Open Collections

BC Sessional Papers

Provincial Agricultural Land Commission Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 1981 British Columbia. Legislative Assembly 1981

Item Metadata

Download

Media
bcsessional-1.0372102.pdf
Metadata
JSON: bcsessional-1.0372102.json
JSON-LD: bcsessional-1.0372102-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): bcsessional-1.0372102-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: bcsessional-1.0372102-rdf.json
Turtle: bcsessional-1.0372102-turtle.txt
N-Triples: bcsessional-1.0372102-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: bcsessional-1.0372102-source.json
Full Text
bcsessional-1.0372102-fulltext.txt
Citation
bcsessional-1.0372102.ris

Full Text

 Queen's Printer for Bri
Victoria. 1
Published by Authority of
the Minister of Agriculture and Food
isbno-7719-8624-6 Victoria, British Columbia
 I—■
Provincial Agricultural
Land Commission
Annual Report
for the year ended
31 March 1981
4940 Canada Way
Burnaby, B.C.
V5H 4K6
 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 March 31, 1981.
James J. Hewitt
Minister of Agriculture and Food
29 September 1981
The Honourable James J. Hewitt
Minister of Agriculture and Food
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, B.C.
V8V 1X4
Dear Mr. Minister:
Pursuant to section 28 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, I respectfully submin
the Annual Report and Financial Statement of the Provincial Agricultural Land
Commission for the year ended March 31,1981.
Yours very truly,
PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION
M. F Clarke, Chairman
 CONTENTS
AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION MEMBERS	
PAGE
5
AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION STAFF	
6
PROLOGUE	
      7
I CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS	
      8
I OVERVIEW OF YEAR'S ACTIVITIES
Reqionalization	
.   10
11
    12
Change in Regulations Under the Agricultural Land Commission Act
Block Applications for Inclusion/Exclusion	
Enhanced Agricultural Land Commission Fine Tuning Program	
Soil Conservation Act             	
14
    15
Commission Owned Farmlands                                          	
   15
Financial Report	
    17
Schedule 1 to Financial Statement	
Schedule II to Financial Statement	
Statistics	
18
18
1   19
Schedule III                    	
    19
 -tl
British Columbia Cataloguing in Publication Data
British Columbia.  Provincial Agricultural Land
Commission.
Annual report. — 1978-
Report year ends March. 31.
Continues: British Columbia. Provincial Land Commission. Annual report.  ISSH 0703-2371*
ISSN 0708-ltOW3 = Annual report - Provincial Agricultural Land Commission
1. British Columbia.  Provincial Agricultural Land
Commission.  2. Land use, Rural - British Columbia.
3. Agricultural conservation - British Columbia.
HD319.B7BT61*      351*. 7110082*326
 AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ON 31 MARCH 1981
Mills F Clarke, Nanaimo, B.C.—Chairman
—Former Director, Agriculture Canada Research Station, Agassiz, B.C.,
1953-1972
—Co-ordinator, Forage Crops Research, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa,
1972-1976
John E. Rogers, White Rock, B.C.—Vice-Chairman
—Law Clerk
—Former Manager, White Rock Chamber of Commerce
C. E. (Elli) Framst, Cecil Lake, B.C.
—Retired farmer (grain and forage seeds)
—Peace River-Liard Regional District Board Member for 12 years, Chairman for
7 years
—Member, Farm Credit Corporation Appeal Board
Robert R Murdoch, Burnaby, B.C.
—Former Manager, University Endowment Lands
—Former Regional Director, Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing
Ian D. Paton, Delta, B.C.
—President, Paton & Smith Farm Services, Ltd., Langley
—Past President, B.C. Institute of Agrologists, 1979-80
Joseph A. Rogers, Penticton, B.C.
—President and Director, Conagra Resources Management Co-operative,
Kamloops, B.C.
—Former President, B.C. Livestock Producers Co-operative Association
—Member and Project Officer, B.C. Beef Industry Development Committee
Arthur R. Sutcliffe, Creston, B.C.
—Active farmer (grains, seeds, vegetables)
—Central Kootenay Regional District Director, Former Chairman (15 years
association); Creston Dyking District, Chairman/Board Trustee
—President, Kootenay Dehydrators (alfalfa)
 STAFF, 31 MARCH 1981
Robert R Murdoch
General Manager
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT DIVISION
Jean Sherwood, Executive Secretary
Denise Jankovich Rose Langston Trudy Reeves
Kay Johnson Patricia Redman Dina Smith
PLANNING, PROCESSING AND TECHNICAL DIVISION
James R Plotnikoff, Director
Sue Austen
Kabel Atwall
Jim Bell
Verona Hoosen
PLANNING STAFF
Julie Glover, Consultant
PROCESSING STAFF
Shirley Brightman
Holger Burke
Hope V Burns
TECHNICAL STAFF
Steve Leach, Supervisor
Jay Simons
Martin Hilmer
Everett Lew
Brian Underhill
PROPERTY AND SOILS MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Gordon D. Gram, Director
SOILS STAFF
Brian French, Consultant Kirk Miller Edmond Pottinger
Terence Lewis, Consultant Joan Sawicki, Consultant
Mark Gillis
FINE TUNING STAFF
Vaclav Kalina
Wilf Tonsmann
 PROLOGUE
IFor the benefit of readers not familiar with the Agricultural Land Commission Act, the
Slowing is a brief resume of the types of applications which may be made.
Igecfon 11 (1) and (2) applications—Direct government to government applications for exclusion or exemption for use or subdivision within an Agricultural Land Reserve:
i Under Section 11 (1), the Agricultural Land Commission, a regional district, or a munici-
Blity may make applications to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for exclusion of private or
>own lands from an Agricultural Land Reserve, or the Lieutenant Governor in Council may
ffitiate such action on his own.
| Under Section 11 (2), the Agricultural Land Commission, a regional district, or a munici-
Bity may make application to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for subdivision and/or non-
Sm use of private or Crown lands within an Agricultural Land Reserve.
Prior to the submission of an application under Section 11 (1) or 11 (2), the municipality,
gjional district, or the Commission, as the case may be, must hold a public hearing on the
©plication. A report of the hearing must accompany the application. As a part of the standard
Berating procedure the Commission reviews the application and formulates a recommenda-
mn which is subsequently reviewed by the Environment and Land Use Committee. Final
Rision is made by Cabinet as a Cabinet Order in Council.
gcf/on 12 (1) applications—Applications from an individual to the Agricultural Land Commis
sion for exclusion:
Under this Section an individual land owner may apply to the Agricultural Land Commis-
lf©n for exclusion of his property from an Agricultural Land Reserve. Preliminary processing of
hese applications is done by the appropriate regional district, followed by further processing
ind a hearing by the Commission. The final decision on these applications is made by the
Commission, without reference to the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the Environment and
.and Use Committee. However, there is an appeal procedure under Sections 13 (1) and 13(2).
Wption 13(1) appeals—Appeals by an individual to the Environment and Land Use Committee
m Agricultural Land Commission decisions:
[  Under this Section a person who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Commission under
Jgbtion 12 (1) of the Act may file a notice of appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee
[By if he has obtained a Certificate of Leave to Appeal, signed by any two members of the
^aricultural Land Commission.
I This appeal requires a formal hearing and the final decision is made by the Environment
md Land Use Committee.
Section 13 (2)—Under this Section a person who is refused leave to appeal by the
Sommission may, within 30 days of being refused, apply to the Minister for Leave to Appeal to
ie Environment and Land Use Committee. If the leave to appeal is granted a formal hearing is
eld and the final decision is made by the Environment and Land Use Committee.
lection 20 (1) applications—Applications for exemption for use or subdivision within an
agricultural Land Reserve:
Under this Section a person or agency may apply to the Agricultural Land Commission for
ermission to subdivide land or to use a parcel of land within an Agricultural Land Reserve for
urposes other than those allowed outright by the Act or regulations. The land remains in the
igricultural Land Reserve and the Commission may impose whatever terms and conditions it
onsiders advisable. The decision of the Commission is final. There is no appeal, except to the
ourts on a question of law or excess of jurisdiction. The applicant may however, request the
Iranicipality or regional district, as the case may be, to submit an application under Section
1 (2) on his behalf.
7
 Sections 10 (3) and 10 (5)—Applications for inclusion into the Agricultural Land Reserve:
Section 10 (3)—A municipality, a regional district, or the Commission may apply to the
Lieutenant Governor in Council to have additional lands designated as an Agricultural Land
Reserve, whether or not 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 owners. A report of the public hearing must accompany the
application. The Commission reviews the application and formulates a recommendation which
is subsequently reviewed by the Environment and Land Use Committee on behalf of the
Lieutenant Governor in Council. Cabinet makes the final decision by Order in Council, and if
approved, the Agricultural Land Commission designates the lands as, or part of an Agricultural
Land Reserve.
