April 6, 2021

BRAZEAU COUNTY

COUNCIL MEETING

April 6, 2021

VISION: Brazeau County fosters RURAL VALUES, INNOVATION, CREATIVITY, LEADERSHIP and is a place where a DIVERSE ECONOMY offers QUALITY OF LIFE for our citizens.

MISSION: A spirit of community created through INNOVATION and OPPORTUNITIES

GOALS

1) Brazeau County collaboration with Canadians has created economic opportunity and prosperity for our community. That we intentionally, proactively network with Canadians to bring ideas and initiative back to our citizens.

2) Brazeau County has promoted and invested in innovation offering incentives diversifying our local economy, rural values and through opportunities reducing our environmental impact. Invest in green energy programs, water and waste water upgrades, encourage, support, innovation and economic growth through complied LUB, promoting sustaining small farms, hamlet investment/redevelopment.

3) Brazeau County is strategically assigning financial and physical resources to meet ongoing service delivery to ensure the success of our greater community. Rigorous budget and restrictive surplus process, petition for government funding, balance budget with department goals and objectives.

4) Brazeau County has a land use bylaw and framework that consistently guides development and promotes growth. Promotes development of business that is consistent for all “open for business.” Attract and retain businesses because we have flexibility within our planning documents.

5) Come to Brazeau County to work, rest and play. This encompasses all families. We have the diversity to attract people for the work opportunities. We have recreation which promotes rest and play possibilities that are endless.

6) Brazeau County is responsive to its citizenship needs and our citizens are engaged in initiatives. Engage in various levels - website, Facebook, newspapers, open houses. VALUES

We recognize the benefit of diversity among our communities, resources and work to respect their uniqueness.

We ensure responsible stewardship and we understand the decisions we make today will echo for generations.

We believe in acting with integrity.

We are open and transparent in all activities and decisions.

We respect our citizens through active listening to deliver services fairly and respond appropriately.

861/20-11-17 Council to Review Procedural Bylaw for cell phone usage Completed 976/20-12-15 Reach out to Drake’s Handi Bus for business plan and flat Completed rate fees for Brazeau County residents 983/20-12-15 Research Modeste Creek Campground background and Completed come forward with a recommended procedure for public consultation 984/20-12-15 Prepare a working statement regarding MMI concerns and Completed understanding to Council on January 5 or 19, 2021 for discussion and ratification for a possible press release. 995/20-12-15 Meeting with legal to discuss Birchwood Expropriation Completed 996/20-12-15 Meeting with legal to discuss independent contractor Completed proposal 571/20-08-18 Research Options and Costs, including Alberta Recycle to Completed have a toxic recycle site on east and west side 908/20-12-01 Administration to research potential risks and restrictions Completed and bring back a report on January 19, 2021 regarding the Smoky Lake County Regional Heritage Board Letter of Support to designate a portion of the N. Sask River under the Canadian Heritage River Systems 998/20-12-15 Develop a decision tree for airport development and Completed research airport incomes 767/20-10-20 Members-at-large must be appointed from all areas of the Completed County for a balanced representation - draft a policy to provide direction to Council and member-at-large appointments 012/21-01-05 Draft Procedural Bylaw for Review Completed 062/21-01-19 Discussion with AT regarding wide load signage on Hwy 621 Completed 064/21-01-19 Gather information on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms Completed and how that would relate to health orders and mandates 058/21-01-19 Investigate Rocky Mountain House and Villeneuve Airports Completed 063/21-01-19 Research Lougheed Coal Policy and recent decisions Completed 104/21-02-02 Moved by A. Heinrich to direct Administration to write a Completed letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs advising that the input Brazeau County provided on well drilling tax was not for it to be permanent. 113/21-02-02 Moved by D. Wiltse to direct Administration to write a Completed letter to FCM stating Council’s disappointment in representation and copy it to the MD of Bonnyville and the RMA. 498/20-07-07 Letter of support for the Drayton Valley and District No longer required Historical Society grant application 084/21-02-02 Moved by M. Gressler to direct Administration to look into Completed training for LARB and CARB and not having to train as many people and limiting the costs. 098/21-02-02 Moved by M. Gressler to direct Administration to revise the Completed Herbicide Rebate Program Policy based on the discussion today.

BRAZEAU COUNTY REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA DATE: 2021 04 06 TIME: 9:00 AM PLACE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNCIL CHAMBERS ______

Call to Order

Present

1. Addition to and Adoption of the Agenda (Pages 5 - 9)

2. Adoption of the minutes of the Council Meeting of: a) Special Council Meeting Mediation March 1, 2021 (Pages 10 - 11) b) Regular Council Meeting March 2, 2021 (Pages 12 - 24) c) Special Council Meeting Mediation March 8, 2021 (Pages 25 - 26) d) Special Council Meeting Mediation March 11, 2021(Pages 27 - 28) e) Special Council Meeting Mediation March 15, 2021 (Pages 29 - 30) f) Special Council Meeting Mediation March 17, 2021 (Pages 31 - 32) g) Special Council Meeting Mediation March 19, 2021 (Pages 33 - 34) h) Special Council Meeting Mediation March 23, 2021 (Pages 35 - 36) i) Special Council Meeting March 23, 2021 Rebate Discussion (Pages 37 - 39) j) Special Council Meeting Mediation March 30, 2021 (Pages 40 - 41)

3. Business Arising

Follow Up Action List:

MOTION ACTION STATUS 485/20-07-07 Administration to work with the Town Administration to In progress institute the County’s recommendations for ICF and IDP. 595/20-08-18 Administration look into purchasing lands from the Province Target Date: around Lodgepole October 2021 733/20-10-06 Fire warning sign at the entrance of Birchwood In progress 025/21-01-05 Modeste Creek Campground discussion Completed 056/21-01-19 Lobbying strategy to improve local health care system In Progress 123/21-02-02 Moved by D. Wiltse direct Administration to research on land In progress matter as discussed in closed. 147/21-02-16 Administration to continue to work on education, for Target Date: everyone, in regards to hunting. Before hunting season 166/21-02-16 Administration to proceed with the land lease SE 29-49-07- Completed W5M subject to any additional financial impact.

5 199/21-03-02 Administration to research a policy regarding public disclosure Completed regarding rebates. 208/21-03-02 Administration to research revenue from our solar arrays. Target Date: May 18, 2021 210/21-03-02 Letter to Premier and Minister Savage regarding coal mining Completed concerns and consultation. 212/21-03-02 Letter to Province to assist with affordable childcare. Completed

4. Urgent Items

5. CAO Report a) Public Disclosure Policy - Request for Council Decision attached (Pages 42 - 55)

6. Delegations/Appointments

9:15 am Government Relations Update (Pages 56 - 72) Brian Senio

9:30 am Road Access Request (Pages 73 - 78) Catherine Bamsey

9:45 am Mining Lead Wildsight (Pages 79 - 115) Lars Sander-Green

Open-pit Coal Mines in the Eastern Slopes (Pages 116 - 150) Jim Stelfox

Environmental Impacts of Coal Mining (Pages 151 - 167) Colton Vessy

11:00 am Public Input Session

11:30 am Questions from the Media

7. Agriculture Services a) Herbicide Rebate Program Policy - Request for Council Decision attached (Pages 168 - 173)

b) Municipal Mountain Pine Beetle Program - Update Report to Council attached (Pages 174 - 176)

c) Alberta Invasive Species Council Sponsorship Request - Request for Council Decision attached (Pages 177 - 182)

d) Alberta Trapper's Association Donation - Request for Council Decision attached (Pages 183 - 185) 6

8. Planning and Development a) Environmental Reserves and Environmental Reserve Easements - Update Report to Council attached (Pages 186 - 234)

9. Public Works a) Construction Tender - Lodgepole & Township Road 494 - Request for Council Decision attached (Pages 235 - 237)

b) Riverside Horse Trails - Access Road Gravel Request - Request for Council Decision attached (Pages 238 - 240)

c) High Water Usage: 4906 - 54 Ave Cynthia - Update Report to Council attached (Pages 241 - 242)

d) 2021 Household Hazardous Waste Round-Up - Update Report to Council attached (Pages 243 - 245)

e) Grader Naming Contest

10. Fire Services No reports

11. Community Services a) FIN-7 Culture Grant Application - Drayton Valley Fine Arts Society - Request for Council Decision attached (Pages 246 - 257)

b) Modeste Creek Campground - Update Report to Council attached (Pages 258 - 264)

12. Finance a) Bank Reconciliation Statement as of February 28, 2021 (Page 265)

13. General Matters a) Disaster Recovery Funds - K. Westerlund

b) Donation to Chamber of Commerce Mother's Day Gift Baskets - D. Wiltse

14. Correspondence a) Office of the Prime Minister re: Site Rehabilitation Program (Page 266)

b) Town of Drayton Valley re: Wester Economic Corridor (Page 267)

c) Phyllis Schmitt and Lynn Oberle re: Coal Mines (Pages 268 - 273)

d) Lynn Oberle re: Reeve's Per Diems (Page 274)

e) Lynn Oberle re: Big Horn vs Coal Mines (Page 275)

7 f) Minister of Municipal Affairs re: Well Drilling Tax (Page 276)

g) Minister of Municipal Affairs re: Mediation Matching Grant (Page 277)

h) Minister of Sonya Savage re: Coal Mining (Pages 278 - 279)

i) Town of Drayton Valley re: Intermunicipal Cooperation Agreement (Page 280)

15. Councillor Reports for February 2021 Reeve B. Guyon reported that he attended:  Regular Council Meeting x 2  Special Council, Mediation, Premier Town Hall  ALUS  Arbitration and RMA Meeting  MLA Meeting and Mediation  RMA Provincial Policing Meeting  Special Council, Mediation, Warburg Seed Cleaning  RMA Provincial Budget, Mediation

Councillor S. Wheale reported that she attended:  Regular Council Meeting by telephone (no charge)  Mediation by telephone (no charge)  Special Council Meeting, Mediation  Regular Council Meeting  ASB  Breton Library  Drayton Valley Library  Special Council Meeting and Mediation  RMA Provincial Budget  Special Council Meeting

Councillor A. Heinrich reported that he attended:  Regular Council Meeting x 2  Mediation  MPC  Mediation  Mediation  EPBR Park Council  RMA Townhall and Special Council

Councillor K. Westerlund reported that she attended:  Regular Council Meeting x 2  Mediation  MPC  Mediation  Brownlee Emerging Trends Law Seminar  Mediation  Ag Mental Health Webinar  Special Council 8 Councillor H. Swan reported that she attended:  Regular Council Meeting x 2  Mediation  Telephone Townhall Premier  Greywood Forage Webinar  Mediation  ASB  Emerging Trends in Municipal Law Seminar  Mediation  Do More Ag Mental Health  Special Council Meeting

Councillor M. Gressler reported that he attended:  Regular Council Meeting x 2  Mediation  MPC  Mediation  Mediation  RMA Virtual Budget, Special Council, Virtual Premier re: Budget

Councillor D. Wiltse reported that she attended:  Regular Council Meeting x 2  Mediation  Ag Mental Health Workshop  Mediation  ASB  Chamber of Commerce  Town Hall Meeting  Mediation  Ag Mental Health Workshop  FCSS Breton  RMA Virtual Town Hall/Special Council Meeting

34. Meeting Dates: a) RMA Member Visit 2021 - Council to select type of visit (Pages 280 - 283)

35. Closed Session: a) Mediation/Arbitration Update FOIP Section 21

36. Round Table Wrap-Up

37. Adjournment

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF BRAZEAU COUNTY, HELD IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, EOC IN BRAZEAU COUNTY ON MONDAY 2021 03 01

CALL TO ORDER Reeve B. Guyon called the meeting to order at 11:18 a.m.

PRESENT B. Guyon, Reeve D. Wiltse, Councillor S. Wheale, Councillor M. Gressler, Councillor A. Heinrich, Councillor K. Westerlund, Councillor H. Swan, Councillor S. McKerry, Interim CAO T. Scharfl, Executive Assistant

ADOPTION OF AGENDA Additions to and Adoption of the Agenda

179/21-03-01 Moved by K. Westerlund to approve the agenda as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CLOSED SESSION Closed Session

180/21-03-01 Moved by A. Heinrich that the Special Council Meeting of March 1, 2021 proceed into closed session at 11:21 a.m. for the purpose of discussing Mediation Discussion FOIP Section 21. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

S. McKerry, L. Chambers and T. Scharfl joined the closed session at 11:21 a.m. for the purpose of discussing Mediation Discussion FOIP Section 21.

181/21-03-01 Moved by S. Wheale that the Special Council Meeting of March 1, 2021 come out of closed session at 12:47 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Special Council Minutes 2021 03 01 Page 1 of 2

ADJOURNMENT 182/21-03-01 Moved by A. Heinrich that the Special Council meeting of March 1, 2021 adjourn at 12:47 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

______Reeve

______Interim Chief Administrative Officer

Signed waiver attached hereto forming part of the minutes

Special Council Minutes 2021 03 01 Page 2 of 2

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF BRAZEAU COUNTY, HELD IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNCIL CHAMBERS IN BRAZEAU COUNTY ON TUESDAY 2021 03 02 CALL TO ORDER Reeve B. Guyon called the meeting to order at 9:02 a.m.

PRESENT B. Guyon, Reeve H. Swan, Councillor D. Wiltse, Councillor S. Wheale, Councillor M. Gressler, Councillor A. Heinrich, Councillor K. Westerlund, Councillor S. McKerry, Interim Chief Administrative Officer C. Scharfl, Executive Assistant J. Grainger, Customer Service/Administrative Assistant K. MacInnis, Corporate Communications Coordinator (by telephone)

OATH OF OFFICE S. Wheale was sworn in as Deputy Reeve.

ADDITION TO AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA Addition to and Adoption of Agenda

183/21-03-02 Moved by K. Westerlund to approve the agenda with the following additions:

9. Public Works b) Equipment Tender VEH-0037 Tri-Axle Truck

10. Agriculture Services a) Comments from Dallas Ekstrom

14. Correspondence c) Lynn Oberle re: Coal Mines

35. Closed Session d) Land Lease SE 29-49-07-W5M FOIP Section 19 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Council Minutes 2021 03 02 Page 1 of 13

ADOPTION OF MINUTES Adoption of Minutes

184/21-03-02 Moved by K. Westerlund to approve the minutes of the February 16, 2021 Regular Council meeting as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

185/21-03-02 Moved by K. Westerlund to approve the minutes of the February 22, 2021 Special Council meeting as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

BUSINESS Business Arising ARISING Follow Up Action List S. McKerry reviewed the status of the action items.

186/21-03-02 Moved by M. Gressler to receive the Follow Up Action List for information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

URGENT Urgent Items ITEMS None

FIRE SERVICES Fire Services

2021 Fire Department January Stats T. Thomson presented the Fire Department Stats for January 2021.

187/21-03-02 Moved by D. Wiltse to receive the Fire Department Stats for information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Planning and Development

Canadian Heritage Rivers System Designation (CHRS) Council discussed the Canadian Heritage River Designation.

Original Motion from January 19, 2021: 053/21-01-19 Moved by M. Gressler to direct Administration to send a letter of support with the Reeve's signature for the Nomination of the North Saskatchewan River designation under the Canadian Heritage River System.

Council Minutes 2021 03 02 Page 2 of 13

IN FAVOUR M. Gressler OPPOSED A. Heinrich S. Wheale H. Swan B. Guyon K. Westerlund D. Wiltse DEFEATED

188/21-03-02 Moved by K. Westerlund to receive the Canadian Heritage Rivers System Designation for information. IN FAVOUR A. Heinrich S. Wheale H. Swan B. Guyon K. Westerlund D. Wiltse OPPOSED M. Gressler CARRIED

PUBLIC WORKS Public Works

Micro-surfacing and Chip Seal Test Sections L. Fischer presented a request to select an alternative location for the chip seal product.

189/21-03-02 Moved by M. Gressler that Council delay this report and allow Administration to bring back more information to final budget. IN FAVOUR A. Heinrich H. Swan B. Guyon K. Westerlund D. Wiltse M. Gressler OPPOSED S. Wheale CARRIED

Council Minutes 2021 03 02 Page 3 of 13

Equipment Tender VEH-0037 Tri-Axle Truck L. Fischer presented tender results for the Tri-Axle Truck

190/21-03-02 Moved by S. Wheale to direct Administration to proceed in awarding Part A of the equipment tender for the TriAxle Truck to Western Star Trucks in the amount of $184,977.00, and Part B of the equipment tender for the Hydraulic System & Gravel Box to Industrial Machine Inc. in the amount of $55,560.00. IN FAVOUR A. Heinrich S. Wheale H. Swan B. Guyon K. Westerlund D. Wiltse OPPOSED M. Gressler CARRIED

Reeve B. Guyon called for a break at 9:32 a.m. and the meeting resumed at 9:39 a.m.

191/21-03-02 Moved by A. Heinrich to add item 13. b) Solar Opportunities to the agenda. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES Agricultural Services

Herbicide Rebate Program Policy C. Pankonin presented the adjusted draft Herbicide Rebate Program Policy.

192/21-03-02 Moved by H. Swan to allow Dallas Ekstrom to speak to the issue.

S. Wheale offered a friendly amendment to allow the public to speak to the issue.

H. Swan accepted the amendment. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

193/21-03-02 Moved by M. Gressler to table the Herbicide discussion until after the public hearing. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Reeve B. Guyon declared pecuniary interest and left the meeting at 10:01 a.m.

Council Minutes 2021 03 02 Page 4 of 13

Deputy Reeve S. Wheale assumed the chair. PUBLIC HEARING Public Hearing: Bylaw 1068-20

194/21-03-02 Moved by A. Heinrich that the regular Council Meeting of March 2, 2021 proceed into public hearing for Bylaw 1068-20 at 10:02 a.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Chandra Dyck presented Bylaw 1068-20 to Rezone NW 30-50-08-W5M from Agriculture to Agricultural Holdings for second and third readings.

Public Input: None

195/21-03-02 Moved by K. Westerlund that the regular Council Meeting of March 2, 2021 come out of Public Hearing at 10:06 a.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

196/21-03-02 Moved by M. Gressler to give second reading to Bylaw 1068-20. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

197/21-03-02 Moved by K. Westerlund to give third reading to Bylaw 1068-20. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Reeve B. Guyon returned to the meeting and resumed the chair at 10:07 a.m.

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES Agricultural Services

Herbicide Rebate Program Policy Discussion continued on the Herbicide Rebate Program Policy.

Dallas Ekstrom - supported proposed ASB recommendations.

Allan Taylor - Spoke to the importance of transparency; the responsibility of the farmers; asked who are these big users? Stated the policy is totally unfair; if you can’t afford to spray you shouldn’t be farming; giving out all this money is ridiculous; asked how did this happen? Stated this has to quit; He told council to pay attention to what they are doing; Councillors need to represent the people not themselves; He questioned why Bart was voting on this as he was big farmer.

Mike Mueller - Commented that people are not abusing the system; Spoke to the price of herbicide and that we can’t tell people where to buy their products; He does not mind his name being made public if all names are made public for all programs; He agreed with Dallas that the policy works well; Don’t fix it if it’s not broken; If a cap is suggested make it not less than $5000. Council Minutes 2021 03 02 Page 5 of 13

Dallas Ekstrom - Encouraged Council to refocus on the problem of weeds.

PUBLIC INPUT SESSION Public Input Session Reeve B. Guyon opened the Public Input Session at 11:03 a.m.

Allan Taylor spoke to an email he sent about Edmonton Council’s response to coal mining and the negative impact of mining on water. He asked what Council was doing about this issue and reminded them of their responsibilities to help the people.

Dallas Ekstrom thanked council for their efforts in reduction of red tape and encouraged them not to add more red tape at any instance.

Reeve B. Guyon closed the Public Input Session at 11:11 a.m.

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES Agricultural Services

Herbicide Rebate Program Policy Discussion continued on the Herbicide Rebate Program Policy.

198/21-03-02 Moved by A. Heinrich to direct Administration to amend the AG-3 policy that any person requesting a rebate need to sign off on their name being published, and that Administration will award up to $1600 per application for the first presentation of an invoice in a season and then if there is money available in the fund then the ASB will award proportionally to all other applicants for the remaining funds; also staff has the discretion to approve the broader scope of chemical of acreage owners only.

S. Wheale offered a friendly amendment to change the rebate from 60% to 50%.

A. Heinrich accepted the amendment. IN FAVOUR A. Heinrich S. Wheale K. Westerlund M. Gressler OPPOSED D. Wiltse H. Swan B. Guyon CARRIED

Council Minutes 2021 03 02 Page 6 of 13

199/21-03-02 Moved by M. Gressler to direct Administration to research a policy regarding public disclosure regarding rebates. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Reeve B. Guyon called for a break at 11:20 a.m. and the meeting resumed at 11:28 a.m.

MEDIA QUESTIONS Media Questions None COMMUNITY SERVICES Community Services

Draft Animal Control Bylaw 1073-21 L. Chambers presented the draft Animal Control Bylaw.

200/21-03-02 Moved by D. Wiltse to give first reading to Bylaw 1073-21. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

201/21-03-02 Moved by M. Gressler to give second reading to Bylaw 1073-21. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

202/21-03-02 Moved by S. Wheale to go to third reading for Bylaw 1073-21. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

203/21-03-02 Moved by A. Heinrich to give third reading to Bylaw 1073-21. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Drayton Valley and District Historical Society Letter of Support Request L. Chambers presented updated information that the Historical Society no longer required the letter of support.

204/21-03-02 Moved by S. Wheale to receive the Drayton Valley and District Historical Society Letter of Support Request update for information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

FINANCE Finance

LARB/CARB Costs Update C. Swap presented the cost association with training LARB and CARB members at large.

205/21-03-02 Moved by S. Wheale to receive the report on LARB and CARB for information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Council Minutes 2021 03 02 Page 7 of 13

GENERAL MATTERS General Matters

Tourism Sub Committee A. Heinrich presented a request from Eagle Point Blue Rapids Board for Brazeau County representation on a Tourism Sub Committee.

206/21-03-02 Moved by S. Wheale to receive the Tourism Sub Committee request for information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

207/21-03-02 Moved by A. Heinrich to add to the agenda 13. c) Coal Mining Concerns and d) Tax sheets from FCSS. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Solar Opportunities B. Guyon requested Administration to research the Solar Club opportunities.

208/21-03-02 Moved by M. Gressler to direct Administration to look into revenue from our solar arrays. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Coal Mining Concerns A. Heinrich raised ratepayer concerns regarding coal mining.

209/21-03-02 Moved by M. Gressler to table the Coal Mining Concerns until after lunch. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Reeve B. Guyon called for a break at 12:03 p.m. and the meeting resumed at 12:40 p.m.

210/21-03-02 Moved by A. Heinrich to direct Administration to draft a letter to the Premier and Minister Savage, copied to MLA M. Smith, requesting the government of Alberta to begin public consultation, including current relevant legislation, with all stakeholders in Alberta on any proposed revisions or replacements of the 1976 Lougheed Coal Policy. IN FAVOUR A. Heinrich S. Wheale H. Swan B. Guyon K. Westerlund D. Wiltse

Council Minutes 2021 03 02 Page 8 of 13

OPPOSED M. Gressler CARRIED

Tax Sheets from FCSS

211/21-03-02 Moved by M. Gressler to direct Administration to distribute the community tax program information via appropriate media. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CORRESPONDENCE ITEMS Correspondence/Items for Information

Ashlie Spice re: affordable childcare

212/21-03-02 Moved by D. Wiltse to direct Administration to write a letter to the Province requesting they assist with affordable childcare. IN FAVOUR A. Heinrich H. Swan B. Guyon K. Westerlund D. Wiltse M. Gressler OPPOSED S. Wheale CARRIED

Lynn Oberle re: weed rebate

213/21-03-02 Moved by K. Westerlund to receive the letter from Mr. Oberle for information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Lynn Oberle re: coal mines

214/21-03-02 Moved by H. Swan to receive the letter from Mr. Oberle for information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMITTEE REPORTS Committee Reports

Agricultural Service Board Member’s Report (ASB) Councillor S. Wheale provided a report regarding the Agricultural Service Board Council Minutes 2021 03 02 Page 9 of 13

Municipal Planning Commission Member’s Report (MPC) Councillor K. Westerlund provided a report regarding the Municipal Planning Commission.

Brazeau Seniors Foundation Report Councillor M. Gressler provided a report regarding the Brazeau Seniors Foundation.

Drayton Valley Municipal Library Board Councillor S. Wheale provided a report regarding the Drayton Valley Municipal Library Board.

Breton Municipal Library Board Councillor S. Wheale provided a report regarding the Breton Municipal Library Board.

West Central Airshed Society No report

Yellowhead Regional Library Board No report

Drayton Valley and District FCSS No report

North Saskatchewan Watershed Alliance No report

Eagle Point/Blue Rapids Parks Council (EPBR) Councillor A. Heinrich provided a report regarding the EPBR Parks Council.

Pembina Area Synergy Group No report

Physician Recruitment and Retention Committee No meeting

Eleanor Pickup Arts Centre (EPAC) No report

Northern Mayors Group No report

Breton and District Family Community Support Services (FCSS) Councillor D. Wiltse provided a report regarding the Breton FCSS.

Council Minutes 2021 03 02 Page 10 of 13

Alternative Land Use Service Partnership Advisory Committee (ALUS PAC) No report

Recreation Board No report

Chamber of Commerce Councillor D. Wiltse provided a report regarding the Chamber of Commerce.

Warburg Seed Cleaning Plant Board Councillor B. Guyon provided a report regarding the Warburg Seed Cleaning Plant.

215/21-03-02 Moved by M. Gressler to receive the Councillor Reports for information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

MEETING DATES Meeting Dates

Special Council Meetings for Mediation Discussions

216/21-03-02 Moved by K. Westerlund to set Special Council meetings for mediation discussions as: March 15: 11:00 AM-5:00 PM, March 29: 8:00 AM-12:00 PM, March 30: 8:00 AM-1:00 PM. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

April 8, 2021 Final Budget Meeting Proposed Change K. Westerlund requested a change of date or time for the April 8, 2021 budget meeting.

217/21-03-02 Moved by M. Gressler to change the final budget meeting of April 8, 2021 start time to 11:30 a.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

218/21-03-02 Moved by S. Wheale to add item 35. d) Drayton Valley Library Board FOIP Section 19 to the agenda. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Reeve B. Guyon called for a break at 1:36 p.m. and the meeting resumed at 1:42 p.m.

Council Minutes 2021 03 02 Page 11 of 13

CLOSED SESSION Closed Session

219/21-03-02 Moved by M. Gressler that the regular Council Meeting of March 2, 2021 proceed into ‘closed session’ at 1:43 p.m. for the purpose of discussing: a) Lodgepole Land Purchase FOIP Section 19 b) Recreation Cost Sharing Agreements FOIP Section 21 c) Mediation Discussion FOIP Section 21 d) Land Lease SE 29-49-07-W5M FOIP Section 19 e) Drayton Valley Library Board FOIP Section 19 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

S. McIntosh, and L. Chambers joined the closed session at 1:43 p.m. for the purpose of discussing Lodgepole Land Purchase FOIP Section 19, Recreation Cost Sharing agreements FOIP Section 21 and Land Lease SE 29-49-07-W5M FOIP Section 19.

220/21-03-02 Moved by M. Gressler that the regular Council Meeting of March 2, 2021 come out of ‘closed session’ at 3:41 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Reeve B. Guyon called for a break at 3:41 p.m. to allow the public ample time to return and the meeting resumed at 3:51 p.m.

221/21-03-02 Moved by M. Gressler to add the Drayton Valley Recreation Agreement to the agenda. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

222/21-03-02 Moved by D. Wiltse to approve the Drayton Valley Recreation agreement as presented. IN FAVOUR A. Heinrich S. Wheale H. Swan B. Guyon K. Westerlund D. Wiltse OPPOSED M. Gressler CARRIED

223/21-03-02 Moved by A. Heinrich to direct Administration to continue agreement discussions with the Village of Breton. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Council Minutes 2021 03 02 Page 12 of 13

ADJOURNMENT 224/21-03-02 Moved by K. Westerlund that the Regular Council Meeting of March 2, 2021 adjourn at 3:54 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Reeve

Interim Chief Administrative Officer

Council Minutes 2021 03 02 Page 13 of 13

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF BRAZEAU COUNTY, HELD IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, EOC IN BRAZEAU COUNTY ON MONDAY 2021 03 08

CALL TO ORDER Reeve B. Guyon called the meeting to order at 8:48 a.m.

PRESENT B. Guyon, Reeve D. Wiltse, Councillor S. Wheale, Councillor M. Gressler, Councillor A. Heinrich, Councillor K. Westerlund, Councillor (by telephone) S. McKerry, Interim CAO T. Scharfl, Executive Assistant

ABSENT H. Swan, Councillor

ADOPTION OF AGENDA Additions to and Adoption of the Agenda

225/21-03-08 Moved by S. Wheale to approve the agenda as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CLOSED SESSION Closed Session

226/21-03-08 Moved by K. Westerlund that the Special Council Meeting of March 8, 2021 proceed into closed session at 8:49 a.m. for the purpose of discussing Mediation Discussion FOIP Section 21. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

S. McKerry, L. Chambers, C. Swap and T. Scharfl joined the closed session at 8:48 a.m. for the purpose of discussing Mediation Discussion FOIP Section 21.

Andrew Fulton and Bill Sutherland joined the meeting and the closed session at 8:59 a.m. for the purpose of discussing mediation with Town of Drayton Valley.

H. Swan joined the meeting and the closed session at 9:16 a.m.

S. Wheale left the closed session at 9:58 a.m. and returned at 10:26 a.m.

S. Wheale left the closed session at 11:40 a.m. and returned at 11:44 a.m.

K. Westerlund left the closed session at 11:50 a.m. and returned at 12:34 p.m. Special Council Minutes 2021 03 08 Page 1 of 2

227/21-03-08 Moved by M. Gressler that the Special Council Meeting of March 8, 2021 come out of closed session at 1:08 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Reeve B. Guyon called for a break at 1:08 p.m. to allow the public ample time to return and the meeting resumed at 1:19 p.m.

