1. Call the Meeting to Order

1. Call The Meeting To Order

2. Adoption Of The Agenda AGENDA NORTHERN SUNRISE COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 20, 2014 NORTHERN SUNRISE COUNTY COUNCIL CHAMBER 9:30 A.M.

1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER

2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA (ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS)

3. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES (ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS)

3.1 Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held January 7, 2014

3.2 Minutes of the Public Hearing for Bylaw B247/13 held January 7, 2014

3.3 Minutes of the Public Hearing for Bylaw B248/13 held January 7, 2014

3.4 Minutes of the Public Hearing for Bylaw B249/13 held January 7, 2014

4. BUSINESS ARISING OUT OF THE MINUTES/UNFINISHED BUSINESS

4.1 Trent McLaughlin, P.Eng, Regional Director – Alberta Transportation, January 8, 2014 RE: Land Parcels Required for Upgrading Highway 688 & 986

4.2 William Gish, Operations Manager, Peace Region – Alberta Transportation, January 7, 2013 RE: Follow Up from January 7, 2014 Meeting

4.3 Niven Parliament, Municipal Advisor, January 9, 2014 RE: Interpretation of Municipal Government Act Section 188

4.4 Andrew Loosley, Director of Stakeholder Relations, Baytex Energy Ltd., January 8, 2014 RE: Township Road 840

5. PUBLIC WORKS

6. ENGINEERING, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

6.1 2014 Development Permit Listing

6.2 RFD: Rural Road Study: 2014 Update

6.3 RFD: 2014 Outsourced Capital Projects

6.4 RFD: Petition: Upgrading and Paving of East Ridge Road NORTHERN SUNRISE COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA JANUARY 20, 2014 Page 2 of 4

6.5 Liam O’Connell Project Director, Enbridge, January 10, 2014 RE: Update: Enbridge’s Whitetail Peaking Station Project – Pipeline Location

11:00 a.m. Public Hearing for Bylaw B250/14 6.6 RFD: Bylaw B250/14 For the Purpose of Amending the Land Use Bylaw B088/02 to remove Permanent Work Camps as Discretionary Uses Within Agricultural District 1 (A1), Agricultural District 2 (A2), Joint Plan Agricultural District 1 (JP-A1), and Resource Rural Industrial District 1 (RRM1)

6.6(a) Submission from Darcy Underwood, December 9, 2013 RE: SE-18-82- 18-W5

11:30 a.m. Public Hearing for Bylaw B251/14 6.7 RFD: Bylaw B251/14 For the Purpose of Amending the Land Use Bylaw B088/02 to create the new Permanent Work Camp District (PWC)

6.7(a) Submission from Darcy Underwood, December 9, 2013 RE: SE-18-82- 18-W5

6.8 RFD: Bylaw B247/13 for the Purpose of Redistricting 10 Acres Within SW-20-85-19-W5 from Agricultural District 1 (A1) to Resource Rural Industrial District 1 (RRM1)

7. FINANCE

7.1 Cheque List #44539 to #42655 and the Charitable Donations Tally

7.2 Richard Walisser, Executive Director, North Peace Housing Foundation, January 10, 2014 RE: 2014 Requisition – North Peace Housing Foundation

8. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & COMMUNITY SERVICES

8.1 Norbert Robert, Harmon Valley Ag Society, January 16, 2014 RE: Harmon Valley Dome

8.2 Peace Oil Sands Conference May 12-14, 2014

9. PROTECTIVE SERVICES

10. AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARD 1:00 p.m. with Sebastien Dutrisac 10.1 Wolf Control Update NORTHERN SUNRISE COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA JANUARY 20, 2014 Page 3 of 4

10.2 2014 Provincial Agricultural Service Board (ASB) Conference Resolutions

10.3 2014 Provincial Agricultural Service Board (ASB) Conference Agenda

11. NEW BUSINESS

11.1 Memorandum: 2014 Shadow Population Survey (Sopko)

11.2 Invitations

11.2(a) Municipal Government Act (MGA) Review Workshop February 7, 2014 in Grande Prairie, AB

11.2(b) AAMDC Zone Meeting February 14, 2014 in Rycroft, AB

11.2(c)Family & Community Support Services (FCSS) Family Day Celebration, February 17, 2014 in Nampa, AB

11.2(d) 2014 Rural Community Physician A&R Conference, February 26-28, 2014 in Edmonton, AB

11.2(e) MD of Big Lakes Agriculture & Economic Development Workshop – Agri-Tourism February 27, 2014 in High Prairie, AB

11.2(f) Mayors & Reeves Liaison Committee Meeting – March 17, 2014 in Edmonton, AB

11.3 SongRise Music Conference & Showcase May 2-3, 2014 Sponsorship Request

11.4 Alberta Energy Regulator, January 13, 2014, Proceeding No. 1769924: Odours and Emissions from Heavy Oil Operation in the Peace River Area Hearing Schedule, Process, and Procedures

11.5 RFD: Nampa Municipal Library Business Plan (Sopko)

12. COMMITTEE/REEVE/COUNCILLOR REPORTS

13. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S REPORT

13.1 Chief Administrative Officer’s Report and Calendar

13.1(a) Schedule Annual Residents Meetings and Canada Day Celebration

NORTHERN SUNRISE COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA JANUARY 20, 2014 Page 4 of 4

14. CORRESPONDENCE

14.1 Peace Regional RCMP Detachment Quarterly Report October – December 2013

14.2 Minutes from the AAMDC Reeves & CAO Meeting held on December 18, 2013

14.3 J. Angus Watt, Chair, Alberta Order of Excellence Council, January 6, 2014 RE: Alberta Order of Excellence

14.4 Jeff Wilson, MLA for Calgary-Shaw, January 6, 2014 RE: Official Opposition Critic for Municipal Affairs

14.5 Andrew Loosley, Director, Stakeholder & Community Relations, Baytex Energy Ltd, January 7, 2014 RE: Comprehensive Air Quality Study, Reno Area

14.6 Carol Van Slyke, Peace Regional Outreach Campus, January 8, 2014 RE: Thank You for Donation

14.7 Ronda Pimm, Administrative Assistant, Mackenzie Municipal Services Agency, January 15, 2014 RE: Robert E. Walter Memorial Scholarship.

15. IN CAMERA

16. ADJOURNMENT

3. Adoption Of The Minutes

4. Business Arising Out Of The Minutes/Unfinished Business

From: Niven Parliament [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: January-09-14 4:07 PM To: Jesse Sopko Subject: RE: Interpretation of MGA Section 188

Hello Jesse: I can confirm for you that in my experience, the common practice for municipalities is to bring a bylaw forward for second reading, regardless of whether the intention is to pass the bylaw or defeat it. This practice could bring closure to an issue. I can also confirm that from our point of view, when an elected official makes a motion calling for second reading of a bylaw, it does not necessarily indicate that person supports the bylaw. The motion may be made to simply have council make a decision on the matter. However, I can the understand the reluctance of a councillor to make a motion for second reading of a bylaw the person does not support, because residents of the municipality may take the view the person bringing the matter forward is in support of the bylaw. Niven Parliament Municpal Advisor

From: Jesse Sopko [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:34 PM To: Niven Parliament Subject: Interpretation of MGA Section 188

Good afternoon Niven,

As per our telephone conversation this afternoon, I am seeking clarification on Section 188 of the Municipal Government Act.

It has been the practice of the Northern Sunrise County Council not to proceed with second reading of redistricting bylaws that they do not intend to support. Rather, a motion is usually made to maintain the land under the current district and no further action taken. Stagnant for two years’ time, first reading of the bylaw is eventually rescinded and the bylaw is taken out of our active bylaw library. My question isis it common practice for Councils to have second reading and defeat the bylaw at this time? This process would certainly assist in administrative record-keeping by taking the bylaw out of our active bylaw library immediately.

Furthermore, can you confirm that a motion made by a Councillor for second reading of a bylaw (or any motion) is not an implicit indication of support for the bylaw itself? Correct me if I’m wrong, but a Council motion is simply a proposition that a decision be made on an item currently before Council.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Jesse Sopko Director of Legislative Services Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Northern Sunrise County

Direct Line: 780-625-3290 Cell: 780-625-6154 Office: 780-624-0013 Fax: 780-624-0023 [email protected]

5. Public Works

5.1 Township Road 840 Update

6. Engineering, Planning & Development Northern Sunrise County - Development Tracking Sheet Private & Commercial Developments Sub. Date Company Contact Info. Location Zone Ownership Development Costs Proj. Schedule DO/MPC Impacts Concerns 06-Jan-14 Koch Oil Sands SE-22-93-7-W5M & F SRD Temp Camp DO

13-Jan-14 Genalta Construction 10-28-84-18-W5M F Power Generation MPC Plan 8920222; Block 5; 14-Jan-14 James Bazan-Lindsay Lot 2 HR Residence DO

Northern Sunrise County - Construction Program Table 9 - Outsourced Construction Program - Arterial, Collector & Local Roads

Year Ref Road Name From To Project Classification Existing Existing Recommended Cost Project Possible Net Comments No length Surface right of Improvements $/km Cost Grants/ Cost (km) Width Way Contributions (m) Width (m)

2013 Business Park Subdivision Sunrise Rd Business Park Rd 1.25 Local No Road N/A Grading to standard $632,500 $850,000 $500,000 $350,000 Complete 2013 St. Isidore Lagoon Road RR 214 Lagoon Entrance 1 Local 6 20 Grading to Standard $632,500 $300,000 $0 $300,000 Complete 2013 Total $1,150,000 $500,000 $650,000

2014 NSRR - RR 185/184 (South Phase) South Harmon Valley Rd Reno Road 14 Arterial 10 N/A Clearing & Grading $664,125 $3,000,000 $0 $3,000,000 Engineering, clearing, 2 bridge structures 2014 Rge. Rd. 203 Twp 810 Twp 812 (Dave Palucks Rd) 3.2 Local 8 20 Grading to standard $345,000 $1,104,000 $0 $1,104,000 Low grade, NSC review (inc. ditch grading) 2014 Twp Rd 840 - Extension RR 200 Twp 842 6 Arterial 10 30 Upgrade structure $664,125 $4,690,000 $4,000,000 $690,000 $4 million supplied by industry 2014 Total $8,794,000 $4,000,000 $4,794,000

2015 NSRR - RR 185/184 (South Phase) South Harmon Valley Rd Reno Road 14 Arterial 10 N/A Clearing & Grading $0 $4,176,000 $0 $4,176,000 Road Construction 2015 Twp Rd 840 RR 210 RR 213 5 Collector 8 20 Grading to standard $664,125 $3,320,625 $0 $3,320,625 Resident concerns, not priority. 2015 North-South Resource Road (North Phase) Baytex Corner Buchanan Haul Rd 2 Arterial 10 N/A Clearing & Base Build $664,125 $1,328,250 $0 $1,328,250 Clearing and build landfill access (green zone) 2015 Twp Rd 842 RR 210 RR 204 3.2 Local 7.5 20 Grading to standard $697,331 $2,231,460 $0 $2,231,460 Improvements to grade and alignment 2015 Range Road 191 Twp 804 Twp 802 3.2 Collector 7.5 20 Grading to standard $697,331 $2,231,460 $0 $2,231,460 Improvements to grade and alignment 2015 Total $13,287,795 $0 $13,287,795

2017 RR 203 TR 854 Intersection (Hwy 986 & 688) 3.8 Collector 20 Grading to standard $732,198 $2,782,352 $0 $2,782,352 2017 Twp Rd 854 RR 203 RR 205 3.2 Collector 20 Grading to standard $732,198 $2,343,033 $0 $2,343,033 2017 NSRR - North Phase South Harmon Valley Rd Cliffdale Area 18.5 Arterial N/A Grading to standard $732,198 $12,328,000 $6,000,000 $6,328,000 Includes 5 bridge crossings (P3) 2016 Total $17,453,385 $6,000,000 $11,453,385

2018 North-South Resource Road (North Phase) Baytex Corner Buchanan Haul Rd 13 Arterial 10 N/A Clearing & Base Build $345,000 $12,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 Includes 2 bridge crossings (ARA estimate) 2018 Twp Rd 815 (Golf Club Rd) Hwy 2 RR 203 4.6 Collector 20 Grading to standard $768,808 $3,536,515 $0 $3,536,515 Road/drainage improvements in 2013 2018 Seal Lake Access (phase 2) Rge. Rd. 170 Rge. Rd. 151 21 Local 30 Grading to standard $10,000,000 $3,000,000 $7,000,000 Assumed resource road funding 2018 Total $25,536,515 $9,000,000 $16,536,515

2020 2020 2020 Total $0 $0 $0

Grand Total Program Costs $66,221,695 $19,500,000 $46,721,695

Notes: Project Cost includes engineering. Grant amounts reflect construction costs and engineering only.

Revised October 25, 2013 SSz Northern Sunrise County - Construction Program Table 10 - Base/Paving Construction Program - Arterial, Collector & Local Roads

Year Ref Road Name From To Project Classification Existing Recommended Cost Construction Project Possible Net Comments No length Surface Improvements $/km Cost Cost Grants Cost (km) Width (m) 2013 SHV Extension RR 185 RR 174 11.0 Arterial Base Pavement $665,000 $7,315,000 $7,400,000 $3,500,000 $3,900,000 Complete 2013 Total $7,315,000 $7,400,000 $3,500,000 $3,900,000

2014 $550,000 $0 $0 $0 2014 Total $0 $0 $0 $0

2015 $577,500 $0 $0 $0 2015 Total $0 $0 $0 $0

2016 Township Road 810 (Reno Road) Rge. Rd. 194.5 Rge. Rd. 185 9.0 Arterial Base Pavement $684,950 $6,164,550 $7,004,292 $3,502,146 $3,502,146 Assumed Resource Road Funding 2016 Gateway Bus. Park, HRGC 6.0 Arterial Base Pavement $594,825 $3,568,950 $4,096,642 $0 $4,096,642 Projects tendered together for better price 2016 Total $9,733,500 $11,100,934 $3,502,146 $7,598,788

2018 Range Rd. 205 (St. Isidore Connector) Twp. 830 Twp. 834 6.4 Arterial Pulverize/Overlay $705,499 $4,515,190 $4,921,558 $0 $4,921,558 Road pulverized to stabilize the base 2018 Township Road 814 (E. Ridge Road) Nampa Rge. Rd. 202 6.2 Arterial Base Pavement $705,499 $4,374,091 $4,987,810 $0 $4,987,810 2018 Total $8,889,281 $9,909,367 $0 $9,909,367

2020 Range Road 185 Twp. Rd. 810 Twp. Rd. 820 9.6 Arterial Base Pavement $726,663 $6,975,969 $7,984,115 $3,000,000 $4,984,115 Assumed Resource Road Funding 2020 Township Rd. 830 (N. Harmon Valley) Hwy 2 Rge. Rd. 201 6.6 Arterial Pavement overlay $612,670 $4,043,620 $4,778,931 $2,389,465 $2,389,465 Assumed 60mm Overlay 2020 Total $11,019,590 $12,763,046 $5,389,465 $7,373,581

2022 Township Road 810 Hwy 744 Rge. Rd. 213 5.1 Arterial Base Pavement $748,463 $3,817,163 $4,321,996 $2,160,998 $2,160,998 Assumed Resource Road Funding 2022 Township Road 814 (E. Ridge Road) Rge. Rd. 202 Rge. Rd. 192 9.6 Arterial Base Pavement $726,663 $6,975,969 $8,045,512 $3,000,000 $5,045,512 Assumed Resource Road Funding 2022 Township Road 810 West Rge. Rd. 213 Hwy 2 4.8 Arterial Base Pavement $748,463 $3,592,624 $4,040,487 $2,020,243 $2,020,243 Assumed Resource Road Funding 2022 Total $14,385,756 $16,407,995 $7,181,242 $9,226,753

Grand Total Program Costs

Notes: Project Cost includes engineering. Grant amounts reflect construction costs and engineering only.

Revised October 25, 2013 SSz Northern Sunrise County - Construction Program Table 11 - Transportation Dept. Roads Grading Construction Program

Year Ref Road Name From To Land Project Classification Existing Recommended Cost Project Possible Net Comments No Reference length right of Improvements $/km Cost Grants Cost (km) Way Width (m) 2014 RR 204 (towards Golf Club) TR 815 Golf Club 2 Collector 20 Grading to standard $385,000 $770,000 $770,000 2014 Total $770,000 $770,000

2015 Twp. Rd. 820 Thru SW 2-82-21-W5 W. of SHV Rd. 0.5 Local 20 Grading to standard $372,600 $186,300 $186,300 low drainage corner, Park boundary 2015 Total $186,300 $186,300

2016 Rge. Rd. 190 W 19-81-18-W5 2nd last Rd East Ridge South 1.6 Local 20 Grading to standard $402,408 $643,853 $643,853 poor sight distance, low grade 2016 Range Rd. 204 Highway 688 Twp. 840 Dairy Barn Rd. 4.8 Collector 20 Grading to standard $372,600 $1,788,480 $1,788,480 Review project 2016 Twp. 834 Range Rd. 202 Range Rd. 201 E. of St. Isidore corner 1 Local 20 Re-build road $402,408 $402,408 $402,408 Soft spots, drainage problems 2016 Total $2,834,741 $2,834,741

2017 Rge. Rd. 191 TR 804 TR 802 Last Rd South 3.2 Local 20 Grading to standard $434,601 $1,390,722 $1,390,722 Road rebuild, Low grade 2017 RR 205 Hwy 688 TR 842 Pauls's Saw Mill 6.4 Local 20 Grading to standard $434,601 $2,781,444 $2,781,444 NSC review, Low grade 2017 Total $4,172,166 $4,172,166

2018 Twp Rd 820 Hwy 744 RR 214 E. of Marie Reine 3.2 Local 20 Drainage Improvements $469,369 $1,501,980 $1,501,980 Ditch cleaning & culverts, NSC review 2018 RR 201 TR 820 TR 821 N. of Kolebaba's 2 Local 20 Grading to standard $469,369 $938,737 $938,737 Extension to existing road 2018 Total $2,440,717 $2,440,717

2019 RR 200 TR 840 TR 843 Leo Ethiers road 4.7 Local 20 Grading to standard $506,918 $2,382,515 $2,382,515 Low grade 2019 TR 840 RR 201 RR 200 E. of Landfill 1.6 Collector 20 Grading to standard $506,918 $811,069 $811,069 Collector to 842 & NHV Road 2019 Total $3,193,585 $3,193,585

2020 RR 211 TR 812 TR 815 PRT road 5 Local 20 Grading to standard $547,472 $2,737,358 $2,737,358 Re-build road, Low grade, Railway 2020 Rge. Rd. 202 WNW 14 & W 23-85-20-W5 Gacek's road 2.4 Local 20 Grading to standard $547,472 $1,313,932 $1,313,932 Corresponds with BF72588 2020 Total $4,051,290 $4,051,290

2021 RR 201 Hwy 986 TR 854 H. Dziengieleski 3.2 Local 20 Grading to standard $591,269 $1,892,062 $1,892,062 Low grade 2021 Twp Rd 820 RR 194 RR 190 E. of SHV speed corner 6.4 Local 20 Grading to standard $591,269 $3,784,124 $3,784,124 Low grade 2021 Total $5,676,186 $5,676,186

2022 RR 193 TR 820 South of TR 822 SHV North clearance 2.9 Local 20 Grading to standard $638,571 $1,851,856 $1,851,856 Re-build road & drainage 2022 RR 191 Both sides of TR 822 - R. Dedicks 4 Local 20 Grading to standard $638,571 $2,554,284 $2,554,284 Upgrade road & drainage 2022 Total $4,406,139 $4,406,139

Grand Total Program Costs 54.9 $27,731,124 $0 $27,731,124

Notes: Project Cost DOES NOT include engineering.

