Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Forceemrb.ca/.../2e/2e2b95e9-3964-43e6-ae5f-bfbe072b192e.pdf · 2018-10-04 · Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force Meeting Minutes: Friday,

Page 1 of 3

Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force September 21, 2018, 9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. Clymont Hall 1 51423 Highway 60, Spruce Grove, AB (See Attached Map, page 66 of 66)

1. Opening

1.1 Quorum Action: Confirmation Lead: Chair Shaigec

1.2 Call to Order Action: Declaration Lead: Chair Shaigec

1.3 Chair Opening Remarks Action: Information Lead: Chair Shaigec

2. Approval of Agenda Action: Approval Lead: Chair Shaigec

3. Approval of Minutes Action: Approval Lead: Chair Shaigec

Page 4 of 66

Recommended Motion: That the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force approve the Agenda of September 21, 2018.

Recommended Motion: That the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force approve the Minutes of July 13, 2018.

RAMP Task Force Meeting Agenda Pkg September 21, 2018 1 of 66

Page 2 of 3

4. Introduction of Federal Representative – Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada – Candace Vanin

5. Regional Agriculture Master Plan

5.1 Draft Vision for Agriculture and Food 2050 Action: Approval Lead: Chair Shaigec/ Mr. Bouma

Page 7 of 66

5.2 Draft Guiding Principles Action: Approval Lead: Chair Shaigec/ Mr. Bouma

Page 20 of 66

5.3 RAMP Definitions Action: Approval Lead: Chair Shaigec/ Mr. Bouma

Page 22 of 66

6. BREAK

7. Regional Context & RAMP Planning Framework Action: Approval Lead: Chair Shaigec/ Mr. Bouma / Mr. Steil

Page 27 of 66

8. RAMP Draft Communications Strategy and Plan Action: Approval Lead: Chair Shaigec/ Ms. Lennon

Page 53 of 66

Recommended Motion: That the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force endorse and recommend the draft Vision Statement for Agriculture and Food to the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board for approval.

Recommended Motion: That the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force endorse and recommend the draft Guiding Principles to the Edmon-ton Metropolitan Region Board for approval.

Recommended Motion: That the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force endorse and recommend the RAMP Definitions to the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board for approval.

Recommended Motion: That the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force endorse and recommend the RAMP Planning Framework to the Ed-monton Metropolitan Region Board for approval.

Recommended Motion: That the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force approve the Communications Strategy.


Page 3 of 3

9. Next Steps Action: Information Lead: Chair Shaigec/ Ms. Shuya

10. Next Meeting November 23, 2018, 9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m., Sturgeon County

11. Adjournment Action: Declaration Lead: Chair Shaigec

12. Additional Reading

Urban Shadow, the Impermanence Syndrome and Urban Sprawl

Page 61 of 66

13. Resources

Clymont Hall Map

Page 66 of 66

Recommended Motion: That the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force meeting of September 21, 2018 adjourn.


Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force Meeting Minutes: Friday, July 13, 2018 Page 1 of 3

Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force

Friday, July 13, 2018 9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.

Edmonton Tower – Room ET 3 MR SE 03-380 10111-104 Avenue NW, Edmonton, AB

Members: Rod Shaigec, Parkland County (Chair) Don Iveson, City of Edmonton (Alternate) Kathy Barnhart, Town of Beaumont Tanni Doblanko, Leduc County Alanna Hnatiw, Sturgeon County Paul Smith, Strathcona County Barry Turner, Town of Morinville

Technical Members: Garett Broadbent, Leduc County Darren Haarsma, Parkland County Peter Vana, Parkland County Angela Veenstra, Sturgeon County Kathryn Lennon, City of Edmonton

Consultants: Jerry Bouma, Toma & Bouma Bob Burden, Serecon Inc.

Regrets: Jason Cathcart, Government of Alberta Karen Sundquist, Government of Alberta Joel Gould, Strathcona County

EMRB Staff: Neal Sarnecki, Interim CEO Sharon Shuya, Project Manager Stephanie Chai, Project Manager Taylor Varro, Project Manager Joseana Lara, Municipal Planning Intern Loreen Lennon, Communications Manager Amanda Borman, Executive Assistant

Guests:

Neal Comeau, Sturgeon County Charleen Currie, City of Edmonton Gibby Davis, City of Edmonton Susan Evans, Sturgeon County Glen Finstad, City of Leduc Michelle Hay, City of Leduc Ryan Hall, Strathcona County Larissa Hepp, Sturgeon County Greg Hofmann, Town of Morinville Stuart Houston, City of Spruce Grove Laurie Johnson, Leduc County Cory Labrecque, City of Leduc Nancy Lyzaniwski, Strathcona County Aaron Paquette, City of Edmonton Peter Reeson, UDI Edmonton Region Shree Shinde, City of Fort Saskatchewan John Stewart, Town of Beaumont Joannes Wong, Town of Beaumont

Item 3



1. Opening

1.1 Quorum Quorum achieved.

1.2 Call to Order Chair Shaigec called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.

1.3 Chair Opening Remarks

2. Approval of Agenda

Motion: That the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force approve the Agenda of July 13, 2018.

Moved by: Councillor Smith Accepted by: Chair

Decision: Carried unanimously

3. Approval of Minutes

Motion: That the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force approve the Minutes of June 15, 2018.

Moved by: Councillor Barnhart Accepted by: Chair


4. Regional Agriculture Master Plan 4.1 Regional Agriculture Master Plan – Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board “Regional Agriculture Master Plan Situation Analysis” Report

Ms. Shuya provided Task Force Members with an overview of the process and updates to the Report being presented by the consultants.

Mayor Iveson arrives to the meeting at 9:02 a.m. Mayor Turner arrives to the meeting at 9:11 a.m.

Motion: That the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force endorse and recommend the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board “Regional Agriculture Master Plan Situation Analysis” report, as amended, to the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board for Information.

Chair Shaigec recommends that the motion to the Board on August 9 be as amended and for Information versus approval, considering the comments from the Task Force Members.

Moved by: Mayor Doblanko

RAMP18-28

RAMP18-26

RAMP18-27



Accepted by: Chair Decision: Carried unanimously

Mr. Bouma walked Task Force members through the presentation that will be given to the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board on August 9, 2018.

4.2 LESA Update

Motion: That the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force receive the LESA Update for information.

Moved by: Mayor Hnatiw Accepted by: Chair


BREAK 10:16 – 10:44 a.m.

4.3 TASK FORCE Workshop – Toward a Vision for Agriculture and Food in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region

LUNCH 11:45 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

5. Next Steps

Ms. Shuya provided the next steps to members of the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force.

6. Next Meeting

• September 21, 2018, 9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m., Parkland County

7. Adjournment

Motion: That the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force meeting of July 13, 2018 be adjourned at 1:27 p.m.

Moved by: Mayor Doblanko Accepted by: Chair


Task Force Chair, Rod Shaigec

RAMP18-29

RAMP18-30


Page 1 of 1

Administration Recommendation to the Regional Agriculture

Master Plan Task Force September 21, 2018

Edmonton Metropolitan Region Regional Agriculture Master Plan Draft Vision Statement

Recommended Motion: That the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force endorse and recommend the draft Vision Statement for Agriculture and Food to the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board for approval.

Background:

On August 9, 2018, the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board accepted the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Situation Analysis Report, recommended by the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force, as information.

The Report recommended in the next steps the development of a shared vision for Agriculture and Food in the Region.

The RAMP Task Force participated in a workshop on July 13th, 2018 to provide input to the Vision Statement.

In addition, the RAMP Working Group participated in a similar exercise which aided in solidifying the picture of the future of agriculture and food in the region.

The RAMP Working Group met on September 7th to review the initial draft Vision Statement and proposed further refinements to be considered in the next draft.

Recommendation:

That the RAMP Task Force endorse the draft Vision for Agriculture and Food and recommend it to the Board for approval.

Rationale:

The purpose of developing a shared Vision Statement is to provide clear direction to the process and the outcomes of a Regional Agriculture Master Plan. The Vision Statement is also an important anchor for the development of a suite of Guiding Principles to guide future decisions.

Attachments: 1. Edmonton Metropolitan Region “Regional Agriculture Master Plan Vision Statement for Agriculture

and Food”. 2. July 13, 2018 Task Force Input for the Vision Statement.

Item 5.1


Attachment 1:

Edmonton Metropolitan Region “Regional Agriculture Master Plan Vision Statement for Agriculture and Food”

(Based on input from the Task Force received on July 13th 2018)

1. The Picture

The year is 2050… you are with your family, you children and grandchildren, other family members and you are asked to describe agriculture and food in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region. What do you see? What does the picture look like? Be a specific as possible

The following key words and phrases were generated by the Task Force (see text box below):

Summary:

Three themes emerged:

1. A ‘state’ rooted in leadership, respect and reputation;2. Innovation in terms of the application of advanced technologies and practices; and3. The visible presence of agricultural lands, infrastructure, spaces and facilities.

Thriving Agricultural Sector; World renowned; leader in food production & value added; responsible; ethical; engaged/highly educated/informed citizens; food autonomy/self-sufficiency; highly respected; shift to local consumption

Diversified; innovative; efficient and effective; advanced technology – UAV, VRT; 3D printing; drones; strong R & D; Smart food; vertical farming; more range of products; higher yields and densities; variety of production systems – indoor, vertical, rooftops; centre for value added industries; heat capture; biomedical products from livestock & plants; Ag is smart & technology enabled

AG Business Hubs; exporting safe value added food; a major world agricultural food hub; EMR as a Hub for regional expertise; a patchwork of urban food spaces; large greenhouse operations; farms integrated into urban landscapes; large tracts of land with ag transitional zones; large tract of lands adjacent to urban development; large protected areas; areas of dedicated agriculture production based on soil; urban growth boundaries have held up; densified; a contiguous belt of agriculture in the region accessible by LRT & transit;

Item 5.1Attachment 1


Toward a Vision Statement

The following draft vision was presented to the Working Committee:

A thriving, diverse and internationally renowned agriculture and food sector led by engaged and informed decision makers, distinguished by excellence, enabled by leading research, technology and infrastructure, committed to the long term conservation of area soils and lands upon which it can flourish and grow.

