COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA April 25, 2017 (to follow MPC Meeting)
Page
1.0 CALL TO ORDER
2.0 APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2.1 Additional Agenda Items
3.0 MINUTES
3 - 5 3.1 MINUTES of the regular County Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 11, 2017.
3.2 Questions/ matters arising from the minutes.
4.0 ADMINISTRATION REPORTS
4.1 Administrative Items
5.0 DELEGATIONS / PRESENTATIONS
6.0 REPORTS
6 - 10 6.1 2017 Tax Rate and Minimum Tax Bylaw – introduction of the bylaw for setting the 2017 tax rates and continuation of the minimum tax payable.
11 - 21 6.2 Records Management – recommendation to adopt a new bylaw for the retention and disposal of municipal documents and to rescind two Records Management policies that no longer apply.
22 - 23 6.3 Insurance Coverage for Organizations – recommendation to endorse current Additional Named Insured organizations under the County’s insurance program and to approve adding Pine Lake Hub as a new Additional Named Insured.
7.0 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS & REPORTS
24 - 30 7.1 Block 5, Plan 982-3951, SE 9-37-28-4 (Division 3) – application for a one-year extension for the conditionally approved subdivision of 0.66 hectares (1.64 acres).
31 - 37 7.2 Lots 3A and 4A, Block 5, Plan 162-3984, NE 29-37-27-4 (Division 2) – request to defer the offsite levies payable pursuant to the Gasoline Alley Offsite Levies Bylaw No. 2014/23 for a subdivision application for a boundary adjustment (Gasoline Alley West).
Page 1 of 176 County Council Meeting Meeting Agenda, April 25, 2017 Page
38 - 62 7.3 Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP) – recommendation to give first reading to a bylaw to adopt this proposed IDP and to schedule a joint public hearing for June 15, 2017.
8.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS - 1:30 p.m.
63 - 65 8.1 Bylaw No. 2017/2.01 - a bylaw to redesignate Pt Lot 1, Plan 912-2117, SE 13-38- 28-4 (22.43 hectares / 55.43 acres) from Agricultural District “Ag” to Direct Control District #18 “DCD–18.”
66 - 176 8.2 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2006/6 to include SE 13–36–2-5 in the Gravel Extraction Overlay District.
9.0 IN-CAMERA SESSIONS
10.0 COMMITTEE REPORTS
10.1 Reports from individual Councillors for meetings attended since April 12, 2017.
11.0 NOTICES OF MOTION / COUNCIL CONCERNS
12.0 ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 of 176 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of County Council RED DEER COUNTY April 11, 2017
1.0 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of Red Deer County Council was held in the Council Chambers of the Red Deer County Centre located at 38106 Rge Rd 275, Red Deer County, Alberta, and was called to order by Mayor J.J. Wood at 10:40 a.m.
PRESENT: Mayor J.J. Wood, Deputy Mayor D.B. Church, Councillors J.M. Bota, C.R. Huelsman, R.R. Lorenz, P.J.R. Massier and C. Moore.
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager C. Herzberg, Operations Services Director M. Campbell, Corporate Services Director H. Surkan, Development Engineer L. Solberg and Legislative Services Administration N. Lougheed and L. Thompson.
Planning/Development administration in attendance for development applications: T. Miller, R. Barr, D. Bedford and R. Mount.
2.0 APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CC-17-081 Moved by Councillor C.R. Huelsman to approve the agenda as submitted. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
3.0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CC-17-082 Moved by Councillor D.B. Church to approve the minutes of the March 28, 2017, regular meeting of County Council as submitted. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
6.0 REPORTS
6.1 2016 Audited Financial Statements – recommendation to approve the financial statements as at December 31, 2016. Auditor Melisa Milne, MNP, in attendance during presentation.
CC-17-083 Moved by Councillor C. Moore to approve the 2016 Audited Financial Statements as at December 31, 2016, as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
6.2 Policy No. 1.010, Councillor Remuneration – consideration of proposed amendments to the policy to come into effect following the October 16, 2017, election.
CC-17-084 Moved by Councillor J.M. Bota to approve revised Policy No. 1.010, Councillor Remuneration, as presented, with the new policy to come into effect following the October 16, 2017, municipal election. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
6.3 Town of Bowden – Notice of Intent to Annex – recommendation to approve, in principle, the Town of Bowden’s Notice of Intent to Annex lands from Red Deer County.
CC-17-085 Moved by Councillor C.R. Huelsman to approve, in principle, the Town of Bowden’s proposed annexation, pursuant to the proposed process for
MINUTES of the regular County Council Meeting held Tuesday, ... Page 3 of 176 County Council Minutes of April 11, 2017 2
negotiation and consultation as presented by the Town in its formal Notice of Intent to Annex Lands from Red Deer County. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
6.4 Policy No. 4.001, Development Securities – consideration of proposed amendments to this policy in relation to the amount of security to be required in situations where no sale of lots is being considered until the infrastructure is completed, the inspection finalized by the County and the subdivision is endorsed and registered with Land Titles.
CC-17-086 Moved by Councillor C. Moore to approve amended Policy No. 4.001 (Development Agreement Provisions – Letters of Credit Associated with Construction of Subdivision Infrastructure) with the amendments as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
6.5 County Land – Land Manager B. Boomer reported on the recommendation to authorize County administration to negotiate the terms for the sale of two County-owned quarter sections located in Twp 35-3-5 and to authorize the County Manager to execute the sale documents.
CC-17-087 Moved by Councillor R.R. Lorenz to authorize Administration to negotiate with prospective buyers regarding the terms and conditions of sale of NE 20-35-3-5 and SW 28-35-3-5 and to authorize the County Manager to execute the necessary documents for the sale of these properties. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
7.0 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS & REPORTS
7.1 Bylaw No 2017/3 – a bylaw to amend Bylaw No. 15/99, the Burnt Lake Area Structure Plan (ASP). Recommendation to amend Bylaw No. 2017/3 and to give second and third readings to the bylaw as amended.
CC-17-088 Moved by Councillor C. Moore that Bylaw No. 2017/3 be amended as follows: (1) Section 5.1.6, add the following: “The County shall refer all proposed Local Area Structure Plans to Alberta Transportation in order to confirm building setbacks from major roadways.”; (2) Section 5.5.5, amend to read as follows: “The County may consider the extension of a trail through the plan area to the City of Red Deer as long as such a trail is maintained and operated by a registered trail society or municipality. The trail alignment shall be determined at the conceptual stage and shall require affected landowner input, including Alberta Transportation where applicable within a highway right-of-way.”; (3) Section 5.8.6, amend to read as follows: “A Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) may be required in consideration of a Local Area Structure Plan and/or as a condition of subdivision in order to determine if improvements to the existing road network are required.”; (4) Figure 4.0, Transportation Network, amend as shown on the presented site map; and (5) Figure 7.0, Land Use Concept Map, amend as shown on the presented site map; and that Bylaw No. 2017/3, as amended be given second reading. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
CC-17-089 Moved by Councillor P.J.R. Massier that Bylaw No. 2017/3 be given third and final reading. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
7.2 SW 26-34-3-5 (Division 4) – consideration of a referral from NRCB in relation to an application to construct an addition to a dry cow/ heifer barn/ maternity barn with no increase in numbers being proposed.
MINUTES of the regular County Council Meeting held Tuesday, ... Page 4 of 176 County Council Minutes of April 11, 2017 3
CC-17-090 Moved by Councillor C.R. Huelsman to advise Natural Resources Conservation Board that Red Deer County has no objections to the application to construct an addition to a dry cow / heifer barn / maternity barn on SW 26-34-3-5 with no increase in numbers being proposed. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
7.3 SE 7-35-28-4, DCD-23, (Division 4) – application for first reading to a bylaw to amend Direct Control District #23 to include Automotive and Minor Recreation Vehicle Sales/Rentals as a permitted use on this property.
Bylaw No. 2017/11 – a bylaw to amend Part 31, Direct Control District, of the Land Use Bylaw No. 2006/6 to include Automotive and Minor Recreation Vehicle Sales/Rentals as a permitted use within Direct Control District #23 “DCD-23” (SE 7-35-28-4).
CC-17-091 Moved by Councillor C.R. Huelsman that Bylaw No. 2017/11 be given first reading with the public hearing to be scheduled for May 23, 2017. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
10.0 COMMITTEE REPORTS Councillors reported on meetings they have attended on behalf of Red Deer County since March 28, 2017.
12.0 ADJOURNMENT
CC-17-092 Moved by Councillor R.R. Lorenz that the County Council meeting adjourn. TIME: 12:12 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
______MAYOR COUNTY MANAGER
MINUTES of the regular County Council Meeting held Tuesday, ... Page 5 of 176 April 25, 2017 – Report No. 6.1 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: April 19, 2017
To: County Council
From: Corporate Services
Subject: 2017 Tax Rate & Minimum Tax By-law
PURPOSE
To recommend to County Council approval of the 2017 Tax Rate & Minimum Tax by-law. BACKGROUND
Please find attached the draft by-law outlining the total taxable assessments by class for 2017 municipal, educational and seniors housing taxation. In addition, the by-law highlights the recommended tax rates for municipal purposes, seniors housing and the provincially prescribed education rates. This by-law also gives the municipality authority to levy a minimum tax. ALTERNATIVES
1. Grant first reading of the 2017 Tax Rate and Minimum Tax by-law based on budgetary needs and the market changes in assessment. 2. Provide direction to Administration with regards to other possible options for 2017 taxation rates. DISCUSSION
As you are aware, 2017 taxes are based on 2016 property assessment values. Overall we saw a decrease in 2016 assessment of approximately $130 million, with the biggest decline in Machinery and Equipment (-.64%); and Linear (-13.1%) assessments. However, Residential assessment experienced an increase in growth and market values (1.32%). This indicates a tread toward tax base diversity and even market resiliency. Red Deer County realized market valuation losses (-2.5%) in Commercial and Industrial properties but still saw growth (0.7%) in these areas (primarily in Gasoline Alley).
Despite the overall decrease in assessment, administration is recommending a zero increase to tax rates for 2017 due to the current economic situation. Freezing the tax rate will still allow the County to collect $43.2 million in taxation. This will allow us to achieve our budgeted work plans for 2017 and fund our capital work program without the need to draw upon our reserves. Administration expects to see budget savings in our work programs and will be bringing a budget amendment to Council’s attention shortly.
With regard to levies, Administration is recommending that Council consider the following tax rates.
Protective Services – 0.5000 (same as 2015 & 2016); Community Services – 0.4000 (same as 2015 & 2016); and Environmental Services – 0.1590 (same as 2015 & 2016).
2017 Tax Rate and Minimum Tax Bylaw – introduction of the by... Page 6 of 176 The base municipal tax rates are also proposed to remain the same as follows:
Farmland - 7.9460 (same as 2015 & 2016) Residential –2.6816 (same as 2015 & 2016) Non-Residential - 9.9465 (same as 2015 & 2016).
As you are aware, the Province requires municipalities to levy property taxes on their behalf for school requisitions based on our assessment values. Those rates have changed from 2016 due to an increase in the total provincial requisition (up 4%). Residential & Farm Education tax rate is 2.5075 (2016 - 2.4465) and Non – Residential tax rate is 3.9252 (2016 – 3.5955).
Seniors Housing Levy reflects the requisition that we are charged from the Parkland Seniors Foundation. Based on calculations from their requisition, administration is recommending that the Seniors Housing levy rate is 0.0197 for this year.