Section 10 (5)—An individual owner may apply to the Agricultural Land Commission, via
the regional district, to have his land included in an Agricultural Land Reserve. No hearing is
required and the Commission may designate the land as Agricultural Land Reserve, after
approval from the Lieutenant 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 use may be allowed by local government without reference to the Commission. In
addition, another category of subdivision and certain conditional uses may be applied for
directly to the Commission. When application for the conditional use is received by the Commission, the Commission consults with the regional district or municipality 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
resolution, with certain other situations requiring land use or subdivision approval without the
necessity for a formal application. Very infrequent use is made of this power as it pertains only to
unusual circumstances involving extreme emergency or hardships and in those cases where
the necessity for a formal application is questionable. In all cases the Commission attempts to
contact the local government to determine its position on the matter.
CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS
This report summarizes the principal activities of the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission during its eighth year of operation. Each annual report of the Commission serves as a
reference point by which the people of this Province can evaluate the work of the Commission;
cumulatively these annual reports chronicle the development and general progress of the
farmland preservation program.
The 1980-81 fiscal year has been a very busy and challenging one for the Commission and
its staff. Applications to the Commission for exclusion and subdivision, utility corridors and
highway rights of way, have increased very substantially. This situation is a reflection in part of a
very active and often highly speculative real estate market. The Province has obviously been
experiencing an accelerating inflow of population and of capital. It is obvious therefore that
continually increasing demands for land for urban uses creates a heavy workload for regional
districts and municipalities as well as for the Agricultural Land Commission. Regional districts
throughout the Province have been making substantial progress in the formulation and updating
of Official Community Plans and Settlement Plans, thanks in no small measure to the provisions
of grant money from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. To this end, the Agricultural Land
Commission has worked closely with the planning staffs and Planning Commissions of regional
8
 districts in order to maintain the integrity of the agricultural lands within the boundaries of local
jurisdictions. During this past year the Commission has given a high priority to achieving active
dialogue with regional district boards and elected municipal officials with a view to achieving in
concert with local decision makers, a more rational approach to land use through forward
planning. In this exercise the Commission acknowledges that other segments of society have
requirements for land in order to accommodate industry, residences, services and recreation.
The objective is to meet such needs while protecting our precious and limited store of higher
capability agricultural land.
More active participation in the land use planning process will, hopefully, resolve many of
the difficulties associated with what has come to be known as "fine tuning" of the Agricultural
Land Reserve (ALR). However, to further expedite the more accurate definition of ALR boundaries, the Commission was given special budgetary funds in the 1980-81 fiscal year to defray
the cost of field work and mapping in areas where soils information was inadequate or
inaccurate at the time the Agricultural Land Reserve maps were drawn. This program is
expected to require five to six years for completion.
While a great deal can be accomplished by sound planning, we, in all walks of life, must
come to accept the fact that land is a fixed resource that must be shared among an ever
increasing population of users. Nowhere is this more evident than in British Columbia where a
series of rather confined mountain valleys must accommodate our needs for food production,
housing, secondary industry, service corridors and recreation. It is inevitable therefore that our
society must come to accept increased density of human settlement in urban areas. This in
effect will entail a sharp reduction in availability of rural homesites on acreage residential lots
contiguous to urban centres.
Although problems of conflict between urban and agricultural activities have been evident
for some time, it is disturbing to note that reports of such problems are increasing very sharply. In
situations where urban developments are adjacent to active farms, incidents of vandalism,
harrassment of livestock and theft are very numerous. In more densely-populated areas of the
Province the Commission as well as municipal authorities are required to deal with a two-way
impact situation. Aside from the problems of farmers as listed, the occupants of contiguous
urban developments complain bitterly of unpleasant odours from livestock operations and of
possible pollution by agricultural chemicals used in pest control procedures on crops. In such
jinstances it is only fair to state that those seeking to enjoy the benefits of rural living cannot
realistically expect to enjoy all of the amenities of urban living without encountering some of the
| less than aesthetic phenomena that occasionally arise in connection with active farming
[ operations.
It should be pointed out however, that gradual progress is being made toward overcoming
i impact problems associated with the farm/residental interface. Gains are being made primarily
through close collaboration with regional districts and municipalities in land use planning. The
Commission staff have been working closely with Ministry of Agriculture and Food personnel on
what is known as the Green Zone Committee. The objective in this work is to develop adequate
specifications for the siting of buildings for intensive beef, swine and poultry operations. To this
end, the Committee has prepared model bylaws for these types of livestock operations,
incorporating specifications for siting, odour control and protection from encroachment. Some
| local authorities have adopted these and hopefully similar bylaws will be developed for all
I affected areas.
During the year covered by this report, there have been some changes in the membership
of the Commission. In October of 1980, Mr. Allan Claridge of Oyama and Mr. Ted Cornwall of
I Williams Lake, retired from the Commission after four years of distinguished service. It is of
I particular interest that these gentlemen were the first Commissioners to have served the full
four-year term specified in the Agricultural Land Commission Act. In December, Mr. Arthur
 Sutcliffe of Creston and Mr. Ian Paton of Delta were welcome additions to the Commission. In
July, Mr. Robert Murdoch joined the Commission in the capacity of general manager, responsB
ble for all operational activities. In addition to his managerial role, Mr. Murdoch also holds an
appointment as a Commissioner and participates in this role on occasions where other CorrS
missioners are unavailable thus maintaining the Commission at full working strength at all timesj
In March of 1981 Commissioner John Rogers of White Rock, presently the longest servinm
Commissioner, was designated as Vice-Chairman within the statutory provisions of the AcH
A special word of acknowledgement is extended to the staff of the Commission. In a very
active and often difficult year, the staff have given dedicated service well beyond what might be
considered as normal requirements of the work. Likewise, a special word of tribute is extender
to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food for their generous assistance in many aspects of the
work. The resources of the Commission are limited in many areas and therefore the assistance
of Ministry specialists has been of inestimable value. Much more will be said of such activities in
the body of the report. It will also be evident that many other ministries of government are|
involved in the work of the Commission in various ways. Their co-operation and assistance is
also gratefully acknowledged.
The Provincial Agricultural Land Commission values very highly the assistance it receivS
from farm organizations throughout the Province.
Aside from considerations of our food supply options, it should be recognized that agricffl
ture in British Columbia is a viable, dynamic industry in its own right. In employment terms alone
the agriculture/food system provides at least one job in five. Furthermore, a dollar at the farrra
gate has a spin-off effect to the economy in the order of nine to ten times as compared to a factffl
of seven for most other industries.
OVERVIEW OF THE YEAR'S ACTIVITIES
Regionalization
For the purpose of processing the applications, the Province has been divided into six
regions. The following shows the Regional District breakdown:
Region 1—Vancouver Island
Regional Districts: Comox-Strathcona, Alberni-Clayoquot, Nanaimo, Cowichan Valley,
Capital, Sunshine Coast, Islands Trust.
Region 2—Lower Mainland
Regional Districts: Greater Vancouver, Central Fraser Valley, Dewdney-Alouette, Fraser-1
Cheam.
Region 3—Kootenay and Coastal
Regional Districts: East Kootenay, Central Kootenay, Kootenay Boundary, Powell River, Squam-1
ish-Lillooet, Mount Waddington.
Region 4—Okanagan
Regional Districts: Okanagan-SimWkameen, Central Okanagan, North Okanagan.
Region 5—Interior
Regional Districts: Columbia-Shuswap, Thompson-Nicola, Cariboo.
Region 6—North
Regional Districts: Central Coast, Skeena-Queen Charlotte, Kitimat-Stikine, Bulkley-Nechako,
Fraser Fort-George, Peace River-Liard.
 i This regionalization has allowed the Agricultural Land Commission staff to become familiar
fflh their specific region and to develop contacts with the staffs of the regional districts within
heir region. It has also resulted in a better flow of applications to the Commission.
The continuing support of the regional district in the processing of applications is greatf ully
Bknowledged.
Changes in Regulations Under the Agricultural Land Commission Act
I In 1977, the Agricultural Land Commission recognized that the existing subdivision and
[aid use regulations (B.C. Regulation 93/75) required revision to reflect the current policy of the
rommission. Some of the proposals for change were fairly significant and required detailed
iScussions with various ministries of the Provincial Government, regional districts and munici-
Slities, and the general public at large. Finally in late 1980, a consensus was reached and new
gulations were enacted in January 1981.
[ By way of brief explanation, at the request of the Ministry of the Attorney General, former
\m. Regulation 93/75 was split into two separate regulations. One regulation (B.C. Regulation
©1), commonly called the Agricultural Land Commission subdivision and land use regulation,
sts those categories of subdivision and land use that are permitted without any approval from
Ira Commission. These subdivisions and many of the uses were generally termed "outright
ises" in the former regulation. In addition, those uses termed "conditional uses" in the former
aulation have been added (as B.C. Regulation 8/81) to existing B.C. Regulation 313/78 which
Itthe Commission's procedural regulation. Essentially this addition specifies those uses and
subdivisions which are dealt with as "special cases" meaning simply that while they still require
n approval of the Commission, the method of obtaining the approval is direct from the
ommissjpn and is less complicated and time consuming than are regular applications under
Iffier Section 12 (1) or 20 (1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act.