The following feedback was received from the Working Committee:

1. Need to simplify. It can be a few sentences - it does not have to compile it all into one with a whole series of clauses. Should be inspiring. 'Make us proud.'

2. Like the notion that agriculture is 'obviously and visibly present' and integrated into the fabric and lifestyle of the region.

3. There is clear social appreciation and recognition of the broad value of agriculture.

A Proposed ‘Shorter’ Vision:

Version 1

An engaged food and agriculture community with an economically vibrant and environmentally healthy future characterized by:

• A commitment to preserving the highest value agricultural land • The clear and visible presence of food & agricultural spaces, activities and

events • Innovation and commitment to excellence • Inspired leadership.

Version 2:

A vibrant regional agri-food sector that meets the triple bottom line of sustainability.

• economically vibrant promoting agricultural and food entrepreneurship

• environmentally sustainable honouring our valuable soils

• socially engaged a community that embraces agriculture and grants social license to farm

(See more short versions on the next page).


Other Short Versions for Consideration:

We offer a number of ‘short’ versions that start to move in the direction of a memorable slogan. Overall we feel that one key element that must be expressed, is the ‘intent’ to preserve agricultural land. Fundamentally, without land, the EMR will not achieve much of an agri-food vision. Hence the direct or inferred references:

A secure agricultural land base reinforcing a thriving agri-food economy, highly valued by the regional community

Honouring our valuable soils; building our agri-food future; enriching our region

A vibrant regional community committed to land, food and agriculture

Western Canada’s leading agri-food region

Enriching our region with our vibrant food & agriculture economy

Where food & agriculture matter!


July 13, RAMP Task Force Meeting RAMP VISION Input

Page

1

July 13, 2018

RAMP Task Force Meeting – 2050 Vision for Agriculture and Food

Task Force Input – verbatim

Question #1

The year is 2050 …. You are with your family, you children and grandchildren, other family members and you are asked to describe agriculture and food in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region. What do you see? What does the picture look like? Be a specific as possible.

Page 1 Thriving Agricultural Sector – economically. Jobs,wages, etc.

EMR is world renowned, leader in Food Production- Value Added

Family Farms are reaching their sesquicentennial mark

Responsible/ Ethical

They explain it to me…. Appreciation of Agriculture by our youth. They understand Agriculture + the system better than their parents.

A system/ Network built so that a ¼ of our population is employed in agriculture.

Food Autonomy for the region Agriculture is highly respected career path, our kids went to school to become farmers. Edmonton Metro Region is seen as a Hub for Agricultural expertise.

Increased self sufficiency as a region and as individuals.

Opportunities for urbanities to enjoy food and aesthetic products of agricultural neighbors.

We can largely feed ourselves Patchwork of urban food spaces. City parks are centers for small scale community food production, with orchards, community gardens. Community u picks They also have infrastructure for food processing / storage in the parks ( e.g. Community league buildings, sheds)




Page

2

Farm to Fork Residents are highly educated about where their food comes from and have eh knowledge to garden in backyards, balconies, rooftops

Food System(s) knowledge is in the school curriculum.

We grow more food in more (and unexpected) urban places.

Question #1 The year is 2050 …. You are with your family, you children and grandchildren, other family members and you are asked to describe agriculture and food in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region. What do you see? What does the picture look like? Be a specific as possible. Page 2 Diversified Innovative – R&D investment Efficient& effective ( investment

in infrastructure & land use) Technology – UAV Techno. Pest Management / Variable rate technology. Down to the sq cm for management #D printing

Strong Research & Development to support Innovation + Sustainability

Increase Small air traffic for individual movement and drones used for monitoring, delivering, etc.

Smart Food People are knowledgeable in the way consumables are produced.

Vertical Farming around industry to use carbon capture and clean air with increased plant growth to offset detrimental air quality effects. Also to recreate

Drones over intensive livestock operations to capture+ use methane as an energy source.

Soils will be easier to build / enhance (expedited natural processes through technology. Not necessary as a growth medium in some instances. ( already that way in agri-phonics)

Transporting People and Products Larger vehicles now, more range to market products. Shift to more local consumption?



Page

3

growing zones to add variety to what foods can be grown here. No need to transport food if you can grow everything you need. Within urban areas, vertical gardens

Much higher yields and denser crops

Food being produced in a variety of production systems. ( i.e. outdoor, indoor, vertical, rooftops)

Center for value added industries

Diversity of food being consumed in the region

Advanced technology providing optimum efficiency ( i.e. no waste of inputs)

Crops, livestock produced. Broad range of types. Results of biotechnology/ enclosed production

Minimum packaging and utilizing all parts of the plant.

Heat capture. Biomedical production ( livestock & plants)

Our Ag is Smart & Technology enabled. Our Farms are labs for innovators who build ag tech for the world.

Question #1 The year is 2050 …. You are with your family, you children and grandchildren, other family members and you are asked to describe agriculture and food in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region. What do you see? What does the picture look like? Be a specific as possible. Page 3 Ag Business- Hubs collocated adjacent to farmland

We export safe value-added food to a hungry world

Region will b major world agricultural food hub

Farms integrated into the landscape on urban areas

Large greenhouse operations LUF to Support: Large tracts of land with ag transitional zones between large scale commodity production and urban center



Page

4

Areas of dedicated ( not mandated) Agricultural Production based on soil quality ( or defensible attributes)

Large protected agricultural areas

Urban growth boundaries that were created in 2020 have held up. Core metropolitan area has densified. There is a contiguous belt of agriculture in the region, accessible by LRT & Transit

Smaller plots for market gardens/ greenhouse supporting vibrant local food

Agriculture will become part of Urban landscape

Our best remaining land is secured in perpetuity for agriculture & Food + Economic Security.

People come from far and wide to eat here ( Foodie Tourism)

Large Tracts of land adjacent to urban development

Question #2 Thinking of the picture of the future you just described for agriculture and food in the EMR in 2050… What are some of the specific actions or initiatives that have taken place to create this picture? Outline three distinct actions that would have occurred to lead to the picture you have described. Supportive Land Use Policies Innovative land Use Zones developed to provide opportunities for small lot/ specialty agricultural activities

Supportive & enabling policies Strategy to address & overcome land owner rights

EMRB coordinate with province to create process to “preserve” farmland / enshrine the right to farm

EMRB membership agree on land use framework that preserves farmland fro minimum 100 years Land Preserved = best as related to LESA

Zoning changes to ensure only agricultural activities occur on a property

Statutory Protection of the land base is in place

Strong Leadership + governance _ regulatory policy for farmland. – Mandatory Ag impact assessments as part of land development process. Municipalities work with



Page

5

development industry – clear enforceable guidelines.

Land Speculation for development has been eliminated.

Land use planning that is regularly reviewed and adjusted as it evolves

Agricultural land is conserved with a level of certainty that enables investment in innovation.

Soil reuse – science based re use + ability to regenerate organic matter + fertility in exhausted soils.

Strategic Development – HUBS, Infrastructure, Innovation Center Increased opportunity for community gardens

Specific support of government leaders working with industry stakeholders to fund + develop curriculum + research and technology. Following the example of the Human Genome Project “ information shared freely+ rapidly to accelerate the pace of discovery around the world”

Infrastructure improvements for agriculture related activities re recognized + funded.

Recognize / attach financial value to eco system services

True Collaboration – among the municipalities in the Region. Collaboration means there is a give and take for the common vision

Governments dedicate resources / budget t build up in-house capacity to develop. Implement. Evaluate food + ag policies / G. Department of Urban Agriculture

Roof top Agriculture becomes a requirement or the norm.

EMRB is a world leader in the innovative, ethical growth and development of production of local agricultural products and development.

Dynamic Agricultural processing Hubs! To value add all of our locally grown commodities

Synergistic relationships developed between producers, academia, research groups, municipalities, etc. Technology Specific to the region. Constraints/ opportunities/ needs

Entrepreneurial culture is encouraged through targeted events, associations, innovation centers.

Development of National Food/ Ag Strategy

Innovation Hubs/ Centers for processing. crops

We’ve deliberately woven Ag, Tech, Life Sciences, Health and

EMRB with GOA Edmonton Global, Alberta Innovates =



Page

6

diversification/ product development

Advanced Manufacturing together in our entrepreneurship, innovation & research ecosystems.

develop long term investment plan I Ag & Ag Industry in the region

Physical and technological infrastructure in place to support Agri- food processing and production.

Strategic Development – Proactive Communications & Education Effective Communications and educational strategies

Continued education and engagement of general society to create understanding and “buy in of population.

Increase awareness and education around technology (e.g. Bio Technology) to help address consumer distrust / fear. Proving to be a significant social driver for social license etc. for farms

Education and Awareness has to be made a priority from birth forward i.e. importance of food security and agricultural development + preservation.

Edmonton Global is marketing the agricultural vision of the region to the world.

Partnerships between educational institutions; farm institutions; farm industry/ producers; local/ provincial governments

Provincial + Federal support is provided through advocacy and funding for research and innovation and collaboration

Education: a collaboration with post secondary, government industry to create technical training; e.g. certificates of urban agriculture: Ag technology; a collaboration with



Page

7

school boards with the province to put more agriculture into the curriculum.

Education Curriculum committed to Agriculture – Health; food production; Ag System/ Network; Bio- technology ; etc.

Question #3 Now thinking about the actions you outlined, what were (are) some of the most significant barriers or obstacles that were overcome? Outline three distinct barriers or obstacle that were overcome. Land Use Policy and Support Issues Tradition belief systems around independence and land use rights.

A broken Ag System – no land – no processing – no value added- no value chain- no infrastructure – no community support- not support services- no farmers -

Barriers – land use decision Political will to freeze land for agriculture conflicts with – cheap development land for urban growth ; inflated land worth because of development potential – “ sell my land for billions”

Obstacles: TIME is of the essence. Wheels of government can be slow; need an incentive ( a crisis) to move along quickly.

