I am attaching our…

   I am attaching our Committee of the Whole Report Item Number CCW-17-263 and our

 General Comments below:

  REPORT:

  To:Committee of the Whole

  Agenda Section:

 Division:

 Department:Corporate Services

 Engineering, Planning and Environment

 Planning Department

  Item Number:CCW - 17-263

  Meeting Date:September 12, 2017

  Subject:Comments on Provincial Draft Agricultural System and Natural Heritage System Mapping and Implementation Procedures

     Recommendation

  That Item CCW 17-263, dated September 12, 2017 regarding comments on Provincial Draft Agricultural System and Natural Heritage System Mapping and Implementation Procedures, be received; and

  That staff submit comments through the Environment Bill of Rights Registry (EBR) posting, as generally outlined in Item CCW 17-263.

  Executive Summary

  As part of the implementation of the Provincial Coordinated Land Use Planning Review of the Growth Plan, Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the Province has taken an innovative systems approach to planning for Agriculture and Natural Heritage across the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH). The Province has posted a Draft Agricultural System mapping and implementation procedures document. The Province has also posted a Draft Natural Heritage System mapping and criteria and methods document for public review and comments.  Comments are to be posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (EBR). County Planning staff has undertaken a review of the draft documents and mapping and considered the Simcoe County Official Plan and land use designation structure in its review.

  County Planning Staff is proposing some comments and suggested mapping refinements in keeping with the consultation requirements.  County Planning staff are seeking County Council’s authorization to submit these comments and suggestions to the Province before the October 4th deadline.

   Background/Analysis/Options

  As part of the implementation of the Provincial Coordinated Land Use Planning Review, the Ontario government has posted draft mapping and guidance documents on the proposed Agricultural System and Natural Heritage System on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (EBR postings 013-0968 and EBR 013-1014).  Comments are to be submitted through the EBR by October 4, 2017.

  The Agricultural System, as proposed, is comprised of the prime agricultural areas, including specialty crop areas, and rural lands (referenced as Candidate Areas in the draft mapping). The Agriculture System is also comprised of an agri-food network which includes infrastructure, services and assets that are important to the viability of the agri-food sector. The Natural Heritage System is made up of natural heritage features and areas linked by natural corridors to maintain biological and geological diversity, natural functions, and viable populations of indigenous species and ecosystems.

  The policies of the Growth Plan, 2017 require municipalities to identify and protect a continuous, productive land base for agriculture across the municipality and support the agri-food supply chain. As such, municipalities are to designate the prime agricultural areas in their official plans. The natural heritage system is to be treated as an overlay. If the municipality wishes to identify the natural heritage system as a separate designation, the Province requires additional policies in the official plan to prohibit non-agricultural uses, prevent lot creation and fragmentation, and allow agricultural uses to continue.

  County Planning staff has undertaken a review of the draft mapping of both the Agricultural System and the Natural Heritage System. The Province has requested that comments be provided at this time on the proposed guidance documents and methodology, as well as to identify major mapping refinements based on specific criteria (i.e. anything that is 250 hectares or larger). Further mapping refinements are meant to take place through the County’s Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) and will be based on specific criteria that the Province will be providing. Local municipal official plans may further refine the mapping based on the appropriate justification in keeping with the Provincial requirements at the time of an official plan update.  Details on these requirements are expected later this year.

  County planning staff discussed the proposed mapping and guidance material with Provincial staff to better understand the proposed implementation. As part of the submission to the Province through the EBR posting, County Planning staff are proposing to provide highlights on a few points of clarification as well as provide a few mapping refinement requests that are seen as appropriate at this time:

  Comments:

  •The County Official Plan OMB hearing concluded in late 2016. Provincial staff were involved throughout the approval process on both the policies and mapping. County Planning staff have concerns about the possibility of having to remove the Greenlands designation in favour of an Agricultural designation given how comprehensive and proactive the formulation of the Greenlands (i.e. County natural heritage system) designation was.

 •County Planning staff are confident that the County Greenlands designation in the recently approved County Official Plan provides the necessary policies and levels of protection that the Province requires in order to maintain a separate land use designation to protect the natural heritage features and areas (i.e. prohibits non-agricultural uses, prevents lot creation and fragmentation and allows agricultural uses to continue).

 •County Planning staff generally agrees with the Principles used in the development of the NHS as long as we can maintain a separate Greenlands designation as noted above and have no issue with the criteria used for the composition and the size of the core areas and linkages.

