AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW FOR THE TRAFALGAR … · 2019-08-12 · Trafalgar/Agerton AIA report...

AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW FOR THE TRAFALGAR AND AGERTON SECONDARY PLAN AREA

LOCATED IN THE TOWN OF MILTON, HALTON REGION Prepared for: The Town of Milton By: AgPlan Limited April 2, 2019.

AGERTON TRAFALGAR SECONDARY PLAN TOWN OF MILTON AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT

i

SUMMARY This Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) has been prepared as technical background information for use in the preparation of a Secondary Plan for the Trafalgar/Agerton lands located in the north east of Milton. AgPlan Limited was retained as part of a team assembled by Malone Given Parsons Ltd. to complete the secondary plan on behalf of the Town of Milton. Given the wording of policy and AIA guidelines this agricultural assessment can appropriately been restricted or scoped to:

• phasing of development; • implementation of recommendations, if any, provided in the settlement expansion

area AIA; and, • recommendations, if any, related to the boundary condition(s) between urban

uses and adjacent agricultural uses (often referred to as “edge planning”). The scoped AIA components listed above, are reflected in the Draft Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) Guidance Document (OMAFRA, 2018). However, this AgPlan AIA includes much more information than the scope listed above. For example, the Trafalgar/Agerton AIA report includes an extensive reference and graphic display of a cross-section of agricultural characteristics given agricultural data available in the latest census and, for many factors, over a timeframe of 35 years (in keeping with planning time frames of 20 to 40 years). The agricultural data were gathered and analysed to put Halton, Milton and the study area in an agricultural context over time. The inclusion of this time/trend agricultural information is greater than is normally provided for a secondary plan study. The mapping of soil capability and agricultural land use, also provided in the AgPlan Trafalgar/Agerton AIA for the secondary plan study area and adjacent agricultural lands, also is more information than is currently gathered for the purposes of evaluating different secondary plan options. This information was reviewed and presented for purposes of recommendations for the phasing of urban development and to the treatment of the urban/rural interface or boundary. The findings of the AgPlan analyses and mitigation review for the agricultural lands adjacent to the Agerton/Trafalgar Secondary Plan study area are summarized under subheadings as follows: Census Farm Number and Area

• Census farm number and area is diminishing over time and will likely continue as nonagricultural development occurs in Halton and Milton.

• Halton’s census farm number and area are decreasing faster than that for the province of Ontario.

Soil Potential, Capability

• The lands adjacent to the study area does not meet the requirements for a specialty crop area as defined within the PPS.

• The area does not have a high average soil potential for the production of specialty crops (fruits and vegetables).


ii

• There are differences in soil potential and different areas can be prioritized based on that potential.

• Lands are predominantly in soil capability classes 1 through 3.

• There are differences in soil capability and different areas can be prioritized based on that capability.

• Soils have different drainage classes and textures. Agricultural Land Use

• Common field crops are predominantly grown.

• Production of fruit and vegetable crops are diminishing in Halton and Milton.

• Some fruit and vegetable production is occurring on the Eighth Line adjacent to the south end of the study area

Ontario Agricultural Economics and Financial Characteristics

• The majority of farms have more off-farm income than non-farm income.

• There are significant differences in gross and net incomes associated with common field crops versus fruits and vegetables versus greenhouse crops.

• Halton and Milton have a relatively high total farm capital in the context of Ontario where most of that capital is in land and buildings.

• Total gross farm receipts and net on-farm income have increased in Milton between 2001 and 2016.

Multi-attribute Measurements of Agricultural Performance in Southern Ontario

• At a Regional/County scale, multi-attribute analyses rate Halton’s performance as middling to poor except in the instance of economic comparisons. Halton’s gross income and total capital value are relatively high in the context of other Counties/Regions in southern Ontario.

Agricultural Livestock/Manure Trends in Milton and Halton Region

• Nutrient (formerly animal) units are diminishing within Milton and Halton.

• Nutrient units times odour factor is also diminishing within Milton and Halton. Mitigation

• The mitigation literature review provided no information concerning the success of any applied mitigation measure except by a limited opinion survey completed in British Columbia. The survey results included the fact that there were both negative as well as positive elements associated buffer strips, vegetative screening, fencing, etc. However, no data was analysed to indicate if one, or a combination of mitigation measures, reduce the frequency of complaint against farms and farmers.

• The literature does not link mitigation with: o the relative importance of the farmland as defined by planning policy; o the kind and scale/size of agricultural operations (livestock versus fruit

production, for example) probably affected by new urban development; o the probability of impacts to agriculture and the severity of those impacts if

they should occur; o the probability that mitigation in any, or of specific form, can significantly

reduce probable impacts and/or complaints.


iii

Two recommendations have been made: Recommendation 1 A single area to the south on the Eighth Line has:

o relatively high soil potential and soil capability, o relatively high gross income and net income associated with greenhouse

production, and o has livestock.

The area is relatively better agriculturally, and it is recommended that development be phased starting in the north and moving south. Recommendation 2 Because the Trafalgar/Agerton urban lands are already separated from the agricultural lands surrounding the Trafalgar/Agerton Secondary Plan study area by Natural Heritage areas (which cannot be developed), mitigation is already in place. Any additional beneficial mitigation at the interface between urban and agricultural uses should be considered at the plan of subdivision stage.


iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary ...................................................................................................................... i 1.0 Study Objectives ............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 1.2 Methods ................................................................................................... 4 2.0 Findings ............................................................................................................ 6

2.1 Planning Context ..................................................................................... 6 2.2 Agricultural Context, Trends and Evaluation ............................................ 10 2.3 Agricultural Soil Capability ....................................................................... 14 2.4 Agricultural Land Use............................................................................... 18 2.5 Climate ..................................................................................................... 19 2.6 Livestock and Manure Production ............................................................ 21 2.7 Mitigation ................................................................................................. 22

3.0 Summary/Conclusions/Recommendations .................................................... 25 4.0 References ........................................................................................................ 28

List of Appendices

Appendix 1 Findings - Data Graphs ............................................................................ 31 Appendix 2 Soil Productivity Index and Soil Potential Index Calculation .................... 60 Appendix 3 Soil Classification and Soil Survey ........................................................... 65 Appendix 4 Multi-Attribute Analysis and Agricultural Performance ............................. 70 Appendix 5 Curriculum Vitae ...................................................................................... 74

List of Tables

Table 1 Statistics Canada Census Farm Expense Categories (2001, 2006, 2011) ................................................................................. 13

Table 2 Soil Potential Ratings .............................................................................. 15 Table 3 Ontario Specialty Crop Soil Classifications Summary ............................. 61

List of Figures

Figure 1 Number of Census Farms in Halton Region and its Sub-Tier Municipalities 1981 to 2016 ...................................................... 32

Figure 2 Area (Hectares) of Census Farms and Halton Region and its Sub-Tier Municipalities 1981 to 2016 ...................................................... 32

Figure 3 Proportion of Halton Region Total Census Farm Area for Each Sub-Tier Municipality 1981 to 2016 ............................................... 33

Figure 4 Halton Region’s Census Farm Area as a Proportion of Ontario’s Total Census Farm Area 1981 to 2016 .................................... 33


v

Figure 5 Total Number of Farms Reporting Greenhouses in Southern Ontario 1981............................................................................ 34

Figure 6 Number of Farms Reporting Area under Glass, Plastic or Other Protection in Southern Ontario 2016 ............................. 34

Figure 7 Southern Ontario Total Area of Greenhouses -Square Metres 1981 ...... 35 Figure 8 Southern Ontario Total Area under Glass,

Plastic or Other Protection 2016 ............................................................. 35 Figure 9 Average Farm Operation Size in the Census Year 2016

for the Regions/Counties in Southern Ontario (with Context at the Canada and Ontario Scales) ................................................................... 36

Figure 10 County/Regional Average Farm Operator age comparison four Southern Ontario (2016 census) ...................................................... 36

Figure 11 Proportion of Farm Operators in Different Age Groups in Halton Region 2016 Census ........................................................................................... 37

Figure 12 On-Farm Net Operating Income Average per Operator Compared to Off -Farm Income Average per Operator within Farm Operating Revenue Categories (Ontario) ............................................... 37

Figure 13 Proportion of Farm Operators Where Off -Farm Income Exceeds Net On -Farm Operating Income in Ontario ......................................................... 38

Figure 14 Proportion of Census Farms Reporting Owned Land in Southern Ontario 2016............................................................................ 38

Figure 15 Proportion of Census Farm Area Reported as Owned by the Farm Operation in Southern Ontario 2016 ................................... 39

Figure 16 Total Farm Capital per Farm (Market Value in Dollars) for the Regions/Counties in Southern Ontario Based on Census Data 2016 ............................................................................. 39

Figure 17 Total Farm Capital per Hectare (Market Value in Dollars) for the Regions/Counties in Southern Ontario Based on Census Data 2016 ............................................................................. 40

Figure 18 Total Dollar Value of Land and Buildings, Farm Machinery and Equipment, Livestock and Poultry, and of Forest Products Sold (all per Hectare) in the regions/counties in Southern Ontario (2016) ...... 40

Figure 19 A Comparison of Gross Farm Receipts per Farm and Total Farm Business Operating Expenses per Farm at the Regional/County Scale in Southern Ontario (2016 Census) .............................................. 41

Figure 20 A Comparison of Gross Farm Receipts per Hectare and Total Farm Business Operating Expenses per Hectare at the Regional/County Scale in Southern Ontario (2016 Census) .............................................. 41

Figure 21 Net on-Farm Income per Farm for the Counties Regions in Southern Ontario Based on 2016 Census Data ...................................... 42

Figure 22 Net on-Farm Income per Hectare for the Counties Regions in Southern Ontario Based on 2016 Census Data ...................................... 42

Figure 23 Gross Farm Receipts per Farm (in 2016 Dollars) for the Census Years 2001, 2006, 2011 and 2016 four Halton Region, Oakville, Burlington, Milton and Halton Hills ............................................................................ 43

Figure 24 Net on-Farm Income per Farm for the Census Years 2001, 2006, 2011 and 2016 for Halton Region, Oakville, Burlington, Milton and Halton Hills ............................................................................ 43


vi

Figure 25 Balance of Trade for Selected Commodity Groups Ontario Agriculture (in Constant 2016 Dollars Times 1,000,000)......................... 44

Figure 26 Province of Ontario Average Farm Value ($ Gross per Hectare) For Selected Crops 1981 - 2017 ........................................ 44

Figure 27 Gross Income per Hectare for Greenhouse Tomatoes, Cucumbers and Peppers for Ontario (2010 -2014) in Constant 2016 CDN Dollars ... 45

Figure 28 Standardized Score for Regions/Counties in Southern Ontario Based on 2016 Census Crop and Livestock Data (Proportionate to Total Census Farm Area or Total Census Farms Reporting) ........................................ 45

Figure 29 Standardized Score for Regions/Counties in Southern Ontario Based on 2016 Census Crop and Livestock Areas/Number Data (Proportionate to Total Census Farm Area) ............................................ 46

Figure 30 Multi-Attribute Standardized Scores Based on Yields for 5 Field Crops in Southern Ontario (OMAFRA data, 2016) .................................. 46

Figure 31 Multi-Attribute Standardized Scores for County/Regions in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Based on Yields for 5 Field Crops (OMAFRA data, 2016) ............................................................................ 47

Figure 32 Fruit and Vegetable Area (Hectares) (Excluding Greenhouse Vegetables) + Potatoes as a Proportion of Total Census Farm Area (2016 Data) ........................................................................... 47

Figure 33 Agricultural Land Use on Census Farms in Halton 2016 ........................ 48 Figure 34 Agricultural Land Use on Census Farms in Milton 2016 ......................... 48 Figure 35 Areal Proportion of Principal Field Crops, Fruits and Vegetables

in Halton 2016 ......................................................................................... 49 Figure 36 Areal Proportion of Principal Field Crops, Fruits and Vegetables

in Milton 2016 ......................................................................................... 49 Figure 37 Halton Region Farms Reporting (Producing and Non-producing)

Fruits, Berries and Nuts 1981 to 2016 .................................................... 50 Figure 38 Halton Region Total Area in Hectares (Producing and Non-producing)

of Fruits, Berries and Nuts 1981 to 2016 ................................................ 50 Figure 39 Halton Region Total Farm Number Reporting Vegetables

(Excluding Greenhouse Vegetables) 1981 to 2016 ................................ 51 Figure 40 Halton Region Total Area (Hectares) of Vegetables

(Excluding Greenhouse Vegetables) 1981 to 2016 ................................ 51 Figure 41 Each Municipality within Halton Region Farms Reporting (Producing

and Non-Producing) Fruits, Berries and Nuts as a Proportion (%) of all Census Farms Reporting Fruits, Berries and Nuts in Halton Region 1981 to 2016 ................................................................... 52

Figure 42 Each Municipality with Halton Region Total Area in Hectares ((Producing and Non-Producing) Fruits, Berries and Nuts as a Proportion (%) of the Area of Fruits, Berries and Nuts Reported in Halton Region 1981 to 2016 ................................................................... 52

Figure 43 Each Municipality with Halton Region Total Farms Reporting Vegetables, (Excluding Greenhouse Vegetables) as a % of all Census Farms Reporting Vegetables in Halton Region 1981 to 2016 ............................ 53

Figure 44 Each Municipality with Halton Region Total area in hectares of Vegetables, (Excluding Greenhouse Vegetables) as a % of all Census Farms Reporting Vegetables in Halton Region 1981 to 2016 .... 53


vii

Figure 45 Halton Region Census Farm Number and Census Farm Area, for the Production of Fruits, Berries and Nuts as well as Vegetables, as a Proportion (%) of that Production in Ontario 1981 to 2016 .............. 54

Figure 46 Halton Region Total Area of Greenhouses -Farms Reporting 1981 to 2016 ........................................................................................... 54

Figure 47 Halton Region Total Area of Greenhouses -Square Metres 1981 to 2016 ........................................................................................... 55

Figure 48 Proportion of Census Farms Reporting Greenhouses in Halton 1981 - 2016.............................................................................. 55

Figure 49 Proportion of Census Farm Area Occupied by Greenhouses 1981 2016 ............................................................................................... 56

Figure 50 Total Nutrient Units in Halton Region and its Sub-Tier Municipalities 1981 - 2016 ....................................................... 56

Figure 51 Total Nutrient Units Times Odour Factor Census Farm Hectare ............ 57 Figure 52 Total Nutrient Units Times Odour Factor per Census Farm Number ...... 57 Figure 53 Halton’s Total Nutrient Units as a Proportion of Ontario

Total Nutrient Units as Well as Halton’s Sub-Tier Municipality Total Nutrient Units as a Proportion of Halton’s Total Nutrient Units (1981 to 2016) ......................................................... 58

Figure 54 Nutrient Units Related to Livestock Types in Halton Region (2016 Census) ........................................................................................ 58

Figure 55 Nutrient Units Related to Livestock Types in Milton (2016 Census) ....... 59

List of Maps Map 1 Study Area Location ................................................................................ 2 Map 2 Surrounding Land Designations ............................................................... 9 Map 3 Soil Series/Phases ................................................................................... 16 Map 4 Soil Capability .......................................................................................... 17 Map 5 Agricultural Land Use............................................................................... 20


1

1.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES 1.1 Introduction This Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) has been prepared as technical background information for use in the preparation of a Secondary Plan for the Agerton/Trafalgar lands in Milton as shown on Map 1. AgPlan Limited was retained as part of a team assembled by Malone Given Parsons Ltd. to complete the secondary plan on behalf of the Town of Milton. There is a need for an agricultural assessment because the lands planned for urban development in the Agerton/Trafalgar study area have the potential to affect agricultural/rural uses remaining within the Town of Milton. The AIA follows and supplements a preliminary agricultural report prepared for a broader geographic area, located in the Town of Milton, called the Land Base Analysis (LBA) study area. The current AIA specific to Agerton/Trafalgar:

• utilizes information originally prepared as part of the LBA study and, in some instances, uses the same wording as that report,

• adds statistical information from the most recent agricultural census (2016),

• includes aerial photo interpretation and fieldwork observations, and

• uses additional map information to characterize lands adjacent to the Secondary Plan area.

The agricultural impact assessment will describe and evaluate the following:

1. What are the characteristics of the agricultural environment adjacent to the Agerton/Trafalgar Secondary Plan study area?

2. How have the agricultural characteristics within the study area changed over the past 35 years (based on agricultural census data 1981 - 2016)?

3. What mitigation measures related to possible urban/rural conflict are available, and are recommended, for the reduction of impacts to agriculture outside of the Agerton/Trafalgar Secondary Plan study area to the extent feasible?

The contents of this report are framed by policy as well as guidelines and addresses several agricultural characteristics of the study area, Milton, and Halton Region, given the agricultural context of southern Ontario. As a result, this AIA is based on current conditions as well as on an estimate of future conditions. The use of past conditions to project/estimate future conditions is subject to the extrapolation of existing measurements and therefore to the general limitations associated with extrapolation (as outlined in many statistics texts). The Agerton/Trafalgar Secondary Plan study area planning process includes reports from several different disciplines. Therefore, this agricultural assessment information should be supplemented with other reports prepared for the Secondary Plan study with specific reference to the planning report prepared by Malone Given Parsons. As well, the contents of this agricultural report may be changed by the author as a result of information and questions provided within external reviews.


2

4. MAP 1 STUDY AREA LOCATION


3

The report uses four phrases which are defined as follows:

• Soil Capability Class - This term is the one most often used in rating agricultural soils and is defined as part of the Canada Land Inventory Soil Capability Classification for Agriculture - Soil Capability for Common Field Crops. It is an interpretive classification of the soils maps produced within Canada where soils are identified by texture, drainage class, layers (diagnostic horizons) etc. following the Canadian System of Soil Classification (1978, third edition 1989 http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/references/1998sc_a.html ). The soil capability rating is a seven-class system consisting of a class number (1 (best) – 7 (poorest)) and a subclass limitation such as stoniness, slope, or erosion (represented by an alphabetic code P, T, E, etc.). The best soils with no limitations for production of common field crops are ranked as class I and soils unsuitable for agriculture are rated as class 7. This information concerning capability classes and subclass limitations is provided as part of the relational database included with the soil mapping digitized by OMAFRA and provided by LIO/MNR (Land Information Ontario/Ministry of Natural Resources).

• Soil Productivity Index - The original soil capability classification classes one through seven have been converted from an ordinal to a ratio scale on the basis of crop yields. For common field crops, such as grain corn, oats and barley, a relationship was measured to demonstrate that if class I land was assigned the soil productivity index value 1.00, then class 2 would be 0.80 and class 3 would be 0.64 etc. The use of the ratio scale allows for a mathematically acceptable measurement of mean value. Therefore, a given study area can have a single average value of a soil productivity index. When comparing different site alternatives, the use of the soil productivity index allows comparison of the alternatives using a single value. The use of the soil productivity index also provides a way to deal with soil complexes - where a soil complex is represented by a single polygon (in the past this was called a map unit) where there are two or more soil series/types present and mapped and where there is some likelihood to be a combination of soil capability classes such as 60% class I and 40% class 2T, for example.

• Soil Potential Index - Like the aforementioned Soil Productivity Index, the Soil Potential Index provides an “average” (single value) soil potential for agricultural production for a given area when that area contains more than one soil potential rank or rating. The Soil Potential Index is based on ranks which are part of an ordinal scale and provide a potential rating for the production of fruit and vegetable crops.

• Agricultural Performance - Agricultural performance is a single relative comparative measure that combines many agricultural characteristics of a given area in comparison to another given area (for example, one Region or County relative to another Region or County). The scoring, ranking or relative difference is quantitative. Agricultural performance includes economic, socio-cultural and physical variables and is described in more detail in in the method section following.

http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/references/1998sc_a.html

http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/references/1998sc_a.html


4

1.3 Methods The findings described in the following section are based on published literature, which is listed in the references section, fieldwork, and aerial photo interpretation. Much of the information relates to the use of statistics from Statistics Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and is subject to the limitations of the surveys completed by these government groups. Fieldwork was based on observation from the roadside which was correlated with aerial photo interpretation. Fieldwork observations are limited by sightlines. Single factor analysis as well as the use of multi-attribute data analysis was used to compare the agricultural performance of Halton and Milton relative to other sub-tier municipalities in Halton Region. The multi-attribute data analyses were completed using two methods; simple additive weighted, and concordance which are described in detail in Appendix 4. The single factor analyses use agricultural census data for Milton (as well as the other sub-tier municipalities in Halton Region) are sometimes subject to suppression for reasons of confidentiality. However, the data can be imputed. Several different methods are available to impute missing information. In this report, the total value, for example, an area or total number of animals reported in Halton Region not accounted for in the data supplied for the sub-tier municipalities, was assigned to the sub-tier municipalities, having suppressed information, based on the number of farms reporting the agricultural information and lacking the area or animal data. The formula used to calculate the imputed value was:

((A - B)/(F))*S Where: A= the total value reported for the Census District (Upper Tier Municipality or County). B= the values reported for the sub-tier municipalities (Census Consolidated Subdivision)

where data was not suppressed. F= the total number of farms associated with all of the sub-tier municipalities having

suppressed data. S= the number of farms associated with the sub-tier municipality having the suppressed

data and for which the value is being imputed. This Trafalgar Agerton AIA is completed to assess positive as well as negative changes in agriculture resulting from a proposed non-agricultural use. In assessing those changes or impacts, the changes due to the proposed new or different use need to be distinguished from those changes which are occurring, and which relate to factors other than the proposed non-agricultural use. For example, changes in:

• consumer preferences which may result in the purchase of different food products;

• regulatory environments such as tariffs, import quotas which may affect production costs, product sale price and product substitutes;

• weather patterns affecting crop yields and product availability. These changes can and do occur at different scales. Therefore, the AIA prepared by AgPlan for the Trafalgar Agerton Secondary Plan Study includes an extensive reference and graphic display of a cross-section of agricultural characteristics given agricultural data available in the latest census and, for many factors, over a timeframe of 35 years


5

(in keeping with planning time frames of 20 to 40 years). The agricultural data were gathered and analysed to put Halton, Milton and the study area in an agricultural context over time. The inclusion of this time/trend agricultural information is greater than is normally provided for a secondary plan study. The mapping of soil capability and agricultural land use, as provided in the AgPlan AIA for the secondary plan study area and adjacent agricultural lands, also is more information than is currently gathered for the purposes of evaluating different secondary plan options. This information was reviewed and presented for purposes of recommendations for the phasing of urban development and to the treatment of the urban/rural interface or boundary. Based on the OMAFRA AIA scope outlined and the historical practice related to an AIA, site-specific studies of agriculture within the Trafalgar Agerton Secondary Plan Study Area were not completed because agriculture in that area is intended to end. Therefore, there is no need for site-specific soil surveys, soil capability and soil potential interpretations. No interviews or farm visits within or adjacent to the Trafalgar Agerton Secondary Plan Study Area were completed for several reasons, as follows:

• Some farmers are reticent about supplying information specific to their farm operation without assurances that the information will not be made public. Because the information supplied may be needed as evidence, assurance that the information will remain private is not possible.

• Some information provided through interviews cannot be compared to information collected from third-party sources (where those third-party sources have no interest, pecuniary or otherwise, in the outcome).

• Information gathered through on farm visits where confirmation is required for barns and barn contents will require a bio security protocol/procedure to ensure that infection or disease is not spread. Therefore, any information collected this way must be worth the cost and the risk associated with its gathering.

• When information is requested as part of public or group meetings, some landowners and/or farmers will not participate - resulting in an incomplete dataset.