228/21-03-08 Moved by D. Wiltse to set a Special Council meeting for March 11, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. for Mediation Discussions. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

ADJOURNMENT 229/21-03-08 Moved by M. Gressler that the Special Council meeting of March 8, 2021 adjourn at 1:20 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

______Reeve

______Interim Chief Administrative Officer

Signed waiver attached hereto forming part of the minutes

Special Council Minutes 2021 03 08 Page 2 of 2

26 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF BRAZEAU COUNTY, HELD IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, EOC IN BRAZEAU COUNTY ON THURSDAY 2021 03 11

CALL TO ORDER Reeve B. Guyon called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m.

PRESENT B. Guyon, Reeve H. Swan, Councillor D. Wiltse, Councillor S. Wheale, Councillor M. Gressler, Councillor A. Heinrich, Councillor K. Westerlund, Councillor S. McKerry, Interim CAO T. Scharfl, Executive Assistant L. Chambers, Director of Community Services C. Swap, Manager of Finance

ADOPTION OF AGENDA Additions to and Adoption of the Agenda

230/21-03-11 Moved by K. Westerlund approve the agenda as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CLOSED SESSION Closed Session

231/21-03-11 Moved by S. Wheale that the Special Council Meeting of March 11, 2021 proceed into closed session at 1:04 p.m. for the purpose of discussing: a) Mediation Discussion FOIP Section 21 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

S. McKerry, T. Scharfl, L. Chambers, and C. Swap joined the closed session at 1:04 p.m. for the purpose of discussing Mediation Discussion FOIP Section 21.

K. Westerlund left the meeting at 2:57 p.m. and rejoined by telephone at 3:00 p.m.

K. Westerlund joined the closed session in person at 3:29 p.m.

Michael S. Solowan, Partner, Brownlee LLP, joined the closed session by telephone at 3:00 p.m. for the purpose of discussing Mediation Discussion FOIP Section 21 and left the closed session and the meeting at 3:44 p.m.

K. Westerlund left the meeting at 4:40 p.m. and rejoined by telephone at 4:41 p.m. Special Council Minutes 2021 03 11 Page 1 of 2

K. Westerlund left the meeting at 4:50 p.m. and rejoined the meeting at 5:17 p.m. by telephone.

232/21-03-11 Moved by S. Wheale that the Special Council Meeting of March 11, 2021 come out of closed session at 5:21 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Reeve B. Guyon called for a break at 5:21 p.m. to allow adequate time for the public to return and the meeting resumed at 5:30 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT 233/21-03-11 Moved by M. Gressler that the Special Council meeting of March 11, 2021 adjourn at 5:30 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

______Reeve

______Interim Chief Administrative Officer

Special Council Minutes 2021 03 11 Page 2 of 2

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF BRAZEAU COUNTY, HELD IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, EOC IN BRAZEAU COUNTY ON MONDAY 2021 03 15

CALL TO ORDER Reeve B. Guyon called the meeting to order at 11:06 a.m.

PRESENT B. Guyon, Reeve D. Wiltse, Councillor S. Wheale, Councillor H. Swan, Councillor A. Heinrich, Councillor K. Westerlund, Councillor S. McKerry, Interim CAO T. Scharfl, Executive Assistant

ABSENT M. Gressler, Councillor

ADOPTION OF AGENDA Additions to and Adoption of the Agenda

234/21-03-15 Moved by A. Heinrich to approve the agenda as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CLOSED SESSION Closed Session

235/21-03-15 Moved by S. Wheale that the Special Council Meeting of March 15, 2021 proceed into closed session at 11:09 a.m. for the purpose of discussing Mediation Discussion FOIP Section 21. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

S. McKerry, L. Chambers and T. Scharfl joined the closed session at 11:10 a.m. for the purpose of discussing Mediation Discussion FOIP Section 21.

M. Gressler joined the meeting and the closed session at 11:29 a.m.

236/21-03-15 Moved by K. Westerlund that the Special Council Meeting of March 15, 2021 come out of closed session at 12:53 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Reeve B. Guyon called for a break at 12:53 p.m. to allow the public ample time to return and the meeting resumed at 12:57 p.m.

Special Council Minutes 2021 03 15 Page 1 of 2

ADJOURNMENT 237/21-03-15 Moved by S. Wheale that the Special Council meeting of March 15, 2021 adjourn at 1:00 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

______Reeve

______Interim Chief Administrative Officer

Special Council Minutes 2021 03 15 Page 2 of 2

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF BRAZEAU COUNTY, HELD IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, EOC IN BRAZEAU COUNTY ON WEDNESDAY 2021 03 17

CALL TO ORDER Reeve B. Guyon called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m.

PRESENT B. Guyon, Reeve D. Wiltse, Councillor (by telephone) K. Westerlund, Councillor (by telephone) S. Wheale, Councillor H. Swan, Councillor A. Heinrich, Councillor M. Gressler, Councillor S. McKerry, Interim CAO T. Scharfl, Executive Assistant

ADOPTION OF AGENDA Additions to and Adoption of the Agenda

238/21-03-17 Moved by S. Wheale to approve the agenda as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CLOSED SESSION Closed Session

239/21-03-17 Moved by H. Swan that the Special Council Meeting of March 17, 2021 proceed into closed session at 12:06 p.m. for the purpose of discussing Mediation Discussion FOIP Section 21. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

S. McKerry, L. Chambers, C. Swap and T. Scharfl joined the closed session at 12:06 p.m. for the purpose of discussing Mediation Discussion FOIP Section 21.

240/21-03-17 Moved by M. Gressler that the Special Council Meeting of March 17, 2021 come out of closed session at 2:17 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Reeve B. Guyon called for a break at 2:18 p.m. to allow the public ample time to return and the meeting resumed at 2:25 p.m.

241/21-03-17 Moved by S. Wheale to set Friday, March 19, 2021 at noon as a Special Council Meeting for the purpose of Mediation Discussion. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Special Council Minutes 2021 03 17 Page 1 of 2

ADJOURNMENT 242/21-03-17 Moved by M. Gressler that the Special Council meeting of March 17, 2021 adjourn at 2:26 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

______Reeve

______Interim Chief Administrative Officer

Special Council Minutes 2021 03 17 Page 2 of 2

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF BRAZEAU COUNTY, HELD IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, EOC IN BRAZEAU COUNTY ON FRIDAY 2021 03 19

CALL TO ORDER Reeve B. Guyon called the meeting to order at 12:14 p.m.

PRESENT B. Guyon, Reeve D. Wiltse, Councillor K. Westerlund, Councillor S. Wheale, Councillor H. Swan, Councillor A. Heinrich, Councillor M. Gressler, Councillor S. McKerry, Interim CAO T. Scharfl, Executive Assistant

ADOPTION OF AGENDA Additions to and Adoption of the Agenda

243/21-03-19 Moved by K. Westerlund to approve the agenda as amended. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CLOSED SESSION Closed Session

244/21-03-19 Moved by K. Westerlund that the Special Council Meeting of March 19, 2021 proceed into closed session at 12:23 p.m. for the purpose of discussing Mediation Discussion FOIP Section 21 and Resident Cynthia Water Issue FOIP Section 19. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

S. McKerry and T. Scharfl joined the closed session at 12:24 p.m. for the purpose of discussing Mediation Discussion FOIP Section 21 and Resident Cynthia Water Issue FOIP Section 19.

D. Wiltse left the meeting at 4:10 p.m. and joined by telephone at 4:12 p.m.

245/21-03-19 Moved by K. Westerlund that the Special Council Meeting of March 19, 2021 come out of closed session at 4:23 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Reeve B. Guyon called for a break at 4:23 p.m. to allow the public ample time to return and the meeting resumed at 4:32 p.m.

Special Council Minutes 2021 03 19 Page 1 of 2

246/21-03-19 Moved by H. Swan to direct Administration to investigate the water issue in Cynthia and bring back a report to Council. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

247/21-03-19 Moved by S. Wheale to retain DLA Piper for legal purposes. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

248/21-03-19 Moved by S. Wheale that the Special Council meeting of March 19, 2021 proceed in to closed session at 4:26 p.m. for legal purposes for FOIP Section 16. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Robert Seidel joined the closed session at 4:29 p.m. for the purpose of discussing legal issues FOIP Section 16.

249/21-03-19 Moved by S. Wheale come out of closed session at 4:44 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

ADJOURNMENT 250/21-03-19 Moved by S. Wheale that the Special Council meeting of March 19, 2021 adjourn at 4:45 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

______Reeve

______Interim Chief Administrative Officer

Special Council Minutes 2021 03 19 Page 2 of 2

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF BRAZEAU COUNTY, HELD IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, EOC IN BRAZEAU COUNTY ON MONDAY 2021 03 23

CALL TO ORDER Reeve B. Guyon called the meeting to order at 12:01 p.m.

PRESENT B. Guyon, Reeve D. Wiltse, Councillor S. Wheale, Councillor H. Swan, Councillor A. Heinrich, Councillor M. Gressler, Councillor S. McKerry, Interim CAO T. Scharfl, Executive Assistant

ABSENT K. Westerlund, Councillor

ADOPTION OF AGENDA Additions to and Adoption of the Agenda

251/21-03-23 Moved by S. Wheale to approve the agenda as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CLOSED SESSION Closed Session

252/21-03-23 Moved by D. Wiltse that the Special Council Meeting of March 23, 2021 proceed into closed session at 12:01 p.m. for the purpose of discussing Mediation Discussion FOIP Section 21. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

S. McKerry, L. Chambers and T. Scharfl joined the closed session at 12:01 p.m. for the purpose of discussing Mediation Discussion FOIP Section 21.

K. Westerlund joined the meeting and the closed session at 12:03 p.m.

253/21-03-23 Moved by K. Westerlund that the Special Council Meeting of March 23, 2021 come out of closed session at 12:45 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Reeve B. Guyon called for a break at 12:45 p.m. to allow the public ample time to return and the meeting resumed at 12:55 p.m.

Special Council Minutes 2021 03 23 Page 1 of 2

ADJOURNMENT 254/21-03-23 Moved by 12:55 p.m. that the Special Council meeting of March 23, 2021 adjourn at 12:55 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

______Reeve

______Interim Chief Administrative Officer

Special Council Minutes 2021 03 23 Page 2 of 2

MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL BUDGET MEETING OF BRAZEAU COUNTY, HELD IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNCIL CHAMBERS IN BRAZEAU COUNTY ON TUESDAY 2021 03 23 CALL TO ORDER Reeve B. Guyon called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m.

PRESENT B. Guyon, Reeve H. Swan, Councillor D. Wiltse, Councillor S. Wheale, Councillor M. Gressler, Councillor A. Heinrich, Councillor K. Westerlund, Councillor S. McKerry, Interim Chief Administrative Officer T. Scharfl, Executive Assistant J. Grainger, Customer Service/Administrative Assistant

ADDITION TO AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA Addition to and Adoption of Agenda

255/21-03-23 Moved by K. Westerlund to approve the agenda with the following additions: 2. a) Change Legal Discussion to a public discussion

4. b) Public Input c) Support Signatures CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

LEGAL Legalities Regarding Tax Rebate S. McKerry presented a report that the rebate may not be in line with the Municipal Government Act and the potential risks.

FINANCE Finance

Impacts of Provincial Budget C. Swap provided a report on the impact of the Provincial Budget to the municipality.

Municipal Tax Rebate Discussion Council discussed the viability and impacts of a municipal tax rebate in 2021.

Council Minutes 2021 03 23 Page 1 of 3

Public Input: Brent Hodgson spoke in support of the rebate.

Ave Peck spoke in support of the rebate.

Perry May spoke in support of the rebate.

Larry Pankewicz spoke in support of the rebate.

Tim Cameron spoke in support of the rebate.

Kyle Moffitt spoke in support of the rebate.

Allan Taylor commented that he would be grateful for any amount of rebate.

Marc St. Laurent spoke in support of the rebate.

Reeve B. Guyon called for a break at 2:29 p.m. and the meeting resumed at 2:37 p.m.

256/21-03-23 Moved by D. Wiltse to approve the 2021 30% rebate for the municipal portion of the property tax for classes 202, 203, 252, 253, 202D, 203D and 253D (commercial rebate classes) and residential/farmland, if the taxes are paid in full by June 30, 2021, to be allocated from building restricted reserve.

257/21-03-23 Moved by A. Heinrich to amend Donna’s motion to 20%. IN FAVOUR M. Gressler A. Heinrich OPPOSED S. Wheale H. Swan B. Guyon K. Westerlund D. Wiltse DEFEATED

VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION 256/21-03-23 IN FAVOUR H. Swan B. Guyon K. Westerlund D. Wiltse

Council Minutes 2021 03 23 Page 2 of 3

OPPOSED M. Gressler S. Wheale A. Heinrich CARRIED

258/21-03-23 Moved by S. Wheale to receive the support signatures for information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

ADJOURNMENT 259/21-03-23 Moved by K. Westerlund that the Council Meeting of March 23, 2021 adjourn at 2:46 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Reeve

Interim Chief Administrative Officer

Council Minutes 2021 03 23 Page 3 of 3

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF BRAZEAU COUNTY, HELD IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, EOC IN BRAZEAU COUNTY ON MONDAY 2021 03 30

CALL TO ORDER Reeve B. Guyon called the meeting to order at 8:02 a.m.

PRESENT B. Guyon, Reeve D. Wiltse, Councillor K. Westerlund, Councillor S. Wheale, Councillor H. Swan, Councillor (by telephone) A. Heinrich, Councillor S. McKerry, Interim CAO T. Scharfl, Executive Assistant

ABSENT M. Gressler, Councillor

ADOPTION OF AGENDA Additions to and Adoption of the Agenda

260/21-03-30 Moved by A. Heinrich to approve the agenda as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CLOSED SESSION Closed Session

261/21-03-30 Moved by S. Wheale that the Special Council Meeting of March 30, 2021 proceed into closed session at 8:13 a.m. for the purpose of discussing Mediation Discussion FOIP Section 21. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

S. McKerry, L. Chambers, L. Fischer and T. Scharfl joined the closed session at 8:13 a.m. for the purpose of discussing Mediation Discussion FOIP Section 21.

262/21-03-30 Moved by K. Westerlund that the Special Council Meeting of March 30, 2021 come out of closed session at 8:44 a.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Reeve B. Guyon called for a break at 8:44 a.m.to allow the public ample time to return and the meeting resumed at 8:54 a.m.

Special Council Minutes 2021 03 30 Page 1 of 2

ADJOURNMENT 263/21-03-29 Moved by A. Heinrich that the Special Council meeting of March 30, 2021 adjourn at 8:56 a.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

______Reeve

______Interim Chief Administrative Officer

Special Council Minutes 2021 03 30 Page 2 of 2

41 BRAZEAU COUNTY

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DECISION

SUBJECT: Public Disclosure Policy DATE TO COUNCIL: April 6, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: Shawn McKerry Interim CAO

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: That Council direct Administration to obtain legal advice and an opinion from the Privacy Commissioner before proceeding with the development of a policy to disclose the names of public participants receiving rebates and subsidies.

1. TOPIC DEFINED At the March 2, 2021 regular Council meeting the following motion was made after the discussion of releasing names of participants in County rebate programs.

199/21-03-02 Moved by M. Gressler to direct Administration to research a policy regarding public disclosure regarding rebates. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

A review of the FOIP Act reveals concerns with the risks that the municipality may encounter with the releasing of personal information for every rebate/subsidy program the municipality provides.

The FOIP Act does allow disclosure of personal information to be made by a municipality – see Section 39 and Section 40(1). There are several considerations to be made prior to any release of personal information: • A municipality should only use personal information to the extent necessary for the municipality to carry out its purpose in a reasonable manner;

• A municipality may only disclose third party information if the disclosure is permitted under Part 1 of the FOIP Act – see Section 16 and 17.

• The individual must identify their information and provide written consent;

• At the time of providing their written consent the individual must be provided full details by the municipality of what of their personal information will be released, the purpose of the release, the format and the duration of time their information may be released;

Brazeau County - Request for Council Decision – FOIP Public Disclosure on Rebate Programs Page 1 of 3 42 • If more than one individual is the landowner, all landowners for that property need to provide written consent for their information to be disclosed;

• The information collected and consented to can only be used for that specific program or activity, not any other use of the municipality;

• The municipality is fully responsible to ensure all third party personal information disclosed is accurate and kept current;

• If the individual does not provide their written consent for release of their information, the individual cannot be penalized or denied services by the municipality;

• Any individual may file an inquiry or complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for the municipality using personal information in an unreasonable manner or as an unreasonable invasion of the individual’s privacy;

• Any individual may express concern to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of the manner the municipality is collecting and disclosing third party or personal information;

• An individual may feel the disclosure of personal information is damaging to their reputation or brings financial hardship upon them;

• An individual may feel there is an invasion of their privacy participating in the program as they will be asked to provide consent for release their personal information and may be deterred from applying for or receiving services;

• Once a municipality has release third party information that information is no longer in control of the municipality. The third party information is now public and may be utilized by others in different contexts or publications. This may give a negative perception of the municipality.

When the municipality is collecting personal information, staff must ensure the information is accurate, ensure the individual is fully aware of what their consent is being provided for including their personal information being released to public, what details of their personal information will be released, what format the release will be made and how long their consent is valid for. It is a great responsibility to host and release such personal information.

Administration is also concerned with the negative publicity the County has already received with the public calling it the "wall of shame" as one example. There is a further risk of the County being perceived as discriminatory should a ratepayer refuse to consent to the release and then be denied the service/rebate. These points may not include all possible considerations and outcomes as views of personal information and application of the FOIP Act may be interpreted differently by others. In the situation of applying the FOIP Act to disclose third party information in relation to participants of a municipal program with monetary value, Council may consider consulting legal opinion or ask

Brazeau County - Request for Council Decision – FOIP Public Disclosure on Rebate Programs Page 2 of 3 43 the Privacy Commissioner for advice and recommendations prior to proceeding with disclosure of information to the public.

2. ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDED ACTION That Council direct Administration to obtain legal advice and an opinion from the Privacy Commissioner before proceeding with the development of a policy to disclose the names of public participants receiving rebates and subsidies.

Advantages Disadvantages  Further advice from FOIP  Proceeding with a complex policy without professionals and legal will enable professional advice may put the County at risk. Council to make a well-educated decision around the development of a policy to reveal names of participants in rebate/subsidy programs.

3. IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATION

Operational: The development of a public disclosure policy would have a large work load impact on current Administration.

Financial: No impact Attachments: Excerpts from FOIP Act, Guidelines and Practices

Brazeau County - Request for Council Decision – FOIP Public Disclosure on Rebate Programs Page 3 of 3 44 Chapter 7: Protection of Privacy

Public bodies are responsible for ensuring that personal information is protected during the time it is in storage, waiting to be picked up, and in the process of being transferred to archives or destroyed. Public bodies must ensure that contractors follow proper privacy protection procedures. When contracting for services involving personal information, public bodies should incorporate privacy protection provisions in the contract. For more information on contracting under the FOIP Act, see Managing Contracts under the FOIP Act: A Guide for Government of Alberta Contract Managers and FOIP Coordinators, published by Access and Privacy, Service Alberta. For further information on • conducting privacy compliance reviews and threat and risk assessments; • reviewing forms and other collection instruments; and • developing a security policy; see Chapter 9.

7.6 Section 39 of the Act lists the only circumstances under which a public body may use Use of personal information. A public body may use personal information only Personal • for the purpose for which the information was collected or compiled or for a use Information consistent with that purpose (section 39(1)(a)); • if the individual the information is about has identified the information and consented, in the prescribed manner, to the use (section 39(1)(b)); • for a purpose for which that information may be disclosed to that public body under sections 40, 42 or 43 (section 39(1)(c)); or • if the information is in alumni records, for the purpose of a post-secondary educational body’s own fund-raising activities (section 39(2)). Use of personal information means employing it to accomplish the public body’s purposes, for example, to administer a program or activity, to provide a service or to determine eligibility for a benefit. Public bodies may use personal information only under the following circumstances.

For the original or a consistent purpose Section 39(1)(a) The purpose means the purpose for which the information was collected under section 33. A public body can use the information for that purpose. Typical purposes include the administration of a particular program, the delivery of a service and other directly related activities. The purpose must conform to section 33 of the Act, which limits the purposes for which information may be collected. The authority for collection of personal information (section 33) is discussed in section 7.1 of this chapter. The purpose of collection is described in the collection statement provided to the individual when the information is collected directly. When the information is not collected directly, or when it is compiled from several sources, the purpose should be stated in the written policy or procedure dealing with the program.

Page 260 FOIP Guidelines and Practices (2009) 45 Chapter 7: Protection of Privacy

Compiled refers to a process by which certain information is created and becomes tied to or associated with an identifiable individual. For example, a public body creates or assigns a student ID number for each student. This information becomes the personal information of the student but the information was compiled by the public body, not collected from the student (see IPC Order 2001-038). A public body may make use of personal information it has gathered, created or manipulated for the specific purposes for which it is permitted to collect or compile it. A consistent purpose is one that has a direct and reasonable connection to the original purpose and that is necessary for performing the statutory duties of, or for operating a legally authorized program of, the public body that uses the information (section 41). Section 39(1)(a) also says that a public body may use personal information for a use that is consistent with the original purpose. Consistent use is defined in section 41 of the Act as a use that has a reasonable and direct connection to the original purpose of collection and that is necessary for performing the statutory duties of the public body. In IPC Order 2001-038, the Information and Privacy Commissioner found that a school board’s use and disclosure of a child’s gender information for advertising, marketing and revenue generation purposes were not consistent with the original purpose for collection – namely, to register the child in school. However, use and disclosure of other personal information for the purpose of setting up and administering a student e-mail system was a consistent purpose. Section 7.8 of this chapter deals more thoroughly with the concept of consistent uses. For personal information held in personal information banks, public bodies must keep a record of all the purposes for which the personal information was collected or compiled and the purposes for which it is used or disclosed (section 87.1(2)(d)).

With the consent of the individual Section 39(1)(b) A public body may use personal information if the individual the information is about has identified the information and has consented, in the prescribed manner, to its use. Consenting in the prescribed manner means that the public body has followed the procedures for obtaining consent set out in section 7 of the FOIP Regulation. This states that consent • must be in writing; and • must specify to whom the personal information may be disclosed and how the personal information may be used beyond the original purpose for which the personal information was collected or compiled.

FOIP Guidelines and Practices (2009) Page 261 46 Chapter 7: Protection of Privacy

To meet the minimum requirements under the Act, a form or other instrument requesting consent must • specify to whom the personal information may be disclosed; and • specify how the personal information may be used. If consent is given in writing, the form must be signed by the person giving consent. Consent may be given electronically or orally if the head of the public body has established a process for accepting electronic or oral consent that meets the requirements of section 7(5) or (6) of the Regulation, respectively.

Where appropriate, a form or other instrument requesting consent should • indicate the original purpose of the collection, as well as the additional purpose for which the information is to be used and for which consent is being provided; • indicate that consent is voluntary; • indicate that consent may be revoked, but identify, where possible, any limitations and any consequences or implications that may result from revocation; • to the extent possible, identify any consequences that may result from refusal to consent; and • indicate the period of time during which the consent remains valid. A public body may wish to seek consent for a new use of personal information. If the public body proposes to use personal information for a new purpose, the public body must get consent from the individual. If the public body is collecting additional information for a new use, the public body must have authority for the new collection and consent for the new use. The collection notice required under section 34(2) should be revised to indicate that the use of personal information collected from individuals after that time will be in accordance with the revised purpose. It is important to note that, while a new use of personal information may be allowed under the Act with the consent of the individual, the public body may still be bound to adhere to its enabling enactments to authorize the new use. A public body cannot use personal information for programs that are outside the legislated area of responsibility of the public body. Also, if the public body is required to obtain additional personal information for the new use, then the collection of that personal information must be authorized by section 33. Consent to a different use by the individual concerned serves as an indication that the person knows the consequences of the use of his or her personal information and has been provided with enough facts to make an informed decision about whether or not to consent to the use. When the person concerned has not indicated whether or not consent is given to a different use of personal information, public bodies cannot assume the individual has consented.

Page 262 FOIP Guidelines and Practices (2009) 47 Chapter 7: Protection of Privacy

The absence of consent for a new use of information previously collected must be interpreted as the absence of authorization to use the information for the new purpose, unless otherwise permitted under the Act.

Public bodies cannot penalize individuals for refusing to give consent for use for an additional purpose by denying them any benefit or service provided in connection with the original collection. Individuals may, however, find they are denied a new benefit or service that might have been made available if the individual had consented to use of his or her personal information for that different purpose. Section 2.5 of Chapter 2 deals with those classes of persons who may act for minors, incompetent persons, and other individuals in giving or withholding consent.

For a purpose for which the information may be disclosed to a public body under section 40, 42 or 43 Section 39(1)(c) This provision permits a public body to use personal information that has been disclosed to it by another public body under section 40, 42 or 43 of the Act. For example, the Students Finance Board may disclose a student’s financial information to a housing management body in order to verify the amount of rent being paid by the student (section 40(1)(l)). The housing management body can use the financial information disclosed by the Students Finance Board in order to verify the rental amount. The housing management body cannot use the personal information for any other purpose unless that use for the other purpose is authorized under another provision of section 39. Section 39(1)(c) also allows a public body to use personal information disclosed to it for research purposes by another public body under section 42 or by the Provincial Archives or the archives of another public body under section 43.

Information in alumni records of a post-secondary educational body for fund-raising Section 39(2) This provision states that a post-secondary institution may use personal information and (3) in its alumni records for the purpose of its own fund-raising. Post-secondary educational bodies should have procedures in place to inform new alumni of this use at the time of graduation. They should not rely on this provision, which was added to the Act in May 1999, to use the personal information of individuals who become alumni after 1999 for their fund-raising activities. The use of this personal information is qualified by section 39(3). This requires the public body to discontinue using an individual’s personal information for fund- raising purposes when requested to do so by that individual. Post-secondary educational bodies should take reasonable steps to inform their alumni of this provision, for example, placing a notice in a prominent place in the institution’s alumni newsletter to give individuals a chance to request cessation of the activity, or providing alumni with an opportunity to request cessation of the activity when mailing lists are updated, or mailing a notice to all alumni. For more

FOIP Guidelines and Practices (2009) Page 263 48 Chapter 7: Protection of Privacy

information on this topic, see FOIP Bulletin No. 5: Fund-Raising, published by Access and Privacy, Service Alberta.

Limit on use of personal information Section 39(4) Section 39(4) sets some limits on the extent to which a public body can use the personal information in its custody or control. A public body can use information only to the extent necessary to carry out its purpose in a reasonable manner. This limitation applies both to the amount and type of personal information being used. This provision is intended to ensure that public bodies to which personal information is disclosed use the minimum amount of information necessary to achieve their purposes. For example, employees in a particular program area who have access to personal information in an electronic database should be provided with access to only those data elements they require to do their job, not to the whole database. Employees could be given access to certain views or screens in a database, rather than access to the entire database. It may be possible to anonymize data (e.g. by stripping identifiers) so that employees without access to the personal information can manipulate and analyze the data. Only a few authorized staff would have access to the individually identifying information that is initially collected, and a unique identification number could be assigned to the information or to the data subjects. The non-identifying data can then be used for various analytical or reporting purposes within the organization. In a reasonable manner means in such a way that a public body is not required to implement overly restrictive procedures on the use of personal information when the information is not of a sensitive nature or when the use by others in the organization would not be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy. Section 39(4) mirrors the limitation provision with respect to the disclosure of personal information in section 40(4).

7.7 Section 40 of the Act lists the only circumstances under which public bodies may Disclosure disclose personal information. Section 40 provides for a response to an access request of Personal under Part 1, and for disclosure in the course of various administrative processes and Information in response to informal access requests. Disclosure of personal information may occur only in the specific circumstances outlined in section 40. If section 40 does not provide authority for a disclosure, the public body cannot disclose the information. In IPC Investigation Report 2001-IR-002, the Investigator found that personal information about an investigation that was discussed at an in camera council meeting should not have been disclosed to a journalist since the disclosure was not authorized by any of the disclosure provisions of the Act.

