or replacement breeders,

(xv) veal, 6 white veal, or 3 red veal weighing less than 300 kilograms each, and

(xvi) all other animals or poultry, 450 kilograms housed,

except that where milking cows and dry cows, heifers and calves or any combination thereof are kept on the same operation, each milking cow is 1.5 livestock units and each dry cow, heifer or calf is 0 livestock units.”

2. That Subsection 4(2) of the Site Plan Control By-law, 2002, describing the classes of development not exempt from site plan control approval, be amended by adding the following paragraphs:

1. the construction, erection or placing on land of an intensive livestock operation;

2. the making of an addition or alteration to a building or structure that has the effect of establishing an intensive livestock operation or expanding an existing intensive livestock operation by at least 30% of the gross floor area.

Document 3

Details of Zoning Amendments.

A. Details of Amendments to the Zoning By-laws of the Former Municipalities and Townships of Nepean (Southern Section), Gloucester, Cumberland (Rural), Osgoode, Rideau, Goulbourn, Kanata (March Rural Community) and West Carleton

1. That the Definition Section of the zoning by-laws of the former municipalities and townships of Nepean (Southern Section – By-law 73-92), Gloucester, Cumberland (Rural Zoning By-law 64-82), Osgoode, Rideau, Goulbourn, Kanata (March Rural Community Zoning By-law 74-79) and West Carleton be amended to add “intensive livestock operation” as a defined use, and that the agricultural and rural zones of the respective by-laws be amended to add intensive livestock operation as a listed permitted land use.

2. That “intensive livestock operation” be defined to mean “a livestock operation where the land, buildings or structures are used for the purposes of accommodating livestock which either exceed 150 livestock units, or exceed 50 livestock units with a livestock density of more than 5 livestock units per tillable hectare.

3. That “livestock units” be defined as meaning, in the case of,

(i) beef, 1 beef cow, including 1 calf to 150 kilograms, or 2 beef feeders,

(ii) chicken, 125 caged layers, 125 chicken breeder layers, 200 chicken broilers or roasters, or 500 pullets or replacement layers,

(iii) dairy, 1 milking cow, including 1 calf to 150 kilograms, or 2 dairy heifers,

(iv) duck, 100 ducks,

(v) emu, 5 emus,

(vi) fox, 40 adult fox, including offspring to market size,

(vii) goat, 4 adult goats, including offspring until weaned, or 10 feeder goats weighing more than 20 kilograms each,

(viii) horse, 1 horse, including offspring until weaned,

(ix) mink, 80 adult mink, including offspring to market size,

(x) ostrich, 3 ostrich,

(xi) rabbit, 40 adult rabbits, including offspring to market size,

(xii) sheep, 4 adult sheep, including offspring until weaned, or 10 feeder lambs weighing more than 20 kilograms each,

(xv) swine, 5 sows or boars, 20 weaners, or 4 feeder hogs,

(xiv) turkey, 50 meat turkeys weighing more than 10 kilograms each, 75 meat turkeys weighing between 5 and 10 kilograms each, 75 turkey breeder layers, 100 meat turkeys weighing less than 5 kilograms each, or 500 pullets or replacement breeders,

(xv) veal, 6 white veal, or 3 red veal weighing less than 300 kilograms each, and

(xvi) all other animals or poultry, 450 kilograms housed,

except that where milking cows and dry cows, heifers and calves or any combination thereof are kept on the same operation, each milking cow is 1.5 livestock units and each dry cow, heifer or calf is 0 livestock units.”

B. Details of Amendments to the Zoning By-laws of the former Townships of Osgoode, Rideau and West Carleton

1. That Zoning By-law No. 16-1971, as amended, of the former Township of Osgoode be amended as follows:

a. That Section 13.2 of the Rural (RU) Zone be amended to include a provision requiring that all agricultural uses meet the Minimum Distance Separation formula set out by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food; and

b. That Section 13.A.2 of the Rural Agriculture (RA) Zone be amended to include a provision requiring that all agricultural uses meet the Minimum Distance Separation formula set out by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