I The substantive changes to the regulations are as follows:
I (1) The former regulation specified that additional dwelling units as necessary for farm use
were allowed as outright uses. This section was deleted since the statute itself permits
any type of additional dwelling that may be required for farm use.
(2) Public parks, recreation reserves and wildlife reserves were formerly listed as outright
uses. In the new regulation, only those parks, recreation reserves and wildlife reserves
that are not intensive in nature are left as an outright use while those that involve
substantial alterations to the land become a conditional use or "special case" which
would require an approval from the Commission. Essentially, parks and recreational
reserves that involve development of less than 1 000 square metres, where the park is
less than 2 hectares, or less than 4 000 square metres, where the park is greater than 2
hectares, would not require an approval from the Commission.
(3) Golf courses, which were an outright use, have now become a conditional use or
"special case" which requires approval from the Commission. This change, and the
change noted in point 2 above, reflect an increasing concern of the Commission over
the establishment of such uses in the Reserve. While parks, recreational reserves,
wildlife reserves and golf courses may not irreversibly alter the land so as to permanently destroy its agricultural potential, the Commission is concerned that their inappropriate location within the Agricultural Land Reserve can create very serious impact
problems for legitimate farming operations in the vicinity. Parks and golf courses have a
very strong people orientation which very often creates some severe problems for the
surrounding agricultural community. Similarly, wildlife winter ranges and waterfowl
nesting areas, while not people oriented, can pose very difficult problems forfarmers as
a result of the impact of the wildlife. Rather than allowing these uses to establish
11
 anywhere in the Agricultural Land Reserve, the Commission now considers them on a
case-by-case basis.
(4) The former regulation listed any additional dwellings that may be required for non-farm
use for joint tenants or tenants-in-common as a conditional use. This has now been
deleted and these uses will be coming forward as regular applications under Section
20, subsection 1 of the Act.
(5) Schools and other public institutions were listed in the former regulation as a conditional use. These have now been deleted and will be coming forward as regular
applications under the Agricultural Land Commission Act thus having the benefit of full
public exposure and scrutiny by local government rather than coming directly to the
Commission with little exposure at the local level.
(6) Horse-riding arenas or boarding stables and dog kennels have been added as conditional uses or special cases under the revised regulations since they are quasi-
agricultural in nature. By establishing them as special cases, the Commission can
consider each situation on a case-by-case basis thus insuring that they are not located
in areas where they would create difficulties forthe surrounding agricultural community.
There were some additional minor changes in wording but these did not affect the substance of the Regulations.
Summary of Major Block Applications Submitted Under Sections 11 (1) and 10 (3) of the
Agricultural Land Commission Act Completed During the 1980-81 Fiscal Year
1. Seymour Arm (Regional District of Columbia-Shuswap)
The review of the Agricultural Land Reserve boundary surrounding this recreational community in Shuswap Lake resulted in inclusion of lands into the Agricultural Land Reserve as well
as exclusions from the Reserve.
This study of the Agricultural Land Reserve boundary resulted from an application submitted by the Regional District. Two key pieces of information served as a basis for the review. First,
new soil/agricultural capability mapping for the study area provided the basis for soil analysis in \
this area. Second, land use information in the form of parcel size data and land demand
information was provided by the Regional District. This second source of information was
compiled in response to Settlement Plan preparation.
The net result of this application is a refined Agricultural Land Reserve boundary which
reflects both improved soil/agricultural capability information as well as local land use needs
documented through a Settlement Planning exercise.
2. Tete Jaune Valemount (Regional District of Fraser-Fort George)
The Tete Jaune Valemount application centred on a study area located between Tete Jaune
Valemount and McNaughton Lake in the Regional District of Fraser-Fort George. This was also
a joint application submitted to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by both the Agricultural Land ,
Commission and the Regional District of Fraser-Fort George. Inclusion of land into the Agricultural Land Reserve as well as exclusion of land resulted from this application.
The agricultural capability ratings for the soils in this area were reviewed by the Soils
Branch, Ministry of Agriculture and Food following field work in the area. The revised soil/]
agricultural capability ratings indicated some higher capability soils for agriculture in the study
area than were previously identified in the Canada Land Inventory.
The Regional District had been preparing a Settlement Plan for the Valemount Tete Jaune
area concurrently with the review of the Agricultural Land Reserve boundaries. In fact, the
Settlement Plan and the subject application pursuant to the Agricultural Land Commission Act
went to public hearing on the same date. However, it should be noted that most of the resulting !
12
 amendments to the Agricultural Land Reserve boundary were based on agricultural capability
Considerations and not present land use or parcel size information. The Settlement Planning
I llrocessln itself revealed that ample land exists outside the Agricultural Land Reserve boundary
\mr rural/residential development in the foreseeable future. Consequently, while local planning
considerations were reviewed during the Commission's examination of the application, revised
soil information provided the basis for the Agricultural Land Reserve boundary amendment
I decision-making process.
Ii 3. Langley Review (Central Fraser Valley Regional DistnctU^
The review of the Agricultural Land Reserve boundary in the Township of Langley was
(nmalized in the 1980-81 fiscal year. While the application for exclusion of lands was submitted
independently by the Agricultural Land Commission, the review was conducted in full cqn-
■ailtation with the Corporation of the Township of Langley.
:   The Property Management Branch, Ministry of Agriculture and Food, played an integral
role in the assembly of data for this review. Factors for which data was compiled included revised
Hail/agricultural capability ratings, existing land use status, existing agricultural activity, parcel
size, and proximity of agricultural activities to other farm related operations.
The result of the review and subsequent application to the Lieutenant Governor in Council
p/vas a refined Agricultural Land Reserve boundary through the exclusion of several hundred
lectares of land. However, also important was the fact that through the data compiled by the
3roperty Management Branch, there developed a much greater understanding of the impor-
ance of the Township of Langley as an agricultural industry support centre.
1. Robson Valley (Regional District of Fraser-Fort George)
[  This particular review centred on the Robson Valley from Swiftwater to Mount Robson
■Ewincial Park. The result of the review was a joint application from both the Agricultural Land
Commission and the Regional District of Fraser-Fort George to the Lieutenant Governor in
Council for amendment to the Agricultural Land Reserve boundary.
E   The area under review is largely undeveloped, the majority consisting of Crown land with a
|ffirtion of the review area falling within Mount Robson Provincial Park. Consequently, informa-
ion pertaining to land use planning did not have a prominent role in this particular Agricultural
i .and Reserve boundary review.
i  The review itself was based primarily on technical information pertaining to soil capability in
he valley bottom. The intent of the review was to "fine tune" the Agricultural Land Reserve
soundary through the exclusion of lands with low agricultural capability, largely consisting of
bsteep slopes and gravel benches.
IBl?ofab/e Hill (Cowichan Valley Regional District)
While this application resulted in only a minor amendment to the Agricultural Land Reserve
loundary, it is a good example of where land use planning information had a dominant role in the
Iffiriulation of the Commission's recommendation to Cabinet.
The application was initiated individually by the Regional District of Cowichan Valley. The
equest for exclusion of lands came about following the preparation of an Official Settlement
'Ian in the Cobble Hill area. Information pertaining to parcel size, residential lot supply and
lemand in the Plan area, servicing infrastructure and land use planning strategy in this
l^ticular situation was central in the Commission's review and formulation of recommendations
I the application. The planning exercise revealed that land use demands within the settlement
irea, without alternatives outside the Agricultural Land Reserve, justified the application for
[exclusion of lands from the Agricultural Land Reserve.
13
 6. Powell River Review (Powell River Regional District)
The Powell River review examined the Agricultural Land Reserve lands to the immediafi
east of the District Municipality of Powell River and west of Lang Creek. The review wag
conducted by the Commission in close consultation with the Regional District of Powell Riven
The basis of the review was revised soil/agricultural capability rating information provides
by the Terrestrial Studies Branch, Ministry of Environment. Other information considered by thi
Commission during the review included consultation with the Ministry of Lands, Parks and
Housing on land status information through the preparation of a Crown Land Master Plan as wej
as contact with the Ministry of Forests on Provincial Forest Boundary review in the study area]
As is the case in all block applications to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, a public
hearing was held. Information gathered from the hearing as well as submissions which followed
were considered by the Commission. Minor amendments to the Agricultural Land Reserva
boundary amendment proposal were made following the receipt of public input.
The result of the review and application is an Agricultural Land Reserve boundary which
has received input from the public, two levels of government and several Provincial GovernmenJ
ministries. The process may be seen as a review with input from diverse interest agencies
culminating in a refined definition of the legislative boundary of protection for the agriculture
land resource.
Enhanced Fine Tuning Program
In the early days of the program, 1973-74, it was well-known that the definition of tfS
Agricultural Land Reserve boundary as being a fair representation of where the line should be
drawn to protect land with potential for agricultural use varied from area to area in the Provinca
Furthermore, it was known that land use decision making is a dynamic process whether we are
talking of privately owned lands or Crown land and the Agricultural Land Reserve boundark^
could not be "etched in stone" at the outset.