Concerns of security and autonomy of the individual + lifestyle

Difficulty of market transformation to be able to do smart growth, which is a necessary condition of slowing demand for greenfield land.

Resolving Issues relating to property rights of landowners that do not want their property classified as outlined in plans/ land use bylaws developed out of this process

Correcting Market Failures that contribute to land price speculation

Continues unconstrained sprawl & fragmentation

Political influence , clout of development community

Unknown future land use scale requirements for agriculture

Land Development Market Economics.



Page

8

Political Will to meaningful regulate

Complex mix of opinions between and within stakeholders groups regarding land use policy direction

Which “public good” will be prioritized for each site? Conflict across…. City departments+ competing priorities for land - real estate; parks development; public spaces; agricultural land; affordable housing.

Barrier: creating urgency related to food + food production in a society that has never been food insecure.

We need the province to support

Lack of implementable, measureable, specific policies with clear targets + timelines

Politicians – the continuity of the vision

Perception of landowner rights.

Communication Lack of Communication and funding for a cohesive approach where all are motivated to find the best possible solution for most.

Lack of Knowledge / understanding of the current projects, ideas being explored before all stakeholders ( is there duplication? Opportunity to collaborate?. Not known if everyone is working in a silo (figuratively)

Community Resistance: Ignorance to what opportunities may lie ahead. Lack of appreciation.

Capital & Infrastructure



Page

9

Obstacles: Municipal Priorities – need to be aligned – economically; politically, etc. ( competing priorities may get in the way

Obstacles: Resources – need to be earmarked for this “plan” to be implemented.

Development of strategies & Implementation of plan of action involving all stakeholders; 3 levels of government; educational institutions; industry; producer

Creation of regional brand& value proposition

Infrastructure: costs of urban development around prime agricultural lands

Sectorial Fragmentation Value added Ag Product chain – understanding, identifying and acting on the gaps.

Economic competitiveness

Barrier: Financial Investment - development of long term sustainable model of investment in Agriculture/ Ag business does not have a clearly defined business case – may be overlooked in next oil/ gas boom

Access to Venture Capital and Investment for – research ; Production Facilities; market development

Fully serviced locations for production facilitates

Weather and environmental challenges happening faster than we can manage.

Succession challenges of agricultural operations. Is there and option “c”?


Page 1 of 2



Edmonton Metropolitan Region Regional Agriculture Master Plan Draft Guiding Principles

Recommended Motion: That the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force endorse and recommend the draft Guiding Principles to the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board for approval.

Background:

On August 9, 2018, the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board accepted the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Situation Analysis Report, recommended by the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force, for information.

The Report recommended in the next steps the development of a shared vision and guiding principles for Agriculture and Food in the Region.

The RAMP Task Force participated in a workshop on July 13, 2018 to provide input to the Vision Statement, which would further inform a suite of guiding principles.

The RAMP Working Group met on September 7, 2018 to review the draft Vision Statement and the context for the Guiding Principles and proposed further refinements to be considered in the drafting of the Guiding Principles to be considered by the Task Force.

Recommendation:

That the RAMP Task Force endorse the draft Guiding Principles to support the Vision for Agriculture and Food and recommend them to the Board for approval.

Rationale:

The purpose of developing a suite of Guiding Principles is to provide direction for the achievement of the shared Vision for Agriculture and Food. The Guiding Principles are an important foundation to support the direction for and development of a Regional Agriculture Master Plan.

Attachment follows:

1. Edmonton Metropolitan Region “Regional Agriculture Master Plan Guiding Principles for Agricultureand Food”.

Item 5.2


Page 2 of 2



Attachment 1:

Edmonton Metropolitan Region “Regional Agriculture Master Plan Guiding Principles for Agriculture and Food”

To achieve the ‘Vision’ the following guiding principles are presented:

1. Agriculture and food is a vital sector - its long term future requires a set of environmentallysustainable land use, economic development, infrastructure and implementation policies. Itmust be comprehensive and no one policy alone is sufficient.

2. Agricultural land is regarded as a permanent feature of the EMR’s landscape and economyon a land base that is an irreplaceable resource that must be protected.1

3. A thriving food and agriculture sector requires strategic investment in both hard and softinfrastructure to develop entrepreneurship and a pro-active food and agriculture businessculture.

4. Broad community support is critical. Building and maintaining support requires on-goingmeaningful, ongoing engagement with the community.

5. Success requires the active participation of all orders of government- local, provincial andfederal as well as public and private agencies. EMRB cannot achieve the vision alone, butmust be seen as a driver in the process.

1This principle specific to land replaces the following statements presented in the Situation Analysis:

Recognize the importance of a long term assured land base on which the agriculture and food sector can operate without undue hindrance or limitations. This in turn requires policy direction in three critical areas:

a. Identify the actual areas that define the long term secure agricultural land baseb. Minimize fragmentation of agricultural land in the defined areasc. Minimize conversion of agricultural land to other uses



Page 1 of 5



Edmonton Metropolitan Region Regional Agriculture Master Plan - Definitions

Recommended Motion: That the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force endorse and recommend the RAMP Definitions to the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board for approval.

Background:

The Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan was approved by the Province on October 26, 2017. To support its implementation, the Growth Plan directs the development of a Regional Agriculture Master Plan (RAMP).

The Regional Agriculture Master Plan is to provide a policy framework for conserving a stable, predictable supply of prime agricultural lands in the Region, growing and diversifying the agri-food economy, including development of a value-added strategy, and guiding agriculture supportive infrastructure investment.

The focus of the RAMP will be to address the outcomes identified in the Agriculture Policy Area Objectives:

6.1 Identify and conserve an adequate supply of prime agricultural lands to provide a secure local food source for future generations.

6.2 Minimize the fragmentation and conversion of prime agricultural lands for non-agricultural uses.

6.3 Promote diversification and value-added agriculture production and plan infrastructure to support the agricultural sector and regional food system.

Critical to moving forward is to ensure a common understanding and interpretation exists for all stakeholders, for key terms, based on the agreement of common definitions.

Recommendation:

That the RAMP Task Force endorse and approve the Definitions to support the development of the Regional Agriculture Master Plan.

Rationale:

Agreement to key definitions early in the RAMP development process will ensure clarity in terms of addressing the Agriculture Policy Objectives.

Attachment follows:

1. Edmonton Metropolitan Region “Regional Agriculture Master Plan – Definitions”.

Item 5.3

Page 2 of 5



Attachment 1: Edmonton Metropolitan Region “Regional Agriculture Master Plan – Definitions”

Background and Context

The EMR Growth Plan states the following primary objective:

1. Identify and conserve an adequate supply of prime agricultural lands to provide a secure localfood source for future generations;

The objective employs two terms that need to be clearly defined: • Adequate supply• Prime agricultural lands

Discussion

As a prelude to this discussion, we present the definition of agriculture which was agreed to at the July 13th 2018 Task Force meeting:

Agriculture: the growing raising, managing and/or sale of livestock, crops, horticulture and agri-food related value added enterprises including education motivated either by profit or lifestyle

The phrase ‘adequate supply of prime agricultural lands’ requires that we first deal with the latter term, namely ’prime agicultural lands’. With respect to this term, we suggest that the definition of prime agricultural land not be limited simply to the quality of the soils—all agricultural land has value. Rather the soils must be considered within the context of the area in which these soils are located. In other words, what is the nature of the agricultural system – the broader range of agricultural activities taking place?

Prime agricultural lands should therefore be based on two components:

1. The Agricultural System – defined to include all the components of a healthy farmingsystem in an agricultural area – the land base is the core including the location of primeagriculture lands and speciality crops or unqiue areas. The land base can also becategorizied by average lot sizes, the degree of fragmentation and the intrusion of non-farmuses. Other factors to consider are the presence of supporting infrastructure and services –input suppliers – feed, fertilizer, seed, farm equipment dealers, and infrastructure such aswater, roadways, irrigation systems etc. Finally the presence of marketing outlets such asprocessing plants, packing plants, auctions or regional markets should also be aconsideration in assessing the agricultural system surrounding an area or an individual farmproperty.


Page 3 of 5



2. The Actual Soil Quality - prime farmland has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce economically sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods, including water management. In general, prime farmlands have an adequate and dependable water supply from precipitation or irrigation, a favorable temperature and growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, and few or no rocks. They are permeable to water and air. Prime farmlands are not excessively erodible or saturated with water for a long period of time, and they either do not flood frequently or are protected from flooding. Prime lands are typically defined as LSRS 2-4; or CLI 1-3. Class 4 may be included if it an integral part of a pasture based/cattle grazing area.

Note: Ontario1 uses the following definition: “Prime agricultural areas are areas where prime agricultural lands predominate. Specialty

crop areas shall be given the highest priority for protection, followed by Canada Land Inventory Class 1, 2, and 3 lands, and any associated Class 4 through 7 lands within the prime agricultural area, in this order of priority.”

Adequate Supply: Finally, because the Growth Plan objectives make reference to it, we must define the term ‘adequate’ supply or otherwise set a new objective. The term ‘adequate’ is impossible to define. Agriculture in the EMR and Alberta generally, is predominately concentrated in two areas where it has competitive advantage: (1) grains and oilseeds; and (2) livestock production – mostly beef. In both cases, Alberta produces far more than local food demand and these agricultural and food products flow to serve national and international markets. At the same time, Alberta is much less proficient in the production of fresh fruits and vegetables, year-round and relies on the importation of these food stuffs. Thus, when the term adequate is used, the immediate question that arises is: adequate for what or for whom? For example, the adequate supply of agricultural lands to be a player in the supply of grains and oilseeds is a very different from the adequate supply of lands required to generate produce to meet local demand. Perhaps a more appropriate question is this: how much area is required to accommodate the forecasted urban growth in the EMR for the next 30 to 50 years? This may be easier question to assess than the adequate supply of prime agricultural. 1 The Ontario definition would have been established when the legislation for the Greenbelt Plan was developed in 2005. We have found no such ‘legal’ definition in Alberta.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erosion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydric_soil

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood

Page 4 of 5



As a consequence, we propose the following decision-making process:

a. Begin with identifying all lands currently used for agriculture. b. Identify the urban growth requirements—with a view to being compact so as to

reduce the regional development footprint. c. Adopt the objecitve to save as much agriculture land as possible subject to the

meeting of urban growth requirements.