Revised October 25, 2013 SSz Northern Sunrise County ‐ Construction Program Table 12 - Bridge Construction Program - Arterial, Collector & Local Roads

2013 BF 72587 Twp Rd 810 (Reno Road) Tributary to Heart River 18.3 Bridge 1947/1995 Replacement NNE-34-80-19-5 $1,000,000 $850,000 $150,000 Completed in Feb. 2013 2013 BF 71985 Twp Rd 815 Tributary to Heart River 3m/60m Culvert 1970 Replacement $300,000 $0 $300,000 Completed in Sept. 2013 2013 Total $1,300,000 $850,000 $450,000

2014 BF 72861 RR 203 Tributary to Heart River 8.5 Bridge 1958 Replacement WSW 3-81-20-5 $150,000 $0 $150,000 Paluck's (Closed) 2014 BF70863 Twp Road 812 Benjamin Creek 20.7 Bridge 1954 Replacement SSE 15-81-19-5 $1,100,000 $0 $1,100,000 Benjamin Creek near Nampa (Closed) 2014 BF 71452 Twp Rd 824 North Heart River 20.7 Bridge 1951 Replacement SSW 13-81-21-5 $1,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 North Heart River (HV by Roberts) 2012 BF 78621 Haig Lake Road Little Cadotte River 8.5 Bridge 1910 Replacement ENE-9-91-14-5 $850,000 $0 $850,000 Project passed over in 2013 2014 BF 78987 RR 190 Benjamin Creek 4.3m/55m Culvert 1979 Replacement NW 19-81-18-5 $1,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 Benjamin Creek (Fred's) 2014 Total $4,100,000 $0 $4,100,000

2015 BF 73513 Twp Rd 804 Tributary to Heart River 12.2 Bridge 1951 Replacement SSE 27-80-20-5 $700,000 $0 $700,000 Tributary to Heart River 2015 BF 72342 Twp Rd 820 Tributary to Heart River 2.01 Culvert 1951/1989 Replacement SSW-1-82-21-5 $250,000 $0 $250,000 Landlock - ROW purchase 2014 2015 BF 08316 Twp Rad 805 Bearhead Creek 20.7 Bridge 1961 Replacement SSW 26-80-19-5 $1,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 Bearhead Creek near Reno 2015 BF76233 Twp Road 842 Tributary to Peace River 2.23 Culvert 1965 Replacement SSE-14-84-21-5 $300,000 $0 $300,000 Tributary to Peace River 2015 Total $2,250,000 $0 $2,250,000

2016 BF 01665 Two Rad 814 Heart River 30.3 Bridge 1970 Replacement SSW 29-81-19-5 $1,300,000 $0 $1,300,000 Heart River near Nampa 2016 BF 76753 Street at Cadotte Lake Martin River 23.5 Bridge 1957 Replacement SSE-24-86-16-5 $1,100,000 $0 $1,100,000 2016 Toral $2,400,000 $0 $2,400,000

2017 BF 71292 RR 192 Benjamin Creek 24.4 Bridge 1953 Replacement SW-14-81-19-5 $1,100,000 $0 $1,100,000 2017 BF 70527 Twp Rd 820 (SHV) Heart River 25.5 Bridge 1952 Replacement SSE-5-82-19-5 $1,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 2017 Total $2,100,000 $0 $2,100,000

2018 BF 70584 RR 211 Tributary to Heart River 1.575 Culvert 1966 Replacement WNW-12-83-21-5 $169,000 $103,000 $66,000 2018 BF 73270 Twp Rd 810 Tributary to Heart River 18.3 Bridge 1958/1995 Replacement SSW3-81-20-5 $1,000,000 $820,000 $180,000 2018 Total $1,169,000 $923,000 $246,000

2019 BF 72588 RR 201 Tributary to Carmon Creek 2.226 Culvert 1966 Replacement ENW-14-85-20-5 $250,000 $150,000 $100,000 2019 BF 80712 RR 203 Pats Creek 2.225 Culvert 1984 Replacement WNW-22-83-20-5 $250,000 $150,000 $100,000 2019 $500,000 $300,000 $200,000

2020 BF 78622 Haig Lake Rd Tributary to Marten River 2.47 Culvert 1985 Replacement SW-36-88-15-5 $340,000 $220,000 $120,000 2020 BF 09881 SHV (Twp Rd 822) Rd Heart River 36.6 Bridge 1959/1999 Replacement SSE-16-82-19-5 $1,500,000 $1,300,000 $200,000 2020 Total $1,840,000 $1,520,000 $320,000

Grand Total Program Costs $16,701,000 $4,481,000 $12,220,000

Bridge assets are to be reviewed by Administration 2013

Revised October 25, 2013 SSZ 10 Year Construction Program Table 9 - Grading Construction Program - Arterial, Collector & Local Roads

Year Ref Road Name From To Project Classification Existing Existing Recommended Cost Project Possible Net Comments No length Surface right of Improvements $/km Cost Grants Cost (km) Width Way (m) Width (m)

2012 Range Road 204 Twp Road 820 Twp Road 815 1.6 Collector No Road 20 Grading to standard $337,366 $539,000 $0 $539,000 Complete 2012 Total $539,000 $0 $539,000

2013 Business Park Connector Sunrise Rd Business Park Rd 0.5 Local No Road N/A Grading to standard $600,000 $0 $600,000 2013 RR 204 (towards Golf Club) TR 815 Golf Club 2 Collector 20 Grading to standard $385,000 $770,000 $0 $770,000 2013 Total $1,370,000 $0 $1,370,000

2014 Twp Rd 840 RR 210 RR 213 5 Collector 20 Grading to standard $337,366 $1,686,831 $0 $1,686,831 NSC reviewing project 2014 Range Road 192 (phase 2) Twp. Rd. 810 Twp. Rd. 822 12.8 Collector 20 Grading to standard $414,000 $5,299,200 $0 $5,299,200 2014 Cadotte River Bridge DMI Haul road 18 km N. of Hwy 688 Bridge 40 Construct new bridge & approaches $3,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 NSC reviewing project 2014 Seal Lake Access (phase 2) Rge. Rd. 184 Rge. Rd. 170 18 Local 30 Grading to standard $439,213 $7,905,834 $3,000,000 $4,905,834 NSC reviewing project 2014 Total $17,891,865 $4,500,000 $13,391,865

2015 Twp Rd 842 RR 210 RR 204 3.2 Local 20 Grading to standard $455,400 $1,457,280 $0 $1,457,280 2015 Range Road 191 TR 804 TR 802 3.2 Collector 20 Grading to standard $455,400 $1,457,280 $0 $1,457,280 2015 Total $2,914,560 $0 $2,914,560

2016 RR 203 TR 854 Intersection (Hwy 986 & 688)3.8 Collector 20 Grading to standard $491,832 $1,868,962 $0 $1,868,962 2016 Twp Rd 854 RR 203 RR 205 3.2 Collector 20 Grading to standard $491,832 $1,573,862 $0 $1,573,862 2016 Total $3,442,824 $0 $3,442,824

2018 Twp Rd 815 (Golf Club Rd) Hwy 2 RR 203 4.6 Collector 20 Grading to standard $531,179 $2,443,421 $0 $2,443,421 2018 Cadotte River Bridge DMI Haul road 18 km N. of Hwy 688 Bridge 40 Construct new bridge & approaches 2018 Seal Lake Access (phase 2) Rge. Rd. 170 Rge. Rd. 151 21 Local 30 Grading to standard $10,000,000 $3,000,000 $7,000,000 Resource Road Industrial funds 2018 Total $2,443,421 $3,000,000 $2,443,421

Grand Total Program Costs $25,687,110 $7,500,000 $21,187,110

Notes: Project Cost includes engineering. Grant amounts reflect construction costs and engineering only. Cadotte River Bridge (2014) does NOT include engineering

Revised December 06, 2012 SSz 10 Year Construction Program Table 10 - Base/Paving Construction Program - Arterial, Collector & Local Roads

Year Ref Road Name From To Project Classification Existing Recommended Cost Construction Project Possible Net Comments No length Surface Improvements $/km Cost Cost Grants Cost (km) Width (m) 2012 Business Park Connector - RR 211 Sunrise Rd. New Hwy 688 0.6 Collector No Road Base Pavement $513,895 $646,000 $0 Collector Complete 2012 SHV Extension RR 185 RR 174 6.5 Arterial Base Pavement $665,000 $4,322,500 $4,888,293 $1,500,000 $3,388,293 Assumed Resource Road Funding 2012 Total $4,322,500 $4,888,293 $1,500,000 $3,388,293

2013 SHV Extension RR 185 RR 174 4.5 Arterial Base Pavement $665,000 $2,992,500 $3,384,203 $1,500,000 $1,884,203 Assumed Resource Road Funding 2013 Township Road 814 (E. Ridge Road) Nampa Rge. Rd. 202 6.2 Arterial Oil Asphalt Sealing $100,000 $620,000 $620,000 $620,000 2013 Range Rd. 214 Twp. 842 Twp. 844 3.2 Arterial Oil Asphalt Sealing $100,000 $320,000 $320,000 $320,000 2013 Total $3,932,500 $4,324,203 $1,500,000 $2,824,203

2014 Seal Lake Access with turnouts RR 195 RR 185 11.0 Arterial Base Pavement $718,200 $7,900,200 $8,867,635 $4,433,817 $4,433,817 Assumed Resource Road Funding 2014 Range Rd. 205 (St. Isidore Connector) Twp. 830 Twp. 834 6.4 Arterial Pulverize/Overlay $425,000 $2,720,000 $2,964,800 2014 Total $7,900,200 $8,867,635 $4,433,817 $4,433,817

2016 Township Road 810 (Reno Road) Rge. Rd. 194.5 Rge. Rd. 192 7.0 Arterial Base Pavement $739,746 $5,178,222 $5,831,355 $2,915,677 $2,915,677 Assumed Resource Road Funding 2016 Township Road 810 West Rge. Rd. 213 Hwy 2 4.8 Arterial Base Pavement $571,200 $2,741,760 $3,189,622 $1,594,811 $1,594,811 Assumed Resource Road Funding 2016 Total $7,919,982 $9,020,977 $4,510,489 $4,510,489

2018 Township Road 814 (E. Ridge Road) Nampa Rge. Rd. 202 6.2 Arterial Base Pavement $784,797 $4,865,738 $5,479,457 $2,739,729 $2,739,729 Assumed Resource Road Funding 2018 Township Road 810 Hwy 744 Rge. Rd. 213 5.1 Arterial Base Pavement $612,277 $3,122,612 $3,627,445 $1,813,723 $1,813,723 Assumed Resource Road Funding 2018 Total $7,988,350 $9,106,903 $4,553,451 $4,553,451

2020 Range Road 192 Twp. Rd. 810 Twp. Rd. 820 9.6 Collector Base Pavement $832,591 $7,992,870 $9,001,016 $3,000,000 $6,001,016 Assumed Resource Road Funding 2020 Township Road 814 (E. Ridge Road) Rge. Rd. 202 Rge. Rd. 192 9.6 Arterial Base Pavement $832,591 $7,992,870 $9,062,413 $3,000,000 $6,062,413 Assumed Resource Road Funding 2020 Township Rd. 830 (N. Harmon Valley) Hwy 2 Rge. Rd. 201 6.6 Arterial Pavement overlay $428,709 $2,829,482 $3,564,792 $1,782,396 $1,782,396 Assumed 60mm Overlay 2020 Total $18,815,222 $21,628,221 $7,782,396 $13,845,825

Grand Total Program Costs

Notes: Project Cost includes engineering. Grant amounts reflect construction costs and engineering only.

Revised December 06, 2012 SSz 10 Year Construction Program Table 11 - Transportation Dept. Roads Grading Construction Program

Year Ref Road Name From To Land Project Classification Existing Recommended Cost Project Possible Net Comments No Reference length right of Improvements $/km Cost Grants Cost (km) Way Width (m) 2012 RR 205 Twp Rd 813.5 Twp Rd 810 5.6 Local 20 Grading to standard $152,628 $854,717 $854,717 Complete 2012 Twp. Rd. 854 S 26-85-20-W5 1.6 Local 20 Grading to standard $234,840 $375,744 $375,744 Culvert has been changed 2012 Rge. Rd. 201 W 25-85-20-W5 0.8 Local 20 Grading to standard $234,840 $187,872 $187,872 Culvert has been changed 2012 Total $563,616 $563,616

2013 Rge. Rd. 203 Twp 810 Twp 812 Dave Palucks Rd 3.2 Local 20 Ditch Cleaning $15,000 $48,000 $48,000 Ditch cleaning, NSC review 2013 Rge. Rd. 203 Twp 810 Twp 812 Dave Palucks Rd 3.2 Local 20 Grading to standard $241,885 $774,033 $774,033 Low grade, NSC review 2013 RR 204 (towards Golf Club) TR 815 Golf Club 2 Collector 20 Grading to standard $385,000 $770,000 $770,000 2013 Total $1,592,033 $1,592,033

2014 Twp. Rd. 820 Thru SW 2-82-21-W5 W. of SHV Rd. 0.5 Local 20 Grading to standard $261,236 $130,618 $130,618 low drainage corner, Park boundary 2014 Range Rd. 204 Highway 688 Twp. 840 Dairy Barn Rd. 4.8 Collector 20 Grading to standard $261,236 $1,253,933 $1,253,933 Review project 2014 Total $130,618 $130,618

2015 Rge. Rd. 190 W 19-81-18-W5 2nd last Rd East Ridge South 1.6 Local 20 Grading to standard $282,135 $451,416 $451,416 poor sight distance, low grade 2015 Twp. 834 Range Rd. 202 Range Rd. 201 E. of St. Isidore corner 1 Local 20 Re-build road $282,135 $282,135 $282,135 Soft spots, drainage problems 2015 Total $451,416 $451,416

2016 Rge. Rd. 191 TR 804 TR 802 Last Rd South 3.2 Local 20 Grading to standard $304,706 $975,058 $975,058 Road rebuild, Low grade 2016 RR 205 Hwy 688 TR 842 Pauls's Saw Mill 6.4 Local 20 Grading to standard $304,706 $1,950,116 $1,950,116 NSC review, Low grade 2016 Total $2,925,175 $2,925,175

2017 Twp Rd 820 Hwy 744 RR 214 E. of Marie Reine 3.2 Local 20 Drainage Improvements $329,082 $1,053,063 $1,053,063 Ditch cleaning & culverts, NSC review 2017 RR 201 TR 820 TR 821 N. of Kolebaba's 2 Local 20 Grading to standard $329,082 $658,164 $658,164 Extension to existing road 2017 Total $1,711,227 $1,711,227

2018 RR 200 TR 840 TR 843 Leo Ethiers road 4.7 Local 20 Grading to standard $355,409 $1,670,421 $1,670,421 Low grade 2018 TR 840 RR 201 RR 200 E. of Landfill 1.6 Collector 20 Grading to standard $355,409 $568,654 $568,654 Collector to 842 & NHV Road 2018 Total $2,239,075 $2,239,075

2019 RR 211 TR 812 TR 815 PRT road 5 Local 20 Grading to standard $383,841 $1,919,207 $1,919,207 Re-build road, Low grade, Railway 2019 Rge. Rd. 202 WNW 14 & W 23-85-20-W5 Gacek's road 2.4 Local 20 Grading to standard $383,841 $921,219 $921,219 Corresponds with BF72588 2019 Total $2,840,426 $2,840,426

2020 RR 201 Hwy 986 TR 854 H. Dziengieleski 3.2 Local 20 Grading to standard $414,549 $1,326,556 $1,326,556 Low grade 2020 Twp Rd 820 RR 194 RR 190 E. of SHV speed corner 6.4 Local 20 Grading to standard $414,549 $2,653,112 $2,653,112 Low grade 2020 Total $3,979,668 $3,979,668

2021 RR 193 TR 820 South of TR 822 SHV North clearance 2.9 Local 20 Grading to standard $447,713 $1,298,367 $1,298,367 Re-build road & drainage 2021 RR 191 Both sides of TR 822 - R. Dedicks 4 Local 20 Grading to standard $447,713 $1,790,850 $1,790,850 Upgrade road & drainage 2021 Total $3,089,217 $3,089,217

Grand Total Program Costs 69.3 $19,522,470 $0 $19,522,470

Notes: Project Cost DOES NOT include engineering.

Revised December 06, 2012 SSz 10 Year Construction Program Table 12 - Bridge Construction Program - Arterial, Collector & Local Roads

Year Bridge Located on Road Located over Watercourse Diameter Bridge / Year Recommended Legal Location Project Possible Net Comments File / Length Culvert Built Improvements Cost Grants Cost No. (m) Width (m) 2012 BF 72587 Twp Rd 810 (Reno Road) Tributary to Heart River 18.3 Bridge 1947/1995 Replacement NNE-34-80-19-5 $1,000,000 $850,000 $150,000 Contract Awarded 2012 BF 72342 Twp Rd 820 Tributary to Heart River 2.01 Culvert 1951/1989 Replacement SSW-1-82-21-5 $250,000 $150,000 $100,000 AT approved Engineering & Design 2012 BF 78621 Haig Lake Road Little Cadotte River 8.5 Bridge 1910 Replacement ENE-9-91-14-5 $650,000 $512,000 $138,000 Project passed over 2012 BF 76859 Twp Rd 812 Tributary to Heart River 6.1 Bridge 1968 Rehab SSW 26-82-19-5 $42,000 $38,000 $4,000 Complete 2012 Total $1,942,000 $1,550,000 $392,000

2013 BF 72587 Twp Rd 810 (Reno Road) Tributary to Heart River 18.3 Bridge 1947/1995 Replacement NNE-34-80-19-5 $1,000,000 $850,000 $150,000 Completed in Feb. 2013 2013 BF 72342 Twp Rd 820 Tributary to Heart River 2.01 Culvert 1951/1989 Replacement SSW-1-82-21-5 $250,000 $150,000 $100,000 Landlock - ROW purchase 2013 BF 81283 DMI Haul Road Second Cadotte River Bridge NSC reviewing project 2013 Total $1,250,000 $1,000,000 $250,000

2014 BF70863 Twp Road 812 Benjamin Creek 20.7 Bridge 1954 Replacement SSE 15-81-19-5 $1,100,000 $1,040,000 $60,000 Benjamin Creek near Nampa 2014 BF 71452 Twp Rd 824 North Heart River 20.7 Bridge 1951 Replacement SSW 13-81-21-5 $1,000,000 $800,000 $200,000 North Heart River 2014 BF 75536 RR 201 Pats Creek 2.226 Culvert 1962 Replacement WNW-24-83-20-5 $250,000 $150,000 $100,000 Pat's Creek 2014 Total $2,350,000 $1,990,000 $360,000

2015 BF 73513 Twp Rd 804 Tributary to Heart River 12.2 Bridge 1951 Replacement SSE 27-80-20-5 $700,000 $550,000 $150,000 Tributary to Heart River 2015 BF 08316 Twp Rad 805 Bearhead Creek 20.7 Bridge 1961 Replacement SSW 26-80-19-5 $1,000,000 $820,000 $180,000 Bearhead Creek near Reno 2015 BF76233 Twp Road 842 Tributary to Peace River 2.23 Culvert 1965 Replacement SSE-14-84-21-5 $300,000 $180,000 $120,000 Tributary to Peace River 2015 Total $2,000,000 $1,550,000 $450,000

2016 BF 01665 Two Rad 814 Heart River 30.3 Bridge 1970 Replacement SSW 29-81-19-5 $1,300,000 $1,110,000 $190,000 Heart River near Nampa 2016 BF 76753 Street at Cadotte Lake Martin River 23.5 Bridge 1957 Replacement SSE-24-86-16-5 $1,100,000 $900,000 $200,000 2016 Toral $2,400,000 $2,010,000 $390,000