The legislators therefore saw fit to include the Act and Regulations and application process
that would allow for changes in the Agricultural Land Reserve boundary. Moreover, the Commia
sion deployed staff to review Agricultural Land Reserve designations in areas of the Provinea
where the pressures for alternative development seemed greatest and where boundaries were
drawn using small scale base information. This process of Agricultural Land Reserve boundary
review was carried on in close association with regional districts and municipalities and became
known as the process of Agricultural Land Reserve "fine-tuning". The review of an Agriculture
Land Reserve boundary may result in adjustments by means of local government or Commit
sion sponsored applications to Cabinet for exclusions and/or inclusions. These applications are
first reviewed by the Environment and Land Use Committee of Cabinet.
Because of concerns that in certain regions of the Province (particularly in the beef farmiffl
areas of the Bulkley-Nechako and in the grazing lands of the Thompson-Nicola Regional
District) designated Agricultural Land Reserves do no adequately include all the land capable of
agricultural use, and because of growing evidence of inaccuracies in the Agricultural Land
Reserve boundary on Vancouver Island, the Commission decided in 1979 to press for funds to
enhance the Agricultural Land Reserve fine-tuning activities. A program was approved in the fall |
of 1979 and commenced spring 1980.
The co-operation and participation of the Terrestrial Studies Branch, Ministry of Envirdml
ment and also the Soils Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in this program is
greatfully acknowledged.
The technical information being assembled will not only provide the basis for "fine-tunirSI
the Agricultural Land Reserve boundary, but will also be useful to other Provincial ministries, to t
regional districts and to local communities.
14
 Enforcement of The Soimpnservation Act
i In conjunction with local and regional authorities, the Commission administers the So/7
Conservation Act. Problems have been encountered with the Soil Conservation Act particularly
i areas of high-urban density, e.g., the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The major problem
i areas such as this is the considerable volume of waste being excavated for urban buildings.
Contractors have large quantities of fill to dispose of and few cheap and easily accessible areas
^disposal. As a consequence, fill is sometimes placed on unused agricultural land either as a
pans of upgrading poor soil drainage or in some cases without the owner's knowledge. A
Sisiderable amount of time and effort has been spent by Commission staff monitoring this
fiuation in conjunction with the local municipal staff.
[ Another major problem, also associated with constraSion, is the mining of gravel. There is
onsiderable demand for gravel across the Province. Often gravel sources are overlain by a
wer of loess (wind-blown material) which makes these soilsyery valuable as agricultural soils,
'he Commission realizes that there are two resources involved in these instances and that it
hould attempt to utilize both resources instead of one at the expense of the other. Commission
taff have been instrumental in working with local authorities and applicants in developing
ppropriate conditions which will allow for gravel extraction and preserve agricultural land
raultaneously.
I Peat lands have recently come into focus as an area of concern within the Agricultural Land
Sserves. There have been a number of recent studies on these areas to determine more about
leir characteristics. Until recently very little was known about their ecological interaction within
cosystems. The Commission staff is in the process of determining to what extent peat
faction should be allowed on wetlands, bogs and meadows across the Province.
To aid in the Commission's decision-making procedures, Commission staff have drafted a
Eliminary set of guidelines for use in applications under the Soil Conservation Act. These
jHdelines were formulated through extensive discussions with the staff of the Soils Branch,
£histry of Agriculture and Food. The preliminary guidelines will be sent to local authorities in
Rp'ming year to test their adequacy. After this testing period, the Commission staff will redraft
le guidelines and produce a brochure which outlines procedures for application, the purpose of
te Soil Conservation Act, exemptions from the So/7 Conservation Act as well as the guidelines,
is hoped this will speed up the process and improve the quality of applications under the So/7
Conservation Act received by the Commission.
ommission-Owned Farmlands
I The original Land Commission Actoi 1973 granted the Commission powers to acquire and
||pose of land and an appropriation not to exceed $25,000,000. Some 22 land purchases were
lade during 1975 and 1976 and a long-term leasing program was developed. In addition to
squiring land through purchases from private owners, the Commission agreed to accept
tfninistrative responsibility for certain Crown-owned lands within the Agricultural Land Re-
3rve; notably, farmlands purchased in 1972 and 1973 under the Greenbelt Protection Fund
Sj surplus Ministry of Highways lands, and other special cases.
Under the Agricultural Land Commission Act, R.S. Chapter 9 (consolidated 22 December
[980) the Commission has powers to acquire and dispose of property. Commission-owned land
liw be leased; the sale of Commission owned land must be approved by the Lieutenant
overnor in Council. Appropriations for land acquisition may be paid out of consolidated
Spiuefundon approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The relevant sections of the Act
|t4 (1), 7 (c), 22 (a), 22 (c), and 32.
15
 The objectives of the program are:
—to facilitate special community projects that would enhance the agricultural use of
Agricultural Land Reserve lands or assist the farm community, e.g., approximately 810 hectares purchased near Vernon and made available under lease to thS
City of Vernon for effluent spray irrigation, East Kootenay acquisition to form a comB
munity pasture and assist rangeland and rehabilitation;
—to re-establish agriculture on Agricultural Land Reserve lands through parcel consolidaj
tion and leasing of viable farm units, e.g., the 809.7 hectare Langley farm project;
—to ensure the active farm use of highly visible Crown-owned Agricultural Land ReservS
lands that had been purchased from farmers for various reasons, e.g., surplus Ministry of
Highways lands; farms purchased under the Greenbelt Protection Act,
—to assist with certain hardship cases occurring at the time of Agricultural Land Reserve
designations;
—the long-term lease program emphasizes 20-year leases to younger farmers with an
option to purchase after three years successful farming. The criteria used in selecting
lessees gives emphasis to those who are under-capitalized or have an insufficient land
base to become fully viable. In most cases lessees are required to purchase buildings at
the commencement of the lease.
As of 31 March 1981 the land holdings were:
—57 properties owned by the Commission totalling 4 251.0 hectares;
—23 properties administered for the Crown totalling 1 012.1 hectares;
—60 former Ministry of Highways properties (title with the Crown) totalling 404.9 hectares!;
Included among the Commission-owned lands are three properties received by way of gifts
which are managed in a semi-natural state in the interests of wildlife in accordance with
agreements with the former owners.
The Commission limits its activity on this program to acquisition and disposal decisions and
to establishing lease policy. Staff responsibility involves the work of Director of Property and Soil
Management Division and one clerical support. Expenditure each year is limited to repurchase
of lessee-owned improvements at the time of lease termination. Per annum expenditure on thja
item is $100-$250,000 per year and is a vote item under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food-S
Agricultural Land Commission. Revenue from the sale of properties goes to consolidated
revenue and in 1980-81 totalled $1.4 million dollars.
The program is administered on a day-to-day basis by the Property Management Branch™
the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Food. The program employs 31/2 agrologists, 1 appraiser
and 2 clerical support. Administrative expenditures of $165,000 are covered in the Ministry of
Agriculture and Food vote and $205,000 is provided for expenditures on taxes, maintenance
and miscellaneous expenses. Revenues go to consolidated revenue and for 1980-81 totalled
$375,373.
No land purchases have been made by the Commission since 1976 but a number of
properties have been added to the program from Crown lands. The first lessees under th®
program became eligible to purchase in 1979 and seven properties were sold in 1979 and 1980.
Demand for these properties when they become available for lease is very high amorM
active and perspective farmers meeting the selection criteria. The Commission believes thffi:
this demand indicates that the program is serving a genuine need for assistance to undOT
capitalized young farmers.
The Commission has held recent discussions with the Minister of Agriculture and Food on a
plan to re-activate the Land Acquisition Program by using proceeds from the sale of properties.
The concept would be to create a revolving fund amounting to perhaps $1,000,000 per annuifj
16
_*J
 t   In addition to providing a revolving inventory of land for leasing to young farmers, acquisi-
Iion objectives would include:
—replotting and consolidation of small parcels into viable farm units;
[   —a vehicle for returning to productive agricultural-use lands in the Agricultural Land
Reserve that are debilitated and/or unused due to current ownership;
I  —the securing of a land base at the Agricultural Land Reserve boundary for agricultural-
industry support uses such as agricultural product-processing.
FINANCIAL REPORT
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES
For the Year Ended 31 March 1981
Capital
Administrative
Total
'rofessional and special services I
Saries	
ravel	
Bmmission members fees	
mice expenses iyi?£i
:urniture and equipment	
Materials and supplies, utilities and taxes...
tentals	
ravertising and publications	
fechinery and equipment	
jfants	
5,173
12,441
15,000
S 40,753
695,080
150,867
132,359
32,659
3,176
16,848
664
6,676
14,054
35,375
$ 45,926
695,080
150,867
132,359
32,659
3,176
29,289
664
6,676
14,054
50,375
Totals     $32,614
$1,128,518       $1,161,125
(Prepared without audit)
NOTES—STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES
■ (a) During the year ended 31 March 1981, expenditures for administrative purposes fell into three program
ffijgories:
(i) Commission and Burnaby staff support, $811,426.