Page 264 FOIP Guidelines and Practices (2009) 49 Chapter 7: Protection of Privacy

Section 40 does not authorize disclosure of personal information on the basis that a third party may obtain access to that information through other means (see IPC Investigation Report F2002-IR-005). Section 40 enables disclosure; it does not require disclosure. This is indicated by the word may in the introduction to the section. Public bodies should look at the circumstances surrounding each request and the privacy protection objectives of the Act when deciding whether to disclose personal information. Section 40(4) states that a public body may disclose personal information only to the extent necessary to enable it to carry out the purposes described in section 40(1), (2) and (3). These purposes are described in the following pages. Disclosure has to be carried out in a reasonable manner. Public bodies should be careful to disclose only limited amounts of personal information. For example, when a school division issued a letter to staff, students and parents regarding the death of a student, it should have simply notified them about the death and advised parents and staff of resources available to help the students. The school division should not have provided details about the death (see IPC Investigation Report F2003-IR-002). In IPC Investigation Report F2004-IR-002, a school district was found to have disclosed too much information when reports sent to parents about their children’s alleged misbehaviour contained information about other students involved in separate incidents. (See also IPC Order F2004-010.) Public bodies have a responsibility in most cases to clarify and understand the reasons for the request for disclosure. Disclosures should be made in a way that helps the requester and is cost-effective for the public body. This may mean that not all disclosures are in writing, or that, when a working relationship with another body has been established, all the proofs required are not asked for each time a request is made. Disclose means to release, transmit, reveal, expose, show, provide copies of, tell the contents of, or intentionally or unintentionally give personal information by any means to someone. Although the Act applies to recorded information, section 40 is not limited to the disclosure of records. Disclosure includes oral transmission of recorded information by telephone or in person; provision of personal information on paper, by facsimile copy or in another format; and electronic transmission through electronic mail, data transfer or the internet. Section 40 provides for disclosure • to the person whose information it is, either in response to a routine request for information or in response to a request under Part 1; • to an individual’s personal representative who is entitled to exercise the rights of that individual under section 84 of the Act; • to any other person in response to an access request; as a disclosure in the public interest (section 32); when the disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion

FOIP Guidelines and Practices (2009) Page 265 50 Chapter 7: Protection of Privacy

of privacy (section 40(1)(b)), or when section 40 of the Act specifically allows the disclosure; or • to other public bodies, to legislative, legal and judicial officers, to other levels of government, or to non-government organizations (in some cases the disclosure supports the activities of the public body disclosing the information; in other cases the disclosure supports the activities of the party receiving the information). Section 40 does not prevent the routine disclosure of an individual’s personal information to that individual if the public body has adopted a policy of disclosing a particular category of personal information. In these circumstances, the public body will provide the personal information without a FOIP request. Public bodies must keep a record of the purposes for which personal information held in any personal information banks may be disclosed (section 87.1(2)(d)) (see section 7.11 of this chapter). Public bodies must also keep a record of any disclosures of personal information made under section 40 for a purpose not included in the Directory of Personal Information Banks (section 87.1(3)). This may consist of a note on a file or a flag in an electronic system that refers to a paper record or another data file.

A record of a disclosure is needed to enable a public body to comply with its obligation under section 36(4) to inform anyone to whom it has disclosed personal information, of any correction to that information.

As a best practice, a record of a non-routine disclosure may include • the name of the individual whose personal information is requested; • the nature of the requested information and the purposes for which it will be used; • the authority for the disclosure; • the title, business address and business telephone number of the contact person in the requesting public body or agency; and • the name and signature of the officer or employee of the public body who authorizes the use or disclosure.

Public bodies must have appropriate administrative controls in place to ensure that personal information is disclosed only to authorized persons.

When developing a new program, public bodies should consider whether personal information will need to be disclosed, and ensure the disclosure is authorized under the Act. Public bodies should also regularly review their disclosure policies and practices to ensure that they continue to meet the requirements of the Act. Where it is found that disclosures are not authorized, practices should be altered to meet legal requirements or discontinued. A review may be carried out in conjunction with a review of information practices and systems as discussed in Chapter 9.

Page 266 FOIP Guidelines and Practices (2009) 51 Chapter 7: Protection of Privacy

Public bodies may disclose personal information only for the following purposes. Each permitted disclosure is outlined and discussed.

Disclosure in accordance with Part 1 of the Act Section 40(1)(a) This provision permits disclosure to respond to access requests and to comply with the public interest disclosure provisions of the Act. Under this provision, a disclosure may take place when • an applicant has requested access to his or her own personal information, subject to the exceptions in sections 16 to 29 and to the paramountcy provision in section 5; • an applicant has requested access to records containing personal information about another individual and disclosure of the personal information does not constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the other individual under section 17, subject to other exceptions and to third party notification requirements; or • section 32 applies. Disclosure that would not be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s privacy under section 17 Section 40(1)(b) This provision permits disclosure in the clearest of cases after a complete analysis has been carried out under section 17 and a determination made that the personal information would not be excepted under section 17 in response to an access request. If there is any doubt as to whether the disclosure would be considered an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy, the public body should have the person who asked for the information submit an access request under Part 1 of the Act. When another provision of section 40 permits disclosure, the disclosure should be made under the other specific provision. Examples are: disclosure with the consent of the individual, disclosure required or authorized by an Act of Alberta or Canada, and disclosure for research purposes. Section 40(1)(b) gives public bodies flexibility in responding to requests for personal information that clearly would be provided if a FOIP request were made. It allows for a more helpful and timely response to such requests. In some circumstances, public bodies will be able to establish policies and practices for routine disclosure in response to requests for particular classes of personal information (e.g. school transcripts). Policies and practices may also be established as a result of active dissemination of personal information without a request (e.g. publishing an employee directory). In establishing such policies, public bodies should determine whether any of the other exceptions outlined in Part 1 of the Act might apply to the information (see section 2.4 of Chapter 2 for a discussion of providing routine access to records or information). Examples of classes of personal information for which a policy might be appropriate include • information about employee classification, salary range, employment responsibilities and discretionary benefits (section 17(2)(e));

FOIP Guidelines and Practices (2009) Page 267 52 Chapter 7: Protection of Privacy

• financial and other details of a contract to supply goods or services (section 17(2)(f)); • information regarding permits or licences relating to commercial or professional activities or real property (section 17(2)(g)); • details of discretionary benefits of a financial nature (section 17(2)(h)); and • personal information about an individual who has been dead for 25 years or more (section 17(2)(i)). Public bodies may charge a fee for such information. For more information on section 17(2), see section 4.3 of Chapter 4. Section 17(2)(j) deals with a range of disclosures that can be made if disclosure is not contrary to the public interest. Individuals have the right to request that the information outlined in this provision not be disclosed. For this reason, requests for personal information that fall within the scope of section 17(2)(j) need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. A public body may take into consideration who is making the request, and why, in deciding whether to disclose the information. If an individual has requested that the information not be disclosed, it cannot be disclosed under section 40 unless another provision in that section permits the disclosure and the public body decides to disclose the information in accordance with that provision. If disclosing the information could interfere with law enforcement or could reasonably be expected to affect someone’s health or safety, the information should not be disclosed. For more information on situations when disclosure might be made, see section 4.3 of Chapter 4 and FOIP Bulletin No. 4: Disclosure of Personal Information “Not Contrary to the Public Interest”, published by Access and Privacy, Service Alberta.

Disclosure for original or consistent purpose Section 40(1)(c) The purpose means the purpose for which personal information was collected under section 33. A public body can disclose personal information for that purpose. Typical purposes include the administration of a particular program, the delivery of a service and other directly related activities. Authority for collection is discussed in section 7.2 of this chapter. Personal information is compiled when certain information is created and becomes tied to or is associated with an identifiable individual. For example, a public body creates or assigns a student ID number for each student. This information becomes the personal information of the student but the information was compiled by the public body, not collected from the student (see IPC Order 2001-038). A consistent purpose is one that has a direct and reasonable connection to the original purpose and that is necessary for performing the statutory duties of, or for operating a legally authorized program of, the public body that discloses the information (section 41). A disclosure is therefore permissible if it is a logical extension of the original use.

Page 268 FOIP Guidelines and Practices (2009) 53 Chapter 7: Protection of Privacy

Examples of disclosure for a consistent purpose include • providing a list of participants in a program to another part of a public body for evaluation of the program; and • disclosing the name and mailing address of the property owner for other purposes related to the operation of the municipality such as providing services and utilities. A more detailed explanation of consistent purpose is provided in section 7.8 of this chapter.

Disclosure with consent Section 40(1)(d) This provision permits disclosure of an individual’s personal information when the individual has identified the information and consented, in the manner prescribed in section 7 of the FOIP Regulation, to the disclosure. This states that consent • must be in writing; and • must specify to whom the personal information may be disclosed and how the personal information may be used beyond the original purpose for which the personal information was collected or compiled.

As a best practice and where appropriate, a form or other instrument requesting consent should • indicate the original purpose of the collection, as well as the additional purpose for which the information is to be used and for which consent is being provided; • indicate that consent is voluntary; • indicate that consent may be revoked, but identify, where possible, any limitations and any consequences or implications that may result from revocation; • to the extent possible, identify any consequences that may result from refusal to consent; and • indicate the period of time during which the consent remains valid.

FOIP Guidelines and Practices (2009) Page 269 54 Chapter 7: Protection of Privacy

Examples of consent to disclosure include: consent to have references provided in support of job applications; consent to provide information to the Canada Revenue Agency in order to obtain income verification from that source; and consent to the use of photographs for promotional purposes. IPC Investigation Report 2000-IR-003 provides a discussion of the consent requirements under section 40(1)(d) and section 7 of the FOIP Regulation. In that case, the Investigator found that an individual’s consent to release information to a private landlord was not valid because the consent had been revoked prior to the time of disclosure. When an individual copies (“cc”s) other parties on a letter or e-mail, this is not consent for the responder to disclose personal information to the parties who were copied (IPC Orders F2002-018 and F2005-014). When the person concerned has not indicated any consent to disclose personal information, and no other provision exists to permit disclosure, public bodies cannot disclose the information.

A public body must not penalize an individual for refusing to consent to a disclosure of personal information for a purpose other than the purpose for which the personal information was collected. A public body must not deny the individual the benefit or service for which the personal information was originally collected.

A public body should not seek consent for a disclosure that is already authorized elsewhere in section 40, unless it intends not to disclose the personal information without the individual’s consent. Consent to a disclosure may be given by a representative acting on behalf of an individual in accordance with the conditions set out in section 84(1). These conditions are discussed in detail in section 2.5 of Chapter 2. Consent for a disclosure should be sought as early as possible after the need has been identified. Ideally, it should be sought at the time the information is collected. In such cases, the request for consent to disclose is added to the collection instrument. For more information on this topic, see FOIP Bulletin No. 17: Consent and Authentication, published by Access and Privacy, Service Alberta

Disclosure to comply with an enactment of Alberta or Canada or with a treaty, arrangement or agreement under an enactment of Alberta or Canada Section 40(1)(e) This provision permits disclosure of personal information to comply with an Act of Alberta or Canada, a regulation made under such an Act, or with a treaty, arrangement or agreement made under either an Act or a regulation. It does not apply to the legislation of other provinces, territories or foreign states. Disclosure to comply with an enactment of Alberta or Canada means disclosure of personal information as required by either provincial or federal legislation. There

Page 270 FOIP Guidelines and Practices (2009) 55 GOVERNMENT RELATIONS UPDATE January 25th to April 6th

56 Agenda

1. Political & policy overview 2. COVID-19 vaccination rollout 3. Session update 4. Budget overview 5. Issues management 6. Strategy implementation

57 Political Lay of the Land Political Vaccination Rollout

Collective bargaining – AUPE & ATA

Spring Session Federal Election (?)

April 2021 May 2021 June 2021

Recall Act Infrastructure Act (T) Strategic Capital Plan

Federal Carbon Tax

COVID-19 mitigation policies

Economic Recovery Plan implementation Policy

58 1. Initial Phase (December 2020) • Healthcare workers in ICU • Respiratory therapists • Long term care staff 2. Phase 1 (January to March 2021) • Healthcare workers & long term care staff • Home care workers • First Nations, Inuit & Metis (FNIM) born in 1956 or earlier living in a First Nations Community or Metis COVID-19 Settlement • Seniors born in 1946 or earlier Vaccination 3. Phase 2A (began March 15) • Albertans born 1947 to 1956 Rollout • FNIM born 1971 or earlier. 4. Phase 2B (began March 29) • Albertans born 2005 to 1957 with eligible high-risk underlying health conditions 5. Phase 2C & 2D (April to June) • Regulated healthcare professionals • Staff working in patient care facilities • Caregivers 6. Phase 3 (late Spring to early Summer) • General public

59 Under the Dome: Legislation & Policy • 18 to 20 pieces of legislation expected to be tabled • Two bills to date of significance for municipalities: Citizen Initiative Act; & Recall Act. • Rural Healthcare • $6 million investment to incentivize residency training and long-term physician practice in Session rural Alberta. • $33 million investment in MRI & CT scans to Update reduce wait times for non-emergency scans. • $650,000 to renovate emergency triage at Drayton Valley Hospital & Care Centre. • Driving Back to Work Program • Grant will cover up to 90 per cent of the cost of Mandatory Entry-Level Training for unemployed Albertans.

60 Budget 2021 – Protecting Lives & Livelihoods • Three themes: investing in healthcare; economic recovery; and maintaining responsible spending. • Healthcare spending to increase by over $900 million • Economic recovery spurred by infrastructure spending and $3.1 billion to implement Economic Recovery Plan – which targets growth in high potential sectors of the economy • Fiscal responsibility – aligning per capita spending levels with BC, Quebec, Ontario • Debt estimated at $98 billion by year end; in-year deficit approximately $18 billion. Fiscal Year 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 WTI Price $46.00 $55.00 $56.50 Light-Heavy Diff. $14.60 $14.70 $15.30 Budget 2021 Exchange Rate 77.4 77.8 78.2 Natural Gas $2.60 $2.50 $2.40 Municipal Affairs • Strategic priorities: 1. Local governments encourage and support economic prosperity 2. Municipalities and communities are fiscally responsible, collaborative, and accountable to local governments 3. Building codes augment safety 4. Alberta is emergency ready and resilient to the impacts of disaster

61 1. Rural Health Care – CT Scan • Engagement with the Office of the President & CEO of AHS and MLA Smith. • Quality Assurance Review (QAR) initiated shortly after meeting took place between Korte Consulting and Chief of Staff to the President & CEO. • Defines the ‘why’ and the ‘what’ to inform potential solutions • Next steps: Brian and MLA Smith to work with Drayton Valley Issues Health Foundation, Dr. Mike Murphy, and other regional Management stakeholders to improve service delivery. 2. Lodgepole Crown Land • Correspondence drafted regarding the acquisition of crown land near Lodgepole, addressed to the Minister of Environment & Parks. • County updating maps and coordinates. • Next step: Submit letter to Minister of Environment & Parks after county drafts updated maps.

62 3. Indigenous Engagement • Strengthening Indigenous partnerships will support county engagement efforts. • Indigenous support required for Western Economic Corridor. • Next steps: Regional Indigenous engagement 4. Ministerial Touchpoints • Monthly meetings with Municipal Affairs Chief of Staff to gather intelligence on policy & legislation that could impact Brazeau County. • Next Steps: Continued lobbying for a provincial Issues announcement regarding WEC. 5. MLA Touchpoints Management • Monthly meetings with MLA Smith to brief him on issues and advocacy requirements. • Next steps: Continued relationship building with regional MLAs 6. Linear Assessment • Continued monitoring. • Advocacy victory • 2 out of the 3 policy proposals made by Brazeau County were adopted by the Government of Alberta.

63 Strategy Update: Western Economic Corridor

64 • Western Economic Corridor (WEC) strategic objectives: 1. Enhance investment attraction and economic diversification – prioritizing sectors the Economic Recovery Plan & Natural Gas Strategy 2. Establish a research and product commercialization hub for emerging commodities (geothermal, hydrogen, hemp) 3. Manifest strategic infrastructure investments that support market access, trade as well as the movement of goods and services 4. Creation of a specialized economic zones (mandate of Minister Schweitzer) reflective of policies conducive to job creation & diversification • Engagement accomplishments to date: • Public awareness regarding WEC & Brazeau County • Alberta Chambers of Commerce, Eco Options, Pembina Pipelines Strategic • Brazeau County viewed as a trusted partner and advisor to government • Example – Linear Assessment Priorities & • Access to Ministry of Municipal Affairs • Relationships with Members of Cabinet, MLAs & government influencers: • Minister Nixon, Minister Wilson, Minister Madu, Minister McIver, Minister Toews, Minister Schweitzer, Minister Approach Dreeshen, Associate Minister Hunter, MLA Getson, MLA Smith, MLA Allard, David Knight Legg. • Provincial committee on energy and utility corridors met on March 27. • In light of WEC, MLA Smith has been appointed. • Potential to increase linear assessment revenue. • Integration of WEC with provincial energy and utility corridor paramount for myself and MLA Smith – augments opportunities & profile for the county as well as government collaboration. • Shift in strategic approach and advocacy – coalition based. • Leverage industry partnerships to advance WEC objectives. • Example – Eavor and Brazeau – Energy Exchange Zone Policy Submission. • Replicate this pattern for other industries: hemp; hydrogen; geothermal.

65 Western Economic Corridor Coalition

Regional Hemp Stakeholders Regional Indigenous Communities

66 • Energy Exchange Zone (EEZ) creation within the boundaries of Brazeau County. • Facilitate Eavor-Loop™ drilling. Every loop drilled equates to roughly 300 jobs. • Joint policy submission made to the Office of the Premier on March 8. • Co-signed by the Brazeau County, President & CEO of Eavor, President & CEO of Precision Drilling. Strategy • Meeting with Associate Minister of Natural Gas & Electricity Implementation: tomorrow in follow-up to submission. • MLA & Ministerial roundtable to discuss WEC & EEZ implementation Eavor & Brazeau scheduled for April 29, 1PM until 3PM. • Attendees: Minister Toews; Minister McIver; Minister Nixon; Minister Schweitzer (T); MLA Turton; MLA Long; MLA Guthrie; MLA Getson; MLA Nixon; MLA Rowswell; MLA Orr; MLA Hanson; MLA Gotfried; MLA Allard. • Meeting with Premier, Precision Drilling, Brazeau County regarding EEZ implementation – aiming for first week in May.

67 Inaugural Western Economic • Date: April 9, hosted by Brazeau County. • Attendees: Town of Drayton Valley, Pembina Pipelines, NAIT, AFPA, Corridor Eavor Technologies, Eco Options, Leduc County, MLA Smith, MLA Getson (T). Coalition • Purpose: To identify emerging economic development opportunities and related government advocacy requirements; build relationships Meeting with industry partners to support job creation – while advancing strategic priorities of WEC. • Frequency: To be determined by coalition members.

68 Energy Exchange Zone Specialized Strategic Coalition Based economic zone & Collaboration Government Approach: incubator engagement Brazeau County Western Geothermal Eavor Loop™ Economic construction Corridor Coalition Energy Eavor Production Technologies Job Creation Strategic Priorities 1. Enhance investment attraction and economic diversification – prioritizing Strategic Outcomes sectors the Economic 1. Job creation, Recovery Plan & Natural economic Gas Strategy diversification 2. Establish a research and 2. Research & product product commercialization commercialization hub for emerging commodities (geothermal, hydrogen, hemp)

69 Policy framework & incentive for hydrogen Strategic Specialized Collaboration economic zone & Government Coalition Based incubator engagement Brazeau County Approach: Western Hydrogen Economic development Hydrogen Corridor Coalition Pembina Pipelines Job Creation

70 Policy framework & incentive for hemp Strategic Specialized Collaboration economic zone & Government Coalition Based incubator engagement Brazeau County Approach: Western Hemp Economic development Hemp Corridor Coalition Hemp stakeholders Job Creation

71 • Questions, comments? Conclusion • Discussion

72 73 74 75 76 77 78 LARS SANDER-GREEN MINING LEAD WILDSIGHT 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 Open-pit coal mines in the Eastern Slopes: Siltation, Selenium and Salmonids

Presenter: Jim Stelfox (retired fisheries biologist)

117 Siltation + Selenium = Salmonids (i.e.Trout and Whitefish)

118 Cutthroat Trout from Ram River

Photo credit: Dean Baayens119 Bull Trout from Ram River

Photo credit: Dean Baayens120 Bull Trout are listed as a Threatened species

121 Mountain Whitefish

122 Mountain Whitefish -Most abundant sportfish in the rivers west of Rocky -Are an important food source for Bull Trout

123 Siltation affects salmonids by suffocating their eggs and reducing their food supply (e.g. aquatic invertebrates)

124 Sediment Plumes in Fallentimber Creek at Benjamin Creek Road from OHV Trail (after light rainfall) Photos from Clearwater Environmental Consultants Inc.

125 126 127 128 If a light rainfall can cause this much siltation in a stream, imagine what happens when the berm at a coal mine settling or tailings pond fails!

129 Richard Quinlan, a Habitat Protection Biologist for the Fish and Wildlife Division in Edson from 1982 to 1989, answers that question.

130 When Richard visited the site of one spill to collect water samples, he found that sediment had so completely filled the creek that there was no surface flow! He had to go 50 meters below the spill site (where surface flow resumed) in order to collect a water sample.

131 In this case, despite the magnitude of the siltation, the coal mining company was not prosecuted, because a senior official in Edmonton ‘stayed’ the charges!

132 In fact, of the ~20 investigations that Richard undertook, none of them resulted in any of the coal mining companies being fined!

133 Was the lack of fines a contributing factor in the massive spill that occurred at the Coal Valley Resources Inc. (CVRI) Obed mine?

CVRI had no prior convictions, but had received ‘administrative penalties’ for sediment releases at another of their open-pit coal mines in 2010 and 2013.

Catastrophic failure of one of the berms at CVRI’s Obed mine on October 31, 2013 resulted in 670,000,000 L of fluid mine waste and 90,000 tonnes of sediment being dumped into Apetowun Creek, Plante Creek and ultimately the Athabasca River.

Primary cause of the berm failure was that the water level in a containment pond was allowed to exceed the permitted level by more than 5 m, resulting in the berm being overtopped and washing out.

134 Selenium is a naturally occurring element, vital in small amounts but toxic in excess. Water quality guidelines for selenium are 1 ppb (Canada) and 2 ppb (Alberta).

135 Below Teck’s mine in BC, where selenium levels higher than 100 ppb have been recorded, the population of adult Cutthroat Trout declined by 93% in the Fording River, from 2017 to 2019. 136 Selenium levels higher than 40 ppb have been recorded below open-pit coal mines south of Hinton.

137 Reduced survival and deformities of Rainbow Trout have been documented in waters below the open-pit coal mines south of Hinton.

138 Lemly (2019) points out that provincial and federal regulators have failed in the past to guard against selenium contamination. High levels from existing coal mines in Alberta have failed to produce regulatory action, he writes, although the problem has been known for more than two decades.

139 Environment Canada's database shows no fines for selenium contamination at existing Alberta mines have ever been issued.

140 “Selenium has a strong ability to bioaccumulate and biomagnify, that is, to progressively increase in concentration as it is absorbed from water by primary producers (plankton and algae) and passed up the food chain through successive trophic levels, culminating in greatest concentrations in the tissues of fish and wildlife.” (Lemly 2019)

141 “The province's 2019 five-year monitoring plan shows stations on two rivers and a creek polluted with selenium from coal mines were mothballed. That was despite more than two decades of readings that Alberta Environment guidelines suggest should have led to closer attention. The only station still operating is on the McLeod River about 200 kilometres downstream of the old Cheviot mine.”

Bob Weber · The Canadian Press · Posted: Feb 01, 2021

142 Jason Nixon has stated that Alberta has ‘world-class environmental regulations’.

However, this is of little benefit if the regulations are not enforced!

143 Who do you think will end up paying to operate the water treatment plants for decades after the coal mines have closed and the companies have left our province with their profits?

144 145 “There is also the major problem of calcite deposition in receiving waters as a by-product of coal cleaning, which coats the stream bottom and, in effect, turns it into concrete that is uninhabitable to invertebrates that form the base of the aquatic food chain, and also eliminates the loose gravels necessary for successful fish spawning.” (Lemly 2019)

146 Simply put, the risks greatly outweigh the gains from open-pit coal mining in the Eastern Slopes

147 What do you want for our future generations? This!!??...

Photo via the Teck Resources website.

Photo credit: Garth148 Lenz …or this?

149 The decision Albertans need to make is a bit like Scrooge in “A Christmas Carol”, who wakes up from his nightmare and realizes that the future doesn’t have to be that way— provided that he is willing to change.

The question for Albertans is, do we have the will to change… do we want to leave the land (and water) better than we found it?

150 Environmental Impacts of Coal Mining151 Photo credit: Mario Strim Presenter: Colton Vessey – GIT, M.Sc., B.Sc Colton is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of Alberta (Edmonton) specializing in environmental geochemistry. Colton is a registered Geoscientist-in- Training with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists Saskatchewan (APEGS), and received his M.Sc. and B.Sc. in Geological Sciences from the University of Saskatchewan. He has published several peer- reviewed articles on mine reclamation and contaminant mobility. Colton grew up in Okotoks and spends much of his free time in the mountains and Foothills fishing, hunting, and hiking.

152 Historic Coal Mining in Alberta

• Mining began in 1800’s for thermal coal • Coal mining decreased following 1976 Coal Policy Act by Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed • As of 2019 Alberta produced ~5.2 million tonnes of metallurgical coal (CMD, 2020) • ~380 million tonnes of metallurgical coal produced globally in 2019 (IEA Bioenergy, 2019)

153 Historic Lille collieries in Crowsnest Pass As seen in IEA Bioenergy (2019) Policy changes to Alberta’s Coal Policy Act

• Despite reinstating the 1976 Coal Policy Act, there are still two open-pit mine projects in exploration and planning within Category 2 lands: Aries Mine through Ram River Coal, and Valory Resources’ Blackstone Project • Grassy Mountain Coal Project (GMCP; Benga Mining Limited) in process of being reviewed by Federal JRP – technically on Category 4 land • The Aries Mine project overlaps with the Ram River, North and South Ram Rivers, and Rough Creek (flows into North Saskatchewan River) • GMCP straddled by Blairmore and Gold Creeks that are tributaries to the Crowsnest river and are key streams for native trout species success • Extensive coal mining may have implications for fish, wildlife, and communities downstream

CPAWS (2021) 154 Coal Mining and Steelmaking Process • Metallurgical coal is often called “Green” or “Clean” coal - only indicates it is not thermal coal • Used for coking process by (Yang, 2014):

• C + H2O = CO + H2

• CO + FeO = Fe + CO2 • Steel production accounts for ~7% of global CO2 emissions (Echterhof, 2021)

155 Alternatives to Coke for Steelmaking Process • Hydrogen and electric-arc furnaces (EAF) currently used and predicted to grow in use over coming decades (Chen et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2020) • EAF production predicted to grow from 9.8% to 45.6% by 2050 in China (Chen et al., 2014) • Hydrogen-based steelmaking in progress globally (Liu et al., 2020), most notably in Germany, Sweden, and Japan (Sliverstein, 2021)

156 Coal Mining - Environmental Implications

• Many historic examples of coal mine contamination globally (e.g., Tiwary, 2000), within Canada (Wellen et al., 2018), and Alberta (Mackay, 2006; Cooke et al., 2016; Weber, 2021) • Can generate acid rock drainage (pH < 3) or neutral mine drainage (6 < pH < 9) due to pyrite oxidation depending on geology of the area • Subsequent release of toxic metals (e.g., Cu, Ni), metalloids (e.g., As), non-metals (e.g.,

Se and NO3) above regulatory and health limits

• Water quality guidelines Alberta* (GoA, 2018): • Arsenic (As): 5 ppb • Selenium (Se): 2 ppb - • Nitrate (NO3 ): 3 ppm 2- • Sulfate (SO4 ): 309 ppm • Selenium bioaccumulation results in spinal and facial deformities, and reproductive issues in fish and wildlife (Lemly, 2004)

* Water quality guidelines may vary provincially and Federally 157 As seen in Nancharaiah and Lens (2014) Coal Mining - Environmental Implications

“Healthy” WSCT from Ram River (bottom) – Dean Baayens

• Deformities of westslope cutthroat trout from Elk River basin (left and top right) – as seen in Lemly (2019) 158 Coal Mining - Environmental Implications

Normal embryo Deformed embryo

As seen in Van Hullebusch (2017) • Se toxicity also greatly affects reproduction of mammals and migratory birds (Van Hullebusch, 2017; Lemly, 2004) 159 Case study: Elk Valley – Teck Resource Ltd. • Mining began in 1960’s in Elk Valley and currently have 4 open-pit steelmaking coal operations – 32,500 Ha • Use conventional open-pit drill and blast method (ammonium nitrate-fuel oil explosive) • Since 1980’s water drainage from mine has increased and exceeds water quality standards: • Se: >20 ppb, but has exceeded 100 ppb (Wellen et al., 2015)

• Nitrate (NO3): can exceed 35 ppm, but averages ~15 ppm (Mahmood et al., 2017)

• Sulfate (SO4): up to ~1200 ppm (Essilfie-Dughan et al., 2017) • Pyrite oxidation (main control on contaminant release) predicted to continue for up to ~300 years (max value and may decrease over time, or change with remediation strategy) (Essilfie-Dughan et al., 2017)

160 Elkview Operations by Teck Resources Limited. Photos by Callum Gunn (Riley, 2020) Case study: Elk Valley – Teck Resource Ltd.

• Investment into a $45 million dollar on-site water treatment facility (i.e., fluidized bed reactor) • Unfortunately failed to reduce contaminant concentrations due to biofouling issues, resulting in higher Se loads, immediate fish die offs, and $1.4 million dollars in fines (Lemly, 2019) • R&D currently working toward new remediation strategy using saturated rock fill (SRF) with initial success; however, long-term studies are still needed to ensure its efficacy (Teck Resources, 2019) • Long-term Se predictions using SRF’s alone may still be 10x above water quality guidelines • Recently cobalt (Co) and nickel (Ni) concentrations have increased to ~25 and ~ 140 ppb, respectively • Co and Ni water quality guidelines are 4 and 150 ppb, respectively

161 Fluidized bed reactor (left) as seen in Van Hullebusch (2017), and active SRF (right) as seen from Teck Resources (2019) Case study: Elk Valley – Teck Resource Ltd.