2017 BF 72861 RR 203 Tributary to Heart River 8.5 Bridge 1958 Replacement WSW 3-81-20-5 $600,000 $480,000 $120,000 2017 BF 71292 RR 192 Benjamin Creek 24.4 Bridge 1953 Replacement SW-14-81-19-5 $1,100,000 $920,000 $180,000 2017 BF 70527 Twp Rd 820 (SHV) Heart River 25.5 Bridge 1952 Replacement SSE-5-82-19-5 $1,000,000 $820,000 $180,000 2017 Total $2,700,000 $2,220,000 $480,000

2020 BF 78622 Haig Lake Rd Tributary to Mrten River 2.47 Culvert 1985 Replacement SW-36-88-15-5 $340,000 $220,000 $120,000 2020 BF 09881 SHV (Twp Rd 822) Rd Heart River 36.6 Bridge 1959/1999 Replacement SSE-16-82-19-5 $1,500,000 $1,300,000 $200,000 2020 Total $1,840,000 $1,520,000 $320,000

Grand Total Program Costs $16,151,000 $13,063,000 $3,088,000

Bridge assets are to be reviewed by Administration 2013

Revised December 06, 2012 SSZ TRANSPORTATION PAGE - 1/1

Area: Transportation LEVELS OF SERVICE PERFORMANCE INDICES PROJECTED CAPITAL BUDGET (Inlcuding 15% Engineering Cost and 20% Contingency)

STRUCTURAL MEASURED CURRENT CAPACITY RIDING VISUAL ADEQUACY INDEX PAVEMENT PRIORITY AS EXPECTED REMAINING CURRENT TARGET CAPACITY UTILIZATION Description UNIT/QTY VALUE YEAR BUILT AGE (VOLUME AND CONMFORT CONDITION (SAI) QUALITY INDEX PER TRAFFIC 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 LIFE LIFE CONDITION CONDITION (VOLUME AND (VOLUME AND LANES) INDEX (RCI) INDEX (VCI) Max SAI: 78 (PQI) PATTERNS LANES) LANES) AVG SAI: 38

Recommended Annual Investment $ 1,122,438 Total Capital Budget Forecasted Spending $ 5,160,436 $ - $ 413,005 $ 461,577 $ 474,722 $ 613,699 $ 653,980 $ 665,751 $ 623,128 $ 640,875 $ 613,699

Total Asset Value $ 56,121,920

Inventory of Paved Roads 87,690.5 meters $ 56,121,920 $ - $ 413,005 $ 461,577 $ 474,722 $ 454,592 $ 484,430 $ 493,149 $ 461,577 $ 474,722 $ 454,592 Paved County Road (in meters) Length in meters TWP 810 12,068 $ 7,723,200 2 HIGHWAY - RANGE ROAD 205 50 9 79 74 40 83 25 $ - $ - $ 50,435 $ - $ - $ - $ 50,435 $ - RANGE ROAD 205 - RANGE ROAD 204 50 9 80 68 48 81 23 $ - $ - $ 50,435 $ - $ - $ - $ 50,435 $ - RANGE ROAD 204 - RANGE ROAD 203 50 9 81 76 57 89 30 $ - $ - $ 50,435 $ - $ - $ - $ 50,435 $ - RANGE ROAD 203 - RANGE ROAD 202 50 9 80 77 46 87 27 $ - $ - $ 49,861 $ - $ - $ - $ 49,861 $ - RANGE ROAD 202 - RANGE ROAD 201 50 9 80 79 54 90 31 $ - $ - $ - $ 50,435 $ - $ - $ - $ 50,435 RANGE ROAD 201 - UNKNOWN 50 9 76 65 46 75 16 $ - $ 39,545 $ - $ - $ - $ 39,545 $ - $ - UNKNOWN - RANGE ROAD 200 50 9 76 62 26 69 13 $ - $ 13,325 $ - $ - $ - $ 13,325 $ - $ - RANGE ROAD 200 - RANGE ROAD 195 50 9 76 55 26 64 9 $ 53,873 $ - $ - $ - $ 53,873 $ - $ - $ - RANGE ROAD 195 - 833.1 m to RANGE ROAD 194 50 9 72 54 25 61 7 $ 26,937 $ - $ - $ - $ 26,937 $ - $ - $ - TWP 820 12,068 $ 7,723,200 2 HIGHWAY - RANGE ROAD 205 50 68 46 29 54 5 $ 52,727 $ - $ - $ - $ 52,727 $ - $ - $ - RANGE ROAD 205 - RANGE ROAD 204 50 74 71 31 76 18 $ - $ 52,727 $ - $ - $ - $ 52,727 $ - $ - RANGE ROAD 204 - RANGE ROAD 203 50 77 66 32 73 15 $ - $ 52,727 $ - $ - $ - $ 52,727 $ - $ - RANGE ROAD 203 - RANGE ROAD 202 50 75 70 30 75 17 $ - $ 52,154 $ - $ - $ - $ 52,154 $ - $ - RANGE ROAD 202 - RANGE ROAD 201 50 75 59 30 67 12 $ - $ 53,300 $ - $ - $ - $ 53,300 $ - $ - RANGE ROAD 201 - RANGE ROAD 200 50 79 70 30 77 19 $ - $ 53,300 $ - $ - $ - $ 53,300 $ - $ - RANGE ROAD 200 - RANGE ROAD 195 50 79 70 26 77 20 $ - $ 52,154 $ - $ - $ - $ 52,154 $ - $ - RANGE ROAD 195 - TOWNSHIP ROAD 820 50 77 63 34 72 14 $ - $ 42,375 $ - $ - $ - $ 42,375 $ - $ - TOWNSHIP ROAD 820 - RANGE ROAD 194 (Curve) 50 80 84 57 95 40 $ - $ - $ - $ 26,077 $ - $ - $ - $ 26,077 TWP 822 22,526 $ 14,416,640 RANGE ROAD 194 - RANGE ROAD 192 50 81 86 50 96 44 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 107,567 $ - $ - $ - $ - RANGE ROAD 192 - UNKNOWN 50 81 91 44 98 49 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 35,856 $ - $ - $ - $ - UNKNOWN - RANGE ROAD 191 50 81 83 46 92 36 $ - $ - $ - $ 16,298 $ - $ - $ - $ 16,298 RANGE ROAD 191 - RANGE ROAD 190 50 82 88 38 95 41 $ - $ - $ - $ 51,008 $ - $ - $ - $ 51,008 RANGE ROAD 190 - RANGE ROAD 185 50 81 88 46 96 45 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 52,727 $ - $ - $ - $ - TWP 830 16,090 $ 10,297,600 2 HIGHWAY - RANGE ROAD 205 50 70 74 78 84 26 $ - $ - $ 3,081 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,081 $ - RANGE ROAD 205 - RANGE ROAD 204 50 81 81 63 94 38 $ - $ - $ - $ 54,446 $ - $ - $ - $ 54,446 RANGE ROAD 204 - RANGE ROAD 205 50 60 64 51 65 10 $ 6,734 $ - $ - $ - $ 6,734 $ - $ - $ - RANGE ROAD 205 - RANGE ROAD 203 50 69 47 31 56 6 $ 47,139 $ - $ - $ - $ 47,139 $ - $ - $ - RANGE ROAD 203 - RANGE ROAD 204 50 59 40 28 47 1 $ 6,663 $ - $ - $ - $ 6,663 $ - $ - $ - RANGE ROAD 204 - RANGE ROAD 202 50 74 53 29 62 8 $ 46,638 $ - $ - $ - $ 46,638 $ - $ - $ - RANGE ROAD 202 - RANGE ROAD 201 50 80 72 34 81 24 $ - $ - $ 56,631 $ - $ - $ - $ 56,631 $ - RANGE ROAD 201 - RANGE ROAD 202 50 79 81 37 87 28 $ - $ - $ 6,663 $ - $ - $ - $ 6,663 $ - RANGE ROAD 202 - RANGE ROAD 200 50 80 55 25 66 11 $ - $ 49,969 $ - $ - $ - $ 49,969 $ - $ - RANGE ROAD 200 - RANGE ROAD 201 50 82 68 35 79 21 $ - $ - $ 3,331 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,331 $ - RANGE ROAD 201 - RANGE ROAD 194 50 80 71 32 79 22 $ - $ - $ 161,477 $ - $ - $ - $ 161,477 $ - RANGE ROAD 194 - RANGE ROAD 192 50 82 91 34 97 47 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 48,894 $ - $ - $ - $ - RANGE ROAD 192 - RANGE ROAD 193 50 83 89 34 96 46 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,260 $ - $ - $ - $ - RANGE ROAD 193 - RANGE ROAD 191 50 82 84 41 93 37 $ - $ - $ - $ 48,894 $ - $ - $ - $ 48,894 RANGE ROAD 191 - RANGE ROAD 192 50 75 93 31 91 35 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,260 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,260 TWP 840 4,023 $ 2,574,400 688 HIGHWAY - RANGE ROAD 202 50 80 93 48 99 50 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 52,727 $ - $ - $ - $ - RANGE ROAD 202 - 932.4 m to RANGE ROAD 201 50 74 91 34 90 32 $ - $ - $ - $ 23,068 $ - $ - $ - $ 23,068 TWP 842 6,436 $ 4,119,040 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 688 HIGHWAY - RANGE ROAD 202 50 11 80 93 27 95 42 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 52,727 $ - $ - $ - $ - RANGE ROAD 202 - RANGE ROAD 201 50 11 82 94 23 97 48 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 52,154 $ - $ - $ - $ - RANGE ROAD 201 - RANGE ROAD 200 50 11 82 98 21 99 51 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 52,727 $ - $ - $ - $ - RR 192 6,436 $ 4,119,040 TOWNSHIP ROAD 822 - TOWNSHIP ROAD 823.5 50 80 82 39 90 33 $ - $ - $ - $ 77,371 $ - $ - $ - $ 77,371 TOWNSHIP ROAD 823.5 - TOWNSHIP ROAD 824 50 83 84 46 95 43 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25,790 $ - $ - $ - $ - TOWNSHIP ROAD 824 - TOWNSHIP ROAD 825 50 82 85 42 94 39 $ - $ - $ - $ 52,154 $ - $ - $ - $ 52,154 TOWNSHIP ROAD 825 - TOWNSHIP ROAD 830 50 80 81 45 90 34 $ - $ - $ - $ 51,581 $ - $ - $ - $ 51,581 RR 204 8,045 $ 5,148,800 TOWNSHIP ROAD 830 - TOWNSHIP ROAD 832 50 70 36 33 49 2 $ 107,747 $ - $ - $ - $ 107,747 $ - $ - $ - TOWNSHIP ROAD 832 - TOWNSHIP ROAD 832.5 50 65 44 21 50 3 $ 27,510 $ - $ - $ - $ 27,510 $ - $ - $ - TOWNSHIP ROAD 832.5 - DES COMPAGNONS AVE 50 71 37 33 50 4 $ 37,038 $ - $ - $ - $ 37,038 $ - $ - $ - DES COMPAGNONS AVE - 688 HIGHWAY 50 78 73 70 87 29 $ - $ - $ 42,375 $ - $ - $ - $ 42,375 $ -

Capital Investment Value $ - $ 413,005 $ 461,577 $ 474,722 $ 454,592 $ 484,430 $ 413,005 $ 461,577 $ 474,722 $ 454,592 Reinvestment Value $ 1,122,438 50 year life cycle Operating Investment Value

J:\2013 DATA\ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT\Infrastructure Plan\Stantec Report\Existing_infrastructure_status2013_11-24-2013Transportation TRANSPORTATION 17/01/2014

Northern Sunrise County - Construction Program Table 9 - Outsourced Construction Program - Arterial, Collector & Local Roads

2020 2020 2020 Total $0 $0 $0

Grand Total Program Costs $66,221,695 $19,500,000 $46,721,695

Notes: Project Cost includes engineering. Grant amounts reflect construction costs and engineering only.

Revised October 25, 2013 SSz Northern Sunrise County - Construction Program Table 10 - Base/Paving Construction Program - Arterial, Collector & Local Roads

2014 $550,000 $0 $0 $0 2014 Total $0 $0 $0 $0

2015 $577,500 $0 $0 $0 2015 Total $0 $0 $0 $0

Grand Total Program Costs

Notes: Project Cost includes engineering. Grant amounts reflect construction costs and engineering only.

Revised October 25, 2013 SSz Northern Sunrise County - Construction Program Table 11 - Transportation Dept. Roads Grading Construction Program

Year Ref Road Name From To Land Project Classification Existing Recommended Cost Project Possible Net Comments No Reference length right of Improvements $/km Cost Grants Cost (km) Way Width (m) 2014 RR 204 (towards Golf Club) TR 815 Golf Club 2 Collector 20 Grading to standard $385,000 $770,000 $770,000 2014 Total $770,000 $770,000

2015 Twp. Rd. 820 Thru SW 2-82-21-W5 W. of SHV Rd. 0.5 Local 20 Grading to standard $372,600 $186,300 $186,300 low drainage corner, Park boundary 2015 Total $186,300 $186,300

Grand Total Program Costs 54.9 $27,731,124 $0 $27,731,124

Notes: Project Cost DOES NOT include engineering.

Revised October 25, 2013 SSz Northern Sunrise County ‐ Construction Program Table 12 - Bridge Construction Program - Arterial, Collector & Local Roads

Grand Total Program Costs $16,701,000 $4,481,000 $12,220,000

Bridge assets are to be reviewed by Administration 2013

Revised October 25, 2013 SSZ

11:00 a.m. Public Hearing for Bylaw B250/14

For the Purpose of Amending the Land Use Bylaw B088/02 to remove Permanent Work Camps as Discretionary Uses Within Agricultural District 1 (A1), Agricultural District 2 (A2), Joint Plan Agricultural District 1 (JP-A1), and Resource Rural Industrial District 1 (RRM1)

11:30 a.m. Public Hearing for Bylaw B251/14

For the Purpose of Amending the Land Use Bylaw B088/02 to create the new Permanent Work Camp District (PWC)

BYLAW NO. B251/14

BEING A BYLAW OF NORTHERN SUNRISE COUNTY IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA TO AMEND THE NORTHERN SUNRISE COUNTY LAND USE BYLAW NO. B088/02

WHEREAS Northern Sunrise County has adopted the Northern Sunrise County Land Use Bylaw;

AND WHEREAS Council proposes to pass Bylaw No. B251/14 in order to make revisions to Bylaw No. B088/02;

NOW THEREFORE, the Council of Northern Sunrise County, duly assembled, enacts:

1) Under Part 5 – Insert the following Land Use District:

Section 5.26.0 – Permanent Work Camp District “PWC”

5.26.1 The general purpose of this District is to regulate the placement of Permanent Work Camps within the County.

5.26.2 Discretionary Uses

1) Agricultural Work Camp – Permanent

2) Industrial Work Camp – Permanent

5.26.3 Minimum Lot Area

As required by the Development Authority

5.26.4 Minimum Setbacks

1) In the case of a Highway, the minimum setback for the development shall be determined by Alberta Transportation on a case by case basis.

2) In the case of a rural road, the minimum setback shall be 15.2 m (50 ft) from any public road right of way, or greater as required by the Development Authority.

3) All other minimum setbacks as required by the Development Authority

5.26.5 Special Land Provisions

1) No Permanent Work Camp shall be allowed to be constructed on Agricultural Land where the Farmland Manual’s Assessment Net Productivity Rating (NPR) is equal to or higher than 28%.

2) In the case were the NPR is not available, no Permanent Work Camp shall be allowed on lands with soils within Classes 1 to 4 from the Canada Land Inventory (CLI).

3) This subsection does not apply to those lands where the NPR is less than 28% or the soils are CLI Class 5 or higher.

5.26.6 Regulations

1) When deciding on an application for Development in this district, the Development Authority shall consider the following:

(a) The screening or landscaping of the camp and storage areas

(b) Site placement of the structures within the work camp as required for fire protection purposes

(d) Traffic impact and access arrangements

(e) Other such matters as are deemed necessary, having due regard to the nature and purpose of the proposed work camp

2) Permanent Work Camps will be limited to 150 occupants at any given point.

2) The adoption of this bylaw is effective upon the date of the passing of the third and final reading of this bylaw.

Read a first time in Council this _____ day of ______, 2014.

Public Hearing held on the ______day of , 2014.

Read a second time in Council this _____ day of ______, 2014.

Read a third and final time in Council this _____ day of ______, 2014.

Carolyn Kolebaba Peter Thomas Reeve Chief Administrative Officer

T 87

Northern Sunrise County

T 86 !(

T 85

T 84

j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j T 83 j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j

j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j Tj 8j 2j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j

j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j

j j j j j j j j j j j j j j T j81j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j R 23 R 22

R 21 R 20

*NPR - Net Productivity Rating, the expected production of site based on environmental constraints and soil quality R 19 R 18 PERMANENT WORK CAMP LOCATION MAPPING Net Productivity Rating (%) 68.0 - 34.8 34.8 - 28.0 28.0 - 1.0 No Data Available FIRST Nation Reserve Settlement Area j j j j j j j j Protected Area Date: January 2014 j j j j

BYLAW NO. B247/13

BEING A BYLAW OF NORTHERN SUNRISE COUNTY IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA TO AMEND THE NORTHERN SUNRISE COUNTY LAND USE BYLAW (B088/02) BY REDISTRICTING LANDS FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 1 (A1) to RESOURCE RURAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 1 (RRM1)

WHEREAS, Northern Sunrise County has adopted the Northern Sunrise County Land Use Bylaw (B088/02) to regulate land use and development in the County;

AND WHEREAS, the Council of Northern Sunrise County, in the Province of Alberta, has deemed it desirable to amend the Northern Sunrise County Land Use Bylaw to re-designate certain lands to regulate the control of a complex development proposal;

NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF NORTHERN SUNRISE COUNTY, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, DULY ASSEMBLED, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the area shown in black within SW-20-85-19-W5M on attached Schedule A be re-designated from Agricultural District 1 (A1) to Resource Rural Industrial District 1 (RRM1).

2. The adoption of this bylaw is effective upon the date of the passing of the third and final reading of this bylaw.

First reading given on the day of , 2013.

Public Hearing held on the ______day of , 2013.

Second reading given on the day of , 2013.

Third reading given on the day of , 2013.

Carolyn Kolebaba, Reeve Peter Thomas, Chief Administrative Officer

Bylaw No. 247/13 Northern Sunrise County

Schedule A

1. That the land use designation of the following property known as:

 That area shown in black within SW-20-85-19-W5M shown on attached Schedule A be re-designated from Agricultural District 1 (A1) to Resource Rural Industrial District 1 (RRM1).

Carolyn Kolebaba, Reeve Peter Thomas, Chief Administrative Officer

EFFECTIVE THIS DAY ______OF ______, 2013.

Northern Sunrise County Land Use Bylaw B088/02 Page 86

Resource Rural 5.10.0 RESOURCE RURAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT “RRM-1” Industrial District “RRM-1” 5.10.1 The general purpose of this District is to accommodate industrial operations in isolated, natural resource settlement areas in the County.

5.10.2 Discretionary Uses

1) Bulk oil storage

2) Caretakers’ residence 3) Contractors business BYLAW B140/08 4) Industrial Work Camp – Temporary 5) Industrial Work Camp - Permanent 6) Oilfield and gas field servicing 7) Pipe and equipment storage yards 8) Public use 9) Public utility 10) Salvage yards 11) Sewage lagoon 12) Sewage treatment facility 13) Tradesman’s business 14) Warehouse

5.10.3 Minimum Lot Area

Two (2) ac or such minimum size as necessary to support private on-site servicing.