(ii) Agricultural Land Reserve enhanced fine-tuning Burnaby staff support, $69,570.
klfiii) Agricultural Land Reserve enhanced fine-tuning Terrestrial Studies Branch staff support, $247,520.
(b) Expenditures for purchase of lessee-owned improvements on lease terminations totalled $382,653 for the year
;chedule I).
■(c) Receipts from the sale of Commission properties totalled $1,411,041.33 for the year (Schedule II) and were
fflto the Consolidated Revenue Account of the Government of British Columbia.
(d) Property Management Branch of the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Food reported that rent and other income
tjm Commission-owned and administered properties totalled $303,476 and payments received on improvements sold
lessees amounted to $71,896. These monies were remitted to the Consolidated Revenue Account of the Province of
■itish Columbia.
(e) Commission legal fees for the year that were paid by the Ministry of the Attorney General totalled $64,831.
Approved on behalf of the Commission.
M. F CLARKE, Chairman
R. R MURDOCH, General Manager
STATISTICS
I Schedule III includes various ALR statistics to March 31,1981. Please note that all figures
'e now in hectares and because of the conversion from acres to hectares, there may be some
triance in the figures from our previous publications. Some figures may also have been
17
 adjusted to correct any earlier errors. Another point to note is that all entries concerning the area
of land are based on the actual date of decision not on the date in which the application is
received.
The statistics now include information on the agricultural capability of the land. However,^
these figures have only been compiled since 1979. 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 lowel
agricultural capability).
As at April 1,1981, there were approximately 4 700 164 hectares of land in the ALR. A loss
of some 5 755 hectares since our last report. A brief analysis of the figures has revealed the
most of the land (76%) was excluded under Section 11 (1) of the Act by applications from till
local governments and/or Commission reviews. Another 18% was excluded under Section
12 (1) of the Act (individual applications). These lands excluded were generally low in agri
cultural capability. The remaining area was a result of appeals to the ELUC. On the other hanol
approximately 293 hectares were included in the ALR. These lands were at best of moderate
capability.
SCHEDULE I
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ON LEASE TERMINATIONS FOR PURCHASE OF IMPROVEMENTS!
Property Lessee Improvements Purchased
No. 31 R. Ross    Orchard (trees)  $ 28,43fl
No. 22.14   Stewart & Edwards   Clearing costs        4,54a
No. 22.20   Schmidt j,    Dairy farm (dwelling, barn and pens, bunker, silo, well,
roads, manure pit, miscellaneous site improvements, milking equipment, land clearing, seeding and development,
drainage and fencing    262,87a
No. 28        Judge    Dairyfarm (dwelling, dairy equipment and installation, barn
improvements, bunker, silo, manure pit, and water system      87,793
Total  $382,653]
Provincial Agricultural Land Commission Statutory Account Order in Council 1028 — May 1980.
SCHEDULE II
RECEIPTS FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTY
Property Location Purchaser Date of Sale Sale Price]
No. 31 Kelowna  SolmerBros. June 27, 1980  $   120,610.66
No. 22.4 Langley Farms Connor  January 15, 1981  703,639.53
No. 22.6 Langley Farms Clayton  January 31, 1981  140,635.30
No. 22.21 Langley Farms Arbour  December 31, 1980  155,419.54
No. 22.8(b)    Langley Farms   McDonnell     March 1,1981         290,736.30
Total i,i4.„$1,411,041«(
 SCHEDULE I
iAREA INCLUDED AND EXCLUDED FROM THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE BY YEAR
(All Figures are in Hectares)
Type of Application
iclusions..
Nil
6 065.0
516.9
4300.0
19141.0
3 251.5
249.6
118.9
33 642.9
xclusions:
■ 11(1)	
■ 12(1)	
13(1)	
13(2)	
>tal Acreage
Excluded	
212.9
379.2
Nil
N/A
1 777.3
1 190.1
164.0
N/A
1 375.5
932.2
49.0
N/A
16 271.3
2 490.3
199.6
N/A
8 492.3
1 913.8
8.5
66.0
7 260.5
2175.0
52.2
270.8
4 304.3
1 496.8
10.5
260.8
3158.4
200.8
61.5
Nil
42 852.5
10 778.2
545.3
597.6
592.1
3 723.5
2356.7
18961.2
10 480.6
9 758.5
6 072.4
3 420.7
54773.6
Total ALR area at designation .ft..t. 4 721 295.3
Total area included since designation..
Total area excluded under 11 (1)	
Total area excluded under 12 (1)	
Total area excluded under 13 (1)	
Total area excluded under 13 (2);
33 642.9
42 853.5
10 778.2
545.3
597.6
Current ALR area as at April 1,1981  !JR»i 4 700 164.6
19
 April 1, 1981
SUMMARY OF APPLICATIONS
CONSIDERED UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT
(All Figures are Cumulative)
12(1) SUMMARY
(Applications by an owner to exclude land from the ALR)
Number of applications '..    2,257
Hectares requested for exclusion 41 994.0
Land Commission decision:
Remain in ALR  19 287.2
Exclude )...:.  10 788.2
Allow 20 (1) #..^=..-.4  11 928.6
11 (1) SUMMARY
(Applications by Municipality, Regional District, or the Commission to exclude land from ALR)
Number of applications       129
Hectares requested for exclusion   54 395.4
Land Commission recommendation:
Allow  41 965.3
Refuse  12 430.1
Cabinet decision:
Allow ^  42 852.5
Refuse „. ;...^.. 11 527.9
INCLUSION SUMMARY
(Applications to include land into the ALR)
Applications*  95
Hectares requested for inclusion 48 946.8
Land Commission recommendation:
Allow    44 495.9
Refuse :.    4 450.9
Cabinet decision:
Allow  33 642.9
Refuse  13 831.6
20
 April 1, 1981
CURRENT ALR AREA BY REGIONAL DISTRICT
Approximate
Area at Date
{Inclusions
Area Excluded
Approximate
Area as of
Regional District
of Designation
11(1)
12(1)
13(1)
13(2)
April 1,  1981
7 935.2
56.7
7 878.5
Ikley-Nechako ^l&St
297 611.3
19 595.1
925 506.1
4 453.4
55 344.1
130.0
4 318.2
2.9
77.6
660.4
13 546.7
1 677.7
177.6
543.2
1 170.5
27.8
353.1
58.7
14.6
6.1
61.9
260.3
297 291.3
18 521.5
915 045.2
4 425.6
53 041.3
antral Coast	
i-ntrai Fraser Valley	
1 antral Kootenay	
71 538.5
445.5
4 315.0
331.4
2.8
	
67 334.8
i-ntral Okanagan	
33 076.9
67 408.8
91.5
199.5
192.5
6 109.1
462.1
752.7
10.5
171.7
—
32 503.3
60 574.9
■mmbia-Shuswap	
■Biox-Strathcona	
43 724.7
21 983.8
3 572.9
6.6
5 041.6
506.0
824.3
366.6
—
36.0
41 431.7
21 081.8
iwichan Valley	
llwdney-Alouette	
23 765.2
272 510.1
480.2
2 744.6
124.6
85.1
1 628.0
—
66.0
21 415.7
270 691.5
1st Kootenay	
Biser-Cheam	
36 761.1
349 635.6
0.8
21 642.1
354.9
287.1
134.0
522.1
55.4
—
36 217.6
370 468.5
■ger-Fort George	
isater Vancouver	
32 550.6
64 170.0
1.2
2 072.9
383.7
120.6
141.0
129.1
4.4
—
32 022.7
65 993.2
Bffiat-Stikine	
lotenay Boundary	
55 060.7
	
34.4
99.9
159.5
	
54 766.9
Ifflnt Waddington	
1 740.9
	
	
1 740.9
Inaimo	
21 052.6
70 283.4
171.3
10.1
10.9
160.7
308.6
390.7
55.0
4.1
—
20 849.4
69 738.0
I'rth Okanagan 	
(anagan-Similkameen ...........
86 477.7
104.5
86.4
381.0
4.5
—
86 110.3
dace River-Liard	
1 498 987.9
14 129.6
43 886.6
14.2
3 284.4
799.3
22.6
166.6
—
—
1 498 202.8
10 822.6
43 719.9
-(well River	
t»eena-Queen Charlotte	
Iffimish-Lillooet	
27 125.5
6 275.3
568 704.5
378.5
167.9
1 818.8
1 146.9
82.5
212.8
608.8
4.1
6.9
160.4
26 868.2
4 239.6
567 166.9
IKiine Coast	
Iwripson-Nicola	
Totals	
4 721 295.3
33 642.9
42 852.5
10 778.2
545.3
597.6
4 700 164.6
'
21
 April 1,1 981
AREA OF LAND INCLUDED IN THE ALR SINCE DESIGNATION (BY REGIONAL DISTRICT BY YEAg
(in Hectares)
Regional District
Total
Capital	
Cariboo	
Central Fraser Valley	
Central Kootenay
Central Okanagan	
Columbia-Shuswap	
Comox-Strathcona	
Cowichan Valley	
Dewdney-Alouette	
Fraser-Cheam	
Fraser-Fort George	
Greater Vancouver
Kitimat-Stikine	
Nanaimo	
North Okanagan	
Okanagan-Similkameen..