2. That Zoning By-law 84-77, as amended, of the former Township of Rideau be amended as follows:

a. That Section 21.2 of the Restricted Rural Zone (A1) Zone be amended to include a provision requiring that all agricultural uses meet the Minimum Distance Separation formula set out by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food;

b. That Section 22.2 of the General Rural Zone (A2) be amended to include a provision requiring that all agricultural uses meet the Minimum Distance Separation formula set out by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food; and

c. That Section 23.2 of the Development Zone (D) be amended to include a provision requiring that all agricultural uses meet the Minimum Distance Separation formula set out by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

3. That Zoning By-law 266 of 1981, as amended, of the former Township of West Carleton be amended as follows:

a. That Section 22 (s) be deleted and replaced by the following new provision: (s) MINIMUM DISTANCE SEPARATION: No part of any livestock building or manure storage facility shall be located closer than the Minimum Distance Separation formula set out by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Document 4

HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMENTS RECEIVED AT PUBLIC MEETINGS HELD ON MAY 1, 2 AND 6, 2002

General

- We do not want a hog farm near Sarsfield. No one wants to live close to a pig farm.

- Why not a by-law prohibiting pig farms in the City like the no smoking by-law.

- An intensive hog farm is an industry, not a livestock operation.

- The term “factory farm” should not be used in this context. It is a US term referring to large industrial feeding operations which do not produce any crops, vegetation or forage growth.

- The proposed nutrient management by-law seems like a stalling tactic before Bill 81 comes in effect.

- The public wants nutrient management; farmers want nutrient management.

- The proposed by-law does not take into consideration the economic concerns associated with the proposed farm near Sarsfield.

- Who is to manage the nutrient management plan?

- The City should be liable, given that it is Council that makes the decision, if the environment gets polluted.

- The City should negotiate compensation for loss of property value.

- The decision makers and advisers have vested interest in the farm industry. OMAF should not be the third party approving nutrient management plans.

- What would be the qualifications of those preparing the nutrient management plan and of those approving the plans?

- The nutrient management by-law is a good thing until the Nutrient Management Act comes into effect.

- There is a City by-law of 1906 (file 2577) prohibiting pigs in the City. Is this by-law still valid?

- The same pork producer left the township of East Hawkesbury when it enacted By-law #97-39 on June 26^th, 1997. Why the City cannot have a similar by-law?

- Why have other municipalities resolved the issue and not the City of Ottawa?

- The by-law needs major revisions; it is too vague, it lacks specificity.

- The expression “…any other information that may be required by the City...” could mean anything.

- The by-law is “wishy-washy”. Section 5.1.2 says that “information about …” on the special provisions for hog farms; this is not a requirement to comply.

- We should require residency in the by-law in order to avoid corporations who operate intensive hog farms.

- There should be a moratorium put in place until a committee of farmers is set up to participate in the formulation of the nutrient management by-law.

- Properties located near intensive hog farms lose 50–90% of their value. Properties located about 500 feet from an intensive hog farm may lose 88.3% of their value, and properties located about 3 km from an intensive hog farms may lose 7% of their value.

- Farmers are used to having a limited number of rules. This is changing and the Nutrient Management Act is coming.

- Farmers are being replaced by industrial developers; they are here today and gone in 10 years.

- The proposed by-law has a livestock density of 5 livestock units per tillable hectare. Other by-laws have 2.5 and 3.0 livestock units. Why not the proposed by-law?

- The data in attachment 3 of the report refers to the number of animals, not the number of livestock units. In fact, there is only one hog farm greater than 150 livestock units in the City. 150 livestock units = 100 sows farrow to finish, or 750 sows only, or 3000 weaners only, or 600 finisher hogs only.

- The 150 livestock unit standard for intensive livestock operations is low; many farms already exceed this size.

- The use of 150 animal units must relate to another variable, namely a number of acres. Common sense tells me that 50 animal units on 25 acres (10 ha.) is more intensive than 200 animal units on 400 acres.

- City Council voted against the spreading of bio-solids. Why not manure?

- I am a dairy farmer and my farm is adjacent to the proposed intensive hog farm. I am against the nutrient management by-law because it does not address the real issues. I am not against farming. There are twelve houses on Lafleur Road that will be affected by the proposed hog farm. You should think as if the proposed intensive hog farm is in our backyard.