We propose that the definition of ‘adequate supply’ to mean – all the agriculture land currently located in the EMR. Our proposed framework to identify the ‘adequate supply’ of agriculture lands in the EMR is presented in Figure 1 below.

Page 5 of 5



Figure 1: A Framework to Identify the Adequate Supply of Agricultural Lands in the EMR

Initial Agriculture Boundary

Define Cross-Municipal Commonalities

Regional/MunicipalImplementation

Areas to add Areas to delete Hot spots & issues?

Adjustable Boundary?

Permanent Boundary?

Sub-area 1Small Ag Holdings

Sub-area 2Large Scale Cropping

Sub-area 3Mixed

Livestock/Crops

Sub-area 4Specialty/Unique

Sub-area 5Urban Lands

Policy, Regulationsand Tools





Refined Agriculture Boundary

Page 1 of 1



Edmonton Metropolitan Region Regional Agriculture Master Plan – Regional Context & RAMP Planning Framework

Recommended Motion: That the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force endorse and recommend the RAMP Planning Framework to the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board for approval.

Background

The Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan was approved by the Province on October 26, 2017. To support its implementation, the Growth Plan directs the development of a Regional Agriculture Master Plan (RAMP).

The Regional Agriculture Master Plan is to provide a policy framework for conserving a stable, predictable supply of prime agricultural lands in the Region, as articulated in the first of three Policy Objectives in the Agriculture Policy Area 6 of the Growth Plan.

Specifically, Policy Objective 6.1 states: Identify and conserve an adequate supply of prime agricultural lands to provide a secure local food source for future generations.

To begin the process of addressing the first Policy Objective, the existing agricultural areas must be identified in the context of the region, in order to support how future conservation can be addressed.

On September 7th the RAMP Working Group met to review the consolidated regional approach to agriculture lands and discuss how it could be simplified, respecting that different areas within the region need different approaches.

Recommendation:

That the RAMP Task Force endorse the RAMP Planning Framework and recommend it to the Board for approval.

Rationale:

The identification of the agricultural land base in the region and the agreement on a common approach to classifying agricultural lands - based on common characteristics, understanding of intent, and policy outcomes - is instructive to arriving at a proposal for a regional approach to identifying “Ag Sub Areas”.

Attachments:

1. Edmonton Metropolitan Region “Regional Agriculture Master Plan – Sub Area Table”2. Edmonton Metropolitan Region “Sub- Area as the Basic Planning Tool”3. Edmonton Metropolitan Region “Draft RAMP Reference Map 7 – Agriculture Sub-Areas”

Item 7


Sub-Area 1. Intent 2. Characteristics 3. OutcomesStrathcona

Agriculture: Large Holdings

Long term extensive ag operations on large

unfragmented contiguous lands with limited

supporting commercial and residential uses

Primarily high quality soils with a wide range

of field and specialty crops

Limit fragmentation, direct non-ag elsewhere, reduce impact on

environment & adjacent lands. Residential limited to single

dwellings and collective communal housing.

Leduc

North Central

To preserve large contiguous tracts of high

capability land in crop and oil seed production.

This area includes some of the most

productive soils in the region (and Alberta)

and is also under the most pressure for

development given its proximity to the EIA

and neighbouring urban municipalities. This

area has been subject to a number of

annexations (Town of Beaumont, Town of

Devon, City of Leduc) and is currently

subject of the City of Edmonton annexation

which involves approximately 15,900 ha

(39,237 ac) of agricultural land. This area is

within the Metropolitan Tier of the EMRGP

that stipulates the lands will remain in

agricultural use until such time as it is

needed for development. A significant

number of

To preserve large contiguous tracts of high capability soils for

extensive field crops. Eliminate fragmentation, eliminate

conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, minimize

land use conflict.

Sub-AreaStrathcona

Agriculture: Large Holdings

Leduc

North Central

4. Subdivision 5. Tools 6. Other commentsLimited to one parcel out of

unsubdivided quarter. In the AG

district, depending on policy area,

a quarter section can be either

split in half or one lot between

0.8 and 2.0 ha may be subdivided

out for an existing or proposed

dwelling.

LESA and TDC not likely useful as

only one parcel allowed per quarter

OCP is being revised to be more in

line with Ag Study.

Environmental - proximity to North

Saskatchewan River where

development should be sensitive to

this environmental significant area;

diversity of crops grown; soil

capability; proximity to airport – a

regional economic generator, but

also consideration of ag export

potential and support for value-

added processing at the airport;

proximity to urban development;

infrastructure (some areas are

difficult to gain access to – can’t

move ag equipment through urban

development); proximity to ag

support services.

While not an allowable use in the existing

district regulations, the conversion of the

agricultural land to non-agricultural uses such

as industrial and urban development. Unclear

direction of the Edmonton Metropolitan Tier as

to whether the Metropolitan Tier is a policy

area or growth boundary and the resulting land

speculation. Whether the development of an

agricultural business warrants the removal of

high capability soils from production.

Sub-Area 1. Intent 2. Characteristics 3. OutcomesLeduc

South/Central

To protect the CFOs (dairy operations) from

encroachment of residential and other non-

compatible uses and to preserve high capability

soils for crop/feed production.

This area has a mix of higher and lower

capability soils and contains a large number

of dairy operations. The topography of this

area is generally flat in the south. The

eastern area is rolling with numerous

wetlands. This area includes Wizard Lake

(south) and the Beaver Hills UNESCO

Biosphere (east). There are a number of

unplanned agricultural support services

developed throughout this area (fertilizer,

seed plant, etc.).

To ensure the CFOs (dairy operations) are not impeded; to

ensure the CFOs have access to high capability soils nearby to

grow feed for the operation; and to conserve large tracts of land

for crop production.Manage fragmentation, minimize conversion

of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, minimize land use

conflict, concentrate agri-business in agricultural hubs to create

synergies.

Sturgeon B Support the neighbourhood's existing

agricultural uses such as livestock grazing,

poultry and hog production, mixed grain and

cattle operations and hay and forage production

and promote other types of agricultural use

such as fruit and berry production.

Livestock Grazing, Livestock Feedlots,

Poultry Barns, Hog Barns, Communal

Farming (Morinville Colony), Mixed Grain &

Cattle Operations Example Agricultural

Support Services: Fertilizer Supplier (Falls

Fertilizers), Mechanics Shop (RQB)

Sturgeon C Support large scale grain farming, mixed grain

and cattle operations, poultry and dairy

operations in this area by managing land use

conflicts and ensuring that agriculture is

identified as a priority land-use while enhancing

the agricultural support services available

through commercial and value-added clustering

Large Scale Grain Farming, Mixed Grain &

Cattle Operations, Dairy Operations, Feed

Lots, Example Agricultural Support Services:

Grain Terminals, Seed Cleaning Plant, Input

Suppliers/ Agronomists/ Custom Services

(SVF, McEwans), Bulk Fuel (UFA, Co-op),

Sturgeon Agriplex, Class 2 Landfill/ Pesticide

Container Recycling Depot

Sub-AreaLeduc

South/Central

Sturgeon B

Sturgeon C

4. Subdivision 5. Tools 6. Other commentsEnvironmental - proximity to Wizard

Lake and within the Beaver Hills

UNESCO Biosphere where


these environmentally significant

areas; soil capability; proximity to

potential hubs or existing support

services; infrastructure; proximity to

CFO (dairy barns).

Subdivision and dispersed development of

agricultural support services. Subdivision and

development of non-agricultural uses

(residential) in close proximity to CFO’s. The

agricultural operators in this area subdivide the

existing farmstead and retain the agricultural

lands so as not to be landlords.

Sub-Area 1. Intent 2. Characteristics 3. OutcomesSturgeon D Support the existing agricultural production that

includes livestock grazing, mixed farming

operations, hay and forage production, poultry

production and equestrian facilities while

promoting further agricultural uses that are

complimentary to the other industries within

the area.

Equestian, Livestock Grazing, Livestock

Feedlots, Poultry Barns, Dairy Operations,

Mixed Grain & Cattle Operations, Hay and

Forage Production

Parkland South East Aims to preserve large tracts of land for larger

farm operations (grains, vegetables, livestock,

etc.) while promoting diversification and

expansion into new agricultural sectors.

Preserve the PAASE for large-scale farm

operations and crop production of both

traditional field crops such cereal grains,

oilseeds, potatoes, pluses and other seeds; b.

Preserve high quality agricultural lands in the

PAASE for continued large-scale farm operations

and crop production by limiting fragmentation

of agricultural parcels from incompatible and

non-agricultural uses including County

Residential development, and major industrial

uses; and, Preserve prime agricultural area in

order to conserve and restore natural features

such as wetlands and riparian areas to improve

overland drainage and water quality in the

Modeste Creek watershed, and parts of the

North Saskatchewan River Valley.

characterized by intact quarter-sections

used for large-scale farm operations and

crop production

The continued use of this area for large-scale field crop

production and operations, with the ability to promote and

diversify the types of pulse and seed crops requiring this scale of

production. The subarea policies in the MDP reinforce current

work that the County is doing to preserve large tracts of land and

protect wetland and riparian areas through its Alternative Land

Use Services (ALUS) program projects. Parkland County is trying

to reduce the premature and speculative fragmentation of large

parcels of high quality farmland that would prevent the retention

of large-scale farm operations. This includes the typical “4-40’s”

subdivisions which are not supported in the County’s current

MDP, and when subdivided, create land parcel sizes too small to

farm for traditional farm practices. The County is also

encouraging the ability to diversify the PAASE into new

agricultural sectors/products.

Sub-AreaSturgeon D

Parkland South East

4. Subdivision 5. Tools 6. Other commentsRecreational Use of Redwater Natural Area

interfaces with Agriculture, Oil & Gas

Production interfaces with Ag

Parkland County’s Land Use Bylaw

(LUB) has not yet been updated to

incorporate the policy direction in

the Municipal Development Plan

(e.g. parcel fragmentation and

subdivision regulations).