5.10.4 Minimum Total Floor Area

As required by the Development Authority.

5.10.5 Minimum Depth of Front Yard

15 m (50 ft) from an internal access road or as required by the Development Authority.

5.10.6 Minimum Width of Side Yard

10% of the width of the site or 6.09 m (20 ft) whichever is lesser. In the case of a corner lot, the width shall be as required by the Development Authority.

Northern Sunrise County Land Use Bylaw B088/02 Page 87

5.10.7 Minimum Depth of Rear Yard

7.6 m (25 ft) unless otherwise required by the Development Authority.

5.10.8 Design, Character and Appearance of Buildings

To be to the satisfaction of the Development Authority.

5.10.9 Off-Street Parking

As required by the Development Authority.

BYLAW B140/08 5.10.10 Special Provisions – Industrial Work Camp

1) All parking must be provided on site and areas for parking shall be developed to the satisfaction of the Development Authority, 2) All points of access and egress shall be located to the satisfaction of the Development Authority, 3) Maximum site coverage shall be such that space is available for all the on-site parking, the applicable setback, and such area as required for landscaping shall be determined by the Development Authority, 4) Adjacent industrial camps shall be located a sufficient distance from each other, as required for fire protection purposes by the building code, and 5) Screening and fencing of storage areas shall be to the satisfaction of the Development Authority, 6) Caretakers Residence shall be a manufactured home, temporary trailer unit, or to the discretion of the Development Authority.

T 87

Northern Sunrise County

T 86 !(

T 85

T 84

j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j

j j j j j j j j j j j j j j T j81j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j R 23 R 22

R 21 R 20

6.9 Grain Movement on Rail

7. Finance

Organization 2011 2012 2013 2014 Approved Motion Total Spent Budget Amount Contribution Contribution Contribution Contribution number & date Remaining Growing the North Conference $0 $1,500 $2,500 $2,500 637/08/13/13 $163,412 $200,000 $36,588 Community Futures Women in the North Conference $500 $600 $1,500 $1,500 973/12/10/13 Alberta Pond Hockey Assoc. $0 $0 $2,500 $2,500 987/12/10/13 NW Child & Family Services Authority - calendars $0 $200 $200 CAO Approved Resident to participate in 2013 Forum for Young Canadians $0 $0 $895 088/01/21/13 Peace Region Music Industry & Songwriters Workshop $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 089/01/21/13 Nampa Museum- Tourist Information Centre- Annual Contribution $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 CAO Approved Nampa Golden Pioneers- Annual Contribution $500 $500 $500 CAO Approved Agri-Business Conference- Grande Prairie $0 $0 $1,000 132/02/11/13 Belle Petroleum Centre Cultureville Corporate Sponsorship $0 $0 $5,000 135/02/11/13 Cadotte Lake School- Traditional Drum Making Workshop $0 $0 $500 149/02/11/13 Peace River Agricultural Society- Peace Region Dressage Series $0 $0 $1,000 150/02/11/13 CPAA Conference Sponsorship $1,000 $1,000 $1,750 179/02/26/13 Northwest Fire Chiefs Conference $500 $0 $500 183/02/26/13 Peace Regional Volleyball Club $0 $0 $1,000 215/03/12/13 Mackenzie County Invitational Charity Golf Tournament $0 $0 $1,000 231/03/12/13 Peace Regional Aboriginal Sports Club $0 $0 $500 254/03/26/13 Peace River Knights of Columbus $0 $250 $400 256/03/26/13 Peacefest $1,600 $1,600 $2,000 284/04/09/13 Le Club du Bon Temps Seniors' Week $1,500 $500 $500 322/04/23/13 Nampa Golden Pioneers Seniors' Week $500 $500 $500 322/04/23/13 Peace River Ag Society Seniors' Week $0 $500 $500 322/04/23/13 Mamowintowin Board Seniors' Week $0 $500 $500 322/04/23/13 Heritage Towers Seniors' Week $500 $0 $500 322/04/23/13 Peace River Senior Citizens Club Seniors' Week $500 $500 $500 322/04/23/13 Harmon Valley Ag Society Seniors' Week $500 $500 $500 322/04/23/13 Make A Wish Foundation- Sweet Dreams Dessert Day $0 $180 $180 323/04/23/13 Nampa Library 50th Anniversary Celebration- promo items $0 $0 $100 330/04/23/13 Wildwind Dressage Festival $250 $250 $250 379/05/14/13 Community Futures Northern Alberta Youth camp $1,000 $1,500 $1,500 384/05/14/13 Aboriginal Interagency (Pow Wow) $1,000 $1,000 $5,000 430/05/28/13 Alberta Trappers Association- 40th Annual Rendezvous & Outdoorsman $0 $0 $1,000 446/06/11/13 Show Peace River Stampeders Baseball Club $0 $0 $500 471/06/11/13 Mamowintowin Cultural Centre- National Aboriginal Day $0 $0 $750 473/06/11/13 Organization 2011 2012 2013 2014 Approved Motion Total Spent Budget Amount Contribution Contribution Contribution Contribution number & date Remaining Peace River Seniors Apartment Association- Peace River & District $0 $0 $500 519/06/25/13 Chamber of Commerce Charity BBQ Alberta Beef Producers: Economic Impact of Wildlife to Livestock $0 $0 $121 623/08/13/13 Producers Study CN Miracle Match- in support of Stollery Children's Hospital $0 $0 $200 628/08/13/13 Lac-Megantic for Disaster Relief $0 $0 $2,780 638/08/13/13 STARS Grande Prairie for Debra Stone Memorial $0 $0 $500 639/08/13/13 Peace River & District Hospital Foundation ANNUAL $20,680 $21,360 $20,000 In 2013 Budget Peace River & District Chamber of Commerce Small Business Week $0 $0 $1,500 658/08/27/13 Speaker Peace Oil Sands Conference $0 $0 $2,500 660/08/27/13 Northwest Corrdidor Development Corporation (NCDC) Northern Ports $0 $0 $2,500 670/08/27/13 Symposium and AGM Peace Region Dance Society $1,500 $550 $3,286 723/09/10/13 Peace River Child Care Association $0 $0 $48,000 804/10/08/13 AIC Sisters in Spirit walk $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 807/10/08/13 PREDA AGM Awards Sponsorship $0 $0 $1,000 810/10/08/13 Peace River Regional Women's Shelter- Festival of Trees $500 $500 $1,000 845/10/28/13 Peace River Cadets- Remembrance Day $0 $0 $500 857/10/28/13 PR Royal Canadian Legion- Remembrance Day $500 $500 $500 857/10/28/13 Aboriginal Interagency Calendar Fundraiser ($600 sponsorship, $400 $0 $0 $1,000 883/11/05/13 purchase of 20 calendars) Expenses for Farm Family Award $1,000 $0 $1,000 890/11/05/13 SARDA- Wheat Midge Meetings $0 $0 $5,000 914/11/26/13 Families First Home Visitation Program- Christmas Program $0 $0 $1,000 934/11/26/13 Society of Local Government Managers of Alberta Conference $0 $0 $3,000 935/11/26/13 Peace River Minor Hockey- Atoms Tournament $0 $0 $300 CAO Approved Salvation Army Christmas Hampers $0 $250 $2,000 988/12/10/13 Salvation Army Food Bank $0 $0 $10,000 989/12/10/13 Little Buffalo School Nutrition Program $0 $0 $13,400 1006/12/10/13 Peace River Minor Hockey- Novice Tournament $0 $0 $300 CAO Approved Resident to participate in Pond Hockey championships in NB $5,000 $5,000 St. Isidore Carnaval $0 $1,000 PARTY program $5,818 $5,818 STARS Grande Prairie $0 $500 Mighty Peace Watershed Alliance $1,500 $1,800 Organization 2011 2012 2013 2014 Approved Motion Total Spent Budget Amount Contribution Contribution Contribution Contribution number & date Remaining Peace River Ag Society Fall Fair and Horse show $0 $5,000 Peace River Ag Society Horse Jumps $1,000 $1,000 PR Childcare Association $0 $1,000 North Peace Stampede Association $0 $500 McKinney Hall Association Seniors' Week $0 $500 Peace River Regional Women's Shelter- Charity BBQ $0 $500 Sagitawa Friendship Society- Aboriginal Youth Conference $0 $500 Metis Region VI Talent Show $7,200 $9,390 St. Isidore Library $0 $300 Peace River Minor Hockey- Boston Pizza Midgets $0 $1,000 Provincial ASB Conference $1,000 $1,000 Peace River African Descendants Society $0 $1,000 Brooks, AB Food Bank $0 $20,000 Peace Regional Outreach Campus $0 $10,000 Sorrentino's Compassion House $0 $5,812 Shamrock Boxing Club $0 $1,000 NSC Social Club- Gingerbread Houses $0 $500 Peace River Atom B Hockey $0 $250 Cadotte Lake Metis Local 1994 $0 $300 Harmon Valley Rodeo $5,000 Peace River Toy Library $250 ARMAA $1,500 St. Isidore library conference fees $2,124 Peace Association for Lifelong Learning $250 Paroisse St-Isidore (roadside clean-up) $500 Peace Regional RCMP Community Advisory Committee (2 AEDs) $3,000 SARDA - AB Soils tour 2011 $1,500 Town of Peace River RE: Canada Day Fireworks $2,000 Envision EDM Opportunities Society (Airport) $2,780 PR Chamber of Commerce Davis Awards $200 Peace River Ski Club $10,000 GP Rotary Club/Mexico Fire Tanker $0 PR Steamer's Swim Club 15th annual Swim Meet $0 Alberta Assessor's Assoc. Conference Sponsorship $0 Organization 2011 2012 2013 2014 Approved Motion Total Spent Budget Amount Contribution Contribution Contribution Contribution number & date Remaining AB Summer Games Bleacher Party $0 Nampa and District Ag Society Chiller $0 Ecole des Quatre Vents $0 Retooling for Revitalization $0 Legion $0 Peddler's Racing Series $0 Harmon Valley Fall Fair $0 Totals $90,652 $114,410 $163,412

8. Economic Development & Community Services From: Date: January 16, 2014 at 10:39:22 AM MST To: Cc: , Subject: Harmon Valley Dome

Mathieu, FYI Our insurance company has regretted to inform us that damage to the dome is not covered under our current policy, so in a nutshell the building is a total loss. I have asked they, the insurer, send us an explanatory letter so it can presented to our board. I just don’t want any misunderstandings, everyone needs to hear the same message. We are in the process of organizing a special meeting, as early as next week if possible, to discuss a go forward plan. I would like to extend the invitation out to yourself and to Caroline if she so desires to attend. Thank you very much in advance for your assistance in this matter.

Norbert Robert

Office: 780-624-6898 Cellular:780-618-5737 Fax: 780-624-4873

9. Protective Services

10. Agricultural Service Board

1:00 p.m. With Sebastien Dutrisac From: Rob Lamont Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 2:08 PM To: Sebastien Dutrisac Subject: wolf control update

Good Afternoon Sebastien. As discussed the following is an update on the wolf control efforts of my staff in Northern sunrise county.

A problem wildlife assistant was hired back in November and has been spending the majority of his time working on wolf control in Northern Sunrise county. A total of 3 wolf baits have been set and are being monitored. Earlier this week, officers removed 13 wolves from the 3 creeks area.

If you require any further information please call.

Rob Lamont Superintendent, Northwest Region Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Branch Justice and Solicitor General

Bag 900-26 Provincial Building Peace River, Alberta T8S-1T4

Office: 780-624-6246 Mobile: 780-625-8473 Fax: 780-624-6455 email: [email protected]

1 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions ELK (Cervus elaphus) POPULATION CONTROL

WHEREAS Crop Depredation Program funding from Alberta financial Services Corporation (AFSC) does not cover all losses from ungulate damage, and; WHEREAS Producers are absorbing some of the cost of depredation of stored harvest product, and; WHEREAS Alberta Justice and Solicitor General Fish and Wildlife Officers make recommendations that are short term remedies to ungulate depredation of crops and stored feed, and; WHEREAS: Approximately $6.9 million have been paid out in losses in the Peace Region over the last 2 years;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST That Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD) Fish and Wildlife Division restructure the Alberta Hunting Draw System to address the extremely high Elk number in some wildlife management units (WMU’s) in the Peace Country as well as other areas of Alberta. This could be done by increasing harvest numbers of antlerless elk, as well as extending the hunting season to allow hunters a longer period of time to bring down the elk population numbers while an impact is being made on stored feed.

Sponsored by: M.D. of Greenview No. 16

Moved by: ______

Seconded by: ______

Carried: ______

Defeated: ______

Status: ______

Department(s): All involved Provincial Ministries

2 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

Background In January 2013 the MD of Greenview No. 16 Council sent a letter to ESRD requesting an increase in the number of tags allocated during the draw process as well as extending the hunting season to alleviate the number of complaints regarding elk and the damage that they cause to stored feed and hay. Information from ESRD and AFSC: Crop Year Acres Wildlife Non‐ Loss Wildlife Non‐ Loss Wildlife Non‐ Waterfowl Damaged Waterfowl Damage Waterfowl Count 2011 33,608 $3,818,333.68 309 2012 17,033 $3,104,054.51 341 Total 50,641 $6,922,388.19 648

3 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions Public Tender for Sale of Public Lands under Disposition

WHEREAS: Disposition holders of Farm Development Leases and Grazing Leases, north of Provincial Highway No. 16, who have held the lease for a minimum of three years and, for which the lease is in good standing, may request the sale of said leased land through the Farm Holdings Consolidation Program; and WHEREAS: Upon determination of the upset price, the land is publicly tendered. The requesting leaseholder is given the opportunity to match the highest bid within a 30 minute period of the tender opening; and WHEREAS: Public tender is not required for disposition holders of public lands for recreation, commercial industrial or commercial recreation when requesting purchase of said land. “Direct sale of public land to existing long‐term disposition holders [is] approved where an option to purchase is identified in the disposition” or “is considered under [certain] conditions”;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST That Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development review policies with regard to the sale of public lands under disposition to ensure that all leaseholders are given equal opportunity to purchase public lands, whether they be agricultural, commercial recreation, recreation or commercial industrial; and that, like other long‐term disposition holders, disposition holders of farm development leases and grazing leases be granted the option of direct sale of said land.

Sponsored By: Municipal District of Big Lakes

Moved By: ______

Seconded By: ______

Carried: ______

Defeated: ______

Status: Regional

Department: Environment & Sustainable Resource Development

4 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

Background Many grazing lease disposition holders have invested considerable amounts of time and finances into improvements of their leases. Investments into the lease have been based, not only on usability and value of the land, but on the assurance of maintaining priority of purchase rights. Provincial policies in the 1980s supported the development of leases, encouraging leaseholders to invest in improvements to their leases with the understanding that there would be long‐term returns. The Province of Alberta strongly promoted the conversion of Grazing leases to Farm Development leases, with or without option to purchase, in order to prevent the fragmentation of farm units that incorporated leased lands as part of the farm assets. This type of development was promoted in settled areas, particularly in northern Alberta, where fewer leased lands had intensive development sufficient for farm holdings acquisition. However, by 1990, Alberta made changes to the land sales criteria, dismissing the priority right to purchase for grazing lease disposition holders and instead, required saleable grazing leases to be publicly tendered. Additionally, sale price minimums were raised to 85% of market value, including the value of improvements. Effective 2007, all previous policies from the 1980s had been rescinded, therein, any grazing lease disposition holder requesting a conversion to a Farm Development Lease would be granted the request without the option to purchase. Upon leaseholder initiation, a grazing lease could only be purchased through the competitive process, whereby, following application, the lease land would be publicly tendered at the upset price; the disposition holder must then match the highest bid within a 30 minute period. If the disposition holder did not match the highest bid, the purchase would be granted to the highest bidder and the disposition holder would forfeit all rights to the property. According to the 2007 policy, if the disposition holder does not purchase the land he/ she can recover moveable improvements to the land or sell the improvements to the purchaser. However, the disposition holder is eligible for fixed improvements only if the improvements have been made within the last five years. According to a 2007 Sustainable Resources Development document on the Farm Holdings Consolidation Program, “[w]hen public land is sold, Albertans need to receive a fair economic return. Sales will be conducted by a public tender…”. Further to that, in a 2011 information letter on the Sale of Public Land Under Disposition for recreation, commercial industrial, and commercial recreation, the Government of Alberta states that “[a] fair and consistent approach is required for disposition holders to request purchase where lands have been intensively developed…[and a] fair and consistent process is also required to ensure that Albertans receive long‐term benefits from the sale of public lands”; lands may be purchased directly by the disposition holder with an option to purchase in the disposition or may be purchased directly without an option to purchase in the disposition under certain conditions. 5 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

A fair and consistent approach is of the utmost importance; should not disposition holders of agricultural lands be granted the same opportunity to purchase requested lease land directly, as other disposition holders are?

6 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions Wildlife Damage Compensation Program

WHEREAS: Producers are absorbing the cost of livestock lost due to increased wolf predation occurring along Crown land, and

WHEREAS: Program funding varies by the amount of licenses collected which varies from year to year, and

WHEREAS: The officers doing the investigations are not left with final say on the cause of the animals’ demise, or the eligibility of compensation if the carcass is found or not, and

WHEREAS: The criteria of eligibility excludes a variety of livestock producers, and

WHEREAS: Municipalities are absorbing the cost of wolf bounties and predator control programs in the Province, and

WHEREAS: There are insufficient Fish and Wildlife staff to monitor and control the predator population in the Crown Land bordering agricultural areas.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST That Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resources Development, Justice and Solicitor General and all other relevant government ministries review the current staffing situation, program administration, budgets and funding source of the Wildlife Damage Compensation Program to ensure its effectiveness.

FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST That Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resources Development, Justice and Solicitor General and all other relevant government ministries implement a monitoring and assessment program to ensure that predators are dealt with proactively.

Sponsored by: Northern Sunrise County Moved by: ______

Seconded by: ______

Carried: ______

Defeated: ______

Status: ______7 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

Department: All involved Alberta’s Provincial Ministries

Background

Livestock producers believes the program ‐ should include all livestock including horses ‐ should lessen the proof of burden ‐ should increase predator population control ‐ ensure Fish and Wildlife staff level reflect program needs ‐ should increase F&W officers ability to determine eligibility ‐ should increase funding ‐ should change or add to the funding source ‐ compensate for missing animals when there are indicators of predation

APPENDIX #1 Excerpts from CARNIVORES AND CONFLICT: A COMMUNITY APPROACH TO CARNIVORE COMPENSATION REPORT 2 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ALBERTA WILDLIFE PREDATOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM JANUARY 2013 Prepared for: Waterton Biosphere Reserve Association Carnivore Working Group Prepared by: Calista Morrison Master’s of Resource Management (M.R.M.) Candidate Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC Canada www.watertonbiosphere.com%2Fuploads%2Fbiosphere‐ resources_36_3809318697.pdf&ei=4ktEUsjAAoqgiAKAvIHYAw&usg=AFQjCNGnhc4GUKDRbO WK1a‐‐1BnLIbypdw&bvm=bv.53217764,d.cGE

8 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

9 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

10 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

11 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

12 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

13 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

APPENDIX #2 Received from ACA

PREDATOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM ISSUE Since 2006/07 the annual cost of the predator compensation program has risen 200% (from $91,000 to $274,000) (Figure 1 and Table 1). In 2009 ACA identified the escalating costs of the predator compensation program as a potential issue that could directly impact our ability to deliver other conservation programs. We have been working with the Provincial Government since that time to resolve this issues. A quick search of predator compensation programs in other western provinces reveals that in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia there are agreements in place that result in the Federal Government covering 60% of the costs associated with predator compensation programs. To date a similar agreement does not exist in Alberta; however, ACA has been informed that negotiations are underway between the Provincial and Federal Governments (Table 2). Also of interest, in other western provinces the program is run by Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation, Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation, and BC Ministry of Agriculture. Alberta is the only western province where the predator compensation program is being paid for by hunters and anglers and being run outside of an agricultural agency (Table 2).