- A building permit application is public information. Will the nutrient management plan be kept confidential?

- Can the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee reverse the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee’s decision?

- Why the special provisions when Bill 81 is intended to standardize all the by-laws through Ontario?

- It should be very clear in this by-law that once Bill 81 (or any Provincial law that might replace it) becomes law, this by-law will be revoked in its entirety.

- If Bill 81 does not become reality, we are stuck with this by-law.

- The City is challenging Section 60 of Bill 81. If successful, this by-law could remain in effect.

- The by-law is a land grab. There has been no consultation with the farmers. The goal is to favour urban sprawl.

- Official Plan should contain rural polices that would protect agricultural land and implement the Provincial Policy Statements.

- There are quotas to produce and buy milk (i.e. cheese factory). If farms cannot expand, it will affect the food industry. We should prevent the urban sprawl and not over-regulate the farming industry otherwise the farming will no longer be economically viable.

- The City should not impose any rules that are more costly than what is coming with Bill 81. Unfortunately, we do not know yet what the regulations will be. The one thing that is apparent is that farmers will be given the right to develop their own nutrient management plan. Any third party review will probably be done by OMAF with no direct cost to the farmer. Any interim measure by the City should be on the same basis.

- Is it the liability of the original farmer if manure is improperly disposed by a second party?

- Is an equine operation that may exceed 50 livestock units per hectare required to prepare a nutrient management plan even if the manure is not spread on his fields but bought by another party? Is the purchaser of the manure caught by the requirements of the by-law?

Environment and Public Health

- This is an environmental and public health issue, not a farm issue. A nutrient management by-law will not address the real issues.

- Hog manure is a pollutant not a nutrient; it is a liability, not an asset.

- Hog manure does not pose any greater threat to pollution than do other sources of manure. If properly managed, manure of any source does not pose any threat to the environment.

- Manure is considered as a resource by farmers to maximize crop production.

- Can the City guarantee there will be no pollution resulting from intensive hog operations?

- There is no guarantee against pollution, like there is no guarantee that you will get home safely tonight, or that this building will not collapse tomorrow following an earthquake.

- It is guaranteed that problems will result from the operation of an intensive hog farm. Intensive hog farms are being closed all over Europe and in the USA. There is plenty of literature describing the damage to the environment caused by intensive hog farms.

- Whether it is 450 livestock units or 50 livestock units, the question is: is there a sufficient land base to spread the manure produced by the livestock?

- Can the soil near Sarsfield take the manure produced by 5,000 hogs?

- Will the manure affect the underground water and how far would it travel if it ends up in the underground water?

- Under the Environmental Act, no dangerous material, which may contaminate watercourses, may be located within 10 metres from a watercourse.

- The main concern is with the environment and the potential impact on underground water.

- The problem is with large corporations operating intensive hog farms; they have no stewardship of the environment.

- Farmers are good stewards of the environment; they are not known to pollute the environment.

- The City is currently developing its strategy on water management. Can we not wait till it is completed before pursuing in this matter?

- A two-month moratorium on hog farms was placed by the Province of Quebec to allow the formulation of policies related to water management, the environment, and the agriculture industry in order to protect the environment while maintaining the viability of the agriculture industry. The goal is to find a level of social acceptance vis-à-vis hog farms and ensure a sustainable environment. All intensive livestock farms with 600 livestock units or more will require a certificate from the Province.

- Sarsfield area is more at risk for pollution of underground water. My well was tested for coliforms. I had to boil my water and disinfect my well with Javex for six months. The Ministry of Environment did not do anything because it did not have E-coli bacteria.

- The City should control its bio-solids first before controlling the manure.

- Hog manure contains toxic components such as heavy metals and hydrogen sulphide and contains toxic gases and particles, which are damaging to human health.

- For the usual separations distance of 300 metres from a 1,200 sows farm, you will have an average of 75 hours a month or 2.5 hours a day of disease-producing odours. Even at 2.4 km away from a typical 1,200 hog operation, you will experience such odours on average 7 hours a month.