Agricultural land use, farm infrastructure, and farm service infrastructure information is available from OMAFRA’s Agricultural Portal and can be obtained from the Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Alliance (GHFFA). However, like site-specific soil surveys, this kind of information is appropriately gathered and evaluated prior to the preparation of the secondary plan. The evaluation of some of the information is problematic when distinguishing what is of greater or lesser importance agriculturally. Using OMAFRA tile drainage mapping as an example:

• there are differences of opinion about whether soils in all drainage classes would benefit from tile drainage,

• where tile drainage is necessary to meet the highest or best soil capability possible, counting the tile drainage infrastructure as well as soil capability class is, in the opinion of some, double counting when evaluating the better from the poorer agricultural areas,

• the effects of tile drainage are positive with respect to crop yields but there are negative environmental effects associated with the more rapid movement of subsurface water to surface water systems,


6

• the tile drainage databases available do not always identify all tile drainage present; and,

• the data provided by OMAFRA distinguishes only random versus systematic tile drainage and does not provide information on the spacing, condition, materials or age of tiles (Personal Communication, 2019 OMAFRA staff).

As a result, there are different opinions about the inclusion of tile drainage as an important factor in evaluating the better from the poorer agricultural land and assessing the impacts of tile drainage loss or alteration. Impact assessment tends to include several different factors or variables and creates a situation where there must be a comparison of “apples and oranges”. For example, there is no replicated scientific information available to provide evidence about the relative importance and agricultural impact of effects of proposed development on tile drainage versus a grain drying and seed sales operation from economic, environmental and social perspectives, when assessing agricultural impacts. The relative comparison of different agricultural characteristics is addressed appropriately when different urban settlement area expansion options are being evaluated prior to the secondary plan stage. 2.0 FINDINGS 2.1 Planning Context Specific information on planning context and opinion is outlined in the report by Malone Given Parsons (2019). General agricultural assessment requirements can be interpreted from three sections of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2014) as follows:

PPS 1.7.1 (h) Long term economic prosperity should be supported by providing opportunities to support local food, and promoting the sustainability of agri-food and agri-product businesses by protecting agricultural resources, and minimizing land use conflicts. 2.3.3.3 New land uses, including the creation of lots, and new or expanding livestock facilities shall comply with the minimum distance separation formulae. 2.3.6.2 Impacts from any new or expanding non-agricultural uses on surrounding agricultural operations and lands should be mitigated to the extent feasible.

Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) guidance at the Secondary Plan stage has been described by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA, 2018) in draft guidelines. The draft AIA guidelines refer to secondary plans and state that edge planning tools:

• can be implemented to alleviate land use conflicts between agricultural and non-agricultural uses,

• include directing traffic away from farming areas, using buffers and providing separation distance.


7

The need for mitigation measures, as described within the PPS (2014), is a result of possible conflict between urban and rural inhabitants. This potential conflict has been summarized by Pasato (2001) as follows:

A) Conflict from the Farm Perspective The encroachment of residential development on agricultural land and practices can be viewed with much hostility from a farm perspective. Some broad issues that can cause conflict include:

• economic instability caused by urbanization and changing land values,

• trespassing by hikers, cyclists, school children, hunters, dogs, off-road vehicles,

• damage to equipment, fencing, irrigation and crops,

• theft of crops,

• crop and irrigation spraying limitations due to urban encroachment,

• development affecting recharge or groundwater,

• flooding and/or soil erosion from urban development and storm water runoff,

• safety concerns related to slow moving farm equipment, hydro, transmission lines and gas lines,

• movements of farm vehicles restricted by physical barriers, urban road patterns, and traffic.

B) Conflict from the Non-Farm Perspective New residential development can take issue with farms and their practices. These issues could include:

• noise and vibration from farm equipment, animals, fans, bird-scaring machines, night harvesting, early morning activities,

• odours,

• chemical spray drift,

• dust from the fields,

• light. from greenhouse operations,

• animals straying,

• pollution of groundwater,

• intensive farming operations,

• farm traffic causing congestion and concerns for safety,

• extended hours of operation. The types of agriculture that are often perceived as the most offensive include intensive livestock operations (manure, smell, noise), and mushroom farming (composting process - smell).

OMAFRA, in its publication Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas (2016), summarizes possible impacts to agriculture as follows:

Impacts can be short- or long-term and may affect agricultural production, infrastructure, operations or farmers’ flexibility in carrying out their farming business. Examples of potential impacts include:

• loss of agricultural land,


8

• increased traffic and safety risks for slow-moving farm equipment operators and people in passing vehicles,

• nuisance complaints by new residents related to normal farm practices (may depend on wind direction, landforms, vegetation, etc.),

• farmer concern over lighting, noise, dust and other changes in settlement areas that are incompatible with agriculture (also dependent on physical site attributes),

• new or increased minimum distance separation requirements that may restrict future development or expansion of livestock facilities,

• trespassing, vandalism, pets at large and litter/garbage disposal on farm properties,

• change in water quality or quantity,

• increased growth pressure on remaining agricultural lands. As can be seen on Map 2 (Malone Given Parsons, 2017) mitigation through separation distance as well as in the use of buffers is already present in the Agerton/Trafalgar Secondary Plan area because of:

• the use of Natural Heritage System areas as boundaries,

• the presence of urban development from Milton on a minimum of 2 sides, and,

• the existing influence due to the urbanization of Mississauga and Oakville. Regardless, mitigation will be discussed more fully in section 2.7 of this report. Agricultural Impact Assessments (AIA) at the secondary plan stage can reasonably be scoped based on history, practice and guidelines. The use of agricultural information in Secondary Plan studies tended not to occur until relatively recently. AgPlan’s first agricultural assessment for a secondary plan was completed in 2011. Communications with OMAFRA staff at that time provided the guidance that the principal concerns related to the Secondary Plan were the phasing of development, Minimum Distance Separation and the general design of the boundary condition (edge planning for the reduction of land use conflict), between the settlement area secondary plan boundary and the adjacent agricultural land. The Halton Region’s Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) Guidelines (2014) contain no reference to Secondary Plan studies. The Draft Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) Guidance Document (OMAFRA, 2018) refers to Secondary Plans but qualifies statements with the use of the word “may” as follows:

Secondary plans may include policies and maps that provide direction on topics including land use, infrastructure, transportation, design and the natural environment. Additionally, they may be utilized as a means to implement the recommendations that have been provided in an AIA.

The Draft Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) Guidance Document (OMAFRA, 2018) has been written to address a broad cross-section of development proposals which are described generally into 3 categories by OMAFRA as a settlement area expansion, mineral aggregate operation, and infrastructure. The effects of urban settlement area development tend to be different from those associated with mining, pipelines, electrical transmission lines, and a transportation system such as road and rail. Therefore, the guidance provided by the Draft Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) Guidance Document (OMAFRA, 2018) must be scoped relative to the proposed use.


9

MAP 2 SURROUNDING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS


10

The Draft Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) Guidance Document (OMAFRA, 2018) discusses Secondary Planning together with Subdivision Design and, with reference to secondary plans, states that they may include policies and maps that provide direction on topics including land use, infrastructure, transportation, design and the natural environment. The Draft Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) Guidance Document (OMAFRA, 2018) is more specific regarding subdivision planning, which follows the secondary plan stage, and states that:

Design elements that could be incorporated into subdivision in the fringe areas include: • Road design to direct traffic away from farming areas • Increased lot depths/sizes along the urban-agriculture boundary to allow for

greater separation between uses • Planting vegetation buffers and/or installing fences to protect residential

areas from possible spray drift, dust and noise • Recognition that a road right of way may be an adequate buffer and

planting vegetation to improve the existing roadway buffer and • Increased building setback provisions in the zoning by-law to increase the

separation between uses. Therefore, mitigation measures such as road design, buffers and setbacks are appropriately evaluated and implemented, as is reasonable, at the subdivision design stage rather than at the secondary plan stage. Hence, this report does not contain recommendations related to these mitigation measures. While previous references are made to the Draft Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) Guidance Document (OMAFRA, 2018), the “Guidance Document” is still a draft and the release date of the final document is unknown (personal communication, 2019, OMAFRA Land Use Planning staff). Given that the OMAFRA AIA document is draft, and is a guideline, it lacks the “status” of a final document and is of lesser importance than matters described specifically in policy. 2.2 Agricultural Context, Trends and Evaluation An Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) attempts to measure the positive as well as negative effects of a proposed non-agricultural development on agriculture. Agriculture in any given area is rarely in a steady state, or stated differently, is effectively “a moving target” comprised of physical as well as economic and cultural components. As a result, this AIA considers trends over time for several different agricultural characteristics. A comprehensive examination of agricultural single factors as well as multi-attribute analysis has been completed and the results summarized graphically in Appendix 1. The single factor evaluations are based directly on information gathered as part of the Agricultural Census for Canada over a 35-year timeframe from 1981 to 2016. In some cases, the single factor analyses required a calculation. For example, net income was derived by subtracting farm expenses from gross income because net income wasn’t originally part of the census information. Multi-attribute analysis can be completed using different methods, databases and importance ranking (weighting) as described in Appendix 4. Several different databases were used which have been identified using a single descriptor such as “fruits and


11

vegetables”, “yield”, “economic” and “food production”. All the multi-attribute analyses presented graphically in Appendix 1 have each database variable with the same weight (unit weight) and only one economic database inverts some of the original census information. The results of several different multi-attribute analyses have been included to demonstrate that the highest scored 5 Counties/Regions and the lowest scored 5 Counties/Regions tend to be similar irrespective of the database. The information provided in Appendix 1 up to and including Figure 31 is summarized under subheadings in the following paragraphs. Figures 32 through to 50 are described in the land use section following of this report. Figures 50 to 55 are addressed in the section on livestock. Census Farm Number and Area Figures 1 through 4 indicate That from 1981 to 2011:

• census farm number and census farm area have been decreasing in Halton and Milton,

• Milton’s proportion of Halton Region’s total census farm area has decreased and stands at approximately 31% in 2016, and,

• Halton’s proportion of Ontario’s total census farm area is less than 1% and in 2016 has decreased to less than 0.6%.

Area in Greenhouses Figures 5 through 8 indicate that:

• the number of farms reporting greenhouses in Halton has decreased between 1981 and 2016,

• in 1981 Halton ranked 11th with respect to farm number reporting greenhouses for southern Ontario and in 2016 Halton ranked 14th,

• in 1981 Halton ranked 6th in total square metres of greenhouses relative to other Counties/Regions in southern Ontario,

• in 2016 Halton ranked 9th in total square metres of greenhouses relative to other Counties/Regions in southern Ontario, and

• Halton’s total area of greenhouses increased between 1981 (108412 m²) and 2016 (194,739 m²) but not as much as for Essex County and Niagara Region, for example.

Farm Operation Size

• Figure 9 indicates that Halton’s average farm operation size is smaller than that for Ontario and is one of the lowest in southern Ontario.

Farm Operator Age Farm operators in Ontario tend to be relatively older as they are in Halton Region. Figures 10 and 11 indicate that:

• farm operators less than 35 years of age comprise less than 5% of farm operators in Halton,

• Halton and Milton have fewer young farmers than most Counties/Regions in southern Ontario,


12

• middle-aged farmers in the age range 35 to 54 years comprise approximately 31% of farmers in Halton Region and less than that in Milton.

Economics and Financial Figures 12 to 27 provide context for several economic and financial indicators as follows:

• on-farm net operating average income does not surpass off farm income until the revenue category $100,000-$249,999 is reached,

• over 80% of farm operators have more off-farm income than on-farm operating income in Ontario,

• approximately 80% of census farms in Halton report owned land in 2016. This proportion is relatively lower in the context of southern Ontario,

• in 2016, less than 50% of the census farm area in Halton was reported as owned and this level of ownership is second lowest in southern Ontario,

• total farm capital per farm is highest in Peel Region followed by Halton Region in 2016. Total farm capital per hectare is highest in Halton Region in 2016, but most of this capital is derived from the total value of land and buildings and it is likely that the land value is not based on its value as farmland (2016 census),

• Halton ranks 14th out of 35 for its gross farm receipts per census farm but ranks 20th for net income per census farm (2016 census),

• based on gross farm receipts per census farm hectare, Halton does better on a per farm basis, and ranks 5th in southern Ontario, within Halton, gross farm receipts per census farm have increased between 2001 and 2016 and are slightly less than the receipts for Halton Region,

• Halton has the rank of 11 for net income per census farm hectare in southern Ontario (2016 census),

• looking at trends in net on-farm income is difficult because the farm expense categories have changed over time. The census for 2016 does not include specific expense categories, so it is difficult to compare 2016 data to the previous census time periods; however, farm expense categories have been the same for 2001, 2006 and 2011 as summarized in Table 1. Net on-farm income per farm is approximately the same in 2001 as in 2016 in Halton Region. In Milton net on-farm income per farm has increased from 2001 to 2011 but has decreased in 2016,


13

TABLE 1

• total balance of trade (export dollar value minus import dollar value) has been decreasing, that is, more dollars are being spent on imported agricultural goods than are derived from exported agricultural goods) from 2002 to 2017. Positive balance of trade has occurred with respect to live animals, and recently for grains,

• Ontario average farm value (dollars gross per hectare) from 1981 - 2017 is greater (approximately $1400-$20000) for fruits and vegetables of the type predominantly grown in Halton Region (apples, sweet corn, pumpkins and squash) than for common field crops such as soybeans winter wheat and hay (approximately $1700 to less than $1000),

• average farm value for crops has increased from 1981 to 2016,

• gross income per hectare for greenhouse vegetables (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) is much higher (approximately $800,000-$1 million).

Multi-Attribute Analyses Figures 28 to 31 compare the relative production per unit area and/or per unit farm of 35 Counties/Regions in southern Ontario as follows:

• the standardized scores for Counties/Regions in southern Ontario, which are based on 2016 Census crop and livestock data (proportionate to total census farm area or total census farms reporting), results in a relatively lower score and a rank of 16th out of 35 for Halton Region,

• when livestock number and crop areas (excluding number of farms reporting data) are compared proportionately (to account for overall size of a given County

STATISTICS CANADA CENSUS FARM EXPENSE CATEGORIES (2001, 2006,

2011)

Fertilizer and lime purchases

Purchases of herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, etc.

Seed and plant purchases (excluding materials purchased for resale)

Total feed, supplements and hay purchases

Total feed, supplements and hay purchases

Livestock and poultry purchases

Veterinary services, drugs, semen, breeding fees, etc.

Custom work, contract work and hired trucking

Total wages and salaries $

Wages and salaries paid to family members $

Wages and salaries paid to all other persons $

All fuel expenses (diesel, gasoline, oil, wood, natural gas, propane, etc.)

Repairs and maintenance to farm machinery, equipment and vehicles

Repairs and maintenance to farm buildings and fences

Rental and leasing of land and buildings

Rental and leasing of farm machinery, equipment and vehicles

Electricity, telephone and all other telecommunication services

Farm interest expenses

All other expenses (excluding depreciation and capital cost allowance)


14

or Region), Halton Region has a standardized score of approximately 55 (where 100 is the highest score) and ranks as 13th out of 35, for crop production area and livestock number,

• using the data available on crop yields for five field crops, resulted in a standardized score of less than 50 and places Halton at rank 21 out of 35 Counties/Regions in southern Ontario,

• in the context of the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) and, using the data available on crop yields for five field crops, resulted in a standardized score of approximately 50 and places Halton at rank 9 out of 15 Counties/Regions in the GGH,

• Halton’s production of fruits and/or vegetables is relatively poor in the context of southern Ontario, and in the context of Ontario’s entire production of fruit and vegetables. In 2016, the proportion of Halton’s total census farm area in fruit and vegetable production was less than 2%.

2.3 Agricultural Soil Capability and Soil Potential The predominant soils adjacent to the Agerton/Trafalgar Secondary Plan study area are part of the Oneida Catena consisting of the soil series Oneida, Chingacousy and Jeddo series which are clay loams and are well, imperfectly and poorly drained respectively (Map 3). These soils are predominantly prime lands in soil capability classes 1 through 3 (Map 4). There are some “lighter” soil series which have sandy as well as silty textures, Berrien sandy loam and Tuscola silt loam for example. These soil series can be seen on Map 3. Additional description for soil classification and soil capability are outlined in Appendix 3. Soils within the study area have some soil potential for the production of fruit and vegetable crops. The soil capability classification does not include fruit and vegetable crops. Thus, various classifications on the potential of various soils to produce fruits and vegetables have been published more recently for some Regions/Counties in southern Ontario. Specialty crop classification systems are described more fully and summarized in tabular form in Appendix 2. Niagara Region does have soil potential ratings for fruits and vegetables and these have been adapted within this report. There are 20 crop groupings in this specialty crop rating system as shown in Table 2 - 9 groups for fruits and 11 groups for vegetables. The crop groups A, B, C and E are rated as unsuitable (rank 7) for commercial production in Milton due to climate. Table 2 summarizes soil potential ratings for the predominant soils within the study area. The soil potential rating assumes that tile drainage and irrigation are applied as required. None of the soils adjacent to the Agerton/Trafalgar Secondary Plan study area have an average soil potential rating better than 3. The remaining soils (excluding Bottomland which is associated with stream valley systems) have an average rating of 4 and 5. Notwithstanding the average rating, several soil series have relatively good potential for the production of fruits and vegetables in four or five crop groupings. The principal area where soils with better soil potential are present in the southeast part of the Trafalgar Secondary Plan area.


15

TABLE 2 SOIL POTENTIAL RATINGS

Total

ScoreAverage Soil

Potential

Rating

Number of

Rating 1 Crop

Groups

SOIL_NAME1 SLOPE1 CLASS1 STONINESS1DRAINAGE1A B C D E F G H I J K L MN O P Q R S T

ONEIDA 0.2 - 1.0 A, B 0 - 2 MW 7 7 7 2 7 2 1 3 1 2 6 5 2 2 3 4 1 2 3 2 69 3 3

ONEIDA 3.5 C, c 0 - 2 MW 7 7 7 2 7 2 1 3 1 3 7 6 3 2 3 4 2 3 3 2 75 4 2

ONEIDA 7.0 D 0 - 2 MW 7 7 7 3 7 2 1 4 2 3 7 6 3 3 4 7 2 3 4 3 85 4 1

ONEIDA 12.0 E 0 - 2 MW 7 7 7 3 7 3 2 5 3 4 7 6 4 5 7 7 4 5 5 5 103 5 0

CHINGUACOUSY 1.0 B 0 I 7 7 7 2 7 2 1 3 1 2 5 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 3 3 62 3 2

CHINGUACOUSY 3.5 c 0 I 7 7 7 2 7 2 1 3 1 3 6 6 3 3 4 5 3 4 3 3 80 4 2

JEDDO 1.0 B 1, 2 P 7 7 7 4 7 4 3 4 3 3 5 5 3 4 5 5 3 3 3 4 80 4 0

JEDDO 3.5 C 1, 2 P 7 7 7 4 7 4 3 4 3 4 6 6 4 4 5 5 4 4 3 4 95 5 0

BOTTOMLAND 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 140 7 0

BERRIEN 1.0 B 0 I 7 7 7 2 7 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 58 3 3

BERRIEN 3.5 c 0 I 7 7 7 2 7 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 64 3 2

BRADY 0.2 A 0, 1 I 7 7 7 3 7 2 2 2 5 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 3 62 3 5

BRADY 3.5 C 0, 1 I 7 7 7 3 7 2 2 2 5 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 3 62 3 5

BURFORD 3.5 C 2 W 7 7 7 2 7 2 2 2 3 2 4 7 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 3 69 3 1

FONT 7.0 D 1 W 7 7 7 3 7 2 2 3 4 3 6 7 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 4 83 4 0

FOX 7.0 D 0 W 7 7 7 3 2 2 2 3 4 3 6 6 2 2 2 2 3 4 2 4 73 4 0

TUSCOLA 3.5 c 0 I 7 7 7 1 7 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 58 3 4

Crops Used:

Tree Fruits, Grapes and Small Fruits:

A Peaches, Apricots, Nectarines

B Sweet Cherries

C Sour Cherries

D Labrusca Grapes

E Vinifera Grapes

F Apples

G Pears, Plums

H Strawberries, Raspberries

I Currants, Gooseberries

Vegetable Crops:

J Broccoli, Brussel Sprouts, Cauliflower

K Bulb Onions, Garlic

L Green (Bunching) Onions

M Eggplant, Peppers

N Cucumbers

O Muskmelon

P Potatoes

Q Tomatoes

R Sweet Corn

S Celery, Lettuce

T Pumpkins, Squash

FRUITS VEGETABLES

VARIABLE


16

MAP 3 SOIL SERIES/PHASES


17

MAP 4 SOIL CAPABILITY


18

The fruit and vegetable crops that can be grown in Halton and the Secondary Plan study area are not unique in the context of the Province or of the Greater Toronto Area. The amounts of different specialty crops and trends in their relative area of production are outlined more fully in the following section. 2.3 Agricultural Land Use Agricultural land use within the study area can be ascertained based on aerial photo interpretation as well as by reference to the published literature. The lands adjacent to the Agerton/Trafalgar Secondary Plan study area lands are predominantly part of the Natural Heritage System. Where farmland is immediately adjacent to the Agerton/Trafalgar Secondary Plan study area, these agricultural lands tend to be used for common field crop production as can be seen by interpreting the aerial photo base on Map 1 and/or as outlined on Map 5 - Agricultural Land Use (a generalized version of the map produced by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC, 2017). The AAFC agricultural land use mapping does not identify fruit and vegetable production in the lands adjacent to the Agerton/Trafalgar Secondary Plan study area but does identify greenhouses in the area along the Eighth Line between Brittannia Road and Lower Baseline East. The presence of these greenhouses was confirmed by field work. This area is also likely used for fruit and/or vegetable production, but roadside reconnaissance was restricted because of relatively narrow lots and the presence of buildings such as greenhouses. These observations are supported by Statistics Canada census information which is summarized in Figures 33 to 50 and under subheadings in the following. Crop Production

• in 2016, 71% of census farm area was used for crop production in Halton and, in the same census year, Milton had 63% of its census farm land in crops,

• 8% of the census farm area was in Christmas trees, woodlands and wetlands in Halton and 11% in Milton in 2016,

• in 2016, the greatest area of cropland was in soybeans (33%), followed by corn (24%), wheat (15%) and alfalfa and alfalfa mixtures (14%) in Halton Region; Milton had the same field crop predominance with slight differences in the percentage of total area assigned to different crops,

• fruits and vegetables comprised approximately 1% each of the crop area in Halton as well as Milton in 2016,

• from 1981 to 2016, fruit and vegetable production areas and farms reporting fruits and vegetables have diminished in Halton Region as well as in Milton,

• when calculated as a proportion of the total number of all census farms, Milton had more farms reporting fruits from 1991 to 2011 (except for the census year 2006),

• when calculated as a proportion of total census farm area, Milton had the highest proportion of area in fruits in 1996 and in 2016,

• the proportionate measure of area in vegetables was highest in 1986 in Milton and was markedly lower from 2011 to 2016,


19

• Halton Region’s fruit, berries and nuts as well as vegetable production measured as farms reporting and area has diminished as a proportion of the production in Ontario from 1981 to 2016,

• when calculated as a proportion of the total number of all census farms, Milton had more farms reporting vegetables relative to other sub- tier municipalities in Halton,

• at a provincial scale, farms reporting as well as area reported for fruit and vegetables in Halton has diminished as a proportion of Ontario farms reporting and area reported,

• from 1981 to 2016 farms reporting greenhouses in Halton and Milton have diminished,

• Halton’s total area of greenhouses peaked in 1996 and that total area peaked in 2006 in Milton,

• both Halton Region’s and Milton’s area of greenhouses has increased from 1981 to 2016,

• the proportion of census farms reporting greenhouses has diminished slightly in both Halton and Milton with a peak in Halton Region in 2006 and in Milton in 2001,

• the proportion of census farm area occupied by greenhouses has been steadily increasing in Milton and in Halton.