By way of a minimum tax, Administration would like to continue to eliminate the tax notices for under $25 as they are a burden on staff time. We are legislated to levy all applicable property regardless of the amount to maintain equity. A minimum tax levy of $25 will cover the administration costs of providing the Combined Assessment and Tax notice to County property owners. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is Administration’s recommendation that the attached 2017 draft Tax Rate and minimum tax bylaw be given first reading, with 2nd and 3rd reading to be scheduled for May 9, 2017, Council meeting, in order to allow for public input and for Administration to levy taxes in a timely manner to fund 2017 budget priorities.
Prepared by: Heather Surkan Director of Corporate Services Reviewed by: Curtis Herzberg County Manager
2017 Tax Rate and Minimum Tax Bylaw – introduction of the by... Page 7 of 176 BYLAW NO. 2017/-- (Tax Rate & Minimum Tax Bylaw)
A BYLAW OF RED DEER COUNTY, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, TO AUTHORIZE THE SETTING OF SEVERAL RATES OF TAXATION IMPOSED FOR ALL PURPOSES FOR THE 2017 YEAR.
WHEREAS, the total levy requirements of Red Deer County as shown in the estimates for 2017 are as follows:
MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURES: - Debenture Debt $ 362,441 - Various other municipal purposes 73,877,262
GENERAL MUNICIPAL TOTAL $ 74,239,703
ALBERTA SCHOOL FOUNDATION FUND: - Public - Residential & Farmland $ 8,581,679 - Public - Non-residential (Including Linear) 8,633,901 - Red Deer Opted-Out Jurisdictions - Residential & Farmland 486,678 - Red Deer Opted-Out Jurisdictions - Non-residential 427,510
WHEREAS, the total assessment of land, buildings and improvements are as follows:
• Farmland $ 163,300,880 • Residential land and improvements 3,448,126,530 • Commercial and industrial lands and improvements 1,392,745,790 • Machinery and equipment 308,658,300 • Linear 871,717,960 • Grant-in-lieu – Commercial and industrial lands and improvements 46,090,270 • Grant-in-lieu – Farmland 222,640 • Grant-in lieu – Residential 5,635,400 6,236,497,770
WHEREAS, the estimated revenue other than from taxation and grants-in-lieu of taxation is: $ 30,402,149
AND WHEREAS, the rates hereinafter set out are deemed necessary to provide the amounts required for all purposes, after making the allowances for the amounts of taxes which may reasonably be expected to remain unpaid.
NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of the powers conferred upon it by the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, as amended, the Council of Red Deer County enacts as follows:
(1) THAT assessed property shall be classified as residential, farmland, machinery and equipment and non-residential property and that assessed property could include farm residences.
2017 Tax Rate and Minimum Tax Bylaw – introduction of the by... Page 8 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/-- Tax Rate Bylaw Page 2
(2) THAT the County Manager be and he is hereby authorized and required to levy the following rates of taxation on the assessed value of all non-residential property including commercial, industrial, linear and machinery and equipment as set out in the assessment and tax roll:
General Municipal – Non-Residential Property 9.9465 mills on the dollar
(3) THAT the County Manager be and he is hereby authorized and required to levy the following rates of taxation on the assessed value of all residential property and vacant residential property as set out in the assessment and tax roll:
General Municipal – Residential Property 2.6816 mills on the dollar
(4) THAT the County Manager be and he is hereby authorized and required to levy the following rates of taxation on the assessed value of all farmland as set out in the assessment and tax roll:
General Municipal – Farmland Property 7.9460 mills on the dollar
(5) THAT the County Manager be and he is hereby authorized and required to levy the following rates of taxation on the assessed value of all land, buildings, and improvements subject to taxation for the Alberta School Foundation Fund, as set out in the assessment and tax roll:
Residential and Farmland – General 2.5075 mills on the dollar Residential & Farmland - Opted-Out Jurisdictions 2.5075 mills on the dollar Non-residential - General 3.9252 mills on the dollar Non-residential - Opted-Out Jurisdictions 3.9252 mills on the dollar
(6) THAT the County Manager be and he is hereby authorized and required to levy a tax on the assessed value of all land, buildings, and improvements as set out in the assessment and tax roll:
Protective Services Levy 0.5000 mills on the dollar
(7) THAT the County Manager be and he is hereby authorized and required to levy a tax on the assessed value of all land, buildings, and improvements as set out in the assessment and tax roll:
Community Services Levy 0.4000 mills on the dollar
(8) THAT the County Manager be and he is hereby authorized and required to levy a tax on the assessed value of all land, buildings, and improvements as set out in the assessment and tax roll:
Environmental Levy 0.1590 mills on the dollar
(9) THAT the County Manager be and he is hereby authorized and required to levy a tax on the assessed value of all land, buildings, and improvements as set out in the assessment and tax roll:
Seniors Housing Levy 0.0197 mills on the dollar
2017 Tax Rate and Minimum Tax Bylaw – introduction of the by... Page 9 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/-- Tax Rate Bylaw Page 3
(10) THAT the County Manager be and is hereby authorized to levy a well drilling equipment tax upon all equipment used to drill wells for which a license is required under the Oil and Gas Conservation Act, in accordance with the tax rates established in the Well Drilling Equipment Tax Rate Regulation.
(11) THAT the County Manager be and is hereby authorized to levy a minimum property tax on the assessed value of all land, buildings, and improvements as set out in the assessment and tax roll at $25.00.
FIRST READING: SECOND READING: THIRD READING:
______MAYOR Date Signed:
______COUNTY MANAGER Date Signed:
2017 Tax Rate and Minimum Tax Bylaw – introduction of the by... Page 10 of 176 April 25, 2017 – Report No. 6.2 ADMINISTRATION REPORT
Date: April 13, 2017
Memo To: County Council
From: Legislative Services and Records Management
Subject: Records Management – Retention and Disposal of Municipal Documents
1.0 PURPOSE – recommendation to adopt a new bylaw that provides for the management, retention and disposition of Red Deer County records and documents and to rescind two Records Management policies that no longer apply.
2.0 BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION – in 2000, Red Deer County implemented a centralized Corporate Records Management program that was formalized with the adoption of Policy No. 1.004 Document Management and Policy No. 1.006 Electronic Records. Two separate policies were considered as the concept of ‘electronic records’ was still new to records management. Following the adoption of the policies, a Retention and Disposal of Municipal Documents Bylaw was adopted in 2001, with amendments to this Bylaw being adopted in 2005 and 2006. In all of these instances, the actual physical Retention Schedule was included with the Bylaw as a schedule.
Pursuant to Section 214 of the Municipal Government Act, a Council may adopt a bylaw respecting the destruction of municipal records and documents. The purpose of the bylaw is to provide authority for the destruction of municipal records, and without a bylaw, essentially no records can be destroyed.
The retention schedule itself is a dynamic document that may require ongoing changes as the retention period to be applied for the majority of records is dependent on provincial and federal standards and legislation. Due to changing rules and requirements, administration continually reviews and monitors these standards and legislation to ensure the retention schedule is up to date and in compliance. As a result, administration recommends that due to the administrative aspects of the retention schedule, this document not be included within the bylaw.
With approval of the proposed bylaw, administration will be authorized to develop a policy that provides for the systematic control of municipal records starting with the creation of the record, during its lifetime and on to its disposition. A copy of the proposed administrative policy is included with this report for Council information.
The intent of the Bylaw is not changing; it is still providing for municipal records to be disposed of when they have reached the end of their life cycle. The proposed Bylaw is providing administration with the authority to set the procedure for the record disposal pursuant to provincial and federal standards. In addition, further clarity is being provided in the Bylaw with the inclusion of definitions.
Records Management – recommendation to adopt a new bylaw for... Page 11 of 176 3.0 ALTERNATIVES 3.1 Adopt the proposed Records Management Bylaw as presented; and rescind Policies No. 1.004 and 1.006. 3.2 Give first and second reading to the Bylaw with the Bylaw to be included on a future Council agenda for further consideration. Rescission of Policies No. 1.004 and 1.006 would also occur at the future meeting. 3.3 Refer decision on the proposed bylaw for additional information.
4.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS – there are no financial implications with the adoption of this bylaw.
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 That the attached Records Management Bylaw be adopted as presented;
5.2 That Policy No. 1.004 Document Management and Policy No. 1.006 Electronic Records be rescinded.
Prepared by: Nancy Lougheed Legislative Services Manager
Reviewed by: Emily Speight Records and Information Management (RIM) Coordinator
Reviewed by: Curtis Herzberg County Manager
Records Management – recommendation to adopt a new bylaw for... Page 12 of 176 BYLAW NO. 2017/-- Records Management
A BYLAW OF RED DEER COUNTY, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANAGEMENT, RETENTION AND DISPOSITION OF RED DEER COUNTY RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Government Act, a Council may by bylaw provide for the destruction of municipal records and documents; and
WHEREAS all records in the custody and control of the employees of Red Deer County, members of Council and committees of Council which are created or received in the context of their functional responsibilities, are the property of Red Deer County.
NOW THEREFORE pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Government Act, the Council of Red Deer County, duly assembled, hereby enacts as follows:
1.0 TITLE
1.1 This Bylaw may be referred to as the "Records Management Bylaw."
2.0 DEFINITIONS
2.1 County means Red Deer County.
2.2 Disposition means the destruction, permanent retention or transfer for archival preservation of a County Record once it has reached the end of its life cycle.
2.3 Personal Information means personal information as that term is defined in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. F-25, as amended or replaced.
2.4 Record means any information however recorded, regardless of its form or characteristics. Records may be in paper or electronic format or a combination of both and may include, but not be limited to, correspondence, memoranda, books, maps, plans, photographs, drawings, diagrams, pictorial or graphic works, microforms, email and messages.
3.0 RECORDS RETENTION AND DESTRUCTION POLICY
3.1 The County Manager is hereby authorized to develop a policy to provide for the systematic control of the creation, use, maintenance, storage, security, retrieval and disposition of records created or received by the County in the conduct of its operations with said policy to adhere to all provincial and federal standards relating to records management.
3.2 Destruction of the original minutes and bylaws of Red Deer County may occur once these Records have been converted to electronic format.
3.3 All Records in the custody of the County are the property of the County and must be managed in accordance with the policy as noted in Section 3.1.
Records Management – recommendation to adopt a new bylaw for... Page 13 of 176 Bylaw No 2017/-- - Records Management Page 2
4.0 PERSONAL INFORMATION
4.1 If the County uses Personal Information to make a decision that directly affects the individual, the County must retain the Personal Information in accordance with the classification and retention schedule, which in any event, will not be less than one year.
5.0 EFFECTIVE DATE AND REPEAL
5.1 This Bylaw shall come into full force and effect at such time as it has received third reading and has been signed in accordance with the Municipal Government Act.
5.2 Bylaw No. 2006/25 is hereby repealed with the final passing of this Bylaw.
FIRST READING: SECOND READING: THIRD READING:
______MAYOR Date Signed:
______COUNTY MANAGER Date Signed:
Records Management – recommendation to adopt a new bylaw for... Page 14 of 176 RED DEER COUNTY
TITLE: DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT - to be rescinded Policy __x__ Procedure _____ Category: Administration Bylaw _____ Guideline ______
No. 1.004
AUTHORITY: CC-00-250 DATE: April 18, 2000
REPLACES: DATE:
Further References:
PURPOSE
This policy states the requirements to ensure that the records of Red Deer County are managed and controlled in a systematic manner, from creation to disposition, in accordance with legal, regulatory and operational requirements. All records are the property of Red Deer County.