Red line = 2 ppb 162 Selenium concentrations and predictions in Fording River, as seen from Teck Resources (2019) Case study: Grassy Mountain Project (Riversdale Resources) – Overview • Estimated footprint (Riversdale Resources, 2016; Benga Mining Limited, 2019): • Total: 1520 Ha • Total historic mining footprint: 185 Ha • Overburden removed: 1.11 billion m3 • Settling waste solids: 2.17 million m3 • 4.5 million tonnes of coal per year for ~25 years • Reclamation and remediation plan: • Total estimated cost of reclamation: $59.6 million dollars • $20 million dollars budgeted for continued operating costs after mining end (25 years) • Does not include cost for full scale water treatment facility • Plan to use saturated rock fills (SRF), gravel bed reactor (GBR), surge ponds, and end-pit lake (EPL) • Environmental impact assessment (EIA) assumes 99% 163 removal efficiency – Teck only sees 95% efficiency Riversdale Resources EIA – Section C – Project Description Case study: Grassy Mountain Project (Riversdale Resources) – Environmental Considerations • Concerns with reclamation and remediation strategy: • Proposed microbial methods have been shown to also produce (more toxic) organo-Se species (e.g., Lemly, 2019) 2- • Bioreduction of toxic selenate (SeO4 ) to Se(0) can remove Se from water; however, Se(0) can cause biofouling and colloids can be transported from storage due to small particle size which may result in re-oxidation to selenate (Van Hullebusch, 2017) • Need to continually add chemicals to SRF’s and GBR’s to stimulate microbial growth and respiration to remove contaminants even after mining ends (Van Hullebush, 2017)

• Studies show that removal of Se can be limited by high SO4 and NO3 concentrations (Tan et al., 2016) • Under reducing conditions, arsenic (As) can be mobilized (Smedley and Kinniburgh, 2002) – not considered in EIA • Small-scale tests and models often overestimate contaminant removal efficiency (Etteieb et al., 2019) • Long-term storage of contaminants (Se ≥ 30 ppm) under EPL water cap – potential for remobilization due to weathering, and groundwater and surface-water cycling • Steep slopes on EPL’s make it difficult for aquatic habitats to develop (Vandenberg, 2017) • Potential groundwater flow (baseflow) changes to Blairmore and Gold creeks due to changing topography, soil compaction, and bedrock (e.g., Ross et al., 2016) 164 Water Usage and Competitive Water Needs • Water usage and withdrawal (Boon, 2021): • 250 L freshwater and 750 recycled water (total 1000 L) to wash 1 tonne of coal • Aries Mine alone is predicted to use 3.1 billion L water per year • Low precipitation in southern and central AB (~300 mm/year) • Competing water interests from locals, agriculture, and potential mining companies • GoA is currently working to change water allocations to give coal mines remaining free water • Climate change will impact seasonal drought in southern and central AB (see below)

165 Courtesy of Climate Atlas of Canada: https://climateatlas.ca/ – Number of days over 30°C (Red > 50 days) What does the future of Alberta look like?

• Many considerations in local and downstream ecosystems for proposed mine regions with potential downstream consequences • Coal mining considerations and impacts: unique fish, wildlife and vegetation within Eastern Slopes; removal of irreplaceable mountain landscapes; potential leaching of contaminants; potential impacts on protected native fish species (WSCT and bull trout) and other wildlife; competing water usage; climate change impacts; and, air quality • Furthermore, the Mine Financial Security Program (MFSP) fails to hold companies liable for reclamation (Anderson, 2019): • Does not require companies to provide full financial security deposits • If companies maintain asset-liability ratio > 3 they are not required to pay until the mine nears the end of its life • Allows for companies to self report total reclamation costs • Quebec and Yukon have much stricter and successful programs that require full payment before any mine begins

166 References Anderson, A., 2019. An Unsettling Truth: The Looming Liability of Alberta’s Oil Sands Mines. https://albertawilderness.ca/an-unsettling-truth-the-looming-liability-of-albertas-oil-sands-mines/ Bellona, 2019. Steel and emissions: How can we break the link? https://bellona.org/news/ccs/2019-03-is-steel-stealing-our-future Benga Mining Limited, 2019. Joint Review Panel Request for Additional Information Response Package - Addendum 10. Package 5: Surface Water Quality, Hydrology, Hydrogeology, Fish and Fish Habitat, Cumulative Effects, Geotechnical, Reclamation, Wildlife, Land Use and EA Methodology. https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/731ed235-94a9-4092-9e21-8266c19a7c1b/resource/c33b2231-c209-4b4f-a539-a2337b1f5c1d/download/addendum10- pkg5-surfacewaterqualityhydrologyhydrogeology.pdf Boon, S., 2021. Coal and Water in Alberta. Watershed Notes, https://watershednotes.ca/2021/01/13/coal-and-water-in-alberta/ Chen, W., Yin, X., Ma, D., 2014. A bottom-up analysis of China’s iron and steel industrial energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Appl. Energy 136, 1174–1183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.06.002 Cooke, C.A., Schwindt, C., Davies, M., Donahue, W.F., Azim, E., 2016. Initial environmental impacts of the Obed Mountain coal mine process water spill into the Athabasca River (Alberta, Canada). Sci. Total Environ. 557–558, 502–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.058 Echterhof, T., 2021. Review on the Use of Alternative Carbon Sources in EAF Steelmaking. Metals (Basel). 11, 222 Essilfie-Dughan, J., Hendry, M.J., Dynes, J.J., Hu, Y., Biswas, A., Lee Barbour, S., Day, S., 2017. Geochemical and mineralogical characterization of sulfur and iron in coal waste rock, Elk Valley, British Columbia, Canada. Sci. Total Environ. 586, 753–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.053 Etteieb, S., Magdouli, S., Zolfaghari, M., Brar, S.K., 2020. Monitoring and analysis of selenium as an emerging contaminant in mining industry: A critical review. Sci. Total Environ. 698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134339 Fletcher, R. (January, 2021). “Answers to questions about Alberta's coal policy that, at this point, you're too afraid to ask” CBC news article, retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-coal-policy-faq- frequently-asked-questions-1.5880659?fbclid=IwAR2DGxRW6D9wHB5fvsWI_qVrDO0Jj7SceT0ofkTbeRyllBCOn-_EWqnNoTE, Government of Alberta, 2020. Coal and Mineral Development in Alberta - 2019 Year in Review. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/2291-1553 Government of Alberta, 2018. Environmental Quality Guidelines for Alberta Surface Waters. Water Policy Branch, Alberta Environment and Parks. Edmonton, Alberta. https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/5298aadb-f5cc-4160-8620- ad139bb985d8/resource/38ed9bb1-233f-4e28-b344-808670b20dae/download/environmentalqualitysurfacewaters-mar28-2018.pdf Government of Alberta, 1976. A coal development policy for Alberta. Archive retrieved from https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/cc40f8f5-a3f7-42ce-ad53-7521ef360b99?fbclid=IwAR1OJB6VJm_NhSUPF1EWTDsmuIEo8P5aag8yMg- 6IGPPCaBdTgPTnzl3g6o IEA Bioenergy, 2019. Alternative sustainable carbon sources as substitutes for metallurgical coal. https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/IEA-Bioenergy-Task-Lignin-as-a-met-coal-substitute-December-2019- Final-191218-1.pdf Jaimes, W., Maroufi, S., 2020. Sustainability in steelmaking. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 24, 42–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2020.01.002 Jeserperson, R. (January 22nd, 2021). RealTalk. “Dr, Aerin Joacob, Quality in politics round table” video retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4PNy6baSBo&ab_channel=RyanJespersen Lemly, A.D., 2019. Environmental hazard assessment of Benga Mining’s proposed Grassy Mountain Coal Project. Environ. Sci. Policy 96, 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.03.010 Lemly, A.D., 2004. Aquatic selenium pollution is a global environmental safety issue. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 59, 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-6513(03)00095-2 Liu, W., Zuo, H., Wang, J., Xue, Q., Ren, B., Yang, F., 2021. The production and application of hydrogen in steel industry. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.12.123 Mahmood, F.N., Barbour, S.L., Kennedy, C., Hendry, M.J., 2017. Nitrate release from waste rock dumps in the Elk Valley, British Columbia, Canada. Sci. Total Environ. 605–606, 915–928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.253 Mackay, W.C., 2006. Selenium concentrations in the tissues of fish from the Upper McLeod and Upper Smoky River systems. https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/762754c7-f30a-472d-a991-6c535b9e0eed/resource/140e7841-e359- 4ace-bbf1-da339506304d/download/3937754-2006-selenium-concentrations-tissues-fish.pdf Mitchell, M. et al. (2021). Identifying key ecosystem service providing areas to inform national-scale conservation planning, retrieved from https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abc121/pdf Nancharaiah, Y., and Lens, P., 2015. Ecology and Biotechnology of Selenium-Respiring Bacteria. Microbio. & Molecular Bio. Rev. 79, 61-80. https://doi.org/10.1128/mmbr.00037-14 Ross, M.R.V., McGlynn, B.L., Bernhardt, E.S., 2016. Deep Impact: Effects of Mountaintop Mining on Surface Topography, Bedrock Structure, and Downstream Waters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 2064–2074. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04532 Riley, S. J. (2020). “Alberta is planning new mountaintop-removal coal mines. Here’s what that looks like” Retrieved from https://thenarwhal.ca/alberta-coal-mining-rockies-elk-valley/ Riversdale Resources, 2016. Grassy Mountain Coal Project – Updated Environmental Impact Assessment. https://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/evaluations/document/115577?culture=en-CA Smedley, P.L., Kinniburgh, D.G., 2002. A review of the source, behaviour and distribution of arsenic in natural waters. Appl. Geochemistry 17, 517–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-2927(02)00018-5 Silverstein, L. 2021. We could be making steel from green hydrogen, using less coal. Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2021/01/25/we-could-be-making-steel-from-green-hydrogen-using-less- coal/?sh=74acd5bd3e5c Tan, L.C., Nancharaiah, Y. V., van Hullebusch, E.D., Lens, P.N.L., 2016. Selenium: environmental significance, pollution, and biological treatment technologies. Biotechnol. Adv. 34, 886–907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2016.05.005 Teck Resources Limited, 2019. Elk Valley Water Quality Plan – Annex J: Alternative Treatment Migration Plan. https://www.teck.com/media/Annex-J-Alternative-Treatment-Mitigation-Plan.pdf Tiwary, R.K., 2001. Environmental impact of coal mining on water regime and its management. Water. Air. Soil Pollut. 132, 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012083519667 Van Hullebusch, 2017. Bioremediation of selenium contaminated wastewater. Springer Nature, 1-130. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57831-6 Van Hullebusch, E.D., 2017. Bioremediation of selenium contaminated wastewater, Bioremediation of Selenium Contaminated Wastewater. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57831-6 Weber, B., 2021. Contaminant from coal mines already high in some Alberta rivers: unreported data. National Post, https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/contaminant-from-coal-mines-already-high-in-some- alberta-rivers-unreported-data Wellen, C.C., Shatilla, N.J., Carey, S.K., 2015. Regional scale selenium loading associated with surface coal mining, Elk Valley, British Columbia, Canada. Sci. Total Environ. 532, 791–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.06.040 167 Yang, Y., Raipala, K., Holappa, L., 2014. Ironmaking, Treatise on Process Metallurgy. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-096988-6.00017-1 BRAZEAU COUNTY

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DECISION

SUBJECT: Herbicide Rebate Program Policy DATE TO COUNCIL: April 6th, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: Corbyn Pankonin, Assistant Agricultural Fieldman ENDORSED BY: Nancy Chambers, Acting Manager of Agricultural Services REVIEWED BY CAO: Shawn McKerry, Interim CAO FILE NO:

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Council move to approve the AG-3 Herbicide Rebate Program Policy as presented.

1. TOPIC DEFINED

Executive Summary The Herbicide Rebate Program provides a rebate for landowners who apply herbicide on their lands to destroy prohibited noxious weeds and/or control noxious weeds. The Herbicide Rebate Program Policy is created to provide a clear purpose and process of the program. The policy includes acreage owners and includes a recommendation of what herbicides are acceptable to use. It also provides clear instruction on what is accepted and required for the rebate application. Administration presented a draft copy of the herbicide rebate policy at the March 3, 2021. The following motion was:

S. Wheale offered a friendly amendment to change the rebate from 60% to 50%.

A. Heinrich accepted the amendment.

168

IN FAVOUR A. Heinrich S. Wheale K. Westerlund M. Gressler OPPOSED D. Wiltse H. Swan B. Guyon CARRIED

Policy was amended in accordance with motion 198/21-03-02 and is attached as Appendix A. Another small adjustment was made to change the word “amount” to “rebate”. This was done for consistency.

Relevant Policy: Weed Control Regulation AR 19/2010

Strategic Relevance: Provides incentive for ratepayers to control noxious and prohibited noxious weeds on their lands to reduce the spread of weeds throughout Brazeau County.

2. ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDED ACTION Council move to approve the AG-3 Herbicide Rebate Program Policy as presented. Advantages Disadvantages  Encourages ratepayers to control  None invasive weeds in Brazeau County.  Provides clear process and purpose of Herbicide Rebate Program.  Allows fair and equitable access to the Herbicide Rebate Program.

3. IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATION

Operational: None

Financial: Funds for the rebate are already approved in the 2021 Interim Operating budget. Attachments: Appendix A - AG-3 Herbicide Rebate Program Policy with recommended changes.

169

Appendix-A Policy Name

Herbicide Rebate Program Policy Policy Number

AG-3 Policy Statement

Brazeau County will incentivize the control of noxious weeds and the destruction of prohibited noxious weeds, as listed on Alberta’s Weed Control Regulation AR 19/2010, through an annual herbicide rebate program. This program will be reassessed annually at the final budget deliberations. Policy

1. Education

a) Agricultural Services staff will provide weed identification services and control options to landowners; b) Extension materials on weed identification and weed control options will be made available to all landowners; c) The rebate will be advertised annually, if Council approves the program, to the public.

2. Rebate

a) The rebate amount rate and budget will be set by Council, annually; b) The Agricultural Service Board may recommend the rebate amount rate and budget to Council in the Agricultural Services annual operational budget; c) Brazeau County landowners will be eligible for the rebate by applying herbicide to destroy prohibited noxious weeds and/or control noxious weeds; d) Spraying of industrial and commercial lands are not eligible for the rebate; e) Applicants are eligible for the rebate for the application of a registered herbicide listed on the Herbicide Rebate Application, as per label directions. Ag Fieldman or designate has the discretion to approve additional herbicide for acreage owners. f) The landowners must submit the completed herbicide rebate application form before September 30th of the application year;

170 g) The applicant must attach a copy of their receipt, which lists the name and quantity of herbicide purchased; h) The name on the application and receipt must match in order to receive the rebate; i) Fields shall be inspected after the herbicide application is completed to verify weed control has been achieved; j) The rebate rate will be set by Council annually; k) Names of rebate recipients will be published by Brazeau County. l) Each participant can claim up to a maximum of $1600 in accordance with the current rebate rate set by Council annually. If after September 30th, funds are remaining the ASB will review applications that reach the allowable maximum amount and distribute the remaining funds; m) Administration shall be authorized to make revisions to the Herbicide Rebate Application (Appendix A) without the AG-3 Policy coming before Council for approval.

171 A copy of the receipt must be attached in order to be reimbursed. The receipt must match applicant name.

Applicant Name: ______Date: ______

Mailing Address: ______

Town/Village: ______Postal Code: ______

Phone Number: ______Cell Number: ______

Herbicide used (Agricultural Producers): Grazon □ Restore ll □ Reclaim □ Navius □ Herbicide used (Acreage Owners): Par III □ 2,4-D □

Please check target species: Tall Buttercup □ Oxeye Daisy □ Hawkweed □ Wild Caraway □

Other □ Please list ______

Number of unit(s) purchased: ______Rate chemical was applied at: ______

Method used for application: ______Number of acres sprayed: ______

Date applied: ______

Qt Sec Twp Rge M Legal land locations sprayed:

Name of Applicator: ______

Weather conditions at the time of the application: ______

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Date approved: ______Rebate Amount: ______

Weed Inspector: ______Weed Inspection Case #______

Roll Number:______

The personal information provided will be used to process this Agreement with Brazeau County and is collected under the authority of Section 33(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIP) Act. The information collected on this form will only be used for the provision of the program you have applied for. If you have any questions about the collection and use of this information, please contact the Brazeau County FOIP Coordinator at (780) 542-7777, Box 77 – 7401 Twp Rd 494, Drayton Valley, Alberta, T7A 1R1. 172

The following items shall be attached to this form:  Map of the area where application occurred.  A receipt for the herbicide.

 Fields are to be inspected before and after herbicide application to ensure weed control has been achieved.  Rebates are issued based on funding availability and the order the applications are received.  Weeds treated must be listed in the Weed Control Act’s regulations.  Rebate application forms must be submitted along with accompanying documents no later than September 30th of the same year the work is completed.  Pasture sprayers, quad sprayers, slip-in truck box sprayer, and back pack sprayers can be rented as per the Agricultural Service Board equipment rental policy and Schedule of Fees Bylaw.

I, ______hereby certify that the information given on this form is full and complete and is, to the best of my knowledge, a true statement of the facts relating to this application for the herbicide rebate.

Signature: ______

173

BRAZEAU COUNTY UPDATE REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT: Municipal Mountain Pine Beetle Program

DATE TO COUNCIL: April 6, 2021

PREPARED BY: Nancy Chambers, Acting Manager of Agricultural Services

UPDATE In the fall of 2020, Brazeau County applied to the Province of Alberta for INFORMATION: funding under the Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) Municipal Grant Program. At the October 20, 2020 Council meeting the following motion was made:

0799/20-10-20 Moved by K. Westerlund that Council approve the creation of a Mountain Pine Beetle program contingent on approval of provincial grant funding. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

As shown in Appendix A, Brazeau County was approved to receive grant funding of $61,795.

In accordance with our grant application and approval, the funds will be utilized in the following areas:  Communication & outreach  Surveys  Control/treatment  Quality control checks  Prevention  Project management Survey and control work will begin as soon as possible in April with a completion target of the end of May. Quality control checks will then be done to verify the surveyor’s work, with the entire project wrapped up in the field by June 30, 2021. This is due to the lifecycle of the beetle. By mid-July the adult beetles emerge through the bark of the tree and take flight. As such, control by the end of June is optimal to ensure the beetles are disposed of prior to flight. Year one of the program will focus on municipal lands in areas known to have active MPB.

174 With a successful MPB program, there may be opportunity to continue work the following year, pending approval of a grant application for that year.

ATTACHMENT: Appendix A – Approval letter from Minister of Agriculture and Forestry

175 AR 73633 ?l'

«t7 ALBERTA AGRICULTURE AND [-ORE3TRY

Office ofthe Minister MLA, Innisfail-Sylvan Lake

Ms. Jocelyn Whaley Chief Administrative Officer Brazeau County 7401 Twp Rd 494, Box 77 Drayton Valley AB, T7A 1R1

Dear Ms. Whaley:

I am pleased to confirm that I have approved grant funding of $61,795 to Brazeau County. This funding will support the Municipal Mountain Pine Beetle Program.

Funding will be provided in accordance with the Agriculture and Forestry Grant Regulation following execution of a funding agreement between the Forest Protection Limited and Alberta Agriculture and Forestry.

For further details on arranging the funding agreement, please contact Erica Samis, Director, Forest Health and Adaptation, Forest Stewardship and Trade Branch at 780-644-1734.

Best wishes for the successful completion of this project.

Sincerely,

Honourable Devin Dreeshen, Minister, Agriculture and Forestry cc; Dan Lux, Executive Director Forest Stewardship and Trade Branch Erica Samis, Director, Forest Health and Adaptation

229 Legislature Building, 10800 - 97 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta i'5K 2B6 Canada Telephone 780-427-2137 Fax 780-422-6035 PrirUftI cyrtcilp.ifier 176 BRAZEAU COUNTY

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DECISION

SUBJECT: Alberta Invasive Species Council Sponsorship Request DATE TO COUNCIL: April 6, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: Nancy Chambers, Acting Manager of Agricultural Services ENDORSED BY: REVIEWED BY CAO: Shawn McKerry, Interim CAO FILE NO:

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: That Council approve the Bronze level sponsorship of $1000 to the Alberta Invasive Species Council with funds coming from GL 02-11-00-222.

1. TOPIC DEFINED

Executive Summary At the February 17, 2021 Agricultural Services Board (ASB) meeting, a motion was passed in response to a letter from the Alberta Invasive Species Council (AISC) regarding sponsorship.

027/21 Moved by D. Wiltse to take this to Council asking for money to support a bronze sponsorship for $1000. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY A letter from the AISC is attached in Appendix A, which outlines the work of the AISC, as well as sponsorship levels. The AISC is a not-for-profit society focusing on providing information and education about the destructive impacts invasive species have on Alberta’s environment, economy and society. Provincially, Alberta utilizes the Weed Control Act, the Agricultural Pests Act and the Fisheries Act to designate invasive species. Examples of invasive species under the Weed Control Act include noxious and prohibited noxious weeds. Under the Agricultural Pests Act, examples of pests include Clubroot, Grasshoppers, and Fusarium Head Blight, as well as declared nuisances such as Coyote, Magpie and Skunks just to name a few. Through sponsorship of the AISC, Brazeau County will have access to the resources as described in the letter.

177 Relevant Policy: Municipal: AG 8 – Weed Inspection and Control AG 15 – Agricultural Pests and Nuisances AG 24 –Fusarium Graminearum AG 26 – Control of Clubroot Provincial Legislation: Weed Control Act, and Weed Control Regulation AR 19/2010 Agricultural Pests Act, and Pest and Nuisance Control Regulation AR 184/2001

Strategic Relevance: To support the ASB’s work in the preservation, protection and promotion of agriculture.

2. ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDED ACTION That Council approve the Bronze level sponsorship of $1000 to the Alberta Invasive Species Council with funds coming from GL 02-11-00-222.

Advantages Disadvantages  Access to AISC factsheets and newsletters.  None identified.  Contribution of one article to the AISC newsletter.  Opportunity to participate in working groups, events, etc.  Brazeau County logo and recognition in AISC’s quarterly newsletter.  Reduced price on annual conference fees.

3. IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATION

Operational: none

Financial: Suggested GL 02-11-00-222 – Council Public Relations Attachments: Appendix A – AISC Sponsorship Request Letter

178 ^^CEIVED FEB 0 5 2021

.ALBERTA invasive species

PO Box 1925 Dawnia McCann Blairmore, AB TOKOEO Brazeau County www.abinvasives.ca Box 77 Drayton Valley, AB T7A IRl

January 26, 2021

Dear Dawnia,

Thank you for your continued support of the Alberta Invasive Species Council. During these uncertain times, the support of organizations like yours is more important than ever.

In the past year, like many other organizations, AISC navigated rapidly changing environments and implemented innovative solutions to work toward achieving our goals to protect Alberta from the harmful impacts of invasive species. With your support we were able to:

• Launch a new resource-packed website. • Revise and reprint the Be Plant Wise Grow Me Instead brochure. • Attend events to promote awareness of invasive species in Alberta. • Partner with Canadian and European researchers to support biocontrol research programs for common tansy and oxeye daisy. • Work with industry, NGO, and municipal partners to adopt the Squeal on Pigsl campaign. • Work with municipal partners, and NGOs to revitalize the Alberta Certified Weed Free Forage program. • Work with municipal, NGO and industry partners to begin revision of the Alberta Invasive Plant Identification Guide. • Maintain almost 150 invasive species factsheets. • Send quarterly newsletters to over 1,300 subscribers. • Host our first ever virtual Annual General Meeting and webinar series, which offered professional development credits for certified pesticide applicators. • Promote EDDMapS Alberta, a free smartphone app that allows users to report invasive plant species. We verify those reports and send them to the local authority for follow-up. • Create distribution maps for all invasive species reported through EDDMapS. • Administerthe Alberta Biocontrol Release program. • Promote behaviour change campaigns such as PlayCleanGo, Don't Let It Loose, Clean Drain Dry, etc. • Poll our membership to learn how we can better serve them and initiate strategic planning efforts. • Reach thousands of people through our social media posts.

If you or your organization receives value and benefits from AISC's efforts, please review the following options and consider new or continued sponsorship of our organization. .ALBERTA irVaslve species

179 .ALBERTA inVasive species

Sponsor Benefit Bronze Sponsor Silver Sponsor Gold Sponsor ($1,000) ($2,000) ($5,000+)

Access to our invasive species factsheets v' Access to quarterly electronic newsletters Free download and use of EDDMapS Alberta y; app. Invasive species reports are verified and forwarded to local authorities Opportunity to participate in working groups, events, or contribute articles to our newsletters and blogs Reduced price (50%) on annual conference v' registration fees Recognition in AISC's website and regular recognition of your generous contribution throughout the year in social media posts, at events, etc. Logo and recognition in our quarterly newsletter

Annual AISC memberships (includes one vote 2 3 4 per membership at AGM) Article in The Invader newsletter; choose the topic and provide content on one article per year in consultation with the Editor

Advertisement in The Invader newsletter half / page once per year at no charge

Booth at AISC's annual in person conference or advertising at virtual events (no charge; first come, first served)

Free conference registration fee 1

Option to direct 50% of your sponsorship dollars to one of AISC's initiatives and be recognized as a sponsor of that initiative: Biocontrol research, EDDMapS Alberta, Grow Me Instead, 'Squeal on Pigs!', Weed Free Forage, PlayCleanGo, etc.

.ALBERTA inYasIve species

180 .ALBERTA invasive species

If you have any questions about the Alberta Invasive Species Council or sponsorship opportunities, please do not hesitate to contact us. Please let us know if there are other program ideas or sponsor recognition ideas you would like to discuss.

Thank you for your continued support of the AISC and for helping to protect Alberta from the harmful impacts of invasive species, we could not do the work that we do without it.

Sincerely,

Megan Evans Executive Director

species

181 .ALBERTA inVasIve species

AISC Sponsor Form

Organization Name

Contact Name Contact Phone

Contact Email Address

Sponsorship Level (Bronze, Silver, Gold)

Name of Members(2 for Bronze, 3 for Silver, and 4 for Gold):

Add email to newsletter mailing list □ Invoice Required □

Please return this completed form to execdirector(5)abinvasives. ca or PO Box 1925, Blairmore, AB TOKOEO. Thank you for your continued support to help protect Alberta from the impacts of invasive species.

.ALBERTA invasive species

182 BRAZEAU COUNTY

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DECISION

SUBJECT: Alberta Trapper’s Association Donation DATE TO COUNCIL: April 6, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: Nancy Chambers, Acting Manager of Agricultural Services ENDORSED BY: REVIEWED BY CAO: Shawn McKerry, Interim CAO FILE NO:

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: That Council approve a donation of $2500 to the Alberta Trapper’s Association, Drayton Valley Trapper’s Local with funds to come from 02-11-00-222.

1. TOPIC DEFINED

Executive Summary At the August 19, 2020 Agricultural Services Board (ASB) meeting, a motion was passed in response to discussion regarding beaver control. The motion reads:

086/20 Moved by A. Heinrich to direct Administration to inquire with the Trappers Association if there are individuals in our area interested in helping us with trapping beaver and to communicate possible solutions. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

At the September 16, 2020 ASB meeting, the letter in Appendix A was provided by the Alberta Trappers’ Association, Drayton Valley Trapper’s Local. The following motion made at ASB:

093/20 Moved by D. Movald to recommend that the ASB donate $2500 to the Drayton Valley Trappers Local of the Alberta Trappers Association for Beaver Management in Brazeau County. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The Public Works Department currently deals with any flooding issues along road allowances that are affecting or have the potential to affect County infrastructure. In accordance with AG-1 Beaver Control Policy, beaver management and flooding on private land is the responsibility of the landowner.

183 The Drayton Valley Trapper’s Local is offering to facilitate beaver management on private land by connecting local trappers with County landowners. They are asking for a donation of $2500 from Brazeau County to assist with an incentive payment to the trapper. The incentive payment to the trapper would be matched by the Drayton Valley Local. In order for a trapper to utilize this payment, they must be an active member of both the Alberta Trapper’s Association and the Drayton Valley Local. They must also hold valid trapper’s license, meet current educational standards, and adhere to all provincial trapping regulations. The program would be organized and administered solely by the Drayton Valley Local. In return for the $2500 donation, the Drayton Valley Local would provide data to the County in terms of number of beavers trapped.

Relevant Policy: AG-1 Beaver Control Policy

Strategic Relevance: To support landowners in beaver management, while also providing incentive for local trappers.

2. ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

That Council approve a donation of $2500 to the Alberta Trapper’s Association, Drayton Valley Trapper’s Local with funds to come from 02-11-00-222.

Advantages Disadvantages  The Drayton Valley Trapper’s Local can help  Beaver control on private land is the County landowners with beaver management. landowner’s responsibility and the County  Incentives for local trappers. should not be involved.  Beaver populations are managed so there is  To some, trapping beavers is not the less potential to affect on County infrastructure preferred method of control. Alternate as well. methods such as pond leveling can be used.

3. IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATION

Operational: None

Financial: Suggested GL 02-11-00-222 – Council Public Relations Attachments: Appendix A – Letter from Alberta Trapper’s Association, Drayton Valley Trapper’s Local

184 The Drayton Valley Trappers Local understands that Brazeau County has experienced a significant increase in beaver populations this year, resulting in increased damages and cost. In the past, the trappers local partnered with Brazeau County in an incentive program. The discontinuation of this program and the depressed market for beaver pelts has led to a decrease in trapping beavers. The Drayton Valley Trappers Local would be interested in once again partnering with Brazeau County to reinstitute an incentive program in order to create an appetite for harvesting beavers with the local trappers. This program would be organized and administered by the Drayton Valley Trappers Local. In order to take part the program, trappers must have a valid trapper’s license, have met current educational standards, be an active member of both Alberta Trappers Association and Drayton Valley Local and adhere to all humane trapping regulations. This partnership program would provide Brazeau County with information regarding numbers of beavers harvested. In the past Brazeau County provided a lump sum of money ($2500.00) which was matched by the Drayton Valley Trappers Local and was distributed to qualified members harvesting beavers at a rate of $20 per beaver to a maximum of 20 beavers per member. This increased interest in trapping beavers is a humane and environmentally conscious approach to decreasing beaver populations by environmental stewards.