2.5 Climate There are no readily available regional maps that integrate the various components of climate such as crop heat units, precipitation during the growing season, depth to water table, availability of water for irrigation, sunshine days and other climate risk factors into a single potential rating similar to soil capability. However, several broad scale, recent as well as historical climate information maps, are available from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada at the national and provincial levels. For example, maps on crop heat units and precipitation are available Additional data, is available from various weather stations. However, much of the mapping in the data is at a broad scale unsuitable for use in comparing lands adjacent to a secondary plan study area boundary. The climate mapping and data reviewed cannot, in my opinion, be used to differentiate part of a secondary plan boundary condition in one area relative to another. Regardless of problems with the scale of climate information, climate in Halton and Milton is good for agricultural production but is not unique in the context of southern Ontario.


20

MAP 5 AGRICULTURAL LAND USE


21

2.6 Livestock and Manure Production Several data sources have been used at various scales to characterize livestock use. For example, impediments to the construction of new livestock buildings are to be found in government regulation such as the Nutrient Management Act (NMA, 2002) and the Act’s associated Regulation (2005), in addition to the costs associated with the livestock business. These costs include:

• The requirements of compliance with the NMA. Costs are significant and vary with agricultural industry and are outlined in the paper by Brethour et al. (2004). The poultry business is in a relatively good position to expense those costs.

• Costs for entering supply controlled agricultural industry such as dairy or poultry (which are the livestock industries with a good expectation of high net returns) is high. Combe (2000) estimated that the capital investment (excluding land costs) related to 30,000 units of chicken broiler quota was $1.609 million. Therefore, the capital investment (excluding land) for the 30,000 units of chicken broiler quota would be in excess of $1.6 million at current prices.

Given the level of liability, costs of compliance, hard work and uncertainty associated with livestock production, that production may become a less desirable farming option. For example, livestock farming may not be the favoured choice for an agricultural operation because of externally imposed requirements related to nutrient management, animal welfare, diseases such as BSE and avian flu in addition to the cost of quota associated with supply-controlled industries (chicken, eggs and dairy). This perspective of diminished interest in livestock production is supported by information that indicates that less livestock is being produced within Halton Region. Statistics Canada information, which tracks changes every five years, shows diminishing levels of nutrient units (formerly animal units) and manure production (Figures 50 to 55) as follows:

• total nutrient units in Halton Region and its sub-tier municipalities have diminished from 1981 to 2016,

• when total nutrient units per census farm hectare are multiplied by the odour factor (an “unpleasantness” rating), Milton’s levels have increased slightly from the level recorded in 1981 relative to 2016 and Halton’s have decreased between 1981 and 2016,

• when total nutrient units times odour factor is compared based on census farm number, Halton’s values have diminished between 1981 and 2016 as have Milton’s (stated differently, total nutrients times the odour factor averaged per census farm shows an overall decrease for Halton as well as Milton),

• Milton’s total nutrient units as a proportion of Halton Region’s total nutrient units have increased,

• in 2016, cattle followed by horses and ponies accounted for the greatest amount of the nutrient units reported in Halton,

• in Milton, hens and chickens (35%) followed by total cattle and calves as well as total sheep and lambs (31% for each) account for the greatest number of nutrient units.


22

Fieldwork and aerial photo interpretation support the findings of the statistical analyses documented previously. Specifically, livestock production is relatively low, new large barns were not observed, few barns are present and, of those barns that are present, some barns have already been repurposed for urban uses. However, some livestock was observed in the field. The principal area of observation of livestock corresponds with the lands on the Eighth Line which has already been identified as having greenhouses. Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) conflicts are not likely for several reasons:

• these farms already are separated/buffered by natural heritage system lands,

• while the animals were observed in pasture, no livestock barns were identified,

• livestock nutrient units per farm in Milton have increased very little since 1981 unlike in other parts of southern Ontario.

If 1/5 of the hens and chickens in Milton in 2016 (were to be placed in one barn along the eighth line, the separation distance required for “chickens, broiler breeder layers (males/females transferred in from grower barn), cages” with the manure system “solid, inside, bedded pack” the Minimum Separation Distance required is 511 m. This separation could be maintained by placing the barn adjacent to existing farm buildings and measuring from there to the boundary of the Natural Heritage System where that boundary is adjacent to the proposed urban uses. 2.7 Mitigation There is much qualitative literature describing possible conflict between agriculture and urban uses where that conflict is related to dust, pesticides, noise, light, transportation, odour, trespass, vandalism, farm management, animal care and other matters related to life in, and expectations associated with, agricultural versus urban areas. Is not the intent of this report to review that literature extensively. OMAFRA does not have documents that describe mitigation measures and their efficacy but have provided information prepared by some municipalities within southern Ontario (London, Mississippi Mills) and to government papers available for British Columbia (OMAFRA, 2018). The literature from British Columbia is more extensive. Published literature generally provides information with respect to subdivision design and other recommendations intended to reduce urban/rural conflict.

• Roads at the boundary between agricultural and urban areas should be designed to accommodate large, wide, slow-moving farm machinery (by use of wider road surfaces including paved shoulders; by placement of road markers, signage, mail boxes away from the road edge, for example).

• Visual barriers provided by tree plantings within the agricultural and urban areas would potentially reduce some impacts related to light and noise.

• Choose areas of lower agricultural importance/priority for non-agricultural development where that proposed non-agricultural development has a boundary adjacent to relatively lower priority agricultural lands.

The literature shows that mitigation can take the form of:

• physical separation (buffer strips),

• berms,


23

• fencing,

• screening through use of vegetation,

• insertion of low-density uses between high-density urban uses and farm land,

• specialized zoning of buffer strips to prevent structures, storage, and removal of vegetation,

• clauses attached to land title which warn that adjacent uses include farm land where normal farm practices are protected and where those practices include the production of dust, vibration, odours, light, noise etc. and the use of fertilizers and pesticides,

• any combination of the aforementioned. The need for, as well as the form or characteristics of, that mitigation can depend on several factors such as:

• the relative importance of the farmland as defined by planning policy;

• the kind and scale/size of agricultural operations (livestock versus fruit production, for example) probably affected by new urban development;

• the probability of impacts to agriculture and the severity of those impacts if they should occur;

• the probability that mitigation in any, or of specific form, can significantly reduce probable impacts;

• the relative positive impacts of residential development adjacent to farm land compared to negative impacts associated with the juxtaposition of residential and agricultural development.

The literature tends to emphasize the negative interactions at the urban/agricultural interface. However, there are some positive impacts and these are outlined by Sokolow (Chapter 12, no date).

The common generalization from several studies is that urban proximity can provide profit-making opportunities as well as problems for farmers, considering the potential for direct marketing, other forms of access to urban consumers, and off-farm income for operators. (Edelman, et al., 1999). But only certain kinds of intensely-cultivated farms, including vegetable producers, seem to benefit from such locations (Larson, et al., 2001). A USDA review of the available information on farms in metropolitan areas characterizes them as smaller, producing more per acre, more diverse, and more focused on high-value production than farms in non-metropolitan areas (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2001).

Mitigation must also consider the fact that agriculture includes a diversity of farm types and farm management. Agriculture includes the production of nursery crops which can be a source for “horticultural plantings” and some “invasive plants” relative to other kinds of agricultural production. Regardless, there is currently no requirement for buffer areas between farms producing nursery crops and other types of farms within prime agricultural areas. The mitigation options available are based on several sources of literature. Much of the Canadian literature is from the province of British Columbia and has been put in place


24

relative to their Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). Landscaped buffer specifications (Agricultural Land Commission, 1993) start with a minimum buffer width of 3 m. Other specifications suggest that berms may be added to the buffer. Different fencing types are described as part of Agricultural Land Commission buffer specifications. Specialized zoning and a restrictive covenant are present because of discussions in papers such as those by the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1996) and Curran (2005). All of the literature search related to buffers at the agriculture/urban interface provided very little quantitative information and this viewpoint is expressed by Sokolow et al. (2010):

It [edge conflict] appears in many other parts of the nation where urbanization extends into commercial agricultural areas (Jackson-Smith and Sharp 2008; Abdalla and Kelsey 1996; Larson et al. 2001; Van Driesche et al. 1987). These accounts are usually anecdotal or prescriptive in nature, lacking a systematic examination of the causes and effects of agricultural-residential conflicts, especially one that builds on a comparison of different edge situations.

Sokolow concludes his research with the question: What is the relative effectiveness of various public policy measures - such as grievance procedures, right–to-farm ordinances, required buffers for new development and zoning - in avoiding or reducing edge conflicts?

Englund (2003) evaluated 27 buffers in British Columbia by use of survey research. Buffers varied in their length (40 m to 900 m), width (1 m to 350 m), density (20% to 95%) and species composition. As well, the positive and negative elements of the vegetated buffers were viewed differently. For example, some survey respondents classified the shade provided as a positive element while others saw it as negative. The fact that the buffer provided habitat for wildlife as well as provided for the screening of views was also viewed both positively and negatively by respondents to the survey. The sample size of 27 buffers, given the variation in the characteristics of the buffers, as well as in the characteristics of the survey respondents, renders any form of conclusion with respect to the study as tentative. Finally, there has recently been an impetus for agricultural production within urban areas. For example, the Ontario planning Journal (Volume 26 (4), 2011) provides information that urban agriculture is being studied at York and Queens Universities as well as the Universities of Toronto and Guelph. OMAFRA provides information related to urban agriculture on several websites (OMAFRA 2014, 2015a) and includes discussions on livestock production within urban areas. OMAFRA does mention the use of Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) in urban areas but, within its own MDS Document (2017), leaves any requirement for the application of MDS within the urban settlement areas up to individual upper and/or lower tier municipalities. In the review of the literature, no requirement for buffers between agricultural uses and urban uses within urban settlement areas was mentioned. This fact is a contradiction.


25

Urban areas are actively seeking to accommodate or are accommodating agriculture within their boundaries without requirements related to buffering and/or separation, but, separation and buffering is required or recommended at the urban agricultural interface in some jurisdictions. 3.0 SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS The findings of the AgPlan analyses and mitigation review for the agricultural lands adjacent to the Agerton/Trafalgar Secondary Plan study area are summarized under subheadings in the following paragraphs. Census Farm Number and Area

• Census farm number and area is diminishing over time and will likely continue as nonagricultural development occurs in Halton and Milton.

• Halton’s census farm number and area is decreasing faster than that for the province of Ontario.

Soil Potential, Capability

• The lands adjacent to the study area does not meet the requirements for a specialty crop area as defined within the PPS.

• The area does not have a high average potential for the production of specialty crops (fruits and vegetables).

• There are differences in soil potential and different areas can be prioritized based on that potential.

• Lands are predominantly in soil capability classes 1 through 3.

• There are differences in soil capability and different areas can be prioritized on the basis of that capability.

• Soils have different drainage classes and textures. Agricultural Land Use

• Common field crops are predominantly grown.

• Production of fruit and vegetable crops are diminishing in Halton and Milton.

• Some fruit and vegetable production is occurring on the Eighth Line adjacent to the south end of the study area

Ontario Agricultural Economics and Financial Characteristics

• The majority of farms have more off-farm income than non-farm income.

• There are significant differences in gross and net incomes associated with common field crops versus fruits and vegetables versus greenhouse crops.

• Halton and Milton have a relatively high total farm capital in the context of Ontario where most of that capital is in land and buildings.

• Total gross farm receipts and net on-farm income have increased in Milton between 2001 and 2016.


26

Multi-attribute Measurements of Agricultural Performance in Southern Ontario

• At a Regional/County scale, multi-attribute analyses rate Halton’s performance as middling to poor except in the instance of economic comparisons. Halton’s gross income and total capital value are relatively high in the context of other Counties/Regions in southern Ontario.

Agricultural Livestock/Manure Trends in Milton and Halton Region

• Nutrient (formerly animal) units are diminishing within Milton and Halton.

• Nutrient units times odour factor is also diminishing within Milton and Halton. Mitigation

• The mitigation literature review provided no information concerning the success of any applied mitigation measure except by a limited opinion survey completed in British Columbia. The survey results included the fact that there were both negative as well as positive elements associated buffer strips, vegetative screening, fencing, etc. However, no data was analysed to indicate if one, or a combination of mitigation measures, reduce the frequency of complaint against farms and farmers.

• The literature does not link mitigation with: o the relative importance of the farmland as defined by planning policy; o the kind and scale/size of agricultural operations (livestock versus fruit

production, for example) probably affected by new urban development; o the probability of impacts to agriculture and the severity of those impacts if

they should occur; o the probability that mitigation in any, or of specific form, can significantly

reduce probable impacts and/or complaints.

Recommendation 1 A single area to the south on the Eighth Line has:

o relatively high soil potential and soil capability, o relatively high gross income and net income associated with greenhouse

production, and o has livestock.

The area is relatively better agriculturally and it is recommended that development be phased starting in the north and moving south

Recommendation 2 Because the Trafalgar/Agerton urban lands are already separated from the agricultural lands surrounding the Trafalgar/Agerton Secondary Plan study area by Natural Heritage areas (which cannot be developed), mitigation is already in place. Any additional beneficial mitigation at the interface between urban and agricultural uses should be considered at the plan of subdivision stage.


27

AgPlan Limited Michael K. Hoffman Agricultural Analyst


28

4.0 REFERENCES Acton, C. J. 1989. The Soils of Brant County. Report no. 55 of the Ontario Institute of

Pedology. Agricultural Land Commission. 1993. Landscape Buffer Specifications. British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture. 2015. Guide for Bylaw Development in

Farming Areas. British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Strengthening Farming Program. No date.

Guide to Edge Planning. Promoting Compatibility along Agricultural - Urban Edges.

British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Provincial Agricultural Land Commission. 1996. Subdivision near Agriculture. A Guide for Approving Officers.

British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Provincial Agricultural Land Commission. 1997. Planning Subdivisions near Agriculture.

Brethour, Cher, Kate Stiefelmeyer and Al Mussell. 2004. Financial Impact of the Nutrient Management Regulations (267/03) and Assessment of Affordability. Prepared by the George Morris Centre for the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture. Various dates. Webpage links http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/sf/edge/index.htm and http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/sf/planag/subdiv.htm as provided by Ms. Jackie Van de Valk, OMAFRA, 2011.

Brook, Tim. 2019. Personal communication. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Brown, D. M and R. E. Place. 1989. Rating climate in southern Ontario for horticultural crops. Can. J. Plant Sci. 69: 325-336.

Canada Soil Survey Committee (CSSC), Sub-committee on Soils Classification. 1978. The Canadian System of Soil Classification. Canadian Department of Agriculture Publication 1646. Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa.

Centre for Resources Development, University of Guelph. 1972. Planning for Agriculture in Southern Ontario. ARDA Report No. 7.

Curran, Deborah. 2005. Protecting the Working Landscape of Agriculture: A Smart Growth Direction for Municipalities in British Columbia. West Coast and Environmental Law.

Doncaster, Michelle. 2019. Personal communication. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Ecologistics Limited and Smith, Hoffman Associates Limited. 1984. Soil Rating System for Specialty Crops. Prepared for Ontario Hydro.

Englund, Krista. 2003. Vegetative Buffers in BC. An investigation of existing buffers and their effectiveness in mitigating conflict. British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, Resource Management Branch.

Environment Canada. 1972. The Canada Land Inventory Report No. 2, Soil Capability Classification for Agriculture.

Fisher, Helen and Ken Slingerland. 2002. Site Selection for Grapes in the Niagara Peninsula.

Gillespie J. E., R. E. Wicklund and M. H. Miller. 1971. The Soils of Halton County. Report No. 43 of the Ontario Soil Survey.

http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/sf/edge/index.htm

http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/sf/edge/index.htm

http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/sf/planag/subdiv.htm

http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/sf/planag/subdiv.htm


29

Government of Ontario. 2014. Provincial Policy Statement. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Hagerty T. J. and M. S. Kingston. 1992. The Soils of the Middlesex County. Volume 1 and 2. Report no. 56 of the Ontario Centre for Soil Resource Evaluation.

Hoffman, D. W., 1971. The Assessment of Soil Productivity for Agriculture. ARDA Report No. 4.

Hoffman, Douglas Weir. 1973. Crop Yields of Soil Capability Classes and Their Uses in Planning for Agriculture. PhD Thesis, University of Waterloo.

Hoffman, D. W., B. C. Matthews and R. E. Wicklund. 1964. Soils Associations of Southern Ontario. Report No. 30 of the Ontario Soil Survey.

Hoffman, D. W., and H. F. Noble. 1975. Acreages of Soil Capability Classes for Agriculture in Ontario. ARDA Report Number 8.

Irwin, Ross W. 1999. Twenty Year Record of Drainage Benefit. Prepared as a factsheet for the Land Improvement Contractors of Ontario.

Kingston, M. S., and E. W. Presant. 1989. The Soils of the Regional Municipality of Niagara. Volumes 1 and 2. Report no. 60 of the Ontario Institute of Pedology.

Land Information Ontario (LIO). 2017. Map shapefiles and associated databases for soils and soil capability.

McBride, Raymond A. 1983. Agronomic and Engineering Soil Interpretations from Water Retention Data. PhD Thesis. University of Guelph.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2006. Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006. Office Consolidation to 2013. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2016. Proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2016. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Mussell, Al, Jim Willwerth and Helen Fisher. December, 2011. Grape Varieties in Ontario Wine Regions. Understanding the Potential and the Risks. Grape Growers of Ontario.

Mussell, Al, Kate Stiefelmeyer, Anatoliy Oginskyy, Claudia Schmidt and Bob Seguin. December, 2010. Aligning the Ontario Grape Supply and Demand: A Varietal Plan for the Grape and Wine Industry. Executive summary. George Morris Centre.

Ontario Institute of Pedology. 1992. Field Manual for Describing Soils. Ontario Institute of Pedology, Guelph, Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2016. Guide to Fruit Production. Publication 360.

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Statistics Branch. 2018. Various financial, trade statistics available to August 2018. OMAFRA Web Site.

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2018. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2016. Guidelines on Permitted

Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas. Publication 851. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2017. The Minimum Distance

Separation (MDS) Document, Formulae and Guidelines for Livestock Facility and Anaerobic Digester Odour Setbacks. Publication 853, implemented March 1, 2017.

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2015. Urban Agriculture Business Information Bundle.


30

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/urbanagbib/raisinglivestockandpoultry.htm

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2014. Urban Agriculture Business Information Bundle Welcome to the Urban Agriculture Business Information Bundle (BIB) Producing Food in Cities. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/urbanagbib/welcome.htm

Ontario Professional Planners Institute. 2011. Planning School Edition. Ontario Planning Journal, vol. 26 (4).

Pasato, Nancy. 2001. Guidelines on Development within the Rural/Urban Interface. City of London Planning Division. Draft. Not adopted by City of London Council.

Presant, E. W. and R. E. Wicklund. 1971. The Soils of Waterloo County. Report number 44 of the Ontario Soil Survey.

Presant, E. W. and C. J. Acton. 1984. The Soils of the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk. Volumes 1 and 2. Report number 57 of the Ontario Soil Survey.

Prince George’s County. No date. The Future of Agriculture in Prince George’s County, Farming at the Urban Edge.

Policy excerpts. Various dates. From London and Mississippi Mills as provided by Mr. Drew Crinklaw, OMAFRA, 2011.

Santa Barbara County Planning & Development Department Long Range Planning Division. 2012. Research on Agricultural Buffers. A White Paper. Attachment G.

Smith, Barry E. 1998. Planning for Agriculture. Policy Planner, Agricultural Land Commission, British Columbia.

Sokolow, Alvin D., Sonja Verea Hammond, Maxwell Norton, and Evan E. Schmidt. 2010. California communities deal with conflict and adjustment at the urban-agricultural edge. http://californiaagriculture.ucanr.org .

Sokolow, Alvin D. No date. California’s Edge Problem: Urban Impacts on Agriculture. Chapter 12.

Statistics Canada. 1981 - 2016. Census of Agriculture data. Turvey, John. 2019. Personal communication. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food

and Rural Affairs. Weibe, J. and E. T. Anderson. 1976. Grape Climatic Zones in Niagara. Ontario

Ministry of Agriculture and Food.




http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/urbanagbib/welcome.htm

http://californiaagriculture.ucanr.org/

http://californiaagriculture.ucanr.org/


31

APPENDIX 1 FINDINGS - DATA GRAPHS


32

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

NU

MB

ER O

F C

ENSU

S FA

RM

S

CENSUS YEAR

NUMBER OF CENSUS FARMS IN HALTON REGION AND ITS SUB-TIER MUNICIPALITIES 1981 TO 2016

HALTON REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OAKVILLE BURLINGTON MILTON HALTON HILLS

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

AR

EA (H

A)

OF

CEN

SUS

FAR

MS

CENSUS YEAR

AREA (HA) OF CENSUS FARMS IN HALTON REGION AND ITS SUB-TIER MUNICIPALITIES 1981 TO 2016



33

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

PR

OP

OR

TIO

N O

F H

ALT

ON

REG

ION

TO

TAL

CEN

SUS

FAR

M A

REA

CENSUS YEAR

PROPORTION OF HALTON REGION TOTAL CENSUS FARM AREA FOR EACH SUB-TIER MUNICIPALITY 1981 TO 2016

OAKVILLE BURLINGTON MILTON HALTON HILLS

0.00%

0.10%

0.20%

0.30%

0.40%

0.50%

0.60%

0.70%

0.80%

0.90%

1.00%

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

PR

OP

OR

TIO

N O

F O

NTA

RIO

TO

TAL

CEN

SUS

FAR

M A

REA

CENSUS YEAR

HALTON REGION'S CENSUS FARM AREA AS A PROPORTION OF ONTARIO'S TOTAL CENSUS FARM AREA 1981 TO 2016

HALTON REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY


34

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

HA

LDIM

AN

D-N

OR

FOLK

REG

ION

AL

MU

N.

ESSE

X C

OU

NTY

NIA

GA

RA

REG

ION

AL

MU

NIC

IPA

LITY

ELG

IN C

OU

NTY

HA

MIL

TON

-WEN

TWO

RTH

REG

ION

AL

MU

N.

BR

AN

T C

OU

NTY

YO

RK

REG

ION

AL

MU

NIC

IPA

LITY

OX

FOR

D C

OU

NTY

MID

DLE

SEX

CO

UN

TY

DU

RH

AM

REG

ION

AL

MU

NIC

IPA

LITY

HA

LTO

N R

EGIO

NA

L M

UN

ICIP

ALI

TY

SIM

CO

E C

OU

NTY

OTT

AW

A-C

AR

LETO

N R

EGIO

NA

L M

UN

IC.

PEE

L R

EGIO

NA

L M

UN

ICIP

ALI

TY

NO

RTH

UM

BER

LAN

D C

OU

NTY

WEL

LIN

GTO

N C

OU

NTY

KEN

T C

OU

NTY

LEED

S A

ND

GR

ENV

ILLE

UN

ITED

CO

UN

TIES

WA

TER

LOO

REG

ION

AL

MU

NIC

IPA

LITY

STO

RM

ON

T, D

UN

DA

S A

ND

GLE

NG

AR

RY

…

GR

EY C

OU

NTY

VIC

TOR

IA C

OU

NTY

PET

ERB

OR

OU

GH

CO

UN

TY

PR

ESC

OTT

AN

D R

USS

ELL

UN

ITED

CO

UN

TIES

LAM

BTO

N C

OU

NTY

HA

STIN

GS

CO

UN

TY

REN

FREW

CO

UN

TY

PR

INC

E ED

WA

RD

CO

UN

TY

HU

RO

N C

OU

NTY

FRO

NTE

NA

C C

OU

NTY

DU

FFER

IN C

OU

NTY

LAN

AR

K C

OU

NTY

PER

TH C

OU

NTY

BR

UC

E C

OU

NTY

PA

RR

Y S

OU

ND

DIS

TRIC

T

MU

SKO

KA

DIS

TRIC

T M

UN

ICIP

ALI

TY

LEN

NO

X A

ND

AD

DIN

GTO

N C

OU

NTY

HA

LIB

UR

TON

CO

UN

TY

FAR

MS

REP

OR

TIN

G

TOTAL NUMBER OF FARMS REPORTING GREENHOUSES IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO 1981

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Nia

gara

Esse

x

Hal

dim

and

-No

rfo

lk

Ham

ilto

n

Wat

erl

oo

Wel

lingt

on

Toro

nto

Du

rham

Sim

coe

Ott

aw

a

Mid

dle

sex

Gre

y

Ch

ath

am-K

en

t

Hal

ton

Elgi

n

Oxf

ord

Hu

ron

Pee

l

Leed

s an

d G

ren

ville

Pe

rth

Has

tin

gs

Bru

ce

No

rth

um

be

rlan

d

Kaw

arth

a La

kes

Pre

sco

tt a

nd

Ru

sse

ll

Bra

nt

Lan

ark

Re

nfr

ew

Pe

terb

oro

ugh

Mu

sko

ka

Du

ffe

rin

Lam

bto

n

Pri

nce

Ed

war

d

Fro

nte

na

c

Sto

rmo

nt,

Du

nd

as a

nd

Gle

nga

rry

Len

no

x an

d A

dd

ingt

on

Par

ry S

ou

nd

Yo

rk

Hal

ibu

rto

n

NU

MB

ER O

F FA

RM

S R

EPO

RTI

NG

NUMBER OF FARMS REPORTING AREA UNDER GLASS, PLASTIC OR OTHER PROTECTION IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO 2016


35

FIGURE 7

FIGURE 8

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

ESSE

X C

OU

NTY

NIA

GA

RA

REG

ION

AL

MU

NIC

IPA

LITY

HA

LDIM

AN

D-N

OR

FOLK

REG

ION

AL

MU

N.