GUIDELINES/SCOPE
Applicability - “Records” include any recorded information, regardless of format or media and includes, but is not limited to, memoranda, photographs, negatives, microfilm, maps, drawings, charts, cards, electronic media, optical media, motion pictures and video.
Principles - An efficient and economical Records Management program assures the systematic control and management of information as a corporate asset. It is the policy of Red Deer County to maintain a uniform process which will assure the availability of information required in the management of its activities, protect legal rights, assure statutory compliance, support tax and audit requirements, and finally, to ensure the availability of essential information for the resumption of operations following a disaster.
Responsibilities - Records Management, under the direction of the Administrative Assistant to the County Manager, is assigned the responsibility for the development and implementation of a corporate Records Management Program throughout Red Deer County.
Departments are responsible for the ongoing control and maintenance of their records under the direction and guidance of the Records Management section. The Records Management section is responsible for the control, development/maintenance of a uniform file classification system, the development and management of automated retrieval and indexing protocols, provides guidance and assistance with file system operations, and on-the-job training as required. The acquisition of filing equipment and supplies will be according to established corporate standards to ensure the best possible selection based on need, economics and available space.
Policy No. 1.004 (Document Management) - Page 1 of 2
Records Management – recommendation to adopt a new bylaw for... Page 15 of 176 Departments identify, in conjunction with senior management and Records Management, the vital records necessary for the continuation of Red Deer County in the event of a disaster. Records Management will recommend the most cost-effective means of protection, and Departments will be responsible for implementing recommendations.
All Red Deer County records will be scheduled for retention and disposition according to legal, fiscal, operational and historical requirements. The retention periods will be developed in conjunction and consideration of relevant acts, statutes and regulations, internal and professional directives, and via the identification of ongoing departmental and corporate requirements. The schedule will provide for the identification and retention periods of both originals and copies.
This schedule, reviewed and approved by departmental representatives, financial (tax/audit), Senior Management and Records Management ensures that documents are destroyed when no longer needed, under authorized destruction certification and in keeping with requirements for maintaining the confidentiality of information. Departments are responsible for reviewing their holdings, initiating the transmittal of inactive records to offsite storage via Records Management and submitting requests for disposition as records become eligible for destruction. Records Management will initiate a review process to ensure all requirements are met prior to destruction.
Should litigation or audit occur, destruction of relevant documentation would cease until such time as Senior Management indicates it is safe to resume such activities.
Records Management has the overall responsibility for management of Red Deer County inactive records and required storage facilities. All records are scheduled and a disposition date established prior to being sent to inactive storage. Archival records will be identified and be assigned permanent retention in an appropriate environment and format.
Microfilm and computer output microfilm (COM) may be used in the usual and ordinary course of business to achieve benefits of reduced storage and filing costs, enhanced records integrity, reduced distribution costs, more efficient information retrieval, and for the protection of vital records. In the future, if Red Deer County uses microfilm and computer output microfilm (COM), the original records that have been microfilmed according to established standards will be destroyed according to established retention periods. The microfilm records will then become Red Deer County’s official record for further retention requirements.
The use of imaging technology will be incorporated into Red Deer County’s usual and ordinary course of business for the purposes of accessibility and uniform information retrieval as well as the reduction of space and equipment. The use of such enabling technologies shall be in such a fashion so as not to compromise the integrity of the information and will be in keeping with all relevant standards.
Policy No. 1.004 (Document Management) - Page 2 of 2
Records Management – recommendation to adopt a new bylaw for... Page 16 of 176 RED DEER COUNTY
TITLE: ELECTRONIC RECORDS - to be rescinded Policy __x__ Procedure _____ Category: Administration Bylaw _____ Guideline ______
No. 1.006
AUTHORITY: CC-00-250 DATE: April 18, 2000
REPLACES: DATE:
Further References:
PURPOSE
This policy is to set guidelines for the management and control of all electronic records (including E-mail) within Red Deer County.
GUIDELINES/SCOPE
This policy applies to all electronic records that document the business and operations of Red Deer County and, therefore, become the property of Red Deer County. Since these records do belong to the corporate body, they are accessible under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIP) Act.
All electronic records generated from or accessed on individual County work stations are governed by the terms and conditions outlined in the Acceptable Use Policy.
Records that document the operations and business of Red Deer County must adhere to the approved retention schedule. Any records that contain an individual’s personal information and are used to make a decision that directly affects that individual must be retained for a minimum of one year.
Transitory records do not serve as a basis for official action. Users are encouraged to delete such records within 30 days. Personal messages should be deleted within a maximum of 5 days.
There is no expectation of privacy in connection with the use, transmission, receipt or storage of electronic information.
The following activities are prohibited:
• Storing, posting, accessing or displaying obscene, illegal, abusive, threatening or harassing materials. • Transmitting unsolicited material such as repetitive mass mailings (spamming), chain messages or advertising for private purposes. • Unauthorized access, alteration or destruction of another user’s data or E-mail.
Policy No. 1.006 (Electronic Records) - Page 1 of 2
Records Management – recommendation to adopt a new bylaw for... Page 17 of 176 • Sending or receiving copyrighted materials, trade secrets, or proprietary financial information without prior authorization. • Promoting commercial ventures, religious or political causes. • Any activities which negatively affect the reputation or image of Red Deer County.
The system supervisor reserves the right to monitor messages if it is believed that there are breaches of security, harassment or other violations of this or other Red Deer County policies.
Users are responsible for the security of their respective account and password.
Complaints by any user receiving electronic transmission related to a Red Deer County employee should be submitted to the systems administrator of Red Deer County.
Any user traffic that traverses another network may be subjected to that network’s acceptable use policies.
Signature Files - Employees must use signature files in messages to third parties that make clear any limitations on the extent to which the messages from the employee may be understood to have been sent on behalf of Red Deer County.
Use of Etiquette - Use proper etiquette, vocabulary and spelling for all messages that document the business and operations of Red Deer County.
Consequences of Prohibited Behavior - Policy violations may result in loss of access privileges.
Back-up Copies - Back-up copies may be retained for periods of time and in locations unknown to senders and recipients.
Authority delegated to - Corporate Services
Policy No. 1.006 (Electronic Records) - Page 2 of 2
Records Management – recommendation to adopt a new bylaw for... Page 18 of 176 RED DEER COUNTY
TITLE: INFORMATION GOVERNANCE - Proposed Administrative Policy Policy __x__ Procedure _____ Category: Administration / Records Management Bylaw _____ Guideline ______
No. 1.004
AUTHORITY: County Manager Approval DATE:
REPLACES: CC-00-250 DATE: April 18, 2000 Formerly named: Document Management 1.004
Further References:
PURPOSE
Red Deer County recognizes that information is a vital organizational asset which must be managed throughout its lifecycle. A robust Information Governance program is necessary to achieve this.
This policy
1. Provides guidance to staff at Red Deer County on the management of information and records from creation to destruction;
2. Ensures reliability, authenticity and availability of Red Deer County’s records and information; and
3. Ensures the availability of all records and information necessary for informed decision making.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this policy are
1. To ensure that records and information are systematically managed throughout their lifecycle across the organization;
2. To facilitate access and collaboration while ensuring that appropriate protection measures are in place to reduce the risk of unauthorized loss, alteration, access, destruction or disclosure of records and information;
3. To ensure legal, regulatory, operational, historical implications are considered in the creation, management and retention of records and information;
4. To ensure that records at Red Deer County can be considered accurate, reliable and accessible and serve as a single source of truth; and
5. To ensure defensible disposition of records.
Policy No. 1.004 (Information Governance) - Page 1 of 3
Records Management – recommendation to adopt a new bylaw for... Page 19 of 176 PRINCIPLES
1. Red Deer County staff will adhere to Information Governance principles, procedures and guidelines.
2. Red Deer County staff will adhere to the retention schedule; destruction holds will be applied when necessary.
3. Red Deer County recognizes the need for regular deletion of non-records and the disposition of records.
4. Red Deer County administration (IT Manager and Records Coordinator) has the authority to apply auto-deletion to records and information.
5. An Enterprise Document and Records Management System (EDRMS) will be deployed across the organization which all staff will use.
6. Security will be applied to records across the organization to ensure that staff are able to access the information necessary to do their job while still protecting confidentiality and personal information.
7. Metrics will be an ongoing part of the program and will be used to ensure that Records Declaration Rate and Classification Accuracy Rate fall within acceptable parameters.
8. Red Deer County will employ a function-based classification, retention and disposition schedule built in accordance with ISO Standard 15489. The schedule is an administrative document which is a collaboration between Records Management and Red Deer County departments. The schedule and changes to the schedule are approved by managers, Senior Management and signed off by the County Manager (CAO).
SCOPE
For the purposes of this policy, Red Deer County defines Records as any information however recorded, regardless of its form or characteristics. Records may be in paper or electronic format or a combination of both and may include, but not be limited to, correspondence, memoranda, books, maps, plans, photographs, drawings, diagrams, pictorial or graphic works, microforms, email and messages (Bylaw No. 2017/--).
This policy includes all records and information created, received and maintained by Red Deer County whether in the possession of administration, County Council, County contractors, County volunteers or members of Council Committees. This includes both official records and non-records and further includes information systems including, but not limited to, departmental databases, cloud based solutions and storage and Red Deer County’s EDRMS.
Information Management – the Information Governance Program will align with the Information Governance principles set out in ARMA International’s Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Practices: accountability, transparency, integrity, protection, compliance, availability, retention and disposition.
ROLES/RESPONSIBILITIES
Senior Leadership – Senior Leadership is responsible for creating a culture that supports Information Governance and for ensuring compliance with the Information Governance policy throughout the organization.
Policy No. 1.004 (Information Governance) - Page 2 of 3
Records Management – recommendation to adopt a new bylaw for... Page 20 of 176 Records and Information Management (RIM) Coordinator – The RIM Coordinator is responsible for the development and implementation of the Information Governance program and ensuring that processes are in place to manage records and non-records. The RIM Coordinator is responsible for disposition of official records and deletion of non-records. The RIM Coordinator is also responsible for measuring the performance of the Information Governance program.
Information Technology (IT) Manager – The IT Manager is responsible for maintaining IT infrastructure for Red Deer County and ensuring that the records are backed up for business continuance and preserved during migration and format conversions. The IT Manager is responsible for the destruction of electronic items identified as non-records. The IT Manager is also responsible for ensuring that legacy data is preserved and can be subjected to access and retention requirements when systems become obsolete or abandoned.
Human Resources – The Human Resources department is responsible for ensuring that Information Governance is part of the orientation and annual training for staff members.
Managers – Managers are responsible for ensuring that staff comply with Records and Information Management procedures. Managers will sign off on the disposition of records and alert the RIM Coordinator of any pending or suspected litigation or FOIP requests so that destruction holds can be applied when necessary.
Records Staff – Records staff are responsible to serve as a records and information resource for Red Deer County.
All Personnel – All staff are to ensure that records and information are created and managed in accordance with Red Deer County’s Records and Information Governance program. All staff are to learn and use the Red Deer County EDRMS. Instruction and direction for the Records and Information Governance program will be provided through a number of methods including: 1. Orientation of new staff members; 2. Intranet Updates (handouts, videos, cheatsheets); 3. Procedures manuals; and 4. Training; both in classroom and one-on-one setting.