Peace River-Liard	
Thompson-Nicola	
Totals..
22
12.1
15.0
6.1
4 016.2
3.2
298.0
12.1
17.0
3 569.2
2 072.9
20.6
361.1
1.6
429.1
2.0
49.8
10.1
9.3
26.3
189.5
0.8
1.2
59.9
323.9
19.0
179.8
463.2
18 072.9
131.2
2 774.5
2.9
2.9
121.6
63.6
13.0
4.6
90.7
4.0
24.2
8.1
74.1
32.9
30.4
14.2
6 065.0
516.9
4 300.0
19 141.0
130.0
318.2
2.9
445.5
91.5
199.5
572.9
6.6
480.2
0.8
642.1
1.2
072.9
171.3
10.1
104.5
14.2
378.5
3 251.5  249.6  118.9  33,6421
 1979, 1980 and First Quarter 1981
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY OF AREAS INCLUDED IN THE ALR
(By Order in Council)
Regional District' |
Total
Area
Included'
(Hectares)
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY*
Prime
Dominant
Prime
Subordina'
Secondary
ii pital	
Iriboo	
i"iffiral Fraser Valley 
intral Kootenay 
Jffiral Okanagan...	
Ifflnibia-Shuswap	
■BBx-Strathcona	
IBchan Valley ...g......'.;" ..
Hinaimo	
Iffiagan-Similkameen
|®e River-Liard	
Sipson-Hicola	
96.8
302.0
2.9
121.6
63.6
168.3
2 774.5
4.6
32.9
30.4
14.2
8.1
28.1
2.9
28.5
28.0
88.6
159.9
2.0
14.1
30.4
4.1
59.7
267.2
2 614.6
Totals     3 619.9
386.6
2 941.5
3.2
1.6
4.9
0.4
10.1
5.8
34.8
91.5
35.6
74.8
2.6
18.4
14.2
4.0
281.7
1979,1980 and First Quarter 1981
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY OF AREAS REFUSED FOR INCLUSION UNDER
SECTION 10 (3) AND 10 (5)
(By Order in Council)
Regional District
Total Areas
Refused
for Inclusion
(Hectares)
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY"
Prime
Dominant
Prime
Subordinate
Secondary
IMal	
|ffimbia-Shuswap...
Est Kootenay	
Jiser-Fort George...
itmat-Stikine	
^Dtenay Boundary..
[   Totals .„	
6.5
1.2
25.8
4.1
10 850.2
8.1
6.5
1.2
10 850.2
10,895.9
7.7
10,850.2
1.2
25.8
2.9
8.1
38.0
Agricultural Capability Legend (Improved Ratings)
23
 INCLUSION SUMMARY SHEET BY REGIONAL DISTRICT AS OF APRIL 1, 1£
(Cumulative Figures)
Regional District
Number of
Applications
In Which
Decisions Have
Been Made
Hectares
Requested
for Inclusion
Hectares
Recommended
for Inclusion
by the Agricultural
Land Commission
Hectares! j
Approval
for Inclusior t
by Cabinet I
Bulkley-Nechako	
Capital	
Cariboo	
Central Coast	
Central Fraser Valley	
Central Kootenay
Central Okanagan	
Columbia-Shuswap	
Comox-Strathcona	
Cowichan Valley	
Dewdney-Alouette	
East Kootenay	
Fraser-Cheam	
Fraser-Fort George	
Greater Vancouver	
Kitimat-Stikine	
Kootenay Boundary	
Nanaimo	
North Okanagan	
Okanagan-Similkameen
Peace River-Liard	
Thompson-Nicola	
Totals	
6
9
4
1
1
4
4
9
6
2
6
1
1
8
2
2
3
16
1
4
1
4
2 874.5
139.4
4 318.2
20.2
2.9
445.5
91.5
276.4
3 604.5
6.6
511.7
25.8
0.8
22 796.0
3.2
12 923.1
8.1
380.2
10.1
115.4
14.2
378.5
130.0
4 318.2
2.9
445.5
91.5
199.5
3,572.9
6.6
480.2
0.8
21 642.1
1.2
12 932.1
171.3
10.1
107.3
14.2
378.5
130.Qi
4 318E
2^
445.5 <
91.5
199.5
3,572B
6.6
480.21
0.6
21 642.1
1.2
2 072.9
171.3
10.1 (
104.5
14.2 =
378.5
95
48 946.8
44 495.9
33 642%
24
 r
HECTARES EXCLUDED BY CABINET UNDER SECTION 11 (1
(BY REGIONAL DISTRICT BY YEAR)
April 1, 1981
APPLICATIONS
[Regional District
1975
1977
Total
ikley-Nechako	
fflal	
ffioo	
mfal Fraser Valley...
I fflral Kootenay	
; -itral Okanagan	
[ffinbia-Shuswap	
jjpx-Strathcona	
;/vidian Valley	
iffiney-Alouette „	
akootenay z^.	
I^r-Cheam	
I^r-Fort George	
ISer Vancouver	
Imat-Stikine	
ISenay Boundary	
Iffitimo t	
lift) Okanagan	
ttnagan-Similkameen.
Fvell River	
tjamish-Lillooet	
inline Coast	
jjmpson-Nicola	
144.5
60.7
4.0
232.7
79.7
14.6
206.8
75.3
24.3
44.5
102.0
40.5
154.6
590.8
1.2
6.5
29.1
41.7
9 215.2
303.5
235.9
766.5
153.8
56.6
271.1
25.5
61.9
3 553.1
100.0
1 824.3
189.4
2 659.6
1.6
6.1
34.4
66.8
12.5
935.2
147.7
120.6
1.6
10.1
155.4
10.9
80.5
3 284.4
2 569.8
89.9
952.6
3 494.9
93.1
3.6
56.7
269.5
1 682.0
976.0
706.8
92.5
2 734.9
275.7
68.0
77.3
194.0
10.2
6.9
224.3
6.6
1 818.8
14.2
59.5
138.0
77.6
660.4
546.7
677.7
315.0
192.5
109.1
041.6
506.0
744.6
124.6
354.9
287.1
383.7
120.6
34.4
10.9
160.7
86.4
284.4
167.9
818.8
146.9
Totals.
212.9 1 777.3 1 375.5 16 271.3 8 492.3 7 260.5 4 304.3   3 158.4 42 852.5
25
 1979,1980 and First Quarter fl
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY OF AREAS EXCLUDED BY APPLICATIONS UNDER
SECTION 11(1) (By Order in Council) (All Figures in Hectares)
Regional District
Total
Area
Excluded
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY"
Prime
Dominant
Prime
Subordina
Secondary
Capital	
Cariboo	
Central Fraser Valley	
Central Kootenay	
Central Okanagan	
Columbia-Shuswap	
Comox-Strathcona	
Cowichan Valley
East Kootenay..
Fraser-Cheam..
Fraser-Fort George	
Greater Vancouver
North Okanagan	
Okanagan-Similkameen..
Thompson-Nicola	
296.5
4 251.8
1 065.8
706.8
92.5
3 687.5
3 494.9
275.7
68.0
77.3
287.1
227.9
10.2
70.2
138.0
62.4
35.5
2.8
29.3
64.1
5.7
55.9
6.9
10.1
128.2
10.2
3.6
17.0
40.5
96.6
24.3
4.9
3.0
39.6
362.3
47.5
1 279.2
66.8
4.4
42.0
207.1
4 211.3
571.4
679.7
58.3
3 572.9
2,210.0
153.0
61.1
77.31
277.0
60.1
62.2
79.0
Totals ....,     14 723.2
431.7
208.9
1 802.2
12 280ii:
* Agricultural Capability Legend (Improved Ratings).
A. Prime—Totally Class 1-3.
B. Complex: Prime.
Dominant—Major portion of unit is prime land.
C Complex: Prime Subordinate—Lesser portion of unit is prime land.
D. Secondary—Class 4-7.
26
 (1979, 1980 and First Quarter 1981
^CULTURAL CAPABILITY OF AREAS REFUSED FOR EXCLUSION BY APPLICATIONS UNDER
SECTION 11 (1) (By Order in Council) (All Figures in Hectares)
Regional District;
Total
Area
Refused
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY*
Prime
Dominant
Prime
Subordinate
Secondary
iital	
itral Fraser Valley	
Hi Kootenay	
Hi Okanagan	
Bbia-Shuswap	
IRian Valley	
I&sr-Cheam	
I^r Vancouver	
IfBOkanagan	
Ijflagan-Similkameen..