HA

MIL

TON

-WEN

TWO

RTH

REG

ION

AL

MU

N.

YO

RK

REG

ION

AL

MU

NIC

IPA

LITY

HA

LTO

N R

EGIO

NA

L M

UN

ICIP

ALI

TY

ELG

IN C

OU

NTY

BR

AN

T C

OU

NTY

MID

DLE

SEX

CO

UN

TY

PEE

L R

EGIO

NA

L M

UN

ICIP

ALI

TY

OTT

AW

A-C

AR

LETO

N R

EGIO

NA

L M

UN

IC.

DU

RH

AM

REG

ION

AL

MU

NIC

IPA

LITY

SIM

CO

E C

OU

NTY

OX

FOR

D C

OU

NTY

NO

RTH

UM

BER

LAN

D C

OU

NTY

KEN

T C

OU

NTY

WA

TER

LOO

REG

ION

AL

MU

NIC

IPA

LITY

WEL

LIN

GTO

N C

OU

NTY

LEED

S A

ND

GR

ENV

ILLE

UN

ITED

CO

UN

TIES

LAM

BTO

N C

OU

NTY

GR

EY C

OU

NTY

PET

ERB

OR

OU

GH

CO

UN

TY

PR

INC

E ED

WA

RD

CO

UN

TY

VIC

TOR

IA C

OU

NTY

FRO

NTE

NA

C C

OU

NTY

STO

RM

ON

T, D

UN

DA

S A

ND

GLE

NG

AR

RY

…

BR

UC

E C

OU

NTY

REN

FREW

CO

UN

TY

DU

FFER

IN C

OU

NTY

HA

STIN

GS

CO

UN

TY

PR

ESC

OTT

AN

D R

USS

ELL

UN

ITED

CO

UN

TIES

LAN

AR

K C

OU

NTY

PER

TH C

OU

NTY

HU

RO

N C

OU

NTY

LEN

NO

X A

ND

AD

DIN

GTO

N C

OU

NTY

MU

SKO

KA

DIS

TRIC

T M

UN

ICIP

ALI

TY

PA

RR

Y S

OU

ND

DIS

TRIC

T

HA

LIB

UR

TON

CO

UN

TY

AR

EA (S

QU

AR

E M

ETR

ES)

SOUTHERN ONTARIO TOTAL AREA OF GREENHOUSES - SQUARE METRES 1981

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

8000000

9000000

Esse

x

Nia

gara

Ch

ath

am-K

ent

Hal

dim

and

-No

rfo

lk

Ham

ilto

n

Toro

nto

Lam

bto

n

Hu

ron

Hal

ton

Mid

dle

sex

Sim

coe

Elgi

n

Du

rham

Ott

awa

Pee

l

Wat

erl

oo

Oxf

ord

Bru

ce

Bra

nt

Wel

lingt

on

Pe

rth

Pre

sco

tt a

nd

Ru

sse

ll

No

rth

um

ber

lan

d

Gre

y

Lan

ark

Leed

s an

d G

ren

ville

Kaw

arth

a La

kes

Ren

frew

Pe

terb

oro

ugh

Du

ffer

in

Fro

nte

na

c

Has

tin

gs

Len

no

x an

d A

dd

ingt

on

Pri

nce

Ed

war

d

Sto

rmo

nt,

Du

nd

as a

nd

Gle

nga

rry

Par

ry S

ou

nd

Mu

sko

ka

Yo

rk

Hal

ibu

rto

n

AR

EA IN

SQ

UA

RE

MET

RES

SOUTHERN ONTARIO TOTAL AREA UNDER GLASS, PLASTIC OR OTHER PROTECTION 2016


36

FIGURE 9

FIGURE 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Can

ada

Pre

sco

tt a

nd

Ru

sse

ll

Sto

rmo

nt,

Du

nd

as a

nd

Gle

nga

rry

Re

nfr

ew

Hu

ron

Pri

nce

Ed

war

d

Bru

ce

Fro

nte

na

c

Lam

bto

n

Len

no

x an

d A

dd

ingt

on

Elgi

n

Leed

s an

d G

ren

ville

Ch

ath

am-K

en

t

Lan

ark

Mid

dle

sex

Has

tin

gs

Sim

coe

On

tari

o

Kaw

arth

a La

kes

No

rth

um

ber

lan

d

Ott

awa

Oxf

ord

Pe

rth

Bra

nt

Du

ffer

in

Du

rham

Hal

dim

and

-No

rfo

lk

Gre

y

Pe

terb

oro

ugh

Esse

x

Pe

el

Yo

rk

Wel

lingt

on

Ham

ilto

n

Wat

erl

oo

Hal

ton

Nia

gara

To

ron

to

AV

ERA

GE

FAR

M O

PER

ATI

ON

SIZ

E (H

ECTA

RES

)

AVERAGE FARM OPERATION SIZE IN THE CENSUS YEAR 2016 FOR THE REGIONS/COUNTIES IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO ( WITH CONTEXT AT THE CANADA AND ONTARIO SCALES)

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

Hal

ton

Yo

rk

Esse

x

Ch

ath

am-K

en

t

Du

rham

Ham

ilto

n

Pee

l

Lan

ark

No

rth

um

ber

lan

d

Pe

terb

oro

ugh

Has

tin

gs

Ott

aw

a

Fro

nte

na

c

Ka

war

tha

Lake

s

Sim

coe

Leed

s an

d G

ren

ville

Pri

nce

Ed

war

d

Lam

bto

n

Len

no

x an

d A

dd

ingt

on

Ren

frew

Nia

gara

Mid

dle

sex

Bra

nt

Sto

rmo

nt,

Du

nd

as a

nd

Gle

nga

rry

Elgi

n

Hal

dim

and

-No

rfo

lk

Du

ffer

in

Gre

y

Pre

sco

tt a

nd

Ru

sse

ll

Hu

ron

Bru

ce

Oxf

ord

Pe

rth

Wel

lingt

on

Wat

erl

oo

AV

ERA

GE

FAR

M O

PER

ATO

R A

GE

COUNTY/REGIONAL AVERAGE FARM OPERATOR AGE COMPARISON FOR SOUTHERN ONTARIO (2016 CENSUS)


37

FIGURE 11

FIGURE 12

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

HALTON OAKVILLE BURLINGTON MILTON HALTON HILLS

PR

OP

OR

TIO

N O

F FA

RM

OP

ERA

TOR

S IN

DIF

FER

ENT

AG

E G

RO

UP

S

PROPORTION OF FARM OPERATORS IN DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS IN HALTON REGION 2016 CENSUS

PROPORTION OF FARM OPERATORS UNDER 35 YEARS OLD

PROPORTION OF FARM OPERATORS 35 - 54 YEARS OLD

PROPORTION OF FARM OPERATORS 55 YEARS OLD AND OVER

-$20,000

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$10,000 to$24,999

$25,000 to$49,999

$50,000 to$99,999

$100,000 to$249,999

$250,000 to$499,999

$500,000and over

FARM OPERATING REVENUE CATEGORY

ON-FARM NET OPERATING INCOME AVERAGE PER OPERATOR COMPARED TO OFF-FARM INCOME AVERAGE PER OPERATOR WITHIN FARM OPERATING REVENUE CATEGORIES

(ONTARIO)

ON-FARM NET OPERATING INCOME AVERAGE PER OPERATOR ( $ )

OFF-FARM INCOME AVERAGE PER OPERATOR ( $ )


38

FIGURE 13

FIGURE 14

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

PROPORTION OF FARM OPERATORS WHERE OFF-FARM INCOME EXCEEDS NET ON-FARM OPERATING INCOME IN ONTARIO

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

H

asti

ngs

P

rin

ce E

dw

ard

St

orm

on

t, D

un

das

an

d G

len

garr

y

Le

nn

ox

and

Ad

din

gto

n

La

nar

k

R

enfr

ew

Le

eds

and

Gre

nvi

lle

P

resc

ott

an

d R

uss

ell

Fr

on

ten

ac

P

ete

rbo

rou

gh

K

awar

tha

Lake

s

B

ruce

G

rey

N

ort

hu

mb

erla

nd

Es

sex

O

xfo

rd

N

iaga

ra

H

uro

n

On

tari

o

P

ert

h

Can

ada

La

mb

ton

W

elli

ngt

on

M

idd

lese

x

W

ate

rlo

o

El

gin

Si

mco

e

C

hat

ham

-Ken

t

D

uff

erin

D

urh

am

H

amilt

on

O

ttaw

a

B

ran

t

H

ald

iman

d-N

orf

olk

H

alto

n

P

eel

Y

ork

PROPORTION OF CENSUS FARMS REPORTING OWNED LAND IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO 2016


39

FIGURE 15

FIGURE 16

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

St

orm

on

t, D

un

das

an

d G

len

garr

y

P

resc

ott

an

d R

uss

ell

Le

eds

and

Gre

nvi

lle

R

enfr

ew

La

nar

k

B

ruce

P

ert

h

W

ate

rlo

o

H

asti

ngs

Le

nn

ox

and

Ad

din

gto

n

La

mb

ton

G

rey

C

hat

ham

-Ken

t

O

xfo

rd

H

uro

n

W

elli

ngt

on

P

ete

rbo

rou

gh

N

ort

hu

mb

erla

nd

On

tari

o

M

idd

lese

x

El

gin

P

rin

ce E

dw

ard

Fr

on

ten

ac

O

ttaw

a

H

ald

iman

d-N

orf

olk

K

awar

tha

Lake

s

B

ran

t

Can

ada

D

uff

erin

D

urh

am

N

iaga

ra

Es

sex

Si

mco

e

H

amilt

on

Y

ork

H

alto

n

P

eel

PROPORTION OF CENSUS FARM AREA REPORTED AS OWNED BY THE FARM OPERATION IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO 2016

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

Pee

l

Hal

ton

Oxf

ord

Pe

rth

Yo

rk

Hu

ron

Mid

dle

sex

Pre

sco

tt a

nd

Ru

sse

ll

Ch

ath

am-K

en

t

Sto

rmo

nt,

Du

nd

as a

nd

Gle

nga

rry

Lam

bto

n

Esse

x

Bra

nt

Elgi

n

Sim

coe

We

llin

gto

n

Wat

erl

oo

Du

rham

Bru

ce

Hal

dim

and

-No

rfo

lk

Ott

aw

a

Du

ffe

rin

Ham

ilto

n

Nia

gara

Pri

nce

Ed

war

d

Gre

y

No

rth

um

be

rlan

d

Kaw

arth

a La

kes

Pe

terb

oro

ugh

Leed

s an

d G

ren

ville

Has

tin

gs

R

en

fre

w

Len

no

x an

d A

dd

ingt

on

Lan

ark

Fro

nte

na

c

TOTA

L FA

RM

CA

PIT

AL

PER

FA

RM

(M

AR

KE

T V

ALU

E IN

DO

LLA

RS)

TOTAL FARM CAPITAL PER FARM (MARKET VALUE IN DOLLARS) FOR THE REGIONS/COUNTIES IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO BASED ON CENSUS DATA 2016


40

FIGURE 17

FIGURE 18

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

Hal

ton

Pe

el

Yo

rk

Oxf

ord

Nia

gara

Pe

rth

Wat

erl

oo

Ham

ilto

n

Esse

x

We

llin

gto

n

Mid

dle

sex

Bra

nt

Hu

ron

Ch

ath

am-K

en

t

Du

rham

Hal

dim

and

-No

rfo

lk

Sim

coe

Elgi

n

Lam

bto

n

Du

ffe

rin

Ott

awa

Pre

sco

tt a

nd

Ru

sse

ll

Sto

rmo

nt,

Du

nd

as a

nd

Gle

nga

rry

Bru

ce

Gre

y

Pri

nce

Ed

war

d

No

rth

um

be

rlan

d

Kaw

arth

a La

kes

Pe

terb

oro

ugh

Has

tin

gs

Leed

s an

d G

ren

ville

Len

no

x an

d A

dd

ingt

on

Lan

ark

R

en

fre

w

Fro

nte

na

c

TOTA

L FA

RM

CA

PIT

AL

PER

HEC

TAR

E (M

AR

KE

T V

ALU

E IN

DO

LLA

RS)

TOTAL FARM CAPITAL PER HECTARE (MARKET VALUE IN DOLLARS) FOR THEREGIONS/COUNTIES IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO BASED ON CENSUS DATA 2016

$0.00

$10,000.00

$20,000.00

$30,000.00

$40,000.00

$50,000.00

$60,000.00

$70,000.00

$80,000.00

Hal

ton

Pe

el

Yo

rk

Oxf

ord

Nia

gara

Pe

rth

Wat

erl

oo

Ham

ilto

n

Esse

x

We

llin

gto

n

Mid

dle

sex

Bra

nt

Hu

ron

Ch

ath

am-K

en

t

Du

rham

Hal

dim

and

-No

rfo

lk

Sim

coe

Elgi

n

Lam

bto

n

Du

ffer

in

Ott

aw

a

Pre

sco

tt a

nd

Ru

sse

ll

Sto

rmo

nt,

Du

nd

as a

nd

…

Bru

ce

Gre

y

Pri

nce

Ed

war

d

No

rth

um

be

rla

nd

Ka

wa

rth

a La

kes

Pet

erb

oro

ugh

Has

tin

gs

Leed

s an

d G

ren

ville

Len

no

x an

d A

dd

ingt

on

Lan

ark

R

en

fre

w

Fro

nte

nac

TOTAL DOLLAR VALUE OF LAND AND BUILDINGS, FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT, LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY, AND OF FOREST PRODUCTS SOLD (ALL PER HECTARE) IN THE

REGIONS/COUNTIES IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO (2016)

TOTAL VALUE OF FOREST PRODUCTS SOLD PER HECTARE (DOLLARS)

TOTAL VALUE OF LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY PER HECTARE (MARKET VALUE IN DOLLARS)

TOTAL VALUE OF FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT PER HECTARE (MARKET VALUE IN DOLLARS)

TOTAL VALUE OF LAND AND BUILDINGS PER HECTARE (MARKET VALUE IN DOLLARS)


41

FIGURE 19

FIGURE 20

$0.00

$100,000.00

$200,000.00

$300,000.00

$400,000.00

$500,000.00

$600,000.00

$700,000.00

Esse

x

Hu

ron

Oxf

ord

Nia

gara

Per

th

Yo

rk

Hal

dim

and

-No

rfo

lk

Wat

erl

oo

Wel

lingt

on

Pre

sco

tt a

nd

Ru

sse

ll

Bra

nt

Mid

dle

sex

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Elgi

n

Sto

rmo

nt,

Du

nd

as a

nd

Gle

nga

rry

Ch

ath

am-K

en

t

Bru

ce

Lam

bto

n

Pri

nce

Ed

war

d

Du

rham Pee

l

Du

ffer

in

Sim

coe

Ott

awa

Gre

y

No

rth

um

ber

lan

d

Len

no

x an

d A

dd

ingt

on

Leed

s an

d G

ren

ville

Kaw

arth

a La

kes

Re

nfr

ew

Pet

erb

oro

ugh

Has

tin

gs

Fro

nte

nac

Lan

ark

A COMPARISON OF GROSS FARM RECEIPTS PER FARM AND TOTAL FARM BUSINESS OPERATING EXPENSES PER FARM AT THE REGIONAL/COUNTY SCALE IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO

(2016 CENSUS)

GROSS FARM RECEIPTS PER FARM REPORTING TOTAL FARM BUSINESS OPERATING EXPENSES PER FARM

$0.00

$1,000.00

$2,000.00

$3,000.00

$4,000.00

$5,000.00

$6,000.00

$7,000.00

$8,000.00

$9,000.00

$10,000.00

Nia

gara

Esse

x

Wat

erl

oo

Yo

rk

Hal

ton

Oxf

ord

We

llin

gto

n

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

dim

and

-No

rfo

lk

Pe

rth

Hu

ron

Bra

nt

Mid

dle

sex

Elgi

n

Pe

el

Pre

sco

tt a

nd

Ru

sse

ll

Ch

ath

am-K

en

t

Du

rham

Bru

ce

Du

ffer

in

Lam

bto

n

Gre

y

Sto

rmo

nt,

Du

nd

as a

nd

Gle

nga

rry

Pri

nce

Ed

war

d

Sim

coe

Ott

awa

No

rth

um

be

rlan

d

Len

no

x an

d A

dd

ingt

on

Leed

s an

d G

ren

ville

Kaw

arth

a La

kes

Pe

terb

oro

ugh

Ha

stin

gs

Re

nfr

ew

Lan

ark

Fro

nte

nac

A COMPARISON OF GROSS FARM RECEIPTS PER HECTARE AND TOTAL FARM BUSINESS OPERATING EXPENSES PER HECTARE AT THE REGIONAL/COUNTY SCALE IN SOUTHERN

ONTARIO (2016 CENSUS)

GROSS FARM RECEIPTS PER HECTARE TOTAL FARM BUSINESS OPERATING EXPENSES PER HECTARE


42

FIGURE 21

FIGURE 22

$0.00

$10,000.00

$20,000.00

$30,000.00

$40,000.00

$50,000.00

$60,000.00

$70,000.00

$80,000.00

$90,000.00

$100,000.00

Oxf

ord

Esse

x

Pe

rth

Hal

dim

and

-No

rfo

lk

Pre

sco

tt a

nd

Ru

sse

ll

Nia

gara

Hu

ron

Sto

rmo

nt,

Du

nd

as a

nd

Gle

nga

rry

Bra

nt

Ch

ath

am-K

ent

Wat

erl

oo

Wel

lingt

on

Mid

dle

sex

Yo

rk

Ham

ilto

n

Elgi

n

Lam

bto

n

Pri

nce

Ed

war

d

Bru

ce

Hal

ton

Du

rham

Ott

awa

Sim

coe

Pee

l

Du

ffer

in

No

rth

um

ber

lan

d

Len

no

x an

d A

dd

ingt

on

Leed

s an

d G

ren

ville

Ren

frew

Gre

y

Kaw

arth

a La

kes

Fro

nte

na

c

Lan

ark

Pe

terb

oro

ugh

Has

tin

gs

NET ON-FARM INCOME PER FARM FOR THE COUNTIES/REGIONS IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO BASED ON 2016 CENSUS DATA

$0.00

$200.00

$400.00

$600.00

$800.00

$1,000.00

$1,200.00

$1,400.00

$1,600.00

Nia

gara

Esse

x

Oxf

ord

Wat

erl

oo

Hal

dim

and

-No

rfo

lk

Pe

rth

Ham

ilto

n

Wel

lingt

on

Yo

rk

Bra

nt

Hal

ton

Hu

ron

Ch

ath

am-K

ent

Pre

sco

tt a

nd

Ru

sse

ll

Mid

dle

sex

Sto

rmo

nt,

Du

nd

as a

nd

Gle

nga

rry

Elgi

n

Lam

bto

n

Pri

nce

Ed

war

d

Pee

l

Du

rham

Bru

ce

Ott

awa

Sim

coe

Du

ffer

in

No

rth

um

ber

lan

d

Len

no

x an

d A

dd

ingt

on

Leed

s an

d G

ren

ville

Gre

y

Ren

frew

Kaw

arth

a La

kes

Fro

nte

na

c

Lan

ark

Pe

terb

oro

ugh

Has

tin

gs

NET ON-FARM INCOME PER HECTARE FOR THE COUNTIES/REGIONS IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO BASED ON 2016 CENSUS DATA


43

FIGURE 23

FIGURE 24

$0.00

$100,000.00

$200,000.00

$300,000.00

$400,000.00

$500,000.00

$600,000.00

2001 2006 2011 2016

GROSS FARM RECEIPTS PER FARM (IN 2016 DOLLARS) FOR THE CENSUS YEARS 2001, 2006, 2011 AND 2016 FOR HALTON REGION, OAKVILLE, BURLINGTON, MILTON AND HALTON HILLS


-$10,000.00

$0.00

$10,000.00

$20,000.00

$30,000.00

$40,000.00

$50,000.00

$60,000.00

$70,000.00

$80,000.00

$90,000.00

2001 2006 2011 2016

NET ON-FARM INCOME PER FARM (IN 2016 DOLLARS) FOR THE CENSUS YEARS 2001, 2006, 2011 AND 2016 FOR HALTON REGION, OAKVILLE, BURLINGTON, MILTON AND HALTON HILLS



44

FIGURE 25

FIGURE 26

-14000

-12000

-10000

-8000

-6000

-4000

-2000

0

2000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

20

16

DO

LLA

RS

X 1

,00

0,0

00

BALANCE OF TRADE (EXPORTS - IMPORTS) FOR SELECTED COMMODITY GROUPS ONTARIO AGRICULTURE (IN CONSTANT 2016 DOLLARS X 1,000,000)

RED MEATS LIVE ANIMALS

TOTAL - ALL COMMODITY GROUPS FRUIT AND NUTS

VEGETABLES GRAINS

$0.00

$5,000.00

$10,000.00

$15,000.00

$20,000.00

$25,000.00

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO AVERAGE FARM VALUE ($ GROSS PER HECTARE ) FOR SELECTED CROPS 1981 - 2017

APPLES VALUE ($/HA) PUMPKINS AND SQUASH VALUE ($/HA)

SWEET CORN VALUE ($/HA) SOYBEANS VALUE ($/HA)

WINTER WHEAT VALUE ($/HA) HAY VALUE ($/HA)

GRAPES ($/HA)


45

FIGURE 27

FIGURE 28

$0.00

$200,000.00

$400,000.00

$600,000.00

$800,000.00

$1,000,000.00

$1,200,000.00

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

GROSS INCOME PER HECTARE FOR GREENHOUSE TOMATOES, CUCUMBERS AND PEPPERS FOR ONTARIO (2010 - 2014) IN CONSTANT 2016 CDN DOLLARS

GREENHOUSE TOMATOES GREENHOUSE CUCUMBERS GREENHOUSE PEPPERS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nia

gara

Hal

dim

and

-No

rfo

lk

Yo

rk

Wat

erl

oo

Ham

ilto

n

Sim

coe

Oxf

ord

Wel

lingt

on

Elgi

n

Du

rham

Gre

y

Pe

rth

Ch

ath

am-K

en

t

Bra

nt

Hu

ron

Hal

ton

No

rth

um

ber

lan

d

Du

ffer

in

Mid

dle

sex

Bru

ce

Pri

nce

Ed

war

d

Pe

terb

oro

ugh

Kaw

arth

a La

kes

Pre

sco

tt a

nd

Ru

sse

ll

Ott

awa

Esse

x

Pee

l

Leed

s an

d G

ren

ville

Ren

frew

Lam

bto

n

Has

tin

gs

Sto

rmo

nt,

Du

nd

as a

nd

Gle

nga

rry

Len

no

x an

d A

dd

ingt

on

Fro

nte

na

c

Lan

ark

STA

ND

AR

DIZ

ED S

CO

RE

STANDARDIZED SCORE FOR REGIONS/COUNTIES IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO BASED ON 2016 CENSUS CROP AND LIVESTOCK DATA (PROPORTIONATE TO TOTAL CENSUS FARM AREA OR