 •The County of Simcoe natural heritage system is generally intact and has not experienced fragmentation.  We recognize, however, the importance of considering smaller core areas in highly fragmented areas with limited natural cover as important in maintaining an appropriate natural heritage system.

 •The automated approach to applying the Natural Heritage System criteria is a similar approach taken in the recent County of Simcoe Official Plan update, which resulted in an increase in natural heritage system area from 32% to 39%.

  Agricultural Mapping Refinements:

  •The County Official Plan Schedule 5.1 – Land Use Designations, identifies the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) and the Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) areas.  These areas defer to the land use designations in the parent documents and we anticipate any changes to those plans or designations would be appropriately reflected in the parent document.

 •Ensure the four (4) Provincially recognized Strategic Employment Areas and Economic Employment Districts, including the Bradford West Gwillimbury strategic settlement employment area, the Innisfil Heights strategic settlement employment area, the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport economic employment district and the Rama Road economic employment district are not part of the Agricultural System – agricultural designation.

 •Ensure that all settlement areas identified on the approved County Official Plan Schedule 5.1, (approved in 2016) are removed from the Agricultural System.

 •Several Provincially Significant Wetlands, and other natural features such as ANSI’s, should be removed from the proposed Agricultural System (i.e. Minesing Wetland and the Tiny Marsh) as they are given strong protection through the County’s Greenlands designation.

 •Several Aggregate areas are proposed for the Agricultural System and should be removed (i.e. Ramara, Severn, etc.).  Given the extent of extraction below the water table, these areas are not likely to be rehabilitated to agricultural uses.

 •County Planning Staff recommend that all Industrial Parks and commercial lands at Highway interchanges are not identified as part of the proposed Agricultural System.

 •Portions of the ‘South of Division Road Secondary Plan’ in the Township of Severn are proposed for the Agricultural System.  These areas should be consistent with the local municipal designation and removed from the proposed Agricultural System.

  Natural Heritage Mapping Refinements:

  •As in the Agricultural Mapping Refinements, the ORMCP and NEP areas must match their parent document related to Natural Heritage.

 •County Planning staff are suggesting no refinements at this time as long as the Province is satisfied that our Greenlands designation can remain in place to protect our natural heritage features and linkages.

  Further refinements at a smaller scale may be incorporated during the County’s Municipal Comprehensive Review process or the individual local Municipality’s Official Plan Review process. County Planning staff recognize the importance of replying to this EBR posting in order to protect our land use interests.  We believe the County needs to reinforce and reiterate the importance in keeping our Greenlands designation intact as our recent County Official Plan was approved with that in mind.

  Financial and Resource Implications

  There are no financial or resource implications associated with this item.

  Relationship to Corporate Strategic Plan

  There is no direct relationship to the Corporate Strategic Plan.

  Reference Documents

  Implementation Procedures for the Agricultural System in Ontario’s Greater Golden Horseshoe, June 7, 2017

 http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/landuse/improc.pdf

  Development of the Proposed Regional Natural Heritage System for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, June 28, 2017 http://apps.mnr.gov.on.ca/public/files/er/growth-plan-regional-nhs-mapping-summary.pdf

  Attachments

  Schedule 1 -  Draft Agricultural Land Base (mapping)

  Schedule 2 – Proposed Regional Natural Heritage System (mapping)

   Prepared ByKathy Suggitt, RPP, Manager of Policy Planning

 Kristin Pechkovsky, RPP, Senior Policy Advisor

  ApprovalsDate

 David Parks, Director of Planning, Economic Development and TourismAugust 23, 2017

  Debbie Korolnek, General Manager, Engineering, Planning and EnvironmentAugust 25, 2017

  Trevor Wilcox, General Manager, Corporate PerformanceSeptember 1, 2017

  Mark Aitken, Chief Administrative OfficerSeptember 6, 2017

  GENERAL COMMENTS:

  October 4, 2017

 The County of Simcoe is providing the following comments to the MNRF on the Provincial Draft Natural Heritage System mapping and the associated Summary of Criteria and Methods document. Please be advised that the County has prepared a report on the Provincial Draft Agricultural System, Natural Heritage System and the associated implementation documents.  This report, identified as CCW-17-263, was submitted to our Committee of the Whole on September 12, 2017 and ratified by Council on September 26, 2017.  This report provides the County of Simcoe’s overall comments and will be forwarded to MNRF via email for consideration during this public consultation period.  The following comments are to be considered in finalizing the Provincial Draft Mapping of the Natural Heritage System.

