1. Agricultural Land Capability Background

Transcription

1 Contents Introduction Agricultural Land Capability Background Electoral Area B ALR Boundary Review Baynes Lake Official Community Plan Agricultural Capability within the Electoral B ALR Boundary Review Conclusions Recommendations References

2 Introduction The purpose of this brief report is to firstly outline the background of agricultural capability of land within the Agriculture Land Reserve (ALR) designated by the Agriculture Land Commission (ALC) in British Columbia (BC). Secondly, to briefly summarise the classification capability and subclass limitations of land within the ALR before determining the current designated capability of the parcels of land affected by the client in Baynes Lake, East Kootenay. This report also highlights appropriate guidance and regulations from applicable plans and legislation to support the client with recommended further action. The Baynes Lake subarea is comprised of both private and Crown land. The subarea is largely comprised of smaller acreages with a number of 2.ha parcels, some larger agricultural parcels that are still utilized for production, and a significant number of undeveloped, subdivided Crown land parcels utilized for grazing. Most of the subarea is within the ALR (Baynes Lake, 2011 PP.3). Approximately 9.6% (265,910.ha) of the total Regional District of East Kootenay land base (primarily along the valley bottoms of the Columbia, Kootenay, and Elk River drainages) is considered agricultural land and designated to the ALR. Approximately a third of the ALR land is privately owned, while the remainder is Crown owned and managed for multiple uses (grazing, wildlife, forestry, mining, etc.) rather than exclusively for agriculture use (VAST Resource Solutions Inc., 2013). In terms of land use, approximately 8.8% (23,361.ha) of the ALR is associated with farming activity, with cultivated lands for field crop and tame forage production (10,757.ha) and livestock grazing on land with soil and/or topography limitations (11,823.ha) representing the major land uses. An additional 21.79% of the ALR (57,940.ha) is available and has potential for agriculture but is not presently being used, while another 5.98% (15,890.ha) with limitations for cultivated use is potentially available for livestock grazing. A large portion (157,008.ha) of the ALR was not inventoried due to access issues and other land uses. A majority of this land is Crown owned, most of this is likely associated with grazing leases (VAST Resource Solutions Inc., 2013). 2

3 1. Agricultural Land Capability Background 1.1 The ALC (2014) states that not all agricultural lands are created equally and thus not all agricultural land is capable of, or suitable for the production of any or all agricultural products. Some agricultural land can be more suitable for particular crops than others. 1.2 The Land Capability Classification for Agriculture in British Columbia (1983) groups the general suitability and capability of soils for agricultural use into 7 use classes based upon their relative degree of limitation. The limitation of agricultural use progressively intensifies from Class 1 - Class 7 as does the need for management practices to overcome these limitations (VAST Resource Solutions Inc., 2013). The classes which indicate the relative capability of the land for agriculture use are as follows: Classification Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Capability Land in this class either has no or only very slight limitations that restrict its use for the production of common agricultural crops. Land in this class has minor limitations that either require ongoing management practices or slightly restrict the range of crops, or both. Land in this class has limitations that either require moderately intensive management practices or moderately restrict the range of crops, or both. Land in this class has limitations that either require special management practices or severely restrict the range of crops, or both. Land in this class has limitations that restrict its capability to producing perennial forage crops or other specially adapted crops. Land in this class is non-arable but is capable of producing native and/or uncultivated perennial forage crops. Land in this class has no capability for arable culture or sustained natural grazing. Ministry of Agriculture & Food and Ministry of Environment (1983) 1.3 The capability subclasses are used to indicate lands with similar types but varying degrees of limitations. The BC Land Inventory system uses the following capability subclass limitations: Subclass Indicator Subclass Indicator A/M Moisture Deficiency P Stoniness C Adverse Climate R Depth to Consolidated Bedrock D Undesirable Soil Structure S Combined Limitations A/M, D, F & N E Existing Erosion Damage T Topography F Low Fertility W Excess Water I Inundation by Streams and Lakes X Cumulative Minor Adverse Characteristics N Salinity (Soluble Salts) Z Permafrost Ministry of Agriculture & Food and Ministry of Environment (1983) 3