TOTAL CENSUS FARMS REPORTING)


46

FIGURE 29

FIGURE 30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Yo

rk

Nia

gara

Wat

erl

oo

Pri

nce

Ed

war

d

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

dim

and

-No

rfo

lk

No

rth

um

ber

lan

d

Du

rham

Fro

nte

na

c

Sim

coe

Ott

awa

Has

tin

gs

Hal

ton

We

llin

gto

n

Gre

y

Leed

s an

d G

ren

ville

Du

ffe

rin

Len

no

x an

d A

dd

ingt

on

Pe

el

Lan

ark

Elgi

n

Oxf

ord

Pe

terb

oro

ugh

Bra

nt

Ka

war

tha

Lake

s

Ren

frew

Pre

sco

tt a

nd

Ru

sse

ll

Pe

rth

Bru

ce

Hu

ron

Mid

dle

sex

Sto

rmo

nt,

Du

nd

as a

nd

Gle

nga

rry

Esse

x

Ch

ath

am-K

en

t

Lam

bto

n

STA

ND

AR

DIZ

ED S

CO

RE

STANDARDIZED SCORE FOR REGIONS/COUNTIES IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO BASED ON 2016 CENSUS CROP AREA AND LIVESTOCK NUMBER DATA (PROPORTIONATE TO TOTAL CENSUS

FARM AREA)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Mid

dle

sex

Oxf

ord

Elgi

n

Lam

bto

n

Pe

rth

Hu

ron

Ch

ath

am-K

en

t

Bru

ce

Bra

nt

We

llin

gto

n

Wat

erl

oo

Du

ffe

rin

Ott

awa

Esse

x

Ham

ilto

n

Gre

y

Sim

coe

Pre

sco

tt a

nd

Ru

sse

ll

Nia

gara

Re

nfr

ew

Hal

ton

Hal

dim

and

-No

rfo

lk

Lan

ark

Sto

rmo

nt,

Du

nd

as a

nd

Gle

nga

rry

Du

rham

Yo

rk

Ka

war

tha

Lake

s

Pee

l

Leed

s an

d G

ren

ville

No

rth

um

be

rlan

d

Has

tin

gs

Pe

terb

oro

ugh

Fro

nte

na

c

Len

no

x an

d A

dd

ingt

on

Pri

nce

Ed

war

d

STA

ND

AR

DIZ

ED S

CO

RE

MULTI-ATTRIBUTE ANALYSIS STANDARDIZED SCORES BASED ON YIELDS FOR 5 FIELD CROPS IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO (OMAFRA DATA, 2016)


47

FIGURE 31

FIGURE 32

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100ST

AN

DA

RD

IZED

SC

OR

E

MULTI-ATTRIBUTE ANALYSIS STANDARDIZED SCORES FOR COUNTIES/REGIONS IN THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE BASED ON YIELDS FOR 5 FIELD CROPS (OMAFRA DATA, 2016)

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

Nia

gara

Yo

rk

Hal

dim

and

-No

rfo

lk

Ch

ath

am-K

en

t

Sim

coe

Bra

nt

Elgi

n

Ham

ilto

n

Esse

x

Du

ffe

rin

Mid

dle

sex

Oxf

ord

Du

rham

Pri

nce

Ed

war

d

Hal

ton

Pe

el

No

rth

um

be

rlan

d

Wat

erl

oo

Gre

y

Fro

nte

na

c

Lam

bto

n

Ott

aw

a

Has

tin

gs

Ka

war

tha

Lake

s

Pe

terb

oro

ugh

Hu

ron

Bru

ce

Pre

sco

tt a

nd

Ru

sse

ll

Len

no

x an

d A

dd

ingt

on

R

en

fre

w

Sto

rmo

nt,

Du

nd

as a

nd

Gle

nga

rry

Leed

s an

d G

ren

ville

Lan

ark

Pe

rth

We

llin

gto

n

FRUIT AND VEGETABLE AREA (HECTARES) (EXCLUDING GREENHOUSE VEGETABLES) + POTATOES AS A PROPORTION OF TOTAL CENSUS FARM AREA (2016 DATA)


48

FIGURE 33

FIGURE 34

Land in crops (excluding Christmas tree area)

71%

Summerfallow land0%

Tame or seeded pasture2%

Natural land for pasture5%

Woodlands and wetlands8%

Area in Christmas trees, woodlands and wetlands

8%

All other land6%

AGRICULTURAL LAND USE ON CENSUS FARMS IN HALTON 2016

Land in crops (excluding Christmas tree area)

63%

Summerfallow land0%

Tame or seeded pasture3%

Natural land for pasture5%

Woodlands and wetlands10%

Area in Christmas trees, woodlands and wetlands

11%

All other land8%

AGRICULTURAL LAND USE ON CENSUS FARMS IN MILTON 2016


49

FIGURE 35

FIGURE 36

Total wheat15%

Total corn24%

Soybeans33%

Alfalfa and alfalfa mixtures

14%

All other tame hay and fodder crops

7%

Total area of fruits, berries and nuts (producing and non-producing)

1%

Total vegetables (excluding greenhouse vegetables)

1% Other crops5%

AREAL PROPORTION OF PRINCIPAL FIELD CROPS, FRUITS AND VEGETABLES IN HALTON 2016

Total wheat13%

Total corn24%

Soybeans33%

Alfalfa and alfalfa mixtures

16%

All other tame hay and fodder crops

7%

Total area of fruits, berries and nuts (producing and non-

producing)1%

Total vegetables (excluding greenhouse vegetables)

1%Other crops

5%

AREAL PROPORTION OF PRINCIPAL FIELD CROPS, FRUITS AND VEGETABLES IN MILTON 2016


50

FIGURE 37

FIGURE 38

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

NU

MB

ER O

F FA

RM

S R

EPO

RTI

NG

CENSUS YEAR

HALTON REGION FARMS REPORTING (PRODUCING AND NON-PRODUCING) FRUITS, BERRIES AND NUTS 1981 TO 2016


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

AR

EA (H

ECTA

RES

)

CENSUS YEAR

HALTON REGION TOTAL AREA IN HECTARES (PRODUCING AND NON-PRODUCING) OF FRUITS, BERRIES AND NUTS 1981 TO 2016



51

FIGURE 39

FIGURE 40

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

NU

MB

ER O

F FA

RM

S R

EPO

RTI

NG

CENSUS YEAR

HALTON REGION TOTAL FARM NUMBER REPORTING VEGETABLES (EXCLUDING GREENHOUSE VEGETABLES) 1981 TO 2016


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

AR

EA (H

ECTA

RES

)

CENSUS YEAR

HALTON REGION TOTAL AREA (HECTARES) OF VEGETABLES (EXCLUDING GREENHOUSE VEGETABLES) 1981 TO 2016



52

FIGURE 41

FIGURE 42

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

PER

CEN

T O

F FA

RM

S R

EPO

RTI

NG

CENSUS YEAR

EACH MUNICIPALITY WITHIN HALTON REGION FARMS REPORTING (PRODUCING AND NON-PRODUCING) FRUITS, BERRIES AND NUTS AS A PROPORTION (%) OF ALL CENSUS FARMS

REPORTING FRUITS, BERRIES AND NUTS IN HALTON REGION 1981 TO 2016


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

PR

OP

OR

TIO

N O

F TO

TAL

CEN

SUS

FAR

M A

REA

CENSUS YEAR

EACH MUNICIPALITY WITHIN HALTON REGION TOTAL AREA IN HECTARES (PRODUCING AND NON-PRODUCING) OF FRUITS, BERRIES AND NUTS AS A PROPORTION (%) OF THE AREA OF

FRUITS, BERRIES AND NUTS REPORTED IN HALTON REGION 1981 TO 2016



53

FIGURE 43

FIGURE 44

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

PER

CEN

T O

F FA

RM

S R

EPO

RTI

NG

CENSUS YEAR

EACH MUNICIPALITY WITHIN HALTON REGION TOTAL FARMS REPORTING VEGETABLES (EXCLUDING GREENHOUSE VEGETABLES) AS A % OF ALL CENSUS FARMS REPORTING

VEGETABLES IN HALTON REGION 1981 TO 2016


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

PR

OP

OR

TIO

N O

F TO

TAL

CEN

SUS

FAR

M A

REA

CENSUS YEAR

EACH MUNICIPALITY WITHIN HALTON REGION TOTAL AREA IN HECTARES OF VEGETABLES (EXCLUDING GREENHOUSE VEGETABLES) AS A % OF THE AREA OF ALL CENSUS FARMS

REPORTING VEGETABLES IN HALTON REGION 1981 TO 2016



54

FIGURE 45

FIGURE 46

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

HALTON REGION CENSUS FARM NUMBER AND CENSUS FARM AREA, FOR THE PRODUCTION OF FRUITS, BERRIES AND NUTS AS WELL AS VEGETABLES, AS A PROPORTION (%) OF THAT

PRODUCTION IN ONTARIO 1981 TO 2016

HALTON FARMS REPORTING (PRODUCING AND NON-PRODUCING) FRUITS, BERRIES AND NUTS AS A % OF ALL CENSUS FARMS REPORTING FRUITS, BERRIES AND NUTS IN ONTARIO

HALTON TOTAL AREA IN HECTARES (PRODUCING AND NON-PRODUCING) OF FRUITS, BERRIES AND NUTS AS A % OF THE FRUITS, BERRIES AND NUTS AREA REPORTED FOR ALL CENSUS FARMS IN ONTARIO

HALTON FARMS REPORTING VEGETABLES (EXCLUDING GREENHOUSE VEGETABLES) AS A % OF ALL CENSUS FARMS REPORTING VEGETABLES IN ONTARIO

HALTON TOTAL AREA IN HECTARES OF VEGETABLES (EXCLUDING GREENHOUSE VEGETABLES) AS A % OF THE AREA OF VEGETABLES REPORTED FOR ALL CENSUS FARMS IN ONTARIO

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

NU

MB

ER O

F FA

RM

S R

EPO

RTI

NG

HALTON REGION TOTAL AREA OF GREENHOUSES - FARMS REPORTING 1981 TO 2016



55

FIGURE 47

FIGURE 48

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

AR

EA (S

QU

AR

E M

ETR

ES)

HALTON REGION TOTAL AREA OF GREENHOUSES - SQUARE METRES 1981 TO 2016


0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

PROPORTION OF CENSUS FARMS REPORTING GREENHOUSES IN HALTON 1981 - 2016



56

FIGURE 49

FIGURE 50

0.00%

0.02%

0.04%

0.06%

0.08%

0.10%

0.12%

0.14%

0.16%

0.18%

0.20%

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

PROPORTION OF CENSUS FARM AREA OCCUPIED BY GREENHOUSES 1981 - 2016


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

TOTA

L N

UTR

IEN

T U

NIT

S

CENSUS YEAR

TOTAL NUTRIENT UNITS IN HALTON REGION AND ITS SUB-TIER MUNICIPALITIES 1981 - 2016



57

FIGURE 51

FIGURE 52

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

NU

TRIE

NT

UN

ITS

X O

DO

UR

FA

CTO

R P

ER H

ECTA

RE

CENSUS YEAR

TOTAL NUTRIENT UNITS TIMES ODOUR FACTOR PER CENSUS FARM HECTARE

CANADA ONTARIO HALTON OAKVILLE BURLINGTON MILTON HALTON HILLS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

NU

TRIE

NT

UN

ITS

X O

RD

ER F

AC

TOR

PER

FA

RM

REP

OR

TIN

G

CENSUS YEAR

TOTAL NUTRIENT UNITS TIMES ODOUR FACTOR PER CENSUS FARM NUMBER

CANADA ONTARIO HALTON OAKVILLE BURLINGTON MILTON HALTON HILLS


58

FIGURE 53

FIGURE 54

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

CENSUS YEAR

HALTON'S TOTAL NUTRIENT UNITS AS A PROPORTION OF ONTARIO TOTAL NUTRIENT UNITS AS WELL AS HALTON'S SUB-TIER MUNICIPALITY TOTAL NUTRIENT UNITS AS A PROPORTION

OF HALTON'S TOTAL NUTRIENT UNITS (1981 - 2016)

HALTON REGION'S TOTAL NUTRIENT UNITS AS A % OF ONTARIO'S TOTAL NUTRIENT UNITS

OAKVILLE'S TOTAL NUTRIENT UNITS AS A % OF HALTON REGION'S TOTAL NUTRIENT UNITS

BURLINGTON'S TOTAL NUTRIENT UNITS AS A % OF HALTON REGION'S TOTAL NUTRIENT UNITS

MILTON'S TOTAL NUTRIENT UNITS AS A % OF HALTON REGION'S TOTAL NUTRIENT UNITS

HALTON HILLS TOTAL NUTRIENT UNITS AS A % OF HALTON REGION'S TOTAL NUTRIENT UNITS

Total hens and chickens nutrient units

20%

Turkeys nutrient units0%

Other poultry nutrient units0%

Total cattle and calves nutrient units

40%

Total pigs nutrient units0%

Total sheep and lambs nutrient units

3%

Horses and ponies nutrient units35%

Goats nutrient units2%

Rabbits nutrient units0%

Deer (excluding wild deer) nutrient units

0% Llamas and alpacas nutrient units0%

NUTRIENT UNITS RELATED TO LIVESTOCK TYPES IN HALTON REGION (2016 CENSUS)


59

FIGURE 55

Total hens and chickens nutrient units

35%

Turkeys nutrient units0%

Other poultry nutrient units0%

Total cattle and calves nutrient units

31%

Total pigs nutrient units0%

Total sheep and lambs nutrient units

3%

Horses and ponies nutrient units31%

Goats nutrient units0%

Rabbits nutrient units0%

Deer (excluding wild deer) nutrient units

0%

Llamas and alpacas nutrient units0%

NUTRIENT UNITS RELATED TO LIVESTOCK TYPES IN MILTON (2016 CENSUS)


60

APPENDIX 2 SOIL PRODUCTIVITY INDEX and SOIL POTENTIAL INDEX CALCULATION


61

Soil potential ratings for fruits and vegetables have data limitations associated with soil rating systems and climate as described in the following paragraphs. All the databases evaluated have limitations associated with scale, data availability or alternatively, data suppression. For example, a soil rating system for specialty crops was developed by Hoffman and Cressman in 1984 for Ontario Hydro (Ecologistics and Smith, Hoffman, 1984). This is a three-class system – good, fair or poor which uses crop groupings but has not been applied on a broad scale to the Province. The Ontario Institute of Pedology and subsequently the Ontario Center for Soil Resource Evaluation has compiled specialty crop capability systems for some areas within Ontario. However, the Province has not a single specialty crop soil potential rating for all of Ontario. Given this lack of comprehensive soil potential information for specialty crops, it is not possible to reasonably differentiate which soils are most unique for specialty crop production within the Province. However, some soil potential ratings for fruit and vegetables have been produced for Haldimand-Norfolk, Niagara, Elgin, Middlesex and Brant. Unfortunately, the fruit and vegetable crop groupings used in different soil surveys are dissimilar in number as well as in the kinds of fruits or vegetables included in each group. For example, Niagara has 20 crop groupings (9 for fruits and 11 for vegetables) whereas Haldimand-Norfolk has 15 groups that do not always separate fruit and vegetables into separate categories. More details about the soil potential ratings for specialty crops are outlined in a summary in the table following in this Appendix. In addition, both five as well as seven class soil potential rating systems have been used in published soil survey reports in Ontario. As a second example of information limitations, climate data is limited due to scale and a lack of integration. Several single factor maps produced on a broad scale are available for crop heat units, plant hardiness zones, temperature minima and maxima as well as precipitation. More specific maps such as the map for Site Selection for Grapes in the Niagara Peninsula (Fisher and Slingerland, 2002) are not available for the province of Ontario. Additionally, specific studies on irrigation such as that done for Niagara Region (Stantec, 2007) are not available for southern Ontario.

ONTARIO SPECIALTY CROP SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS SUMMARY Crop Grouping Description 1

Niagara Crop Grouping

Crop Grouping Description 2

Haldimand-Norfolk Crop Grouping


Middlesex and Elgin Crop Grouping


Brant Crop Grouping

Seven Class System

Seven Class System

Five Class System

Seven Class System









Peaches, Apricots, Nectarines

A Apricots, Sour Cherries, Sweet Cherries,

D1


62








Brant Crop Grouping

Peaches

Sweet Cherries B

Sour Cherries C

Labrusca Grapes

D Hybrid and Vinifera Grapes, Labrusca Grapes

D3

Vinifera Grapes E

Apples F Apples D4 Apples 2 Apples D1

Pears, Plums G Pears, Plums D2 Pears, Plums 3

Strawberries, Raspberries

H Peppers, Raspberries, Rhubarb, Strawberries

B3 Raspberries, Strawberries

1 Strawberries B3

Currants, Gooseberries

I

Rutabagas 3

Peanuts A2 Peanuts 2

Heart Nuts, Filbert Nuts

3

Walnuts 2

Vegetable Crops:

Vegetable Crops:

Vegetable Crops:

Vegetable Crops:

Vegetable Crops:

Vegetable Crops:

Vegetable Crops:

Vegetable Crops:








Brant Crop Grouping

Broccoli, Brussels Sprouts, Cauliflower

J Cabbage, Cauliflower, Canola, Sweet Corn, Tomatoes, Turnips

C3 Brussels Sprouts, Cauliflower, Cabbage

8 Cabbage, Cauliflower

C2

Bulb Onions, Garlic

K Onions, Beets, Carrots

B1

Green (Bunching) Onions

L

Eggplant, Peppers

M Peppers, Raspberries, Rhubarb, Strawberries

B3 Peppers 6 Peppers B2

Cucumbers N Cucumbers 4

Muskmelon O Ginseng, Muskmelon, Watermelon

B2 Ginseng B1

Potatoes P Potatoes A3 Irish Potatoes 3 Potatoes A1

Tomatoes Q Tomatoes C2

Sweet Corn R Sweet corn 7 Sweet Corn C2

Celery, Lettuce S Cucumber, Lettuce, Radish

C4

Pumpkins, Squash

T Green Beans, Peas, Pumpkins, Squash

C2

Asparagus A1 Asparagus 1

Fava Beans, Soybeans, White Beans

C1 Soybeans 4 Beans C1

Sweet Potatoes

2

White beans 5


63

SOIL PRODUCTIVITY INDEX CALCULATION The soil productivity index is an arithmetic mean that expresses the relative occurrence of soil capability classes 1 to 7 on selected properties or within specified boundaries. The index is most often based on soil productivity ratings (Hoffman, 1973). Areas with the highest soil capability index will have mainly class 1 land. Areas with a low index will consist of lower soil capabilities. The productivity index method has been used because it provides a single number derived from a listing, by proportion, of the soil capability classes 1 through 7 which allows for direct comparison among different areas or sites. Impacts on soil capability will generally be greatest on an area with a high soil capability index; that is, impacts will be highest when good (higher capability land) is lost to development. Method

Soil Productivity Index = (proportion of area of class 1 soils x 1.0) + (proportion of area of class 2 soils x 0.8) + (proportion of area of class 3 soils x 0.64) + (proportion of area of class 4 soils x 0.49) + (proportion of area of class 5 soils x 0.33) + (proportion of area of class 6 soils x 0.17) + (proportion of area of class 7 soils x 0.02)

The area of each soil map unit was measured and areas of similar soil capability were summed for CLI classes 1 to 7 lands. The area was calculated for each CLI class and subsequently multiplied by a productivity index corresponding to each soil class. The productivity index is specific to each capability class. The proportion of each area occupied by each soil capability class was multiplied by the corresponding soil productivity value (following Hoffman, 1973) and products were subsequently summed to obtain a soil productivity index for lands affected by or potentially affected by development. SOIL POTENTIAL RATING FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES Soil potential ratings are based on crop groupings and classes described for Niagara Region by Kingston and Presant (1989). Crop suitability class descriptors in the original Kingston and Presant’s report have been placed in an ordinal scale for soil potential as outlined in the following:

• Good (G) – 1

• Fair to Good (F-G) – 2

• Fair (F) – 3

• Poor to Fair (P-F) – 4

• Poor (P) – 5

• Very Poor (VP) – 6

• Unsuitable (U) - 7 A matrix is created having rows which are the different soils found within a given area in the columns are for the crop groupings. The highest or best rating is class 1 and those soils that are unsuitable rated lowest as class 7. Climate has been assumed to limit the production of peaches, nectarines, apricots, cherries and vinifera grapes within some Counties/Regions and the soil potential rating has been modified to class 7 (unsuitable)


64

based on that climate limitation. An average specialty crop soil potential rating was calculated by adding the classes for the separate crops or crop groupings and dividing it by the total number of those crop groups (8 crop groupings following Acton and 20 crop groupings following Kingston and Presant). The application of this average soil potential rating is limited to comparisons at a provincial and regional/county scale at its broadest extent but depending on variations in climate may only be suitable as a relative rating at the municipal or township level. It should also be noted that the soil potential rating is an average and that there may be individual crops that will grow very well on a particular soil. In other words, a soil with an average specialty crop potential class 4 rating may actually contain one or two crop groupings with soil potential ratings at a higher level - that is, soil potential subclass 2, for example. Soil Potential Index The average soil potential index is an arithmetic mean that expresses the relative occurrence of soil potential ratings 1 to 7 on selected properties or within specified boundaries. Areas with the highest soil potential index will have mainly rating 1 land. Areas with a low index will consist of lower soil potential (5-7) for specialty crops. The potential index method has been used because it provides a single number derived from a listing, by proportion, of the soil potential ratings 1 through 7 in a given area which allows for direct comparison among different areas or sites. Method

Soil Potential Index = (proportion of area of rating 1 soils x 1) + (proportion of area of rating 2 soils x 2) + (proportion of area of rating 3 soils x 3) + (proportion of area of rating 4 soils x 4) + (proportion of area of reading 5 soils x 5) + (proportion of area of rating 6 soils x 6) + (proportion of area of class 7 soils x 7)

The area of each soil map unit was measured using GIS and areas of similar soil potential were summed for potential ratings 1 to 7 lands. The soil productivity index and the soil potential index both tend to correlate with soil capability class.


65

APPENDIX 3 SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SOIL SURVEY


66

Ontario’s published soil surveys follow a hierarchical system of soil classification to represent a three-dimensional area called a pedon (see http://www.pedosphere.ca/resources/CSSC3rd/chapter02.cfm ). This three-dimensional area is intended to be represented as a two-dimensional map polygon usually shown as the soil series on soil maps in Ontario. Soil characteristics such as texture and particle size are a part of a continuum and the soil map also must present a landscape continuum as part of a discrete map polygon. In short, soils are represented as discrete units on a map even though the soils themselves are not discrete. As a result, there can be, and there have been, different ways of representing changes in soils that have been mapped within Ontario and within parts of the rest of the world. Not surprisingly, the opportunity to represent soils in different ways has resulted in significant changes in the approach to mapping soils over the time within which soil surveys have been published in Ontario. The older soil surveys tend to lump large areas into soil map polygons, whereas newer soil surveys have smaller more detailed polygons. Newer soil surveys also tend to have complexes (which are soil map polygons containing 2 or more soil series and/or two a more soil capability classes and subclass limitations). Examples of more recent soil surveys include Niagara, Haldimand-Norfolk, Brant, Kent, Middlesex, Ottawa urban fringe, Ottawa-Carlton and the soils component within the report titled State of the Resources for the Duffin-Rouge Agricultural Preserve. A review of older as well as newer Ontario soil reports indicates the following:

• soil series with the same name may not have the same characteristics between Counties and/or Regions,

• some soil series identified in detailed field studies are not always represented in the County/Regional published soil survey within which the detailed work is being completed; and,

• not all the soil capabilities assigned to a particular soil series are consistent from one soil report to another soil report.