Any questions or concerns please forward to the following

Greg Miller

Drayton Valley Trappers Local President

780-898-7590 [email protected]

185

BRAZEAU COUNTY UPDATE REPORT TO MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION (MPC)

SUBJECT: Environmental Reserves and Environmental Reserve Easements

DATE TO MPC: March 9, 2021

PREPARED BY: Chandra Dyck, Senior Planner

FILE: 21M-003

UPDATE INFORMATION:

The Municipal Government Act (MGA) states that one of the purposes of a municipality is to foster the well-being of the environment, and gives municipal governments the responsibility of protecting people and property from lands which may present a hazard. To support these mandates, the MGA allows for a municipality to declare spaces as an Environmental Reserve Parcel or an Environmental Reserve Easement. The relevant sections of the MGA are cited in the attached Appendix “A”.

Land designated as an Environmental Reserve Parcel is considered environmentally sensitive or hazardous, and thus requires protection. In order to register land as an Environmental Reserve Parcel, the land must be subdivided as an “ER” Parcel and transferred to the municipality. Municipalities are able to take the entirety of ravines, floodplains, or unstable ground as an Environmental Reserve Parcel and allows for them to buffer around any body of water to allow access or prevent injury, property damage or pollution. Environmental Reserve Parcels are most frequently taken in higher density areas, as the Parcel may need to be directly managed by the municipality.

Alternatively, municipalities can ensure the protection and enhancement of a prescribed area through the registration of an Environmental Reserve Easement; the land remains in the ownership of the landowner but must be maintained in its natural state, subject to an agreement signed between the landowner and the municipality and registered on the title of the land. As lands which are subdivided are often transferred or sold to a third party, the registration serves as notice to any future landowner that the specific portion of land is of a sensitive nature and the necessity to maintain its natural state. Easements lend themselves well with rural subdivisions, where wetlands and drainage channels are an important part of managing surface water flow and provide for recharge of the area aquifers.

File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 1 of 24

186

Brazeau County’s Environmental Reserve Policy PD-7, a copy of which is attached as Appendix “B-1”, was adopted in 1993 and references the Provincial legislation of the time, The Planning Act. Although this Policy remains active, its references are no longer valid, and it has been superseded by Brazeau County’s Municipal Development Plan (MDP), which was most recently updated in 2017. The MDP sections which address the natural environment and the application of Environmental Reserves and Environmental Reserve Easements, are attached as Appendix “C”. As the MDP is the higher level planning document, its objectives and principles override those of a Policy.

A similar Policy, which is consistent with the MDP, is the High Water Table Assessment PD-20 (attached as Appendix “B-2”); this Policy speaks to the requirement for the dedication of Restrictive Covenants or Easements to provide notice to avoid hazard lands. These two Policies are often applied in conjunction with each other, to best address the requirements of the MGA and the MDP.

The diagram below identifies the hierarchy of planning legislation and documents:

Municipal Government Act

Intermunicipal Development Plan(s)

Municipal Development Plan

Area Structure Plans

Land Use Bylaw

Policies

Statutory Plans (Intermunicipal Development Plans, Municipal Development Plans and Area Structure Plans) guide development at various scales by creating objectives. The Land Use Bylaw acts as a tool to achieve those objectives. Policy is adopted to provide topic-specific guidance, and must be consistent with Statutory Plans and the Land Use Bylaw.

In applying the principles of the MGA and the MDP, Administration attempts to meet those objectives by making recommendations to the MPC when lands of an environmentally sensitive or hazardous nature are present on a parcel which is subject to a subdivision application. This is based on a thorough review of mapping, topographical and soil information, and on-site inspections of the subject lands.

File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 2 of 24

187 Specifically, throughout the years since the current MDP was passed (2011), Administration has recommended and the MPC approved, the dedication of Environmental Reserves (ER) and Environmental Reserve Easements (ERE) as follows:

YEAR DEDICATION 2012 12S-001 ER Parcel 12S-012 ERE 2013 13S-016 ERE parcel and remainder 2014 14S-003 ERE parcel and remainder 14S-007 ERE parcel 14S-021 ERE on 3 of the proposed parcels 14S-025 ERE on parcel and remainder 14S-028 ERE on parcel and remainder 2015 15S-003 ERE on parcel 15S-005 ERE on parcel 2016 none 2017 17S-004 ERE on one parcel 17S-005 ERE on parcel 2018 18S-006 ERE on parcel and remainder 2019 19S-006 ERE on parcel and remainder 19S-015 ER parcel 19S-021 ERE on parcel* 19S-023 ERE on parcel 19S-024 ERE on parcel 19S-029 ERE on parcel 2020 20S-003 ER 20S-021 ERE on parcel

*Pursuant to direction provided by the MPC in September 2019, Administration does not make recommendation to require the dedication of Environmental Reserve Easement on a remnant parcel unless extenuating circumstances exist (ie. Application 20S-003 was for land on the banks of the North Saskatchewan River and dedication of the Environmental Reserve Easement was encouraged by Alberta Environment and Parks).

The dedication of an Environmental Reserve Easement is subject to the registration of an agreement on the title of the land. Attached as Appendix “D” is a template of the agreement which Administration presents to the landowner.

File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 3 of 24

188

It has been suggested that the Development Permit process would act as sufficient protection from encroachment of development on environmentally sensitive or hazardous areas. However, this is not the case, as Brazeau County’s Land Use Bylaw section 3.2.1. (attached as Appendix “E”) exempts accessory structures of an agricultural use from requiring Development Permit approval on land zoned as Agricultural and Agricultural Holdings. Further, as development can occur without the landowner first applying for a Development Permit (if one is required), there is no assurance that an application will be made; this applies to lands of any zoning under the Land Use Bylaw. As enforcement is initiated on a complaint-only basis, and the only time that the County may become aware of un-permitted development is if a Compliance Certificate is requested, development may occur without regard for Land Use Bylaw setback requirements. The registration of the Environmental Reserve Easement on title is the mechanism available to Brazeau County to ensure that a landowner is aware of the restriction of development (meaning the construction or placement of a structure, or the filling in or excavation of lands) in a specified area.

Pursuant to MPC’s direction, attached as Appendix “F” is the Miistakis Institute Discussion Paper: Environmental Reserves in Alberta, August 2017, for consideration. In reviewing this Discussion Paper, it appears that Brazeau County’s current practices are consistent with the intent of the section 664 of the MGA, in that lands are not taken as an Environmental Reserve Parcel, but are subject to an Environmental Reserve Easement which seeks to “secure the physical integrity of a proposed subdivision to guard against developments that might endanger persons or property” (pg. 6).

It has been the practice of Brazeau County Administration to seek the protection of hazard and sensitive lands through the dedication of Environmental Reserve Easements. Environmental Reserve Parcels are seldom requested, unless indicated as required through Brazeau County statutory plans or necessitated by subdivision density.

File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 4 of 24

189 APPENDIX “A” MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT

Part 1 Purposes, Powers and Capacity of Municipalities Municipal purposes 3 The purposes of a municipality are (a) to provide good government, (a.1) to foster the well-being of the environment, (b) to provide services, facilities or other things that, in the opinion of council, are necessary or desirable for all or a part of the municipality, (c) to develop and maintain safe and viable communities, and (d) to work collaboratively with neighbouring municipalities to plan, deliver and fund intermunicipal services.

Environmental reserve

664(1) Subject to section 663 and subsection (2), a subdivision authority may require the owner of a parcel of land that is the subject of a proposed subdivision to provide part of that parcel of land as environmental reserve if it consists of (a) a swamp, gully, ravine, coulee or natural drainage course, (b) land that is subject to flooding or is, in the opinion of the subdivision authority, unstable, or (c) a strip of land, not less than 6 metres in width, abutting the bed and shore of any body of water.

(1.1) A subdivision authority may require land to be provided as environmental reserve only for one or more of the following purposes: (a) to preserve the natural features of land referred to in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) where, in the opinion of the subdivision authority, those features should be preserved; (b) to prevent pollution of the land or of the bed and shore of an adjacent body of water; (c) to ensure public access to and beside the bed and shore of a body of water lying on or adjacent to the land; (d) to prevent development of the land where, in the opinion of the subdivision authority, the natural features of the land would present a significant risk of personal injury or property damage occurring during development or use of the land.

(1.2) For the purposes of subsection (1.1)(b) and (c), “bed and shore” means the natural bed and shore as determined under the Surveys Act.

(2) If the owner of a parcel of land that is the subject of a proposed subdivision and the municipality agree that any or all of the land that is to be taken as environmental reserve is instead to be the subject of an environmental reserve easement for the protection and enhancement of the environment, an easement may be registered against the land in favour of the municipality at a land titles office.

File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 5 of 24

190

(3) The environmental reserve easement (a) must identify which part of the parcel of land the easement applies to, (b) must require that land that is subject to the easement remain in a natural state as if it were owned by the municipality, whether or not the municipality has an interest in land that would be benefitted by the easement, (c) runs with the land on any disposition of the land, (d) constitutes an interest in land in the municipality, and (e) may be enforced by the municipality.

(4) An environmental reserve easement does not lapse by reason only of (a) non-enforcement of it, (b) the use of the land that is the subject of the easement for a purpose that is inconsistent with the purposes of the easement, or (c) a change in the use of land that surrounds or is adjacent to the land that is the subject of the easement. (5) When an easement is presented for registration under subsection (2), the Registrar must endorse a memorandum of the environmental reserve easement on any certificate of title relating to the land.

(6) Despite section 48(4) of the Land Titles Act, an easement registered under subsection (2) may be removed only pursuant to section 658(3.1).

(7) An environmental reserve easement is deemed to be a condition or covenant for the purposes of section 48(4) and (6) of the Land Titles Act.

(8) Subject to subsection (7), this section applies despite section 48 of the Land Titles Act.

(9) A caveat registered under this section prior to April 30, 1998 is deemed to be an environmental reserve easement registered under this section.

Agreement respecting environmental reserve 664.1(1) In this section, “subdivision approval application” means an application under section 653 for approval to subdivide a parcel of land referred to in subsection (2).

(2) A municipality and an owner of a parcel of land may, before a subdivision approval application is made or after it is made but before it is decided, enter into a written agreement (a) providing that the owner will not be required to provide any part of the parcel of land to the municipality as environmental reserve as a condition of subdivision approval, or (b) providing that the owner will be required to provide part of the parcel of land to the municipality as environmental reserve as a condition of subdivision approval, and specifying the boundaries of that part.

File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 6 of 24

191 (3) Where the agreement provides that the owner will not be required to provide any part of the parcel of land to the municipality as environmental reserve, the subdivision authority must not require the owner to provide any part of the parcel as environmental reserve as a condition of approving a subdivision approval application.

(4) Where the agreement specifies the boundaries of the part of the parcel of land that the owner will be required to provide to the municipality as environmental reserve, the subdivision authority must not require the owner to provide any other part of the parcel as environmental reserve as a condition of approving a subdivision approval application.

(5) Subsections (3) and (4) do not apply on a subdivision approval application where either party to the agreement demonstrates that a material change affecting the parcel of land occurred after the agreement was made.

File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 7 of 24

192 APPENDIX “B-1”

Policy Name

Environmental Reserve

Policy Number

PD-7

Policy Statement

Brazeau County shall ensure that lands deemed environmentally sensitive are afforded protection through the subdivision process in accordance with provincial regulation and through the development of formal municipal policies.

Policy

Development places pressures on the natural environment. As land is converted from a raw to a developed state, sloughs and creeks are filled, trees and vegetation removed and slopes and banks contoured. This situation has led to the realization that not all land should be developed. Certain environmentally sensitive lands should be conserved and protected for the greater public good. Thus, the Alberta Planning Act provides for the dedication of "environmental reserve", or ER. Specifically, the Act, as a condition of subdivision approval authorizes a subdivision approving authority to require a landowner to dedicate to a municipality, without compensation, area considered to be environmentally sensitive. These areas, in turn, must be retained in their natural state, or alternatively, used only for park purposes.

Decisions involving environmental reserve dedication are complex and require the exercise of judgement, based upon technical information and expert advice. For this reason, policies are needed to guide the decision-making process, and ensure that it operates in a fair and consistent manner. The following are the guidelines used by Council in making decisions regarding environmental reserve dedication.

Environmental Reserve Common Definitions For the purpose of this policy, the following definitions shall apply:

Council, in the context of these policies, means the elected Council of Brazeau County.

Floodplain means the area, usually lowland, adjoining the channel of a river, creek or other waterbody, which has been or may be, covered by water during a seasonal flood or a defined annual flood, usually a 1 in 100 (1:100) year flood.

Chief Administrative Officer: Approved By Council: 93/08/12 Revision Dates: (Y/M/D) Associated Policies:

File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 8 of 24

193 Groundwater Recharge Area means lands that have the natural capacity to allow precipitation and surficial water to infiltrate to the underlying aquifer. These areas are usually, but not always, associated with a natural drainage course or minor waterbody.

Highwater Mark means the mark made by the action of water under natural conditions on the short or bank of a body of water whereby the action has been so common and usual that it has created a difference between the character of the vegetation, soil or debris on one side of the mark and the other side. The area below the highwater mark is usually, but not always, owned by the Crown.

Minor Waterbody means a lowlying, shallow area of water with no permanent direct source, other than surface drainage and natural groundwater movement, that performs an important hydrological function by contributing to groundwater recharge and reducing downstream runoff during heavy rains. Minor waterbodies include sloughs, swamps, ponds and bogs and their associated groundwater recharge area.

Natural Drainage Course means a depression in the landscape, formed through the eroding action of water, that performs an important hydrological function by carrying runoff water from surrounding areas to watercourse, by retarding the rate of flow of water adjacent to flat land and reducing erosion, and by enhancing groundwater recharge and thereby increasing the waterholding capacity of the soil. Natural drainage courses include ravines, coulees and gullies and their associated groundwater recharge area.

Shoreland means the area immediately adjacent to a waterbody (e.g. lake, river, stream, etc.) up to the highwater mark and containing flora and fauna essential and unique to the ecology of the waterbody.

Steep Slope means lands containing a slope of 15 percent or greater, or a lesser slope where instability is detected.

Subdivision Approving Authority (SAA) means the Yellowhead Regional Planning Commission.

Top-of-the-Bank means the upper break of the bank defining the most distinct ridge of topographic discontinuity in slop e between the upper plateau and the valley wall.

Unstable Slope means land s of significant slope, usually associated with a river or creek valley, that are unstable due to soil conditions, depth or bedrock or surface erosion and may pose a hazard through slumping or disintegration.

Valley means the depressional area associated with a river or creek and characterized by a continuous, definable valley wall, a steep slope and a topographically distinct depression.

Chief Administrative Officer: Approved By Council: 93/08/12 Revision Dates: (Y/M/D) Associated Policies:

File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 9 of 24

194 A. Environmental Reserve Dedication

The Planning Act provides for the dedication of environmental reserve in fairly narrow and specific circumstances. These circumstances involve hydrologically sensitive lands (i.e. natural drainage courses, waterbodies, floodplains, shorelines, valleys) and geologically sensitive lands (i.e. steep slopes, unstable slopes). The Act also cites four situations where the Subdivision Approving Authority (SAA) cannot require the dedication of environmental reserve, despite the sensitivity or characteristics of the site. Thus, the SAA must work within the definition of ER lands and the defined exceptions to ER dedication in making it' s decision.

Subsection 1: Exceptions to Environmental Reserve Dedication

In accordance with the Planning Act, the SAA shall not require the dedication of environmental reserve where: a) only one lot is being subdivided from a previously unsubdivided quarter section of land, despite the use and size of that lot,

b) land is being subdivided into lots of 40 acres or more in size and the lots are to be used solely for agricultural purposes,

c) the land being subdivided is two acres or less in area, or

d) environmental reserve was previously provided in respect of the land that is the subject of the subdivision.

Subsection 2: Environmental Reserve Dedication

Subject to Subsection 1 above, Council shall recommend the dedication pf environmental reserve to conserve and protect the following environmentally sensitive areas:

a) a minor waterbody b) a natural drainage course c) a floodplain d) shoreland e) a valley f) a steep slope, or g) an unstable slope

unless it can be demonstrated, to the satisfaction of Council, that environmental reserve dedication is unnecessary or impractical under the circumstances and the environmentally sensitive area can be conserved and protected in a satisfactory alternative manner.

Chief Administrative Officer: Approved By Council: 93/08/12 Revision Dates: (Y/M/D) Associated Policies: File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 10 of 24

195 Subsection 3: Future Dedication of Environmental Reserve

Where the provision of environmental reserve is considered to be appropriate at the time of subdivision, to conserve and protect an environmentally sensitive area , but the proposed subdivision falls under the exceptions stated in Subsection 1 above, Council shall recommend that any new lot lines be aligned to accommodate the dedication of environmental reserve upon the future subdivision of the subject lands.

Subsection 4: Environmental Reserve Setback

1. Council shall recommend that environmental reserve encompass those lands necessary to conserve and protect the environmentally sensitive area and to provide public access to the environmentally sensitive area. 2. Where an environmental reserve setback is considered necessary, the Council:

a) shall require that it be 10m (33feet) in average width from the defined boundary of the subject environmentally sensitive area (e.g. highwater mark, top-of-t he-bank, shoreline), unless it can be demonstrated, to the satisfaction of Council, that a lesser width is appropriate, or

b) may require that it be greater than 10m in average width where this is considered appropriate, taking into account the scale of the environmentally sensitive area or the nature of any hazardous or unsafe conditions that exist.

B. Environmental Reserve Decisions

Environmental reserve decisions are subjective, due to the changing nature of the environment. Council and the SAA may therefore require, prior to making a decision, geotechnical and hydrological information. Requiring such information will ensure that its decisions are based upon sound engineering analysis, that regional and local interests are taken into account and that if challenged, its position is supportable from a technical standpoint.

Subsection 1: Information Requirements

Prior to making a decision on a subdivision with the potential for environmental reserve dedication, Council may require an applicant to submit:

a) geotechnical information (e.g. slope stability tests; geomorphology studies), b) hydrological information (e.g. water table tests; floodplain report s), c) topographical information (e.g. contour maps, site constraint maps), or such other information as is necessary to assess the environmental sensitivity of the subject area.

Chief Administrative Officer: Approved By Council: 93/08/12 Revision Dates: (Y/M/D) Associated Policies:

File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 11 of 24

196 APPENDIX “B-2” Policy Name

High Water Table Assessment

Policy Number

PD-20

Policy Statement

High water tables are a common feature within Brazeau County due to the soil types, vegetation and water features contained within the western portions of Alberta. The role of the Planning & Development department is to ensure that any subdivision of land establishes a sit e suit able for the use intended based on zoning and that development on a site, whether subdivided or not, is not jeopardized by the presence of a high water table. To this effect, Brazeau County will seek to:

• Educate applicants/owners on the potential subdivision and development restrictions of land due to a high water table if present; • Establish criteria for use in assessing a site to determine whether a high water table may be present; and • Facilitate options for development of a sit e that may contain or has a proven high water table;

Policy

a) Subdivision or Development Permit Application Initial Review Purpose The Planning and Development Department (P&D) receives applications for development permit s and subdivisions. As part of the review process for each application, the file manager determines whether there are site specific considerations that need to be addressed such as a high water table.

Chief Administrative Officer: Approved By Council: 15/09/15 Revision Dates: (Y/M/D) Associated Policies: File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 12 of 24

197 Procedure

When an application is received, P&D will utilize the following procedure to conduct an initial review of the application to assess whether a high water table may be present:

1) The Planning & Development Coordinator will review and assign the file. If/once assigned, the Development Officer will review the file again.

2) Aerial imagery will be utilized as the first step in the desktop review process. Planning staff will look at the imagery for the lands subject to the application and surrounding lands for obvious surface water features including lakes, streams, ponds, and wetlands. If there are natural water features on the subject properties or nearby, this will trigger the requirement for a mandatory site inspection by the file manager.

3) All subdivision and bare land development permit applications are circulated to the Community Services and Public Works & Infrastructure Departments. Referral comment sheets are provided where each department can provide feedback on items including drainage and a potential high water table.

4) After receiving back referral comment sheets, if any potential high water table or drainage concerns are noted, the file manager will conduct a mandatory site inspection.

b) Subdivision or Development Permit Application Site Inspection

Purpose All subdivision and development permit applications are subject to a site inspection as required. Site inspections allow a file manager to confirm the site characteristics including whether slopes, water features, high water table or other impediments to development are present. Brazeau County shall conduct mandatory site inspections for all sites suspected of having a high water table.

Procedure

When a high water table is suspected, P&D will utilize the following procedure when conducting a site inspection: 1) The file manager will contact the applicant/owner to request a site inspection. The applicant/owner will be notified of the date and approximate time the site inspection will occur.

Chief Administrative Officer: Approved By Council: 15/09/15 Revision Dates: (Y/M/D) Associated Policies:

File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 13 of 24

198

2) Once on site, the file manager will use the criteria and definitions established in Section C to determine whether a high water table may be present.

3) If a potential high water table is determined, the file manager will contact the applicant/owner to inform them of the situation and discuss potential options as per Section D.

c) Criteria for Establishing a High Water Table

Purpose During the initial review process and subsequent site inspection, the file manager shall utilize the following criteria and definitions for determining whether a high water table may be present. The following information is obtained from the Government of Alberta's Environmental Guidelines for the Review of Subdivisions in Alberta:

General Description of the Water Table

The water table is that surface of a body of unconfined groundwater at which the pressure is equal to that of the atmosphere (Driscoll 1986). The water table can be viewed directly by drilling an observation well into this groundwater body and waiting for the water level to stabilize. Repeated measurement of the water level in this well over a year or so will likely reveal that the water level fluctuates, perhaps by a metre or more. The water table to ground surface separation may also vary considerably over small distances as revealed by simultaneous measurement of water levels in neighbouring wells. The water table level in a well is influenced by such factors as weather, season, water levels of nearby water bodies or water courses, groundwater discharge, surficial stratigraphy and topography.

High Water Table Area and Constraints to Development

A high water table area is defined as any area where the water table is within 1.8 metres (6 feet) of the ground surface during the frost free period up until the end of August; and within 2.4 metres (8 feet) of the ground surface during the remainder of the year. This definition recognizes that the water table will probably be elevated in the spring due to the infiltration of snowmelt and during the summer rainy season. High water table levels can:

Chief Administrative Officer: Approved By Council: 15/09/15 Revision Dates: (Y/M/D) Associated Policies:

File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 14 of 24

199

• adversely affect the functioning of a sewage disposal system, which could lead to shallow groundwater and/or surface water contamination; • render the area unsuitable for residential basement construction, interfere with the construction of roads, etc.

Topography

The water table is generally a subdued reflection of the topography. Therefore, elevated areas within the site such as knolls, mounds, etc. will tend to have lower water table conditions (greater water table to ground surface separation) than those associated with depressions and valley bottoms.

Water Courses and Water Bodies

Areas adjacent to water courses and water bodies often have high water table conditions. Search for areas which are flat, nearly level and are only slightly higher than the water surface elevation when examining topographic maps, air photos or conducting a site inspection.

Vegetation

Vegetation type, which is probably the most sensitive indicator, tends to reflect the interplay of various factors and the resultant long-term range of water table levels. Areas forested in aspen probably have low water table conditions. A transition from low to high water table conditions can sometimes be detected by the presence of white birch and balsam poplar. High water table conditions are encountered in wetlands such as bogs, fens and marshes. These areas are usually flat or very gently sloping. In bogs, black spruce, tamarack, dwarf evergreen heaths and sphagnum moss predominate. Sedges, willows, dwarf birch and tamarack are characteristic plant species of fens. Marshes are usually found in association with shoreland areas and abound in sedges, cattails, rushes and grasses.

Chief Administrative Officer: Approved By Council: 15/09/15 Revision Dates: (Y/M/D) Associated Policies:

File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 15 of 24

200 d) Potential High Water Table, Restrictive Covenant, and High Water Table Study Requirements

Purpose

When a potential high water table is determined the file manager shall inform the applicant/owner of the situation and determine next steps for subdividing/developing the land. The file manager shall provide options as per this policy, the Land Use Bylaw, and any other relevant documents or legislation pertaining to the developability of the site.

Procedure

The following options shall be provided to the applicant/owner if a high water table is determined: 1) For a development permit: a. The applicant/owner can move the development to a suitable area of the site where no high water table is suspected. b. If the applicant/owner cannot or chooses not to move the development and the applicant/owner is proposing subgrade development (i.e. basement), a high water table study will be required. The study shall be conducted by a qualified professional (P. Eng, P. Biol, etc.) and will be stamped and signed accordingly. The study shall delineate a developable area, establish water table depth, and provide design and construction recommendations specific to the proposed development. The study shall be registered on title as a Restrictive Covenant and the applicant/owner shall adhere to the study in its entirety.

c. If the applicant/owner cannot or chooses not to move the development and the applicant/owner is not proposing subgrade development (i.e. basement), they will be required to register a Restrictive Covenant on the title of the lands noting that no below grade development or discharge/percolation septic systems shall occur. All structures on the site shall be above grade only.

2) For a subdivision application: a. The applicant/owner shall ensure that their proposed parcel includes at least one (1) acre of developable area unaffected by a potential high water table.

Chief Administrative Officer: Approved By Council: 15/09/15 Revision Dates: (Y/M/D) Associated Policies:

File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 16 of 24

201 b. If there is not a minimum of one (1) acre of developable area unaffected by a potential high water table, a high water table study will be required. The study shall be conducted by a qualified professional (P. Eng, P. Biol, etc.) and will be stamped and signed accordingly. The study shall delineate a developable area, establish water table depth, and provide design and construction recommendations. The study shall be registered on title as a Restrictive Covenant and the applicant/owner shall adhere to the study in its entirety including at the time of the development at a later date. c. If there is not a minimum of one (1) acre of developable area unaffected by a potential high water table and a high water table study is not completed, the applicant/owner will be required to register a Restrictive Covenant on the title of the lands noting that no below grade development or discharge/percolation septic systems shall occur. All structures on the site shall be above grade only.

e) Hazard Areas: Presence of Wetlands, Water Features, Slopes and Environmentally Significant Areas Purpose

During a site inspection, the file manager may note that there are other site features that may impede development or provide an unsafe area for subdivision and development. If these areas are encountered, the file manager shall adhere to all relevant provincial and County policies and legislation dealing with hazard areas.

Procedure

If during a site inspection, other hazard areas are observed, the file manager shall refer to County policy and bylaws to determine next steps. The area(s) will have to be avoided, require a Restrictive Covenant or easement, or potentially further study to assess suitability for subdivision and/or development.

Chief Administrative Officer: Approved By Council: 15/09/15 Revision Dates: (Y/M/D) Associated Policies:

File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 17 of 24

202 APPENDIX “C” MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

6.5 Natural Environment

Within Brazeau County are a wide variety of beautiful sceneries and landscapes that are valued by local residents and visitors alike. The various watercourses, rivers, streams, lakes, hills, valleys and woodlands within Brazeau County support a diversity of habitats, migratory pathways, open spaces and recreation areas. Significant natural environmental features such as the North Saskatchewan River, the Pembina River, the Brazeau River, Modeste Creek and Sinkhole Lake provide important ecological and sociological benefits to Brazeau County. The effective management and protection the natural environment is important to the residents and visitors of Brazeau County. The biophysical characteristics, environmental significance, and carrying capacity of the air, land and water should be considered when evaluating future land use proposals, municipal decisions and plans.

The conservation of environmentally significant and sensitive areas, unique flora and fauna, major treed and/or vegetated areas, riparian areas, steep hillsides, hazardous areas, water bodies and wildlife habitats is a priority for Brazeau County. Brazeau County is committed to ensuring the protection and preservation of these areas through the use of environmental and municipal reserve dedications, environmental reserve easements, restrictive caveats, land transfers and development setbacks. In addition, Brazeau County may require erosion, storm water management, and sediment controls for new developments to protect the integrity of the local natural environment and to protect future residents from potentially hazardous areas.

Brazeau County is cognisant of the importance of the natural environment, and is committed to considering the cumulate effects that existing and proposed developments may have on the natural environment. Future land use growth and development in Brazeau County will strive to be respectful of the natural environment through the protection and preservation of ecologically and socially significant areas.

Natural Environment Objectives

Objective 16: Protect and preserve important natural areas

Policy 65: Brazeau County shall require the protection and preservation of natural areas wherever possible by one or more of the following means:  Environmental reserve dedication;  Municipal reserve dedication;  Environmental reserve easements;  Conservation easements;  Donations and bequests;  Covenants registered on private titles; and  Acquisition through purchase or land trades. File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 18 of 24

203

Policy 66: Brazeau County shall not permit development in areas that are prone to erosion, landslides, subsidence, seasonal flooding or are within the 1:100 flood plain, or any other natural or human-induced hazards affecting the local environment. The boundaries of areas shall be identified by qualified professionals. Development on or in close proximity to hazardous areas may be considered if supported by a geotechnical analysis prepared by a qualified professional. The Development Authority may consider recommendations by applicable provincial and federal departments and agencies in determining setbacks from hazardous areas.

Policy 67: Brazeau County may request a 50 metre development setback from the top-of- bank of major rivers and ravines to provide for an environmental buffer and recreation corridor. This setback should generally consist of a 30 metre environmental reserve dedication, with the balance taken as municipal reserve.

Policy 68: Brazeau County shall require that when lands adjacent to water bodies are subdivided, a strip of land be dedicated as environmental reserve or environmental reserve easement to establish a buffer and to provide public access. The width of the required dedication shall be established by the Subdivision Authority and shall not be less than 6 metres, in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Government Act.

Policy 69: Brazeau County shall require as part of a subdivision application the dedication of lands within the subdivision area be subdivided as environmental reserve, in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Government Act.

Policy 70: Brazeau County shall protect and retain significant tree stands in public spaces that are owned and controlled by Brazeau County wherever possible. Brazeau County shall consider the conservation of significant tree stands on privately owned land when reviewing land use and development applications.

Policy 71: Brazeau County may require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment for any proposed development that may have a negative impact on the natural environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall include the following:

 A description of the proposed development, including potential land uses, densities and staging requirements;  A description of the natural environment that would be affected;  Predictions of potential effects (both positive and negative) that the proposed development may have on the natural environment;

File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 19 of 24

204  Indications of the limitations of the study, criteria used in predicting effects and interests consulted;  Recommendations to mitigate any negative effects identified; and  A framework of results and recommendations that can assist Brazeau County in making decisions affecting the future growth and development of the subject area.