Policy No. 1.004 (Information Governance) - Page 3 of 3
Records Management – recommendation to adopt a new bylaw for... Page 21 of 176 April 25, 2017 – Report No. 6.3 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: April 19, 2017
To: County Council
From: Corporate Services
Subject: Insurance Coverage for Organizations
PURPOSE
To recommend to County Council to endorse all current Additional Named Insured organizations under Red Deer County’s insurance program, and approve a new application for Pine Lake Hub. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Jubilee Insurance offers insurance at a reasonable rate to non-profit organizations that work within the County to provide various municipally-based services to our residents. The types of insurance offered are liability, property, auto, and bond and crime. The non-profit organization reimburses the County for all related insurance policy costs within the County’s billing date. Red Deer County and Jubilee Insurance reserve the right to terminate any policy obtained via “additional insured” coverage with 30 days written notice.
Red Deer County’s current policy states that all enquiries and applications for additional named insured are to be directed to the Director of Corporate Services for approval at least 30 days in advance of the commencement of coverage. In addition, the organization will confirm in writing that Red Deer County will be held harmless with respect to the additional insured policy coverage.
The current list of Additional Named Insured (ANIs) are:
Benalto Ag Society Benalto Booster Club Central Alberta Regional Waste Management Commission (CARWMC) Craig Community Association Delburne Agricultural Society Edwell Community Association Innisfail & District Ag Society Kneehill Valley Community Centre Lousana Community Association Markerville Community Society Markerville Vintage Machinery Club Medicine River Watershed Society Oklahoma Community Centre Poplar Ridge Community Centre
Insurance Coverage for Organizations – recommendation to end... Page 22 of 176 Raven Community Centre Ridgewood Community Hall Shady Nook Community Centre Springbrook Community Association Spruce View & District Ag Society Spruce View Community Association Trenville Park Committee
Jubilee Insurance Agencies has added a requirement to their policy, effective March 1, 2017, that Council must deliver written notice that it accepts the community group as an ANI to its policy. Therefore, administration is requesting that Council endorse our current ANIs and a new request, Pine Lake Hub. This community organization is requesting coverage for liability, property, and bond and crime.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Endorse current ANIs and new application for Pine Lake Hub. 2. Deny all ANIs and terminate the entire program. 3. Accept all current ANIs and deny Pine Lake Hub’s application. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is Administration’s recommendation to endorse all current ANIs and the new application for Pine Lake Hub.
Prepared by: Amber Parsons Compensation & Risk Management Administrator
Reviewed by: Heather Surkan Director of Corporate Services
Reviewed by: Curtis Herzberg County Manager
Insurance Coverage for Organizations – recommendation to end... Page 23 of 176 April 25, 2017 – Report No. 7.1 ADMINISTRATION REPORT
Date: April 25, 2017
Memo To: Council
From: Planning & Development Services
Subject: SE 9-37-28-W4M / Block 5, Plan 9823951 / 3.5 Hectares (8.8 Acres) / Country Residential District / Division 3 / File Number S-16-005
1.0 PURPOSE
To consider granting a one (1) year time extension for a conditionally approved subdivision of 0.66 hectares (1.64 acres) from 3.5 hectares (8.8 acres) of Block 5, Plan 9823951, within part of the SE 9-37-28-W4M, zoned Country Residential District (R-1).
2.0 SUMMARY
• The subdivision was approved on May 10, 2016. • On April 6, 2017, Planning and Development Services received a subdivision approval extension application requesting a one (1) year time extension. • The Applicant has one (1) year from the date of subdivision approval to ensure that the conditions are met and the subdivision is endorsed. • Section 657(6)(a) of the Municipal Government Act indicates that Council may extend an approval of a subdivision if the conditions of approval have not been met within the one (1) year time period. • The Applicant has indicated that due to the market conditions and the current economy, they are requesting an additional year to fulfill the conditions. • If approved, the extension would be granted until May 10, 2018.
3.0 ALTERNATIVES:
a) Approve the request for the time extension of one year;
b) Postpone the request; or
c) Deny.
Block 5, Plan 982-3951, SE 9-37-28-4 (Division 3) – applicat... Page 24 of 176 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approve the application for a one (1) year time extension, with an expiry date of May 10, 2018, for a conditionally approved subdivision of 0.66 hectares (1.64 acres) from 3.5 hectares (8.8 acres) of Block 5, Plan 9823951 within part of the SE 9-37-28-W4M, zoned Country Residential District (R-1).
Prepared by Francoise Joynt Development Officer
Reviewed by Leonard Solberg Development Engineer
Reviewed by Curtis Herzberg County Manager
Block 5, Plan 982-3951, SE 9-37-28-4 (Division 3) – applicat... Page 25 of 176 SCHEDULE “A”
ADJACENT LANDOWNER REFERRAL LETTER
January 28, 2016 File: S-16-005
Dear Landowner:
RE: Subdivision Application, Bemoco Land Surveying Ltd. (Preachuk), SE-9-37-28-W4M
As an adjacent landowner, this letter is being sent to inform you that Red Deer County has received an application for subdivision of 0.66 hectares (1.64 acres) from 3.5 hectares (8.8 acres) on Block 5, Plan 9823951, on part of the SE 9-37-28-W4M. The subject parcel is zoned Country Residential District (R-1).
If you have any comments or concerns regarding this proposal, please submit them in writing by mail, fax, or e-mail, quoting File: S-16-005, prior to February 28, 2016 at 4:30 pm to the address listed above. Your comments will be included with the administration report when this application is considered by Municipal Planning Commission. Please note: Red Deer County Administration is not able to respond, on an individual basis to feedback received. If we do not receive any response from you by the date indicated above, we will conclude that you have no objects to the proposal.
Should you require further information or clarification on this application, please contact our office between 8:30 am - 4:30 pm Monday to Friday at 403.350.2170.
Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) is an open meeting to the public and you are welcome to attend.
Yours sincerely,
Francoise Joynt Development Officer [email protected]
Block 5, Plan 982-3951, SE 9-37-28-4 (Division 3) – applicat... Page 26 of 176 Purpose of Application:
• To consider the subdivision of 0.66 hectares (1.6 acres) from 3.5 hectares (8.8 acres) of County Residential District land within the SE 9-37-28-4, Block 5, Plan 9823951; and
• To consider an amendment to the Willow Ridge Outline Plan in support of the proposed subdivision application.
Proposed Land Use / Lot Description:
• Access to the property is from the C & E Trial, onto an internal subdivision road. • The property is zoned Country Residential District.
Surrounding Land Use / Environmental Considerations:
• The surrounding lands are primarily used for agriculture with some small parcels of land used for residential acreages. • The subject property is not within an Environmentally Significant Area.
Statutory Document Information:
• The proposed subdivision is located within the Calgary and Edmonton Trail Area Structure Plan as well as the Willow Ridge Outline Plan. • As such, this application will be considered by the Red Deer County Municipal Planning Commission.
Block 5, Plan 982-3951, SE 9-37-28-4 (Division 3) – applicat... Page 27 of 176 SCHEDULE “B”
LAND LOCATION MAP
Block 5, Plan 982-3951, SE 9-37-28-4 (Division 3) – applicat... Page 28 of 176 SCHEDULE “C”
LAND LOCATION AERIAL MAPS
Block 5, Plan 982-3951, SE 9-37-28-4 (Division 3) – applicat... Page 29 of 176 SCHEDULE “D”
TENTATIVE PLAN OF SURVEY
Block 5, Plan 982-3951, SE 9-37-28-4 (Division 3) – applicat... Page 30 of 176 April 25, 2017 – Report No. 7.2 ADMINISTRATION REPORT Date: April 25, 2017
Memo To: Council
From: Planning & Development Services
Subject: Lot 3A & 4A, Block 5, Plan 162 3984 / 3.78 Hectares (9.34 Acres) / Direct Control District / Division 2 / File No. S-17-013
1.0 PURPOSE
To consider a request to defer the offsite levy payable pursuant to the Gasoline Alley Offsite Levies Bylaw No. 2014/23 in conjunction with a Boundary Adjustment application (S-17-013) for Lot 3A and 4A, Block 5, Plan 162 3984 within Part of the 29-37-27-4, zoned Direct Control District #9.
2.0 SUMMARY
• Planning and Development Administration received an application to subdivide 1.02 hectares (2.52 acres) from Lot 4A, Block 5, Plan 162 3984 and consolidate it with Lot 3A Block 5 Plan 162 3984 to create a 2.71 hectare (6.70 acre) parcel on Lot 3A and decrease Lot 4A from 2.08 hectares (5.16 acres) to 1.07 hectares (2.64 acres). No new parcels will be created as a result of the proposed subdivision and consolidation. • The Gasoline Alley Offsite Levies Bylaw No. 2014/23 requires payment in full upon the approval of a subdivision or upon the issuance of a Development Permit. The total amount due is $375,066.38. • The Applicants are requesting to defer payment of the Offsite Levies until such time as the parcel is developed (letters are attached as Schedule D). • Bylaw 2014/23, Section 6, indicates that the “Red Deer County Council may in its sole discretion, waive or defer the payment or otherwise deal with all or any portion of any levies required to be paid, pursuant to the terms of this Bylaw, in any instance where Council determines it to be prudent and in the best interest of Red Deer County”.
3.0 ALTERNATIVES
a) Approve the request to defer the offsite payable pursuant to the Gasoline Alley Offsite Levy Bylaw No. 2014/23 in conjunction with a subdivision of 1.02 hectares (2.52 acres) from Lot 4A, Block 5, Plan 162 3984 and consolidation with Lot 3A Block 5 Plan 162 3984 to create a 2.71 hectare (6.70 acre) parcel on Lot 3A and decrease Lot 4A from 2.08 hectares (5.16 acres) to 1.07 hectares (2.64 acres).
OR:
Lots 3A and 4A, Block 5, Plan 162-3984, NE 29-37-27-4 (Divis... Page 31 of 176 b) Refer decision the request for additional information; or
c) Deny the request which would require the applicant to pay the full amount of offsite levies.
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the request to defer the offsite levy payable pursuant to the Gasoline Alley Offsite Levy Bylaw No. 2014/23 in conjunction with a Subdivision and Consolidation (S-17-013) application.
Prepared by: Julie Hardes Development Officer
Reviewed by: Leonard Solberg Development Engineer
Reviewed by: Curtis Herzberg County Manager
Lots 3A and 4A, Block 5, Plan 162-3984, NE 29-37-27-4 (Divis... Page 32 of 176 SCHEDULE “A”
LAND LOCATION MAP
Lots 3A and 4A, Block 5, Plan 162-3984, NE 29-37-27-4 (Divis... Page 33 of 176 SCHEDULE “B”
LAND LOCATION AERIAL MAPS
Lots 3A and 4A, Block 5, Plan 162-3984, NE 29-37-27-4 (Divis... Page 34 of 176 SCHEDULE “C”
SITE PLAN
Lots 3A and 4A, Block 5, Plan 162-3984, NE 29-37-27-4 (Divis... Page 35 of 176 SCHEDULE “D”
LETTER OF REQUEST
Lots 3A and 4A, Block 5, Plan 162-3984, NE 29-37-27-4 (Divis... Page 36 of 176 Lots 3A and 4A, Block 5, Plan 162-3984, NE 29-37-27-4 (Divis... Page 37 of 176 April 25, 2017 – Report No. 7.3 ADMINISTRATION REPORT
Date: April 25, 2017
Memo To: County Council
From: Planning & Development Services
Subject: Red Deer County/Town of Penhold Intermunicipal Development Plan
1.0 PURPOSE
To consider first reading to a Bylaw to adopt the Red Deer County/Town of Penhold Intermunicipal Development Plan; and
To set a date for the joint public hearing for June 15, 2017.