The significance of the difference between old mapping styles and newer ones can be illustrated by using an old soil report and comparing the old soil map to a newer map. Both maps were produced by government staff. Within Durham Region, as well as a part of York Region, an area identified as an Agricultural Preserve was remapped (Schut et al) at a scale of 1: 20,000 in 1994 relative to two maps produced in 1956 (Olding et al.) and 1955 (Hoffman and Richards) both at a scale of 1: 63,360. A review of these older and newer maps shows that:

• there are differences in the number and size of soil polygons and the differences in the soil polygons represent differences in soil series and soil phases, and

• soil capability values assigned to each of the soil polygons are different from older map to newer map.

When the soil capability information is calculated as a productivity index, the old map assigned a productivity index of 0.91 (equivalent to capability class 1 soils) to that part of the Agricultural Preserve located within Durham Region whereas the new map has a productivity index of 0.66 that is relatively equivalent to capability class 3 (0.64). This information demonstrates that the soil productivity within the Preserve is significantly lower than the original mapping by Olding et al. (1956) would indicate. Given that some of the soils mapped in the Preserve by Schut et al. (1994, OMAF) require tile drainage,

http://www.pedosphere.ca/resources/CSSC3rd/chapter02.cfm

http://www.pedosphere.ca/resources/CSSC3rd/chapter02.cfm


67

this tile drainage would need to be in place to reach the average productivity index value of 0.66. RATING FOR COMMON FIELD CROPS The original soil capability classification is part of the Canada Land Inventory (CLI) and used an ordinal scale having the numbers 1 through 7. (A discussion of the definition of different scales is available in many mathematics texts. Siegel (1956) outlines a good summary matrix of the definitions for different scales that can be related to statistical tests). Alternatively, Velleman and Wilkinson (1993) describe mathematical scales as part of a continuum and argue that the use of specific statistical tests for specific scales is inappropriate. Irrespective of scale, the CLI capability interpretation was derived based on “research data, recorded observations, and experience” and was not intended for use as an indicator of the “most profitable use of land”. The class, the broadest category in the capability classification, is a grouping of subclasses that have the same relative degree of limitation or hazard. The limitation or hazard becomes progressively greater from class 1 to class 7. The class indicates the general suitability of the soils for agricultural use. Class 1 - Soils in this class have no significant limitations in use for crops. Class 2 - Soils in this class have moderate limitations that restrict the range of crops

or require moderate conservation practices. Class 3 - Soils in this class have moderately severe limitations that restrict the range

of crops or require special conservation practices or both. Class 4 - Soils in this class have severe limitations that restrict the range of crops or

require special conservation practices or both. Class 5 - Soils in this class have very severe limitations that restrict their capability of

producing perennial forage crops, and improvement practices are feasible. Class 6 - Soils in this class are capable only of producing perennial forage crops and

improvement practices are not feasible. Class 7 - Soils in this class have no capability for arable agriculture or permanent

pasture. Agricultural soils information is currently available in old-style printed format as well as in digital format. The original information with all presented as soil survey reports with accompanying soil maps. Some more recent soil survey publications include a separate interpretive map for soil capability following the rules outlined in the Canada Land Inventory Soil Capability Classification for Agriculture. However, most reports contain a section that has a matrix summarizing soil capability classes for different soil series and phases relative to slope class. The very early soil reports prior to the 1960s tend to have a descriptive summary of the relative merits of different soil series for common field crop production - a precursor to the CLI soil capability classification. When the CLI soil capability classification work was started, a list of all the soil series was compiled and a soil capability class assigned to each soil series having a given set of limitation such as slope class and stoniness class. This information served as a base and blueprint maps, produced by projecting soil polygon/map unit boundaries on to topographic maps at a scale of 1 to 50,000, summarized capability on a County basis. When the County work was being done, additional detailed soil surveys were completed in several smaller


68

sample areas to assist in assigning soil capability classes to the soils/soil polygons found within the County. The blueprint maps served (without edit) as the base for the production of generalized 1: 250,000 scale soil capability maps by the Federal Government in Ottawa. The same blueprint maps were also used as a data source when the soil surveys for Ontario were digitized by OMAFRA. The digitizing included matching soil polygon series and soil capability information at the boundaries between Counties/Regions. Additionally, several more detailed soil surveys have been completed and the soil capabilities outlined in these published reports do not always match the soil capability values assigned on the blueprint maps. Thus, soil capability values can come from several different sources as follows:

• the unpublished summary of capability classes assigned to all of the soil series present as a result of mapping up to the 1960s;

• the blueprint map soil capability classes;

• the separate County summary data prepared as the base for the blueprint maps;

• the soil capability classes assigned within published soil reports after the 1960s some of which result because of published scientific information about the effects of soil characteristics such as density on soil capability.

Other soil capabilities have been derived because of the identification of new soil series, new soil phases and differing opinions about the capability of different soils Subsequently, research by Hoffman (1973) indicated that soil capability class was an indicator of common field crop yields and productivity (yield) indices could be derived based on those yields. The indices, described more specifically in Appendix 1, are used as an “average” for three crops: oats, barley, and corn. The soil capability class ordinal scale could then be converted into an interval scale using Hoffman’s (1973) data. The data used to create the interval scale are based on older soil surveys and the soil capability class summaries associated with the older surveys are summarized by Hoffman and Noble (1975). New surveys have been completed for Regions such as Middlesex, Elgin and Niagara. In these new surveys, because of work by McBride (1983), the soil capability classes for some soils have been changed to a lower class, particularly for soils with a high clay content. While McBride’s work has been related to average yield data, on a County or Regional basis, no site-specific yield data has been used to confirm that the newer changes to soil capability class is supported by specific yields as was completed in Hoffman’s (1973) research. Therefore, the capability classes used in the newer soil surveys, such as the one for Niagara, might better be described as being part of an ordinal scale. Regardless of the difference of opinion concerning arithmetic scale, yield data, and productivity indices, both data sources and methods have been investigated as part of the work described in this report. The original soil capability rating report (Environment Canada, 1972) has assumptions which have been applied to the interpretation of soil capability. Two of these assumptions (Environment Canada, 1972) are germane to a discussion on the capability of the subject lands and are as follows:

• Good soil management practices that are feasible and practical under a largely mechanized system of agriculture are assumed.

• Soils considered feasible for improvement by draining, by irrigating, by removing stones, by altering soil structure, or by protecting from overflow, are classified


69

according to their continuing limitations or hazards in use after the improvements have been made. The term “feasible” implies that it is within present day economic possibility for the farmer to make such improvements and it does not require a major reclamation project to do so. Where such major projects have been installed, the soils are grouped according to the soil and climatic limitations that continue to exist. A general guide as to what is considered a major reclamation project is that such projects require co-operative action among farmers or between farmers and governments. (Minor dams, small dykes, or field conservation measures are not included).

Therefore, these assumptions have been considered in the evaluation of soils in this specialty crop study. Soil capability mapping has been based on the original soil map which is now available in digital format from LIO based on information originally supplied by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). As discussed previously, the Canada Land Inventory (CLI) originally assumed that soil management that could be applied by a farmer would occur. Therefore, improvements such as irrigation and adequate drainage (both surface and subsurface) were already assumed to be applied in the rating of soils into capability classes. Tile Drainage As noted previously, soil capability and therefore productivity makes assumptions about tile drainage (that is, that tile drainage is applied where it is needed and that capability class ratings reflect the fact that the drainage is already assumed to be in place). There are some differences of opinion about which soil drainage classes would benefit from tile drainage. However, it is likely that imperfectly and poorly drained soils would show improved yields when tiles had been installed. There is no doubt that poorly drained soils have better yields when tile drained. As well, it is likely that the imperfectly drained soils would benefit from tile drainage. Unfortunately, the newer soil surveys do not indicate how soil capability class levels would change if imperfectly drained soils are not tiled. Some information is available to assist in estimating how productivity is diminished in areas requiring tile drainage. For example, yield data collected over 20 years and that were summarized and evaluated by Irwin (1999) indicate that, because of tile drainage, average yields have improved within a range where the least improvement was a 10 percent increase for coloured beans in contrast to a high increase of 38 percent for wheat. The summary by Irwin (1999) did not differentiate by soil series, soil drainage class, or by location in the Province. Based on a general interpretation of the data from Irwin (1999), it can be estimated that imperfectly drained soils in an undrained state could be poorer by a single capability class. However, the installation of tile drainage on the imperfectly drained soils is less likely than installation on poorly and very poorly drained soils.


70

APPENDIX 4 MULTI-ATTRIBUTE ANALYSIS AND AGRICULTURAL PERFORMANCE


71

MULTI-ATTRIBUTE ANALYSIS There are several different methods available to rank agricultural areas given provincial agricultural policy. In all cases, more than one agricultural attribute is used to differentiate the better from the poorer agricultural lands so as to designate the better lands as prime. Hence, all agricultural land evaluation related to the PPS must be multi-attribute analysis. Any multi-attribute analysis may have different results based on:

• the number and kind of variables considered,

• the scale and therefore precision at which the agricultural information is available,

• the accuracy of the information,

• the analysis method,

• the weights applied to the variables,

• whether the data was standardized, and

• whether all the data was presented consistently to mean that a high number is intended to indicate a high importance value.

A review of the literature did not present information suggesting that a particular single multi-attribute analysis method is the best method. Even the wording employed for the quantitative methods used to combine information varies. The University of Redlands and the Spatial Decision Support Consortium (2012) have prepared a summary of the language and definitions associated with Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Some of the work described by the University of Redlands is based on work by Malczewski (2006). Multi-attribute Combination Methods is a subset of MCDA having subcategories of Analytical Hierarchy Process, Concordance Methods, Fuzzy Aggregation Operation, Ideal/Reference Point Method, Value/Utility Function Method and Weighted Linear Combination. Therefore, there is a need to consider more than one agricultural metric and more than one analysis method when evaluating agricultural land. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs suggests using a Land Evaluation and Area Review (LEAR) method to evaluate agricultural lands. The rationale for this recommendation is not available. A LEAR analysis fits in to the subcategory of Weighted Linear Combination which is described on the Redlands website as "the most often used technique for tackling spatial multi-attribute decision making". There are several other methods that could be used to show similarity/dissimilarity amongst the combined variables defining agricultural value of the lands within Ontario. The LEAR analysis is linear and other methods available to differentiate the better from the poorer agricultural lands can be used to emphasize differences by squaring those differences - thus, looking at differences based on an exponential relationship. A cluster analysis is based on a sum of squares technique and has been used to measure similarity/dissimilarity. Alternatively, Massam (1993) has used Concordance to complete spatial analyses rating different land areas. Concordance is an additive method which emphasizes the weights assigned to variables more so than the actual range of numerical difference when comparing those variables.


72

Regardless, there are several decisions that must be made when evaluating agricultural land given the guidance provided by the PPS and these decisions include, but are not limited to, the:

• multi-attribute analysis method(s),

• agricultural indicators/variables used in the analysis,

• evaluation unit size,

• weighting/importance rating,

• minimum area designated, and,

• point at which differences are sufficient to place lands in specialty crop, agricultural or rural designations.

The agricultural multi-attribute analyses results presented within this report are the “weighted linear combination” method such as the LEAR described by OMAFRA. AgPlan Limited and Michael Hoffman have carried out various multi-criteria decision analyses at different scales throughout the Province of Ontario. The following paragraphs briefly describe the methods used to evaluate agricultural performance within different Regions or Counties in central to southwestern Ontario. Most of the variables used in the regional scale analyses are outlined in the Agricultural Census for Ontario. Additional variables for soil productivity and crop yields are available through OMAF(RA) for the years used in the analyses. The early census years had relatively few variables (in the order of 30) while later census years used many variables (in the range of hundreds). Some environmental variables used in the later analyses first appeared in 1996. There is the potential for an infinite number of ways to modify the data using the three ways described. Therefore, individual databases were designed to include some relatively different measures of agricultural performance/achievement. Regional Comparison At the regional scale for example, environmental, economic, and production viewpoints were separated for some databases. In other instances, a modified characterization within a single category such as production was completed. For example, production was characterized as using total production values (volumetric or gravimetric) for some data sets and as production per unit area (yield) in other data sets. Multiple characterisations were used to represent different perspectives as well as different values associated with the agricultural indicators/metrics. Therefore, for example, total production values were included because they give a relative indication of a County’s contribution to the total food production that occurred within a given year within southern to central Ontario. However, this production indicator tends to be correlated with the area of the County. Therefore, yield data was included and/or emphasized to minimize any effect associated with a Region/County’s size on that Region/County’s performance rating. As well, each of the data sets was modified using different weighting schemes to represent disparate views about which indicators are better predictors of agricultural performance. Different agricultural variables were grouped into databases to emphasize different parts of each year’s agricultural indicators. In general terms, one database was prepared for fruits and vegetables and the second database produced so that the area and farm number data from the first a database was proportional to the total census farm area or total number of census farms.


73

Methods and Standardization The combination of different variables to produce a single value has traditionally presented problems and colloquially is known as the “combining apples and oranges” problem. The problem of combination has been reduced by choosing methods that compare indicators using a standardized quantitative scale. As described previously, each data set could be analysed using two different methods as follows:

(1) Simple additive weighting (SAW); (2) Concordance (CCD); and For the simple additive weighting and concordance methods, the data were standardized based on the maximum and minimum indicator values for each variable. Standardization used the following formula: Standardized Score = 100 x (Raw Data Value) - (Minimum Raw Data Value) (Maximum Raw Data Value) - (Minimum Raw Data Value)

Therefore, all scores range between the values 0 and 100.

In addition to different data sets, and different agglomeration analysis methods, different weights were considered. However, in this instance all variables were given equal/unit weight. The agricultural analysis methods were also set up to allow for the calculation of the inverse of any variable.


74

APPENDIX 5 CURRICULUM VITAE


75

CURRICULUM VITAE MICHAEL K. HOFFMAN

Education: B.A. Queen's University at Kingston (Biology), 1971 Qualifying year, University of Guelph (Soils), 1973

M.Sc. University of Guelph, Agricultural College/Centre for Resources Development, 1975 PhD. Candidate. School of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Waterloo.

Career History: 1989→ President, Agricultural Analyst, AgPlan Limited. 1987-89 President, Smith, Hoffman Associates Limited 1981-87 Soil Scientist, Vice-President, Smith, Hoffman Associates Limited 1979-81 Soil Scientist, Ecoplans Limited 1978-83 Lecturer, Macdonald College, Department of Renewable Resources, McGill

University 1975-79 Environmental Analyst, Ontario Hydro 1971-79 Soil Consultant, part-time, various firms

Profile: Mr. Hoffman’s professional work began 48 years ago in 1971 and includes the provision of agricultural databases, database analysis and summary reports related to a cross-section of development throughout Southern Ontario, including pits and quarries, transmission lines, highways, pipelines, landfills, recreational areas, rural lots, subdivisions and urban boundary expansions. Work includes surficial soils sampling, soil and soil capability classification and mapping; agricultural impact and agricultural economic impact assessments; land damage assessment, land rehabilitation as well as route and site selection. Experience includes:

• surficial soils characterization including quantitative assessment, field data collection and analysis, (includes soil borehole and/or pit descriptions (particle size, stoniness, structure, density, consistence, colour, horizons/layering etc.), soil bulk density (various methods), infiltration and field saturated hydraulic conductivity (principally using the Guelph infiltrometer and permeameter)),

• agricultural statistical studies and mapping and analysis of agricultural land use, Minimum Distance Separation and the characterization of farm infrastructure.

Mr. Hoffman taught courses in soil survey at McDonald College, McGill University and has been a guest lecturer at the Universities of Guelph and Waterloo. In field studies, he introduced the concepts of soil classification and soil interpretive classification to landscape architects at the University of Toronto. His experience includes management of teams providing information to meet the requirements of the Planning, Environmental Assessment, Environmental Protection, and/or Aggregate Resources Acts as well as associated regulations and policy in work for public and private sector clients throughout southern Ontario.

Hearing Experience: Mr. Hoffman has appeared before and given expert testimony in Agrology to the:

• Local Planning Appeal Tribunal

• Ontario Municipal Board

• Ontario Energy Board

• Niagara Escarpment Commission

• Consolidated Hearing Board (Environmental Assessment Board)

1

The following paragraphs and comments in the following table (in blue font) outline responses to the Halton Region comments on the draft AgPlan Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) for the Trafalgar Agerton Secondary Plan Study prepared for the Town of Milton.

Terms of Reference The terms of reference for the work was for a Secondary Plan study. A Secondary Plan study of a greenfield site can reasonably only occur if the lands, which are the subject of the Secondary Plan, are already chosen as, or are one of several options already chosen as, a settlement expansion area. Therefore, the principal analysis and importance ranking of agriculture occurs (if at all) at the time of the settlement expansion area decision. The terms of reference for the Trafalgar Agerton Secondary Plan Study did not include the use of agricultural information to derive different settlement area options or to evaluate those settlement area options from an AIA perspective. If agriculture is important in the multidisciplinary evaluation of settlement area options (and, in practice, agriculture sometimes isn’t of importance), the preferred option or options would be that/those that have the least agricultural impact. Subsequently, an AIA for a secondary plan study is appropriately restricted or scoped to:

• phasing of development; • implementation of recommendations, if any, provided in the settlement expansion area AIA (if the settlement expansion area

study gave sufficient weight to the importance of agriculture that an AIA was prepared); and, • recommendations, if any, related to the boundary condition(s) between urban uses and adjacent agricultural uses (often referred

to as “edge planning”). The scoped AIA components listed above, are reflected in the Draft Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) Guidance Document (OMAFRA, 2018) as described in the following paragraphs. History The use of agricultural information in Secondary Plan studies tended not to occur until relatively recently. AgPlan’s first agricultural assessment for a secondary plan was completed in 2011. Communications with OMAFRA staff at that time provided the guidance that the principal concerns related to the Secondary Plan were the phasing of development, Minimum Distance Separation and the general design of the boundary condition (edge planning for the reduction of land use conflict), between the settlement area secondary plan boundary and the adjacent agricultural land. The Draft Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) Guidance Document (OMAFRA, 2018) includes Secondary Planning together with Subdivision Design and, with reference to secondary plans, states that they may include policies and maps that provide direction on topics including land use, infrastructure, transportation, design and the natural environment. The Draft Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) Guidance Document (OMAFRA, 2018) is more specific regarding subdivision planning, which follows the secondary plan stage, and states that:

Design elements that could be incorporated into subdivision in the fringe areas include: • Road design to direct traffic away from farming areas • Increased lot depths/sizes along the urban-agriculture boundary to allow for greater separation between uses • Planting vegetation buffers and/or installing fences to protect residential areas from possible spray drift, dust and noise • Recognition that a road right of way may be an adequate buffer and planting vegetation to improve the existing roadway

buffer and • Increased building setback provisions in the zoning by-law to increase the separation between uses.

2

These design elements, as listed by OMAFRA, are appropriately applied after the secondary plan has been completed and are therefore not part of the AIA completed by AgPlan for the Trafalgar Agerton Secondary Plan Study. The Scope of the AIA While the above references are made to the Draft Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) Guidance Document (OMAFRA, 2018), the “Guidance Document” is still a draft and the release date of the final document is unknown (personal communication, 2019, OMAFRA Land Use Planning staff). Given that the OMAFRA AIA document is draft, and is a guideline, it lacks the “status” of a final document and is of lesser importance than matters described specifically in policy. The Draft Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) Guidance Document (OMAFRA, 2018) has been written to address a broad cross-section of development proposals which are described generally into 3 categories by OMAFRA as a settlement area expansion, mineral aggregate operation, and infrastructure. The effects of urban settlement area development tend to be different from those associated with mining, pipelines, electrical transmission lines, and a transportation system such as road and rail. Therefore, the guidance provided by the Draft Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) Guidance Document (OMAFRA, 2018) must be scoped relative to the proposed use. An AIA is completed to assess positive as well as negative changes in agriculture resulting from a proposed non-agricultural use. In assessing those changes or impacts, the changes due to the proposed new or different use need to be distinguished from those changes which are occurring and which relate to factors other than the proposed non-agricultural use. For example, changes in:

• consumer preferences which may result in the purchase of different food products; • regulatory environments such as tariffs, import quotas which may affect production costs, product sale price and product

substitutes; • weather patterns affecting crop yields and product availability.

These changes can and do occur at different scales. Therefore, the AIA prepared by AgPlan for the Trafalgar Agerton Secondary Plan Study includes an extensive reference and graphic display of a cross-section of agricultural characteristics given agricultural data available in the latest census and, for many factors, over a timeframe of 35 years (in keeping with planning time frames of 20 to 40 years). The agricultural data were gathered and analysed to put Halton, Milton and the study area in an agricultural context over time. The inclusion of this time/trend agricultural information is greater than is normally provided for a secondary plan study. The mapping of soil capability and agricultural land use, as provided in the AgPlan AIA for the secondary plan study area and adjacent agricultural lands, also is more information than is currently gathered for the purposes of evaluating different secondary plan options. This information was reviewed and presented for purposes of recommendations for the phasing of urban development and to the treatment of the urban/rural interface or boundary. Based on the OMAFRA AIA scope outlined and the historical practice related to an AIA, site-specific studies of agriculture within the Trafalgar Agerton Secondary Plan Study Area were not completed because agriculture in that area is intended to end. Therefore, there is no need for site-specific soil surveys, soil capability and soil potential interpretations. No interviews or farm visits within or adjacent to the Trafalgar Agerton Secondary Plan Study Area were completed for several reasons, for example:

3

• Some farmers are reticent about supplying information specific to their farm operation without assurances that the information will not be made public. Because the information supplied may be needed as evidence, assurance that the information will remain private is not possible.

• Some information provided through interviews cannot be compared to information collected from third-party sources (where those third-party sources have no interest, pecuniary or otherwise, in the outcome).

• Information gathered through on farm visits, where confirmation is required for barns and barn contents, will require a bio security protocol/procedure to ensure that infection or disease is not spread. Therefore, any information collected this way must be worth the cost and the risk associated with its gathering.

• When information is requested as part of public or group meetings, some landowners and/or farmers will not participate - resulting in an incomplete dataset.

Agricultural land use, farm infrastructure, and farm service infrastructure information is available from OMAFRA’s Agricultural Portal and can be obtained from the Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Alliance (GHFFA). However, like site-specific soil surveys, this kind of information is appropriately gathered and evaluated prior to the preparation of the secondary plan. The evaluation of some of the information is problematic when distinguishing what is of greater or lesser importance agriculturally. Using OMAFRA tile drainage mapping as an example:

• there are differences of opinion about whether soils in all drainage classes would benefit from tile drainage, • where tile drainage is necessary to meet the highest or best soil capability possible, counting the tile drainage infrastructure as

well as soil capability class is, in the opinion of some, double counting when evaluating the better from the poorer agricultural areas,

• the effects of tile drainage are positive with respect to crop yields but there are negative environmental effects associated with the more rapid movement of subsurface water to surface water systems,

• the tile drainage databases available do not always identify all tile drainage present; the condition, materials or age of tiles. As a result, there are different opinions about the inclusion of tile drainage as an important factor in evaluating the better from the poorer agricultural land and assessing the impacts of tile drainage loss or alteration. Impact assessment tends to include several different factors or variables and creates a situation where there must be a comparison of “apples and oranges”. For example, there is no replicated scientific information available to provide evidence about the relative importance of tile drainage versus a grain drying and seed sales operation from economic, environmental and social perspectives, when assessing agricultural impacts. Parts of the foregoing discussion have been added to the AgPlan AIA for Trafalgar/Agerton. Summary Generally:

1. The Trafalgar Agerton Secondary Plan Study Area has already been identified as urban land and decisions made at the Secondary Plan Stage about the kind, amounts, placement/configuration and design of urban uses in that Secondary Plan Study Area, are likely not relevant to agriculture which will no longer exist within that study area.