Policy 72: Brazeau County may require the submission of an Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by a qualified professional, in support of a Land Use Bylaw amendment, area structure plan, or subdivision applications. In determining whether an Environmental Site Assessment is required, the Development Authority shall consider:

 The nature of the proposed land use(s);  The current and historical use of the subject area and its surrounding lands; and  Information from other sources that may suggest the subject area may contain environmental contaminates.

Policy 73: Brazeau County shall require evidence from a qualified professional that appropriate restoration and remediation measures have been carried out on a property containing environmental contaminants prior to issuing a development permit for the subject area.

Policy 74: Brazeau County shall require management and reclamation plans for natural resource extraction operations that operate on privately owned land.

Policy 75: Brazeau County shall encourage the practice of water conservation for all existing and planned developments.

Policy 76: Brazeau County may consider the transfer of title of environmentally sensitive areas to non-profit societies and organizations that can effectively preserve and manage these lands in the long term.

Policy 77: Brazeau County shall have regard for the integrity of culturally significant landscapes and viewscapes when considering land use and development applications.

File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 20 of 24

205 APPENDIX “D”

This Environmental Reserve Easement made as of this ____ day of ______, 20____.

Between: BRAZEAU COUNTY in the Province of Alberta, a municipal corporation established pursuant to the laws of the Province of Alberta (the "Grantee")

AND

Owners Name and address from title (the "Grantor")

WHEREAS the Grantor is the owner of lands located in Brazeau County;

AND WHEREAS this agreement is requisite pursuant to and subject to the requirements of sections 644 and 644.1 of the Municipal Government Act;

AND WHEREAS the Grantor has applied for and obtained subdivision approval from the Grantee subject to the condition that this Environmental Reserve Easement be registered on the title of the Lands;

AND WHEREAS the Grantor and the Grantee have agreed that rather than a portion of the lands being taken for environmental reserve, the Grantor will grant to the Grantee an Environmental Reserve Easement over a portion of the lands;

AND WHEREAS the Grantor wishes to grant an environmental easement in favour of the Grantee.

IN CONSIDERATION of the subdivision approval and in consideration of the Grantee agreeing to take an Environmental Reserve Easement rather than environmental reserve and in consideration of ONE ($1.00) DOLLAR and other good and valuable consideration passing from the Grantee to the Grantor (sufficiency of receipt of which is acknowledged by the Grantor) the Grantor, on behalf of himself as registered owner of the lands, and on behalf of each of the successors entitled to the lands, grants to the Grantee and to any successor of the Grantee, an Environmental Reserve Easement on the lands as follows:

1.0 Definitions In the agreement: 1.1 "Lands" means those lands legally described as follows: LOTS ___ BLOCK ___ PLAN ______

File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 21 of 24

206 EXCEPTING THEREOUT ALL MINES AND MINERALS (hereinafter the “Lands”)

1.2 "Easement Lands" means the seasonal watercourse and wetland area within the Lands as shown on the attached Schedule A, recognizing that such Easement Lands, being dynamic in spatial fluctuation due to natural processes and the passage of time, may deviate from those shown.

2.0 Duty to Maintain 2.1 The Grantor shall maintain the Easement Lands in their natural state as if they were owned by the municipality.

3.0 Development or Improvement 3.1 The Grantor shall not allow any building, development, or improvement to occur on the Easement Lands and shall not allow any excavations or cultivation on the Easement Lands.

4.0 Right to Inspect 4.1 The Grantee has the right to come on and inspect the Easement Lands with 24 hours notice to the Grantor.

5.0 No Right of Public to Use 5.1 Nothing in this agreement will be construed as requiring or allowing access by the general public to the Easement Lands.

6.0 Grantee Not Responsible for Maintenance 6.1 The Grantee is not responsible for the maintenance of the area and shall not be responsible for any loss or injury or any other matter arising from the use of the Easement Lands.

7.0 Easement Runs with Land 7.1 The benefit and burden of this easement shall be annexed to and run with the Lands.

7.2 Any provision of this easement made void or rendered invalid shall not invalidate or render unenforceable the remaining provisions of the easement.

7.3 This easement cannot be discharged from the title to the Lands without the written consent of the Grantee.

8.0 Hunting 8.1 No hunting for any type of animal, wildlife or game of any sort is permitted on the Easement Lands.

9.0 Fires 9.1 No open fires or burning of any substance is permitted on the Easement Lands.

File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 22 of 24

207

10.0 Access 10.1 The Grantor may access and pass across the Easement Lands on foot or by horseback; provided however that such rights of access are exercised in such a manner so as to cause minimal impact and disruption to the natural state of the Easement Lands.

11.0 Livestock 11.1 No livestock may enter, graze or be kept on the Easement Lands, except for access by horses as provided for in provision 10.0 above.

12.0 Water Rights 12.1 The Grantor may access the Easement Lands to exercise any water rights or for the purposes of obtaining water. Any disturbance to the Easement Lands must be kept to a minimum and reasonably rectified in a timely manner. Motor vehicles, machinery and equipment are allowed on the Easement Lands for the purpose of facilitating the extraction of water in the event of an emergency only.

13.0 Maintenance 13.1 The Grantee, acting reasonably and subject to a 24 hour advance notification to the Grantor, will have right to go on and cross any part of the Lands for the purpose of maintaining the Easement Lands, including (but not limited to) existing drainage course, culvert and/or bridge file, removal of beaver dams, minimize damage to road slopes/erosion control, and upgrade, remove, relocate and/or similar to the aforesaid.

13.2 In the event of an emergency as determined by the Grantee, the Grantee will retain the right to go on and cross any part of the Lands immediately forgoing any notification period.

14.0 Motor Vehicles 14.1 No motorized vehicles of any sort, including without restricting the generality of the foregoing any form of all terrain vehicles, quads, motorcycles, snowmobiles, machinery or equipment or any other type of motorized vehicle or recreational vehicle are allowed on the Easement Lands. The exception to this provision is motor vehicles, machinery or equipment being used for the purpose specified in provision 12.0 and 13.0 above.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Environmental Reserve Easement on the day and year first above written.

Schedule A Sketch/Map showing ERE Area

File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 23 of 24

208 APPENDIX “E” LAND USE BYLAW 1002-18

3.2.1 The following developments do not require a development permit but must otherwise comply with all other provisions of this Bylaw:

(f) Accessory Structures: (ii) In Agricultural Districts: (1) The erection or construction of a farming operation identification sign; (2) Inside of named subdivisions, the construction of any agricultural accessory structure to be used in conjunction with a farming operation with a floor area of no more than 225.0 m2 (2,422 ft2) including but not limited to pole sheds, animal shelters, equipment storage, granaries, silos, tarp structures, and hay shelters; this does not include buildings with any residential occupancy; (3) Within the Agricultural Holdings District, outside of named subdivisions, the construction of any agricultural accessory structure to be used in conjunction with a farming operation with a floor area of no more than 450.0 m2 (4,844 ft2) including but not limited to pole sheds, animal shelters, equipment storage, granaries, silos, tarp structures, and hay shelters; this does not include buildings with any residential occupancy; (4) Within the Agricultural District, outside of named subdivisions, the construction of any agricultural accessory structure to be used in conjunction with a farming operation, including but not limited to pole sheds, animal shelters, equipment storage, granaries, silos, tarp structures, and hay shelters; this does not include buildings with any residential occupancy; (5) Stockpiling of soil; and (6) The operation of an Animal Service Facility for the sole purpose of equine training and/or canine training, this does not include the treatment, boarding, commercial breeding or grooming of animals for retail sales of associated products.

File 21M-003 – Report to MPC – Environmental Reserve Easement Information Page 24 of 24

209 APPENDIX "F"

Miistakis Institute

Discussion Paper: Environmental Reserve in Alberta

Kelly Learned, Miistakis Institute

Innovative research. Engaged communities. Healthy210 landscapes.

Discussion Paper: Environmental Reserve in Alberta Prepared by Kelly Learned

August 2017

Miistakis Institute Rm U271, Mount Royal University 4825 Mount Royal Gate SW Calgary, Alberta T3E 6K6

Phone: (403) 440-8444 Email: [email protected] Web: www.rockies.ca

211

Contents About this Paper ...... 4 Introduction ...... 4 Background ...... 4 Methodology ...... 5 Legislative Intent of Environmental Reserve ...... 5 Application of Environmental Reserve ...... 8 Conservation Tools Survey Results ...... 8 Examples of Environmental Reserve Use ...... 12 The Changing Definition of Environmental Reserve .. 16 Observations on Intent and Use of Environmental Reserve ...... 19 Environmental Reserves and Conservation Reserves 20 Conclusion and Next Steps ...... 23 References ...... 25

212

About this Paper

Introduction Miistakis has developed this discussion paper to outline the intent of Environmental Reserve as per the Municipal Government Act (MGA), how it is applied across Alberta, and to provide observations on the implications of how the new Conservation Reserve tool may affect Environmental Reserve application by municipalities. Background It has been argued that traditionally, Alberta municipalities have not been directly empowered to regulate or protect the environment because they are created by and derive their powers primarily from the MGA. Under the MGA, municipalities can only exercise their powers for municipal purposes which are broadly stated in the Act. Up until recent amendments to the MGA, municipal purpose was: to govern effectively, provide public services and infrastructure, and develop and maintain healthy communities. Generally speaking, municipalities were not directly empowered to regulate or protect the environment (Mallet, 2005).

In 2016, the Alberta legislature approved amendments to the MGA which included an addition to the municipal purpose: “to work collaboratively with neighbouring municipalities to plan, deliver and fund intermunicipal services” (Province of Alberta, 2016). Still no mention or recognition of the role municipalities have in protecting or stewarding the environment.

After the 2016 amendments were approved, the Province hosted another round of discussions to address gaps identified in the 2016 amendments. Currently the Alberta Government is considering adding another municipal purpose to guide the actions of municipalities - “environmental well-being” (Province of Alberta, 2017). While it is unclear what environmental well-being means, it is the first recognition in the MGA that one of the municipal purposes relates to the environment. Municipalities have traditionally taken on the responsibility as environmental stewards in their communities regardless of whether or not it was specified as a municipal purpose in the MGA. One of the tools that has been used indirectly to help achieve environmental stewardship (or, as is now being termed environmental well-being), is Environmental Reserve dedication.

MIISTAKIS INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER: ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES IN ALBERTA 213 4

The author’s research revealed municipalities have applied Environmental Reserve in ways that either indirectly or at times directly benefit the environment, though the intent in the MGA is to avoid development on hazardous lands, prevent pollution, preserve natural drainage courses and ensure access to water bodies. Methodology The Miistakis Institute developed a survey and completed six interviews with municipal staff to seek information from municipalities regarding how they currently use existing and newly proposed environmental conservation tools, and what resources would best support improved use of these tools. Tools included in the survey were environmental reserves, environmental reserve easements, conservation easements, and the newly proposed Conservation Reserves. The survey was distributed in March and April, 2017 by the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association (AUMA), the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties (AAMDC), and the Alberta Professional Planning Institute (APPI). There were 35 respondents, and completion or participation in the questions varied from section to section. The respondents represented jurisdictions in all areas of Alberta and included those working for both urban and rural jurisdictions. This survey was not statistically representative due to the small number of respondents and completion rates, however it did provide insights into how Environmental Reserve is being applied in some municipalities.

The survey provided a starting point for the project and supplemental research was completed to analyze the intent of Environmental Reserve policy in the MGA, as well as its use by Alberta municipalities in land use planning.

Legislative Intent of Environmental Reserve

Division 8 of the MGA (Province of Alberta, 2000) gives subdivision authorities the power to require a subdivision applicant to dedicate land for specified municipal purposes. Where land is taken as reserve, the municipality takes title to the land. Municipal and Environmental Reserves can be required to preserve natural features and open spaces. However, the Act restricts the amount and type of land that can be required, limiting the usefulness of reserves for ecosystem protection (Mallet, 2005).

Frederick A. Laux, Q.C. in his text Planning Law and Practice in Alberta describes the purpose of Environmental Reserves as:

MIISTAKIS INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER: ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES IN ALBERTA 214 5

“For the purpose of preventing environmental degradation that might result from development, and to guarantee against private development occurring on hazardous land that might result in damage to persons or property, the Act permits a subdivision authority to require the dedication of potentially problematic land encompassed in the subdivision application. Such land is to be dedicated as an “Environmental Reserve”. More specifically, land that consists of a swamp, gulley, ravine or coulee, or which is a natural drainage course, as well as land that is subject to flooding or is, in the opinion of the subdivision authority, unstable, may be required to be dedicated regardless of how much of the subject land falls within those descriptions. In addition, as a means of preventing pollution or to provide public access, a subdivision authority can require an owner to dedicate a strip of land of not less than six metres in width abutting the bed and shore of any lake, river, stream or other body of water as an Environmental Reserve” (Frederick A. Laux, 2013).

Laux goes on to clarify that while a subdivision officer has discretionary authority for taking Environmental MGA sections informing Reserve, this must be exercised within the Environmental Reserve confines of established legal principles. The objective of section 664 of the MGA is s. 664 Environmental reserve s. 671 Use and disposal of reserve land to secure the physical integrity of a s. 676(1) Changes to environmental proposed subdivision to guard against reserve’s use of boundaries developments that might endanger s. 677 Road, etc., over reserve land persons or property. Therefore, according to Laux, in theory, Environmental Reserve is not to be used to secure ‘pleasing’ natural areas or to provide permanent wildlife habitat (Frederick A. Laux, 2013). This is demonstrated in a City of Calgary report to their Utilities and Environment Committee in 2007. The report states:

“The definition of Environmental Reserve (ER) allows for a fairly narrow interpretation of the conditions under which a setback of six metres or more would be permitted. Specifically, it would be necessary to demonstrate that such a setback will prevent pollution or is needed to ensure public access. Additional setback widths to provide for buffering, habitat protection, wildlife corridors, general open space or other potentially desirable attributes cannot be provided by means of Environmental Reserve” (City of Calgary Utilities and Environmental Protection, 2007).

MIISTAKIS INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER: ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES IN ALBERTA 215 6

There are three other sections in the MGA that affect Environmental Reserves. Section 671(1) of the MGA allows Environmental Reserve to be used as a public park or, if not used as a park, it must be left in its natural state. Public park in this case does not involve intensive recreational uses that require substantial improvements, rather public park refers to allowing public access to the environmental reserve for passive recreational use. (Frederick A. Laux, 2013)

Although section 671 restricts the use of land designated as Environmental Reserve, there is a mechanism for expanding the Division 9 uses. A council may pass a bylaw to authorize the use of Environmental Reserve Use and Disposal of Reserve Land for other purposes after advertising the Use of reserve land, money 671(1) Subject to section 676(1), proposed bylaw (s.606) and holding a environmental reserve must be left in public hearing. The MGA is not explicit in its natural state or be used as a public what uses a council may authorize, but park. (Province of Alberta, 2000) Laux infers that such uses would likely be those that are consistent with the purposes for taking the land as Environmental Reserve: “It would seem quite illogical to allow a municipality to take Environmental Reserve only to use it as a site for something like a fire hall”. (Frederick A. Road, etc., over reserve land Laux, 2013) 677 Despite section 671, a municipality Environmental Reserve may also be used or a municipality and a school board for the construction, installation and may authorize (a) the construction, installation and maintenance of a public or private utility maintenance, or any of them, of a within, on, over or under the reserve land, roadway, public utility, pipeline as or to maintain and protect other reserve defined in the Oil and Gas Conservation land as long as it does not adversely affect Act or transmission line as defined in the public interest (s.677). the Hydro and Electric Energy Act on, in, over or under reserve land, or Laux observes that subdivision planning is (b) the maintenance and protection of reserve land, a negotiation and at times a developer may strategically provide an area to the if the interests of the public will not be municipality that may go beyond the adversely affected. (Province of objectives outlined in s. 664 of the MGA in Alberta, 2000) order to gain other advantages during the

MIISTAKIS INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER: ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES IN ALBERTA 216 7

subdivision application process. (Frederick A. Laux, 2013). To some the MGA has clear intentions regarding Environmental Reserve dedication, but because planning is a complexity of systems coming together on the landscape, implementation is not so cut and dry. This paper will provide some examples of Environmental Reserve intent versus Environmental Reserve application.

Application of Environmental Reserve

Conservation Tools Survey Results To understand how municipalities were using the conservation tools available to them, Miistakis developed the Conservation Tools Survey for Municipalities in early 2017 and completed six one-on-one interviews prior to wide distribution. The survey was designed to understand municipal awareness of existing conservation tools, whether the tools are used, and if they are used, how. We also wanted to understand if the tools are not used, what are the barriers to using them. In March and April, the Miistakis survey was distributed through the Alberta Urban Municipal Association (AUMA), Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties (AAMDC) and Alberta Professional Planners Institute (APPI) to their membership. In total, 35 individuals representing 21 municipalities, 1 non-profit, 1 provincial department, and 2 utility corporations participated in the survey (3 participants did not indicate an affiliation). Due to the participation rates, the results are not to be considered statistically representative however they do offer insight into how Environmental Reserve is used by some municipalities.

Q1. DOES YOUR MUNICIPALITY USE Results Nineteen percent of respondents said Don't know they never use Environmental Reserve 10% (3) Always f while an equal number of respondents 19% (6) said they always use the tool. The highest Never percentage of respondents stated it is a 19% (6) tool they either occasionally use or often Often use (35% and 16% respectively). 16% (5) F

Comment As part of this project, Miistakis also completed several one-on-one inter \ Occasionally 35% (11) using the same questions.

MIISTAKIS INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER: ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES IN ALBERTA 217 8

interviewee stated that Environmental Reserve is used wherever possible and is one of the main tools for municipalities. However, it was cautioned that use of it was monitored closely because their jurisdiction had been advised they must stay within the parameters of the definition (in the MGA) and conservation is not part of it. Despite this interpretation of Environmental Reserve both by the person being interviewed and the research in the section above, Q2 below indicates that some municipalities identify environmentally significant lands, ecological value or green space as circumstances in which Environmental Reserve is used.

Q2. IF YES, IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES DO YOU USE ER? Results Of the 17 responses to this question, seven identified environmentally significant or sensitive lands, ecological value, or provision of green space as the circumstance where the Environmental Reserve designation is used.

Comment Some responses indicated that the Environmental Reserve tool may be underutilized in some areas (e.g., “we use it only next to creeks”). Others may stretch the intent of the tool, using it for what they deem as at risk habitat or community wellness.

The survey results indicate some municipalities may have been creative with their application and interpretation of how Environmental Reserve is to be used at the time of subdivision. This might be a result of municipalities thinking they have limited tools in their toolbox to protect the environment, possibly because they nl r view the MGA as the only regulatory MGA Environmental Reserve Easements guidance for protecting the environment (e.g., the Alberta Land Stewardship Act 664(2) If the owner of a parcel of land enables conservation tools available to that is the subject of a proposed municipalities). subdivision and the municipality agree that any or all of the land that is to be If a municipality identifies an area critical taken as environmental reserve is instead to be the subject of an to protecting the environment, there has environmental reserve easement for been no tool in the MGA that gives the the protection and enhancement of municipality direct power to do so. Other the environment, an easement may be tools in the MGA include Environmental registered against the land in favour of Reserve Easements (s.664.2) but this must the municipality at a land titles office be negotiated with the land owner and is (Province of Alberta, 2000). a voluntary option. Environmental

MIISTAKIS INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER: ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES IN ALBERTA 218 9

Reserve Easements are not limited to the same purposes as Environmental Reserves. However, if the land owner does not want to put the land into an Environmental Reserve Easement, even though it is extremely important to the overall environmental integrity or context of the municipality, it is not a possibility to put an Environmental Reserve Easement on the parcel.

Q3. WHAT IS YOUR CRITERIA FOR USING ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE? Results Of the 17 responses, four participants indicated that ecological value, environmentally significant features or natural landscapes were part of the criteria. Over half of the respondents (9) reference the MGA criteria or specified one or more of the following: wetlands, water bodies, escarpments, flood fringe areas, riparian areas, ravines, steep slopes, natural drainage courses.

Comment Most respondents followed criteria for Environmental Reserve as provided for in the MGA demonstrating alignment with the Provincial policy. The four respondents that included environmentally significant lands as part of the criteria for dedicating Environmental Reserve may have an expanded interpretation of the criteria or recognize the inherent results when certain unstable, undevelopable lands are preserved.

Q4. DO YOU HAVE A POLICY OR GUIDELINE FO Results

Half of the 18 respondents said they do Idon't know have an Environmental Reserve guideline. Three of the respondents indicated their Environmental Reserve policy was included in their MDPs and one in their Land Use Bylaw.

Comment Nine respondents indicated they had a municipal Environmental Reserve Yes stated it was included in open space plans or neighbourhood design guidelines which are typically non possible the Environmental Reserve policy or guidelines are not in statutory documents because they are included in the MGA.

MIISTAKIS INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER: ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES IN ALBERTA 21910

Q8. WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS FOR USING ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE? Results This question listed options for participants to rate in terms of frequency of concern. What are the barriers for using ER?

Lack of incentives to use tool

Concerned about land ownership and/or management

Not the right tool for our purposes Don't know Political resistance Never Liability concerns Rarely community Push back from development Sometimes

Limited internal capacity/knowledge Often

Unclear of how the tool works Always

Inadequate internal policy guidance

Cost concerns

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Comment Of the 18 respondents that answered this question, the barrier ‘push back from the development community’ had responses ranging from sometimes, often and always but no one indicated they never or rarely get push back from the development community which indicates this barrier is the most common challenge to survey participants. Respondents felt somewhat confident in their organization’s internal capacity and knowledge related to applying Environmental Reserve. Liability and cost concerns did not rank high in terms of barriers to using Environmental Reserve. As well, management or ownership of Environmental Reserve lands did not appear to be a large barrier. Barriers to the Environmental Reserve tool do not seem to be causing high concern for those that responded to the survey.

SURVEY SUMMARY The survey revealed there may be circumstances where Environmental Reserve may be applied in areas beyond the objectives set out in the MGA. This indicates that municipalities are struggling to find ways to protect ecological or environmentally significant areas in their communities and in part be due to the limited number of direct conservation tools available for a municipality. The only option available under the previous MGA for municipalities to protect and conserve

MIISTAKIS INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER: ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES IN ALBERTA 22011

environmentally significant land within their jurisdiction is when the landowner voluntarily enters into an agreement with the municipality (Environmental Reserve Easement), or if a municipality has the means to purchase the parcel from the landowner.

Other conservation tools have been available under the Alberta Land Stewardship Act (Province of Alberta, 2009), however they require the municipality to enter into partnerships with other organizations (land trusts, etc.) and/or develop programs to implement the conservation schemes. If municipalities do not have the experience or resources to develop these conservation tools and programs, they may seem more cumbersome than dedicating Environmental Reserve. Miistakis developed ALSA’s Conservation Tools for Municipalities: A Webinar Series as a resource for municipalities looking for ways to conserve ecological lands in their jurisdiction. To access the webinars visit www.rockies.ca.

Examples of Environmental Reserve Use

The following section provides examples of municipal Environmental Reserve policies or guidelines that may be of interest to other jurisdictions. Many of the policies or guidelines provided reference the provincial document, Stepping Back from the Water: A Beneficial Management Practices Guide for New Development Near Water Bodies in Alberta’s Settled Region. This document was developed to provide guidance on what minimum setbacks are needed to protect aquatic ecosystems from development such as buildings, roads and other permanent structures. It is intended to be used as a handbook and provides decision makers with information for determining setback widths and designing effective buffers adjacent to water bodies (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, 2012).

STRATHCONA COUNTY Municipal Policy Handbook: Dedication of Municipal Reserve, Environmental Reserve and Environmental Reserve Easement

Strathcona County developed a policy handbook to guide the dedication of Municipal Reserve, Environmental Reserve, and Environmental Reserve Easements during subdivision as authorized under the MGA. The handbook states that when proposed subdivisions involve environmentally sensitive lands, the subdivision authority will use the appropriate MGA policies to incorporate reserve land into the County’s green infrastructure inventory for public benefit and long term sustainability of the natural landscape.

MIISTAKIS INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER: ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES IN ALBERTA 22112

Environmentally Sensitive Lands include a range of potential areas for things such as wildlife movement, aquifer recharge, unique habitat, and biodiversity. Typically ER would not be used for conserving environmentally sensitive lands as described in the handbook, but the County does specify ER will be used for protecting riparian lands, which would contribute to the overall green infrastructure in the County. (Strathcona County, 2016)

MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF FOOTHILLS Municipal Development Plan (MDP)

The MD of Foothills provides a definition of Environmental Reserve in the Glossary section of their MDP:

“Environmental Reserve: In accordance with Section 664 of the Municipal Government Act, lands are undevelopable because of its natural features or location, such as unstable slopes or flood prone; environmentally sensitive such as a gully, ravine or coulee; or a strip of land abutting the bed and shore of a body of water or water course, that a developer may be required to dedicate at the time of subdivision. Environmental Reserve must be maintained in its natural state or used as a park” (Municipal District of Foothills, 2010).

Another resource provided by the MD of r =i Foothills to help determine the use of “Pollution” means any non-point Environmental Reserve is the Developer’s source impacts on the environment Guide to the Riparian Setback Matrix Model from substances such as sediments, (Haag, Logan, White, & Stewart, 2010). nutrients, pesticides, bacteria, parasites or toxic chemicals that reach a Aquality Environmental developed the watercourse by surface or subsurface Riparian Setback Matrix Model for the MD flow though adjacent land, and the of Foothills in 2010. The Guide states the unauthorized release of any model is scientifically-based, legally “deleterious substance” as defined in defensible and is in alignment with the the Fisheries Act (Canada), or the MGA sections 663 and 664, specifically unauthorized release of any substance addressing the ability for municipalities to whether non-point or otherwise that may cause an adverse effect under dedicate Environmental Reserve lands provisions of the Environmental abutting the bed and shore of any lake, Protection and Enhancement river, stream or other body of water for Act. (Haag et al., 2010) the purpose of preventing pollution (see text box to the right). By having a model

MIISTAKIS INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER: ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES IN ALBERTA 22213

adopted and in place, the MD has set expectations for developers, which may decrease reactive negotiations regarding Environmental Reserve dedication once a development proposal is submitted.

The Guide is organized as a “Frequently Asked Questions” document and answers questions such as: § What is an Environmental Reserve? § When do I need to dedicate reserve lands? § What is the purpose of an Environmental Reserve? § How much land will be taken as an Environmental Reserve?

The Guide then provides instructions on how the riparian setback is calculated. It is interesting to note that while the previous MGA (Province of Alberta, 2000) provided a minimum six meter setback, the Foothills Guide indicates the Environmental 1 Reserve dedicated setback will range between 15 and 75 meters .

CITY OF GRANDE PRAIRIE Mapping of Environmental Reserve (ER) and Science Based Setbacks for ER

The purpose of this study was to map riparian corridors, wetlands and other environmentally significant areas and establish science-based setbacks for Environmental Reserves. This project also used the riparian setback matrix developed for the MD of Foothills. The difference is this project mapped and prioritized areas for protection (City of Grand Prairie, 2012).

Environmentally significant areas in this case include: natural patches (large and small), connectivity and hydrological functions.

TOWN OF CANMORE Municipal Development Plan (2016)

Environmentally Sensitive Areas For the Town of Canmore, Section 4.2 of the MDP, Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) are areas of land established for the protection of sensitive natural features and ecologic functions and diversity, primarily for the protection of wildlife and

1 Municipalities can establish additional setbacks by using a science based approach similar to that used in Stepping Back from the Water (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, 2012).

MIISTAKIS INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER: ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES IN ALBERTA 22314

waterbodies. One of the possible conservation tools listed in Canmore’s MDP to protect these environmentally sensitive areas is the Environmental Reserve tool pursuant to the MGA.

Protection of Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Patches Where it has jurisdiction, the Town states it will work with landowners in the protection of wildlife corridor and habitat patches through land use districts, Environmental Reserve designations where appropriate, or conservation easements.

The section on Environmental Reserve Dedication indicates the Environmental Reserve reference above in the protection of wildlife corridors and habitat patches is related to water bodies and escarpments based on them being wildlife habitat and movement features (Town of Canmore, 2016).

LACOMBE COUNTY Use and Management of County Reserve Lands (2006)

This Lacombe County policy outlines the intent of Environmental Reserve and how Environmental Reserve will be used in new subdivisions.

Use and Management of Environmental Reserves (ER) [Environmental Reserve] ER lands are intended to protect the natural environment, protect people and property from hazardous conditions (e.g. flooding) and provide public access to or along lakes and rivers.

New Environmental Reserves The County will require dedication of Environmental Reserve in new subdivisions to protect natural features such as shorelines, steep slopes and drainage courses. Dedication of new Environmental Reserve may also be required to provide public access to lakes and rivers (Lacombe County, 2006).

SUMMARY Review of various guides and policies, and interviews with municipal planners, reveals that municipalities have developed methodologies to guide using Environmental Reserve as a setback required to prevent pollution in water bodies. However, it was also found that municipalities often seek to connect Environmental Reserves to the idea of environmentally significant lands. Environmentally significant lands generally include lands that are important to wildlife movement, wildlife habitat, ecosystems and waterbodies.

MIISTAKIS INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER: ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES IN ALBERTA 22415

The intersection between the intent of Environmental Reserve and the subsequent benefits that occur by protecting those lands makes Environmental Reserve dedication somewhat complex depending on which interests you are representing in the subdivision process.