2.0 SUMMARY
• The proposed IDP is the result of numerous months of discussions between representatives of Penhold Town Council and Red Deer County Council, with the assistance of their respective administrations. • The IDP provides a framework for the Town and County to work together to address issues and opportunities of mutual concern as they relate to land use planning in and around the Town of Penhold. • Prior to Council giving second and third reading to the proposed Bylaw, a public hearing must be held. In addition to the public hearing requirement, both Red Deer County Council and the Town of Penhold Council must pass a motion to adopt the IDP respectively. A special joint Council meeting is, therefore, proposed for June 15, 2017, with the time tentatively set for 6:00 PM at the Penhold Regional Multiplex.
3.0 ALTERNATIVES
a) To grant first reading for a Bylaw to adopt the Red Deer County/Town of Penhold IDP as noted in Section 1.0 of this report,
and,
set the Joint Public Hearing date for June 15, 2017; or
b) Postpone first reading; or
c) Deny first reading.
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 38 of 176 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
To grant first reading for the proposed Bylaw as per Alternative #3.0 a).
Prepared by: Ron Barr Long Range Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Dave Dittrick Director or Planning & Development Services
Reviewed by: Curtis Herzberg County Manager
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 39 of 176 Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan
2017
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 40 of 176 PENHOLD / RED DEER COUNTY INTERMUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 4
1.1 Purpose ...... 4
1.2 Considerations...... 4
1.3 Enabling Legislation...... 4
1.4 Plan Goals...... 4
2.0 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT...... 6
3.0 OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES...... 7
3.1 Intermunicipal Development Plan Boundary ...... 7
3.2 Growth Management ...... 7
3.3 Waskasoo Creek and Fleming Marsh ...... 10
3.4 Agriculture/Rural Area ...... 10
3.5 Economic Development and Fiscal Health ...... 11
3.6 Public and Institutional Uses ...... 12
3.7 Major Green Space, Parks and Trails...... 13
3.8 Recreation and Community Services ...... 13
3.9 Transportation...... 14
3.10 Utilities...... 15
4.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION ...... 16
4.1 Intermunicipal Committee...... 16
4.2 Communication and Referral Processes...... 17
4.3 Issue Identification and Dispute Resolution...... 18
4.4 Urban Expansion and Annexation...... 19
4.5 Area Structure Plans...... 21
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 41 of 176 4.6 Implementation...... 21
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1. Land Use Planning Constraints...... 5 Map 2. Future Development Concept………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 42 of 176 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose The purpose of the Town of Penhold/Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP) is to provide both municipalities with a comprehensive long range land use plan that reduces potential development conflicts, addresses community concerns and provides a framework for ongoing consultation and cooperation regarding areas of mutual concern. The Plan provides policy direction for the conservation of natural areas, long range planning, infrastructure and services provision and future annexation for the Town of Penhold.
1.2 Considerations As with any land use plan the IDP was developed in consideration of a number factors including, natural features, existing land uses within and outside of the Plan boundary, utilities and road network (see Map 1), existing planning legislation and land use plans, existing jurisdictional boundaries, as well as input from both municipalities and the public.
In terms policy direction readers should consider the policy direction provided in context of the entire document. Several of the policy statements included are intended to work together towards achieving the full essence of the land use planning framework that has been agreed upon by the two municipalities.
1.3 Enabling Legislation This Plan was undertaken and adopted pursuant to the Municipal Government Act, RSA, 2000 (as amended). All terms shall be defined within the Municipal Government Act unless otherwise defined herein.
1.4 PlanGoals The goals of the IDP are as follows: a) to facilitate intermunicipal communication related to planning; b) to coordinate the provision of infrastructure and services across municipal boundaries where opportunities arise; c) to facilitate economic opportunities; and d) to enhance the quality of life of residents living in both municipalities.
Town of Penhold / Red Deer County 4 2017 Intermunicipal Development Plan
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 43 of 176 Map 2: Future Development Concept Map 1. Land Use Planning Constraints
Town of Penhold / Red Deer County 5 2017 Intermunicipal Development Plan
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 44 of 176 2.0 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
Long term future land uses and land use patterns form one of the key areas of agreement and coordination in this plan. Map 2: Future Development Concept identifies the long term land use pattern for the lands within the current boundaries of the Town of Penhold and within that portion of Red Deer County falling within the plan area boundaries. The land uses identified are based on the predominant or main type of land use to be located in an area. More specific boundaries and information on the precise land uses is intended to be provided through each municipality’s respective Land Use Bylaw and more detailed land use plans.
The major land development categories shown on Map 2 are the Town Growth Area, Future Town Growth Area, County Growth Area, Waskasoo and Fleming Marsh Area, and the Agricultural/Rural Area.
The Waskasoo and Fleming Marsh area are intended to provide open space, park and trail systems as development occurs in these areas. Activities within or adjacent to these areas should be limited to those that do not harm these natural features. Parks and trail connections which are likely to occur in this area are not shown on Map 2 as these facilities are expected to be identified in more detailed plans.
The IDP also identifies the current extent of the Town of Penhold. The IDP defers to the Town’s Municipal Development Plan and the direction it provides for future land uses in this area.
The Agriculture/Rural Area represents a large portion of the lands with the Plan Area, beyond the long term growth area of the Town. The intent of this is to recognize and protect the diversity of the existing rural landscape which contains a variety of agricultural uses, including residences and a variety of small scale commercial/industrial uses. The IDP defers to the County’s Municipal Development Plan and the direction it provides for future land uses in this area.
The Town Growth and Future Town Growth areas are projected to accommodate approximately 50 years of growth. Periodic annexations will likely occur before the Town boundary expands to include all of the Future Town Growth Area. The County Growth Area represents the area identified in the District 2&42 Major Area Structure Plan which indicates that these lands are to be developed for commercial and industrial uses.
Town of Penhold / Red Deer County 6 2017 Intermunicipal Development Plan
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 45 of 176 3.0 OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
3.1 Intermunicipal Development Plan Boundary
3.1.1 Objective (1) To establish an area to allow for intermunicipal development planning.
3.1.2 Policies (1) The policies of this Plan apply to the lands within the Intermunicipal Development Plan Boundary as indicated on Map 2.
(2) Notwithstanding policy 3.1.1, the policies of this Plan shall not apply to lands that are annexed into the Town of Penhold.
3.2 Growth Management
3.2.1 Goal To direct future growth to the areas identified in Map 2 and in a manner that is compatible with the urban and rural character of the plan area while ensuring that potential social, fiscal and environmental impacts are minimized.
3.2.2 Objectives (1) To promote compact, contiguous and accessible development that is provided with efficient public services while preserving open space and environmentally sensitive areas that are not suitable for development.
(2) To manage future growth and development in a responsible, orderly and cost- efficient manner through the necessary degree of land use control.
(3) To identify and recognize the potential implications of growth and development on the Plan Area.
(4) To promote an equitable distribution of the indirect costs and benefits of growth between the two municipalities.
3.2.3 Policies (1) The Town Growth Area is intended to be annexed immediately and shall accommodate the Town’s immediate growth needs.
(2) Once the Town Growth Area has been annexed and falls under the Town’s jurisdiction, the Town’ development shall occur in accordance with Town’s Municipal Development Plan, applicable area structure plans and outline plans, and Land Use Bylaw.
(3) The Future Town Growth Area is intended to accommodate the Town of Penhold’s long term growth requirements. Development beyond what is currently allowed under the County’s Land Use Bylaw (i.e. Agricultural District) should not be encouraged until such time as lands within this area have been annexed by the Town.
Town of Penhold / Red Deer County 7 2017 Intermunicipal Development Plan
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 46 of 176 (4) First parcel out subdivisions may be allowed with the Future Town Growth Area and County Growth Area in accordance with the County Municipal Development Plan.
(5) Servicing studies, and other information as may be needed to understand the implications of a proposed use or development may have on the Plan Area, may be required by the municipality having jurisdiction.
(6) The Town and County shall explore, and where possible, implement cost-sharing arrangements, such as the future upgrading of Range Rd 275, in accordance with the following principles:
a. Recognize, respect and address the differing needs and values of each municipality including broader rural and urban differences;
b. If the ratepayers of one municipality are using a service/facility in a neighbouring municipality there may be consideration for entering into discussions for a financial contribution arrangement;
c. Regionally accessible and beneficial services may be financed on a regionally cost-shared basis;
d. All parties to a cost-sharing agreement must have the opportunity to participate in a board or committee established to oversee operations;
e. Councils will negotiate principles and set the parameters of cost-sharing agreements. Their respective administrations will finalize the details and draft agreements for Council approval; and
f. Municipal services that are subject to regional negotiations must be rationalized by the parties in long-term plans to ensure the service meets the regional need as opposed to solely a local need.
(7) Both municipalities shall seek to make efficient use of land within their respective Growth Areas in keeping with the character of their respective communities and the life styles that they seek to accommodate.
(8) Developments located along highways shall follow a high standard of appearance in terms of site landscaping, building orientation and building appearance.
(9) Buffers or similar mechanisms to mitigate potential conflict between commercial, industrial and other uses (i.e. residential) shall be used where needed.
Town of Penhold / Red Deer County 8 2017 Intermunicipal Development Plan
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 47 of 176 Map 2: Future Development Concept
Town of Penhold / Red Deer County 9 2017 Intermunicipal Development Plan
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 48 of 176 3.3 Waskasoo Creek and Fleming Marsh
3.3.1 Goal To ensure Waskasoo Creek and Fleming Marsh are protected for their intrinsic and functional value while providing opportunities for open space and recreational uses.
3.3.2 Objectives (1) To minimize the impact of development on Fleming Marsh and Waskasoo Creek.
(2) To protect environmentally sensitive areas of Fleming Marsh and Waskasoo Creek.
(3) To ensure that existing public access to Fleming Marsh and Waskasoo Creek is maintained and enhanced.
(4) To protect the shoreline and riparian areas of Fleming Marsh and Waskasoo Creek.
3.3.3 Policies (1) An Environmental Impact Assessment shall be required for any development proposal of a non - agricultural use or any other use more intense than a single detached dwelling and its associated site improvements, on any parcel that abuts the Fleming Marsh and Waskasoo Creek within the Plan area.
(2) Municipal Reserve and Environmental Reserve shall be subject to the provisions of the Municipal Government Act, an adopted area structure plan and in accordance with the respective Municipal Development Plan policies of the County or the Town.
(3) Environmentally significant areas and features of Fleming Marsh and Waskasoo Creek shall be evaluated and identified for preservation, where warranted, through the process of preparing area structure plans.
(4) Where possible, municipal and/or environmental reserve having a width of 30m shall be dedicated through subdivision along those portions of the Fleming Marsh and Waskasoo Creek top of bank lying outside the Town boundary as of the date this plan is adopted.
3.4 Agriculture/Rural Area
3.4.1 Goal To ensure agriculture within the Plan Area remains sustainable and diversified.
3.4.2 Objectives (1) To allow agricultural lands to continue to be used for a variety of agricultural activities.
(2) To avoid the premature subdivision and conversion of agricultural land to non- agricultural use.
(3) To minimize the impact of urban expansion on agricultural lands.
Town of Penhold / Red Deer County 10 2017 Intermunicipal Development Plan
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 49 of 176 3.4.3 Policies (1) Existing agricultural areas located within the Agriculture/Rural Area on Map 2 shall be allowed to continue to be used for agricultural activities over the long term and subdivision for non-agricultural purposes should be discouraged.