2. Site-specific characteristics associated with agriculture, if those characteristics have been observed, in practice, have been identified earlier in the planning process when evaluating the better from the poorer settlement area expansion options.

4

3. Because the Trafalgar Agerton Secondary Plan Study Area is urban, Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) calculations are not required. Additionally, the study area boundaries have no curvilinear features associated with MDS arcs. This lack indicates that previous settlement area boundary expansion studies for Halton and/or Milton have not identified MDS conflict.

4. No recommendations concerning agriculture are available from previous settlement area boundary expansion studies. 5. No new roads proposed as part of various Secondary Plan Options result in “dead end” or cul-de-sac roads at the

urban/agricultural boundary. 6. Published literature contains no measure of the effectiveness of edge planning tools including design, buffers and

education/outreach in reducing complaint at the boundary between urban and agricultural uses/areas. Nonetheless, buffers provided by Natural Heritage System features between the study area and remaining agricultural areas are already present within part of the study area.

7. An extensive review and analyses of existing agricultural databases support the view that agriculture in Halton and Milton is relatively poorer in the context of southern Ontario and of the Greater Golden Horseshoe and supports the previous decision to use the Trafalgar Agerton Secondary Plan Study Area for urban development.

Much of the commentary provided by Halton Region on the AgPlan AIA is applicable to an AIA done for a settlement area boundary expansion. As a result, the AgPlan replies to Halton’s comments consistently indicate that the information asked for and/or identified as missing is not applicable. AgPlan’s replies are summarized in blue font in the following pages which include a copy of the comments matrix provided by Halton Region.

Halton Region Comments on Trafalgar and Agerton Secondary Plan Supporting Studies

Agricultural Assessment Review for the Land Base Analysis Area Located in the Town of Milton, Halton Region

The Agricultural Assessment lacks a lot of information that is specifically spelled out in the Regional and Provincial Agricultural Impact Assessment guidelines. The following charts provide a comparison between the Regional and Provincial guidelines and what has been provided. Items are coded as green- provided, orange – provided some of the information and red – not provided.

The Halton Region’s Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) Guidelines (2014) contain no reference to Secondary Plan studies. The Draft Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) Guidance Document (2018) does make reference to Secondary Plans but qualifies statements with the use of the word “may” as follows:

Secondary plans may include policies and maps that provide direction on topics including land use, infrastructure, transportation, design and the natural environment. Additionally, they may be utilized as a means to implement the recommendations that have been provided in an AIA.

General:

• There is no farm level/parcel analysis to understand the types of agricultural operations that currently exist in the primary study area or adjacent lands. Information from the GHFFA Agri-food data base indicates that there are a number of horticultural/nurseries/greenhouses in the area. None of these are identified. Farming operations in the area were not surveyed to

5

garner additional information, specifics on the type of farming conducted in the area, MDS calculations were not provided etc. As a result, there are no clear impacts identified nor real mitigation measures suggested. The report only makes 2 recommendations; 1. identifying phasing from the north to the south 2. additional beneficial mitigation at the interface to take place at the plan of subdivision phase.

• Based on the requirements outlined in both guidelines, the report is incomplete and missing critical information. • Please review report for errors – for example, there appears to be references to Niagara Region from a previous version of this

Agricultural Assessment Review.

There is no need to understand the types of agricultural operations at the farm level/parcel analysis given that a decision has already been made to remove the Trafalgar Agerton Secondary Plan area from agricultural production. There are several horticultural/nurseries/greenhouses adjacent to the boundary of, and outside of, the Trafalgar Agerton Secondary Plan area in the south east. These uses were described in the AgPlan AIA in Section 2.3 and shown on Map 5. Agricultural land use, including fruit and vegetable production as well as greenhouse area are summarized in several graphs in Appendix 1. The lack of need for MDS calculations has been described previously. Typographical errors have been corrected.

6

Regional Official Plan Guidelines Agricultural Impact Assessment Guidelines

Agerton/Trafalgar Regional Comments AgPlan Reply

2.1 Description of Proposal a) A description of the type of

application and the nature of the proposal including a site plan and a plan showing the location of the proposal in the context of the surrounding area

• Preparation of a Secondary Plan for Agerton/Trafalgar follows and supplements a preliminary agricultural report prepared for a broader geographic area located in the Town of Milton called the Land Base Analysis (LBA) study area

• Map 1 Study Area Location is identified

Increase the scale of Map 1 to clearly identify the area

Map enlarged in report.

b) A description of any activities or processes associated with the proposal. If the proposal would provide for a range of possible uses, the AIA should address all possible scenarios involving permitted or proposed uses causing the maximum adverse impacts on agriculture

Not fully described. Possible urban uses are outlined in other reports. All uses contemplated would be “Type B" if MDS measurements were required.

7

2.2 Applicable Planning Policies a) A review of the policy context and

regulatory framework in which the development is proposed, from an agricultural perspective, including relevant provisions of the Provincial Policy Statement, Niagara Escarpment Plan, Greenbelt Plan and other Provincial Plans, the Regional Official Plan, Local Official Plan and Zoning By-law. PPS Section 2.3.4, 2.3.5, 2.3.6, 2.4.4, Greenbelt Plan, Growth Plan, Niagara Escarpment Plan, Regional Official Plan, Local Official Plan, Zoning By-law, Other (as applicable)

• Reference to PPS 2014 1.7.1 (h), 2.3.3.3 and 2.3.6.2

• Reference to OMAFRA’s Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas on possible impacts

• Recognizes EDGE planning tools

No reference to Niagara Escarpment Plan, Greenbelt Plan, the Growth Plan, the Regional Official Plan, Local Official Plan and Zoning By-Law

These matters are appropriately evaluated and discussed in the planning process prior to the preparation of a Secondary Plan study.

b) Identification of the existing and proposed official plan designations and zoning on the property as well as location within Provincial planning policy areas.

Land Use Designation Map provided on page 6

Does not show that the surrounding lands have been identified as Prime Agriculture and does not show proposed official plan designations and zoning or location within Provincial planning policy areas.

c) An assessment of applicable agricultural-related policies in the above plans and by-law and demonstration of how the proposed development is consistent with these policies, or when the application is for an official plan amendment, justification of why a change in designation should be approved.

There is no assessment of agricultural-related policies in the above plans and by-law.

8

2.3 On-site and Surrounding Area Physical Resource Inventory

a) Soils: A detailed description, including mapping, of the soil composition of the site and surrounding area and the CLI agricultural capability ratings of the soils. A description of the inherent limitations to agricultural capability should be included. Verification/refinement of existing soil capability mapping may be necessary.

Soil series and soil capability mapping is provided on pages 12 and 13

The only reason that soil capability was included within the AIA, was for the purposes of the phasing of development. Matters of verification/refinement are appropriately evaluated and discussed in the planning process prior to the preparation of a Secondary Plan study.

b) Climate – A general description of climatic features including Crop Heat Units, number of frost-free days, and the general climatic patterns of the area. A description of any microclimatic conditions particular to the site should be included (e.g. frost pockets).

Not included in the report Climate was discussed within the AIA report in Section 2.5. Climate information is only available at a very broad scale and its applicability to the choice of the poorer relative to the better agricultural areas for urbanization is limited as discussed within the AIA report.

c) Slope/Topography: A general description of slope and topographic features including contour mapping of the site and surrounding area. If there are CLI notations regarding topography, an assessment of this information should be completed. A description of any limitations to agricultural capability based on slope should be included.

Slope/topography information has not been provided.

Slope/topography information can effectively be used to remap soil capability at a more detailed scale. This remapping would normally occur, if it occurs, when urban settlement area options were being evaluated.

9

d) Drainage – A description of the details regarding drainage including existing or past improvements. If tile drainage exists a description of the system and its status should be provided. If no system exists the need for one and the potential improvements that could be achieved through tile drainage should be addressed.

Drainage information has not been provided.


2.5 On-site Features

a) Past Farming Practices: An outline of the history of the type and extent of agricultural operations on the site, including any recent changes.

Past farming practice information has not been provided in the report.


b) Type and Intensity of Existing Agricultural Production: A description of current cultivation patterns, livestock operations, and any wooded or currently idle areas.

Some information on type of agricultural land use has been provided on pg 16

Specific parcel level information was not provided.

c) Non-Agricultural Land Use On-site: A description of on-site non- agricultural land uses. Indicate conflicts with existing and potential on-site agriculture

Non-agricultural land use on site and conflicts with existing and potential on-site agriculture is not identified in the report.

d) Parcel Size, Shape and Accessibility: A description of fields on the site and their relationship to transportation routes and neighbouring farm properties vis-à-vis accessibility by farm machinery. Indicate limitations on farming efficiency posed by same.

Parcel size, shape and accessibility information was not provided.

e) Existing Farm Management: A description of land tenure and management on-site i.e. leased or owner operated, on or off-site residence, size of the total operation of which property is part.

Existing Farm Management was not provided in the report.

10

f) Capital Investment in Agriculture: A description and evaluation of the degree of investment in land improvements, irrigation systems, tile drainage, rootstocks, facilities, buildings, machinery etc.

Capital investment in Agriculture was not provided in the report.


2.5 Off-site Land Use Features

a) Surrounding Land Use Types: A description of the location, type and intensity of surrounding agricultural and non-agricultural uses and proposed land use changes up to a distance of 1 km from the property boundary of the site. These should be indicated on a map with details abou the history of surrounding agricultural uses.

Surrounding land use types was not provided in the report. Need to consider 1 km from the property.


b) Existing and Potential Constraints to On-Site Agriculture: An evaluation of constraints on agricultural production on-site arising as a result of existing and proposed non-agricultural uses in the area, including Minimum Distance Separation, nutrient management, traffic impacts etc.

Existing and potential constraints to onsite agriculture was not provided. No identification of MDS, nutrient management, traffic impacts etc.

11

c) Regional Land Use, Lot and Tenure Patterns: In order to determine the general character of the area which might influence the long-term agricultural potential of the site, an overall description of the broad rural area containing the site, including the extent of the area considered, a description of the fragmentation and tenure (absentee, non-farm)characteristics, non-agricultural land uses, the general agricultural (soil and macroclimatic) capability, and a review of non-agricultural commitments in the pertinent planning documents. Indicate the availability of agricultural support services to the site.

Regional land use, lot and tenure patterns was not addressed in the report.


2.6 Agricultural Viability a) An assessment of the viability of the

site property as an agricultural operation on its own or in consolidation with a larger existing operation. The flexibility of the site for different types of agricultural operations should be considered in the viability assessment. This review should include considerations related to alternative agricultural operations that could occur into the future.

Assessment of viability on agricultural operations in the primary was not provided in the report. Individual parcel level information was not provided.


12

b) Impact on the viability of neighbouring agricultural operations resulting from increased restrictions that may occur as a result of the proposed development.

The assessment of viability of neighbouring agricultural operations was not provided.


2.7 Assessment of the Impacts on Agriculture

a) A description of the short and long term effects of the proposal on the agricultural community through the including a description of the quantity and quality of land lost from agricultural production and the effects on existing or potential operations on the site.

Short and long term effects of the proposal on the agricultural community though direct loss of agricultural resources and a description of the quantity and quality of land lost from agricultural production and the effects on existing or potential operations on the site was not provided in the report.


13

b) A description of the potential effects of the proposal on existing and potential farming operations on surrounding lands. The discussion should consider Minimum Distance Separation criteria, Nutrient Management issues, the compatibility of the proposal with agricultural operations, and the effects on the flexibility of surrounding lands to accommodate both changes in types of farming, such as from cash crops to livestock, and expansions to livestock operations. Potential impacts on existing wells or impacts due to noise and increased traffic should be addressed.

Potential effects of the proposal on existing and potential farming operations on surrounding lands was not discussed.


c) Consideration of the proposal’s impact on the existing agricultural character of the general area including implications for land use, tenure or fragmentation patterns. The effect of the proposal as an intrusion in an agricultural area or on the continuity of the agricultural area should be considered.

Impact on the existing agricultural character of the general area was not provided in the report.

14

2.8 Alternative Locational Analysis

2.8 Alternative Locational Analysis

If the AIA being completed to satisfy the policies of the PPS, a Provincial Plan or the Regional Official Plan to address the proposed removal of land from prime agricultural areas, an alternative location analysis should be completed to demonstrate that the proposed development location has the least impact on agriculture and to demonstrate the need, within an appropriate planning horizon, for additional land to be designated to accommodate the proposed use.

N/A Agreed.

15

2.9 Mitigative Measures a) A description of any measures that

could be taken to reduce the impacts of the proposal on both on- site and off-site agriculture and the degree to which the impacts would be reduced (e.g. confining the development to areas on the site with poorer capability land and retaining as much good quality land in production as possible, establishing appropriate buffers on the development site so as not to impact the ability of abutting operations to expand).

There are only 2 recommendations provided in the report

1. Development phased starting in the north and moving to the south

2. Additional beneficial mitigation at the interface between urban and agricultural uses should be considered at the plan of subdivision stage

Parcel/farm level information was not provided in the report. As a result, it is difficult to understand the impacts on agricultural operations within the primary study area or immediately adjacent without key information. The information required is clearly identified in the Regional AIA Guidelines and is to be part of the AIA.

Parcel/farm level information would serve no useful purpose in differentiating urban uses within the secondary plan area. Parcel/farm level information adjacent to the secondary plan area would require interviews with farmers and/or landowners about the use of their property, farm operation, rental land etc. There will be farmers/landowners unwilling to provide such information. Even if information is provided, there is a lack of third-party evidence available to verify the information provided by interviews or questionnaires.

b) Identification of the impact of removal and/or mitigation measures the proponent proposes to undertake as part of the proposal.

No real mitigation measures were identified in the report.

As discussed previously, there is a lack of published evidence that edge planning methods are effective.

16

c) Identification of any notices that could be included as conditions of development to ensure that the presence of surrounding agricultural operations are recognized and to advise future land owners that those operations may be subject to future expansion or shifts in production.

None identified in the report This use of notices is a possible mitigation measure and there is a lack of published evidence that it is effective.

2.10 Conclusions The main findings from the study should be summarized. Net potential impacts to agriculture resulting from approval of the proposed development after implementation of agreed to mitigation measures should be identified. Opinions regarding the implications for the Regional agricultural sector of proceeding with the proposal as described should be provided. If appropriate, mitigation measures to reduce any negative impacts on the agricultural sector should be proposed. Proposals for ongoing monitoring to assess future impacts should be included. The report should include professional opinions as to the extent to which the development can satisfy the directions of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), the agricultural development policies of the Regional Official Plan and Local Official Plan, and why the proposal represents good planning.

Net potential impacts were not clearly identified. Mitigation measures to reduce negative impacts on the agricultural sector were not provided in the report. As a result, there are no proposals for ongoing monitoring.

The AIA was prepared as a technical document to assist planners in making planning decisions that, in the opinion of the planner(s), represent good planning.

http://summarized.net/

http://summarized.net/

17

2.11 Background Information to Accompany the AIA

The AIA should be supported with the following background information:

• Literature cited See note. Literature used in the preparation of the AIA is listed however there is additional information that should have been used to inform the report.

Additional literature relates to agricultural characteristics that are appropriately evaluated and discussed in the planning process prior to the preparation of a Secondary Plan study. Discussions with OMAFRA staff are noted as personal communication in the text and in the references section.

• All background data sources See note. Background data sources were provided however additional sources should be used to inform the report

• A list of people contacted during the study

No interviews with farmers/land holders was done in the preparation of the report.

Information obtained this way is limited as discussed previously.

• A description of the methodologies and survey techniques employed in the study, including a description of soil sampling techniques and method of viability assessment;

No surveys were employed. These matters are appropriately evaluated and discussed in the planning process prior to the preparation of a Secondary Plan study.

• Soil survey site investigation data (e.g. soil profile descriptions and slope measurements); and,

Slope measurements and implications on drainage were not considered.

• Curriculum vitae of study team members

CV information was not provided in the report.

CV short form added in an Appendix.

18

2.12 Summary Include a summary at the front of the report containing a description of the proposal, its effects on agriculture and all conclusions and recommendations arising from the study.

No summary of findings was provided at the start of the report.

Added to the report.

AIA Study Components (Draft Provincial AIA Guidelines)

Agerton/Trafalgar Regional Comments

1. INTRODUCTION Description of the proposal, including details of its location, identification of why an AIA is required and any additional provincial and municipal requirements that apply.

• Secondary Plan

• Follows and supplements a preliminary agricultural report for the broader geographic area located in the Town of Milton called the Land Base Analysis (LBA) study area

• Reference to a report conducted by Malone Given Parsons

• Report authored by AgPlan Limited

• Reference to PPS 2014 1.7.1 (h), 2.3.3.3 and 2.3.6.2

• Reference to OMAFRA’s Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas.

• Recognizes EDGE planning tools

No reference to municipal requirements that apply.


Purpose of the Study

An explanation of how the AIA will satisfy provincial and municipal planning requirements and other provincial requirements as applicable

• See above No reference to municipal requirements that apply.

Objectives of the AIA (e.g. to assess potential impacts to agriculture, develop recommendations and mitigation measures to mitigate potential impacts to agriculture, farm operations and the surrounding area and within the GGH this includes the agricultural system)

• Recognizes the need to look at conflict from the farm perspective, conflict from the non-farm perspective, identify possible impacts to agriculture and measures to help mitigate these effects.

19

An explanation of how the AIA will satisfy these objectives. For example, the following may be worth highlighting, as applicable and relevant to the development being undertaken:

• An evaluation of alternative locations will be undertaken

• The site will be rehabilitated back to an agricultural condition

• MDS II requirements will be met • Net impacts (i.e. impacts that will

result from the development even after mitigation measures are implemented) will be assessed and recommendations will be provided to mitigate impacts

• A monitoring plan or performance measures will be developed to ensure mitigation measures have long-term effectiveness

AIA is for the preparation of a Secondary Plan for Agerton/Trafalgar. Alternative locations are not being evaluated nor will the site be rehabilitated back to an agricultural condition.

While MDS is mentioned in the report, specific MDS calculations were not provided. Net impacts were identified in a general sense along with mitigation measures however specific locations were not identified. A monitoring plan or performance measures were not provided.


Description and Location

This section should describe the nature of and rationale for, the application. Information should include the type and purpose of the development proposal, the location, maps that are of an appropriate scale and detail, a general description of agriculture in the area and explain the PPS and/or provincial plan policies apply along with any relevant applicable designations.

The AIA was undertaken as part of the technical background information for the preparation of a Secondary Plan for Agerton/Trafalgar. Map 1 (pg.1) shows the study area location. Land use designations are provided on Map 2 (pg.6). Reference is made to sections 1.7.1, 2.3.3.3 and 2.3.6.2 of the PPS. There is a very general description of agriculture in the area Map 5 pg. 16

There is no consideration of the Growth Plan Agricultural System mapping.

20

A description of the proposed settlement area boundary expansion and details on how and alternative location(s) have been evaluated, the rationale for the selected location(s) and its extent and include maps. In the GGH, locations are to be evaluated across upper and single tier municipalities. Once alternative location(s) have been selected, maps of appropriate scale and detail for each of these areas i.e. study areas should be provided. Evaluating alternative locations should include information on applicable land use designations or, if applicable, the agricultural land base being considered for redesignation.

Not applicable. These matters are appropriately evaluated and discussed in the planning process prior to the preparation of a Secondary Plan study.


Requirements This section should outline the policy and regulatory framework (provincial and municipal) to explain why an AIA is required and what needs to be done to comply with the requirements.

Not applicable and/or these matters are appropriately evaluated and discussed in the planning process prior to the preparation of a Secondary Plan study.

Provincial Requirements A description of the relevant provincial requirements related to the proposed settlement boundary expansion or non- agricultural use and agriculture should be provided along with an explanation on how the proposal is consistent and/or conforms to the PPS, provincial plans and other applicable requirements (e.g. Aggregate Resources Act and Environmental Assessment Act).

Provides a description of three sections of the PPS related to AIA requirements which includes: Section 1.7.1 Section 2.3.3.3 Section 2.3.6.2

21

Municipal Requirements The AIA should also provide a description of relevant agricultural policies and requirements contained in municipal, regional or local official plans and zoning by-laws and explain how the proposed development is consistent with these policies. Municipalities are encouraged to add AIA’s to their list of reports or studies required to support a complete application (e.g. for a consent, official plan amendment, zoning by-law application etc.).

Does not include relevant agricultural policies and requirements contained in municipal, regional or local official plans and zoning by-laws.

Not applicable and/or these matters are appropriately evaluated and discussed in the planning process prior to the preparation of a Secondary Plan study.

2. PROCESS This section should provide details about the AIA process (e.g. pre-consultation, nature of the retainer, who commissioned the report, authors of the AIA, consultations, review and/or approvals and AIA recommendations and their implementation).

Author of the report – AgPlan Limited to recommendations provided

More information could be provided. Limited discussion on impacts on the agricultural area. Suggest additional beneficial mitigations at the interface between urban and agricultural uses should be considered at the plan of subdivision stage.

Pre-consultation It is recommended that a pre-consultation meeting take place prior to initiating an AIA and should include the OP’s preparing the AIA, municipal and other regulatory agency staff as relevant. The goal of the meeting should be to review the terms of reference for the study including objectives, parameters and timelines of the AIA.

22

Consultation Consultation on the AIA for the proposed development should be undertaken based on meeting provincial (e.g. Planning Act, Aggregate Resources Act, and EA) and municipal requirements. Where potential impacts to agriculture have been identified, it is advisable to consult with local agricultural organizations to provide valuable input on agricultural operations, farm service and the supply network, and other components of the local agri-food sector which can help inform the work to be done to assess agricultural impacts.

The AIA report is based on gathering information by driving through the area. There was no consultation on the potential impacts to agriculture.


23

3. STUDY AREAS These matters are appropriately evaluated and discussed in the planning process prior to the preparation of a Secondary Plan study.

The primary and secondary study areas should be confirmed at the pre- consultation meeting. If the proposed development is large and has identified potential impacts to agriculture, as a best practice it is recommended at a minimum to seek feedback from a local agricultural advisory committee where possible. If no preconsultation meeting is held, then confirmation of the study area should be done with those who will be approving the AIA and based on meeting provincial and municipal requirements. The focus of the work in the primary study area is to understand the current status of agriculture in the area and the impact of removing agricultural lands (permanently or temporarily) for development. The secondary study area focuses on understanding agriculture in the surrounding area and how this area will be impacted from the new development and from removing agricultural land within the primary study area.

Secondary study area was not defined in the first draft of the table.

Primary Study Area

The primary study area included the subject lands (i.e. the lands where the development is to take place). For example: For settlement area boundary expansions, the primary study area(s) should include the area where expansion(s) is (are) being considered.

Study area location provided on pg. 1

24

Secondary Study Area These matters are appropriately scoped, evaluated and discussed in the planning process prior to the preparation of a Secondary Plan study.

The secondary study area will include lands that will be potentially impacted by the development. For settlement area boundary expansions, a 1.5 km radius is recommended for a secondary study area. If appropriate conduct a MDSI setback calculation. Generally MDSI setbacks deal sufficiently with odour issues and can be a good basis of investigating other impacts such as noise, traffic and hydrological changes.

Secondary Study Area should be identified under page 1.

4. STUDY METHODOLOGY

Background Data Collection and Review

This section should include details on the background and data collected to carry out the AIA. A complete list of the background materials reviewed, their sources, literature cited and dates should be provided (for formatting purposes this could be included in an appendix or its own section following the conclusions).

The list should include the following subject to availability (but not be limited to)

• Relevant provincial land use plans and policy documents (e.g. PPS, the Growth Plan, Greenbelt Plan, ORMCP, NEP, etc.