- A recent study conducted by the Veterinary Infectious Disease Organization (VIDO) at the University of Saskatchewan has concluded that air 600 metres downwind from swine barns is as “fresh” as air 2.4 kilometres upwind from a swine barn.

- Intensive hog farms require large quantities of water, which may lower the underground water table.

- The by-law addresses odours on hog farms, but there is nothing related to underground water.

Special Provisions for Intensive Hog Farms

- Why discriminate against intensive hog farms? 150 livestock units produce the same amount of manure whether they are pigs, dairy cows, beef cows or horses.

- The Provincial regulations/guidelines treat all farmers equally; so should Ottawa’s regulations.

- These special provisions could be setting precedents like the other township by-laws.

- My farm is adjacent to residential uses; I would be limited in the expansion of my operation.

- If rules are imposed on hog farms now, dairy farms will be next.

- A hydro-geological study should be required for all intensive hog farms.

- If the 450 cap is deleted, the requirement for a hydro-geological study should remain for intensive livestock farms greater than 450 livestock units.

- If weather conditions permit, incorporation of manure within 48 hours of application is more practicable than within 24 hours as proposed.

- Who would control/monitor the electronic monitoring devices around manure storage facilities?

- Will the farmers receive compensation for the additional cost resulting from the special provisions?

- If these special provisions remain, then 100% of the cost must be attributed to the City taxpayers as these are not considered customary practices in the farm business.

- Farms in Ottawa should not be put into an uneven playing field with adjoining municipalities.

- Within a 10-km radius, there is roughly 77,000 acres; an intensive livestock farm requires approximately 1,200 acres. An area of 10-km in radius can accommodate a large number (+/- 60 to 65) of intensive farms.

- The 10-km radius for the land base is not required. The transportation of goods and material on highways is regulated by the Ministry of Transportation.

- The 10-km radius not feasible. I have land 20 miles away. So do many farmers who use land beyond the 10-km radius.

- The 10-km radius is a counter-measure to the spreading of nutrients. Nutrients are spread where needed.

- The test wells, if it is in the by-law, should be for all farms.

Suggested Zoning Regulations

- The suggestion to use land use zoning to put further limits on farmers is totally unacceptable. The suggestion to cap herd size to 450 animal units is going totally against the realities of the 21st Century agriculture and is dangerously undemocratic. The proposed 1.4 km separation rule is nothing short of expropriation without compensation. The 20 km distance between intensive hog farms has no scientific justification whatsoever.

- I am in favor of the nutrient management plan but do not support the special provisions related to intensive hog farms.

- There is no scientific basis for a cap of 450 livestock units; it should be deleted. (By a show of hand, this was opposed unanimously (+/- 70) at the meeting held in Kinburn and by all (=/- 120) except one person at the meeting held in North Gower).

- The 450 cap is not required. What matters is to have the required land base for the number of livestock units.

- The Milk board had a cap on quotas, which have since been removed. Similarly, there should no cap on number of livestock units.

- The 1.4 km separation distance exceeds the distance for deterioration of contaminants emanating from hog farms by air.

- Will the 1.4 km separation distance apply to rural residential lots?

- Is the Sarsfield proposal the only reason for the 1.4 km separation distance?

- A buffer zone of at least 5 km needs to be created around all residential groupings of 4 houses or more.

- Zoning by-law defines agricultural uses as the use of land to raise, board and the keeping of all forms of livestock for the purpose of breeding, training, feeding and grazing. This does not include commercial activities such as abattoirs, canneries and tanneries. It can be assumed, therefore, that intensive hog farms falls under a commercial activity not permitted.

- There are no provisions to prevent the owner of the proposed hog farm near Sarsfield to expand across Lafleur Road, hence, closer to the village of Sarsfield.

- If my barn is destroyed by fire, will I be affected by the 1.4 km and 20 km separation distance requirements?