$300,000.00

$250,000.00

$200,000.00

$150,000.00

$100,000.00

$50,000.00

$0.00

Figure 1. Predator Compensation Program Total Payments. 14 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

Table 1. Predator Compensation Program Statistics 2000 – 2012. Average $ Fiscal Total Payout # Claims Per Claim 2000/01 $68,674.09 125 $549.39 2001/02 $68,125.74 109 $625.01 2002/03 $60,253.42 109 $552.78 2003/04 $91,784.48 133 $690.11 2004/05 $49,178.61 96 $512.28 2005/06 $95,588.02 125 $764.70 2006/07 $91,576.96 121 $756.83 2007/08 $117,608.21 177 $664.45 2008/09 $145,924.90 194 $752.19 2009/10 $144,374.35 174 $829.74 2010/11 $195,326.29 209 $934.58 2011/12 $274,072.80 228 $1,202.07

Table 2. Comparison of Predator Compensation Programs Alberta British Columbia Manitoba Saskatchewan Who runs the Alberta Business Risk Manitoba Saskatchewan program Environment and Management Agriculture Crop Insurance Sustainable Branch, BC Services Corporation Resource Ministry of Corporation Development Agriculture Funding Alberta 60% Federal 60% Federal 60% Federal Conservation Government, 40% Government, 40% Government, 40% Association Provincial Provincial Provincial through a levy on Government Government Government, up to hunting and 80% of livestock angling licenses value. Beyond 80% is covered by the province. Compensation 100% value 75% value 80% value 100% value for livestock (minimum for (minimum $300) (minimum for predation cattle is $400) cattle $400) Compensation 50% value None 40% value 50% value for suspected predation Compensation 100% animal value 75% animal value 80% animal value 80% animal value for livestock for veterinary costs for veterinary for veterinary for veterinary injury costs costs costs Value based Highest of the Can Can Fax price at Can Fax price at Highest of the on Fax price for the time of loss time of loss. market sales for week before, the (minimum for calf the week before, 15 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

week of, and week $400). the week of, and after the loss. For week after the loss calves producers (minimum for calf can choose to wait is $400). for the Can Fax October price for fall weight 550 lbs. Eligible Cattle, sheep, Cattle Cattle, horse, Cattle, sheep, livestock goats, swine, bison sheep, hogs, wild goats, bison, boars, goats, elk, horses, hogs fallow deer, bison, (excluding wild llamas, donkeys, boar), elk, fallow ostriches, emus deer, llamas, and other ratites donkey, ostrich, emu, ducks, geese, chickens, turkeys Eligible Bear, cougar, eagle, Bear, coyote, Bear, cougar, Coyote, cougar, predator wolf cougar, wolf coyote, fox, wolf lynx, fox, wolf, eagle, birds of prey, scavenging birds, raccoon, skunk, badger, mink, weasel, any other wild animal that causes injury or death to eligible livestock. Alberta British Columbia Manitoba Saskatchewan

16 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions Agriculture Financial Services Corp. (AFSC) pre‐harvest hail adjustments

WHEREAS: The M.D. of Smoky River experienced relatively minor hail events mid‐August 2013 and AFSC adjusters were not able to investigate all fields prior to harvest operations commencing, and

WHEREAS: Producers are reporting that hail investigations have been left in excess of 30 days after hail storms have passed, and

WHEREAS: Timely hail adjustment for agricultural producers are a necessity to ensure time sensitive operational activities like harvest are not delayed excessively, and

WHEREAS: Areas of the harvested field left for adjusters may not be representative of the hail damage received, potentially costing the producer or AFSC significantly, and

WHEREAS: Agricultural producers are in more and more cases farming land at great distances, and to leave areas of the field for adjusters to complete their investigation requires the movement of large amounts and pieces of equipment when returning to fields to complete harvest on a few swaths or unharvested standing crop which is expensive and an inefficient use of time, especially when time at harvest is so valuable, and

WHEREAS: When hail damage is confirmed at less than 10%, the claim is denied which means the hail insurance premium, the crop losses due to hail, crop & quality losses due to the crop remaining out as well as the cost to return and harvest the swaths or standing crop left for the AFSC adjuster are costs borne solely by the producer.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST That AFSC undertake to ensure hail investigations take place prior to harvest operations, and if adjusters are not able to investigate a field where hail was reported prior to harvest, the producer is given the option to harvest the field without leaving swaths or standing crop areas for adjusters to inspect, and AFSC will render a decision of adjustment at the 10% hail damaged level for that field.

SPONSORED BY: M.D. of Smoky River No. 130

MOVED BY: ______

SECONDED BY: ______

CARRIED: ______

17 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

DEFEATED: ______

STATUS: Provincial

DEPARTMENT: Agriculture Financial Services Corp.

Background: Agriculture Financial Services Corp. (AFSC) pre‐harvest hail adjustments

Agricultural operations in Alberta are businesses where a great deal of money is at stake, crop losses due to hail are a part of the risk which can be mitigated via insurance through Agriculture Financial Services Corp.

Currently, if a hail event occurs on an insured field and adjusters are not able to visit the field prior to harvest, the producer must leave swaths or standing crop in representative areas for adjusters to view. When a field is in a borderline claim position, ie: 1 – 20% damaged, the producer may decide to completely harvest the crop, rather than wait and incur the hassle and extra costs involved with returning for the crop left behind. If the producer decides not to leave any crop for the adjusters the claim is automatically denied.

Claims that are found to have less than 10% damage are also denied any compensation.

Following adjustment the producer must then return to the fields with harvest equipment, combines with straight and pickup headers (depending on the crops), grain carts and/or trucks. The crop left behind is usually of poorer quality due to weather and wildlife actions and often has to be binned and marketed separately and may require extra drying or aeration.

AFSC incurs costs to send adjusters to these fields, if the producer could make the decision to accept a 10% loss claim instead of leaving crop ‘samples’ behind and waiting for the adjuster, it would save AFSC the cost of adjusting those fields, allowing adjusters to concentrate their efforts on fields where damage levels are likely higher.

Concerning Hail Damage Adjustment – one farmer’s experience

Hail on August 12, 3013

Claim on 800 acres of wheat registered August 13, 2013

Main areas of fields combined Sept. 6 – 7, 2,000 bushels of wheat left out in adjuster strips

Hail damage Adjusted on Sept. 21, 2013

Combined strips left out for hail adjustment on Sept. 22 18 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

Sept. 6 – 7 – combined #1 CWRS dry $6.53/bu

Sept. 22 ‐ combined #2 CWRS tough $5.84/bu**

Difference in value of $0.69/bu X 2,000 bu = loss of $1,380.00

Install cutting headers + 15 miles one way trip to cut and combine strips, 6 hours at $150/hr = $900

$1,380 + $900 = $2,280 extra cost not covered by hail insurance’s lack of timely adjustment

**Costs could have been significantly higher if a more typical grade loss was incurred

For example CWRS which remains in the field for two weeks would more often be #1 on Sept 6th and feed on Sept. 22nd for a value loss of perhaps $2,00/bu X 2,000 bu = $4,000 loss on grade alone

**$150/hr barely covers the combine cost, add $100/hr for truck or cart, drying costs if incurred, yield loss due to wind and costs can be much, much higher.

19 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions RESOLUTION #5

WHEREAS: Canadian National Railways is a large private company which owns land in the province of Alberta. Ongoing issues with CN’s weed control programs exist in the province, and

WHEREAS: Over the course of the summer season 2013, CN staff stated that ‘CN Rail is Federally Regulated and the Weed Control Act of Alberta does not have jurisdiction on CN property’, and further stated that: ‘It is considered trespassing if there is entry onto CN property without the proper CN documentation and permissions, and

WHEREAS: In past responses to Resolutions requesting Railways in Alberta to control the noxious weeds on their properties, CN has stated they wish to work with municipal inspectors and accepted their responsibility under the Weed Control Act, and

WHEREAS: CN requires an onerous and involved work permit application, contractor training course and insist on a minimum 24 hours notice just to allow entry onto property, which during the busy weed season, when a 5 minute walk onto a Right‐of‐way may be needed to confirm a plant’s identity, is ludicrous, and

WHEREAS: The Railway Safety Act states: "No person shall, without lawful excuse, enter on land on which a line work is situated", and

WHEREAS: The CN Guidelines Regarding Access to Workplace lists Types of Access, Requirements and Documentations ie for Contractors, Visitors and "Regulators in line of duty (for example: Transport Canada, Transportation Safety board, Human Resources Development of Canada (HDRC), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), National Transportation Safety Board (NTSC)" whose requirements for access are simply - 'Must present Inspector/Investigator ID card' and 'Must be given Safety Briefing where applicable' Documentation required is 'Regulatory ID card’

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST That Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development work with Alberta Justice, Canadian National Railways and Alberta’s Municipalities to confirm that CN Rail is bound by the Weed Control Act of Alberta.

AND FURTHER THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST That Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, work with CN to confirm that Inspectors appointed under the Weed Control Act of Alberta are considered to be "Regulators in line of duty” under CN Guidelines Regarding Access to Workplace thereby waiving the requirements for Work Permits, Contractor training and notice to be given prior to entry onto CN Rail property. 20 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

SPONSORED BY: Municipal District of Smoky River No. 130

MOVED BY: ______

SECONDED BY: ______

CARRIED: ______

DEFEATED: ______

STATUS: Provincial

DEPARTMENT: Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development

Background

Canadian National Railway From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia CN is the largest railway in Canada, in terms of both revenue and the physical size of its rail network, and is currently Canada's only transcontinental railway company, spanning Canada from the Atlantic coast in Nova Scotia to the Pacific coast in British Columbia. The Canadian National Railway is a public company with 22,000 employees and market capitalization of 32 billion CAD in 2011.[2] CN was government‐owned, having been a Canadian Crown corporation from its founding to its privatization in 1995. CN responses to Resolutions in 2001 and 1998 2001 Resolution #8

Noxious weed control along railway right‐of‐ways Be it resolved ‐ That railways co‐operate with municipalities to ensure weed control takes place by encouraging access onto railroad right‐of‐ways for inspection; and that railways will apply registered herbicides where necessary to the entire right‐of‐way.

Canadian National. Canadian National (CN) recognizes the important role of maintaining our right‐of‐ways. We accept our obligation to control noxious weeds on our property and to prevent the spread onto adjacent property.

Safety is of paramount importance to CN and for that reason, a number of specific policies govern access to our right‐of‐way. For example, public access to CN property is not prohibited, but restricted by these policies. The requirements and procedures for obtaining access to CN property can normally be obtained by contacting CN Police through our Communications 21 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

Center at (800) 465‐9239. Alternatively, municipalities can contact me directly at (780) 421‐ 6150.

CN has always tried to work in a co‐operative effort with municipalities in Alberta and their representatives to control noxious weeds. We hope to continue that co‐operative effort in the future.

1998 Resolution #10

Noxious weed control along railway right‐of‐ways Be it resolved ‐ That railways cooperate with municipalities to ensure weed control takes place by encouraging access onto railroad right‐of‐ways for inspection; and that railroads will apply registered herbicides where necessary to the entire right‐of‐way.

Canadian National. Canadian National acknowledges that access to CN property by weed inspectors of Alberta municipalities is necessary for the management and control of restricted and noxious weeds. Canadian National has worked, and will continue to work, cooperatively with all municipalities when access to CN property for the purpose of inspections is requested.

Access to the property must be done in accordance with Canadian National's policy ‐ "Access to CN Workplace". Railway facilities and operations can be dangerous places for non company personnel. As such, it is important that measures be taken to ensure that access to CN property is controlled and safety is assured. For access by persons other than employees to the CN workplace including yards, shops, equipment, vehicles and all other premises, individuals must receive proper authorization, must sign a release of liability if left alone on the property, be given a safety briefing and while on the premises comply with all CN rules, policies and procedures. All CN employees are obligated to abide by these guidelines in response to requests for access to CN premises by non company personnel.

Canadian National has an integrated vegetation management approach which employs a variety of vegetation control methods. This includes mechanical cutting equipment, manual brushing and mowing, controlled burning and the application of registered herbicides.

Herbicides are used extensively as a cost effective method to control weeds and brush in the track ballast section within the railway right‐of‐way. All herbicides are applied by authorized and licensed applicators in accordance with federal and provincial regulations utilizing label recommendations. The herbicides are chosen carefully to provide efficient chemical control. Herbicides are applied every year along portions of right‐of‐way throughout the province. 22 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

A management program employs professional applicators utilizing special rail adapted spraying trucks and equipment. In addition, this program is supplemented by herbicide spraying on CN property throughout the growing season in response to requests or Weed Notices issued by local authorities. This work is completed employing licensed service contractors or through cooperative efforts with local authorities. Canadian National acknowledges the responsibility to control restricted and noxious weed infestations in accordance with the provincial Weed Control Act.

23 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions Extermination of Wild Boar in Alberta

WHEREAS: Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development identified in a 2002 response to a Wild Boar resolution that ‘New legislation would be needed for enforcement of identification and better control, such as confinement and fencing requirements.’, and

WHEREAS: Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development identified in a 2012 response to a Wild Boar Eradication resolution that ‘Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD) is in the early stages of developing a regulation aimed primarily at the identification and containment of farmed wild boar. In November 2011 RSD implemented a working group to start this process of developing a new Wild Boar Regulation and a discussion paper seeking feedback from stakeholders was completed.’, and

WHEREAS: Recently, a very weak draft on Wild Boar Fencing Standards for Containment Strategy was circulated, and even if enforced these will not ensure wild boar are prevented from escaping the wild boar operations in Alberta, which means a never ending source of escapees to be dealt with under the Agricultural Pests Act once they are ‘at large’, and

WHEREAS: Wild boar have proven to be one of the most destructive animals on the planet wherever they have been allowed to establish themselves and the cost in loss of crop, destruction of property, deaths due to vehicle accidents and control programs is massive, and

WHEREAS: It is more important to protect the rights, safety and property of the great majority of Albertan’s then the rights of a few individuals to raise wild boar in the province, and

WHEREAS: The simple solution to this issue is to outlaw the raising of wild boar in Alberta, and to implement an eradication program of all wild boar at large and in captivity, followed by the implementation of a Wild Boar Eradication border similar to the Rat Control Zone, to prevent the reintroduction of this pest into Alberta.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST That Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development outlaw the raising of wild boar in Alberta and eradicate all remaining wild boar in captivity in Alberta, compensating current owners for their losses both in the value of the wild boar, and the value of their capital investments.

AND FURTHER THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST 24 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

That Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, in conjunction with Alberta’s ASB’s and groups such as the Alberta Trapper’s Association undertake a program of extermination, to rid the province of all wild boar within the next 5 years.

AND FURTHER THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST That Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, in conjunction with Alberta’s ASB’s expand the Rat Control Zone to include the investigation and eradication of any wild boar that attempt to enter the province of Alberta in the future.

SPONSORED BY: Municipal District of Smoky River No. 130

MOVED BY: ______

SECONDED BY: ______

CARRIED: ______

DEFEATED: ______

STATUS: Provincial

DEPARTMENT: Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development

Background

Under the Agricultural Pests Act, wild boar at large is a pest, but residents of the province are allowed to own and raise them. There is no other pest listed under the Act which is given this ‘dual citizenship’. Pet shops and pet owners would undoubtedly love the ability to raise rats for snake food, which could easily become a larger industry than wild boar, yet the province does not and should not allow those enterprises to establish.

Farmed boar which were released when the ‘producers’ realized they were expensive and difficult to raise are the primary seed stock for the wild boar currently at large in the province. The other source is wild boar escaping from captivity at the few wild boar farms left in the province. The taxpayers of Alberta are paying for the incentive program as well as the destruction, crop loss and traffic accidents which wild boar cause. All of these costs, and the absolutely horrific potential costs which will be borne if this pest is not eradicated is occurring so that a few producers can offer sport hunting of wild boar.

As in most areas where wild boar have been released, it was thought they would be unable to survive in the wild. Wild boar have proven themselves to be wily, hardy and notoriously destructive as omnivorous pests who devour any food source they can find, including native fauna, fowl and wildlife as well as destroying much more in habitat than in the actual food 25 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

consumed. Farm equipment damage and personal injury are other costs which can be considered ‘minimal’ now, but which would increase exponentially with the increase in wild boar numbers if left unchecked – as seen in almost every other corner of the world.

The Government of Alberta needs to be proactive and take decisive action to eradicate this pest from the province, and to take the necessary steps to keep it from re‐establishing. Like the rat control program of the early 1950’s, we can anticipate an initially high cost and difficult but not insurmountable control efforts. The return on investment will be phenomenal, as seen with the Rat Control Program where preventing the re‐establishment is a miniscule cost compared to living with the pest, whether they be rats, or wild boar.

2002 Resolution response ‐ Resolution #7

Wild boars Be it resolved ‐ That the Minister of Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development request the Minister of Environment/Sustainable Resource Development to appoint Conservation Officers, Fish and Wildlife Division, as inspectors to be responsible for the capture and removal of these dangerous animals under the authority of the Stray Animals Act.

Responses ‐ Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. This issue is under review and meetings with the wild boar industry and other stakeholders are ongoing. This will look at a longer term approach to dealing with the problem and where responsibility should lie. In the short term, RCMP officers can give authority to brand inspectors or anyone else to kill problem animals. The animal has to be captured for an inspector to be able to respond.

New legislation would be needed for enforcement of identification and better control, such as confinement and fencing requirements. (emphasis added) An active and effective wild boar association would help.

Stray animals on crown land can be killed without further legislation.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Wild boards are domestic animals and therefore their management does not all within Sustainable Resource Development's mandate. The department supports the ongoing initiative led by Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to develop policy and regulations to address concerns with the wild board industry. The department does not have the resources to become involved in the capture and removal of wild boards and therefore does not support the notion of having conservation officers appointed under the Stray Animals Act.

2009 Resolution response ‐ Resolution #13 Wild Boar Confinement

Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request 26 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

that Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development implement a permit system for the raising of wild boars similar to that of raising elk and deer that stipulates fencing requirements to prevent escapes and allow for a more proactive approach to the control of wild boars at large.

Response: Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development Wild Boar at large were declared a pest pursuant to the Agricultural Pests Act on May 31, 2008. When this occurred, Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD), in a joint effort between ARD and Agricultural Service Boards, implemented an initiative to encourage land owners experiencing Wild Boar infestations to eradicate them and receive a $50 per head bounty for their efforts. This pilot initiative will expire on December 31, 2009.

Once this initiative expires, we will thoroughly review the successes and failures of the pilot and prepare a briefing to the Minister. The briefing will include recommendations of possible solutions to deal with this problem in the future.

The Agricultural Service Boards resolution of implementing a permit system and fencing requirements on wild boar producers will be considered during the review. (emphasis added)

2012 Resolution response ‐ Resolution #4 Wild Boar Eradication Initiative Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request Alberta Agriculture initiate a “Provincial Strategy” for a controlled “Live Trapping Program” run by professional trappers to eradicate Wild Boar as a Pest in Alberta.

Response: Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development Regulatory Services Division

Background:

• In 2008, wild boar were declared to be a pest when at large anywhere in Alberta. • The primary control measure subsequently implemented for the purpose of reducing their numbers, with a view to eventual eradication, was that of a bounty. • Pursuant to a funding agreement entered into between Agriculture and Rural Development and agricultural service boards (Ag Service Board), a payment of $50 is made to each person who turns in, to the Ag Service Board, a pair of wild boar ears. To date, payments have been made for just over 400 pairs of ears.