The Changing Definition of Environmental Reserve

The Government of Alberta has completed three rounds of amendments to the MGA. The latest amendments have been introduced to the legislature but not yet passed. Here is the link to the current MGA Review website that provides links to the three Bills and the Discussion Guide that informed the most recently proposed changes: http://mgareview.alberta.ca/whats-changing.

Summary of MGA Bills: Bill Description Status Bill 20 Municipal Government Amendment Act Passed by the Legislature (MGAA) (Province of Alberta, 2015) March 2015 First round of amendments. Bill 21 Modernized Municipal Government Act Passed by the Legislature (MMGA) (Province of Alberta, 2016) December 2016 Second round of amendments. Included changes to ER and introduced CR. Bill 8 An Act to Strengthen Municipal Introduced to the Legislature Government (ASMG) (Province of April 10, 2017 Alberta, 2017) Based on Continuing the Conversation Discussion Guide.

The following section outlines the changes to the Environmental Reserve policy in the MGA prior to the 2016 amendments (Province of Alberta, 2000), and the current version passed by the legislature December 2016 (Province of Alberta, 2016). The comparison is being provided so municipal planners are aware of the changes and have the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the policy changes. The regulations may provide further clarity on Environmental Reserves and are expected in the summer of 2017.

MIISTAKIS INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER: ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES IN ALBERTA 22516

NOTE: MGA s.663 ‘Reserves not required’ and the ‘bed and shore’ reference (17(3)) in the Surveys Act (Province of Alberta, 2013) are provided because they are referenced in Bill 21 s.664 (Province of Alberta, 2016).

Municipal Government Act (Province of Alberta, 2000)

ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE 664(1) Subject to section 663, a subdivision authority may require the owner of a parcel of land that is the subject of a proposed subdivision to provide part of that parcel of land as environmental reserve if it consists of a. a swamp, gully, ravine, coulee or natural drainage course, b. land that is subject to flooding or is, in the opinion of the subdivision authority, unstable, or c. a strip of land, not less than 6 metres in width, abutting the bed and shore of any lake, river, stream or other body of water for the purpose of i. preventing pollution, or ii. providing public access to and beside the bed and shore.

Bill 21 Modernized Municipal Government Act (Province of Alberta, 2016)

Emphasis has been added to highlight the sections that have been changed or added.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE 664(1) Subject to section 663 and subsection (2), a subdivision authority may require the owner of a parcel of land that is the subject of a proposed subdivision to provide part of that parcel of land as environmental reserve if it consists of a. a swamp, gully, ravine, coulee or natural drainage course, b. land that is subject to flooding or is, in the opinion of the subdivision authority, unstable, or

MIISTAKIS INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER: ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES IN ALBERTA 22617

c. a strip of land, not less than 6 metres in width, abutting the bed and shore of any lake, river, stream or other water body.

(1.1) A subdivision authority may require land to be provided as environmental reserve only for one or more of the following purposes: a. to preserve the natural features of land referred to in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) where, in the opinion of the subdivision authority, those features should be preserved; b. to prevent pollution of the land or of the bed and shore of an adjacent water body; c. to ensure public access to and beside the bed and shore of a water body lying on or adjacent to the land; d. to prevent development of the land where, in the opinion of the subdivision authority, the natural features of the land would present a significant risk of personal injury or property damage occurring during development or use of the land.

(1.2) For the purposes of subsection (1.1)(b) and (c), “bed and shore” means the natural bed and shore as determined under the Surveys Act.

Reserves not required MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT 663 A subdivision authority may not require the owner of a parcel of land that is the subject of a proposed subdivision to provide reserve land or money in place of reserve land if (a) one lot is to be created from a quarter section of land, (b) land is to be subdivided into lots of 16.0 hectares or more and is to be used only for agricultural purposes, (c) the land to be subdivided is 0.8 hectares or less, or (d) reserve land, environmental reserve easement or money in place of it was provided in respect of the land that is the subject of the proposed subdivision under this Part or the former Act.

MIISTAKIS INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER: ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES IN ALBERTA 22718

Natural boundary SURVEYS ACT 17(1) A surveyor who needs to determine the position of a natural boundary when performing a survey under this Act may do so by any survey method that has the effect of accurately determining its location at the time of survey, relative to the surveyed boundaries of the affected parcel.

(2) When surveying a natural boundary that is a body of water, the surveyor shall determine the position of the line where the bed and shore of the body of water cease and the line is to be referred to as the bank of the body of water.

(3) For the purposes of this section, the bed and shore of a body of water shall be the land covered so long by water as to wrest it from vegetation or as to mark a distinct character on the vegetation where it extends into the water or on the soil itself.

The most recent version (Bill 21) of the Environmental Reserve policy does not seem to change the intent of Environmental Reserve. The largest change is the purpose of Environmental Reserve is now addressed in a new section 664(1.1) and clarifies the preservation of the natural features of a swamp, gully, ravine, coulee or natural drainage course, land that is subject to flooding, land that is unstable, or a strip of land abutting a water body. Regulations are expected in 2017 and may further clarify the changes to the Environmental Reserve policy.

Observations on Intent and Use of Environmental Reserve

Environmental Reserves are intended to prevent pollution to the land next to water bodies, allow access to water bodies, avoid natural drainage courses (swamp, gully, ravine, coulee), prevent development on unstable or unsuitable lands (flood plains, steep slopes, etc.), and avoid hazards to humans or the built environment as a result of development.

Cursory review of policies and guidelines may lead one to think Environmental Reserve is being used beyond the initial intent of the MGA policy. However, many municipalities use a systems perspective regarding pollution prevention, broadly interpreting the controls needed to prevent pollution of the land adjacent to water bodies.

MIISTAKIS INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER: ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES IN ALBERTA 22819

For example, The City of Grande Prairie’s rationale is a representative example. They state the aim of using scientifically-based riparian setbacks is to remove a certain percentage of pollutants from runoff, and one of the most effective ways to protect aquatic ecosystems and prevent pollution is to ensure riparian areas are intact, healthy and functional (City of Grand Prairie, 2012). Actions taken to prevent pollution of land next to water bodies has numerous co-benefits that result in protection of environmentally sensitive areas. Pollution prevention done well is done at a systems scale. The table below demonstrates how the application of the intent of Environmental Reserve produces several co-benefits.

Figure 1 Sample of Environmental Reserve Benefits and Co-benefits

ER Intent System elements that are Sample co-benefits of pollution considered when aim is to prevention prevent pollution § Pollution prevention of § Riparian corridors § Wildlife habitat wetlands, lakes, rivers, § Slope and height of bank § Wildlife connectivity streams § Vegetation cover (includes § Scenic corridors/vistas § Prevention of grasslands, forest, shrubs) § Public access development on § Soil texture and type § Hydrologic function hazardous lands (steep § Biodiversity slopes, floodways, etc.) § Green infrastructure function § Avoidance of natural drainage features (City of Grand Prairie, 2012)

These co-benefits may be triggering the push back from the development community indicated in the Miistakis Conservation Tools Survey. In order for municipalities to comply with preventing pollution of water bodies, land that is more than the minimum six meters from the bed and shore must be protected and those lands often provide environmental benefits other than just pollution prevention or hazardous lands.

Environmental Reserves and Conservation Reserves

A new tool included in Bill 21, the Modernized Municipal Government Act (Province of Alberta, 2016) is the Conservation Reserve tool that enables a municipality to purchase a parcel of environmentally significant lands (as deemed by the subdivision authority and as guided by the Municipal Development Plan) for fair market value at the time of subdivision. This new policy is provided as a tool to

MIISTAKIS INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER: ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES IN ALBERTA 22920

municipalities to preserve ecologically significant lands, and may have impacts on the use of Environmental Reserve.

Conservation Reserve

664.2(1) A subdivision authority may require the owner of a parcel of land that is the subject of a proposed subdivision to provide part of that parcel of land to the municipality as Conservation Reserve if (a) in the opinion of the subdivision authority, the land has environmentally significant features, (b) the land is not land that could be required to be provided as Environmental Reserve, (c) the purpose of taking the Conservation Reserve is to enable the municipality to protect and conserve the land, and (d) the taking of the land as Conservation Reserve is consistent with the municipality’s municipal development plan.

(2) Within 30 days after the Registrar issues a new certificate of title under section 665(2) for a Conservation Reserve, the municipality must pay compensation to the landowner in an amount equal to the market value of the land at the time the application for subdivision approval was received by the subdivision authority.

(3) If the municipality and the landowner disagree on the market value of the land, the matter must be determined by the Land Compensation Board.

Figure 2 Comparison of Conservation Reserve and Environmental Reserve

Purpose Timing Requirements Conservation To protect At • Fair market value required. Reserve environmentally subdivision • The subdivision authority must significant areas as deem it environmentally determined by the significant lands, and lands must subdivision authority be identified in the Municipal Development Plan • Lands not to be required as Environmental Reserve

Environmental To avoid development At • No compensation required. Reserve of unstable lands and subdivision • Scientifically defensible re: to prevent pollution of setbacks to prevent pollution

MIISTAKIS INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER: ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES IN ALBERTA 23021

land adjacent to water • Engineering report concluding bodies as set out in unstable/hazardous lands. the MGA • Determine lands are a natural Prevention of drainage course development on • Determine lands are subject to hazardous lands flooding (steep slopes, NOTE: Requirements that have provincial floodways, etc.) guidelines are setbacks from water Avoidance of natural (Stepping Back) and flood mapping drainage features (although not comprehensive Province wide).

During interviews with municipal staff for the Conservation Tools Survey, several questions were asked about the new Conservation Reserves tool: § Will Conservation Reserves affect the application of Environmental Reserves? § What role with Conservation Reserves play in how municipalities dedicate Environmental Reserve? § Will there be challenges to dedicating lands as Environmental Reserve when they might fit similar criteria as Conservation Reserve? § What will take precedence? Compensation vs conservation.

It is hopeful the regulations for Conservation Reserves will answer some of these questions. In the meantime, the following section provides discussion points related to the questions above.

It is well known that municipalities have limited budget to allocate towards conservation overall. This policy seems to indicate municipalities must purchase lands to conserve or protect the environment. However, it is important to note section 664.2(1)(b) the land is not land that could be required to be provided as Environmental Reserve. This indicates that if a municipality can justify Environmental Reserve dedication, negotiations should not need to take place with the landowner or developer for compensation to designate the lands as Conservation Reserve.

It is predicted that confusion and push back from the development community will occur between dedications of Environmental Reserve and Conservation Reserve because of the co-benefits achieved through pollution prevention of lands adjacent to water bodies. It is recommended municipalities proactively create criteria to guide and clarify what qualifies as Environmental Reserve lands. This could be completed during a Municipal Development Plan update or created as a stand alone policy document to guide municipal decision makers. For municipalities that

MIISTAKIS INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER: ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES IN ALBERTA 23122

have the internal capacity or resources, the criteria could then be applied to conceptually identify and map potential Environmental Reserve lands. “Conceptually” is highlighted because as municipal planners understand, the details are not typically known until an application for subdivision is made.

By doing this, municipalities will be able to provide developers with criteria for Environmental Reserve lands prior to the application for subdivision being submitted. Conclusion and Next Steps

The Conservation Tools Survey results revealed the level of familiarity for Environmental Reserve as a land use tool is high across municipalities in Alberta, however the legislative intent of Environmental Reserve may not always align with how it is applied.

Municipalities that have created criteria or completed inventories and modelling of riparian setbacks in order to support the designation of Environmental Reserves may be better guarded against the push to instead use Conservation Reserves (and therefore compensation) to protect those lands. For those municipalities that have not had the resources to complete riparian setback models, they will require support and tools to do this to avoid potentially losing important lands to development that otherwise would prevent degradation of water quality or paying compensation to developers to protect lands that they did not have the capacity or resources to prove were eligible for Environmental Reserve dedication.

An important next step for this document is to follow up on regulations that should be released by Municipal Affairs later in 2017. These regulations will hopefully clarify what the Province means by environmental well-being (as proposed in the MGA Discussion Guide for municipal purpose) and the many questions related to Conservation Reserves. If municipalities are already defining environmentally significant areas in relation to Environmental Reserve lands, how will that differ from environmentally significant features under the Conservation Reserve policy?

Another next step could be for the Province to develop a guide for defining swamp, gully, ravine, coulee or natural drainage course as per MGA s.664.1(a). This would be a helpful tool for municipalities, providing guidance akin to Stepping Back from the Water.

MIISTAKIS INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER: ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES IN ALBERTA 23223

And finally, municipalities striving to conserve environmentally significant lands that may not qualify as Environmental Reserve do have other conservation tools available to them under the Alberta Land Stewardship Act as well as supporting resources such as the webinars available through the websites of Community Conserve (www.communityconserve.ca) or the Miistakis Institute (www.rockies.ca).

MIISTAKIS INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER: ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES IN ALBERTA 23324

References

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. (2012). Stepping Back from the Water: A Beneficial Management Practices Guide for New Development Near Water Bodies in Alberta’s Settled Region. https://doi.org/ISBN: 978-1-4601- 0058-5

City of Calgary Utilities and Environmental Protection. (2007). Environmental Reserve Setback Policy.

City of Grand Prairie. (2012). Mapping of Environmental Reserve (ER) and Science Based Setbacks for ER.

Frederick A. Laux, Q. C. (2013). Planning Law and Practice in Alberta (Third). Edmonton: Juriliber Ltd.

Haag, J., Logan, M., White, J., & Stewart, J. (2010). Developer’s Guide to the Riparian Setback Matrix Model for The Municipal District of Foothills # 31. District of Foothills.

Lacombe County. (2006). Use and Management of County Reserve Lands.

Mallet, J. S. (2005). Municipal Powers , Land Use Planning , and the Environment : Understanding the Public ’ s Role.

Municipal District of Foothills. MDP 2010 (2010).

Province of Alberta. Municipal Government Act M-26 (2000).

Province of Alberta. Alberta Land Stewardship Act A26-6 (2009).

Province of Alberta. Surveys Act (2013).

Province of Alberta. Bill 20 Municipal Government Amendment Act (2015).

Province of Alberta. Bill 21 Modernized Municipal Government Act (2016).

Province of Alberta. Bill 8 An Act to Strengthen Municipal Government (2017).

Strathcona County. (2016). Municipal Policy Handbook: Dedication of Municipal Reserve , Environmental Reserve and Environmental Reserve Easement. Retrieved from http://www.strathcona.ca/files/files/at-lls-mph-ser-008- 015dedicationofmunicipalreserveenvironmentalreserve-new.pdf

Town of Canmore. Municipal Development Plan (2016).

MIISTAKIS INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER: ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES IN ALBERTA 23425 BRAZEAU COUNTY

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DECISION

SUBJECT: Construction Tender – Lodgepole & TWP 494 Overlay DATE TO COUNCIL: April 6, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: Adam Saltesz, Assistant Director of Public Works ENDORSED BY: Lynden Fischer, Director of Public Works and Planning REVIEWED BY CAO: Shawn McKerry, Interim CAO FILE NO:

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Council direct Administration to proceed in awarding the construction tender for the overlay projects in Lodgepole and Twp Rd 494 to Ledcor Highways in the amount of $1,337,243.21.

1. TOPIC DEFINED

Executive Summary On September 1, 2020 Council passed the following motion: 0660/20-09-01 Moved by A. Heinrich to direct Administration for future tenders for roads and equipment to be approved by Council. IN FAVOUR – A. Heinrich, B. Guyon, D. Wiltse, S. Wheale OPPOSED – M. Gressler, H. Swan, K. Westerlund CARRIED

As the work type for both the Hamlet of Lodgepole and Twp Rd 494 projects were the same, being overlay projects, a single tender was created and posted with Schedule “A” – Hamlet of Lodgepole, and Schedule “B” – Twp Rd 494. By combining the two projects into one single tender, significant cost savings have been realized in both the consulting and the construction budgets.

Administration recently advertised the tender for the overlay of Lodgepole and Twp Rd 494, which closed on March 25, 2021 at 2:00pm, with the tender results showing below:

Brazeau County - Request for Council Decision –Lodgepole & Twp Rd 494 Tender Results Page 1 of 3 235 Company Schedule “A” Schedule “B” Total Tendered Amount Hamlet of Lodgepole Twp Rd 494 (excluding GST) Martushev Logging Ltd. $1,026,681.48 $999,670.49 $2,026,351.97 Border Paving Ltd. $892,534.00 $767,470.60 $1,660,004.60 Central City Asphalt Ltd. $828,253.56 $719,641.40 $1,547,894.96 E-Construction Ltd. $710,524.88 $753,288.15 $1,463,813.03 Knelsen Sand & Gravel Ltd. $723,139.02 $717,182.25 $1,440,321.32 Ledcor Highways Ltd. $698,513.11 $638,730.10 $1,337,243.21

The Interim Capital Budget approved by Council on November 26, 2020 provided the following total budgets for both Engineering Design and Construction work; Hamlet of Lodgepole Paving - $1,150,000 ($923,732 MSP funding, $226,268 RS – ROADS) Twp Rd 494 Paving - $1,023,000 (RS – ROADS)

Relevant Policy:  FIN-2 – Purchasing Policy

Strategic Relevance: Brazeau County is strategically assigning financial and physical resources to meet ongoing service delivery, ensuring the success of our greater community.

2. ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Council direct Administration to proceed in awarding the construction tender for the overlay projects in Lodgepole and Twp Rd 494 to Ledcor Highways in the amount of $1,337,243.21.

Advantages Disadvantages  Lowest Cost Option  None Identified  Meets Budget Parameters  Experienced Contractor

Brazeau County - Request for Council Decision –Lodgepole & Twp Rd 494 Tender Results Page 2 of 3 236 3. IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATION

Operational: No Impact

Financial:  Hamlet of Lodgepole Paving - $698,513.11 required for construction from approved capital budget.  Twp Rd 494 Paving - $638,730.10 required for construction from approved capital budget. Attachments: None

Brazeau County - Request for Council Decision –Lodgepole & Twp Rd 494 Tender Results Page 3 of 3 237 BRAZEAU COUNTY

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DECISION

SUBJECT: Riverside Horse Trails - Access Road Gravel Request DATE TO COUNCIL: April 6, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: Adam Saltesz, Assistant Director of Public Works ENDORSED BY: Lynden Fischer, Director of Public Works and Planning REVIEWED BY CAO: Shawn McKerry, Interim CAO FILE NO:

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Council direct Administration to proceed with the one time re-graveling of the access road into the Riverside Horse Trails off Range Road 91.

1. TOPIC DEFINED

Executive Summary Administration has received requests for gravelling and maintaining the access road into the Riverside Horse Trails off Range Road 91 by both the President of the Drayton Valley Horse Club and by members of the community. This resource road is owned and maintained by Obsidian Energy Ltd, however, it does experience non-oilfield traffic due to the Riverside Horse Trails. It would not be the responsibility of Obsidian Energy Ltd. to ensure the road is accessible to public travel. A recent request letter from community members can be found as Attachment “A”. If direction was received to proceed with the re-gravelling work, the total costs of in kind work from Brazeau County would be as follows:

Item Quantity Cost Gravel 275 tonne $2,323.75 Trucking 27 km $1,949.08 Grading 3 hours $600.00 TOTAL $4,872.83

Relevant Policy: FIN-7 – Community Organization Funding

Brazeau County - Request for Council Decision – Riverside Horse Trails – Access Road Gravel Request Page 1 of 2 238 Strategic Relevance: Brazeau County is strategically assigning financial and physical resources to meet ongoing service delivery, ensuring the success of our greater community. Come to Brazeau County to work, rest, and play. Brazeau County is responsive to its citizenship needs and our citizens are engaged in initiatives.

2. ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Council direct Administration to proceed with the one time re-graveling of the access road into the Riverside Horse Trails off Range Road 91.

Advantages Disadvantages Provides improved access to a local This resource road is the responsibility of community recreation facility. Obsidian Energy Ltd.

3. IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATION

Operational: Three maintenance personnel would be required for a total of 3 hours each to complete this requested work. There would be no scheduling impacts due to this requested work.

Financial: $4,872.83 would be required from the previously approved operating budget. Attachments: Attachment “A” – Community Member Request Letter

Brazeau County - Request for Council Decision – Riverside Horse Trails – Access Road Gravel Request Page 2 of 2 239 Brazeau County PO Box 77 Drayton Valley AB T7A 1R1

Brazeau County Administration and Councillors:

As you are aware, this past year has been challenging to say the least. With restrictions on seeing family and indoor gatherings, ease of access for outdoor activities has become more important than ever. Thankfully, we are surrounded by wilderness that begs to be explored.

The area known as the Farmers Picnic Grounds is beautiful, but the roads to get there are in desperate need of gravel. This area and the surrounding trails are not only used by the Drayton Valley Horse Club, but many kayak/canoe enthusiast finish/start their river treks there as well.

As a community member, I am seeking support from Brazeau County to adequately gravel and maintain the road, so the trails and river can be enjoyed without fear of getting vehicles/trailers stuck and/or damaged.

Thank you for your consideration. Todd & Sheela Sommer

240

BRAZEAU COUNTY UPDATE REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT: High Water Usage: 4906-54 Ave Cynthia

DATE TO COUNCIL: April 6, 2021

PREPARED BY: Darcy Mulroy, Utilities Supervisor, Public Works Lynden Fischer, Director, Public Works

UPDATE INFORMATION:

March 19, 2021 Council passed the following motion: 246/21-03-19 – Moved by H. Swan to direct Administration to investigate the water issue in Cynthia and bring back a report to Council. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Administration has investigated water issue and findings are as follows:

Water Meter At the time of inspection, the leak indicator (red triangle) was static, indicating no water was flowing through the meter. The valves above and below the water meter were in the “on” position. No leaks or water staining were visible around the meter.

Valve above water meter

Valve below water meter

The water meter reading was the exact value provided by Corporate Services from the most recent reading. This indicates there is no changes between the remote reader and the value being sent by the meter itself.

Brazeau County – Report to Council – High Water Usage – 4906-54 Ave Cynthia Page 1 of 2 241 An accuracy test was performed on the meter at the time of inspection. Five liters of water was run through the meter and the meter clocked four liters. The below picture is of a small dial on the meter with 0-9 listed. Each number displayed represents ten liters. Each line between the numbers represents a one liter denomination. At the start of the test the needle indicator was slightly over the seventeen mark as shown in the left picture below. Upon completing the test the needle indicator was slightly over the twenty one liter mark as shown in the right picture below. This test indicates the mechanical meter has slowed and is reading less water used.

Dial at start of test – needle was Dial at end of test –needle was slightly over 17L slightly over 21L

Conclusion Through the test and the inspection, the only issue found was that the meter is reading less water used. As a result the resident is using about 20% more water than the utilities bill is indicating and the resident’s utility bill is about 20% less as a result.

Historically, the most common cause for water usage of high amounts is a leaking toilet. The amount wasted by a leaking toilet is influenced by the toilet, pressure from water system, and the type of leak.

Type of leaks can range between a silent leak (best case) and the flapper being wide open. (worst case)  A silent leak in a toilet can use around 1,360L or 1.36m3 per day.  A fully open flapper can use around 19,640L or 19.64m3 per day.

As the valves were open, water is still available to the residence. If the person checking the home flushed the toilet and didn’t realize the flapper was not properly seated before leaving, it is reasonable to believe that 85.4m3 could have ran though the residence between checks.

As no volume increasing meter issues were found, water flowed through the meter for a duration during the month of December. Residents are responsible for all water consumed at their property whether it is used by the resident or wasted by a leaking toilet/fixture.

Brazeau County – Report to Council – High Water Usage – 4906-54 Ave Cynthia Page 2 of 2 242

BRAZEAU COUNTY UPDATE REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT: 2021 Household Hazardous Waste Roundup

DATE TO COUNCIL: April 6, 2021

PREPARED BY: Darcy Mulroy, Utilities Supervisor, Public Works Lynden Fischer, Director, Public Works

UPDATE INFORMATION:

Due to COVID-19 restrictions, Brazeau County’s 2020 Household Hazardous Waste Roundup was held at the old shop for all residents in June over a 2 week period for 5 days each week (Tuesday – Saturday) for 4 hours each day (12pm-4pm). In the fall, Brazeau County joined the Village of Breton’s round up event to provide local event access to the Breton area residents. 393 residents joined Brazeau County’s event. Feedback acquired from this event was extremely positive. Feedback is as follows: Location: 78.7% extremely happy with location 16.7% happy with location 3.3% okay (neutral) with location 0.7% unhappy with location (1 person) 0.7% Extremely unhappy with location (1 person) Event: 94.9% extremely happy with event 5.1% happy with event Positive comments included:  Great location – Lots of room  Great event – Don’t stop – extremely valuable  From Breton area – still happy with the event  Very positive – more staffing was good  Super quick to drop off items and leave – staff quick to unload vehicles Constructive comments included:  More signage as a little confusing to locate  Don’t hold event during fishing season

Brazeau County – Report to Council – Household Hazardous Waste Recycling Page 1 of 3 243

 Prefer the transfer stations  Unaware of appliance collections Approximately 2/3’s of the residents that attended the Village of Breton’s event were from Brazeau County. Residents visiting the Village of Breton’s event were not asked for feedback.

2021 Roundup Event & COVID-19

Due to more strict COVID 19 restrictions in 2021, Administration will be performing Brazeau County’s 2021 Household Hazardous Waste Roundup in the same format as 2020. Our round up event is planned to be held in May over a 2 week period for 5 days each week (Tuesday-Saturday) for 4 hours each day (12pm-4pm) at the old shop yard. Brazeau County plans to join the Village of Breton again to provide the Breton area residents local access to a Hazardous Waste Round up event. The Village of Breton has expressed they are willing to partner with us again in 2021.

The old shop yard provides a large outdoor location for separating residents and staff workers. With the event running over multiple days there are more opportunities for the residents to access the event on a day that works best for them. This also allows for less congestion at the transfer stations and provides a lower chance of COVID-19 being transmitted during our event.

The old shop and yard provides other beneficial aspects to the overall event. The cold storage shed offers a covered and secure storage space for full containers, which will help to minimize environmental contamination risk. Accessing this site is easier and safer for the companies who are collecting the full containers. They are not required to back in off a secondary highway, paved county road and allows for easier turning movements while on site.

Operational Costs

Administration recommends changing our 2021 event to early May. If Brazeau County hosts their event after May 29, 2021, extensive additional costs will be incurred. Alberta Infrastructure will be ending their program for subsidizing disposal of household hazardous waste material effective May 31, 2021. The Swan Hills processing facility will no longer be accepting household hazardous waste material effective May 29, 2021. Unfortunately the Swan Hills plant is the only disposal facility in western Canada. After May 29, 2021 ALL household hazardous material must be shipped to eastern Canada or the USA for processing.

After May 29, 2021, a full household hazardous waste bin is estimated to cost around $2,000 each for collection and disposal. In 2020, Brazeau County shipped nine full bins for processing totaling $3,011.45. Nine full bins after May 29, 2021 will cost approximately $18,000.

Alberta Recycling has upgraded the Paint Stewardship program to cover 100% of costs on eligible paint materials collected during a roundup event. Previously Brazeau County was required to pay 50% for collected eligible paint materials. Fees for non-eligible materials have not been removed.

The defunding of the household hazardous materials will increase Brazeau County’s cost for participating in Breton’s fall roundup event. If Breton chooses not to accept household hazardous

Brazeau County – Report to Council – Household Hazardous Waste Recycling Page 2 of 3 244 material during their fall event, then no hazardous waste costs will be incurred. Event/disposal costs is shared as per a percentage of population attended.

Summer and Utilities staff are utilized to run this event. With the planned COVID friendly event, minimal staff overtime will be required. Less travel and staff time is expected for cleaning up after the event.

ARMA grants are available for advertising and select materials collected.

Brazeau County – Report to Council – Household Hazardous Waste Recycling Page 3 of 3 245 BRAZEAU COUNTY

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DECISION

SUBJECT: FIN-7 Culture Grant Application – Drayton Valley Fine Art Society DATE TO COUNCIL: April 6, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: Lee Chambers, Director, Community Services ENDORSED BY: REVIEWED BY CAO: FILE NO: Report/Document Attached ____X___ Available ______Nil ______

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

That County Council approve providing support to the Drayton Valley Fine Art Society in the amount of $500.00 from, from FIN-7 Cultural Funding.

1. TOPIC DEFINED

Executive Summary/Key Issue(s)/Concepts Defined:

The Drayton Valley Fine Art Society has submitted a request for funding through the Culture component of FIN-7 Community Organization Funding Policy. The Society has been in operation since 1992. They work towards promoting a greater awareness and appreciation of art in the community. This is done primarily through encouraging visual art projects and classes for all ages. The Society is planning to use the funds to assist with costs associated with hiring teachers for their workshops.

The grant application does not meet all of the parameters of FIN-7, due to the Society not having insurance due to it being cost-prohibitive. The Society has previously received cultural funding in 2015.

Relevant Policy: FIN-7 Community Organization Funding Policy

Strategic Relevance: Council Goal # 5 – Come to Brazeau County to work, rest and play.

Brazeau County - Request for Council Decision – FIN-7 DV Fine Art Society Funding Request Page 1 of 2 246 2. ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDED ACTION That County Council approve providing support to the Drayton Valley Fine Art Society in the amount of $500.00 from, from FIN-7 Cultural Funding.