 GENERAL COMMENTS:

 1.The County of Simcoe identifies our Natural Heritage System through a separate Greenlands designation.  This designation is based on a systems approach, which includes linkages, not a features based approach.  This is a similar approach taken in the Provincial draft Natural Heritage System mapping.  OMAFRA assisted the County in finalizing our SCOP mapping, which included the Greenlands designation.  As such, the County believes this separate designation provides more protection to the overall Natural Heritage System rather than as an overlay, which is proposed by the Province, as it could allow agricultural permissions on these lands.  Section 2.1.2.4 of OMAFRA’s Implementation Procedures document articulates the interaction between the draft natural heritage system and the draft agricultural land base. The County has reviewed the draft maps and believes there are substantial areas where prime agriculture and natural heritage are both mapped and therefore would allow potential agricultural permissions within areas that would be better protected by our separate Greenlands designation.  Please refer to section 3.1.1.3 of the Implementation Procedures which provides the ability to consider a separate designation for our Natural Heritage System and furthermore, please confirm that the County’s recent OMB approved Greenlands designation will be able to continue complimentary to, but separate from, the Agricultural designation.

  2.The draft Agricultural Land Base and Natural Heritage System, for the most part, include lands identified as Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI’s) and Provincially Significant Wetlands.  The County recognizes that these areas should be protected for the long term and as such feel that they should not be included within the Agricultural Land Base as many of these areas would never be able to be farmed (ie. Minesing Wetland, Tiny Marsh, Wye Marsh, Copeland Forest).

  3.The County of Simcoe Official Plan (SCOP) and associated mapped schedules were very recently approved (December 29, 2016) after a lengthy OMB Hearing.  Therefore, it can be noted that the County of Simcoe has undertaken recent studies to identify appropriate land use designations across the County, including prime agricultural areas.  In reference to section 3.1.1 of the Implementation Procedures documents, the County of Simcoe believes that the Provincial Agricultural System and Natural Heritage System mapping should rely on this recent mapping.

  4.Please note that there are areas that have been included in the draft Agricultural Land Base mapping that should be recognized as non-agricultural land uses that could not be rehabilitated to agriculture. These areas include:

 i)Aggregate Resources:

 The current SCOP Schedule 5.2.1 identifies High Potential Mineral Aggregate Resources and should be used to confirm the location of all Licensed Pits and Quarries, Bedrock Aggregate and Sand and Gravel Resources.  These areas cannot be rehabilitated to agriculture and should, therefore, not be included within the Provincial Agricultural System or Natural Heritage System.  Some of the larger Aggregate Resources that should be removed from the draft Agricultural Land Base and Natural Heritage System mapping are located in Ramara, Severn, Springwater, Tiny, Oro-Medonte, Adjala-Tosorontio and New Tecumseth.

 ii)Rural Industrial Parks:

 There are also existing rural Industrial Parks within the County of Simcoe which are currently identified as part of the Provincial draft Agricultural Land Base.  The County would like OMAFRA to reconsider the inclusion of these lands within the Agricultural Land Base as they should be reflected as Rural Lands where rehabilitation to Agriculture is not possible. Some of the larger rural Industrial Parks that should be removed from the draft Agricultural Land Base and Natural Heritage System are located in Ramara, Springwater, Adjala-Tosorontio and New Tecumseth.

  5.Section 1.6 and 3.1.1 of the Implementation Procedures document suggests the draft Agricultural Land Base map will be refined during municipal comprehensive reviews based on additional information and important local context.  Based on this information, clarification is required from OMAFRA and MNRF to understand at what point in time the draft Provincial mapping will be considered finalized.  Will it be once OMAFRA and MNRF releases updated maps after the public consultation process, or once all municipalities finalize their Official Plan updates and incorporate both the Agricultural System and Natural Heritage System mapping into their Official Plans.

  6.The County of Simcoe is in a fairly unique situation in which the local municipalities are currently updating their Official Plans for 2031 conformity, some of which have not been updated for decades.  The County requires clarity regarding whether the SCOP Greenlands designation can be used as our Natural Heritage System (as noted in question #5). It will be beneficial to confirm that a separate designation can be used as the local municipalities are just now updating their Official Plans to 2031 to mirror that approach.  The challenge with the 2031 local OP conformity lies with their current obligation to update their mapping according with the SCOP mapping.  If the local municipalities proceed to update based on Provincial mapping, they will be out of step with the County mapping. How will  the County approve without the County mapping being refined first?

[Original Comment ID: 211065]