Document 5

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM THE MAY PUBLIC MEETINGS AND RESPONSES

Public Comment	Response
Rural Non-Farm community – mainly Sarsfield area
Don’t want Hog Farms in the City of Ottawa, particularly in Sarsfield	Hog farms are a permitted use within lands designated within the Official Plan as agricultural and general rural. The odours associated with hog manure are stronger than those associated with dairy or beef and the nutrient content, both phosphorus and nitrogen, are approximately 2 times higher in concentration in hog manure than cattle manure. Potential impacts from odour have been built into the calculation of the minimum distance separation required between hog farms/manure storage facilities and residences/non-farm uses. This separation distance is greater for hog farms than a similar size of dairy or beef farm with comparable livestock units. With regard to nutrients, the higher nutrient content of hog manure is included when determining the manure application rate to land.
Intensive Livestock Farms are an industry and should be treated as such	It is agreed that feedlot types of operations that are characterized by a small to non-existent land base without a cropping component as part of the farm operations would be operating more like an industry than a farm. The proposed strategy and by-law require that intensive livestock farms have a sufficient land base to use manure nutrients effectively. A completed nutrient management plan, acceptable to OMAF and the City, must be prepared prior to receipt of a building permit for establishing a new or expanding an existing intensive livestock farm.
Manure from hog farms should be considered toxic waste	The generally accepted method of determining whether a material is a toxic waste or not is the use of an aquatic toxicity test. This test, used by both the Ministry of the Environment and Environment Canada, exposes aquatic organisms to materials or effluents at various concentrations to determine the concentration which is toxic to 50% of the organisms. It is expected that a given concentration of manure in water would be toxic, however, all manures at some concentration in water would affect aquatic life. Farm operations that follow the best practices in manure management that will be documented in their nutrient management plan would not be discharging manure to surface waters. Livestock manure of all kinds is both a nutrient source and soil amendment which, when applied to land using best practices, keeps valuable nutrients in the environment where they can be re-used by plants. This contributes to the overall nutrient cycle and provides a more balanced soil environment through the addition of organic matter.
This is an environmental and health issue, not a farming issue	Implementation of a comprehensive nutrient management plan will provide a reasonable assurance that environmental and health impacts associated with emissions to air or water will not occur.
Who will compensate for loss to property value and of enjoyment of the outdoors	Existing hog farms within the City have not been documented as reducing the property values of nearby residences. The proposed hog farm near the Village of Sarsfield will be located in a predominantly downwind location. Implementation of the farm’s nutrient management plan, which has been prepared in consultation with OMAF, is expected to result in controlled odours and protection of water resources. It should be noted that the rural community as a whole has acknowledged that occasional odours from livestock operations are expected.
Agricultural Community
Why discriminate Intensive Hog Farms from other Intensive Livestock Farms	Differences with regard to odour and nutrient content of hog manure will be accommodated in the application of the Minimum Distance Separation formula and in the calculated manure application rates. As a result, there is not a rationale to further differentiate between types of farm operations. All intensive livestock farms will be subject to similar provisions under the proposed nutrient management strategy.
Land base should be the only criteria that limits the size of Intensive Livestock Farms	Agreed. The Nutrient Management Plan must provide for an adequate land base for effective use of the nutrients within livestock manure.
Who will compensate farmers for the added costs associated with the special provisions	There are programs, such as the Rural Clean Water Program, which provide financial assistance for implementing measures that protect water resources, such as construction of adequate manure storage facilities. Assistance may also be available through the recently announced funding by the federal government, to dedicate approximately $600 million to communications and environmental items for farmers as a result of the new Agricultural Policy Framework.
10 kilometre distance within which manure must be land applied is a heavy restriction on farm operations; This does not seem fair if other nutrient uses do not have this restriction, e.g. biosolids, compost, manure used by mushroom farms.	Restricting the size of livestock operations will be achieved through the requirement of an adequate land base for nutrient use. In addition, the transport of materials on roadways is regulated by the Ministry of Transportation.
1.4 km separation distance from residential land uses is not required – the Minimum Distance Separation should be adequate	Agreed. Adherence to the Minimum Distance Separation, as documented in the Agricultural Code of Practice, generally provides adequate separation between farm sources of odour and non-farm uses. Should odours from a particular livestock operation become an issue for nearby residents, it is recommended that the situation be referred for resolution to the Normal Farm Practices Board, established under the Farm and Food Production and Protection Act.
20 km separation distance has no scientific basis and unduly restricts the ability of farm operations to expand	As noted above, restricting the size of livestock operations will be achieved through the requirement of an adequate land base for nutrient use.
General Public
Who will enforce the by-law and monitor the test wells	Farm owner/operators are responsible for monitoring the test wells associated with manure storage facilities. It is proposed that the City routinely take samples from these test wells as an audit of the effectiveness of the manure containment system. This sampling is proposed to be conducted by Public Health Inspectors. City staff will enforce the by-law and will refer potential offences associated with provincial legislation to the Ministry of the Environment.