In response, Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD) is in the early stages of developing a regulation aimed primarily at the identification and containment of farmed wild boar. 27 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

(emphasis added) In November 2011 RSD implemented a working group to start this process of developing a new Wild Boar Regulation and a discussion paper seeking feedback from stakeholders has been completed. RSD views the approach to this problem as a two stage process by first developing a regulation to stop the escape of farmed boars and then secondly enhancing or developing a program to eradicate the wild boar.

A wide open prairie for wild hogs: U of S researcher sounds warning bells over feral wild boar (from the University of Saskatchewan ‘Newspaper’ – The Sheaf.com) by Daryl Hofmann on November 29, 2012 1:00 pm in News

They gang up and roam the rural countryside at night, digging up farmers’ fields and terrorizing livestock. They are so cleverly elusive that they’re rarely seen. They eat whatever is in their path. They are feral wild boar and recently they have become a rowdy nuisance in the normally peaceful Saskatchewan backcountry. Originally brought to the prairies by exotic food farmers, many of the tusked hogs escaped and are thriving in the wild despite the harsh winters. They have also been introduced to the region by ranch owners looking to turn a profit through the controversial practice known as canned hunts — where game is tracked down and shot within a fenced‐in area. “A lot of people in the province are now talking about feral wild boar,” said Ryan Brook, an assistant professor in the college of agriculture at the University of Saskatchewan. “I see this as a big issue for the province.” Brook has been studying the impact of wild boar on agriculture and has been using wildlife cameras with motion sensors to monitor their movements and numbers around Saskatoon. He is warning rural municipalities and the provincial government that the wild boar population has the potential to skyrocket. Wild boar have virtually no natural predators in Saskatchewan and breed about two times a year with an average of four to six piglets per litter. They take cover in dense brush along rivers and streams and usually only come out after dark. Over the last 30 years in the U.S., wild boar have spread from just Texas and California to nearly every state in the U.S. mainland. State governments are now scrambling to find ways to eradicate them. And in Europe the problem is even worse. “Last year in France they killed one million wild boar,” Brook said. “If you’re walking in city parks in Germany you will see wild boar. It’s incredible.” Further growth in the population of wild boar in Saskatchewan would — like most invasive species — severely damage the ecosystem and potentially cost the province millions to manage. For instance, feral wild boar are riddled with diseases that can easily be transmitted to humans. “Wild boar can be host to a whole long shopping list of disease and parasites, and those can jump to people and be especially risky to livestock operations,” Brook said. 28 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

Diseases carried by wild boar include — among other things — influenza and rabies. Two years ago, a massive outbreak of E. coli in spinach from California was linked back to wild boar. In addition, the animals can do a devastating amount of crop damage to standing fields, like barley and wheat. They dig up stocks by the root, making off with whatever food they can scavenge and leaving fields flattened. “One of the reasons why they are so successful and such a concern to Saskatchewan is they will eat absolutely anything,” Brook said. In Saskatchewan, they have a big impact on nesting waterfowl, who lay their eggs close to the ground. But wild boar will eat anything from insects to rodents to acorns to bigger animals, like deer and young livestock. “They will survive in virtually any habitat, from deserts to coastal areas to farmlands and into woodlands. And they disperse really well. They really have the potential to be a massive pest,” Brook said. “I’m not entirely certain why the government is sitting on their hands, for the most part, and ignoring it.” Currently the only program to combat wild boar in the province is administered through the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. If a farmer or landowner is having trouble with the irksome critters, they can contact SARM, which has funds from the provincial government to discharge experienced groups of hunters to kill entire cells, or groups, of wild boar. In two and a half years, about 700 wild boar have been taken out by the program, mostly through areas surrounding Moose Mountain in the southeast and Nipawin in the north of the province. There have also been reports of them harassing cattle just outside Saskatoon near Pike Lake. But since wild boar are generally nocturnal and dark in colour, the only time to hunt them effectively is when there is snow on the ground. “We want to make sure people are aware of the potential seriousness,” SARM Executive Director Dale Harvey said. “Down in the Southern States, it has passed the point where they can eliminate them. They can only try to control them. And it’s spreading across North America.” In the U.S., hunters have used baited traps, shot automatic weapons from helicopters and even used military‐grade night vision sniper rifles to try and eradicate wild boar. And although hundreds will be killed in a day, it doesn’t dent the overall population. “All that does is reduce the population [in the short term]. Elimination is effectively impossible anywhere boar become established in the wild,” Brook said. “It’s either take them all out or have a minimal impact.” Brook believes Saskatchewan needs to take an aggressive multi‐pronged attack to try and eradicate wild boar before they cost the province millions in disease control and crop damage. He said the government needs to spend the money to implement a good monitoring program that could say exactly how many wild boar are in the province and where they are distributed. “At the end of the day it’s really what kind of outcome the people of Saskatchewan and the government of Saskatchewan wants to see,” Brook said. “Texas and Saskatchewan are the same size, and Texas has somewhere between two and three million wild boar right now. So certainly the potential for a very large number of boar is there.” 29 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions Regulation of Ergot in Livestock Feeds

WHEREAS: The increase of ergot in recent years is showing up in concentrated levels in screenings where safe allowable levels have not been determined;

WHEREAS: Screenings with ergot being processed as pelleted feed cannot be easily identified without costly lab tests;

WHEREAS: The symptoms of ergot toxicity in livestock cannot be easily differentiated from other livestock diseases;

WHEREAS: The use of ergot in livestock feed is not regulated and Feed companies are setting their own, hit and miss, tolerable levels and herds have been affected.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICES BOARDS REQUEST That Alberta Agriculture Review current regulations concerning ergot in grains and warn producers, processors, seed cleaners, shippers and truckers of the potential health hazards to the livestock of feeding inappropriate amounts.

SPONSORED BY: Red Deer County

MOVED BY: ______

SECONDED BY: ______

CARRIED: ______

DEFEATED: ______

STATUS: ______

DEPARTMENT: ______

30 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

Background

Myths & Facts: Ergot in Screenings Myth Fact

10 ergot bodies per litre is safe (Ag Canada publication #1701, 1980) This recommendation is based on data from grain. Screenings are less dense than grain, therefore fewer ergot bodies per litre of screenings are necessary to reduce the risk. Summary of baseline Average (ppm) analysis of ergot bodies in screenings: Alkaloids (ppm) 5 bodies/L 5‐ 6.6 8 10 bodies/L 14 13.1 10‐ 15 bodies/L 15‐21 18.8

Feed industry standard operating procedures or Hot spots exist within each load of screenings: GMPs catches contamination ‐each load of is made up of 30 to 50 loads of grain ‐varying densities cause layering within the load as screenings are trucked over long distances. Grain industry would not ship deleterious Our mills have refused numerous loads of refuse products into the food chain screenings with as many as 180 ergot bodies/litre. Feed intake is not affected by ergot Reduced feed intake has been observed when feed is high in ergot alkaloids, however this may or may not be a direct effect of alkaloid content (ie may occur because the animal feels sick). Safe levels for livestock is 2‐3 ppm “200–600 ppb ergot alkaloids may cause clinical (CFIA regulatory guidance) signs and effects; however, this is influenced by the relative amounts of various ergot alkaloids in the grain.” (Merck Veterinary Manual) Does not have a significant impact on the Losses are significant, with counts as high as 100 Western Canadian livestock industry head of beef cattle reported. CFIA regulates ergot Ergot is not regulated. Livestock producers would not expose animals to Livestock producers buy on price. The lowest deleterious feeds price/T feed is what they buy, believing that all 31 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

pellets are equal. Feeds containing ergot can be diluted This practice is unlikely and needs to be based on confirmed alkaloid types and concentrations. Grain handlers are set up to remove ergot from It appears most inland terminals clean to a single feed ingredients bin, thus loads containing ergot are mixed with clean loads.

Importance of Ergot Research in Saskatchewan August 19, 2013 Title: Prevalence and effects of ergot contaminated feed in Saskatchewan cow‐calf operations Principle Investigator: Dr. J. Singh Objective: To investigate the extent of the problem in Saskatchewan and begin to evaluate effects on performance Industry Perspective – Co‐op Feeds: In 2012, ergot was highly prevalent across Western Canada, even gaining media attention in publications such as the Western Producer and Cattlemen Magazine. The presence of ergot has implications for both livestock producers and the feed industry. All domestic animals are susceptible to ergotism, especially cattle. The effect of ergot consumption is both a welfare and production concern. Consumption of ergot alkaloids causes irreversible vasoconstriction, which results in reduced blood flow. Initial symptoms generally include lameness, swelling, and tenderness of the extremities. Pain inhibits movement and reduces feed intake. Eventually, tissue necrosis due to thrombosis causes the affected body parts (ie lower limbs, ears, and tails) to be sloughed. Additionally, ingestion of lesser amounts of ergot alkaloids by gestating animals can interfere with prolactin release, causing agalactia at parturition. For the feed industry, the widespread presence of ergot increased the risk of receiving contaminated ingredients, particularly grain screenings. Ergot bodies are more difficult to detect in grain screenings, as foreign material is already intrinsically present. Further, variable density of material within grain screenings causes layering within the load when transported long distances, compounding the challenge of detecting contamination when receiving loads. Pelleted grain screenings pose an even greater threat, as visual detection is rendered impossible by the pelleting process, which does not destroy the alkaloids. Currently, the only mycotoxin for which a maximum level is regulated is aflatoxin. Guidelines exist for ergot alkaloid concentrations, but are not monitored. The suggested limit for ergot bodies in cereal grain is approximately 10 ergot bodies per litre of grain (Ag Canada Publication #1701, 1980). No such recommendation for ergot bodies in grain screenings is available; however the presence of ergot bodies in screenings is much more likely. Transposing the current suggested ergot body limit for grain onto screenings is not sufficient due to the variable density of screenings products. Due to the lack of guidelines and the low supply, high demand situation, high levels of ergot bodies are often present in grain screenings. Tolerance levels are set by the company or individual receiving such loads; no legal responsibilities are presumed by the distributers. Producers receiving grain screenings or grain screenings pellets directly from grain cleaners may not have been aware of the prevalence of ergot and may have had significant production loss when feeding this material unknowingly. 32 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

Based on internal testing, Co‐op Feeds has rejected screenings loads from our feed mills in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba contaminated with 3 to 180 ergot bodies per litre. Despite this stringent internal receiving protocol, contamination of grain screenings pellets did occur and several herds were affected, resulting in claims. As such, Co‐op Feeds has developed a waiver for customers wishing to purchase feeds with high levels of grain screenings to increase the awareness of the potential for contamination and the risk involved with these types of products. While the symptoms and consequences of alkaloid ingestion are well defined and documented, the prevalence and potency of the various alkaloids are unknown for Western Canada. Also unknown are the concentration and combination of alkaloids which cause the various symptoms and what levels cause irreversible damage. Research is required to determine the true no effect levels of ergot alkaloids which can be tolerated by livestock and to determine the tolerable limits of ergot bodies in grain and grain screenings products based on the alkaloids most commonly found in Western Canada. Following their determination, the limits need to become regulation, or at minimum a guideline, to ensure responsible sale and purchase of grain screenings products by companies and individuals in the grain cleaning and feed industries. References: Canadian Food Inspection Agency. 2012. RG‐8 Regulatory Guidance: Contaminants in Feed. Available at http://www.inspection.gc.ca/animals/feeds/regulatory‐guidance/rg‐ 8/eng/1347383943203/1347384015909?chap=1. Furber, D. 2012. Pellets can have ergot too. Cattlemen Magazine. September 2012: 20‐22. Glen, B. 2012. Rancher warns feed buyers of ration containing ergot. The Western Producer. Available at http://www.producer.com/2012/07/rancher‐warns‐feed‐buyers‐%e2%80%a8of‐ ration‐containing‐ergot%e2%80%a9/. Kainulainen, K. 2003. Ergotism and ergot alkaloids – a review. Semandervag. 9‐232, 75262. Uppsala University. McMullen, M. and Stoltenow, C. 2002. Ergot. North Dakota State University Extension article. Available at http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/crops/pp551w.htm. Merck Veterinary Manual. 2011. Ergotism. Available at http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/htm/bc/212203.htm.

Disclaimer and Limitation of Liability This high screenings based product (the “Product”) is sold to you on an “as is” basis. You acknowledge that the use of this Product is high risk. Federated Co‐operatives Limited (“FCL”) has shown due diligence requesting assurances from its suppliers that the Product is free from potentially harmful contaminants. However, FCL cannot guarantee that the Product is free from all potentially harmful contaminants, including but not limited to ergot, mustard seed, injurious seeds and fusarium. Accordingly, FCL makes no representations, warranties, guarantees or conditions of any kind with respect to the Product, including but not limited to fitness for a particular purpose. FCL hereby disclaims any such representations, warranties, guarantees or conditions. 33 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

Your purchase and use of this high screenings based product is at your own risk. You acknowledge and assume any and all such risk. You acknowledge that FCL has reviewed alternative feeding options and products available to you that FCL does guarantee but you have specifically chosen to purchase the Product, acknowledging the risks. In no event shall FCL, its subsidiaries, member retail co‐operatives, affiliates, assigns, directors, officers or employees be liable for any damages arising out of or in connection with your purchase and/or use of the Product. You hereby release and forever discharge FCL, its subsidiaries, member retail co‐operatives, affiliates, assigns, directors, officers, employees and agents from any and all actions, causes of action, suits, claims and demands for damages of any nature arising out of the purchase and/or use of the Product.

(Customer Signature) (Co‐operative Retailing System Representative Signature)

(Printed Name) (Printed Name)

(Date) (Title)

(Date)

Feed Identification

Research Proposal March 15, 2013 Title: Identification of tolerable limits of ergot bodies in grain screenings for the grain cleaning and feed industries Objective: To create industry standards for allowable levels of ergot bodies in grain screenings products. Background: Ergot is a disease of cereals and grass caused by the Claviceps fungus. Ergot bodies, presenting as dark purple to black sclerotia, replace the seed heads of cereals and grasses prior to harvest. While ergot can occur in any year, wet conditions will increase the incidence. Ergot bodies contain alkaloids which are toxic to animals upon ingestion. Alkaloids caused by Claviceps purpurea are most common and cause gangrenous ergotism, while alkaloids from Claviceps paspali are associated with central nervous derangement. All domestic animals are susceptible to ergotism, especially cattle. Consumption of ergot alkaloids causes irreversible vasoconstriction, which results in reduced blood flow. Initial symptoms generally include lameness, swelling, and tenderness of the extremities. Eventually tissue necrosis due to thrombosis causes the affected body parts (ie lower limbs, ears, and tails) to be 34 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

sloughed. Additionally, ingestion of lesser amounts of ergot alkaloids by gestating animals can interfere with prolactin release, causing agalactia at parturition. As such, the effect of ergot consumption is both a welfare and production concern. Currently, the only mycotoxin for which a maximum level is regulated is aflatoxin. Guidelines exist for ergot alkaloid concentrations, but are not monitored. The suggested limit for ergot bodies in cereal grain is approximately 10 ergot bodies per litre of grain (Ag Canada Publication #1701). No such recommendation for ergot bodies in grain screenings is available; however the presence of ergot bodies in screenings is much more likely. Transposing the current suggested ergot body limit for grain onto screenings is not sufficient due to the variable density of screenings products. Due to the lack of guidelines and the low supply, high demand situation, high levels of ergot bodies are often present in grain screenings. Tolerance levels are set by the company or individual receiving such loads; no legal responsibilities are presumed by the distributers. Proposal: Research is required in order to determine the tolerable limits of ergot bodies in screenings products. Due to the variable density of screenings, such limits need to be expressed by a weight basis. Following their determination, the limit needs to become regulation, or at minimum a guideline, to ensure responsible sale and purchase of grain screenings products by companies and individuals in the grain cleaning and feed industries.

References: Canadian Food Inspection Agency. 2012. RG‐8 Regulatory Guidance: Contaminants in Feed. Available at http://www.inspection.gc.ca/animals/feeds/regulatory‐guidance/rg‐ 8/eng/1347383943203/1347384015909?chap=1. Furber, D. 2012. Pellets can have ergot too. Cattlemen Magazine. September 2012: 20‐22. Glen, B. 2012. Rancher warns feed buyers of ration containing ergot. The Western Producer. Available at http://www.producer.com/2012/07/rancher‐warns‐feed‐buyers‐%e2%80%a8of‐ ration‐containing‐ergot%e2%80%a9/. Kainulainen, K. 2003. Ergotism and ergot alkaloids – a review. Semandervag. 9‐232, 75262. Uppsala University. McMullen, M. and Stoltenow, C. 2002. Ergot. North Dakota State University Extension article. Available at http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/crops/pp551w.htm. Merck Veterinary Manual. 2011. Ergotism. Available at http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/htm/bc/212203.htm.

Poisoning in Cattle G. Dewell, DVM, MS, PhD Steve Ensley, DVM, PhD Beef Extension Veterinarian Veterinary Toxicologist Clinical Signs The most common sequelae of ergot poisoning is associated with vasoconstriction of the small arteries. Vasoconstriction can prevent thermoregulation and result in “summer slump” during the hot summer. Cattle will commonly develop a rough hair coat, lose weight and have extended periods of time standing in water or shade if available. Gangrenous ergotism (synonymous with fescue foot) is also a result of vasoconstriction in the legs and tail. Gangrenous ergotism is often 35 2014 ASB Conference Resolutions

associated with cold temperatures but can be seen in the summer also. Initially cattle will be lame usually in the hind limbs first. Swelling at the coronary band develops and the animal will eventually slough its hoof if not removed from the ergot alkaloid in time. Necrosis of the tail and ears can also occur.

From: Maureen Vadnais [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 3:21 PM To: 'Shane Poulsen'; Sebastien Dutrisac Subject: RE: Wildlife Damage Compensation Program

Hi guys,

Like I said to Sebastien, come talk to me with your ASB members and we’ll coach you through it 

The parts of a resolution that can be changed are the Therefore Be It Resolved and Further Therefore Be It Resolved sections.

The best thing you can do is have someone from the MD of Pincher Creek second it. The mover and seconder both have time to speak to the resolution. In this case, it will be important that both the mover and seconder speak to the resolution (often times the seconder waves and does not speak to the resolution) and highlight the impact that this program has on both the north and the south parts of the province. You may also want to encourage other municipalities, like Ranchland or Willow Creek, to also speak in support of the resolution when the Chair calls for debate on the resolution. Each speaker who wants to speak for or against the resolution will have two minutes to address it.

We can sit down with your two boards to look the resolution over and I can give you some guidance as to how to navigate through this process. It will just be easier to do it in person. The best time for me will probably be Monday evening after 7:00 (meetings until then…) or lunch on Tuesday or something like that.

MJV

From: Shane Poulsen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 2:01 PM To: Maureen Vadnais; Sebastien Dutrisac Subject: RE: Wildlife Damage Compensation Program

Let me try that again…sorry Maureen! So what part of the resolution are we allowed to do a friendly amendment to? And I don’t want to hi-jack Sebastien’s resolution, but what does it take to be a co-sponsor, or whatever would indicate that the MD of Pincher Creek supports this resolution beyond just voting for it on the floor or seconding it.

From: Maureen Vadnais [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: January-17-14 11:52 AM To: Sebastien Dutrisac Cc: Shane Poulsen Subject: Re: Wildlife Damage Compensation Program

This will have to be fine on the floor once the resolution has been presented but it should not be a problem. I can help you coach your ASB members on the process when we get to Medicine Hat.

It's definitely not a problem on the seconding. You can't change the whereas statement though, only the Therefore be it resolved. The whereas statement has no effect on the TBIR statement though so don't worry about that.

