July 13, 2018 Re:…

July 13, 2018

Re: Agricultural Impact Assessment Guidance Document (ERO number 013-2454)

Dear Ms. Doncaster:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) Guidance Document. We understand that this guidance will assist municipalities, qualified professionals, aggregate producers, development proponents, landowners and others in undertaking agricultural impact assessments to evaluate the potential impacts of non-agricultural development on the Agricultural System and to avoid, minimize, and mitigate these impacts.

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) owns and manages approximately 18,000 hectares of conservation land and assists its 18 member municipalities in fulfilling their responsibilities associated with natural heritage, water resources and natural hazard management under the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act processes. In undertaking watershed planning, TRCA considers the interrelationships between the agricultural and natural systems and accounts for the role that agricultural lands play in protecting natural features and maintaining healthy water resources and natural heritage systems. TRCA has an interest in the implementation of AIA policies given its roles as a service provider to municipalities supporting their implementation of provincial policy, as a resource management agency and regulator in accordance with the Conservation Authorities Act, and as a major landowner in the Greater Toronto Area. TRCA leases some of its land to farmers and manages approximately 400 hectares in its agricultural land inventory. TRCA’s Sustainable Near-Urban Agriculture Policy (2008) permits and encourages agricultural uses on TRCA owned and managed lands, where appropriate, as a component of sustainable communities. The Policy recognizes that agricultural land is a vital resource that must be conserved and that progressive environmental stewardship in the agricultural sector and the production of local food for the Toronto region are requirements for TRCA and its partners to collectively realize The Living City vision.

In 2015 and 2016, TRCA provided comments to the Province as part of the Coordinated Review of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH), Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, and Niagara Escarpment Plan. In 2017, TRCA provided comments on the proposed Agricultural System for the GGH. We appreciate that this guidance document, when finalized, will help with the implementation of AIA policies and protection of the Agricultural System.

Overall, we find the draft AIA Guidance Document to be detailed and thorough. It provides good references to AIA policies in the four provincial plans and the Provincial Policy Statement for the key land use policy components for settlement area boundary expansions, mineral aggregate operations, environmental assessment/infrastructure, and other non-agricultural uses. TRCA provides the following comments and recommendations to further improve clarity and support the AIA process.

1.4 When is an AIA required?
Table 1 refers to AIA policies only within the context of prime agricultural areas, at the exclusion of those in other contexts such as rural lands. To avoid confusion, this should be stated both in the introductory paragraph on page 6 and in the title of the table, rather than only below the table.

2.2 AIA Study Components
2. Process – Consultation (p. 16)
This section states that “Where potential impacts to agriculture have been identified, it is advisable to consult with local agricultural organizations.” If potential impacts have been identified, this suggests that the AIA process is already well underway when agricultural organizations are to be consulted. These organizations are made up of individuals who know the most about farming in that area. Rather than involving them after the fact, there should be plans from the outset to consult such groups. If included from the outset, their insight and knowledge may help prevent an impact from being identified from the start. Perhaps this sentence could be revised to “Where potential impacts to agriculture are anticipated…” or otherwise make clear that local agricultural organizations, where applicable, should be consulted to inform the identification and assessment of impacts, not just after impacts have been identified.

6. Assessment of Impacts (p.28)
There needs to be provisions for the consideration of cumulative impacts to the broader Agricultural System over time. An AIA for an individual application may determine that there is little to no significant impact to agriculture – or that although there is impact, it will not negatively affect the overall Agricultural System – and therefore support the application (and any necessary mitigation measures). However, over the long term, the negative impacts of multiple approved applications will have together created a more significant and likely irreversible impact to agricultural viability over the broader landscape. These cumulative impacts to the Agricultural System need to be considered more holistically, either as part of the AIA process or through provincial/municipal oversight and a tracking/reporting system.

The AIA process allows a development to go forward even if there are identified impacts to the Agricultural System. More clarity is required on what determines the threshold, or when the impact is considered too high. Are all the requirements of an AIA weighted together (e.g., a percentage or a score)? Who or what determines the number, and would it be the same across the province? Further guidance on these decisions would be helpful to achieve greater consistency and transparency in AIA implementation.

9. Study Conclusions and Recommendations (p. 31)
This section states that “Monitoring and performance measures are recommended to ensure that the mitigation measures have been successfully implemented.” We are concerned that if these measures are only recommended, not required, many projects will lack supporting data to show whether the mitigation measures worked. There is a potential that the same or similar mitigation measures are recommended and implemented repeatedly, only to realize much later that the type of mitigation was not effective (i.e., it works in theory but not in reality). We suggest stronger language here to emphasize the need for monitoring and performance measurement to ensure intended outcomes.

4.2 Background: Settlement Area Boundary Expansions
Overall, the organization of this section is confusing and should be reconsidered. Specifically, the subsections starting from “The Growth Plan’s Greenbelt Specific Policies” to and including “PPS” on pages 53-54, which describe settlement area boundary expansion policies in the various plans, currently fall under the heading “Minimizing and Mitigating Impacts to the Agricultural System”. As this information is not specific to minimizing and mitigating impacts, the above subsections would be better placed under the earlier heading “Provincial Plans” (beginning on p. 50) rather than under the current heading.

Growth Plan Subsection 2.2.8 (p.50)
This section states that “Where a need for a settlement area boundary expansion has been justified in accordance with policy 2.2.8.2, the feasibility of the proposed expansion will be determined and the most appropriate location for the proposed expansion will be identified based on criteria set out in policies 2.8.3.3.” There is no 2.8.3.3 in the Growth Plan – this should perhaps refer to 2.2.8.3.

4.3 Background: Mineral Aggregate Resource Extraction / 4.4 Background: Infrastructure / 4.5 Background: Other Non-Agricultural Uses
For greater consistency, sections 4.3 to 4.5 should also include the “avoiding” and “minimizing and mitigating” impacts subsections which are present in section 4.2.

Additional comments
Some of the links in Appendix A: Resources appear to be broken. Additionally, we noticed a number of grammatical and consistency issues throughout the document. We would recommend additional proofreading to ensure they are addressed so that the final guidance document is as clear and consistent as possible.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to provide comments on the AIA guidance document. Should you have any questions, require clarification, or wish to meet to discuss any of the comments, please contact David Burnett at ext. 5361 or dburnett@trca.on.ca.

Sincerely,

Carolyn Woodland, OALA, FCSLA, MCIP, RPP
Senior Director, Planning and Development
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority