Open Collections

 Provincial Agricultural
Land Commission
Annual Report
for the year ended
31 March 1980
4333 Ledger Avenue
Burnaby, B.C.
V5G 3T3
 The Honourable Henry P. Bell-Irving,
D.S.O., O.B.E., E.D.
Lieutenant Governor of the
Province of British Columbia
May It Please Your Honour:
Herewith I beg respectfully to submit the Annual Report and Financial Statement of
the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission for the year ended 31 March 1980.
James J. Hewitt
Minister of Agriculture
 The Honourable James J. Hewitt
Minister of Agriculture
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, B.C.
Dear Mr. Minister:
On behalf of the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission and pursuant to section
28 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, Revised Statutes, 1979,1 respectfully
submit the Annual Report and Financial Statement of the Provincial Agricultural
Land Commission for the year ended 31 March 1980.
 PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION
31 March 1980
CLARKE, Mills F., Nanaimo, B.C.—Chairman
—Former Director, Agriculture Canada Research Station, Agassiz,
CLARIDGE, Allan. (
—Orchardist
CORNWALL, C.F. (Ted). Williams Lake, B.C.—Member
—Former District Agriculturist, B.C. Ministry of Agriculture
—Professional Agrologist and Member of the Appraisal Institute of Canada
FRAMST, C.E. (Ellie). Cecil Lake, B.C.—Member
—Retired farmer (grain and forage seeds)
—Peace River-Liard Regional District Board Member for 12 years, Chairman for 7
years
—Member of the Farm Credit Corporation Appeal Board
REDEL, Walter. Victoria, B.C.—Member
—Former Director of Lands
B.C. Ministry of Lands, Parks and
ROGERS, John E. White Rock, B.C.—Member
—Former Manager of the White Rock Chamber of Commerce
ROGERS, Joseph, A. Penticton, B.C.—Member
—Former President of B.C. Livestock Producers Co-operative Association
—Member and Project Officer of B.C. Beef Industry Development Committt
 STAFF, 31 MARCH 1980
MANAGEMENT
Gordon D. Gram — Team Leader — Administration and Land Co-ordinator
Jim P. Plotnikoff — Team Leader — Technical Unit
TECHNICAL UNIT—APPLICATION PROCESSING
Shirley Brightman                 David Butler                   Lenora Melville
Holger Burke                     Bill Gilmore                      Tracy Olsen
Hope V. Burns                    Everett Lew                      Jane Perch
SOIL CONSERVATION ACT AND ENFORCEMENT
Kirk Miller                                                               Brian French
SPECIAL PROJECTS AND ALR REVIEWS
Sue Austen                                                            J. Jay Simons
CONSULTANTS
Julie Glover                    Terence Lewis                   Joan Sawicki
CLERICAL UNIT
Lynda Congram                  Kay Johnson                    Trudy Reeves
Verona Hooson                 Rose Langston                 Jean Sherwood
Denise Jankovich              Patricia Redman
 CONTENTS
Introduction	
Chairman's Comments	
General Overview of the Commission's Responsibilities and Activities
Interactions with Local Governments and Authorities	
Major Agricultural Land Reserve Reviews	
Enforcement	
Commission Farmlands	
Speeches and Meetings	
Financial Report—Schedule I Financial Statement...
Statistics—Schedule II	
Resume of types of Applications	
Cumulative Statistics	
Inclusion Statistics
9 (1) Statistics
9 (2) Statistics
9 (7) Statistics
9 (8) Statistics
 (INTRODUCTION
is is the seventh annual report of the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission. Each report is
■not simply to meet a statutory requirement, but as a reference point and an update of the
Hs year's report. Cumulatively, the annual reports tell the story of the development and
■jtration of British Columbia's farmland preservation program,
ie need to protect farmland from further subdivision and non-farm development was recog-
iy British Columbians in the early 1970's. The limited amount of this Province's land base for
lure and the implications of the annual loss of this land to urbanizing forces indicated that
Barmland resource would have to be preserved if there was to be future food production on any
: scale. When initiated, this legislation was unique, but is now complemented by a similar
STn'the Province of Quebec.
111978 the Minister of Agriculture for British Columbia set an objective for the 1980's of 65%
elf-sufficiency. This production objective, together with provincial support pro-
prthe agriculture industry, tie into the agricultural land preservation program. Such programs
i income assurance, enhanced ARDA projects and farmland taxation relief are examples of
itive approach taken by government to encourage farmland utilization. The Agricultural Land
ssion Actis a prerequisite to the long-term success of such programs to enhance and develop
Columbia's agricultural industry.
I nan's Comments
Ithe latter part of the reporting year, the Commission underwent several changes. In Novem-
■29, the Ministerial responsibility for the Agricultural Land Commission was transferred from
Kment to Agriculture. The Commission views this as a positive and appropriate move that,
illy, will encourage closer liaison with the Minister of Agriculture and his staff. In particular, the
I ssion looks forward to more intensive utilization of the technical resources of the Ministry of
I lure. At the same time, the Commission continues to view its role as an independent
I Sdicial body, kept at arm's length from political pressures, and able to make independent
I hs based on the mandate established under the Act.
ere were a number of changes in the make-up of the Commission during this reporting year.
nd Kerr resigned as Commissioner, effective 31 August 1979. G. Gary Runka, former
an, resigned as Commissioner, effective 31 October 1979. Jim P. Plotnikoff, Senior Planner
f, was appointed 1 November 1979 as Commissioner on an interim basis. In March 1980, a
I lent Chairman, Dr. M. F. Clarke, was appointed to relieve Axel Kinnear, who had been serving
I jim Chairman since January of 1979. Commissioners C. E. Framst, Joseph Rogers and
I Redel were also appointed at this time, Jim Plotnikoff then returning to his staff position. The
I y of experience among the seven Commissioners should be of benefit to the administration of
I jcultural Land Reserves.
hough the workload is ever increasing, staff complement has remained at 22 persons. The
I ssion staff are a versatile group of individuals with diverse backgrounds. In the normal course
I mission work, they act as intermediaries between the Commission and applicants, local
I js and government officials.
of February, staff and Commission participate in an in-house educational session twice
11. The purpose of these sessions is to discuss matters pertaining to agricultural land use,
I :ation and planning. The Commission and staff benefit from this continued learning series,
I mcourages communication of ideas and concepts.
I [1977, an amendment was made to the application appeal process of the Agricultural Land
I ssion Act. Under section 9 (8), applicants dissatisfied with the Commission's decision to
Exclusion of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve are now permitted to apply to the Minister
'e to appeal. The Commission is entitled to be a party at these appeal hearings before the
(jment and Land Use Committee and may take part in the proceedings. To this end, Commis-
tff spent a large amount of time this year preparing background information on appeals for
ation to the Environment and Land Use Committee.
 It has been the Commission's policy to have one Commissioner and one staff person 3
representation at these hearings. The staff agrologist may also be present to explain technical
information pertaining to soils and agricultural capability reports. The appellant may also be^j^
and, on occasion, is represented by a lawyer, and perhaps an agrologist and other expert wlfrffl	
Of the 38 requests for leave to appeal, 10 were granted by the Minister, 15 were refused and no I
decision has been made on the remaining requests. Of the 10 granted leave to appeal, 4havefl]
been heard by the Environment and Land Use Committee.
The 12-month reporting period from April 1979 to March 1980 saw the CommissionB
involved with legal matters, actively pursuing enforcement issues and attempting to cope wiffinl
unusual year of administration. The routine work of handling a large variety and increased volufjp I
applications continued but, in addition, the appeal procedure itself attracted wide public attenB I
As a result of appeal defence, enforcement problems and unusual individual application situations, the Commission has become increasingly involved with legal matters. The Homesite sK I
ance policy, initiated by the Commission in June of 1978, also requires extensive legal workbvR I
the Commission's solicitors and the applicant's legal representative.
Other costs, such as office expenses and advertising, have been kept to a minimum, altrBflj I
with additional Commissioners, fees and travel expenses have risen. The financial stat^HJ I
included with this report summarize administrative costs .under the Ministry of Environment V^H I
the entire year. For reasons of efficient bookkeeping, the Commission's Vote does not changafflB I
Ministry of Agriculture until the beginning of the 1980/81 fiscal year.
General Overview of the Commission's
Responsibilities and Activities
The Commission's authority to make decisions or recommendations on land use proposalsffiat I
affect farmland is derived from the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the Soil Conservation Act. I
Over 3,000 applications are heard in a year, and each is individually researched byjgj
reviewed by the Commission before a decision is made. Those applications that originate w^B]|
Commission and go forward to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for decision may involve sl
tial Agricultural Land Reserve review in an effort to "fine-tune" the boundary to better reflect
agricultural capability and existing land use.
Applications made by regional districts or municipalities are to the Lieutenant GoverrH
Council, but are first sent to the Agricultural Land Commission for review and recommendat^BH I
far the greatest volume of applications continues to come from individuals, government agenciepffi I
Crown corporations and it is these that require a decision by the Commission. They include |
proposals for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve, or subdivision and non-farm use vj
the Agricultural Land Reserve.
There is a routine processing procedure for all applications. Staff compiles relevant inform^pj|
such as the Canada Land Inventory agricultural capability rating, land use and parcel size, as
information on surrounding lands and previous applications. Every effort is made to rendefa
resource based decision without reference to such factors as ownership.
Schedule II shows the number of new applications considered. Not included in this daffi^^
number of new proposals received that are associated with old applications, nor the num^BJ I
requests for reconsideration. The Commission gives fair and thorough consideration to all re^^
for reconsideration of decisions where substantial new information is received or a proposal signifi-1
cantly changed. Of course, further staff research and presentation time is required and it is e'stjfj
that 20 per cent of the Commission's work is now concerned with "old" rather than new applica^H I
The Commission also deals with many applications from other provincial agencies. The Ministry |
of Lands, Parks and Housing is responsible for all Crown land in British Columbia. Crown land, il I
located in an Agricultural Land Reserve, is subject to the same provisions of the Act as privately I
owned land. Therefore, if a private individual or other government agency wishes to subdivide or use I
Crown land in an Agricultural Land Reserve for non-farm purposes, an application must be made I
through the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing to the Commission.
 ■p. Hydro and Power Authority applications principally involve permissioi
Bssion-lines and transmitter sites. In recognition of the overall need for electrical power
lifting corridors, the Commission usually allows such applications but makes every effort to
what the location will have minimum impact upon farmland. In certain instances, the Commis-
lay alter the site location in the interest of protecting agricultural land.
Bmerous applications are also received from the various Ministry of Transportation and
lays' district and regional offices. These applications are usually for the dedication of a right of
Ban existing road, the construction or upgrading of a road, or the establishment of a gravel
e and/or pit. Commission approval of such applications is often subject to conditions that
Rthe agricultural lands and the affected farmers; for example, fencing, cattle guards and weed
I may be required. The Commission has also had the opportunity to review and comment upon
per of long range transportation network plans proposed by the Ministry's Planning Branch.
I Bmmission hopes to continue to have an early input into these network plans, as they are such
I ant indicators in the overall long range land use planning process which will affect the
| ntural Land Reserves.
I ctions With Local Government Authorities
he Commission maintains a close working relationship with local governments and provincial
itory authorities. Before considering an application, the Commission looks to the municipality
I atonal district for information on zoning and surrounding land use and for a recommendation
merits of the application. Interaction with local governments is especially important when the
I ation is difficult to interpret or some vital information is missing.
I ne planning staffs of the local or regional authorities usually complete the initial researching of
I plication. The Commission also relies on information supplied by the Technical Planning
I pttees and the Advisory Planning Commissions of the area. Technical Planning Committees
I Rjally composed of a representative from the Ministry of Agriculture, such as the District
I jturist; and representatives from other ministries such as Health; Lands, Parks and Housing;
I portation and Highways; Municipal Affairs; Fish and Wildlife; Environment (such as Water
I (Branch) as well as members of municipal and regional staff. The members of the Advisory
I lig Commission are appointed by the board of the regional district or by a municipal council.
I iSmmission relies heavily on the network of expertise existing within the government ministries,
I rally at the local level, and may ask staff to contact any of the above representatives individually
I Drmation relative to an application or to carry out an on-site of the property.
I pe of the most important activities that has brought the Commission into more direct contact
I jcal and regional governments is the increased momentum in the preparation of Official
I junity Plans and Settlement Plans in many areas of British Columbia. As an outgrowth of the
I jjments made to the Municipal Act in 1977, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has made grant
I fe available to municipalities and regional districts for the preparation of Official Community
and Settlement Plans.
I Sessence, an Official Community Plan is a plan pertaining to an area of municipal jurisdiction
I ISettlement Plan pertains to an "unorganized" area of a regional district. Both plans are
I tially development strategies for future community growth. The zoning bylaw that follows the
I on of the plan is the legal reflection of the objectives of the plan. As a resource document, these
refer to such matters as population trends, economic basis of the community and existing
I as. They also provide an indication of anticipated land demand for at least a five-year period for
I such as residential, commercial and industrial. Before these plans are formally adopted and
I ementary bylaws set in place, a process of public hearings is required. Settlement Plans must
I e approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
I Ithough it may be intended that these plans be reviewed within a five-year period, it is obvious
I ice installed, the land use plan and accompanying bylaw will dictate land development policies
I spnsiderable period of time. With this knowledge, the Commission has a special project team
I jsed of several staff persons working with municipal councils and regional district boards in an
 early review of these plans to encourage growth options outside of the Agricultural Land ReseBI
The Commission also has a defined formal role in reviewing Settlement Plans for compat[broHB I
the Agricultural Land Reserves before the plans are referred for Ministerial approval.
Basically the Commission's funetiMjs to review the overall concept of the plans submittlrSi I
consideration and, most importantly, to decide whether the plan designation proposed fofjT""
within the Agricultural Land Reserve is appropriate. The Commission also peruses the obieaBI I
and policies contained in the plan document to ensure that these are consistent with provincialjaPJj I
to protect farmland. Out of the process of preparing Community and Settlement Plans, therein
come a review of the Agricultural Land Reserve boundary.
Although an exact count is not kept on the number of plans reviewed by the Commission
estimated that in this last fiscal year 50 or more such plans were commented upon.
Major Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) Reviews
It may be said that in considering each individual application, the Commission is constantly
"fine-tuning" and reaffirming the ALR boundaries. However, in a more formal sense, "fineUB I
refers to the process whereby the Commission carefully reviews the ALR boundary of a pa'maH I
problem area and develops an application to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for additiofflffl I
exclusions from, the Agricultural Land Reserve. The result is a more credible ALR boundary imfM I
of land capable of agricultural use and in terms of such factors as parcel size. Each vearsinBajl I
original ALR designations in 1974, the Commission has carried out a number of fine-tuning pjj^ffl I
of varying sizes throughout the Proyinqejjjgrf,,
Three major Agricultural Land Reserve reviews were concluded within this reporting year. The I
Comox to Oyster River ALR review was forwarded to the Lieutenant Governor in Couj^M
November 1978. The Commission had recognized, even at the time of designation, thahro
agricultural capability mapping that was available for much of Vancouver Island was attooLs^pJ
scale to adequately reflect the complex landscape. The Regional District of Comox-Stra^pH I
suggested the Comox to Oyster River review area and the Commission obtained more detailed I
agricultural capability information from the Resource Analysis Branch. During the re-examin'a^Hffl I
the ALR, the Commission received the full co-operation of the regional district and its staff. The sW I
identified specific problem areas and proposed revisions to the ALR boundaries to better refl^fflB I
area's capability for agriculture. Cabinet, in making its decision in April 1979 to include 6,853 a(
within the ALR and to exclude 8,636 acres, concurred with the Commission's recommend^™ I
A second ALR review conducted during this year was in the Cobble Hill area of the ReqiojJ |
District of Cowichan Valley. As part of the preparation of an Official Settlement Plan, and al
request of the regional district, the Commission obtained more detailed agricultural capability I
mapping from Soils Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture, for the south one-half of Electoral Area®
This information was forwarded to the regional district in early 1979, along with ComrrTCgffl I
guidelines on possible areas for the regional district to consider applying for exclusion from the ALR. I
The resulting application was forwarded to the Lieutenant Governor in Council in January 1980J
March 1980, Cabinet decided to exclude 408 acres from the Agricultural Land Reserve offfl
Regional District of Cowichan Valley.
In January of 1980, the Commission was also notified of a Cabinet decision on an applica^H| I
long standing in the northwestern corner of British Columbia. In this case, Cabinet decided|3H
include in the ALR approximately 26,800 acres in the Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine and Stikine I
Region (unincorporated), known as the Stikine River Valley/Telegraph Creek Area. The inclusion I
application had first been submitted in December of 1976. The Commission's concerns wefatM f
there should be early delineation of those lands with agricultural capability, some as high as'C^Sj I
and that they should be protected within an ALR in the face of growing pressures for settlement I
the time of Cabinet decision, the original apgjjgftion had been amended to incorporate a Land
management Branch Planning Study that had mapped in considerable detail the agricultural capabil- I
ity of the region.
 ! study of ALR boundaries, with an examination of parcel sizes and land uses, was
Married out in the Township of Langley. Although a decision has not yet been made on the
3;ed revisions to the ALR boundary, the review has attracted considerable public attention. With
E of Ministry of Agriculture staff, the Commission gathered information on potential and present
■se, parcel sizes, and evaluated agricultural capability information. This procedure involved
111 meetings with the municipal council and planning staff and numerous field visits by the
■fission. As a result, the Commission is forwarding an application to the Lieutenant Governor in
til to rationalize the Agricultural Land Reserve boundary in this area of generally good
Iltural capability, but in very close proximity to an established and expanding urban area.
I cement
I j conjunction with local and regional authorities, the Commission administers the Soil Con-
I tion Act. Some problems have been encountered in carrying out this task because of a
I ance on the part of local authorities to fully assume the inspection and permit issuing responsi-
I i of the statute. The Commission recognized this reluctance was somewhat justified, in the light
I fact that local authorities often do not have the manpower nor the expertise to effectually
ister the legislation. To overcome this problem, the Commission has attempted to provide as
technical expertise as possible, through appointment of a staff agrologist and by utilizing staff
I Soils Branch, Ministry of Agriculture, whenever practical.
nfortunately, even with this assistance, regulatory provisions of the Soil Conservation Act
ling soil removal and fill deposition on lands in the Agricultural Land Reserve are not yet being
istered uniformly across the Province. In a further effort, therefore, Commission staff are
I ing a possible revision to the Act that would transfer the day to day granting and administration
Conservation Act permits to a regional level, such as the Ministry of Agriculture, where the
pal expertise is available. In the event such changes are made to the Act and regulations, the
ission foresees its future role as an appeal body for decisions made at a local or regional level.
I ie number of applications for the second full year of administration of the Soil Conservation Act
I >out 60. The majority of these applications have been from the Lower Mainland and Vancouver
I Generally, applications for soil removal or deposit of fill have been allowed, with rehabilitation
I iments to enhance or retain the agricultural capability of the land.
I ifortunately, the Commission has had to deal with several infractions of both the Agricultural
m Commission Act and the So/7 Conservation Act during this reporting year. Some of these
I ons have been as minor as the dumping of a couple of yards of fill on land within an Agricultural
EJteserve or as major as using Agricultural Land Reserve properties for large-scale industrial
I nvolving buildings, storage areas and air strips. The majority of infractions are handled
I lly by the Commission.
I ie violator is advised of the requirements of the respective Act and, in most cases, is instructed
I: the permission of the Commission by means of an application for the use. The application is
I >nsidered on its individual merits.
BJiwever, in certain cases, the violator does not respond to the orders of the Commission and
EJ nmission is forced to resort to legal recourse under sections 22 and 23 of the Agricultural Land
EJ ission Act. One such case this year confirmed the Commission's right to determine the type of
EJ srmitted on land in the Agricultural Land Reserve. The Court ruled in the Commission's favour
EJ3 owner was given six months to terminate the non-farm activity on his property. This
ent setting case will further enhance the Commission's power as a regulatory authority and,
EJ ly, will reduce the necessity to seek legal recourse for infractions occurring on land within the
I tural Land Reserve.
e Commission is always interested in initiating and participating in special projects related to
I d preservation and support of the farming community. Also of continuing importance is the
) inform the public, both urban and rural, of the vigilance needed to protect the limited
 12
provincial land resource capable of producing food. During this year, the Commission took part in a
number of special projects:
(a) In August 1979, the Commission, for the second year, had an information booth at the
Pacific National Exhibition. Both Commissioners and staff attended the booth to aiffflf
numerous public inquiries. Featured at the booth was a new slide/tape show that explaffirj
the purpose of the Agricultural Land Commission and concept of the AgriculturalJBB5
Reserves. The slide/tape show proved to be an effective method of pictorally indira§tj
how the Canada Land Inventory agricultural capability rating system of Class 1 -7 is usb§8o
identify farmland. The Commission hopes to continue to utilize the slide/tape show aWn
educational tool to help explain the importance of farmland preservation.
(b) While not directly a special project of the Agricultural Land Commission, the CommSB
co-operated with Lands Directorate, Environment Canada, in conducting a study offi|e
impact of the Agricultural Land Reserves in British Columbia. Lands Directorate of EnvlB
ment Canada published Report 13 in their Land Use in Canada series, entitledlfflf
Agricultural Land Reserves of B.C., An Impact Analysis. The preface of the report indicate!
that the loss of prime agricultural land to urbanization and industrial growth has become a
public issue throughout Canada. For this reason, British Columbia, being the first iurlsaM
tion in Canada to take provincial action to protect agricultural land for present and fWe
use, was of particular interest. Part of the conclusion reached by the study indicatesKr
"... the reservation of agricultural land, as introduced in British Columbia, is a signifiS
step towards ensuring that the province and the nation as a whole will have a high auaB
agricultural land resource to draw upon when that resource is required to feed fiffl|
generations and to permit Canada to fulfil her international responsibilities."
(c) In September 1979, the Cjqjgmission edited and published, for the B.C. Federation
Agriculture Interdepartmental Co-ordinating Subcommittee, Farm and Stream: Water^m
Farm Management and the Protection of the Aquatic Environment. This report containsroi
results of an inquiry by the Committee into the nature of governmental constraints pla^ffi
upon farmers attempting to manage water for the benefit of farm operations. It expl^E
current legislative requirements and identifies conflict areas. Also included is an agency
directory and various examples of application and approval forms. The major recffls
mendation made by the Farm and Stream Committee were that there should be a sej|
procedures and an orderly system developed to deal with water management problem^B
participating in this publication, the Commission hopes to encourage co-operation amMj
all agencies in the hope of aiding the farm community in the development of the farmliSr
resource, while at the same time, stimulating discussion of water management problems
P •• and-concerns for the preservation of aquatic environments.
(d) During the year, there was an important breakthrough in taxation of land located wjthj^ffl
Agricultural Land Reserve, an issue with which the Commission has been concerneoffl
some years. Since 1976 and the McMath inquiry into property assessment and taxatjm
the Commission has encouraged government to amend assessment regulations to give
some relief to owners of land within the Agricultural Land Reserve who do not have fajE
classification. The 1979 amendment to the Public School Act reduced by 50 per central
assessment for school and hospital purposes of Agricultural Land Reserve lands and
therefore, goes some distance in this direction.
(e) In May 1977, the Commission expressed to the Environment and Land Use Commitfflj
concerns with proposed recreationally oriented development in the Columbia-Winderm^
area of East Kootenay Regional District and the resulting threat it posed to agricultffl
lands. In response to the Commission's concern, the Environment and Land Use CoimjHj
tee instructed its Secretariat to co-ordinate and overview investigation to identify suitaM
areas for accommodating recreational land development outside the Agricultural LajIU
Reserve. The Commission participated in this investigation assisting the Secretariat inffl
collection of information on agricultural land use, including identification of ranch Pr0^HJ
tion units. Upon completion of the overview, the Environment and Land Use Comniiffl
 I approved the preparation of a tourism settlement strategy and of a resource use strategy
I for the area. This work was undertaken by an inter-ministry government steering committee
(Columbia-Windermere Lakes Steering Committee), of which the Commission is a mem-
I ber. The work leading to a tourism settlement strategy involved a major planning program
I conducted by consultants, including active public participation and local and regional
I government consultation. Phase I of the study, which focuses on general policies related to
I tourism settlement development, is now completed. One of the elements of the Phase I
I strategy is to guide tourism-settlement away from the land base employed for agriculture
and other resource uses. Phase II proposals, presently under consideration by the Environ-
I ment and Land Use Committee, include a program of action to maintain and enhance the
It     resource use activities in the area, including agriculture.
I (f) The Commission also continues to participate as an active member of the Green Zone
I'      Committee. The committee is continually working on the Minimum Distance Separation
(MDS) concept with local governments, in an attempt to incorporate the concept into local
I      zoning bylaws. The Committee stresses co-operation with the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture
|       and local governments in implementing a principle vital to farmland communities throughout the Province. To this end, it has now prepared model bylaws for beef, swine and poultry
siting, odour control and encroachment protection that hopefully will be adopted by local
authorities.
| limission Farmlands
■In 1976, the Commission amended the long-term farmland lease to include an option to
e for farmers' who had satisfactorily completed three years of the 20-year lease term. Two
lerties were sold under this program in 1979/80: the 138-acre former Hayward property on the
Ih Thompson River near Kamloops, and the 149-acre Thunderbird dairy property on New Lake
lichan Road near Duncan. The Commission also sold a 15-acre knoll of the Steeples Ranch in
lEast Kootenays to an adjacent landowner for horse pasture.
I The major capital expenditure of the year was $82,000 for ditch clearing works at the Minnekha-
I fcroperty, west of the Pitt River in the District of Coquitlam. The clearing of the major drainage
lals and ditches was Phase I of a program to rehabilitate the Minnekhada farmlands. Phase II
tides clearing and field drainage works by each of the four farm lessees.
leches and Meetings
J With a part-time Chairman appointed on an interim basis for the majority of the year, and with the
fcands of frequent Commission meetings and travel for public hearings throughout the Province,
s little time for speeches by the Chairman or the Commission at the various annual
Iventions and conferences related to agriculture.
1 However, as Chairman, Mr. Kinnear did give two presentations: one in January 1980, at the B.C.
It Growers Association Annual Convention and one in February 1980, at the B.C. Ministry of
| pculture Regional Staff Conference. The address to the Fruit Growers' Association covered
al aspects of the Agricultural Land Commission's work and addressed the major issues of the
s that may affect the fruit industry and agriculture in general in British Columbia. The speech
lie to Ministry of Agriculture staff was on more specific matters, such as technical on-site reports
Itive to Agricultural Land Reserve applications, and urged Ministry field staff to become involved
he local level in Community and Settlement Plan development.
T As part of their regular workload, Commission staff had many meetings with planning staffs of
pus municipalities and regional districts; local regulatory authorities, such as B.C. Hydro and
listry of Highways; Soils Branch and Property Management Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture;
1 the Resource Analysis Branch of the Ministry of Environment. Three staff persons also con-
 14
ducted a Regional Seminar for Planning Assistants in Vernon in October 1979. The purpose of the
seminar was to explain the procedures for processing applications submitted under the AfflHjf
regulations.
The Commission relies on such meetings to familiarize itself with the concerns of other ami
ities as well as to explain the program of preservation and protection of agricultural land.
Financial Report
The Agricultural Land Commission Act stipulates that the Commission submit annuallvHiS
Lieutenant Governor in Council, a financial statement exhibiting expenditures for the respective
fiscal year. The statements of expenditures for the year ended 31 March 1980 follows as SchecHr
Purposes
Sis
Total
63,470
45,845
3,381
48,139
402,840
73,513
129,843
37,472
1,629
657
1,924
34,700
111,610
402,840
45,845
73,513
129,849
37,472
5,010
659
1,924
34,700
Program expenditures
Materials, supplies, utilities and taxes	
Rentals
Advertising and publications ! :.l. '..,,	
Totals
$112,697
$730,721
$843,419
the year ended M
rch31,1
$290,825. These
ssion legal fees d
ring the r
from the sale of three Commission properties totalled $303,210,.
i consolidated revenue account of the Government of British Colum
id paid by the Ministry of the Attorney General totalled $76,377.
/ed on behalf of the Commission.
M. F. CLARKE, Chairman.
JOHN E. ROGERS, Commissior
Schedule II includes Agricultural Land Reserve statistics to 31 March 1980. Attached to ealj
individual application file is a statistical form that is completed at the time of each Commission
decision. Tallying the results is a time-consuming job and there are, needless to say, deficiencies irj|
manual system, such as minor miscalculations or a decision improperly recorded. The procedure of
retrieving decisions on the same or adjacent properties is also manual, which involves obtaining a|
the files in the vicinity of the subject property and individually summarizing them as to decision
acreage involved and other pertinent information.
The statistics that are collected are comprehensive, and now include information on tha
agricultural capability of land under application. The categories are based upon improved agricultural
capability ratings and are grouped in four subclasses: Prime (totally Class 1 through 3 land); Prime
Dominant Complex (major portion of the unit is prime land); Prime Subordinate Complex (lesser
portion of unit is prime land); and Secondary (total unit is Class 4 or lower agricultural capability)^
 ;he cumulative statistics show that, at the time of designation, 11,661,000 acres were in the
Wural Land Reserve; as of 31 March 1980, 11,623,623 acres are in the Agricultural Land
These statistics, however, do not indicate the agricultural capability of the land and,
lore, conclusions should not be based on the acreage numbers alone, as the quality of the land;
the agricultural capability rating, has only recently been included in the statistical data.
n-ally speaking, those lands that have been excluded from the Agricultural Land Reserve tend to
Wer high capability land in relatively small parcels, or low capability land that was originally
led in the Agricultural Land Reserve through error. The total amount of land removed is a result
Wcge number of individual applications submitted under the appropriate sections of the Act. On
■her hand, lands included in the Agricultural Land Reserve after designation tend to be of
Irate capability, or sometimes grazing land, and are the result of only a few large acreage
llow that agricultural capability information is being recorded as a routine matter for each
fcation, statistical analysis of the Agricultural Land Reserve can incorporate not only acreages,
_eo indicate quality of land being included into, or excluded from, or a subdivision/use within the
cultural Land Reserves. Further statistical information may be obtained from the Agricultural
I Commission office in Burnaby.
SCHEDULE II
. Brief Resume of Types of Applications Under the Agricultural Land Commission Act
jo-.s Gh,apter46, 1973 including Land Commission Act 1977
(Consolidated for convenience only, Jan. 20, 1978)
9 (1) (a) and (b) applications—Direct government lo government applicationsforexclusion orexemption
or subdivision within an Agricultural Land Reserve.
[jnder section 9 (1) (a), the Agricultural Land Commiss
:ation to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for exclu.
Reserve, or the Lieutenant Governor in Council may initiate suet
Under section 9 (1) (b), the Agricultural Land Commission, a region
n to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for subdivision and/or n
Agricultural Land Reserve.
to the submission of an application under section 9 (1) (a) or (b), the municipality, regional district, or
lission, as the case may be, must hold a public hearing on the application. A report of the hearing must
hipany the application. As a part of the standard operating procedure the Commission reviews the
ion and formulates a recommendation which is subsequently reviewed by the Environment and Land
nmittee. Final decision is made by Cabinet as a Cabinet Order in Council.
9 (2) applications—Applications from an individual to the Agricultural Land Commission for exclusion.
tinder this section an individual land owner may apply to the Agricultural Land Commission for exclusion of
Iroperty from an Agricultural Land Reserve. Preliminary processing of these applications is done by the
bpriate regional district, followed by further processing and a hearing by the Commission. The final decision
applications is made by the Commission, without reference to the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the
nent and Land Use Committee. However, there is an appeal procedure under sections 9 (7) and 9 (8).
individual to the Environment and Land Use Committee on Agricultural
pnderthis section a person who
He a notice of appeal to the E
to appeal, signed by any tv
appeal requires a formal hearing
Imittee.
>n may, within 30 days of being
Use Committee. If the leave to
e Environment and Land Use
 Section 11 (4) applications—Applications for exemption for use or subdivision within an Agricultural Lsa
Reserve.
Under this section a person or agency may apply to the Agricultural Land Commission for permission to
subdivide land or to use a parcel of land within an Agricultural Land Reserve for purposes other than those :
allowed outright by the Act or regulations. The land remains in the Agricultural Land Reserve and the
Commission may impose whatever terms and conditions it considers advisable. The decision of the Commission is final. There is no appeal, except to the courts on a question of law or excess of jurisdiction. The applicant
may however, request the municipality or regional district, as the case may be, to submit an application under
section 9 (1) (b) on his behalf.
Sections 8 (12) and 8 (14)—Applications for inclusion into the Agricultural Land Reserve.
Section 8 (12)—A municipality, a regional district, or the Commission may apply to the Lieuteffif |
Governor in Council to have additional lands designated as an Agricultural Land Reserve, whether o»
they own those lands. The municipality, regional district, or commission, as the case may be, must hold a
public hearing in respect to the application and must give proper notification to the property ownegH I
report of the public hearing must accompany the application. The commission reviews the application and I
formulates a recommendation which is subsequently reviewed by the Environment and Land Use I
Committee on behalf of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Cabinet makes the final decision by Order in I
Council, and if approved, the Agricultural Land Commission designates the lands as, or part ojflj
Agricultural Land Reserve.
Section 8 (14)—An individual owner may apply to the Agricultural Land Commission, via the regiEE |
district to have his land included in an Agricultural Land Reserve. No hearing is required and the I
Commission may designate the land as Agricultural Land Reserve, after approval from the Lieutenant I
Governor in Council.
Applications pursuant to the subdivision and land use regulations.
Under the subdivision and land use regulations, certain kinds of very limited subdivision and land us
be allowed by local government without reference to the Commission. In addition, another category of sg^BJ I
sion and certain conditional uses may be applied for directly to the Commission. When application fqE^^
conditional use is received by the Commission, the Commission consults with the regional district or municipa
so that they might present their views prior to the decision being made by the Commission.
Direct orders or resolutions of the Commission.
It is possible for the Agricultural Land Commission to deal directly, by a specific order or resolutiooffl
certain other situations requiring land use or subdivision approval without the necessity for a formal application.  I
Very infrequent use is made of this power as it pertains only to unusual circumstances involving extrer
emergency or hardships and in those cases where the necessity for a formal application is questionable. In
cases the Commission attempts to contact the local government to determine its position on the matter.]
 Total ALR acreage at designatioi
Total <
Total i
Total c
Total £
Total £
reage included since designatioi
•eage excluded under 9(1)
•eage excluded under 9 (2) 	
excluded under 9 (7) 	
excluded under 9 (8)	
LR acreage as of April 1,
 18
April 1,1980
SUMMARY OF APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT
(All Figures are Cumulative)
9 (2) SUMMARY
(Applications by an owner to exclude land from ALR
Number of applications*	
2,020
Acres requested for exclusion
88 791
Land Commission decision:
Remain in ALR 	
38,640
Exclude
23,927
Allow 11 (4) 	
26,224
9(1) SUMMARY
(Applications by Municipality, Regional District, or the Commission to exc
ude land from ALR) I
Number of applications* 	
107
Acres requested for exclusion 	
120,842
Land Commission recommendation:
93,040
27,802
Cabinet decision
94,423
Refuse	
26,419
INCLUSION SUMMARY
(Application to include land into ALR)
Number of applications*	
78
Acres requested for inclusion
120,026
Land Commission recommendation:
109,181
Cabinet decision:
82,374
Refuse                                              	
34,164
 -The number of applications refer only to those that have beer, processe
, i.e., those
 CURRENT ALR ACREAGE BY REGIONAL DISTRICT
Eoast 	
Fraser Valley ...
Kootenay	
[Okanagan	
Shuswap 	
■Strathcona 	
Valley	
S'-Alouette a
lotenay 	
tort George	
kanagan 	
" nilkameen	
Siver i	
■Queen Charlotte I
e Coast
Nicola	
81,700
166,500
108,000
54,300
58,700
673,100
90,800
863,600
flOMOO
158,500
136,000
4,300
213,61
3,702,500
34,900
108,400
67,000
15,500
1,404,700
1,661,600   82,374   94,423   23,927
19,502
734,469
46,334
2,264,464
10,931
133,425
167,758
80,557
150,063
102,383
52,495
52,868
669,427
135,274
4,300
51,526
172,344
212,743
3,700,948
26,728
108,063
ACREAGE INCLUDED IN ALR SINCE DESIGNATION BY REGIONAL DISTRICT BY YEAR
Kootenay .	
Okanagan 	
■Shuswap
:ort George	
Vancouver 	
kanagan 	
Similkameen ...
•Nicola	
 20
1979 and First Quarter 1980 Figures (up to April 1,193
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY OF AREAS INCLUDED IN THE ALR
(By Order in Council)
w„.„
gefj
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY Wk
Prime
Do'Snt
Subordinate
Second
Capital  !	
Cariboo r 	
Central Okanagan L_i«?S
Columbia-Shuswap    :.;.„ !.-...	
Comox-Strathcona
8
736
157
336
6,853
17
75
35
69
214
395
15    \
75
660
6,458
12
76
88
110
 35J
Peace River-Liard	
8,217
768
7,118
21
310
1979 and First Quarter 1980 Figures (up to April 1,19!
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY OF AREAS REFUSED FOR INCLUSION
(By Cabinet Decision)
Regional District
T»
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY      M
Prime
Dopant
Sutadhato
Seconda
Capital 	
16
10
26,800
16
3
z
26,800
7
26,826
19
-
26,800
7
 21
INCLUSION SUMMARY SHEET BY REGIONAL DISTRICT (Cu
nulative Figures)
HavMde
P
ty the Agricultural
Hj
r
■Coast SSL	
■Kootenay	
7
3
2
6
6
r*?|i|SB
2
3
7,100
113
10,656
50
800
226
600
8,903
5
1,264
56,306
31,920
875
25
223
35
915
90
10,656
800
226
413
8,825
5
1,186
2
53,456
3
31,920
359
25
265
35
915
90
10,656
800
Bjv-Alouetto  	
1,186
EjVancouver	
3
gan-Similkameen 	
258
78
120,026
109,181
il Fraser Valley ...
il Kootenay	
bl Okanagan
bia-Shuswap 	
t-Strathcona	
San Vafley	
I hey-Alouette	
'tenay	
I br Vancouver
Okanagan ...
6,973    94,423
 22
1979 and First Quarter 1980 Figures (up to April irgs©)
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY OF AREAS EXCLUDED BY APPLICATIONS UNDER SECTIONBMfiin
(By Order in Council)
Regional District
Exclude?
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY
Prime
Prime
■
(Acres)
Pnme
Dominant
Subordinate
S|J|ar|
6,350
Ifj
24
(48
Cowichan Valley	
383
40
_
165
78
Fraser-Fort George ~ _	
230
25
—
—
05
Greater Vancouver -„  	
9
5
II4
Okanagan-Similkameen  	
Totals **   £..-. 	
140
—
—
—
ji40
24,914
240
160
3,436
2178
1979 and First Quarter 1980 Figures (up to April 'i'Bsoy
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY OF AREAS REFUSED FOR EXCLUSION BY APPLICATIONsJffi"
9 (1) (a)
(By Cabinet Decision)
«—.
JZT
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY   ■■
Prime
Do'Sn.
SuboiSnate
Seofe,
Central Fraser Valley	
85
48
_
_
w
Central Kootenay   ™„........„ ,.	
3,876
3,100
Greater Vancouver „.	
25
25
.-     	
_
1,320
309
25
—
!6
9,151
3,772
74
"        I     5';5
 23
9 (1) (a) SUMMARY SHEET BY REGIONAL DISTRICT (Cumulative Figures)
IraBEFaser Valley ...
Ifapgotenay	
|raj9kanagan	
iembia-Shuswap	
Icox-Strathcona	
ffflEalley	
JdrjEAiouette	
fjffiwjfey	
BeteMam	
ner-Fort George	
inter Vancouver	
tesSMne	
cenay Boundary	
HntaSagan	
bhagan-Similkameen ...
Re,o„aID,s«
Tcrer
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY
Prime
Dopant
SubSate
Secondary
43
43
-
-
43
43
-
-
1979 and First Quarter 1980 Figures (up to April 1, 1980)
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY OF AREAS GIVEN APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION
AND/OR USE BY APPLICATIONS UNDER 9 (1) (b)
(By Order in Council)
1979 and First Quarter 1980 Figures (up to April 1, 1980)
tVancouver	
tJBgaBoundary ...
ce River-Liard	
 24
9 (1) (b) SUMMARY BY REGIONAL DISTRICT (Cumulative Figure
Greater Vancouver	
Kootenay Boundary	
Okanagan-Similkameen
Peace River-Liard „	
Powell River	
Totals	
Regiona, District
1974
1975
1976
1977
,978
1979
1980
Total
Capital        __	
11
340
70
248
108
385
28
1,190
Cariboo          	
167
108
199
204
1,981
215
2,874
Central Coast
9
69
Central Kootenay ..„	
6
31
55
248
302
90
3
735
Central Okanagan	
280
58
196
315
85
1,122
Columbia-Shuswap 	
40
347
425
223
212
21
1,757
Comox-Strathcona  j.	
271
295
457
707
203
40
1,984
Cowichan Valley	
96
172
143
138
194
857
Dewdney-Alouette  . 	
22
12
27
80
50
16
207
East Kootenay i 	
235
155
1,980
630
282
3,282
Fraser-Cheam  	
9
13
50
91
34
76
273
Fraser-Fort George     	
603
168
80
967
61
29
7
160
13
30
10
310
Kitimat-Stikine	
78
144
5
45
272
Kootenay Boundary     	
18
29
112
247
Nanaimo                      	
171
61
200
182
52
670
North Okanagan         	
87
245
30
84
374
79
Okanagan-Similkameen	
175
34
32
322
259
102
Peace River-Liard         	
59
229
1,181
1,587
48
52
|JJ#*»
—
EJ
285
56
Skeena-Queen Charlotte . 	
_
337
Squamish-Lillooet 	
5
119
15
5
35
179
Sunshine Coast  	
90
19
78
93
10
290
Thompson-Nicola rs ^	
—
78
484
404
132
10
332
1,440
Totals	
937
2,941
2,304
6,154
4,729
5,375
1,487
23,927
 25
1979 and First Quarter 1980 Figures (up to April 1, 1980)
f AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY OF AREAS EXCLUDED BY APPLICATIONS UNDER 9 (2)
^S£?
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY
Regional District
Prime
Dopant
SubPoSna.e
Secondary
Oy-Nechako     ^i.„__^ 	
al Coast                              	
85
413
2,196
5
203
93
273
233
51
66
282
110
248
40
50
112
56
79
102
1,299
285
35
10
342
215
f/fttf5/i
16
52
15
5
7
62
5
8
69
7
1,010
35
53
20
10
12
171
30
49
70
100
65
56
56
7
45
100
20
178
2,130
lal Okanagan 	
50
i;han Valley :.	
174
t-Cheam 	
48
M-Sttkine
nay-Boundary	
5
112
bgan-Similkameen	
45
159
6,862
1,579
475
420
4 388
 26
April 1,1980 I
9 (2) SUMMARY SHEET (Cumulative Fig
ures)
Number o
Number o.
Regional District Recommendations (Acres)
Commission Decisions (M
(TJecteions
11 f  1
Alberni-Clayoquot	
1
356
22
113
8
213
168
98
90
Bulkley-Nechako 	
42
3,975
2,044
1,721
169
2,511
439
1,025
Capjtal „.„..,
119
3,737
2,164
772
20
781
1,827
1,190
720
Cariboo 1 -	
103
1,417
4,763
251
1,567
3,228
2,874
1,896
Central Coast	
232
?*j   2&
174
36
9
69
154
Central Fraser Valley	
127
4,311
2,175
1,869
253
14
2,631
862
818
Central Kootenay	
2,156
2,156
575
735
846
Central Okanagan   	
165
4,363
1,220
2,705
190
248
2,382
1,122
859
Columbia-Shuswap
177
5,070
1,638
2,741
523
168
1,791
1,757
1,522 I
Comox-Strathcona	
143
1,587
3,065
134
1,112
1,738
1,984
2,1"$
Cowichan Valley	
174
3,639
1,303
1,627
347
362
1,595
857
1,187
Dewdney-Alouette
33
1,359
447
440
20
452
981
207
171
East Kootenay 	
113
14,588
48
1,506
16
13,018
6,316
3,282
4,990
Fraser-Cheam	
46
1,090
64
537
106
383
483
273
334
Fraser-Fort George 	
Wmm
3,479
944
1,028
913
594
1,276
967
1,236
Greater Vancouver	
47
1,425
1,281
139
5
1,092
310
23
Kitimat-Stikine .
13
665
190
379
96
43
272
350
Kootenay Boundary	
SjjfWzi
757
580
BSSff
17
461
247
49
3,715
1,060
1,654
135
866
2,089
670
956
North Okanagan         	
104
3,453
394
1,625
908
526
504
899
2,050
Okanagan-Similkameen ....
120
3,888
272
3,114
108
394
1,080
924
1,884
Peace River-Liard
58
4,956
1,829
2,180
20
927
2,682
1,587
687
Powell River	
R~~-9~.
137
HEba
97
5
75
56
Skeena-Queen Charlotte
495
158
337
73
337
85
Squamish-Lillooet	
21
746
54
674
206
179
361 1
Sunshine Coast	
27
1,043
439
28
576
628
290
125 1
Thompson-Nicola
Totals* 	
83
5,260
100
833
102
4,225
2,196
1,440
1,624
2,020
88,791
21,048
34,701
4,173
28,869
38,640
23,927
26,224 1
• All figures are approximate.
 27
April 1
1980
H NUMBER OF REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 9 (7) OF THE ACT BY REGIONAL DISTRICT BY YEAR
Regional District
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
,979
1980
Total
■jj-Clayquot	
_
_
_
_
2
_
_
2
1
%    '
■fa	
m
Sal Okanagan
—
|ra|
2
3
3
5
—
16
Inbia-Shuswap 	
2
Elian Valley	
—
1
2
2
^f¥ral
3
1
13
Bpey-Alouette	
2
Efnntenay
W xffiN
15
K-Fort George 	
1
—
1
_
m
—
—
^^
_
_
—
3
5
5
_
16
1 River-Liard	
1
1
s
1
ipson-Nicola
-
-
—
-
2
3
1
6
pUm
9
14
14
39
52
12
 28
9 (7) CERTIFICATE OF LEAVE SUMMARY SHEET
(Enviornment and Land Use Committee shown as E.L.U.C.)
1
I
1,198(
Regional District
Number
Commission
E.L.U.C.
Excluded
Requested
Allow
Refuse
Other
Allow
Refuse
2
5
5
13
13
15
6
3
BBJK
6
3
2
;   +$&
13
13
.*fe>3
Y> *i'o*
5
2
2
2
2
3
1
36
424
137
394
136
10
11
10
Cowichan Valley	
Greater Vancouver	
Squamish-Lillooet	
142
18
111
11
14
2
1,169
April 1, 1981
ACREAGE EXCLUDED BY THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE COMMITTEE AS A 9 (7) APPEAlEl
BY REGIONAL DISTRICT BY YEAR
Regional District
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Total
394
10
36
424
25
10
129
36
424
137
394
136
10
10
405
121
493
21
129
1,169
 29
April 1, 1980
HnUMBER OF REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE MINISTER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 9 (8) OF THE ACT BY REGIONAL DISTRICT BY YEAR
Regional District
1978
1979
1980
Total
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
5
2
2
3
2
3
2
1
1
14
30
13
9 (8) CERTIFICATE OF LEAVE SUMMARY SHEET
(Environment and Land Use Committee shown as E.L.U.C.)
April 1, 1980
~—
Number
Minister
E.LU.C.
Acreage
Requested
Allow
Refuse
Other
Allow
Refuse
Excl   ed
5
3
5
8
2
2
7
3
5
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
WmsM
2
2
2
5
3
2
2
2
Nechako  	
[Fraser Valley	
Okanagan    	
Ba-Shuswap -„ 	
Z
643
in Valley	
ly-Alouette	
otenay	
26
83
-
on-Nicola	
76
57
24
17
16
7
8
832
 30
Central Fraser Valley .
Cowichan Valley
Dewdney-Alouette 	
East Kootenay
Thompson-Nicola
Totals