Permitted and discretionary uses

in the LUB have not yet been

reviewed, and may not fully align

between the two documents.

Lands on the eastern edge of the

PAASE may be susceptible to land

speculation and premature

subdivision for rural residential

parcels.

The requirement for an agricultural

assessment tool such as a LESA

evaluation would assist the County

in requiring landowners to assess

factors such as climate factors, soil

quality, surface factors, subsurface

factors landscape factors, future

impact of proposed land uses and

suitability of the proposed parcel

size on adjacent farm operations.

Sub-Area 1. Intent 2. Characteristics 3. OutcomesEdmonton

South Annexation Area

The regional vision for the proposed annexation

area is for urban growth; most of the proposed

annexation area is within the Edmonton

Metropolitan Region Growth Plan’s

Metropolitan Area policy tier. The proposed

annexation area is a logical extension of

Edmonton’s urban growth. This growth will be

compact, contiguous and contain a variety of

land uses. The conversion to urban uses will only

occur according to the conditions set forth in

the Growth Plan (6.2.4). As conversion to non-

agricultural urban uses will take decades,

maintaining agricultural viability in the interim is

important.

Edmonton’s policies promote contiguous growth, minimize

fragmentation and conversion of agricultural land allowing

interim uses. Also included is the encouragement of support for

agriculture including provision of agricultural services as land

uses transition to urban.

Sub-AreaEdmonton

South Annexation Area

4. Subdivision 5. Tools 6. Other commentsThese issues, and their complexity,

will come out through the creation

of an Agricultural Impact

Assessment that is required for any

new area structure plan in the city

proposing development in a

greenfield area that contains prime

agricultural lands. LESA will allow

effective land use planning of

agricultural lands. LESA will assess

land quality and contextual factors

and identify and quantify a supply of

prime agricultural lands. This could

impact the pattern of urban growth

, define agricultural zones and save

special lands for the future.

The challenge is compatibility with new and

existing urban development, the

discouragement of the premature

fragmentation of agricultural land and the

encouragement of agriculture. .Confined

Feeding Operations (existing) will be

grandfathered in and but will be limited or

reduced in number in the future. Farm Based

Alcoholic Beverage Production Facilities as

defined in the Leduc County LUB will not be

permitted.


West

To provide for a broad range of agriculture

(grazing, feed (hay), limited crop production and

cow/calf operations and confined livestock

operations) on a mix of lower and higher

capability land

this area has diverse land uses, and a range

of soil qualities. This area has lower

capability soils for grain and oil seed in

comparison to other areas of the County. It

is also has more hills, trees and drainage

issues. It is further removed from the urban

centres. The population in this area has

been decreasing and there is a need to

retain the population to keep the schools

and community services operational

Preservation of large contiguous tracks of higher capability soils

for crop production and forage (hay), retention/expansion of

existing confined livestock operations and cow/calf operations.

Manage fragmentation, minimize conversion of agricultural land

to non-agricultural uses, minimize land use conflict; encourage

diversification of agriculture.

Sub-AreaLeduc

West

4. Subdivision 5. Tools 6. Other commentsAG Agricultural District: tallows 2

principal and 2 accessory

dwellings and for 80+ acre

parcels. Lots less than 80 acres

can have 1 and 1.

Environmental - proximity to North

Saskatchewan River, Pigeon Lake

and Wizard Lake where


these environmentally significant

areas; water requirements; soil

capability; long term and cumulative

impact of the proposed

development; large tracts of land in

vicinity of the development

proposed; distance to existing CFOs;

proximity to similar operation or

potential to create synergy; access

to markets (cattle, grain); proximity

to support systems; topography of

the land; proximity to urban centres

(Warburg, Thorsby).

There is a misguided belief that allowing further

subdivisions will help retain the population in

this area. There is pressure to subdivide lands in

close proximity to the North Saskatchewan

River and its tributaries for recreational

purposes as these lands are generally treed and

have lower capability soils. This area has

numerous sand and gravel deposits and

aggregate operations as well as a large coal

seam and coal mine. Landowners subdivide to

obtain maximum profit from their sale.

Sub-Area 1. Intent 2. Characteristics 3. OutcomesParkland

West

Aims to preserve large tracts of land for larger

farm operations (grazing, other specialty crops,

etc.) and reduce fragmentation for non-

agricultural purposes. Preserve the PAAW for

traditional large-scale farm operations and

production (i.e. cattle grazing such as the

Tomahawk Cattle Ranch);

b. Preserve the PAAW for localized large-scale

agricultural production facilities and operations

(such as Sun-Grow peat harvesting operations);

and,

c. Preserve the PAAW as a prime agricultural

area in order to conserve and restore natural

features such as riparian areas and wetlands for

overland drainage and water quality in the

Sturgeon Headwaters, Tomahawk Creek, and

Pembina River watersheds.

characterized by lands suitable for large

animal grazing (western extents), foraging

crops and peat production.

The continued use of this area for large-scale farm operations

and production, grazing and forage crops, and ranching with the

ability to diversify into other agricultural products and localized

operations. The continued work the County is doing with farmers

and ranchers to conserve and enhance riparian areas and

wetlands in order to improve water quality and ecosystem

services through its Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS)

program projects in the PAAW. Parkland County is trying to

reduce fragmentation of larger parcels into smaller non-

agricultural and incompatible uses such as Country Residential,

and non-agricultural industrial uses, while encouraging the ability

to diversify into new agricultural sectors/products. The County is

also attempting to reduce the potential for the typical “4-40”

subdivisions which are not supported in the County’s current

MDP, and when subdivided, creates parcel sizes too small to farm

given the soils and landscape conditions.

Parkland

Rural, not in AG area

Strathcona

Agricuture: Small Holdings

Allow for ag, small scale commercial and

associated residential that supports ag viability

Generally prime soils. Area serves as

transition on urban rural continuum

Same as above, but allows subdivsion for small scale ag

Sub-AreaParkland

West

Parkland

Rural, not in AG area

Strathcona

Agricuture: Small Holdings

4. Subdivision 5. Tools 6. Other commentsParkland County’s Land Use Bylaw

(LUB) has not yet been updated to

incorporate the policy direction in






reviewed, and may not fully align

between the two documents.











The TransAlta mine and the scale and

magnitude of the operation has impacted the

area. The closure of the mine and the

restoration of the mine will increase the future

amount of agricultural land in the area. The

impact of country residential subdivision in

adjacent municipalities not in the EMRB may

have future impacts to fragment land in the

PAAW.

Generally, 8 parcels per quarter

section (option to 10 parcels,

minimum size of 8.0 ha.


subdivision is limited


Small holdings

To promote agricultural diversification and

provide for agricultural activities on smaller

tracts of land

This area has a mix of higher and lower

capability soil and its terrain has limitations

– knob and kettle. It is already fragmented

by numerous country residential parcels. It

falls within the Beaver Hills UNESCO

Biosphere and is in close proximity to a

number of urban centres.

To provide landowners with an opportunity to grow their own

food and be self-sufficient and/or establish specialized

agricultural operations on smaller tracts of land. Minimize

conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses and

minimize land use conflict.

Sub-AreaLeduc

Small holdings

4. Subdivision 5. Tools 6. Other commentsImpact on the Beaver Hills UNESCO

Biosphere and wetlands; type of

operation proposed and

compatibility with adjacent land

uses; potential to diversify

agriculture.

Minimizing impact to Environmentally

Significant Areas. Ensuring the lands are used

for agricultural purposes and do not merely a

large country residential parcel.

Sub-Area 1. Intent 2. Characteristics 3. OutcomesParkland

Prime Ag: Small Holdings

The primary objective of the Small Holdings area

is to encourage a range of parcel sizes to

support agriculture value-added businesses and

specialty operations on smaller tracts of land

that are closer to existing urban amenities and

areas. There are other fundamental objectives

for the sub-area that are critical to the long term

viability of land uses in the area: a. Wagner

Recharge Area – the Wagner Fen Recharge Area

falls within the north east corner of Prime

Agriculture Area Small Holdings. The highest and

best use of these lands – given their

environmental sensitivity – will be agriculture,

which will further protect the recharge area and

water source for the Wagner Fen (a provincially

recognized sensitive area); b. Prevention of

urban-sprawl – lands in Prime Agriculture Area

Small Holdings are some of the most productive

agriculture lands in the County. Retaining these

lands for future agricultural purposes and

supporting a greater diversity of agricultural

uses will protect these lands from fragmentation

for non-agricultural purposes.

The continued use of this for a diversity of agricultural operations

intended to support agri-businesses and agricultural specialty

industries. Outcomes include: a. A vibrant agricultural area that

supports the diversity of the County’s agricultural sector by

capitalizing on the County’s strong agriculture land base; b. The

creation of more agriculture related employment opportunities

for residents in the Tri- Region; c. Retention and protection of

prime agricultural lands from non-agricultural fragmentation and

urban expansion, and the minimization of land speculation

practices that encourage non-agricultural type developments;

and, d. The protection of the subsurface Wagner Natural Area

aquifer, and the conservation and enhancement of natural

features such as wetlands and riparian areas for the improved

water quality and quantity, and ecosystem services. trying to

reduce land fragmentation for non-agricultural purposes,

especially for multi-parcel (County Residential) developments.

The areas adjacent to urban municipalities are highly susceptible

to speculative practices including the purchasing of land for

future residential development and fragmentation for non-

agricultural uses.

Sub-AreaParkland

Prime Ag: Small Holdings

4. Subdivision 5. Tools 6. Other commentsParkland County’s Land Use Bylaw

has not yet been updated to

incorporate policy directions in






reviewed to ensure the overall

intent and identified uses in the

MDP for this area have been

captured.











The LESA tool could be used allow

the County to include those lands

that may have been excluded before

for the purposes of better

expanding its agricultural base in

value-added/specialty areas. The

LESA evaluation will also help the

County provide a stronger rationale

for why lands in the Small Holdings

area need to be protected from

future non-agricultural land uses,

speculative land practices and

annexation.

Lands in the area are the most susceptible to

land speculation, and landowner expectations

may not align with County’s goals for this area.