Document 6

HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMENTS RECEIVED AT PUBLIC MEETINGS HELD ON JUNE 3^RD AND 4^TH, 2002

As directed by the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, two public meetings were held early June, in addition to the three public meetings held early May, in order to allow the farming community convenient time to be informed of the proposed nutrient management by-law and zoning regulations and to provide comments before a final version of the by-law is submitted to the Committees and Council. The meeting held in Metcalfe on June 3^rd , 2002, was attended by 45 people, 29 of which were bused in from the Sarsfield area. The meeting held in Richmond on June 4^th , 2002, was attended by 29 people, the majority from the farming community.

What follows is a highlight of the comments received at both meetings.

General

- People in Sarsfield are not against farming; we support local farming. The Laplante Farm, a chicken and hog farm located approximately 2 miles west of Sarsfield, is not a problem, including the manure that is spread in the fields. We don’t want outside farmers such as those from Québec.

- It seems that we are pushed to do something too fast. We need more time. I feel nervous about this issue. The by-law should make us feel comfortable.

- Concerned with what is happening in Québec (moratorium in place on large scale hog farms).

- Owner of the proposed farm is coming here (Sarsfield) here to make a profit.

- Why a 1:5 ratio and not 1:2.5 ratio?

- The US use a 1:2.5 ratio; other provinces use 1:3 and 1:4 ratios. Only Ontario uses a 1:5 ratio.

- The map showing the separation distances should be published in order to inform other areas of the City where new intensive livestock farms can be developed.

- Why Sarsfield and not Stittsville? The survival of Sarsfield is at stake.

- Property value and rights not considered; they are OK now but if the properties were to be within 3 kilometres from an intensive hog farm, they would lose 50 – 85% of their value.

- There is an estimated 10,000,000$ of property value near the proposed farm. 85% lost would be considerable for the City.

- If the by-law goes through as proposed, can the proposed farm near Sarsfield go ahead?

- How many hogs will be permitted in the proposed hog farm in Sarsfield?

- There was a tour of three large farms, one mix cattle and hog farm and two dairy farms. They are very well operated.

- We should avoid using the “they and us” attitude in this matter.

- Does the City have the staff to enforce the by-law? Will it be dealt with on a complaint basis or would the City be proactive?

- There is a difference between a family operation and as corporation operation.

- Can the issue of residency be addressed in the by-law? If you live in the community, there is stewardship of the environment.

- Will the 10-kilometer radius requirement prevent my neighbour from hauling in chicken manure from Kinston? The gardening industry also hauls in cow manure from beyond a 10-kilometre radius.

- I have two hog farms near my place and I don’t notice them.

- Why not use existing by-laws banning intensive hog farms and adopt it for the City?

- You can grow smart and not grow big and still be economically viable. Big means high cost to the environment.

- The nutrient management plan has no scientific basis; this has been confirmed by OMAF.

- OMAF should not be a third party in approving nutrient management plans. They are promoters and lobbyists of intensive farming.

- I guarantee you that there would be class action suits if not sufficient protection is provided to property and people’s health.

- Does the by-law make a distinction between raw manure and treated manure? Does it introduce new technologies?

- The nutrient management by-law should be in two parts: one dealing with the Sarsfield issue and the other dealing with the City.

- My concern is with a similar proposal to the Sarsfield farm being made elsewhere in the City.

- If farmers are continued to be harassed with by-laws and regulations, they will leave and we will end up with empty farmlands. We need protection from non-farming community.

- Land cost around the City is a deterrent to new intensive livestock farms given the land base they require to operate.