It's actually good to have another municipality work with you - makes it truly a provincial issue.

Hope that helps.

From: Sebastien Dutrisac Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 11:45 AM To: Maureen Vadnais Cc: '[email protected]' Subject: FW: Wildlife Damage Compensation Program

Good morning, Hope all is well and Happy New Year. Shane and I were discussing and they would be interested in seconding NSC resolution on Wildlife Damage Compensation with the slight amendment to remove “wolf” in the first whereas, I would like to propose to our ASB to modify the word “review” to “review and increase” in the first Therefore. Do we see any difficulty with them seconding this or altering the resolution ?

Thanks

Sebastien Dutrisac Certified Ag.Fieldman

Northern Sunrise County

"Agriculture not only gives riches to a nation, but the only riches she can call her own." Samuel Jackson

From: Shane Poulsen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 8:37 AM To: Sebastien Dutrisac Subject: Wildlife Damage Compensation Program

Hello Sebastien,

We at the MD of Pincher Creek were interested in your resolution and I would like to talk to you about it. When would be a good time to phone you?

Shane Poulsen

Agricultural Fieldman MD of Pincher Creek Agricultural Services 403-627-4151 (office) 403-339-8741 (cell) 403-627-3075 (fax) [email protected] (email) http://www.mdpinchercreek.ab.ca/services/agricultural-services

2014 Provincial ASB Conference “Agriculture for Generations”

Agenda Package & Speaker Biographies

Hosted By: The South Region Day 1: Monday, January 27

4:00 ‐ 8:00 pm Conference Registration (Cypress Centre Foyer) 6:00 ‐ 8:00 pm Reception and Light Supper (Cypress Centre Auditorium)

Day 2: Tuesday, January 28 6:30 am Coffee on at Cypress Centre 7:00 ‐ 8:15 am Breakfast in Cypress Centre Auditorium 8:30 ‐ 9:00 am Garry Lentz: Conference Chairman National Anthem by Dawn Fortin Drew Barnes: MLA Cypress‐ Medicine Hat Bob Olson: Reeve of Cypress County Jason Storch: AAAF 1st Vice President Day Chairman‐ Danny Hooper 9:00 ‐ 9:30 am “ASB update” Maureen Vadnais ASB Program Manager

9:30 ‐ 10:15 am “Crop Market and Strategies” Neil Blue Marketing Specialist, ARD

10:15 ‐ 10:30 am Coffee Break

10:30 ‐ 11:00 am “Grassland Vegetation Inventory” Oriano Castelli AESRD

11:00 ‐ 11:30 am “Alberta Farm Animal Care‐ What You Need To Know” Lorna Baird AFAC

11:30 ‐ 12:00 pm “Aerial Imaging” Stephen Myshak ISIS Geomatics

12:00 ‐ 1:00 pm Lunch

1:00 ‐ 2:00 pm “How Does Organics Fit into the Modern Farm Economy? Or Does It” Mischa Popoff Organic Industry Expert, Keynote Speaker

2:00 ‐ 2:30 pm “Expanded Directions for Landowners in Energy Development” Carol Goodfellow, Farmers Advocate Office 2:30 ‐ 2:50 pm coffee Break 2:50 pm Resolutions Session 1 End of Day‐ Free Evening Day 3: Wednesday, January 29 6:30 am Coffee on at Cypress Centre 7:00 ‐ 8:15 am Breakfast in Cypress Centre Auditorium Day Chairman‐ Danny Hooper

8:30 ‐ 9:30 am “Engaging Youth in Agriculture” Leona Dargis Nuffield Scholar

9:30 ‐ 10:30 am “Future Trends in the Cattle Business” Anne Wasko Gateway Livestock Exchange

10:30 ‐ 10:50 am Coffee Break/ Trade Show Open

10:50 ‐12:00 pm “Sunrise: The Dawn of a New Era” Richard Worzel Futurist, Keynote Speaker

12:00 ‐ 1:00 pm Lunch

1:00 ‐ 2:00 pm “ASB Orientation” Maureen Vaidnais ASB Program Manager

2:00 – 2:30 “Rats and Rabies” Phil Merrill Provincial Rat and Pest Specialist

2:30‐ 3:00 pm “Watershed Planning and Advisory Councils of Alberta” Shannon Frank Executive Director Oldman Watershed Council

3:00 ‐ 3:20 pm Coffee Break/ Trade Show Open 3:20 pm Resolutions‐ Session 2 6:00 pm cocktails 7:00 pm Banquet David Friesen: Southern Alberta MedicAir Society Danny Hooper: Charity Auction to support Medic Air Society Awards Presentations Invitation to 2014 ASB Summer Tour Invitation to 2015 Provincial ASB Conference Jim Duncan: Clearwater County Entertainment: Keister Family Fiddlers

Day 4: Thursday, January 30

6:30 am Coffee on at Cypress Centre 7:00 ‐ 8:15 am Breakfast in Cypress Centre Auditorium Day Chairman‐ Garry Lentz

8:15 ‐ 9:00 am “Dealing with Cattle Deadstock”

Fred Hays, Alberta Beef Producers

9:00 – 11:00 am Ministers Forum Honourable Diana McQueen, Minister of Energy Honourable Verlyn Olson, Minister of Agriculture & Rural Development

The South Region Agricultural Service Boards would like to thank everyone for attending this year’s Conference. Special thanks also goes out to speakers, presenters, trade show participants and sponsors for helping make this Conference a success. Everyone has a role to play in preserving Agriculture for Generations. Have a safe trip home!

11. New Business

11.2 Invitations

January 8, 2014

Know Your Current MGA – Attend an Info Session

The October 2013 municipal elections produced a forty-one percent (41%) turnover in elected officials. With Municipal Affairs planning public consultations on proposed changes to the MGA the AAMDC wondered if a review of the current legislation would be in order prior to these consultations. At the Fall 2013 Convention the question was posed to the membership and seventy-nine percent (79%) of you said you would be interested in attending a review of the current Municipal Government Act, (MGA). Brownlee LLP has been hired to conduct these workshops. Where possible we have aligned these workshops with District meetings. However when the District meetings were not scheduled prior to the public consultations within a District, a separate event has been arranged. The following schedule has been set for the MGA Review workshops; . District 1, in conjunction with the District meeting on January 17th in Lethbridge at the Country Kitchen Catering, 1717 Mayor McGrath Drive South, (underneath the Keg). . District 2, in conjunction with the District meeting held on February 7th in Olds at the Pomeroy Inn & Suites, located on the Olds College Campus. . District 3, in conjunction with the District meeting on January 20th at the Executive Royal Inn 10010 178 Street, Edmonton. The timing of the workshops will be included in the District meeting agendas to be sent out by the district chairs/secretaries shortly. Typically the meetings have been shortened with the MGA Review workshop to follow after a break or lunch. . District 4, an MGA Review workshop will be held in Grande Prairie on February 7th at the Evergreen Park from 11:00 am to 3:30 pm. Lunch will be provided. . District 5, an MGA Review workshop will be held in Vegreville on February 14th at the Pomeroy Inn and Suites at 6539 Hwy 16a west from 11:00 am to 3:30 pm. Lunch will be provided. Please direct inquiries to:

Kim Heyman Michelle Hay Director of Advocacy and Communication Policy Analyst 780.955.4079 780.955.4085

From: Tom Burton [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: January-08-14 9:04 AM To: Tom Burton Subject: District Meeting February 14th 2014

Good Day everyone

Attached is a map of the location of Rycroft Ag Society building which is where our next district meeting is going to be held. Once I have the responses back from the invites I will be formulate the agenda and send out the agenda package hopefully in the first week of February. The proposed start time is 10:00am as usual on February 14th, 2014. Any questions or concerns please contact me.

Tom Burton Director District 4 AAMDC

Agriculture & Economic Development Workshops

January 16 Succession Planning

Mr. Reg Shandro will be leading an informative discussion on the topic of succession planning for the family farm. Although geared towards agricultural producers, this topic is relevant to all people in business or thinking about starting a business. Succession planning is noted by the agricultural industry as one of the sector’s biggest challenges over the next decade.

February 27 Agri-Tourism

Join representatives from Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development and Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation along with Lyndon Drefs of EC Bar Ranch in this introductory workshop on Agri-Tourism. This is a great opportunity to learn more about how incorporating tourism can boost your agricultural business.

Location: High Prairie AgriPlex Time: 6:30pm

Admission is free and refreshments will be provided

For more information or to reserve a seat, please contact Daniel Steiner, Special Projects Manager at (780) 523-5955 or [email protected] From: Lorraine Megella [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 1:32 PM To: Al Hoggan, Kneehill County; Alan Parkin, Wheatland County; Allan Harvey, Lamont County; Allan Rowe, Clear Hills County; Allan Winarski, MD of Lesser Slave River; Bill Landiuk, MD of Big Lakes; Bill Rogan, County of Grande Prairie; Bob Cardwell, Saddle Hills County; Brian Bowles, Leduc County; Charlie Cutforth, Ponoka County; Cory Ollikka, Smoky Lake County; Curtis Herzberg, Red Deer County; Cynthia Vizzutti, MD of Willow Creek; Dale Brown, County of Forty Mile; David Marynowich, County of Minburn; Derrick Krizsan, MD of Taber; Douglas Plamping, MD of Greenview; Edward LeBlanc, Westlock County; Frank Coutney, County of Wetaskiwin; Gary Buchanan, Athabasca County; Gary Peers, MD of Acadia; Glen Laubenstein, Wood Buffalo; Gregory Brkich, MD of Ranchland; Harold Northcott, Birch Hills County; Harry Riva Cambrin, MD of Foothills; Helen Alook, MD of Opportunity; Jack Ramme, Yellowhead County; Janelle Cornelius, Thorhild County; Joulia Whittleton, Mackenzie County; Kelly Buchinski, MD of Wainwright; Kelly Hudson, MD of Spirit River; Kevin Greig, Rocky View County; Kevin Miner, Cypress County; Kevin Stephenson, County of Newell; Leo Ludwig, Vulcan County; Luc Mercier, Woodlands County; Lucien Turcotte, MD of Smoky River; Lyle McKen, MD of Peace; Marco Schoeninger, Brazeau County; Mark Oberg, County of Barrhead; Martin Buckley, MD of Bighorn; Mike Primeau, Lac Ste. Anne County; Murray Millward, Cardston County; Pat Vincent, Parkland County; Peter Tarnawsky, Sturgeon County; Peter Thomas; Rhonda King, County of Vermilion River; Rick Robinson; Robert Beck, Beaver County; Robert Coon, Strathcona County; Ron Leaf, Clearwater County; Ross Rawlusyk, Starland County; Roy Brideau, Lac La Biche County; Ryan Poole, MD of Bonnyville; Sally Dary, County of Two Hills; Sandy Fox, MD of Fairview; Shawn Hathaway, County of Warner; Sheila Kitz, County of St. Paul; Sheldon Steinke, MD of Crowsnest Pass; Shelly Armstrong, Flagstaff County; Steven Gerlitz, Camrose County; Susan Valentine; Tarolyn Peach, County of Paintearth; Terry Hager, Lacombe County; Theresa Van Oort, County of Northern Lights; Tim Fox, County of Stettler; Tony Martens, Mountain View County; Tyler Lawrason, MD of Provost; Wendy Kay, MD of Pincher Creek Cc: Rick Robinson Subject: Mayors & Reeves Liaison Committee Meeting - March 17, 2014

Good afternoon,

Please be advised that the Mayors & Reeves Liaison Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 17, 2014 from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. in Salon 4 Meeting Level in the Shaw Convention Centre during the spring AAMDC Convention.

Deadline for agenda items is Friday, March 7th. Please note that we will also require back-up information with your agenda item. If you are unable to make the deadline date, the item may be added from the floor at the meeting. Agenda items are to be submitted to Lethbridge County CAO Rick Robinson. Rick’s email is: [email protected].

Attached for your information is a copy of the “Terms of Reference” for the committee as there are a lot of new elected officials.

Thank you.

Lorraine Megella, Executive Assistant LETHBRIDGE COUNTY #100, 905 - 4 Ave. South, Lethbridge, Alberta, T1J 4E4 Phone: 403-328-5525 Direct: 403-380-1585 Fax: 403-328-5602 www.lethcounty.ca

Music makes life beautiful

Dear Councillors of the Northern Sunrise County;

Sherry and Dana of No Limitz Music are pleased to announce the re-branding of the Peace Region Music Industry Conference, Showcase & Workshop to the May 2nd & 3rd, 2014 SongRise Music Conference & Showcase. This new name we anticipate will open up our horizons as we plan to branch out in the future.

On May 2nd & 3rd we will be hosting the 7th year of this inspirational weekend of music and career development. This professionally run conference will include multiple sessions that focus on speciﬁc needs of the songwriter and artist. Working in small groups up close with industry mentors, individuals will develop their creative side and business side in the music scene.

With your continued support you can be an important part of enhancing the music industry of the Peace Region. This weekend conference and workshop has created an awareness of the incredible talent within our region and has given local artists the tools and the courage to write songs, get on stage and do the work it takes to be part of a strong music industry here in the Peace Region and beyond.

The key to the cultural success within our region has been your ﬁnancial support because it helps to create a strong network of artists who are now emerging on to the cultural scene locally, provincially and nationally. With all of the new opportunities that are continually being created for artists as a result of these past conferences, there are “no limitz” to what the future can bring!

We are requesting ﬁnancial support for 2014 in the amount of $3500 and we would be proud to promote Northern Sunrise County as a returning major sponsor for the 7th year running. We look forward to hearing from you soon. You may contact us in any of the following ways:

Email: [email protected] Or by phone: Sherry 780-618-1718 or Dana 780-618-9139 Or Mail: 9601-84 Ave, Peace River, AB T8S 1A5 (Please note change of address)

Sincerely,

Sherry Crawford & Dana Blayone No Limitz Music & Song Rise Conference & Showcase (formally PRMICSW) www.SongRise.ca Song Rise Music Conference ~ ℅ No Limitz Music ~ 9601-84th Ave. Peace River, Alberta, T8S 1A5 www.SongRise.ca Email: [email protected] A brief outline of the weekend agenda is drafted below:

Song Rise Industry Workshops (Friday May 2nd 12:00pm- 11:30 pm)

Songwriting Fundamentals - Duane Steele Performance Coaching - Earl Pereira Brand & Image Development - Kate Matthews Grant & Opportunities - Chris Wynters Effective marketing on Facebook and Other Social Medias - Dennis Yu Live Sound Setup for the Small Stage - Josh Gwilliam Song Critiques - All Panelist

Panel:

Duane Steele - Performer/Songwriter/Producer Josh Gwilliam - Producer/Engineer/Musician/Songwriter / Pilot Audio Recording Services Earl Pereira - Musician/Songwriter/Performance Coach/Producer / The Steadies Kate Matthews - Brand Strategist / Wardrobe Stylist / Image Consultant Chris Wynters - Songwriter/Musician /Executive Director -Alberta Music / Captain Tractor Dennis Yu - CEO of Blitz Metrics, / Expert on social media analytics & marketing

Song Rise Songwriting Workshop (Saturday May 4th 9:00am - 4:00pm)

Songwriters Workshop with mentors: Duane Steele, Earl Pereira, Chris Wynters Record a Demo with the Basics - Josh Gwilliam, Pilot Audio Recording Services

Song Rise Showcase and Open Stage (Saturday May 4th 7:00pm - 1:00am)

Pre-selected artists who are delegates of the PRMICSW will perform original material for an audience of the general public and invited VIP industry members. The showcase’s promotion of artists has proven to be a successful opportunity maker. Many artists have received gigs, opportunities to work with producers, engineers, and even resulted in invitations to Nashville for some of our artists. Success Stories of past delegates resulting from the Conference

Katie & Jason Luessink of the Peace Region recorded and released a full album last summer called “Keep It Simple” with Josh Gwilliam. They went back on the “Play It Forward” tour with Tenille and travelled across Canada helping promote community leadership and following your dream. They are currently working on their own “Love Your Neighbor Tour”.

Bethanie Earle from the Peace Region also went back on tour with Tenille and also co- wrote a song with Tenille which became the title track of Tenille’s latest album called “Light”.

Tasman Jude is a reggae band out of Grande Prairie. They have gone on a Western Canadian tour with the Steadies, and are becoming nationally and internationally known.

Daylen Callison of Grande Prairie is currently recording a new album in Calgary, and Nikki Meeres is in Nashville recording her second EP.

A Song Rise Fact: Tenille was a delegate for the ﬁrst 4 years and a mentor for the 5th year.

A Song Rise Fact: Tenille’s entire full time band that travelled across Canada with her were all from the Peace Region and all past delegates of Song Rise.

These are just some examples. There are so many more success stories from these past years that have resulted from artists being discovered to artists discovering themselves.

Song Rise Music Conference ~ ℅ No Limitz Music ~ 9601-84th Ave. Peace River, Alberta, T8S 1A5 www.SongRise.ca Email: [email protected] Peace Region Music Industry Conference Showcase Workshop Tentative Financial Budget 2013 by No Limitz Music

EXPENSES for Music Industry Sessions, Songwriter's Workshop, Showcase Facility Room Rental 2 days/2 evenings of complete facility rental at Belle Petroleum Centre $4,500

Key Speakers & Panel Expenses 2 nights Per Diem $4,500 Accommodations $2,108 Travel $4,400

Volunteers & Delegates & Panel Meals $3,500 photographer $800 Sound Man/ Equipment Rental $650 Marketing Radio $10,255 Advertisements Digital & Hard Copy(Posters/flyers) $1,200 Newpaper $1,500

Administration Office/Communication Expense $675 Administration & Staff (January - May) $8,000 Travel/Distribution & fuel costs $2,000

TOTAL EXPENSE $44,088

REVENUE

2013 Registration Income $7,950

Tentative Annual Supporters (Sponsors & Donations) Alberta Music $3,500 Peace River Broadcasting $250 CJXX Big Country Radio - Grande Prairie $2,500 Peace River Rotary Club $1,000 InVision Chartered Accountants $300 Northern Sunrise County $3,500 Petluk & Clarke LLP Chartered Accountants $300 Village of Nampa $500 Fountain Tire $300 Town Of Peace River $1,000 Mighty Peace Petroleum $1,000 SOCAN Foundation Grant $1,000 SUB TOTAL REVENUE $23,100

Unconfirmed Annual In- Kind Sponsorship Sawridge sponsored rooms for Panel $1,420 Northern Air - Flights for panel $750 Peace River Broadcasting $5,000 CJXX Big Country - FM Radio - Grande Prairie $1,475 Q99 - Radio ads $3,780 Belle Petroleum Centre - Facility rental $1,000 In- Kind Sponsorship $13,425 Peace Region Music Industry Conference Showcase Workshop Tentative Financial Budget 2013 by No Limitz Music

T0TAL REVENUE $36,525

Net Profit -$7,563

Appendix A: Proceeding No. 1769924

Oral Proceeding Schedule

Please note the estimated time for presentation in the schedule below is based on input from participants and is included to help facilitate scheduling. It an approximation only.