Only a reference to the 2014 PPS was listed in the report.

• Municipal planning documents (official plans and zoning by-laws), as well as municipal drains and/or other types of public works or legal instruments such as easements

No reference provided to official plans and zoning by-laws. Municipal drain information was no in this report

25

• Any relevant source protection plan No mapping or discussion on Source Water Protection plan provided.

These matters are appropriately scoped, evaluated and discussed in the planning process prior to the preparation of a Secondary Plan study.

• Excess Soil Management Policy Framework and Regulatory Proposal

N/A

• Land Use Maps (as applicable) Land Use Designation Map provided on page 6.

• Within the GGH the Agricultural System and, agricultural land base mapping (provincial and/or municipal)

GGH Ag System Mapping was not provided

• OMAFRA’s constructed and agricultural Artificial Drainage Mapping

Artificial Drainage Mapping was not provided

• Soil and CLI Capability mapping – The Canada Land Inventory (CLI) soil capability classifications for agriculture available through Land Information Ontario or OMAFRA’s Agricultural Information Atlas.

Soil Capability Mapping was provided under Map 4 (pg. 13).

• Aerial imagery (historic and recent) with effective user scale of 1:10,000 or smaller

Not provided in the report.

• Topographic/elevation mapping with effective user scale of 1:10,000 or smaller

Topographic/elevation mapping was not provided.

• Other reports prepared to support the application (e.g. planning, hydrological, hydrogeological, noise, vibration, dust, traffic etc.

• Crop type and yield information (as available)

Crop type and yield information was not provided

26

• Agricultural crop statistics, over several recent census periods (Statistics Canada, Census of Agriculture)

Agricultural crop statistics over several census periods was not provided.


• Parcel mapping and related assessment class information for farm parcels, if readily available from the municipality

Parcel mapping and related assessment class information for farm parcels was not provided.

The following may not be needed for all types of development such as settlement area boundary expansions and development where lands are not being returned to agriculture, but may be applicable for development such as mineral aggregate operations within prime agricultural areas that are rehabilitating the land back to an agricultural condition.

• Soil suitability information and mapping for specialty crop areas if applicable, and climate date from Environment Canada and other climate data networks

• Information from on-site investigations within the primary study area (e.g. bore hole logs from resource evaluations and hydrogeological investigations)

On-site investigations were not completed. Hydrological investigations were not completed either.

• Any plans that set out the existing conditions and operational and rehabilitation aspects of the proposal (e.g. Site Plans to include the Existing Conditions Plan, Operational Plan, and Rehabilitation Plan) and

Not included in the report.

• Site plans and AISs if applicable and available, for adjacent and/or surrounding aggregate operations.

N/A

27

Data and Information for the Land Use Survey


This section should explain the agricultural lands and operations that are within the proposed study area(s). The land use survey should identify and describe the land use history and existing conditions of the lands in the primary and secondary study area(s) including:

• Schedule from the municipal official plan indicating the land use designation(s) (e.g. for upper, single and lower tier official plans if applicable)

Schedule from local official plan land use designations was included. Upper tier land use designations were not provided.

• Schedule from the municipal comprehensive zoning by-law illustrating the municipal zoning

This information was not provided in the report.

• The Canadian Land Inventory (CLI) soil capability classifications for agriculture available through Land Information Ontario, or OMAFRA’s Agricultural Information Atlas

CLI mapping provided - Map 4 – Soil Capability

• Agricultural resource inventory map combining existing aerial imagery will parcel fabric and identifying the following features within the study area


• Farmsteads, the location and type of operation with historical and recent information if available (e.g.) cluster of farm buildings, with or without dwellings, livestock facilities)


• Farm fields with type of crop (e.g. pasture, hay, field or horticultural crop, etc.)


28

• Agri-food businesses (e.g. chemical, seed, or fertilizer input suppliers, agricultural sales or service, farmers markets, grain dryers, food processors or distributors, etc.)

Not provided in the report. These matters are appropriately scoped, evaluated and discussed in the planning process prior to the preparation of a Secondary Plan study.

• Non-farm development (e.g. fencerows, roadways, ditches, riparian areas, rough land areas, forests, wetlands, etc.)


• Agricultural drainage map indicating location of municipal drains, tile outlets and field tile (random or systematic) within the study area(s)


• Where available, the specific type and relative level of investment in farm infrastructure (farm related buildings and structures and manure handling/storage facilities) and land improvements (e.g. tile drainage, irrigation)


• Within the GGH, information on the Agricultural System must be included for both the agricultural land base and the agri-food network (infrastructure, services and assets).

29

Local Knowledge and Input These matters are appropriately scoped, evaluated and discussed in the planning process prior to the preparation of a Secondary Plan study.

To gain an understanding of agriculture in the primary and secondary study areas, where feasible, information may be supplemented by farm interviews or meetings to obtain specific information directly from local farmers, farm organization or the local agricultural advisory committee within the primary and secondary study areas. If interviews or meetings are undertaken, additional information could include;

Consultation with the farming community or any farm related organizations does not appear to have taken place. Calls or interviews with farmers in the primary or secondary area did not appear to take place.

• The potential impacts of proposed development (if any) on farm operations on adjacent lands/secondary study area

General high level impacts are described.

High level impacts with respect to the specific area are not addressed.

• Whether the proposed development will result in the fragmentation of agricultural lands

There is no discussion on whether the proposed development will cause fragmentation of agricultural land.

• Details on the importance of the farmland within the potential primary study area and whether the loss of these lands from production will impact the long-term viability of farming in the surrounding area

There is no discussion on whether the loss of the lands from production will impact the long-term viability of the area and the connections within the agricultural system.

• Details on farm operations and associated infrastructure, services or other assets, their importance to agriculture, whether there are permanent losses and if they can be replaced or not (e.g. if they are in the primary study area) or if they would be negatively impacted by the proposed development (if they are in the secondary study area).

None provided.

30

Field Investigations These matters are appropriately scoped, evaluated and discussed in the planning process prior to the preparation of a Secondary Plan study.

Field investigations may also be used to augment background and primary data in assessments of agriculture. For example;

• Verification of background data pertaining to agricultural land uses

No verification provided.

• Active farm locations, and the type of operation at each location

Specific farm level information not provided.

• Farm buildings and other key permanent facilities at each location

Specific farm building and other permanent facilities at each location not provided.

• Directly linked operations at different locations (such as where multiple farm properties support one farm operation)


• Active farm communities (could be on rural lands)


• Heritage buildings and features This information was not provided in the report.

• Contaminated property This information was not provided in the report.

• Verification of soil capability, crop patterns, farm operations and Specialty Crop status of lands in the study area(s)

Soil capability information was provided. The report also acknowledges that the study area is not a specialty crop area.

Crop patterns and farm level information was not provided in the report.

Access to Farmland

Where applicable, access to farmlands to complete the required assessment studies must be negotiated with landowner. If there are environmental impacts from field investigations that cannot be avoided, their mitigation shall be part of the negotiation with the landowner.

N/A Agreed

31

5. DESCRIPTION (SOILS, LAND)

This section should provide a general description of the physiographic setting(s) and land uses in the primary and secondary study areas.

N/A Agreed

Soil Resources A good understanding of the soil resources within the study areas is necessary in order to document information needed to evaluate alternative locations, assess impacts, and support the mitigation measures to minimize and mitigate impacts, including rehabilitation of the land back to an agricultural condition if applicable.

Not applicable. These matters are appropriately scoped, evaluated and discussed in the planning process prior to the preparation of a Secondary Plan study.

Include a CLI Capability map that shows the CLI Classes assigned to the soils identified study area(s) based on the limitations identified. As needed, and where possible, on-site investigations can provide more detailed information.

CLI Soil Capability mapping was provided in the report. Soil potential ratings are provided on Table 2 identify that the area is not considered to be a Specialty Crop Area.

See OMAFRA’s website for information on soils http://omafra.gov.on.ca/english/landuse/soils.htm .

If the land is going to be rehabilitated back to agriculture, and particularly where there is a requirement to return land back to an agricultural condition, the following information should be collected in the primary study area to provide baseline conditions as a benchmark to support an effective rehabilitation and monitoring plan.

Not applicable

http://omafra.gov.on.ca/english/landuse/soils.htm

http://omafra.gov.on.ca/english/landuse/soils.htm

32

A soil survey of the primary study area/subject lands is recommended to identify the soil series. Additional detail regarding the soil profile (e.g. horizon depths) should be collected as well and the collection of soil samples to obtain the baseline conditions of the land. The soil survey should refine county level soil mapping to a scale suitable for planning application purposes (i.e. 1:5,000 to 1:10,000). This will require at a minimum a soil profile inspection density of one inspection for every two hectares. For example, if the subject lands are 40ha in size, the minimum number of inspection locations should be approximately 20. Site topography should be considered prior to planning a field survey (e.g. samples at various elevations and terrain).

N/A Agreed

The methods used to describe the soil should be consistent with the “Field Manual for Describing Soils in Ontario” (Ontario Centre for Soil Resource Evaluation, 1993) using the taxonomic conventions consistent with the Canadian System of Soil Classification (Expert Committee on Soil Survey, 1981) Also visit OMAFRA’s website at http://www.omafra.gov.n.ca/english/landus e/soils.htm.

N/A

Additional investigation sites may be required to obtain an accurate assessment of the depths of topsoil and subsoil in order to determine their volume.

N/A

http://www.omafra.gov.n.ca/english/landus

http://www.omafra.gov.n.ca/english/landus

33

Representative samples of the topsoil, subsoil and parent material should be collected and, at a minimum, analyzed for;

• Particle size

• Soil fertility (e.g. phosphorous and potassium)

• Percent soil organic matter (SOM)

• pH and

• Calcium carbonate (CaCO3)

N/A Agreed

For baseline information, soil density measurements should be taken at a minimum of three levels within the soil profile representing the three major soil horizons (topsoil, subsoil & overburden/parent material. Depending on the depth of the subsoil overlying the parent material, the depth to the aggregate resource and the type of aggregate resources (i.e. sand & gravel or bedrock) additional samples may be required from within the soil profile to obtain truly representative bulk density measurements throughout the soil profile.

N/A

34

It is important that a qualified person (QP) with a strong background in soil science be involved in describing the soil profile on-site and determining the number of samples and the depths at which they are to be taken. Soil density measurements can be taken using soil cores are to be collected, a minimum of three cores from each horizon should be collected and analyzed to obtain statistically relevant results. The soil density information will be a useful comparison when determining the success of attempts to alleviate compaction during post-rehabilitation monitoring. Measure the microbial biomass of the soil to (i.e. collect samples at depths of 0 – 10 cm, 10 – 20 cm and 20 – 30 cm) should also be considered. Soil microbial biomass is a measure of the mass of the living component of soil organic matter and is important to the release of essential plant nutrients and the maintenance of good soil structure.

N/A Agreed

Slope/Topography

A general description of slope and topographic features including contour mapping of the site and surrounding area should be provided. If there are CLI notations regarding topography, an assessment of this information should be completed. A description of any limitations to agricultural capability based on slope should be included.

Slope or topography information was not provided for the primary or secondary study areas.


35

Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Drainage

Management of water resources is an important consideration for farm operations. Changes to the hydrologic and/or hydrogeological conditions in the area surrounding the site can have a negative impact on water quality and quantity and on the productivity of farmland and farm operations. It is therefore necessary to review and note any relevant information contained in supporting hydrological and hydrogeological studies prepared for the application to understand potential impacts. Information should include details on drainage, surface drainage features, if drainage infrastructure exists or not, as well as existing or past improvements. If tile drainage exists a description of the system and its status should be provided.

No discussion was provided on drainage. Tile drainage information on farms in the secondary study was not provided. Potential impacts on the surrounding farms was not discussed in the report.


Climate (only required for specialty crop areas)

A general description of climatic features including Crop Heat Units, number of frost free days, and the general climatic patterns of the area should be provided. A description of any microclimatic conditions particular to the site should be including (e.g. frost pockets). This information is only required for specialty crop areas and where a non-agricultural use may be permitted, noting for example that settlement area boundary expansions are not allowed in specialty crop areas.

Climatic information was not provided in the report.

Climate information was provided. Climate related to soil suitability and soil potential are appropriately evaluated, if possible, and discussed in the planning process prior to the preparation of a Secondary Plan study.

36

Soil Suitability and Microclimate

In specialty crop areas, the Soil Suitability Ratings for crop types historically grown on site or common in the surrounding area should be assessed. The soil suitability ratings should be consistent with the ratings assigned by OMAFRA to the soil series identified on site and as contained in Ontario Soil Survey reports (e.g. The Soil Survey of the Regional Municipality of Niagara Report No. 60).

N/A Agreed

For specialty crop areas, the most important microclimate variables are derived from temperature data. It is important to know first and last frost dates, the frost-free period, Crop Heat Units (CHU), etc. and where lands have topographic features which enhance the microclimatic advantages of the site for specialty crop production (e.g. elevation, slopes, slope aspect, etc.).

N/A Agreed

Land Use Characteristics

Based on information collected from the background and primary data review and land use survey, this section should include;

Historical information has been provided. Additional information is appropriately scoped, evaluated and discussed in the planning process prior to the preparation of a Secondary Plan study.

A description and map of the land use, and information on farm operations with historical (e.g. recommended ten years) and existing recent information where available including;

Historical information was not provided.

37

• Farmsteads (e.g. cluster of farm buildings, with or without dwellings, livestock facilities)

Farm level data was not provided in the report.

Some of these comments are not applicable and in other instances are matters appropriately scoped, evaluated and discussed in the planning process prior to the preparation of a Secondary Plan study.

• Farm fields with type of crop (e.g. pasture, hay, field or horticultural crop, etc.)

Farm production data was not provided in the report.

• Parcel size and form and limitations/opportunities for farming

Parcel level data was not provided in the report.

• Points of access to farm operations and fields for farm machinery

Information on the points of access to farm operations and fields was not provided in the report.

Information on whether or not the proposed development will fragment any farmland or operations and where applicable, the historic severance activity and level of fragmentation by severance, nature features or infrastructure (e.g. roads, easements).

No discussion provided on whether the proposed development would fragment any farmland or operations.

Information on infrastructure and land improvements:

• Type, condition and use of buildings and structures on-site

Information not provided in the report

• The level of investment in agricultural facilities and farm infrastructure (farm related buildings and structures, manure handling/storage facilities)


• Description of the improvements (irrigation, tile drainage, land forming fencing, recent land clearing or stone removal, investment of root stocks, wind machines)


38

• Agricultural drainage map indicating location of municipal drains, tile outlets and field tile (random or systemic)

Agricultural drainage information not provided in the report.

Some of these comments are not applicable and in other instances are matters appropriately evaluated, scoped and discussed in the planning process prior to the preparation of a Secondary Plan study.

In the GGH provide information on the Agricultural System for both the agricultural land base and the agri-food network – for example, agri-food businesses (e.g. chemical, seed, or fertilizer input suppliers, agricultural sales or service, farmers markets, grain dryers and food processors).


Information on existing and potential constraints to agriculture e.g. MDS II where applicable, such as traffic impacts

Information not provided in the report.

Information on any operational relationships between primary study area (i.e. subject lands) and adjoining parcels


A description of other relevant features e.g. fencerows, roadways, ditches, riparian areas, rough land areas, forests, wetlands etc.


In the secondary study area, there may be challenges to describing and mapping all the information listed above. In cases where detailed information is not available, the Qualified Professional(s) must use their best judgement/interpretation to determine information outlined.

39

Economic and Community Benefits of Agriculture


Understanding the economic and community benefits associated with agriculture in the study areas is important to assess the impacts associated with the proposed settlement area boundary expansion or non-agricultural use.

This section should provide information and a description of the local and regional significance of agriculture in terms of economic and community benefits they provide. For example:

• Quantify the economic impact of agricultural production in the study areas with census of agriculture data


• Consider the social and economic benefits the agricultural land and related activities bring through such operations such as farm markets and pick-your-own operations that generate tourism revenue and employ local residents.


Within the GGH, the Agricultural System portal and mapping can provide information to support the analysis. Local and regional data and information where available and local knowledge should support the analysis.

Information from the GGH, the Agricultural System portal and mapping was not included in the report.

40

6. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS These matters are

appropriately scoped, evaluated and discussed in the planning process prior to the preparation of a Secondary Plan study.

The assessment of potential impacts and development of mitigation measures is a multidisciplinary exercise that requires knowledge of land use planning, agriculture (soils, the industry and its economic and community contributions) to fully examine the impacts to agriculture (and within the GGH to the Agricultural System) are to be assessed and included as part of the AIA and to inform recommendations. If during the assessment, it is determined that there are steps that can be taken to mitigate impacts, then assuming these are implemented, describe the net impacts to agriculture. Findings of other technical studies and information related to potential changes in e.g. water resources, air quality, traffic, etc. should be considered in the assessment of potential impacts to agriculture and for the development of mitigation measures.

Farm level data was not provided in the report and as a result, the assessment of potential impacts cannot be done properly. This impacts the ability to properly outline any mitigation measures that could/should be taken.

Consideration should also be given to the potential local and regional impacts of removing the primary study area lands (permanently or temporarily) on agricultural lands, operations and the agri- food sector within the surrounding area and within the GGH to the Agricultural System (the extent of the assessment is based on the secondary study area). For example consider the potential impacts from:


41

• Interim or permanent loss of agricultural land, including the quality and quantity of farmland lost



• Fragmentation of agricultural lands and operations

Fragmentation of agricultural lands was not discussed in the report.

• The type of agricultural, agriculture- related or on-farm diversified uses being lost and the significance this has for supporting other agricultural production in the surrounding area

Specific farm-level information was not obtained or provided in the report and therefore it is difficult to understand its significance.

• The loss of existing and future farming opportunities

This was not discussed in the report.

• Minimum Distance Separation changes (where applicable) that will constrain future farm operations

There is no parcel level data provided in the report. As a result, there is no identification of MDS calculations that may need to be taken into consideration.

• The loss of infrastructure, services or assets important to the surrounding agricultural community and agri-food sector


• The loss of agricultural investments in structures and land improvements (e.g. artificial drainage)


• The disruption or loss of function to artificial drainage and irrigation installations.

This was not discussed in the report. Artificial drainage mapping was not provided in the report.

• Changes to the soil drainage regime


42

• Changes to surface drainage features which could have an effect on adjacent lands



• Changes to landforms, elevations and slope that could alter microclimatic conditions (e.g. modification to slopes that may reduce or improve cold air drainage opportunities and changes to elevation may have an impact on diurnal temperatures)


• Changes to hydrogeological conditions that could affect neighboring municipal or private wells, sources of irrigation water and sources of water for livestock


• Disruption to surrounding farm operations, activities and management (e.g. temporary loss of production agricultural lands, cultivation, seeding, spraying, harvesting, field access, use of road network)


• The potential effects of noise, vibration, dust and traffic on agricultural operations and activities.


• Potential compatibility concerns such as normal farm practices facing challenges with e.g. nuisance complaints, vandalism and trespassing that may occur with the new development being established


43

• The inability or challenges to move farm vehicles and equipment along roads due to increased traffic caused by haul routes, change in road design.



Economic and Community Impacts

Potential impacts in terms of economic and community impacts that the surrounding area and agri-food sector may face as a result of the settlement area boundary expansion or non-agricultural use should be assessed. The potential economic and community impacts should be described in terms of their magnitude and extent (locally or regionally) and help inform measures and recommendations to address the impacts for example consider:


The loss of farmland or fragmentation of the agricultural land base and potential associated economic challenges

Consider if the farm operation is a critical economic generator in the area, or if there are significant acreages being lost that are important to maintaining the contiguity of farmland in the area (the agricultural land base in the GGH)


The removal of investments (in agricultural supportive infrastructure, services or assets) and the significance this has to the agri-food sector

Consider if the agricultural, agriculture-related or on-farm diversified uses produce a commodity or service that surrounding agricultural community is dependent upon. Examples include the raising of dairy heifers for surrounding dairy operations, weaners for feeder hog operations, day-old chicks for broiler operations, indoor riding facilities for equestrian operations, grain dryer facilities, farm machinery dealerships, and fruit and vegetable processing facilities. Examine if any agricultural losses can be replaced or if other farms will struggle economically as a result of the loss.


44

Loss of community use of and support for surrounding infrastructure, services and assets important to the agri-food sector.

Consider community benefits such as agri-tourism, products for the retail market/local food or educational benefits that are being lost and the impact this will have on the community.



7. MITIGATION MEASURES

This section should outline what mitigation measures are required to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts from the settlement boundary expansions or non-agricultural uses on agriculture and within the GGH to the Agricultural System. Mitigation measures vary depending on the scale, type and location of development. They should be proportional to the estimated potential impact or risk. Where required, mitigation measure include rehabilitation of lands to an agricultural condition. Refer to section 3.0 for more information.

Only 2 mitigation measures are identified in the report

1. Area south of Eighth line (better agriculturally) to be phased so it is developed later than lands to the North

2. Additional beneficial mitigation at the interface between urban and agricultural uses should be considered at the plan of subdivision stage.

Since there is no farm specific information provided in this report, it is difficult to understand the impacts on the agricultural system and develop a list of mitigation measures. More detailed information is needed.

45

8. NET IMPACTS These matters are

appropriately scoped, evaluated and discussed in the planning process prior to the preparation of a Secondary Plan study.

Assuming that the recommendations of measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts of the development are implemented, this section should describe the anticipated net impacts after mitigation measures have been put in place, of the proposed settlement area boundary expansion or non-agricultural uses on agricultural land and agricultural operations and the surrounding area (within the GGH on the Agricultural System). Net impacts should be described with respect to their magnitude and extent in the context of the lifespan of the settlement area boundary expansion or non-agricultural uses. Where net impacts are dependent on specific mitigation and performance measures, these dependencies should be clearly identified.

This information is not provided in the report.

46

9. STUDY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


Recommendations specific to the proposed settlement area boundary expansion or non-agricultural use including requirements for mitigation measures, including rehabilitation if applicable, that should be implemented to reduce impacts from the proposed development should be outlined in this section. Recommendations should include mitigation measures that can be put in place pre-development, during development and post development as appropriate. Monitoring and performance measures are recommended to ensure that the mitigation measures have been successfully implemented.

In conclusion explain how the objectives of the AIA have been fulfilled, the net impacts of the settlement area boundary expansion or non-agricultural uses and state whether the proposal is consistent with the relevant provincial requirements.


10. RECOMMENDED APPENDICES

Include appendices as needed to support the AIA. Suggestions for items to be included in an appendix of the AIA include:

• Curriculum vitae of study team

Not provided in the report Now provided

47

• All background and study data sources; a description of the methodologies and survey techniques employed in the study,

Study data sources were provided however there is additional information that would help to inform the report that was not included. Some of the methodologies were discussed i.e. soil potential ratings etc.

Additional background and study data sources are available to provide more detailed information on the farms in the primary and secondary study areas.

References are cited within the report. Additional references relate to matters which are appropriately scoped, evaluated and discussed in the planning process prior to the preparation of a Secondary Plan study.

• As appropriate, a list of people contacted during the AIA study

This was not provided in the report.

• Monitoring Plan for implementing the recommendations and mitigation measures

This was not provided in the report.

A monitoring plan will depend on funding which, if it is available, will result from a political decision beyond the scope of an agricultural assessment.

• List of References Cited References provided on pg. 24 however additional information should be included in the report.

References are cited within the report. Recent communication with OMAFRA staff is cited in the report and listed in the references section. Historical communication with OMAFRA staff is not included within the report. Additional references relate to matters which are appropriately scoped, evaluated and discussed in the planning process prior to the preparation of a Secondary Plan study.

AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW FOR THE TRAFALGAR … · 2019-08-12 · Trafalgar/Agerton AIA report...

Documents

Transcript of AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW FOR THE TRAFALGAR … · 2019-08-12 · Trafalgar/Agerton AIA report...