The Small Holdings area is also the area within

the County that may be most susceptible to

future urban annexation. While land uses in this

area have been defined by the County in the

MDP, further refinement is needed to ensure

the area is developed in such a way as to meet

its desired outcomes and minimize its

challenges. The area – due to its proximity to

existing urban communities – may also be

susceptible to future annexations which would

consume some of the Region’s most productive

soils for urban sprawl and impacts on the

Wagner / Big Lake surface and subsurface

drainage and aquifer.

Sub-Area 1. Intent 2. Characteristics 3. OutcomesSturgeon A Support the existing agricultural production that

includes livestock grazing, mixed farming

operations, hay and forage production and

equestrian facilities while promoting further

agricultural uses such as small parcel agriculture

that are suitable for the neighbourhood's

topography and that co-exist easily with rural

residential.

Equestrian, Upicks, Market Gardens,

Livestock Grazing, Mixed Grain & Cattle

Operations, Hay and Forage Production

Example Agricultural Support Services:

Calahoo Meats, West Sturgeon Ag Society

Sturgeon B Balance gravel extraction activities and crop and

livestock production and ensure that

reclamation efforts result in land that is

conducive to agricultural production.

Gravel Extraction activities a priority in this

area; Reclaimed land is reverted back into

Ag Production. Villeneuve Airport-

technological challenges eg. UAV use

Sturgeon G Ensure that agriculture remains an integrated

part of rural residential development by

promoting agriculture systems that compliment

residential use such as small parcel agriculture

and agri-tourism.

Equestrian, Market Gardens, Dairy

Operations, Silage and Grain Production

Sturgeon H Support agriculture as the primary land use in

this urban and industrial interface area.

Equestrian

Strathcona

Beaver Hills

Primarily for environmenatl conservation, but

allows ag, recreation, tourism, limited

residential, etc.

Envoronmentally sensitive overall Limit fragmentation, reduce impact on environment & adjacent

lands. Residential limited to single dwellings and collective

communal housing.

Sub-AreaSturgeon A

Sturgeon B

Sturgeon G

Sturgeon H

Strathcona

Beaver Hills

4. Subdivision 5. Tools 6. Other comments

Urban Interface, Residential Development

creates potential for land-use conflicts, CFB

Edmonton- airport

Urban Interface, Large Traffic Volumes

Limited to one parcel out of

unsubdivided quarter. A quarter

section can be either split in half

or one lot between 0.8 and 2.0

ha may be subdivided out for an

existing dwelling.


only one parcel allowed per quarter

Sub-Area 1. Intent 2. Characteristics 3. OutcomesSturgeon

F: Overlay

Support environmentally sustainable agriculture

initiatives in this area to ensure that water

resources are protected and available should

they be required for irrigation crops.

Irrigated Production (Sod, Potatoes, Market

Gardens)

All Municipalities

Future Development

Other areas which are interim agriculture until

future residential or industrial development etc.

Sturgeon

I: Industrial

Maintain existing agricultural uses and support

services while attracted other industries that

support or compliment agricultural production.


Gardens), Feedlots, Example Agricultural

Support Services: Canola Crushing Facility

(Bunge), Input Suppliers/ Agronomists/

Custom Services, Fertilizer Production

(Agrium/Nutrien),

Sturgeon

J: Industrial

Ensure that agriculture remains a viable land use

in this area and promote the production of

alternative crops that require irrigation, which is

already established in many parts of this

neighbourhood.


Gardens)

Sub-AreaSturgeon

F: Overlay

All Municipalities

Future Development

Sturgeon

I: Industrial

Sturgeon

J: Industrial

4. Subdivision 5. Tools 6. Other commentsEnvironmentally sensitive area (Sturgeon

River), ideal location for operations that

prioritize Environmentally Sustainable

Agricultural Practices

Industrial Heartland, Corporate Land Ownership

(many acres of rented land vs Family owned),

Highly Productive Wetlands (Environmentally

Sensitive

Sub-Area 1. Intent 2. Characteristics 3. OutcomesEdmonton

Energy & Technology Park

To provide a location for future industrial

development that includes petrochemical

processing and related industry taking

advantage of the location as part of and in close

proximity to the Alberta’s Industrial Heartland

as well as conventional light, medium and heavy

industrial uses and related businesses including

research and development in this part of

Alberta. Development in this area has significant

infrastructure requirements and until those

investments are made, agriculture remains the

current land use.

agriculture remains the current land use.The

EETP plan area is substantial at over 5200

ha. It is expected that agricultural uses will

continue on these lands as the predominant

uses for decades to come. Build out of this

area for industrial and related uses could be

35 to 50 years which is normal in

petrochemical development and the energy

sector.

Viable agricultural activity, that may include continued general

agricultural (eg. crops, market gardens) or new agricultural

processing or agri-businesses, that are not in conflict with the

development of new industrial development.

Edmonton

Fresh & Community Gardens

Urban agriculture is a permitted land use under

Edmonton’s Zoning Bylaw. Urban agriculture

activities include: community or rooftop

gardens, urban outdoor farms and urban indoor

farms.

A positive outcome is that the City of Edmonton: allows for urban

beekeeping , runs a pilot project for keeping urban hens, partners

with Northlands to increase local food purchasing and educates

the public on urban agriculture activities. Encourage of further

urban agricultural activities, both on public and private lands. It

would be good to see proper maintenance for all of the

community gardens for the future and that no city-owned lands

are taken out of agricultural production.

Sub-AreaEdmonton

Energy & Technology Park

Edmonton

Fresh & Community Gardens

4. Subdivision 5. Tools 6. Other commentsLESA may assist in encouraging

agricultural processing or agri-

businesses within certain parts of

the EETP. The highest capability

agricultural lands including in buffer

areas to heavy industrial sites and as

part of required reclamation plans

for such sites could be identified

with LESA and saved for future

agricultural use. A detailed

reclamation plan is required by the

Alberta Government under the

Environmental Protection and

Enhancement Act (EPEA)(1993 with

amendments to 2018) for an

applicable application for approval

of a heavy industrial project.

Whether to allow interim uses that are not

allowed in the current Agricultural zoning and

that can be supported on interim servicing (eg.

Storage uses, that would be provided through

rezoning to AGI Industrial Reserve Zone).

Agricultural zoning applies to the vast majority

of the Plan Area. Interim uses must be

compatible with the long term vision of an

industrial park.

It’s difficult to determine how LESA

could be used to prioritize urban

agricultural properties. A LESA

score might help if there was a

concern about a loss of some of

these community gardens and a

prioritization had to be made.

Attachment 2:

Sub-Areas as the Basic Planning Tool

Introduction: Sub-Areas for RAMP

The Edmonton Metropolitan Region (EMR) is a large and complex area.

There is a diversity of physical settings: soils vary considerably in their inherent ability to sustain various kinds of agriculture such as large field crops or grazing; they are intermixed with a variety of sensitive environmental areas such as river valleys or the Beaver Hills Moraine; and they may have other natural resources such as coal, gravel or peat.

There is a variety of contextual factors: proximity to urban development; relationship to existing infrastructure such as roads and railways. There is a variety of planning policy objectives: previous commitments for other land uses such as industry or country residential nearby or within agricultural areas.

As such, different parts of the EMR likely require different outcomes. Hence a different regulatory framework from a regional perspective may be needed, as well as the need to consider agriculture in the EMR by looking at the unique challenges and opportunities of sub-areas.

As part of the Regional Agricultural Master Plan (RAMP) process, a first step in considering what might be suitable sub-areas was to have the municipalities define their agricultural planning sub-areas. Each municipality had a slightly different approach to defining sub-areas, but approximately 20 sub-areas were identified. However, this seems to be too many to be addressed at the regional level. Therefore, an attempt was made to identify similarities in planning objectives and characteristics so that three major sub-areas were defined, as follows:

1. Agricultural Small Holdings: These lands are located primarily, partially encirclingmuch of the Edmonton region’s developed area, just outside the boundary of the Metropolitan Area tier of the Regional Growth Plan. They are in the four counties: Strathcona, Leduc, Parkland and Sturgeon. Soil types are generally highly productive, but a key characteristic is the policy intent for generally supporting agricultural value-added businesses and specialty operations on smaller tracts of land closer to urban amenities.

2. Large-Scale Field Crop Areas: These lands are generally the remaining largecontiguous areas of level high quality agricultural land. They are a significant portion ofthe rural area within the EMR. There is some overlap with boundary between theMetropolitan Core and the Metropolitan Area. There is a general desire to avoidfragmentation and conversion in this area in all four counties.

Item 7Attachment 2


3. Mixed Livestock/Limited Crop Areas: These lands occur primarily in the western portion of the EMR—in Parkland and Leduc Counties. There tends to be more concern in these areas, because of the natural characteristics, for the protection of major areas for environmental conservation. Perhaps, the Beaver Hills Moraine area in Strathcona should be included in this sub-area.

Other Considerations:

1. It is important to note that the “Natural Living System” of environmentally sensitive areas (such as the North Saskatchewan River Valley, Beaver Hills Moraine, etc.) overlap other sub-areas and needs to be addressed with respect to agriculture. As well, there are more environmental areas identified at the municipal level.

2. There are major areas (coal mining in Parkland and Leduc, peat mining in Parkland,

gravel extraction in Sturgeon) that come into play in determining agricultural policy.

3. Other potential agricultural areas might be identified within urban boundaries.

4. There are lands within both urban and rural municipalities that have been identified for

non-agricultural development (residential, country residential, industrial) that will remain in agriculture for decades.

5. Finally, there may be ‘Special Areas’ defined by soils, climate, slope and/or infrastructure

– for example, Sturgeon County’s Neighbourhood F is identified as supporting environmentally sustainable agricultural initiatives under irrigated production (sod, seed potatoes and market gardens). Strathcona, Parkland, and Leduc Counties also have areas of unique soils that enable the production of potatoes or other high valued crops.


Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community

RAMP Reference Map 7: Agriculture Sub-Areas

²Coordinate System: 3TM114-83Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: North America 1983Central Meridian: -1140 10 20 30 405

km

*Draft* - September 13, 2018

Parkland County

Leduc CountyWarburg

Thorsby

Calmar

Devon

Stony Plain

Spruce Grove

St.Albert

Morinville

Sturgeon County

Legal

Red Water

Bon Accord Gibbons

Fort Saskatchewan

Sherwood Park

Beaumont

Leduc

Strathcona County

Wabamun

Edmonton

Bremner

Agriculture Sub-AreaLarge Holdings

Mixed/LimitedSmall Holdings

Municipal Boundary

Regional RoadsUrban Service Area

First Nations

Agriculture Boundary

Item 7Attachment 3


Page 1 of 1



Regional Agriculture Master Plan – RAMP Communications Strategy

Recommended Motion: That the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force approve the Communications Strategy.

Background and Status

• On May 7, 2018, the RAMP landing page went live on the EMRB website. It includes the ProjectTOR, Task Force Members, Meeting Information, FAQs, links to the regional ag studies and plansand an option for comments and questions.

• RAMP webpage continues to update meeting agendas and minutes, and with basic data.• With RAMP vision discussions, it is a good time to begin a more robust – but appropriate for the

process – communications strategy

Proposal

• Strategic Long goal: Value of Agriculture and RAMP to the EMR is understood by regionalresidents and businesses

• Phased approach:

2018 – Context: Regional elected officials, municipal staff and stakeholders are familiar withpurpose and process of RAMP

o Begin changing level of agriculture awareness in the Region:• Basics of Agriculture• Scale, scope and importance of Agriculture in EMR• How RAMP is a link to promoting and preserving agriculture in the Region

o Empower Task Force members to champion RAMP as crucial to future of the sector andits significance as EMRB’s first order of business for GP implementation

2019 – Content: As RAMP unfolds, continue and expand 2018 activities to include more content, educative components (especially the LESA) and materials for larger regional audience

o Election campaigno Prepare for Post-election advocacyo Build up awareness for RAMP conclusions

2020 – Plan completion and delivery: Campaign related to most important RAMP conclusions

Attachment: • DRAFT COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY: EMRB Regional Agriculture Master Plan

Item 8


DRAFT

21/09/2018

RAMP COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY REGIONAL AGRICULTURE MASTER PLAN TASK FORCE

Item 8 Attachment 1


Dra�

21/09/2018 RAMP COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY 1

RAMP COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY

PURPOSE

To use the pla�orm of the RAMP to raise the profile of agriculture in the region and its complexity, and to establish the importance and posi�on of RAMP in long term growth planning

TARGET AUDIENCE

• Primary audience: Board members, alternates, member councils, CAOs, member administrations • Secondary audience: Regional Agriculture (RAMP) stakeholders, Alberta Agriculture, Agriculture and

Agri-Food Canada, Regional provincial elected officials, regional media • Tertiary audience: Regional public

CONTEXT

The regional view of Agriculture is new, and the complexity of agriculture itself is poorly understood. In each county and in the City of Edmonton there have been varied approaches to agriculture. It is the integration of these approaches toward an “Edmonton Metro” perspective in alignment with the regional growth plan that is the purpose of the Regional Agriculture Master Plan.

The Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan was approved by the province on October 26, 2017, after a 30-month comprehensive review and update of the initial 2010 Regional Growth Plan. As the first act of the 2017 Growth Plan implementation, the now designated Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board struck the Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force in spring 2018.

The Task Force is composed of seven Board members (three of whom are newly elected) and a technical team of expert regional administrators, plus provincial and federal representation. An EMRB project manager and a consultant team support the Task Force. The RAMP is scheduled to be complete by the spring of 2020.

TO ACHIEVE OUTCOMES

TARGET AUDIENCE NEEDS TO KNOW

The RAMP Task Force is addressing complex issues thoroughly and transparently, with the assistance of all municipalities, key agriculture stakeholders, and regional experts toward the creation of a fully regional plan for a thriving, diverse and internationally renowned agriculture and food sector aligned with the principles of the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan.

TARGET AUDIENCE BELIEVES

The realities of change in modern agriculture are increasingly difficult and are poorly understood by the public, making planning and discussion evermore challenging. The industry is under tremendous change and suffers from misconceptions about what that change means. It is also without a clear unified voice and message about its current position and future potential. Finally, its stakeholders are increasingly fragmented.


Dra�


CALL TO ACTION

Primary and secondary audiences use the RAMP process as a means to inform the public of the facts and transform general understanding of what Agriculture is and what RAMP means to this region.

MESSAGES

Draft messaging* requires approval, presented in the following format.

• Headline message: o Why

Proof points

See example messages page 4

MEDIA

The messages will determine the most effective media to employ, e.g.

• Personal contact – As advocacy: RAMP Task Force champion key messages and put a face to the issue for key members of target audiences

• Social media – To inform: Scheduled and consistent drum beat of basic regional agriculture facts as Did You Knows, news as it happens, meeting reporting

• Webpage – To inform: Truth source

• Chair’s blog – To inform, Personalize issues: Telling the stories to frame key messages

• Mainstream Media (MSM) – To extend main messages, news, broaden profile of RAMP, TF members, immediate issues

Regional RAMP meetings and Road Shows underscore RAMP’s importance, transparency, and interest in broadening understanding of agriculture and broad input.

MESSENGERS

While all RAMP Task Force members are the “face” of the issue, it is important to consider who will be the most effective messenger(s) for any message. An important consideration in choosing a messenger is peer-to-peer, as well as:

• Influence. Many audiences have confidence in people with a clear position of influence in the organization.

• Expertise. Other audiences prefer a messenger with demonstrated knowledge and experience in the subject area.

• Relationship. A strong prior relationship with the audience can enhance a messenger’s credibility.

MEASUREMENT

Have the outcomes re: knowledge, beliefs, action been achieved? Options for measurement:


Dra�


• Survey on audience attitudes before and after

• Improvements in traffic to webpage, retweets, MSM coverage

• Soft improvement of “attitudes” amongst audiences

TIMELINE

SEPTEMBER TO DECEMBER 2018

Create social awareness and personalize the RAMP process using inexpensive tools

WEBPAGE Task Force members profiles with “Why I am on the Task Force” added to page

**Chair’s Blog: Called “En Route, Dispatches along a regional journey” to highlight RAMP progress, meeting updates, to personalize insight/voice for the RAMP Task Force… activity posted to reCAP and social media

See example blog page 6

EMRB staff and Task Force members

EMRB staff with Chair

SOCIAL MEDIA Twitter: • ***Create database of “Did you know?” facts about agriculture

generally and about regional agriculture for regular posting. Use webpage copy as further content See example tweets page 7

• Post Chair’s Blog

• Live tweets during RAMP consultations, info sessions, and

personal contacts

• Linked In: Post related agriculture articles/commentary as

appropriate and available, including Chair’s Blog

EMRB staff

EMRB staff

EMRB staff and TF members


NOVEMBER 23 TASK FORCE MEETING

Review Communications Strategy measures and course correct as needed


Dra�


JANUARY TO MAY 2019 – DETAILS TBD

AS RAMP UNFOLDS

Continue and expand successful 2018 activities

More content, educative materials and advocacy post provincial election

Build up awareness for RAMP conclusions

Explore options for a launch campaign in 2020


OCTOBER 2019

REGIONAL SYMPOSIUM

Showcase Regional Agriculture and RAMP messages

Highlight importance of RAMP as Growth Plan’s first implementation


SPRING 2020

RAMP COMPLETION

If approved, develop RAMP Launch Campaign EMRB staff and TF members

EXAMPLES OF MATERIALS

*EXAMPLE DRAFT MESSAGES

1. Key message: Agriculture is changing but clearly a regional priority for long term prosperity

Why - Ag sector is a major economic driver

Proof point #1 Proof point #2 Proof point #3

Second largest region industry

Regional view means effective responsible growth

Diversification is a reality

Higher returns Maximize potential by building on strengths

Fewer, more diverse operations

Growing Ag and food business culture

Align with GP Value-added potential

Identified by Edmonton Global as priority for international investment

Non-renewable resource

2. Key message: RAMP will ensure responsible sustainable growth of agriculture in EMR

Why - Will provide certainty and flexibility for thriving ag sector


Dra�


Proof point #1 Proof point #2 Proof point #3

By identifying ag land use areas

By supporting ag infrastructure

By reducing issues between ag and other industries

Minimize fragmentation Hard and soft infrastructure Collaboration and consultation across sub-sectors

Minimize conversion Align with GP Clear vision, principles and policies

Accommodate compatible and supportive land use

**EXAMPLE DRAFT CHAIR’S BLOG

EN ROUTE: Dispatches along a regional journey ON RAMP: The Regional Agriculture Master Plan for the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Dispatch #1 [(date]

Welcome to the story of RAMP and agriculture in Edmonton Metro.

En route means we’re on our way toward a meaningful Regional Ag Master Plan – a la and in response to our award-winning Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan.

I’m proud to be the Chair of the RAMP Task Force. Along with my elected colleagues and expert advisors, we are tasked with the challenge of creating a made-for-Edmonton-Metro solution to the problems of a rapidly changing agriculture and food sector under siege because of a perceived endless supply of land in the Region.

It’s true – we have a lot of land. But it happens to represent some of the best agricultural soils in the country and even the world. Canada is projected to be one of only a handful of food producers in a fast approaching future, and we are in the “bread basket” of Canada, so protecting and conserving the best of that bountiful land is crucial.

So we are facing a challenge, yes, but there’s also the huge opportunity – how can we accommodate a doubling of the region’s population while maintaining a momentum in our ag sector that sees us doing more with less, differently, but more effectively, than just 30 years ago?