4 1.4 Together the capability class and subclass provide information about the degree and type of limitations restricting agricultural use upon a parcel of land (ALC, 2014). BC s diverse agriculture industry requires all classes of land to thrive. However, BC does have 3 dominant limiting factors: - Climate which is defined by the heat energy and moisture inputs available for agricultural production. - Soil variability which it s properties and characteristics affect the land s ability to sustain agricultural products. - Topography which can limit access to and/or the ability to use cultivation equipment (ALC, 2014). 1.5 Climate constitutes the basic limitation for agricultural land uses regardless of soil conditions. Thus, it forms the basis for agricultural capability ratings. The East Kootenay area, due to its mountainous terrain, includes a wide variety of climates, categorized into climate capability for agriculture classes on the basis of freeze free periods, number of growing degree days above 5o C, climatic moisture deficit (or surplus) and typical crop ranges (VAST Resource Solutions Inc., 2013). 1.6 The classification system utilizes a numeric system with Class 1 having the highest climatic capability and Class 7 having the lowest. Fairly extensive areas of Class 2 occur on the floor of both the Rocky Mountain Trench and the Elk Valley below Sparwood. Raspberries, strawberries and warm season vegetables such as lettuce, carrots, beets, radishes and turnips can be successfully grown in these areas. Class 3 climates also occur on valley floors, but further into the mountains and at slightly higher elevations. Typical crops that can be grown include cool season vegetables such as potatoes, lettuce, peas, spinach, cauliflower and cabbage. The shorter freeze free period of Class 4 permits only the cultivation of hardy varieties of cool season vegetables and forage crops. Only forage crops can be produced in a Class 5 climate. At higher elevations, only native forages suitable for grazing can be grown (VAST Resource Solutions Inc., 2013). 1.7 The BC Ministry of Agriculture (2013) found that topography (T) is the most predominant limitation to agricultural capability in the East Kootenay, affecting more than 39% of lands within the ALR. Other key limitations also include soil moisture deficiency (A/M) and stoniness (P), which affect the capability of 20.2% and 11.4% of ALR land respectively (see VAST Resource Solutions Inc., 2013). 4

5 2. Electoral Area B ALR Boundary Review 2.1 The purpose of the upcoming review (November 18 th ) is to refine the ALR boundaries so that they encompass land that is both capable and suitable for agricultural use. On the ALC s own initiative, it is conducting a review pursuant to Section 29(1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act (2002) proposing to exclude land from the ALR (ALC, 2015). 2.2 Under Section 29 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act (2002) - exclusion application by a local or first nation government or the commission: 29(1) On the commission's own initiative or on application by a local government in respect of land within the local government's jurisdiction or by a first nation government in respect of the first nation's settlement lands, the commission may: (a) Exclude land from an agricultural land reserve on terms the commission considers advisable; or (b) Without excluding the land from an agricultural land reserve, grant permission for a non-farm use or subdivision in respect of the land that is the subject of the application, on any terms the commission considers advisable. 2.3 The ALR is a provincial zone in which agriculture is recognized as the priority use where farming is encouraged and non-agricultural uses are restricted. The ALR comprises 5% of BC s total land base and is the area with the greatest agricultural capacity. Non-agricultural uses and subdivisions are restricted unless approved by the ALC (ALC, 2014). 2.4 The ALC (2014) state that boundary reviews are a necessary greater method for fine-tuning ALR boundaries rather than adjudicating hundreds of differing or conflicting applications. Thus the ALR will have greater integrity, and fewer applications will be received - where boundaries are proactively reviewed to assess whether the land is, or is not, appropriately designated as ALR land. 5

6 3. Baynes Lake Official Community Plan 3.1 With the exception of approximately 72.ha of private property and 2 parcels within the Kikomun Creek Provincial Park, the remainder of the community plan area is within the ALR. The use of such land must abide by those permitted regulations of the ALC (Baynes Lake, 2011). 3.2 The community plan recognizes the need to balance protecting agricultural land while providing for future community growth opportunities. Areas suitable for exclusion from the ALR were not identified during the development of the plan. However, in recognition of the increasing growth pressures and continued fragmentation of the land base, a block exclusion of lands from the ALR should be given consideration when one or more of the following thresholds have been met: (a) A comprehensive review of the ALR lands has been conducted identifying areas suitable for exclusion; (b) At the request from a block of residents or property owners; or (c) The ALC has determined that maintaining the plan area in the ALR is no longer meeting the objectives of the Commission (Baynes Lake, 2011 PP.19). 3.3 ALR applications for exclusion, non-farm use, or subdivision of parcels 4.0 ha in size or larger must be accompanied by a report from a qualified professional unless an exemption from the requirement has been approved by the Regional District Board. The report must include the following: (a) Determination of the level of suitability and capability for both soil bound and non-soil bound agricultural production on the parcel including investigation of the terrain, soil, size, configuration and context of the agricultural lands; and (b) Identification of the impact the proposal will have on the agricultural suitability and capability of the parcel, and agricultural operations in the surrounding area (Baynes Lake, 2011 PP.20). 3.4 Applications will not be processed by Regional District staff until such time as the report has been submitted or an exemption has been granted. Requests for exemption must be provided in writing to the Regional District East Kootenay (RDEK) prior to making an application and should provide rationale for granting the exemption (Baynes Lake, 2011 PP.20). 3.5 Subdivision of parcels identified on Schedule C (see Baynes Lake, 2011a) to create parcel sizes less than 1.ha are generally not supported. However, if applications to accommodate smaller parcel sizes are received they will be reviewed on an individual basis in relation to the following criteria: (a) Compatibility of proposed development with existing and surrounding land uses and parcel sizes; 6