(2) Subdivision of first parcel out farmsteads or fragmented parcels may be allowed in the Agriculture/Rural Area as shown on Map 2 in accordance with the County Municipal Development Plan.
(3) New confined feeding/intensive livestock operations or the expansion of existing operations within the plan area shall not be supported by either the Town or the County.
(4) Non-agricultural uses may be allowed within the Agriculture/Rural Area in accordance with the Red Deer County Land Use Bylaw.
3.5 Economic Development and Fiscal Health
3.5.1 Goal To promote a strong, diversified and sustainable economy that will provide employment opportunities and support community growth within the Plan Area.
3.5.2 Objectives (1) To promote economic development within the plan area by recognizing the needs of both municipalities and the area economy.
(2) For both municipalities to work together in providing a land base and land use pattern capable of supporting a range of appropriate economic activities.
(3) To promote the establishment of sustainable assessment bases capable of supporting desired levels of municipal service provision.
3.5.3 Policies (1) Both municipalities shall work together to ensure a strong and stable local economy within the broader regional economy.
(2) Both municipalities shall work towards diversification of local economic sectors.
(3) The Town or County shall encourage and attract agriculture and value-added agricultural activity to the local area.
(4) The Town and County shall ensure that their combined land use patterns within the Plan Area provides a suitable inventory of lands for commercial and industrial development which includes a range of choice in terms of parcel sizes and servicing.
(5) While a broad range of commercial and industrial uses and development is desirable, those uses and developments which may detract from the community’s character, quality of life for area residents, unduly impacts the environment, or cause negative social implications may not be permitted.
Town of Penhold / Red Deer County 11 2017 Intermunicipal Development Plan
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 50 of 176 (6) The Town and County shall work together to protect and encourage the growth of the Red Deer Regional Airport in recognition of the key role the airport plays in regional economic development opportunities and regional transportation options.
3.6 Public and Institutional Uses
3.6.1 Goal To ensure locations are available to provide public and institutional services to Plan Area residents.
3.6.2 Objectives (1) To accommodate public and institutional uses which serve the Plan Area and surrounding population.
(2) To provide for essential public and private utility services serving the Plan Area population.
3.6.3 Policies (1) Proposed public and institutional uses commonly considered compatible with and complementary to residential uses shall be directed to lands located within the Town Boundary.
(2) Proposed public and institutional uses which serve the plan area and regional population that are commonly considered compatible with and complementary to commercial, industrial land uses may be allowed within all areas provided that these uses are adequately serviced.
(3) Essential public and private utility services may be allowed throughout the Plan Area based on the optimal location(s) to provide the desired level of service to the Plan Area. An adopted area structure plan is not required for the development of essential public services or private utility services.
Town of Penhold / Red Deer County 12 2017 Intermunicipal Development Plan
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 51 of 176 3.7 Major Green Space, Parks and Trails
3.7.1 Goal To create an integrated system of green space that preserves natural features for their intrinsic and functional value and provide open space and trail opportunities within the Plan Area.
3.7.2 Objectives (1) To promote the development of intermunicipal greenways and trails.
(2) To ensure that adequate reserve dedication to meet local and community needs is available through the subdivision process.
(3) To protect environmentally significant areas from adverse negative impacts.
(4) To protect natural drainage courses and waterways critical to the Plan Area.
3.7.3 Policies (1) When lands along creeks, water bodies and natural drainage courses are subdivided, environmental reserve shall be dedicated.
(2) A regional trail network connecting points of interest within the Town and County to major concentrations of residential development shall be addressed as part of any new area structure plan and is encouraged for any existing development areas.
(3) Environmentally significant areas and features shall be inventoried and identified for preservation, where warranted, through the process of preparing area structure plans.
3.8 Recreation and Community Services
3.8.1 Goal To provide a variety of recreation and community services which contribute to a high quality of life for residents in the Penhold area.
3.8.2 Objectives (1) To continue cooperation between municipalities in delivering recreation and community services.
(2) To provide for private recreational uses and development within the Plan Area.
Town of Penhold / Red Deer County 13 2017 Intermunicipal Development Plan
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 52 of 176 3.8.3 Policies (1) The Town and County shall explore ways of providing services to area residents in the most cost effective manner reflecting the desired levels of service within parts or all of the Plan Area (these may include fire protection, animal control, community facilities, etc).
(2) The Town and County shall share their plans for priorities and timing of investment in recreation facilities.
3.9 Transportation
3.9.1 Goal To provide a coordinated transportation system that supports the safe and efficient movement of persons and goods within and through the plan area.
3.9.2 Objectives: (1) To integrate transportation and land use considerations in all transportation decision making.
(2) To use a system of transportation planning and management that establishes a safe and efficient transportation system.
(3) To coordinate transportation planning among Alberta Transportation, Red Deer County and the Town of Penhold.
3.9.3 Policies (1) The highways and major roads network as shown on Map 2 shall continue to guide the development of arterial roadways until such time as a transportation master plan/study has been undertaken for the Plan Area or a functional plan has been adopted for segments of the major road network.
(2) Both municipalities shall coordinate the planning and construction of major transportation links within the Plan Area. Where these links involve Provincial highways each municipality shall work in concert with Alberta Transportation to provide a satisfactory level of service and safety.
(3) Both municipalities shall share their respective plans for priorities and timing of transportation improvements to ensure better coordination respecting road upgrades.
(4) As subdivision occurs, lands required for future major transportation corridors as identified in a transportation plan accepted and approved by both municipalities, shall be protected.
(5) The right-of-way requirements for roads shall be in accordance with in the applicable Town or County design standards.
(6) The maintenance and future development of roads (i.e. Range Road 275) that will form the boundary between the Town and County shall be dealt with through a separate agreement between the two municipalities.
Town of Penhold / Red Deer County 14 2017 Intermunicipal Development Plan
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 53 of 176 3.10 Utilities
3.10.1 Goal To establish the broad parameters and expectations leading to the effective and cost- efficient provision of municipal utility services capable of supporting future growth and development.
3.10.2 Objectives (1) To determine appropriate servicing standards and expectations within the Plan Area.
(2) To provide for the coordination and integration of utility systems within the Plan Area.
(3) To provide for the orderly and cost-effective extension of servicing systems.
(4) To promote strategies for storm water management reflecting best management practices.
3.10.3 Policies (1) The two municipalities shall explore the potential to extend the Town’s municipal water and sanitary sewer services to service lands within the County Growth Area.
(2) As subdivision and development occurs, lands required for future utility and servicing rights-of-way, as identified through the mutual agreement of the Town and County, or subsequent studies, shall be protected.
(3) Provision shall be made for storm water management throughout all of the development areas contemplated by this Plan. Best management practices, including the integration of existing water bodies and natural areas into storm water management ponds, shall be pursued. The release of storm water run-off from any development area to downstream areas shall be designed and managed in accordance with Provincial requirements.
(4) Natural and man-made drainage courses that are critical to the overall management of storm water within the Plan Area shall be protected by the municipality having jurisdiction.
(5) If the Town’s municipal services are extended into the County, development levies or equivalent contributions shall be collected from the benefiting developments so that the cost of these extensions does not directly impact existing residents of the Town or County. The rate structure of the utilities shall also be adjusted to place no additional burden on existing Town and County residents.
Town of Penhold / Red Deer County 15 2017 Intermunicipal Development Plan
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 54 of 176 4.0 Plan Implementation and Administration
Successful implementation of this Plan will depend on an ongoing commitment by the Town and the County to communicate and share information and views on land use planning matters with one another. A clearly established system outlining the expectations and protocols for ongoing referrals, dialogue on planning issues, plan amendments and means of resolving any issues that arise helps to implement the goals, objective and policies of this plan.
4.1 Intermunicipal Committee
4.1.1 Goal To facilitate the ongoing sharing of information between the two municipality’s elected officials and to provide a forum to review and comment on topics of mutual interest.
4.1.2 Objectives (1) To establish broad processes and procedures for ongoing intermunicipal discussions and communication.
(2) To define the role of the Intermunicipal Committee.
4.1.3 Policies (1) An Intermunicipal Committee shall be established between the Town of Penhold and Red Deer County. It shall be comprised of the two Mayors, two councilors from each Council and the Town and County Chief Administrative Officers.
(2) The mandate of the Intermunicipal Committee may include discussion and consideration of the following: a. Making recommendations on intermunicipal matters to their respective Councils; b. Monitoring the progress of the Plan including overseeing implementation actions; c. Reviewing any proposed annexations; d. Reviewing any proposed amendments to this Plan; e. Serving as an informal review body for any amendment, proposed area structure plan or applications that may have a significant impact on the Plan Area; f. Discussing any other joint issues which may arise; g. Serving as a forum for discussion of economic development issues within or affecting the Plan Area; h. Assisting with the resolution of disputes in accordance with this Plan.
(3) The Intermunicipal Committee shall meet annually approximately on the date of adoption of this plan or as mutually agreed upon to monitor/review the progress in plan implementation and to discuss issues of mutual interest and on an as-needed basis to discuss and/or resolve issues.
(4) The responsibility for providing administrative support to the Intermunicipal Committee shall alternate between the two municipalities. Administrative support to be provided and procedures to be followed shall include: a. The establishment of dates and locations for all meetings, production of agendas, distribution of pre-meeting information packages, and other matters as deemed necessary.
Town of Penhold / Red Deer County 16 2017 Intermunicipal Development Plan
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 55 of 176 b. Keeping a record of the Committee meetings. c. Chairing the meetings on an alternating basis between the Mayors of the two municipalities. d. Convening meetings as required by the Plan.
4.2 Communication and Referral Processes
4.2.1 Goal To provide opportunities for each municipality to become informed about and have input on planning and development matters.
4.2.2 Objectives (1) To maintain open and ongoing dialogue through direct and timely communication and sharing of information.
(2) To establish processes for the referral of plans, amendments and applications affecting lands of mutual interest.
4.2.3 Policies (1) Each municipality shall share with the other information, data or studies that may have implications for the Plan Area.
(2) Each municipality shall refer to the other proposed statutory plans, outline plans, land use bylaws and amendments as required by the Municipal Government Act.
(3) Each municipality shall have at least thirty (30) days to review and comment on the referrals made pursuant to subsection (2). Upon mutual agreement an extension of the initial review period may be granted.
(4) Each municipality shall offer comments from the perspective of specific implications that have a high likelihood of impacting their own efforts around land use planning and provision of municipal services and infrastructure. General observations on issues that have no bearing on the planning or service delivery efforts of the commenting municipality shall be avoided.
(5) Notwithstanding the above policies, where in the judgment of the municipality having jurisdiction, any proposed plan or application is thought to have potential implications for or be of interest to the other municipality the matter shall be referred to the other municipality.
Town of Penhold / Red Deer County 17 2017 Intermunicipal Development Plan
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 56 of 176 4.3 Issue Identification and Dispute Resolution
4.3.1 Goal: To create a process that allows for timely resolution of differences of opinion in a manner respectful of each municipality’s interests and concerns.
4.3.2 Objectives: (1) To establish a procedure for resolving disputes if and when required.
(2) To clarify items that may constitute a dispute and be subject to the dispute resolution process.
4.3.3 Policies: (1) Where the administration of one municipality disagrees with a Land Use Bylaw amendment, area structure plan or amendments thereto, or interpretation of this Intermunicipal Development Plan, either party may give written notice to the other identifying the disagreement and initiating the dispute resolution process.