IbD River	
ipson-Nicpla	
10.3
34.4
1 569.2
376.7
1 502.4
10.1
9.3
21.5
127.1
534.4
16.2
325.0
10.3
19.4
1 255.1
284.0
83.0
10.1
7.3
18.2
99.3
125.1
14.2
42.0
92.7
19.8
10.1
148.0
15.0
314.1
1 419.4
2.0
3.3
8.0
399.2
2.0
135.0
Totals .«*.   4 536.6
1 968.0
177.9
92.7
2 298.0
Agricultural Capability Legend (Improved Ratings). I
A. Prime—Totally Class 1-3.
B. Complex: Prime.
Dominant—Major portion of unit is prime land.
C. Complex: Prime Subordinate—Lesser portion of unit is prime land.
B D. Secondary—Class 4-7.
27
 1
April 1, 19
11 (1) SUMMARY SHEET BY REGIONAL DISTRICT (CUMULATIVE FIGURES)
Number
of
Applications
Hectares
Requested
for Exclusion
Hectares
Recommended
for Exclusion
by Land
Commission
Hectares
Approved
for
Exclusion
by Cabinet
Bulkley-Nechako	
Capital	
Cariboo	
Central Fraser Valley
Central Kootenay	
Central Okanagan	
Columbia-Shuswap	
Comox-Strathcona	
Cowichan Valley	
Dewdney-Alouette	
East Kootenay	
Fraser-Cheam	
Fraser-Fort George	
Greater Vancouver	
Kitimat-Stikine '.'.....'....
Kootenay Boundary
Nanaimo	
North Okanagan	
Okanagan-Similkameen
Powell River	
Squamish-Lillooet	
Sunshine Coast	
Thompson-Nicola	
Totals	
28
4
7
7
13
7
5
19
8
6
6
3
5
2
9
1
1
2
8
5
2
2
2
5
129
800.0
862.0
13 952.0
2 318.5
5 894.7
728.3
7 769.3
5 050.2
1 148.1
3 309.3
310.9
1 220.2
287.1
598.5
311.8
52.7
15.4
693.6
620.8
3 302.0
248.2
1 819.4
3 082.4
77.6
635.1
13 546.7
1 779.3
4 315.0
195.7
6 106.5
5 041.6
384.2
2 609.3
68.0
354.9
287.1
41.8
120.6
34.4
10.9
160.7
84.2
3 284.4
46.6
1 818.8
961.9
54 395.4
41 965.3
77.6
660.4
13 549
1 67*
4 315.C
192.5
6 109.1
5,041.6
506.C
2 744.C
124.6
354.J
287.1
383.7:
120.6:
34.41
10.S
160.7
86/
3 284/I
167.£\
1 818.6
1 146.E5
42 852.6
 AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY OF AREAS GIVEN APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION
AND/OR USE BY APPLICATIONS UNDER SECTION 11 (2)
(By Order in Council) for 1980 (All Figures in Hectares)
Regional District
Total
Area
Approved
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY
Prime
Dominant
Prime
Subordina'
Secondary
I Kootenay	
Iiagan-Sim.ilkameen
lenay Boundary	
I  Totals	
9.0
29.1
2.0
9.0
13.2
2.0
40.1
22.2
2.0
15.9
15.9
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY OF AREAS REFUSED FOR SUBDIVISION
AND/OR USE BY APPLICATIONS UNDER SECTION 11 (2)
(By Order in Council) for 1980 (All Figures in Hectares)
Regional District
Total
Area
Refused
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY
Prime
Dominant
Prime
Subordinate
Secondary
Iffir Vancouver	
i -al Fraser Valley	
IScheam a,,^
ral Okanagan	
Totals for 1980
1.1
1.1
58.3
17.4
1.1
28.7
17.4
1.1
29.6
77.9
47.2
30.7
29
 April 1,196
HECTARES EXCLUDED BY COMMISSION RESOLUTION UNDER 12 (1) APPLICATIONS
(BY REGIONAL DISTRICT BY YEAR)
Regional District*
1978
Total
Albemi-Clayoquot	
Bulkley-Nechako	
Capital	
Cariboo
Central Coast	
Central Fraser Valley	
Central Kootenay	
Central Okanagan	
Columbia-Shuswap	
Comox-Strathcona	
Cowichan Valley	
Dewdney-Alouette 4S-.
East Kootenay	
Fraser-Cheam	
Fraser-Fort George..^.-,^
Greater Vancouver	
Kitimat-Stikine	
Kootenay Boundary	
Nanaimo ~	
North Okanagan	
Okanagan-Similkameen..
Peace River-Liard	
Powell River	
Skeena-Queen Charlotte
Squamish-Lillooet	
Sunshine Coast	
Thompson-Nicola	
Totals	
4.5
31.6
2.4
16.2
109.7
38.8
8.9
24.7
35.2
70.8
36.4
21.0
137.6
67.6
54.2
12.5
113.3
197.9
119.4
69.6
4.9
95.1
3.6
11.7
31.6
7.3
69.2
99.1
13.8
19.4
2.0
7.7
31.6
28.3
43.7
20.2
1.2
22.3
23.5
140.4
184.9
57.9
10.9
62.7
5.3
2.8
11.7
24.7
12.1
12.9
1.6
21.0
48.2
195.9
53.8
100.4
80.5
2.0
155.0
100.4
79.3
172.0
286.1
55.8
801.3
20.2
46.9
64.7
80.9
34.0
130.3
23.9
1.6
6.1
31.6
163.5
39.7
68.4
43.7
82.6
3.6
24.7
122.2
127.5
90.2
82.1
46.1
32.4
255.0
36.8
244.0
5.3
58.3
35.6
73.7
151.4
104.8
92.7
2.0
37.6
53.4
26.3
155.8
801.7
81.7
36.4
34.4
85.8
4.5
78.5
20.2
114.1
13.8
68.0
12.1
2.0
45.3
21.0
32.0
41.3
477.9
14.2
4.0
4.0
5
8.1
71.7
91.7
2.0
4.7
1.2
84.1
50.2
37.6
19.9
7.8
251.7
47.8
163.2
19.7
37.2
39.1
26.8
6.4
204.8
145.7
10.0
160.4
12
1.2
2.7
34.0
48.1
6.5
0.1
0.7
95.5
56.
177.
543.
1 170.
27.
353.
331
462.
752
824
366
85
1 628
134
522
141
129
99
308
390
381
799
22
r_
82
212
608
379.2 1 190.1 932.2 2 490.3 1 913.8 2 175.0 1 496.8   200.8 10 7^
30
 1979, 1980 and First Quarter 1981
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY OF AREAS EXCLUDED BY APPLICATION
UNDER SECTION 12(1)
Regional District
Total Area
Excluded
(Hectares)
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY*
Prime
Dominant
Prime
Subordinate
Secondary
srni-Clayoquot	
;ley-Nechako	
|al	
boo	
tral Coast	
gral Fraser Valley	
Hal Kootenay	
fral Okanagan	
Iffibia-Shuswap	
IB-Strathcona	
I'ichan Valley	
IHney-Alouette	
It Kootenay	
jKbheam.	
IgEFort George	
later Vancouver	
Inat-Stikine	
IBnay Boundary	
Iffiio	
HmOkanagan	
I^gan-Similkameen	
^Bfiiver-Liard	
Igaa-Queen Charlotte...
ffiiish-Lillooet	
Sine Coast '..L.^.iZ.
Bson-Nicola	
17.0
34.4
228.7
896.1
2.0
86.4
71.6
118.5
136.0
42.1
98.4
28.0
413.9
68.1
231.2
31.8
39.2
45.3
60.1
58.9
48.4
682.7
145.7
24.2
99.5
164.4
5.0
110.0
1.2
2.0
0.4
6.5
24.7
14.1
16.7
20.5
1.3
33.5
42.1
13.3
3.2
30.8
3.0
564.4
14.2
23.3
8.1
4.0
4.9
72.8
12.1
2.4
4.5
3.6
0.4
19.8
28.3
40.5
26.3
23.9
24.7
7.1
12.1
18.2
0.4
24.3
40.5
20.0
Totals     3 872.6
930.2
210.1
197.5
12.0
8.1
110.6
867.0
86.0
60.2
21.0
85.1
15.9
73.4
26.7
359.6
26.0
231.2
14.9
21.0
45.3
56.5
28.1
25.2
65.7
64.7
10.0
79.5
141.1
2 534.8
Agricultural Capability Legend (Improved Ratings). I
H A. Prime—Totally Class 1-3.
B. Complex: Prime.
Dominant—Major portion of unit is prime land.
H C. Complex: Prime Subordinate—Lesser portion of unit is prime land.
B D. Secondary—Class 4-7.