Advantages Disadvantages  Promotes arts and culture in the  None identified community

3. IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATION

Operational: Minimal

Financial: The 2021 Interim budget includes an allocation of funding for cultural grants provided through FIN-7. Attachments:  Cultural Grant Application

Brazeau County - Request for Council Decision – FIN-7 DV Pony Club Funding Request Page 2 of 2

247 fJECEiVED MAR 0 2 Mt. 1 Community Organization

Brazeai^^v Grant Application County*

ORGANIZATION INFORMATION

Please type or print legibly. Applicants must be a district organization serving Brazeau County residents. / Date: /. Organization's Name: l) uTOA/ \/Ai t hi/\J/E A^r Sarj^T^/ Alberta Registry Number: 05P "?9^/?(^,Date of Incorporation: 05/0S //99 2- Mailing Address:

City: |\gjft4T0A/ Vaj i Province: Postal Code: (All correspondence and cheques will be mailed to this address) Contact Person: _ iiu-l'(V^\nSon

Telephone:(W) (H) (c),

Email:il: Arni\|Wv/aiWj-fiyVart'SDCi<^-(-(j(g^rAnr>rAt \

DECLARATION

In making this application, we, the undersigned Officers of the applicant, hereby represent to Brazeau County and declare that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: • The information provided is truthful and accurate; • The application is made on behalf of the organization formerly named with the Officer's full knowledge and consent; and • Failure to adhere to the guidelines set out in this application or to accurately disclose information will in the disqualification of the organization's funding.

-Ann ^ s_ Print Name Date 4 j

Signature of Board Member Print Name Date '

ANNUAL APPLICATION DEADLINE: NOVEMBER 30 QUARTERLY APPLICATION DEADLINE: JANUARY 1, APRIL 1 JULY 1, OCTOBER 1

248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257

BRAZEAU COUNTY UPDATE REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT: Modeste Campground

DATE TO COUNCIL: April 6, 2021

PREPARED BY: Lee Chambers, Director of Community Services

UPDATE INFORMATION:

At the November 26, 2020, budget meeting an option to install power to the existing Modeste Creek Campground passed. Afterwards Council requested Administration to research the background for the campground and bring forward a recommended procedure for public consultation to the January 5, 2021, regular meeting of Council (Attachment 1):

025/21-01-05 Moved by M. Gressler to table the Modeste Creek Campground discussion until April 6, 2021 Council meeting. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Presently, there is a grant application to the Community Facility Enhancement Program (CFEP) for half the total cost of the project, estimated at $115,000. Funding announcements for CFEP will occur in August of this year. As such for 2021, the operations of the facility remain as a group campground with a limit to 20 camping units as per Council direction. Administration is recommending that rezoning occur following the outcome of the grant application.

Brazeau County – Report to Council – Modeste Creek Campground Page 1 of 1 258 ATTACHMENT 1

BRAZEAU COUNTY UPDATE REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT: Modeste Creek Campground

DATE TO COUNCIL: January 5, 2020

PREPARED BY: Lee Chambers, Director of Community Services

UPDATE INFORMATION:

Brazeau County approved an option to install power to the existing Modeste Creek Campground during the November 26, 2020, budget meeting. Since that time an adjacent landowner has expressed concerns on the intended project, below is a resolution of Council regarding the concern made at the December 15, 2020, regular meeting of Council: 0983/20‐12‐15 Moved by A. Heinrich to direct Administration to research Modeste Creek Campground background and come forward with a recommended procedure for public consultation for January 5, 2021. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

In 1972, a subdivision application approval established the Modeste Park as a municipal reserve. Local residents and community groups developed a ball diamond on the park space. In the late 1980’s the regulatory body learned that the ball diamond encroached onto adjacent lands. Following the annexation of lands from Leduc County to Brazeau, the adjacent landowner of the time reached out to the County to initiate the purchase of the lands in 1989. Following the transfer of lands there was consultation with the community in the early 1990’s towards improvement or development of the lands; however, the records do not indicate what, if any, action transpired.

Between 2004 and 2007, the County converted the park to a 23 stall campsite. A third party operator managed the campground until converted to a group site. A timeline is attached for Council’s reference.

Since the establishment of the park, there has been moderate use of the facility and occasional concerns raised. These are taken seriously and staff have worked with the complaintant towards solutions that include banning renters from the campground and withholding damage deposits. Most

259 recently, Council approved installing electricity to move the facility to individual campsites, managed by Elevated Experience Camping Ltd. who will remain on site during operations. Administration has been working with the contractor, developing a grant application.

During the research of the campground, Administration learned that the zoning of the campground is agriculture. This zoning, at the time of conversion to a campground (Land Use Bylaw (LUB) 474-04) campground was not permitted or discretionary use. It does allow for “Extensive Recreation” as a discretionary use. The current LUB allows for minor campgrounds as a discretionary use with campgrounds defined as “a development for recreational use with sites designated for lodgings in tents, Recreational Vehicles, Cabins, or other similar accommodations. A major campground shall accommodate more than twenty (20) sites, be in operation more than six (6) months per year, or both.”.

260 Modeste Creek Campground Timeline:

• 1972: subdivision approved by the Province with a parcel dedicated to park space • 1975: adjacent property owners advised Leduc County of concerns/disturbances occurring in the park • 1982: Leduc County approached by Breton Recreation Board with ideas to develop the area; plans were not actioned but there was an interest in looking at the possibility of assisting with mowing • 1985: there was a subdivision application approved in order to determine flood risk • 1986: Sardine Lakers Ball group constructed a field on the MR and onto adjoining property • 1988: adjacent landowner, with the encroached ball diamond requests Leduc County to update them on the status of the MR and expresses interest in divesting themselves of the property • 1989: Brazeau County becomes the regulatory body through annexation/establishment of the MD • 1989: Brazeau purchases lands that were encroached on for $23,000 and Parks Bylaw includes Modeste April 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting of Council) 365/89 Moved by N. Norton that administration proceed with the Modeste Creek proposal. CARRIED NOTE: proposal referenced in the motion could not be located

• 1990: municipal staff work with stakeholders to deter interference with adjacent landowners May 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting of Council) Mr. Eriksson referred to a letter received from Mr. David Brown dated 90 04 24. This information was discussed.

Mr. Eriksson indicated that no ATV signs have been posted. Perhaps the ball team could be contacted to find out exactly what has been happening.

Mr. Tweedle suggested that perhaps a public meeting should be held in order to rectify this situation.

258/90 Moved by W. Tweedle that the letter from Mr. David Brown dated 90 04 24 regarding Modeste Creek Park be received for information and that staff proceed with the investigation of this situation. CARRIED

261 • 2006: presentation to Council regarding the development of Modeste Park; residents expressed concerns. P&D files may indicate that this is the start of the construction for the park August 29, 2006(Regular Meeting of Council) Jessica Prysko and Deanna Whitelock attended the meeting today to make a presentation to Council regarding the development of Modeste Park.

September 19, 2006(Regular Meeting of Council) 451/06 Moved by A. Heinrich to forward a response to the concerned resident indicating the process the County will be following with regard to the proposed campground on Modeste Creek. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

• 2007: water well installed • 2013: Letter sent to Allan Taylor from Rick Ennis advising that the renter has been banned from the site for not complying with the rental agreement. June 18, 2013(Regular Meeting of Council) Allan Taylor attended the Council meeting to bring forth his concerns regarding the noise at the Modeste Creek campground. He reported that there have been fireworks that have disturbed him and his animals. He called the answering service who would not refer him to the Community Peace Officers. The answering service suggested that he call the County emergency line. He indicated that it was not an emergency and that he only wanted to lodge a complaint. Mr. Taylor said there needs to be more controls on campsites.

458/13 Moved by A. Heinrich to receive for information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Modeste Creek Campground Security

475/13 Moved by A. Heinrich to receive the concerns for information and follow through with a process for security and to advertise for an operator for both the Modeste and Easyford campgrounds. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

• 2015: Mr. Taylor advised of a noisy camper incident (October 6). Follow up letter was sent advising that the camper did not receive their damage deposit back and provided information on the recreation budget. June 16, 2015(Regular Meeting of Council) 779/15 Moved by A. Heinrich to increase the damage deposit fee for Modeste Creek to $500.00 CARRIED

262 • 2017: signage installed regarding swimming at your own risk September 19, 2017(Regular Meeting of Council) Signage Install at Creeks Subject to Effluent Release 1063/17 Moved by A. Heinrich to direct Administration to install a sign at Modeste Creek Campground indicating "swim at your own risk due to upstream sewage lagoon release." CARRIED

• 2018: Council directed staff to look at options for group campgrounds to maximize use June 19, 2018(Regular Meeting of Council) 0692/18-06-19 Moved by H. Swan to direct Administration bring back options for booking of Easyford and Modeste group campgrounds by July 17, 2018. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

July 17, 2018(Regular Meeting of Council) Group Campground Rental Process

0818/18-07-17 Moved by M. Gressler that Administration bring forward a plan for Modeste and Easyford campgrounds to maximize utilization to be brought back for the 2019 budget. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

November 6, 2018(Regular Meeting of Council) Land Stewardship Centre - Modeste Creek Project Brian llnicki. Executive Director for the Land Stewardship Center presented details and update on the Modeste Creek Project.

1104/18-11-06 Moved by D. Wiltse to receive the Modeste Creek Project presentation for information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Gary Mastre raised concerns with the Modeste Creek presentation today and does not think any of the suggestions can be realized with the release of effluent from lagoons. He stated that you can't shut down acreages nor industry…

• 2020: proposal to install electricity and move to individual campsites as part of the 2021 Capital budget was approved. November 25, 2020 (Budget) 0896/20-11-25 Moved by M. Gressler to add $60,000 to the 2021 Capital Budget from the Campground Restricted Surplus for upgrading power to

263 campsites at Modeste Creek Campground, contingent on receiving matching grant funding for a total project cost of $120,000; and that Council approve Elevated Experience Camping's proposal to operate the Modeste Creek Campground. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

November 26, 2020 (Budget) 0921/20-11-26 Moved by H. Swan to approve the proposed 2021 Capital Budget as amended and attached [includes Modeste Power Upgrade]; and for Administration to start work immediately. CARRIED

264 265 266 267 268 To the Reeve and Council:

We realize from the minutes of the last meeting that you have agreed to write the Government concerning the opening up of the coal mines. We also understand that your letter encourages the Government to have public consultation about this situation. We have also noted that Brazeau County is listed with numerous other municipalities fighting against the mining and we hope that this is in full support in addition to public consultation.

We are of the belief that your role should be much stronger. There are at least five heavy metals that will go into this water; furthermore, the coal industry requires a vast amount of water to produce the product--water that is already in short supply. Anyone knows that agriculture is dependent upon on water supply –this coal industry will take away a precious source.

Tell the Government that the citizens of Alberta want fresh, unpolluted water; that they want this not only the citizens of Alberta, but all the citizens that live down river of these mines; that they want our agriculture industry to flourish; that they want the fish to survive without mutation; that they want the flora and fauna of the wilderness to thrive; and that they want our citizens and the world to see and enjoy the beauty of our natural resources through the tourism industry.

Surely all of this is worth much more that the $3.50 per hectare or the 1% royalty that we will receive. Is it not abundantly clear that millions of dollars will leave this province and we will be left with not only the cleanup but the dire effects.

We encourage you to join the many counties and protest loudly to stop the coal mine project. It would be better to pay out the contracts than to continue. People are worth more.

We have attached an analysis and time line that was developed by Phoenix Stonechild. You may have seen it. It is worth a second read.

Some months ago, you passed a resolution that no potable water would be used by the oil industry to go down bore holes (fracking) . Is this situation not just as serious?

Again, we urge your action. This government does not consult. Just look what they are doing to education and healthcare and various pension funds and pipelines and anything else that they touch.

Phyllis Schmitt and Lynn Oberle

269 Phoenix Stonechild

Protect Alberta's Rockies and Headwaters trSponso1rhenld · For those of you who know I've been working on a timeline... here's that write-up. A MATTER OF TRUST #MountainsNotMines As you may know... I engaged the newspapers a couple weeks back. As yet, they have not published my article. So, here it is. This is what we're facing.

A Matter of Trust When it comes to coal mining in the Eastern Slopes of Alberta’s Rockies, the central issue is trust. Can Albertans trust the government to act in their best interest? Can we trust the regulatory process to protect the environment that we love and share? Can we trust the mining companies to respect the people, the processes and the land of the province they are doing business in? The answer to all of these questions appears to be a resounding, “No”. One month ago it became public knowledge that thousands of square kilometres of previously protected Eastern Slopes wild lands were now in the hands of foreign interests and available for open pit coal mining. Since that time the current government has continued to assure the public that environmental protections were in place; that the regulatory body was solely in control of, and free from government interference in, the review of all projects; and to trust the process. As one observes what was happening in the background, however, the word that comes to mind is skulduggery. At the very least, any logical person would develop a fair amount of skepticism. To truly understand the situation Albertans are currently facing requires looking back to 2015. In the midst of that year of economic downturn and drop in oil prices, some individuals began a very focused campaign to bring back coal. One of those individuals was Max Wang. Wang completed undergraduate education at Southwest Jiaotong University in Sichuan Province, China, and earned a PhD from the University of Calgary. In 2015 Wang was CEO of Grande Cache Coal Co, Chairman of the Coal Association of Canada (CAC), Director of the Board of Winsway Enterprises, and part of the steering committee of the Calgary Energy Forum. Winsway Enterprises, listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, is a distributor of coal to more than 60 steel makers and coking plants in China. The focus of that Calgary Forum in June 2015 was the promotion of Asian investment in Canadian energy. Mr. Wang was receiving compensation from a coal producer in Canada as well as from a coal distributor in China, was promoting Asian investment in Canada, and sitting on the Executive of the CAC while he did so. He may have gone largely unnoticed, but Max Wang is front and centre in the issue of coal mining in the Eastern Slopes. Remember his name. By January of 2017 both Jason Kenney and Jason Nixon were actively campaigning. Jason Kenney, in a self-posted facebook video, stated his full support for thermal coal production. In February of that same year, at a rally, Jason Nixon vehemently opposed the Bighorn Park Project. Respectively, they adamantly stated that “evidence-based policy… that protects the environment” and “public consultation” were a must, and that if they formed government they would stand for nothing less. This begs two questions. One, has Kenney remained consistent with his stance on evidence-based policy when it comes to industry? And two, why was Nixon so resolute about public consultation when he was opposing protection of wild spaces, but

270 currently not interested in hearing from the public when it comes to coal mining in the Eastern slopes? At present, Nixon continues to automatically return emails from Albertans as “deleted without being read” and blocks Albertans from his Minister of Environment & Parks official facebook page when they ask questions. Even those that self-identify as Conservative party faithful are not spared from his censorship. It is important to note that in September of 2017 Max Wang became Managing Director & CEO of Atrum Coal, an Australian coal company, and remained with Winsway as well as on the Executive of the CAC. The regulatory body that the current government continues to point to as the protector of the environment from industry overreach is the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). In January 2019 the “AER called a meeting of coal mining companies. The CAC and member companies participated and provided input on approval timelines… and how AER could work with Alberta government to increase regulatory efficiency. CAC and AER formed the Coal Sector Working Group, co-chaired by Robin Campbell and Steve Thomas”. (direct quote, Lobbyist Registration) The current government has continued to state that the government is not involved with the regulatory process, but the Lobbyist registration proves otherwise. Robin Campbell, former Environment Minister and CAC President, had the inside track and in an April 4, 2019 meeting of the CAC, he discussed the “coming provincial election… and the discussions that had been held with UCP and their position on the coal industry” (direct quote CAC Board minutes). In the same board meeting Campbell confirmed that “after meetings with the AER, a coal working group (had) been established with representation from all members of the coal industry”. (direct quote CAC Board minutes) At this point, everything speeds up, and all the previously laid groundwork begins to pay dividends for the coal companies. After the April 16, 2019 election Jason Nixon is appointed Minister of Environment and Parks. Two months later, on June 19th, the Coal Working Group held it’s inaugural meeting and “began working on priorities to increase regulatory efficiency for coal mine approvals in Alberta” (direct quote Lobbyist registration). Three months later in September, the CAC (Campbell, Wang) lobbies Jason Nixon to discuss coal production in Alberta. One month later, in October Kenney cuts funding to the AER resulting in 200 layoffs. That same month, Tourism Minister Tanya Fir sends a letter to Australian coal company Valory Resources, welcoming them to Alberta for business. Two months later, in December, Jason Nixon also sends a letter to Valory welcoming them to Alberta and promising to cut red tape. One month later, January 2020, the government appoints an AER ‘interim board’. That same month, the CAC (Campbell, Wang) lobbies Jason Nixon to pitch the benefits of metallurgical coal mining. One month later, on February 27th Nixon sends an internal briefing note proposing long-term changes to the Alberta Parks system – 119 deregulations and 45 divestitures. One month later, in March, Nixon announces the closure of 20 provincial parks and third party management of 164 others that would lose park status and revert to Crown land if no private manager was found. One third of those parks are on coal-bearing land in the Eastern Slopes. In April, Atrum (Wang) publishes it’s Investor Proposal stating that “regular, proactive engagement with Alberta Government has significantly increased confidence of… approval, potentially as early as this year”, and that the “CAC is also actively engaging the Alberta Government on this general issue”. That same month, on April 16th, Atrum completes and releases it’s full Scoping Study for it’s Elan project. On April 30th the CAC (Campbell, Wang) lobbies Nixon discussing the 1976 Coal Policy. Twelve days later, on May 12th, Wang resigns from both the Coal Association of Canada, and

271 steps down as CEO of Atrum (remaining on Atrum’s Board of Directors with stock options). Three days later, on May 15th, the Friday afternoon before the May long weekend, the 1976 Coal Policy which had protected Category 2 lands from industrial degradation is rescinded, opening 15,000 square kilometres of Eastern Slopes for open pit surface mining. On the Monday of the long weekend, May 18th Atrum publicly announces that “due to the rescission of the 1976 Coal Policy Elan is no longer required to obtain an exemption for open pit mining in their Category 2 lands project”, and calls it “a significant step forward”. Two weeks later, on May 27, Bill 1 is passed, the “Critical Infrastruture Defence Act” which carries a penalty of a $25,000 fine and 6 months in jail for protestors who block, damage, or enter “essential infrastructure”. Three weeks later, June 25th, Bill 7 passes, the “Responsible Energy Amendment Act” which caps the amount of time the AER can spend reviewing applications from energy companies. On July 23rd Bill 22 is passed, the “Red Tape Reduction Implementation Act”. By September of 2020, a scant one year after the current government was formed, all protections of coal-bearing lands in the entirety of the Eastern Slopes, from their designation as Provincial Parks to their designation as Category 2 lands, had been decimated, without any public consultation. The AER, heralded as the environmental watchdog, had become an arm of the coal industry, it’s methodology limited by legislation created by the government. And the rights of the citizens to publicly protest had been limited via fear of punitive measures. So, in answer to question one and two… No. It does not appear that we can trust the government to act in the public’s best interest, nor the regulator to protect the environment. That leaves question three, can we trust the mining companies to respect the people, processes and land of the province in which they are doing business? A brief look at these companies should leave no question in anyone’s mind. All the companies of note that currently hold leases in the Eastern Slopes are members of the CAC. Atrum, Benga, Cabin Ridge Project, Montem and Valory are all Australian companies. Ram River Coal Co., another member of the CAC, has Lundin Group as one of the primary shareholders, a family company run by brothers Lukas and Ian Lundin who reside in Switzerland. It’s a challenge to keep track of who’s who as these companies have quite an incestuous relationship. Cabin Ridge is owned by Warburton (an Australian family), which used to own Benga, and also has shares in Atrum. Ram River Coal Co. (Lundin Group) purchased Conuma, brokered by Capital Investment Partners, an Australian investment firm whose Director of Mergers and Acquisitions for Canada is a man who used to work for Adani Group. Adani is an Australian mining company that is currently decimating Australia and India, forcing Indigenous peoples in both countries from their land to make way for mining. An Australian grassroots movement #StopAdani recently had it’s facebook page wiped of all information, and facebook has now prohibited sharing of any and all Australian newspaper articles on it’s platform. Groups like #StopAdani, the Oakey Coal Action Alliance, and others who are standing up against these mining conglomerates are being impeded from communicating and accessing information. Benga, (aka Riversdale, Hancock Prospecting) is owned by billionaire Gina Rinehart, who is well known in Australia for trampling on the rights of both citizens and Indigenous peoples in her pursuit of more wealth and power. Benga claims the full support of the council of Crowsnest Pass and Blairmore. Many citizens of those towns have a different opinion but are fearful of retribution if they speak out.

272 The Lundin group, specifically brothers Lukas and Ian have recently been charged with war crimes for their actions in the Sudan, facing allegations that their oil production activities supported and resulted in militarized action against the people in order to clear the land for resource extraction. The CAC, however, has been celebrating companies like Benga and Conuma with Community Champions Awards as far back as 2018. Why are foreign-owned companies permitted to have a seat at the table of a Canadian coal association, and influence provincial government and regulators to the degree that long-established policies and values are summarily tossed out like rubbish? Subsidiaries. They establish Canadian based subsidiaries, prospect for the resources, and if those subsidiaries go bankrupt, the parent company bails out. Can we trust these mining companies to respect the people of Alberta, to undertake remediation, to ensure water quantity and quality restrictions are met, to honour any restrictions that are placed upon them or that they commit to? Again, based on past performance across the globe, the answer is a resounding no. Energy Minister Savage announced on February 8th that “no mountain top removal” mining would be permitted and that the Coal Policy would be reinstated. On it’s face it appears that the voices of tens of thousands of Albertans and countless communities, municipalities, and cities that had demanded a stop work order on all projects and a reinstatement of the Coal Policy had been heard, and that all was right again in the Rocky Mountains. The problem is, mountain top removal and open pit surface mining are two different mining processes. The devastation is the same it is just completed in a different manner. The companies who hold all those leases have never proposed or requested approval for mountain top mining. They have requested approval for open pit surface mining. And Savage did not prohibit that. Further, she did not stop work on the 2 projects that were already underway prior to the rescission of the Coal Policy in May 2020, nor of the 4 projects that got underway between May 2020 and her February 8th statement. She left that “up to the companies to decide”. It is similar to the announcement she made on January 18th wherein she stated that she was cancelling all leases sold in December 2020. That attempt to pacify the pubic outcry was also a declaration of action that in reality had no substantive effect. Those 11 cancelled leases represented just 0.002% of all the land mass that is in the hands of foreign interests. While the government plays a shell game with Albertans who are unified and fighting for the preservation of their clean water, clean air, sensitive wildlife habitat, and First Nations sacred spaces… the Australian companies are lined up waiting to crush it all beneath their feet, ship what can be scavenged across the ocean to China, and line their pockets. Men like Wang who have been instrumental in setting up the coal rush stand to make millions. And we have to ask why? Why on earth would the current government be so determined to operate without transparency, to mislead the public, to allow the coal projects to continue, to fly in the face of the outcry of the people they were elected to serve, and to commit almost certain political suicide? That’s a question that begs an answer, and as with most things that don’t make any kind of logical sense, it is often found by following the money. ~ Phoenix Stonechild #MountainsNotMines #savethemountains #protectourheadwaters #nomontem #NixTheSix #StopAdani

273 To Reeve and Councillors:

Further to my evaluation of the per diem slips of Brazeau County Councillors in 2019, the following observations could be noted.

The use of acronyms is overdone. While other councillors may know what they mean, it is not the other councillors who pay to have these sheets done. The public pays the per diems and are entitled to know what and where our councillors are claiming funds. Is this not what we pay them about $1400 per month (Reeve $1800) for?

The Reeve attended an FCM(?) conference, location not named, for three days. Three issues arise. Why were no receipts provided for the meal expenses claimed? Why was no written report as to the presentations given and their value (if any) to our county? If there is little or no value to us (the county), why do you go? Again, the public pays for these conferences and (by county bylaw) we are entitled to such reports. This conference cost the taxpayers a total of $4300 plus mileage for the Reeve alone. An additional claim that was not categorized on this sheet nor receipted was $807.32. What was this for as Mr.Guyon came home on June 5, but the conference was over on June 2.

Two other councillors went to this conference as well at similar costs to the county. Figures given do not include the “entry” fees for the conference.

Conclusions: What is the value to the County of these conferences? What can a Quebec municipality or any of the provinces offer Alberta as they operate under their rules and we under the Municipal Government Act of Alberta? Why do we send people who cannot/will not submit written report (as per our rules)?

The solutions are simple:

(a) if you are not able or willing to write a report—don’t go; (b) send only those who can or will report; (c) don’t send anyone to these national conferences; (d) resign so we can elect someone who will follow the rules.

Stay tuned.

L. Oberle

274 To the Reeve and Council:

Some observations regarding the ongoing drama of County affairs.

Not too long ago, Brazeau County decided not to promote the then NDP proposal for the Bighorn. According to their per diem claims, councillors spent (as a group) 19 ½ days doing so at the expense of the county ratepayers. There is no evidence that the population of the county had a say in the position they took. Perhaps they were on the wrong side of the issue.

Compare the above to their response to the coal mine issue, which has the potential to be massively more impacting, in my view, of logarithmic proportions on millions through the effects of coal mining on water supplies.

County council made the superb effort to send a letter to the Minister of the Crown to “consult” on the issue. A really powerful response!

One effort was for the preservation of the environment, the other for its destruction.

Come to your own conclusions as to whether this response is adequate.

L. Oberle

275 276 277 278 279 March 25, 2021

Dear Reeve/Mayor & CAO,

Re: RMA 2021 Member Visit Scheduling As you are aware, the RMA schedules council member visits with all of our member councils on a three-year rotation. This year there are 21 municipalities across the province up for a visit with your municipality being one of them. The purpose of these visits is for the RMA President, District Director, and Executive Director to travel to each municipality to meet in the member’s home base in order to experience and learn about each member as your representatives at the Association. It is our opportunity to focus on you and for you to have direct access to us. In 2021 this is particularly important for me as a new president as I have not had the opportunity to travel to and learn about our members in the province outside of my region. I am excited about the opportunity to get to learn about all of our members. Covid & Physical Meetings In 2020 the RMA only had a few physical member visits before Covid hit us in March. As a result, we ended doing the majority of our member visits last year virtually. This was necessary due to the circumstances and acceptable due to the fact that past president Al Kemmere had previously met with all members in their location more than once during his six-year tenure. In 2021, however, we feel that it is important that we facilitate as many of these meetings as we can in person in order that I as your new president, and our new elected directors in District 1 & 2, get to know our members and get to see your municipality. As a consequence, we have delayed our member visit scheduling this year until Covid restrictions were more relaxed and Spring Convention was complete. In a normal year member visits are scheduled from February – October. This year it is our goal to start member visits in April. Once we commence visits in April we would like to get as many done as possible by summer. This said we are prepared to arrange visits until early September recognizing that there are municipal elections this year that will make us avoid October. Due to provincial regulations, we will be asking that your meeting location be Covid friendly, offering physical distancing or physical separation barriers for our delegation. We are aware that most of you are meeting in person as is currently allowed under provincial regulations and we would like to join you in “your house”. If some of you would be more comfortable meeting when Covid restrictions are relaxed further, please book a date later in the Spring or Summer as that would be preferred over a virtual meeting for the reasons noted. Alternatively, we are prepared to offer a fully virtual meeting if meeting physically is just not possible. Scheduling Options We schedule these roundtable meetings with your council and senior staff to take place at your offices either as part of a council meeting, a committee meeting, or as a separate stand-alone meeting. We have appreciated those that have chosen the stand alone or non-council dates as far too many of you all meet on the same dates each month, or on the same date as our board member home councils, to allow us to participate via council meetings alone. This will be especially the case this year due to our late start for

280 commencing the 2021 member visit schedule. These stand-alone meetings have been more relaxed and provided more time for discussion and learning and as such should be considered as an option. We offer you two options for member visits: 1. A standard 1-hour meeting; either attached to a council meeting, committee meeting, or stand alone; or 2. A longer meeting (2 – 3 hours) where we can learn more about your operations and what makes your municipality unique. To make our visits cost and time effective, it would be beneficial to meet with two municipalities on one day that are within driving distance of each other (i.e. usually within the same district). As such we have limited the longer meeting option to 3 hours or less to facilitate scheduling and we will be seeking out opportunities to meet with more than one member in a district per day. Below is the 2021 RMA Member Visit chart which identifies the municipalities in addition to your own that we will be coordinating visits with. Lastly, I should note that in the past we often have been invited to have lunch with some councils to continue the informal discussions. We appreciate that this will not be doable for many until restrictions are relaxed further – at least not for meals in restaurants. We are open to consider the option for lunch with our visits if held in the office safely and could consider lunches outside of the office later in the year as the Covid restrictions get lifted. Your Availability To get started we request a response as to your general availability. Specifically, we require the following information from you: a) Your general council availability per month up to and including September (i.e., every Wednesday, 2nd & 4th Tuesdays, etc.), plus any other meetings when all council will be together. Include potential stand- alone dates separate from your meetings if possible. b) Your preference of Member Visit option: 1. Standard 1 hour meeting 2. Longer familiarization meeting (up to 3 hours) c) The key contact’s name, email address, and phone number to schedule the meeting with.

In the table attached we have identified typical monthly dates that will prove difficult for either myself or your district director to attend so that other date options can be considered. We ask that you please provide your answers to the above noted questions to my assistant Susan Valentine at [email protected] or 780.955.4076 as member visits will commence as soon as possible. Susan will follow up with your contact directly. Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. I look forward to our upcoming visit. Sincerely,

Paul McLauchlin President

281 District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5

Forty Mile Rocky View Yellowhead Grande Prairie Bonnyville

Willow Creek Bighorn Brazeau Big Lakes Flagstaff

Crowsnest Clearwater Lac Ste. Anne Wood Buffalo Lac La Biche

Pincher Creek Wheatland Thorhild Northern Sunrise Vermilion Rvr

Mackenzie

Monthly Conflict Monthly Conflict Monthly Conflict Monthly Conflict dates Monthly Conflict dates for President dates for President dates for President & for President & dates for President & District 1 Director District 3 Director & District5 Director & District 2 Director District 4 Director

2nd & 4th Tues 2nd & 4th Tues 2nd & 4th Tues 2nd & 4th Tues 2nd & 4th Tues

1st & 3rd Wed 1st & 3rd Tues 2nd & Last Tues 2nd, 3rd, 4th Tues 3rd Wed

282 283