(2) Within 15 days of a municipality receiving written notice to initiate the dispute resolution process, a meeting shall be convened between the respective administrations including: staff directly involved in the matters causing the disagreement; a member of the senior planning staff from each municipality and the CAOs of each municipality. If a solution to the disagreement is reached then staff from each municipality shall take the necessary steps to implement the resolution. If there is no resolution of the disagreement then the matter shall be referred to a joint council meeting.
(3) Within 15 days of administration being unable to resolve the disagreement a meeting shall be convened between both Councils to hear administration from each municipality present their perspectives on the matter, thereby eliminating the potential for miscommunication from indirect forms of communication. If the Councils for each municipality can reach an agreement supported by the majority of both, then each Council shall direct their respective staffs to implement the resolution resolving the disagreement.
(4) Failing resolution of the issue, the Councils for each municipality shall direct the Intermunicipal Committee to engage in a facilitated mediation process based on the following:
a. A mutually agreed upon registered professional mediator shall be named to facilitate face to face discussions. The two municipalities shall share equally in the cost of the mediator’s remuneration, travel and lodging expenses.
b. In order to assist the mediation process two members from each municipality’s council, will be chosen by their respective councils to participate in the mediation. These Councilors may or may not be part of the Intermunicipal Committee. This will ensure that each municipality will be able to choose who they feel are the best Councilors to represent their municipality.
Town of Penhold / Red Deer County 18 2017 Intermunicipal Development Plan
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 57 of 176 c. The facilitated mediation shall take place confidentially and be initiated within 30 days following the request from the joint council meeting.
(5) If a resolution is reached during the mediation process then the details of the resolution shall be presented to the two councils for ratification.
(6) If a resolution is not reached then the summary of the mediation attempt shall be presented to each council. The disputing municipality may then choose to refer the matter for an appeal to the Municipal Government Board to render a final decision.
4.4 Urban Expansion and Annexation
4.4.1 Goal To recognize and accommodate the growth aspirations of the Town in an orderly, economical and logical manner which discourages loss and premature fragmentation of agricultural land.
4.4.2 Objectives (1) To establish a process for managing and assessing annexation proposals.
(2) To set out the criteria for timely, cooperative and strategic annexations.
(3) To identify and protect areas to accommodate future expansion of the Town.
(4) To promote infill options and intensification of land uses.
4.4.3 Policies (1) Areas identified for long-term urban expansion and annexation into the Town shall be those lands falling within the Future Town Growth Area shown on Map 2. Areas identified as Town Growth Area will form part of an annexation application to be submitted within 1 year of the adoption of this plan. All other areas shall not be annexed into the Town. Map 2 of the IDP shall be amended upon approval of an annexation.
(2) There shall be a minimum of 5 years between the time land is annexed until the time the Town submits another Notice of Intent to Annex to the Province, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the County.
(3) Both municipalities agree to protect those lands identified for future growth from land uses and developments that might interfere or conflict with future urbanization.
(4) The Town shall not pursue annexation of any land it cannot economically and reasonably service through a logical extension of municipal sanitary sewer and water systems.
(5) Either municipality may put forward an annexation proposal or request. In the case of an annexation proposal by a landowner, the landowner shall simultaneously notify both municipalities in writing.
Town of Penhold / Red Deer County 19 2017 Intermunicipal Development Plan
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 58 of 176 (6) Where annexation is proposed by either municipality affected landowners shall be notified prior to the general public.
(7) A request for annexation from a landowner shall not constitute the sole reason for annexation. Similarly, landowner opposition to annexation shall not constitute the sole reason to object to annexation.
(8) Annexation proposals will be reviewed by the Intermunicipal Committee prior to submission to the respective Councils and the Municipal Government Board.
(9) At least one joint meeting of the two Councils to discuss the rationale for the annexation shall be held prior to submission of the formal Notice of Intent to Annex to the Municipal Government Board.
(10) In determining the appropriateness of an annexation proposal the following criteria, among others, shall be taken into account and documented in a supporting report:
a. Justifiable based on projected growth rates reflecting historic trends or anticipated economic stimulus;
b. Availability and cost of providing municipal services including consideration of economies of scale related to the financing of municipal service extensions;
c. Adequacy of transportation system and ability to expand to accommodate demands resulting from annexation including consideration of economies of scale related to the financing of transportation infrastructure;
d. Landowner interest in pursuing development and has high a degree of concurrence among affected landowners as possible;
e. Measures to mitigate the impacts of annexation relating to such aspects as change in taxation levels, service provisions and treatment of and continuation of existing, approved uses and development;
f. Consistency with adopted statutory plans;
g. Logical extension of jurisdictional boundaries including consideration of long term responsibilities for maintenance and service delivery and the establishment of rational planning units; and
i. The financial impact on both municipalities and any means of mitigating impacts.
Town of Penhold / Red Deer County 20 2017 Intermunicipal Development Plan
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 59 of 176 4.5 Area Structure Plans/Outline Plans
4.5.1 Goal To provide consistency between this Intermunicipal Development Plan and adopted area structure plans.
4.5.2 Objectives (1) To recognize the land use patterns and policies of existing and adopted area structure plans.
(2) To limit potential conflicts when new area structure plans/outline plans are adopted or existing area structure plans are amended.
4.5.3 Policies (1) Where there is an existing area structure plan in place as of the date this Plan is adopted (date of adoption), the detailed land use patterns and policies of the area structure plan shall take precedence over this Plan.
(2) As new area structure plans are prepared and adopted or as existing area structure plans are amended and expanded these plans shall be used to determine the detailed land uses for the area covered.
(3) Receipt of an application to adopt an area structure plan or amend an existing area structure plan shall not constitute a dispute.
(4) Each municipality may establish their own processes for the preparation of new or amendments to existing area structure plans. At the start of these processes, each municipality shall consult the other on issues that concern the neighbouring municipality and should be considered and reviewed as part of preparing the plan. This may involve obtaining comments on the proposed terms of reference for the plan process.
4.6 Implementation
4.6.1 Goal To promote the use of the Plan and implementation of its policies.
4.6.2 Objectives (1) To implement the Plan through other statutory plans.
(2) To implement the Plan through decisions of the subdivision and development authorities.
(3) To provide for periodic reviews and plan amendments when deemed desirable and necessary.
Town of Penhold / Red Deer County 21 2017 Intermunicipal Development Plan
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 60 of 176 4.6.3 Policies
Interpreting Policies
(1) The IDP contains “shall”, “should” and “may” policies which are interpreted as follows: . “Shall” policies must be complied with, . “Should” policies mean compliance in principle is required but subject to the discretion of the applicable authority on a case by case basis, and . “May” policies indicate support in principle subject to the applicable authority determining the level of compliance that is required.
Approving Authorities
(2) In the hierarchy of statutory plans, and unless stated otherwise in this Plan, the Intermunicipal Development Plan shall take precedence over other municipal statutory plans and documents.
(3) The Town of Penhold shall be responsible for the administration and decisions on all statutory plans, land use bylaws, amendments thereto, and subdivision applications falling within the boundaries of the Town.
(4) Red Deer County shall be responsible for the administration and decisions on all statutory plans, land use bylaws, amendments thereto, and subdivision applications falling within the boundaries of the County.
Future Plans and Studies
(5) Area structure plans shall be prepared and adopted by the municipality having jurisdiction prior to changes in land use designation or subdivision within the non- agricultural areas shown on Map 2. This requirement shall not apply to those areas within the current Town boundaries that are not presently covered by an approved area structure plan as of the date of adoption of this Intermunicipal Development Plan.
(6) First-parcel subdivisions shall not require an area structure plan.
(7) Each municipality may establish their own processes for the preparation of new or amendments to area structure plans.
(8) The Town and the County shall coordinate future planning efforts including potential collaboration on area structure plans, transportation plans, drainage basin studies, and water system studies, feasibility studies relating to provision of municipal utilities and power generation and open space plans.
Town of Penhold / Red Deer County 22 2017 Intermunicipal Development Plan
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 61 of 176 Plan Amendments
(9) An amendment to this Plan may be proposed by either municipality. An amendment to this Plan proposed by a landowner shall be made to the municipality in which the subject land is located.
(10) An amendment to the Plan has no effect if not adopted by both municipalities by bylaw pursuant to the Municipal Government Act.
Procedure to Repeal Plan
(11) If one municipality deems this Plan no longer workable, the municipality may initiate the repeal of the Plan. Repeal of the Plan may be accomplished by one municipality passing a bylaw in accordance with the repeal provisions of the Municipal Government Act.
(12) The following procedure to repeal the Plan shall be followed: a. One municipality shall give the other written notice of its intention to repeal its bylaw adopting the Plan b. Within 30 days of the date of written notice forwarded to the other municipality, an Intermunicipal Committee meeting shall be convened c. Following the Intermunicipal Committee meeting, the municipality initiating the repeal procedure may either withdraw its intention to repeal the Plan by giving written notice to the other municipality or proceed to consider a bylaw to repeal the Plan d. Once one municipality has passed a bylaw repealing the Plan the other municipality shall also proceed to pass a bylaw repealing the Plan
(13) In the event that the Plan is repealed, each municipality shall amend their Municipal Development Plan to address intermunicipal issues in accordance with the Municipal Government Act. Should these required amendments not satisfy the neighbouring municipality the matter may be appealed to the Municipal Government Board.
Town of Penhold / Red Deer County 23 2017 Intermunicipal Development Plan
Penhold / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (I... Page 62 of 176 April 25, 2017 – Report No. 8.1 ADMINISTRATION REPORT
Date: April 25, 2017
Memo To: County Council
From: Planning & Development Services
Subject: Red Deer County Land Use Bylaw 2006/6, Direct Control District #18 (DCD#18), Text Amendment / Bylaw No. 2017/2.01 / Part of SE 13-38-28-W4M /
1.0 PURPOSE
To hold the Public Hearing for Bylaw No. 2017/2.01 to amend Red Deer County Land Use Bylaw 2006/6, Direct Control District #18 (DCD-18) as follows:
Amend the map attached to Direct Control District #18 (DCD #18), to redesignate a portion of SE 13-38-28-4 (22.43 hectares / 55.43 acres) from Agricultural District (AG) to Direct Control District #18 “DCD-18.”
And To consider granting second and third reading for Bylaw 2017/2.01.
2.0 HISTORY
• On February 2, 2017, an application to subdivide a portion of the SE 13-38-28-W4M to be consolidated with Lot 1 Block 1 Plan 002 4627 was received. The request for subdivision initiated the proposed text amendment to the map within the Direct Control District #18 to include the portion of lands to be consolidated. • The proposed amendment of Direct Control District #18 would redesignate a portion of the subject parcel from Agricultural (AG) to Direct Control District #18 for the expansion of the Equestrian Centre and Stables.
3.0 SUMMARY • First reading to Bylaw 2017/2.01 was granted on March 28, 2017. • Administration would like to amend Direct Control District #18. • This application was referred to both internal and external agents as well as adjacent landowners for comments. To date no concerns have been received.
Bylaw No. 2017/2.01 - a bylaw to redesignate Pt Lot 1, Plan ... Page 63 of 176 4.0 ALTERNATIVES
Dependent on the information received during the public hearing process, to allow time for Council’s consideration of the information received or to provide direction to Administration for receipt of clarification/information relative to specific matters of concern, the following alternatives are provided:
a) Grant second and third reading to Bylaw 2017/2.01 to amend the Red Deer County Land Use Bylaw 2006/6, Direct Control District #18; as noted in Section 1.0 of this report; or
b) Refer decision on second and third reading(s) pending receipt of further information; or
c) Grant second reading to Bylaw No. 2017/2.01 and refer third reading pending receipt of further information; or
d) Deny.