Time Topic Presenter Estimated Time for Presentation Tuesday January 21, 2014 9am Opening Remarks and Preliminary Panel and Panel staff 30 mins Motions 9:30am High Level Background AER Staff Submission Group 30 mins (SSG) 10am 1: Geology/Geographic Information Fowler 30 mins

10:30am Break 10:45am 1: Geology/Geographic Information Baytex 30 mins R. Glenn 45 mins

Noon Lunch 1:30pm 1: Geology/Geographic Information D. Dahm (Topics 1 and 2) 40 mins (Participants) 20 mins

2: Initiatives SSG 30 mins

3pm Break 3:30pm 2: Initiatives R. Glenn 30 mins Odotech 1 hr 5pm End of Day Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9am Opening Remarks and Preliminary Panel and Panel staff 15 mins Motions 9:15am 2: Initiatives RWDI 1hr 15 mins

10:30am Break 10:45am 3: Operations Baytex 1hr 30 mins

Noon Lunch 1:30pm 3: Operations R. Glenn 45 mins (Participants) 45 mins 3pm Break 3:30pm 3: Operations (Participants) 1 hr 30 mins

5pm End of Day Thursday January 23, 2014 9am Opening Remarks and Preliminary Panel and Panel staff 15 mins Motions 9:15am 4: Concerns and Impacts (incl. External AER Expert Panel 1hr 15 min human and animal impacts) (Zelt, Waldner, Sears, Davies)

Appendix A: Proceeding No. 1769924

Oral Proceeding Schedule

10:30am Break 10:45am 4: Concerns and Impacts (incl. External AER Expert Panel 1 hr 15 min human and animal impacts) (Zelt, Waldner, Sears, Davies) Noon Lunch 1:30pm 4: Concerns and Impacts (incl. External AER Expert Panel 1 hr 30 min human and animal impacts) (Zelt, Waldner, Sears, Davies)

3pm Break until Evening Session 7pm D. Dahm (Topics 3,4,5) 1hr 30mins (Participants) 1 hr 9:30pm End of Day Friday, January 24, 2014 9am Opening Remarks and Preliminary Panel and Panel staff 15 mins Motions 9:15am 4: Concerns and Impacts (incl. Reno Area Landowners 1hr 15 min human and animal impacts) 10:30am Break 10:45am 4: Concerns and Impacts (incl. Reno Area Landowners 1hr 15 min human and animal impacts) Noon Lunch 1:30pm 4: Concerns and Impacts (incl. Reno Area Landowners 1 hr 30 min human and animal impacts) 3pm Break 3:30pm 4: Concerns and Impacts (incl. C. Langer 45 mins human and animal impacts) R. Glenn 45 mins 5pm End of Day Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9am Opening Remarks and Preliminary Panel and Panel staff 15 mins Motions 9:15am 4: Concerns and Impacts (incl. V. and M. Laliberte (Impacts 30 mins human and animal impacts) and regulatory) (Participants) 45 mins 10:30 Break 10:45am D. Plowman (topics 2,3,4,5) 1hr 15 mins

Noon Lunch 1:30pm 5: Solutions Shell (Topics 4 and 5) 1 hr Husky 30 min 3pm Break 3:30pm 5: Solutions Baytex 1hr mins Greatario 30 mins 5pm End of Day Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9am Opening Remarks and Preliminary Panel and Panel staff 15 mins Motions

Appendix A: Proceeding No. 1769924

Oral Proceeding Schedule

9:15am 5: Solutions R. Glenn 1 hr 15 mins 10:30am Break 10:45am 5: Solutions C. Langer 30 mins Odotech/RWDI 45 mins Noon Lunch 1:30pm 5: Solutions Odotech/RWDI 30 mins D. Dallin 30 mins (Participants) 30 mins 3pm Break 3:30 pm 5: Solutions (Ramsay) 1hr 30 mins 5pm End of Day Thursday, January 30, 2014 9am Opening Remarks and Preliminary Panel and Panel staff 15 mins Motions 9:15am 5: Solutions (Particpants) 1hr 15 min 10:30am Break 10:45am 5: Solutions (Particpants) 1hr 15 min Noon Lunch 1:30pm 5: Solutions (Particpants) 1 hr 30 min 3pm Break 3:30pm Final Comments Baytex 1hr Penn West 30 mins

5pm End of Day Friday, January 31, 2014 9am Opening Remarks and Preliminary Panel and Panel staff 15 mins Motions 9:15am Final Comments Shell 45 mins Husky 30 mins 10:30am Break 10:45am Final Comments D. Plowman 30 mins C. Langer 30 mins V. and M. Laliberte 30 mins Noon Lunch 1:30pm Final Comments Reno Group 1 hr Northern Sunrise 30 mins 3pm Break 3:30pm Final Comments SSG (Others) 5pm End of Day

Appendix B: Proceeding No. 1769924

Draft Oral Proceeding Exhibit List (as of January 9, 2014)

A. Background Documents 1. July 17, 2013 Letter from Jim Ellis initiating Inquiry

2. Notices 2.1 Proceeding 2.2 Submissions 2.3 Hearing

3. Decision 2013 ABAER 018 (Organizational Meeting Report)

B. In-scope reports and documents – written submissions and responses to RFIs 4. Public reports and documents identified as in scope (pre-submission) 4.1 ESRD Report: Three Creeks Odour Issue: A Report On Air Quality Monitoring Conducted Between February and May 2010 (July 2, 2010). 4.2 ESRD Report: A Report on Air Quality Monitoring Conducted in the Three Creeks Area (Phase II) (May 6, 2011). 4.3 Alberta Innovates – Technology Futures Report for ESRD: Public Assurance Monitoring Snow, Soil and Water Sampling Peace River Three Creeks Area – Final Report Submitted to Alberta Environment. 4.4 AHS Report (Power Point): Three Creeks Human Health Survey (December, 2011) 4.5 ARD Report (Power Point): Three Creeks Animal Health Survey (December 1, 2011)

5. Previous Baytex reports and documents identified as in scope (filed November 21, 2013) 5.1 Chemistry Matters – Baytex Reno Field Ambient Air Study (November 13, 2013) 5.2 RWDI – Baytex Reno Field Air Quality and Odour Assessment (September 18, 2013) 5.3 RWDI – Letter re: Recommendations to Reduce Off-Site Odours (October 3, 2013) 5.4 Clearstone Engineering Ltd. - Assessment and Inventory of Atmospheric Emissions from Heavy Oil Production Facilities in the Baytex Reno Field (October 3, 2013)

6. Independent Expert CVs 6.1 Dr. Margaret Sears 6.2 Dr. Don Davies 6.3 Dr. Stephen Ramsay 6.4 Dr. Cheryl Waldner 6.5 Dr. Martin Fowler 6.6 Dr. Brian Zelt 6.7 Thierry Page 6.8 Raymond Porter 6.9 David S. Chadder

7. Phase 2 Submissions 7.1 Phase 2 Vol I 7.2 Phase 2 Vol II 7.3 Phase 2 Vol II Addendum (Husky Pg. 121) 7.4 Phase 2 Vol III Appendix B: Proceeding No. 1769924

7.5 Phase 2 Vol III Addendum (Shell Plot Plans) 7.6 Phase 2 Vol IV 7.7 Phase 2 Vol IV Addendum (Penn West Pg. 77) 7.8 Phase 2 Vol V 7.9 Phase 2 Vol V Addendum (Baytex Pg. 3) 7.10 Phase 2 Vol V Addendum (Baytex Pg. 4) 7.11 Phase 2 Vol V (Davies) Supplemental Report & Errata 7.12 Phase 2 Vol V (Davies) Errata 2 7.13 Phase 2 Vol V Experts Volume Amended Dec 5

8. December 6, 2013 GOA department response to request for information: 8.1 EPEA heavy oil facility approvals 8.2 EPEA heavy oil facility monitoring information 8.3 EPEA Approval Applications Air Emissions Monitoring Information 8.4 Air monitoring raw data collected to generate ESRD reports 8.5 ESRD Emissions inventories for two PRA facilities (2008).

9. Phase 3A Submissions 9.1 Phase 3a Vol I 9.2 Phase 3a Vol II (Landowners’ Submissions) 9.3 Phase 3a Vol II Addendum (Attachment C – Inspector Reports) 9.4 Phase 3a Vol III (AER Staff Submission – Including FIT report) 9.5 Phase 3a Vol III Addendum (FLIR Videos – Facilities) 9.6 Phase 3a Vol III Addendum (FLIR Videos – Oil Transportation) 9.7 Phase 3a Vol IV (Experts Reports) 9.8 Phase 3a Vol IV Addendum (Davies Report) 9.9 Phase 3a Vol IV Addendum (RWDI Report) 9.10 Phase 3a Vol IV Addendum (Zelt Report) 9.11 Phase 3a Vol IV Addendum (Zelt Report – Errata – Pg. 8, Fig. 3)

10. December 16, 2013 AHS response to request for information.

11. January 10, 2014 Phase 3B Submissions - TBD

11.6 Council Honorarium’s

12. Committee/Reeve/

Councillor’s Report

13. Chief Administrator’s Report

Chief Administrative Officer report from January 7, 2014

Jan 7 – Council mtg; TPR NSC mtg Jan 8 – Strategic Plan preparation; Chamber of Commerce lunch meeting Jan 13 and 14 – Council Strategic Planning Session Jan 15 – PRWMC mtg; MMSA deliverables mtg Jan 16 – Tri County mtg in Zama

The Alberta Emergency Management Agency has received our application for Disaster Recovery Program funding in regards to the spring 2013 flooding, and we await their response.

We have hired Darlene Cardinal as the FCSS person for Cadotte Lake/Little Buffalo. Council should to designate a replacement representative for Darlene on the Economic Development, FCSS, and Heart River Watershed since she is now an employee.

Council requested Administration to look into getting solar Christmas lights for the trees outside. Various distributors carry Christmas Solar Lights including Canadian Tire, Walmart, etc... at a cost range of $15 - $60 per pack of 100 lights. If we purchase and install them, it will require personnel for the possibly daily removal of snow off of the panels, otherwise batteries will drain and deplete in the cold weather. Reviews on websites are not favorable, especially those made from people in Northern climates. Commercial products are available from a select few distributors, but the majority of the higher end solar lighting is focused on residential and industrial markets. Commercial solar lighting is much more expensive (purchase of the flashing ‘Stop Ahead’ sign cost $2,600 for the single sign with 20 lights and one panel) and likely not cost effective (with $850 in 2013, the County added LED lights for a number of trees including the extension cords). Therefore, Administration advises not to pursue this technology at this time.

Council requested Administration to look at the sound system in Council Chambers. We received quotes: Wireless Microphone Option is $22,146 including GST Corded Microphone Option is $7,976 including GST. Both systems can be transferred to the new Council chambers when the building is expanded, however, the wireless option may need an additional transmitter/receiver depending on the size of the new room and height of the ceiling. The recording software that comes with voice recorder has the capability to bookmark agenda items for easier retrieval of what was said. NDS is going to send more information on that program. Council should evaluate costs and make a motion to give direction if they wish to make this expenditure.

Marten River Bridge update: At the June 25, 2013 Council meeting, Administration proposed that Council allocate funding for the repair of a number of bridge files in the County. Rather than directing the repair of Bridge File 76753 at Marten River, Council passed a motion directing Administration to draft a bylaw for the closure of the bridge file for the bridge to be made accessible to pedestrian traffic only. The Northern Sunrise County Director of Protective Services has expressed concern that the closure of the bridge to vehicle traffic would impede emergency response to the community. Administration has made multiple attempts to contact the Woodland Cree First Nation to get their opinion on the proposed bridge file closure, but have received no response. Administration is proposing that Council decide to keep Bridge File 76753 at Marten River open to vehicle traffic and Administration will bring forward the costs of repair during 2014 Capital Budget meetings.

13.1 (a) Schedule Annual Residents Meetings and Canada Day Celebration

14. Correspondence

Peace Regional RCMP Detachment

Quarterly Report October – December 2013

Prepared by: Cst. Kyle MACDONALD Community Liaison Officer

Month of October 2013

Community Events

Airport Mock Disaster

 Assisted with Fire Dept. and EMS in a mock disaster at the airport as an exercise for real life scenario

Fit for life (Glenmary School)

 Attended Glenmary School and participated in a boot camp with students as part of their healthy living initiative.

Cyber-bullying Presentation

 Attended the ground level Youth Centre and gave a presentation to the youth on cyber- bullying and information package.

Halloween Safety Presentation (Good Shepherd School)

 Attended Good Shepherd School and gave presentation to approximately. 90 students regarding Halloween Safety.

Administrative Duties

Court Duties (Northern Sunrise County/Peace River)

 Was required to attend court to give evidence as a police witness at trial.

Media Releases (Northern Sunrise County/Peace River)

 Acted as a media liaison person.  Wrote several medial releases pertinent to ongoing investigations.  Answered questions in several audio interviews with local radio stations.

Month of November 2013

Community Events

Dodgeball

 Attended Glenmary School to participate in a dodgeball match with students against Emergency Services Responders.

Glenmary School Drug Presentation

 Attended Glenmary school and gave Presentation on drugs and bullying.

Peace High Drug Presentation

 Attended Peace High and gave a presentation on drugs to Grade 9-10 students.

Sagitawa Career Fair

 Attended career fair on behalf of RCMP with information regarding applying/career with the RCMP

Walk in their Shoes

 Participated in a fundraiser for Domestic Violence on behalf of the RCMP.

Community Meetings

Victim Services Board Meetings (Northern Sunrise County/Peace River)

 Attended monthly Victim Services board meeting as a police representative.

 Acted as a liaison between the VSU board and other members at the detachment.

Court Duties (Northern Sunrise County/Peace River)

 Was required to attend court to give evidence as a police witness at trial.

Media Releases (Northern Sunrise County/Peace River)

 Acted as a media liaison person.  Wrote several medial releases pertinent to ongoing investigations.  Answered questions in several audio interviews with local radio stations.

Month of December 2013

Community Events

Salvation Army Food Drive

 Coordinated with the salvation Army in “pack the paddy wagon” food drive at the No Frills store in Peace River.

Dodgeball (Peace High)

 Attended Peace High with other members of Emergency Services and competed against student in a dodgeball match

RCMP Youth Website Presentation

 Attended Schools in Peace River and Nampa and held meeting with teachers regarding new RCMP youth site.  Demonstrated useful tools and information that teachers can use on the site to share with students.

Project Peace Meeting

 Attended Project Peace meeting with all schools in the area  Plans reviewed for RCMP interaction programs and school lectures regarding various topics of priority in the schools

Media Releases (Northern Sunrise County/Peace River)

• Acted as a media liaison person. • Wrote several medial releases pertinent to ongoing investigations. • Answered questions in several audio interviews with local radio stations.

Minutes of a

AAMDC REEVES & CAOS MEETING

held at the Paradise Inn & Suites in Valleyview, Alberta, on Wednesday, December 18th, 2013

# 1: Director Burton called the meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. CALL TO ORDER

PRESENT Tom Burton, MD of Greenview (Director) Terri Wyness, M.D. of Fairview

Lucien Turcotte, M.D. of Smoky River Don Dumont, M.D. of Smoky River Dale Gervais, M.D. of Greenview Carolyn Kolebaba, Northern Sunrise County

Leanne Beaupre, County of Grande Prairie Bill Rogan, County of Grande Prairie Marvin Doran, Birch Hills County Harold Northcott, Birch Hills County

REGRETS Clear Hills County County of Northern Lights Mackenzie County

MD of Big Lakes MD of Opportunity MD of Spirit River RM of Wood Buffalo Saddle Hills County

Written Submission by MD of Peace

#2 DATE FOR ZONE Tom Burton informed the group that the place for the February 14th 2014 district meeting is MEETING at Rycroft Agriculture Building and will be sponsored by MD of Spirit River.

#3 OTHER INFO Tom Burton advised the group that he has been in discussion with ESRD about the wording of sections 70 & 75 of the MGA. ESRD proposed wording changes and would like to attend the zone meeting to discuss before the changes are presented to Municipal Affairs. ESRD also expressed their concerns over the lack of municipalities signing the Mutual Aid agreements in the spring; they would like to discuss also what the reasons were for this and maybe clear up any concerns. Also there were concerns addressed to me over the wildlife damage that is being done and ESRD are not addressing the issues. - AAMDC has also had requests from Transportation to have someone at the district meetings to discuss the bridge designs and funding. - There will be a MGA review meeting hosted by AAMDC in the north, watch for the information within the next few weeks. - There will also be an invite sent to Rhonda Clarke- Gauthier of the Mighty Peace Watershed Alliance to explain who they are and what they do. We will have on our agenda an election of a representative and an alternate from the district to address the municipal concerns.

#4 CONCERNS NORTHERN SUNRISE COUNTY: EXPRESSED BY - Administration support for the district. Carolyn Kolebaba addressed AAMDC’s concerns MEMBERS over the letter that was drafted to AAMDC from MD of Greenview over not supplying administration support for the director. Carolyn Kolebaba read the response letter from AAMDC. There was discussion around how other districts deals with administration. The other districts elect a chair and vice chair and the chair’s municipality provides the administration support. Dale Gervais responded that it wasn’t the cost involved; it was the time commitment of staff. The MD of Greenview has been short of these personnel. Discussion over the direction that the district needs to have to resolve this issue. There will be discussion at the next district meeting. - Air ambulance; what is happening there has been a rupee but what is going to happen in a year from now. Have someone from AHS to discuss. - Oil to truck trans loading facilities; rules and regulations, heavy truck traffic on municipal roads.

MD OFSMOKY RIVER: - Municipal grants: direction of them, if they are going to be population based or not. - AHS; how many hospitals beds are being utilized by long term care patients? - Assessment Review Board training sessions; why is there not one in the north? We shouldn’t have to travel to Edmonton or Calgary.

MD OF PEACE: - Oil to truck trans loading facilities; challenge of locations selected, heavy truck traffic that will be going by an Assisted Living Facility. - Provincial roads in the north don’t seem to getting on the 3 year plan of either being constructed, or rebuilt or even maintained. This is putting more traffic onto our local roads causing a financial burden on municipalities.

BIRCH HILLS COUNTY: - Regional Collaboration Grant; more information on it. Has the requirements changed. - Maintenance on the number highways, the lack of it. Where have the contractors been this season? - The RCMP boundaries Birch Hills tend to not get the police coverage that they should. - The federal electoral boundaries, with the changes to them there will be some municipalities isolated from their neighbor with having a different MP. - Wildlife damages; could the season be extended to allow for some of these animals be harvested? The access to the game during peak hunting time is being restricted with some of the grazing leases are being utilized for livestock. Too many hunters are leaving gates open and it’s causing a negative imagine of hunters in general. - Bridge designs and funding; some municipalities can’t afford the replacement of the structures with the standards that are in place.

COUNTY OF GRANDE PRAIRIE: - LAPP more clarity on the effect to the county. - Family Care Clinics; with a portion of Beaverlodge’s hospital not habitable, and no money for a new hospital, the province is looking at FCC with private investors, what are the rules and regulations around accessing funding for FCC for other communities, and if there is restriction on who can utilize the FCC. - Trans loading facilities; the impact on municipalities. - Land Use framework and the representation on the next regional plan. - Growing the North Conference being hosted by County of Grande Prairie on the evening of February 18th, days of February 19th and 20th. Encourage the members to register as there will be a number of guest speakers that are president or CEO of major companies. Also the premier will be a keynote speaker.

MD OF GREENVIEW: - Caribou; with the province addressing the issue of Caribou numbers dropping and the recovery plans that are going to be put into places, with the impact to the tax assessment, why the MD didn’t have a representative on the Little Smoky/A La Peche Advisory group. Is it too late or can someone be appointed. - Well Drilling Equipment Tax; where is it at? Is the extension in place or is the formula going to change.

MD OF FAIRVIEW: - LAPP more information on what is happening and how it’s going to affect the municipality. - Municipal grant structure, how grants are disappearing or enrolled under one title; someone to explain Municipal Affairs direction for grants.

By looking at the issues a letter of invite will be sent to the ministries of Health, ESRD, Transportation and Municipal Affairs listing the items of concern to be addressed at the district meeting.

#5 Meeting adjourned at 11:19 a.m. ADJOURNMENT

Tom Burton, Chair

15. In Camera

16. Adjournment