Environment and Public Health

- There may be adequate land base for the application of the manure but I’m concerned with the area near Lafleur Rd and Colonial Rd where the bedrock is close to the surface and with the old wells on the property.

- The manure should be shipped to Osgoode and Goulbourn.

- Ontario is the worst government in Canada for regulating water quality and supply.

- Canada has no water quality standards; no mandate to stop pollution; testing not comprehensive.

- How long will I have good water? I was promised, at an earlier public meeting, that relevant studies would be sent to me.

- There are several uncapped wells on the property. They should be capped.

- The issue has nothing to do with manure; it has to do with odours.

- Sarsfield is an environment and health issue, not a farming issue. Nutrient management Plans are OK to management manure; not to protect the environment and public health and safety.

- Where large intensive farms existed for ten years or more, they proven to cause problems.

- The proposed by-law does not address several issues, namely the emission of nitrates and ammoniac would not monitored; hog manure produces toxins which, if a person is exposed to it for an extended period of time, would result in chronic health problems.

- The problems associated with hog manure are twice that of other manure.

- When will the City’s water strategy be completed?

- Can we get the notes taken at the various public meetings.

- Sarsfield had a dairy farm where the hog farm is proposed. Manure was spread on the same fields. What would be the difference if it was done in accordance with best farming practices?

- Don’t want Québec farmers either, but if they follow best farming practices, they are welcomed.

- Farmers are good stewards of the land. They live in the environment where they operate their farm.

Special Provisions for Intensive Hog Farms

- How reliable will the monitoring of the manure storage facilities be?

- If the hydro-geological study is not required, how will the number of livestock units be determined?

- How was the hydro-geological study done? How valid is it? It is not comprehensive. It takes 2-3 years to do a hydro-geological study. For instance, the study did not deal with the till drains. There are concerns as well with the French drains, and the bedrock close to the surface at the Lafleur Rd and Colonial Rd intersection, which were not addressed properly.

- Why the by-law precludes alternative technologies for reducing odours or applying the manure? If they were used by farm operators, you may be able to reduce the separation distances.

- What scientific measures will be used to measure odours?

- There is a general support from the farming community for the nutrient management by-law, but not with the special provisions related to hog farms, nor with the zoning regulations.

Suggested Zoning Regulations

- We want a greater separation distance than 1.4 kilometre between intensive hog farms and non-agricultural uses.

- We need a minimum of 5-kilometre separation distance between intensive hog farms and non-agricultural uses to feel safe.

- Can the City ban certain types of farms?

- A 20-kilometre separation distance include much more than the land base required for the application of the manure produced by a 450 livestock unit farm.

- There are already several farms in the City exceeding 450 livestock units. Will they be forced into splitting their operations in half in order to grow?

- My property is in the village of Sarsfield but my backyard abuts farmland. The proposed farm is 1.4 kilometre from my property; will they be able to spread manure of that field?

- The nutrient management plan is OK; it will disappear with the Nutrient Management Act. The zoning regulations, however, will stay; we are against them.

- If a farm has the required land base, there should be not cap on the size of farm operations. Also, the distance separation needs to be looked at again to see if they necessary.

- The Province of Québec is considering a 2.5 kilometre separation distance from residential lots and 8 kilometres from villages.

- Québec has a problem because too many hog farms are located in certain areas and without sufficient land to adequately dispose of the manure. Many farms buy their feed and do not grow their own, thereby, requiring less land to operate.

- OFA, which represents all types of farms, large and small, is in favour of nutrient management by-law, not with the zoning regulations.

- We visited three large farms: one exceeding the 450 cap and the other wants to expand but will be affected by the proposed by-law.

- Can we put a covenant in subdivision agreements advising the future property owners of farming activities taking place in the immediate surroundings?

- Is 20% expansion cumulative over the years or is it applied every time a building permit application is submitted?

- How and when is the 20% expansion calculated? How will the City keep track of the expansions.

- If I expand within the capacity of the existing buildings, am I affected by the by-law?

- A high school in Barrhaven was allowed to built almost to the sidewalk but I was told that my barn was too close to the street.

The City is preparing a new Official Plan which will promote the value of protecting farm land. The zoning regulations will go

---

[1] Agricultural Code of Practice.