Technology and social awareness are on our side. I’ll be keeping you up to date with our progress as we go. But first let me introduce you to our team:

[…INSERT LIST: Name, day job, RAMP position, what you’re here for, what would success look like, etc.] Till next time,

- Mayor Rod Shaigec, Chair, RAMP Task Force


Dra�


***TWEETS USED DURING LOCAL FOOD WEEK AUG 19-25, 2018

@yegmetroAg

• Did you know your favourite McDonalds hamburger is locally produced in #yegmetro region? Well done Cargill Canada @CitySpruceGrove #ablocalfoodweek #eatlocal #yegmetroag

• GOOD DIRT! Our region has 35% of Alberta's Class 1 soils! #yegmetroAg #downtoearth #ABlocalfoodweek

• Did you know: As many as 50% of millennial meals are delivered through new market channels eg. @ubereats @skipthedishes@organicbox @amazon #yegmetroAg#ABlocalfoodweek

• No matter how you get your local produce, don't forget to #thankafarmer. #yegmetroAg#ABlocalfoodweek #eatlocal

• In honour of #ablocalfoodweek why not plan a trip and visit the source of Alberta’s agricultural riches? Check out open farm days this weekend. You won’t have far to travel. Enjoy the sites and don’t forget to #thankafarmer! #foodforthought #yegmetroag

• Did you know: #yegmetro livestock population includes 1600 bison, 2200 goats and almost 25,000 colonies of bees #yegmetroAg#madeinalberta

• Building a Regional Agriculture Master Plan (RAMP) will ensure long-term agricultural land base with a clear vision for agriculture and food in the #yegmetro region. #sustainablefuture#ABlocalfoodweek #yegmetroAg


URBAN SHADOW, THE IMPERMANENCE SYNDROME AND

URBAN SPRAWL PRESENTED TO: REGIONAL AGRICULTURE MASTER PLAN

TASK FORCE

JERRY BOUMA TOMA & BOUMA MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS

SEPTEMBER 21, 2018

Item 12


1 of 4| P a g e

Urban Shadow, the Impermanence Syndrome, and Urban Sprawl

A discussion of farmland protection begs the question: what lands are to be protected and why? The answer lies firstly in an understanding of the impacts of urbanization on agriculture. This is also known as the urban shadow effect or the Impermanence Syndrome and commonly results in urban sprawl.

The urban shadow can be defined as the land area that experiences the effects (direct and indirect) of urbanization on adjoining or nearby lands which are typically rural. Conceptually it is straightforward: the urban shadow is simply the direct and indirect influence on rural lands and communities – an effect that would not otherwise exist without the presence of a large and growing urban centre. Farmers reduce their investments in their farms as they perceive the sale of their land for development is inevitable.

Significantly, a review of the literature illustrates that the terms “urban shadow” and “urban sprawl” are directly correlated. It is agreed that the larger the “urban sprawl” due to the urban center in question, the greater the “shadow” and “impermanence” of agriculture it creates. While the two dynamics (and terms) are highly inter-related, it is useful however to draw a distinction. To this end, we provide the following:

Urban Sprawl – the areas on which urban development is actually taking place. Note: the term urban sprawl typically refers to areas that are adjacent to a major urban centre or major transportation corridors and are often characterized as low density. Urban Shadow – the areas that are directly and indirectly influenced by urban development. While ‘lands’ in the shadow may not host any development per se, they are nevertheless impacted by nearby urban development as farmers reduce investments in their farms as they await the sale of their land for development.

The urban shadow effect is particularly evident in Canada and the USA post World War 2 and the establishment of a vastly improved transportation system1. Consequently, many citizens could now consider housing and life style alternatives beyond traditional city living – hence the development of suburbs, country residential acreages and estates with larger lots with much less intensive development compared to the inner city. As cities grew out instead of up both urban sprawl and accordingly the effects of the urban shadow increased. The “urban shadow” will always be larger than those areas that are referred to as “urban sprawl”.

It is our conclusion that the urban shadow effect is directly proportional to the following factors:

1. The growth pressures emanating from the urban centre itself. Thus, the greater the growth (or the prospect of growth), the larger the urban shadow effect and the more farmers will

1 In particular, this as the commitment by the USA to build a comprehensive inter-state multi-lane highway system in early 1950’s. Canada followed suit with the opening of the first four lane highway christened the Queen Elizabeth Way between Toronto and Fort Erie in 1953 which began what is now known as the Golden Horseshoe.


2 of 4| P a g e

reduce investments in their farms as they perceive the inevitable sale of their land for development.

2. The spatial location and quality of the transportation linkages emanating from the urban centre. For example, the expansion of a two-lane road to a four lane highway or the establishment of a commuter train line will dramatically increase the urban show effect as will sewer lines.

3. The willingness of the neighbouring municipalities (either adjacent or in close proximity) to manage or limit urban growth2. This is expressed by the current municipal by-laws as well as the land re-zoning history.

In addition there is a fourth and a critical influencing factor:

4. The effectiveness of political lobbying for or against urban development. Lobbying and/or political influence is a huge factor. We would argue that the more malleable a municipality is to political influence (namely development interests) the greater the urban shadow effect.

The Stages

The urban shadow effect, hence its size and spatial configuration in any specific urban area typically goes through the several stages. These are listed and detailed as follows: (Note: these are not necessarily sequential; some stages will occur in sequence while other stages develop in parallel).

2 (A two-fold dynamic: the likelihood of the growing municipality such as a City to annex lands from adjoining municipalities; versus the development receptivity of the impacted municipality – some are growth oriented; some will take efforts to defer or deflect growth.

Urban Shadow: The Stages

1. Early stage signals – in response to growth forecasts or simply by virtue of proximity.

2. Speculation – in response to early stage signals and/or new growth forecasts. Land purchases and options to purchase by speculators and developers begin.

3. Development of industrial/commercial uses – particularly those that are difficult to locate in urban settings.

4. Emergence of ‘urban’ oriented agricultural enterprises – market gardens; fruit operations; greenhouses; nurseries; U-Pick; equine operations/horse farms; agri-recreation enterprises. Meanwhile, traditional intensive livestock operations (dairy, beef feedlot, swine and poultry) will increasingly leave the area.

5. Later stage growth signals – statements and/or commitments by the province or municipality to build infrastructure (new or expanded roads, LRT lines, designated urban growth areas). Farmers reduce investments in their farms as they perceived the inevitable sale of their land for development.

6. Major changes in land ownership – as signals become stronger and more certain, developers will start making land purchases or options from local farmers and land owners.

7. Final Transition phase, includes: • More land being farmed on a lease basis as farmers sell to a new generation of land developers and land

owners (mostly crops; little livestock). • The loss of the agricultural community and rural character. • Development – land is rezoned and development begins. Agriculture will be phased out.


3 of 4| P a g e

Impacts due to the urban shadow effect are both positive and negative. On the positive side, there are

• Market opportunities – being close to a large population creates new markets for crops and livestock, as well as new markets for additional higher value crops such as vegetables and fruit. Also new enterprises such as bed and breakfasts, tours, feature food & harvest events become feasible.

• Access to labour and services (professional, technical) – proximity to large populations provides a source of labour and expertise (technical, financial, research) that are not readily available to rural locations.

• Ability to spread risk – new entrepreneurs wishing to establish rural enterprises are better able to do so if they are able to maintain a source of non-agricultural income (jobs in the city) while they build their businesses.

• Ability to capture and transfer value – the increased land values due to urban development enable some farmers to sell ‘high’ and transfer these assets to purchase much larger areas of agricultural land elsewhere.

The negative impacts include the following:

• Loss of agricultural lands and the associated production - as the area transitions and more lands are farmed on a leased based, land stewardship and agronomic practices declines.

• Increased Nuisance Factors – farmers operating adjacent to or in proximity to non-farm residents face a wide array of potential issues and complaints which simply makes the business of farming more challenging. These include:

a) Conflicts with neighbours who complain about noise, dust, odour, specific operations such as spraying, fertilizing or harvesting. This author knows of one case where a person working on his combine late at night was stopped by the RCMP in response to a local resident complaint. The ‘nuisance’ factor associated with livestock manure is the primary reason why intensive livestock operations exit the urban shadow.

b) Trespassing, vandalism and yield loss, not uncommon in fields that are located near to urban areas. For example, an invasion of all-terrain vehicles (ATV’s) and dirt bikes on farm land is not uncommon.

• Increased Safety Concerns – a major and growing issue with farmers who move large tractors and field equipment. Not only are existing roads limited with respect to ease of movement and the capacity to accommodate wide machinery, the increase in motor vehicle traffic particularly drivers who use rural roads to short cut distances to industrial work places in the area, pose a major safety challenge.


4 of 4| P a g e

• Increased Operational Costs – associated costs with moving equipment and added time spent maneuvering smaller and non-contiguous fields that tend to be more common in urban shadow areas.

• Increased Air and Water pollution – due mainly to automobile emissions and water runoff. Sewage pollution is also possible depending upon the specific local infrastructure. These pollutants can affect water supplies (ground water or streams) being used by farmers and have deleterious effects on livestock or crop production.

• Loss of farm support business infrastructure – as the area ‘urbanizes’, many rural focused business such as machinery dealers, input suppliers, large animal veterinarians, feed companies exit, leaving local farmers without local services, necessitating the access of services at greater distances.

• Loss of community – the result of exiting farmers and rural businesses. Without question, the community changes socially as well as economically.

At a broader societal level, there are also additional benefits and costs. For example, agriculture is responsible for carbon sequestration, buffering of water ways, acting as ‘water’ reservoirs that decrease the prospect of flooding, the provision of plant and animal habitat. Specific to costs, urban sprawl is associated with four major categories of population health risks: (1) physical inactivity due to higher levels of automobile use; (2) air quality – increased air pollution due to increased emissions such as nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds and fine particles; (3) motor vehicle collisions; and (4) mental health risks.3 These are only identified and not discussed further in this paper.

3 Alberta Health Services. “Urban Sprawl and Health.” Healthy Public Policy Information Sheet. October 2009.


Clymont Hall: #1, 51423 – Hwy 60 Spruce Grove, AB

https://goo.gl/maps/jaxUSVVGFkF2

Item 13


https://goo.gl/maps/jaxUSVVGFkF2

Documents

Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Forceemrb.ca/.../2e/2e2b95e9-3964-43e6-ae5f-bfbe072b192e.pdf · 2018-10-04 · Regional Agriculture Master Plan Task Force Meeting Minutes: Friday,