31
 ■^OU30^lO-i-r^ro(DOJOI^(NCOCO(DOO'*CO(DCO^--*4--^ta3C\l
cXJaiCOWWi-OJ^^O-r-r-NNOCNJlOroCOCnCDLOCXI^COCOlO
CO CO t— ■«— CD^-^h--r-CO*t— coco-^-co-i—C\Jt— i- N CO N        CO (D CD cm
in co en      co co co r-~ co m      co t- co      c\j      tj- co h- co -i-      r-~
s(owioco^^^Nn(q*r-qqT^qT^q(DisqcotDSu)cqco
oocor^<oc\j^cNjeo^u^inc\]0)T**--LO-^
cx)<D^cococNj^i^cdeDincD^oJooSKc^
co co oj cm      co^eTjr^cn-^cocoeNjc^Ln-i-cooco^cDcoojcococn
ocon      -^cMoih-r-cD'^iocNjLn^r      i- a) cm ■<*• co coco
X
CO
>-
cc
<
Z>
CO
H
CM   -tf   LO
<D
CD CO CO
co cd en
CO
cDpc\ippcqpppppcqpppcqco
■" — i^coaicDoJooc^cxJcdcDcDCNir^-i-1
h- i- co co
"tf- CM
c\jCNjeoT^mcoT-o>co
0)t—        lO t- t- CO i— CO
SB I I
c\i cm r-
CD  LO CO
oj <o i-; -^ in •*      r^r^oj^fr^ppp
cd'^oo-^foi   , i^^^ooScboJLO   I ^' i^ ^ co co iri c\i  , r--.  , 3
INt-'
i O **}- OJ   ,   S^f'tOCBCDCsJin   .
1- TT      I OJ T- «fr      -
p r*-- <q p J-*; io p     co
§; cd coi in c\i  .
COIO COCOAS U>lT)CT>C0^p^-r^O^r*--'^-C0C\J-r^CMC0OC0O
cJ-^-cdoo-t--      cocNJcrip^ait^cvicdcMco^cKi^cb-r^oScD'^
co in m co r-. co   i T-to^eT3i-^j-iO"r-r---LococDCT3CD-i-cocDco-^-co
CO COr- r^li-CMCMCDOJCDOJlO r- CMCD (O C\J r- i-CM CO
p-r-cq-^Oit-;      (psqotD^cqNqqqqco^uowocpNio
CO  LO CD «  CO |5
CO CM  CM O
CO  CD CO O
.    O(MC00)OU)lfiOC0L0MT)C\I^O^C0'-NO
i-OU)C\ICOC\JCMCOCOO>U)(Mi-T- CO'ttjCDCJ S ^"
i   in is. (tl in rvi >        -ci- in -rt- e\i i— m •^~
w h- co m c\j
28.2 "55
§  CD O-iM
-f-cDOWr»cocnoc»cr)ncDa>'^inco^cococNjn^^Ncoc\iifl
*-C\I^COCOtD--^ST-cOWCO*r-C\JC\IC\lCDC^N'-COUOOCn'JN
CD03COOa>NWCO^OWlflT-*^^r-SOWuOr-rt^cO(>JCDW
->-r-.COCO       OOOJOOCMminCDmiOr^CDCOCOCDintDlO       cm co co oj
■1-1-CO        t-        t-CMCMt-
■i-  -r- T- OJ
3 ffl JO-o
7 clO
coocno^cotoai^CJ)eoojcoc^Mr^ojin*«-ojinco^
T-inco-t-      cooscouocD^TttocoinT-c\ico-»-c\is ojcoco
9 a
O" CO
RO   CD
■i- -L-- Q
     «J    ^-    TO    ~       i   Mf
;J.S a o
2 S ii w £><
out*o.g55 § g.-g
J/coocOCT'cocOc
■ f«o
O  -SC  g:g
■Z<? co gg
i-i»il2
CD
E
|t->
>f_
GO I
i   0) s»
E  > .2 <
Strtr
a
a
s:
O
c
a
a
c
c
I
cc
8
*v>
otsiisSSSo-JO
£   3   CO   CO   0)   (D   0)   (D   o  O  S   5   (8  i*"
<(HOOOOOOOOODtllliiL(5^iZ
O o.
_
F
a.
F
m
</)
*:
D
c
o
V
cr
-j
r
Q-tOWWh
32
 if
April 1, 1981
(fjMBER OF REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO
PSECTION 13 (1) OF THE ACT (BY REGIONAL DISTRICT BY YEAR)
Regional District
■ffi-Clayoquot	
Isy-Nechako	
II	
too	
ial Fraser Valley	
BR Kootenay	
i al Okanagan	
BJpa-Shuswap	
B!|-Strathcona	
|:han Valley	
Bfljey-Alouette	
JjKootenay	
SKJheam 
j^Fort George 
er Vancouver	
winay Boundary	
iiimo	
BElkanagan	
bagan-Similkameen.
ii; River-Liard	
BJBsh-Lillooet	
■fflne Coast	
Bipson-Nicola..-...!j	
Totals	
14
14
39
52
32
14
5
21
5
4
14
5
19
6
1
5
1
19
6
7
2
2
3
6
170
33
 April i,rH
13 (1) CERTIFICATE OF LEAVE SUMMARY SHEET
(Environment and Land Use Committee shown as E.L.U.C.)
Regional District
Number
Requested
Allow     Refuse    Other
E.L.U.C.
Allow   Refffl
Alberni-Clayoquot	
Bulkley-Nechako	
Capital	
Cariboo	
Central Fraser Valley
Central Kootenay	
Central Okanagan	
Columbia-Shuswap	
Comox-Strathcona	
Cowichan Valley	
Dewdney-Alouette	
East Kootenay	
Fraser-Cheam	
Fraser-Fort George	
Greater Vancouver
Kootenay Boundary	
Nanaimo	
North Okanagan	
Okanagan-Similkameen
Peace River-Liard	
Squamish-Lillooet	
Sunshine Coast	
Thompson-Nicola	
Totals	
14
5
21
5
4
14
5
19
6
1
5
1
19
6
7
2
2
3
6
1
5
7
7
12
1
16
3
4
14
5
15
4
12
5
6
1
1
2
6
170
24
130
16
19
April 1, 19!
ACREAGE EXCLUDED BY THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE COMMITTEE AS A
13 (1) APPEAL (By Regional District by Year) (All Figures in Hectares)
Regional District
1981
Total
Bulkley-Nechako	
Central Fraser Valley	
Central Kootenay	
Central Okanagan	
Columbia-Shuswap	
Fraser-Cheam	
Greater Vancouver
Kootenay Boundary	
Nanaimo	
North Okanagan
Okanagan-Similkameen
Sunshine Coast
Totals	
34
14.6
58.7
2.8
10.5
159.5
4.5
44.9
4.1
171.7
3.2
10.1
52.2
4.4
4.1
58.
ill
2.1
10.
171.'
55,
4,
159.
55.
4.
4.
4.
164.0
49.0
199.6
8.5
52.2
10.5
61.5
545.
 April 1, 1981
NUMBER OF REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE MINISTER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 13 (2) OF THE ACT (By Regional District by Year)
Regional District
First
Quarter
0(1981
■ffii-Clayoquot	
Ilgy-Nechako	
Mtal	
Bo	
iitral Fraser Valley	
Mral Okanagan	
Kbia-Shuswap ,
IIBx-Strathcona	
IHshan Valley	
) /dney-Alouette	
fflKootenay	
B-Cheam	
Safer Vancouver	
Iramo	
I Ih Okanagan	
Ifejan-Similkameen..
See River-Liard	
IHiiish-Lillooet	
I^ine Coast	
K)son-Nicola	
Totals..
14
30
28
78
13 (2) CERTIFICATE OF LEAVE SUMMARY SHEET
(Environment and Land Use Committee shown as E.L.U.C]
April 1,1981
Regional District
Number
Requested
Commission
HB-Clayoquot	
BPy-Nechako	
Jiital	
Jiboo	
tral Fraser Valley	
w\ Okanagan	
Iffibia-Shuswap	
IB-Strathcona	
la-ian Valley	
Bftey-Alouette	
*t Kootenay	
|6K-Cheam	
iater Vancouver	
ilffirio	
Mil Okanagan	
9 nagan-Similkameen..
lee River-Liard	
iamish-Lillooet	
Bspine Coast	
IJrnpson-Nicola	
Totals.
1
4
6
6
7
7
1
1
6
2
9
2
3
9
4
2
1
1
1
5
78
3
1
6
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
31
37
10
14
11
35
 April 1, ra
AREA EXCLUDED BY THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE COMMITTEE
AS A 13 (2) APPEAL (By Regional District by Year)
Regional District
Total
(Hectares)
Bulkley-Nechako	
Cariboo	
Central Fraser Valley..
Cowichan Valley	
East Kootenay	
Squamish-Lillooet	
Thompson-Nicola	
1.6
33.6
30.8
260.3
10.5
6.1
61.9
23.9
32.4
6.9
129.6
Totals..
66.0
270.8
260.8
6.1
61.9
260.3
36.0
66.0
6.9
160.4
597.6.
Queen's Printer for British Columbia <!
Victoria. 1981
36

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.bcsessional.1-0372102/manifest

Comment

Related Items