7 (b) Proposed lot size and density; (c) Capability to provide onsite sewage disposal in accordance with provincial requirements; (d) Potential impact of the proposal on groundwater; (e) Access to the development and proposed road networks; (f) Identification and mitigation of potential hazards (avulsion, flooding, wildfire and geotechnical); (g) Identification and mitigation measures for ecologically sensitive areas including riparian areas, wildlife habitats, and fish habitats; (h) Recognition and integration of opportunities to protect view-scapes including but not limited to building envelopes; (i) Where necessary, pre-application public consultation at the expense of the applicant; and (j) Previous Regional District of East Kootenay and Agricultural Land Commission decisions. In order to protect the ecological integrity of Baynes Lake, subdivision of properties abutting the lake is not supported (Baynes Lake, 2011 PP.7). 3.6 Under Section 21 of the Agriculture Land Commission Act (2002) - subdivision of agricultural land reserve: 21(1) A person must not subdivide agricultural land unless permitted under this Act. 21(2) An owner of agricultural land may apply to the commission to subdivide agricultural land. 7

8 4. Agricultural Capability within the Electoral B ALR Boundary Review 4.1 The document named 7b Baynes Lake Block PDF outlines the parcels of land within the Electoral B area which are under review to be excluded from the ALR. 4.2 The parcel of land occupied by the client is marked 7.27 (see 7b Baynes Lake Block PDF). The parcel of land which (if subdivided and developed) affects the client s interest and/or enjoyment of his land is marked (see 7b Baynes Lane Block PDF, 2015). 4.3 The client has expressed that the occupiers of parcels marked 7.26 and 7.25 (see 7b Baynes Lake Block PDF, 2015) also disagree with the potential above alterations to the respective parcel of land. 4.4 The document named Electoral Area B Spreadsheet states the current: land use, zoning designation, official community plan designation and agricultural capability for each parcel of land affected by the boundary review within the area. The above parcels are stated as follows: Parcel Land Use Zoning OCP Agricultural Capability Designation Designation 7.25 SFD RR-2 MH 7:6T 3:7T 7.26 SFD RR-2 MH 7:6T 3:7T 7.27 SFD RR-1 SH 7:6T 3:7T Grain & Forage RR-8 LH 9:4MP 1:3M, 7:6T 3:7T Electoral Area B Spreadsheet (2015) Initial Designations SFD Single Family Maximum of 1 unit per parcel with 33% parcel Dwelling coverage. RR Rural Resource Includes agricultural, rural residential and rural resource land uses with parcel sizes 8ha and larger. MH Medium Holdings Supports rural residential development of parcels 2ha in size. SH Small Holdings Supports low density residential development minimum parcel sizes in the range of 0.2-2ha. LH Large Holdings Supports rural residential development and rural resource land uses on parcel sizes in the range of 2 8ha. Regional District of Kootenay Boundary (1994) Baynes Lake (2011) The agricultural capability of the parcels marked: 7.25, 7.26, 7.27 and have been classified under unimproved conditions. This assumption has been made as improved conditions which support the future for agricultural capability are usually displayed in brackets after the unimproved conditions (see Ministry of Agriculture & Food and Ministry of Environment, 1983 PP.42). (a) 7:6T 3:7T - Under unimproved conditions these parcels consists of 70% (7) Class 6 (6) mineral soil with simple or complex slopes (T) and 30% (3) Class 7 8

9 (7) mineral soil with simple or complex slopes (T) (see Ministry of Agriculture & Food and Ministry of Environment, 1983). (b) 9:4MP 1:3M, 7:6T 3:7T - Under unimproved conditions this parcel consists of 90% (9) Class 4 (4) mineral soil with soil moisture deficiency (M) and stoniness (P) and 10% (1) Class 3 (3) mineral soil with soil moisture deficiency (M). Also this parcel unit consists of 70% (7) Class 6 (6) mineral soil with simple or complex slopes (T) and 30% (3) Class 7 (7) mineral soil with simple or complex slopes (T) (see Ministry of Agriculture & Food and Ministry of Environment, 1983). 4.5 Ultimately under 7:6T 3:7T diverse agricultural capability is limited. Although 60% of these parcels are designated as having simple or complex slopes, varying from 31-60% and the land in its present condition provides sustained natural grazing for domestic livestock, 30% of these parcels are designated as having simple or complex slopes, greater than 30% and the land in its present condition is not useable for either arable agriculture or sustained natural grazing by domestic livestock (see Ministry of Agriculture & Food and Ministry of Environment, 1983 PP. 29). 4.6 Ultimately under 9:4MP 1:3M, 7:6T 3:7T diverse agricultural capability is limited more so, as 100% of this parcel has been designated as land where crops are adversely affected by drought, either by insufficient precipitation or through low water holding capacity of the soil, and 90% of this parcel has been designated as soil with sufficient coarse fragments which significantly hinders tillage, planting, and/or harvesting operations (see Ministry of Agriculture & Food and Ministry of Environment, 1983 PP. 13 and 24). Additionally, 60% of this parcel is designated as having simple or complex slopes, varying from 31-60% and the land in its present condition provides sustained natural grazing for domestic livestock, and 30% is designated as having simple or complex slopes, greater than 30% and the land in its present condition is not useable for either arable agriculture or sustained natural grazing by domestic livestock (see Ministry of Agriculture & Food and Ministry of Environment, 1983 PP. 29). 4.7 The moisture (M) limitation is determined for all lands subject to soil moisture deficits during the growing season. The coarse fragment content (P) is a serious handicap to cultivation. Class 4P determines that either the total coarse fragment content is 21-40% or that cobbles and stones occupy 6-15% of the sieved soil. Although soil moisture deficiency is improvable through irrigation and stones can be removed, these subclasses will almost certainly remain as improved limitations on the land (see Ministry of Agriculture & Food and Ministry of Environment, 1983; ALC, 2014). 4.8 The ALC (2014) state that the decision to put or keep a particular parcel in agricultural production is not a sole reflection of its agricultural capability or 9

10 suitability. Agricultural business costs, physical accessibility and market vagaries may result in a certain block of land being used or left fallow and this may vary over time. 10

11 5. Conclusions 5.1 The following conclusions have been drawn from the research conducted to produce this brief report. 5.2 The purpose of the review is to refine the ALR boundaries so that they encompass land that is both capable and suitable for agricultural use. 5.3 The ALR comprises 5% of BC s total land base and is the area with the greatest agricultural capacity. Non-agricultural uses and subdivisions are restricted unless approved by the ALC (ALC, 2014). 5.4 Approximately 21.79% of the ALR (57,940.ha) is available and has potential for agriculture but is not presently being used, while another 5.98% (15,890.ha) with limitations for cultivated use is potentially available for livestock grazing (VAST Resources Solutions Inc., 2013). 5.5 BC has 3 dominant limitation factors including: climate, soil variation and topography (ALC, 2014). 5.6 BC Ministry for Agriculture (2013) found that topography (T) is the most predominant limitation to agriculture capability in the East Kootenay, affecting more than 39% of lands within the ALR. Other key limitations also include soil moisture deficiency (A/M) and stoniness (P), which affect the capability of 20.2% and 11.4% of ALR land respectively (see VAST Resource Solutions Inc., 2013). 5.7 The Baynes Lake Official Community Plan (2011) states that, in recognition of the increasing growth pressures and continued fragmentation of the land base, a block exclusion of lands from the ALR should be given consideration when certain conditions have been met (see 3.2). 5.8 The Baynes Lake Official Community Plan (2011) states that, subdivision of parcels identified on Schedule C (see Baynes Lake, 2011a) to create parcel sizes less than 1.ha are generally not supported. However, if applications to accommodate smaller parcel sizes are received they will be reviewed on an individual basis in relation to the certain criteria (see 3.5). 5.9 Under Section 21 of the Agriculture Land Commission Act (2002) land owners have the ability to apply for the subdivision of land with ALR designation (see 3.6) A Class 4 classification permits only the cultivation of hardy varieties of cool season vegetables and forage crops which are appropriate for livestock feeding, and at higher elevations only native forages suitable for grazing can be grown (VAST Resource Solutions Inc., 2013) Based upon the current agricultural capability of land parcels marked 7.25, 7.26, 7.27 and (see Electoral Area B Spreadsheet, 2015) diverse agricultural capability is limited (see 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6). 11

12 5.12 The moisture (M) limitation is determined for all lands subject to soil moisture deficits during the growing season. The coarse fragment content (P) is a serious handicap to cultivation. Class 4P determines that either the total coarse fragment content is 21-40% or that cobbles and stones occupy 6-15% of the sieved soil (see Ministry of Agriculture & Food and Ministry of Environment, 1983, PP. 13 and 24) Although soil moisture deficiency is improvable through irrigation and stones can be removed, these subclasses will almost certainly remain as improved limitations on the land (see Ministry of Agriculture & Food and Ministry of Environment, 1983; ALC, 2014) The ALC (2014) state that the decision to put or keep a particular parcel in agricultural production is not a sole reflection of its agricultural capability or suitability. 12

13 6. Recommendations 6.1 Although the findings of this brief report appear unfavourable for the client, outlined below are a few questions which could use confirmation and actions which could be undertaken to enable the client(s) to progress forwards with their concerns, and potentially provide a platform to preserve their parcels ALR designations. 6.2 When was the agricultural capability assessment undertaken and determined? 6.3 Has an improvement capability for each parcel of land been determined? 6.4 What other actions are there to help safeguard the ALR designation other than agricultural capability? 6.5 Is Electoral Area B meeting the ALC s objectives for ALR designation? If not; 6.6 Determine the minimum action required in all capacities to safeguard the ALR designation. 6.7 Determine how agriculturally willing other land owners are. Are they willing to spend to improve current agricultural capability? 6.8 Determine whether the percentages of land in East Kootenay s ALR that has the potential for agricultural use and is not being used as such is within the Baynes Lake area (see 5.4). 6.9 If subdivision is acceptable/achievable on parcel number 7.193, question that all steps, conditions and regulations have been taken, met and adhered to (see Baynes Lake, 2011 PP.7) Possibly determine the actual potential for agricultural capability (use) of parcel number is the potential use for more than grazing, possibly for growing forage crops? Class 4 has the potential to grow certain types of crops is this feasible? (see 4.6 and 5.10) Possibly calculate the costs of irrigation and stone removal could the community volunteer to help with removal/irrigation reduce costs for landowner?? 13

14 7. References 7b Baynes Lake Block PDF (2015) Available at (Accessed 9 th November 2015) Agricultural Land Commission Act (2002) Chapter 36, Available at (Accessed 11 th November 2015) Agricultural Land Commission (2014) Available at (Accessed 11 th November 2015) Agricultural Land Commission (2015) Available at (Accessed 9 th November 2015) Agricultural Land Commission (2015a) Application to Conduct a Non-Farm Use in the ALR, Available at (Accessed 14 th November 2015) Baynes Lake (2011) Official Community Plan, Available at ftp://ftp.rdek.bc.ca/planningbylaws/bayneslakeocp/bl2319bayneslakeocpconsoli dation2_oct14.pdf (Accessed 10 th November 2015) Baynes Lake (2011a) Schedule C, Available at ftp://ftp.rdek.bc.ca/planningbylaws/bayneslakeocp/bl2319_baynes_lk_ocp_alr_c _aug11.pdf (Accessed 17 th November 2015) British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture (2013) Land Use Inventory Report, Columbia Valley Region, East Kootenay, Reference No , Strengthening Farming Program, Sustainable Agriculture Management Branch Electoral Area B Spreadsheet (2015) Available at (Accessed 9 th November 2015) Ministry of Agriculture & Food and Ministry of Environment (1983) Land Capability Classification for Agriculture in British Columbia, Available at (Accessed 10 th November 2015) 14

15 Roussin. R, (2014) Agricultural Potential of the West Kootenay, B.C, Available at (Accessed 17 th November 2015) Regional District of Kootenay Boundary (1994) Electoral Area B Zoning Bylaw No. 1175, Available at (Accessed 17 th November 2015) VAST Resource Solutions Inc. (2013) Regional District East Kootenay Agricultural Plan Background Report, Available at ftp://ftp.rdek.bc.ca/pdf/agplan/rdek%20ag%20plan_background%20report%20f inal.pdf (Accessed 17 th November 2015) 15