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Grant second and third reading to Bylaw 2017/2.01 to amend the Red Deer County Land Use Bylaw 2006/6, Direct Control District #18 as per Alternative #4(a).
Prepared by: Julie Hardes Development Officer
Reviewed by: Leonard Solberg Development Engineer
Reviewed by: Curtis Herzberg County Manager
Bylaw No. 2017/2.01 - a bylaw to redesignate Pt Lot 1, Plan ... Page 64 of 176 SCHEDULE “A” LAND LOCATION MAP
Bylaw No. 2017/2.01 - a bylaw to redesignate Pt Lot 1, Plan ... Page 65 of 176 April 25, 2017 – Report No. 8.2 ADMINISTRATION REPORT
Date: April 25, 2017
Memo To: County Council
From: Planning & Development Services
Subject: Bylaw No. 2017/8 / SE 13-36-2-W5M / Agricultural District / Division 5 / File TXT-17-001 / Gravel Extraction Overlay District
1.0 PURPOSE:
To hold a public hearing for Bylaw No. 2017/8, a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw 2006/6 to include SE 13-36-2-W5M in the Gravel Extraction Overlay District for the purpose of Aggregate Removal.
2.0 SUMMARY:
• First reading was granted on March 7, 2017. • The Applicant has applied to amend the Red Deer County’s Land Use Bylaw 2006/6 to include the SE 13-36-2-W5M into the “Gravel Extraction Overlay District”. • The subject property is located at the intersection of Highway 54 and Range Road 20. • Access into the pit will be developed approximately 500 meters north of Highway 54. • Surrounding lands are mainly agricultural in use. • This parcel is within the Medicine River Environmentally Significant Area (ESA). There are four levels of significance identified within the Environmentally Significant Areas Inventory. These levels include the International, National, Provincial and Regional ratings. This parcel falls within the Regional significance rating which includes localized features such as wetlands, lakes, nesting sites (raptors), rare plants or aspen parkland habitat that have a limited distribution in the County. • The subject property is not located within a flood plain, although a portion of this land is located within the flood fringe. The majority of this area will not be mined as it is located within the 165 meter setback that is required between the existing dwellings which are on titles separate from the proposed pit area. (Refer to Schedule E). • The Municipal Development Plan identifies this area as a potential aggregate resource which is contingent on minimizing cumulative impacts, land uses, soil, water, and farming operations. • Section 6.3.4 of the Municipal Development Plan recommends the County and the Province coordinate the licensing process for sand and gravel operations. • The Applicant is proposing to mine and crush sand and gravel at the site. Phases 1 and 2 of the pit will total 11.0 ha (27.18 acres) and will be mined within the first 5 years of development. There will be a total of 10 phases, each phase will be approximately 5.0 ha (+/-) in size.
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 66 of 176 • The Applicant has indicated that the proposed gravel pit operations will include stripping of material, dry and wet pit excavation, crushing and screening, pit to pit dewatering and hauling. The total area of the proposed pit footprint is 49.3 ha (121.8 acres) with an estimated 2,164,000 tonnes of material to be extracted over the life of the pit. • All topsoil, subsoil and overburden will be maintained onsite and kept in separate stockpiles for reclamation purposes. Progressive reclamation of the pit will occur. • All operational faces will be sloped to a minimum of 2:1 and 3:1 on inactive faces. All slopes will be toward the pit to ensure there is no offsite drainage. • A minimum 3 meter buffer will be maintained on all property boundaries and a nuisance setback of 165 meters will be staked from both the dwellings on parcels located in the southwest corner of the quarter section. • Overburden shall be positioned to act as a sound barrier for the two dwellings. Berms will be seeded with grass, and trees will be planted on them in order to help minimize noise and control the dust. • The Applicant has installed four (4) monitoring wells along the proposed perimeter of the pit which will be monitored on a regular basis. • Aggregate material will be processed and hauled south along the developed portion of Range Road 20 to Highway 54. • Alberta Transportation has indicated that setbacks will be reviewed to ensure adequate highway corridor protection as part of the Roadside Development Permit application process. • A self-contained portable dry screener will be used at the site therefore no additional water or chemicals are required for this method. • A 100’ x 11’ truck scale with scale shack will be used at the site which will be located near the access road in the staging area. • During peak periods of activity (May – November), the operations could have up to 30 truckloads (one way) per day; in low season (December – April) activity will be minimal, if at all. • Hours of Operation will include: Gravel operations – 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m., 6 days per week, year round; Hauling shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m., 6 days per week, year round; Crushing and/or screening shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m., 6 days per week, to a maximum of 10 weeks per year. A Crusher will be situated within the lower area of the pit in order to reduce noise and dust. The crusher may also be “blanketed” to reduce noise and dust (dependent upon the results of the Noise Impact Assessment); and The pit shall be closed on Sundays and statutory holidays. • The Applicant will be responsible for dust control along Range Road 20 and within the pit boundary, in accordance with Red Deer County Policy. • Trucks shall be registered with Alberta Sand & Gravel Association and labelled with an assigned identification number and clearly displayed on each truck. • The Applicant has indicated that they have a number of policies in place pertaining to the day to day operation of the excavating company including health and safety programs. • If approved, the Applicant will be required to apply for a Development Permit and provide the necessary studies (i.e. Noise Impact Assessment, Road Use Agreement and required securities) prior to the issuance of a development permit. The Applicant will be required to adhere to the regulations within the Gravel Extraction Overlay District Bylaw as set out for hours of operation, dust control and noise control, unless a variance is granted by the Municipal Planning Commission.
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 67 of 176 • This application will require a registration from Alberta Environment and Parks (AE&P). The full cost of reclamation securities will also be submitted to AE&P. • This application was referred to internal and external agencies as well as adjacent landowners. Several letters of concern have been received from adjacent landowners. These letters are attached for your reference as well as summarized within Section 3.0, Landowner Concerns, of this report.
3.0 LANDOWNER CONCERNS:
• Dust The Applicant is required to adhere to the County’s dust control policy. • Hours of Operation The Applicant is required to operate within the hours as set out in the Gravel Extraction Overlay District. • Devaluation of Property Red Deer County has no documentation to support or refute this claim. • Environmental Concerns These concerns including mining under the water table, must be addressed through Alberta Environment & Parks. A License under the Water Act would be required. Mining below the water table is allowed within the Code of Practice for Gravel Pits (2004), however an approval is required under the Water Act. • Degradation of Farmland Red Deer County has no documentation to support or refute this claim. Upon reclamation of the land, 15 hectares (37 acres) will be returned to hay and/or crop land, 16 hectares (39.5 acres) to wetlands and 22.4 hectares (55.35 acres) to natural habitat area. • Quality of Life The proposed end use of waterbodies and natural area will encourage wildlife and waterfowl to the area. • Noise A Noise Impact Assessment is required which includes mitigated measures to minimize the impact during operations. The Applicant will be required to adhere to the recommendations as set out in the Noise Impact Assessment. • Water Supply The Applicant has installed four (4) well monitors within the pit boundary. The County as well as Alberta Environment will have access to monitoring results. • Flood Risks Flooding cannot be prevented, however, mitigated measures such as the development of end pit water bodies helps to lessen the impacts of flooding. End pit water bodies must be engineered and approved pursuant to the Code of Practice through Alberta Environment and Parks. The proposed berming within the pit boundaries will also lessen the impacts of flooding. These berms will be engineered as well.
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 68 of 176 4.0 APPLICATION DIFFERENCES 2010 vs. 2017:
• The Applicant is proposing two (2) wetlands in this application versus one (1) wetland in the 2010 application. The designated wetlands will assist in flood mitigation should flooding in the area occur in the future. • Regulatory conditions for the development permit are more comprehensive due to the adoption of the Gravel Extraction Overlay District. These are as follows: A Noise Impact Assessment is required due to mining activity within 800 meters of a dwelling. Mining is restricted 165 meters from a dwelling on an adjacent parcel to the pit boundary. Dust control will be required along Range Road 20 in accordance with County policy. The Applicant may be required to submit a Letter of Credit equal to the cost of two (2) applications of calcium chloride being applied to the road. No asphalt plant is being requested with this application.
5.0 BACKGROUND:
• In 1992, a development permit was issued to mine in the southwest corner of the SE 13-36-2-5. This is the current location where the two subdivided lots are now located. • In 1998, an application to the Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) was made by Stewart Construction (1996) Ltd. to expand the pit by an additional 30 acres within the SE 13-36-2-5. This application was approved by the MPC on September 1, 1998. • On December 2, 1998, the application was appealed to the Subdivision and Appeal Board, by adjacent landowners. The appeal was denied and the application by Stewart Construction to expand the pit was upheld. Although approved, no mining occurred at this site, the application was cancelled on December 16, 1999. • On February 17, 2010, an application was submitted by Howell’s Excavating Ltd to initiate a sand and gravel pit on the SE 13-36-2-5. On February 19, 2013, the application was presented to the Municipal Planning Commission; the motion to approve was defeated. • Howell’s Excavating appealed the decision of the Municipal Planning Commission on April 12, 2013. The Appeal Hearing was held on June 13 and 14, 2013. • On June 24, 2013, the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board denied the appeal for the following reasons: Dust and noise from extraction Processing and hauling of the aggregate Hours and number of days of operation • At that time, Alberta Environment indicated by way of letter on January 14, 2013, they were in support of this application; however, the full review was not completed by Alberta Environment.
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 69 of 176 6.0 ALTERNATIVES:
Dependent on the amount of information received during the public hearing process, to allow time for Council’s consideration of the information received or to provide direction to Administration for receipt of clarification/information relative to specific matters of concern, the following alternatives are provided:
a. Refer decision on second reading to the bylaw pending receipt of further information as requested by Council; or
b. Grant second and third reading to Bylaw No. 2017/8, a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw 2006/6 to include SE 13-36-2-W5M into the Gravel Extraction Overlay District; or
c. Deny.
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS:
Dependent on Council’s decision relative to the information received during the public hearing process, either:
1. Refer decision on second reading to the bylaw pending receipt of further information as requested by Council; or
2. Grant second and third reading to Bylaw No. 2017/8, a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw 2006/6 to include the SE 13-36-2-W5M into the Gravel Extraction Overlay District.
Prepared by Connie Sloan Development Officer
Reviewed by Leonard Solberg Development Engineer
Reviewed by Curtis Herzberg County Manager
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 70 of 176 SCHEDULE “A”
REFERRAL LETTER
February 2, 2017 File: TXT-17-001
Legal Description: SE-13-36-2-W5M Landowner/Applicant: HOWELL’S EXCAVATING LTD. Subject: Text Amendment Gravel Extraction Overlay District
This letter is being sent to inform you that Red Deer County has received an application to amend the Land Use Bylaw to include SE 13-36-2-5 into the Gravel Extraction Overlay District for the purposes of Aggregate Removal.
Aggregate Removal means the onsite extraction from the subject site of aggregate materials found on or under the subject site or accessible from the subject site. Typical uses include, but not limited to, gravel pits, sand pits, clay pits, coal mining and stripping of topsoil. The uses include the processing (i.e. crushing, washing, cleaning, sifting, sorting, combined with other aggregates).
Red Deer County appreciates your feedback at this time. If you have any comments or concerns regarding this proposal, please submit them in writing by quoting File: TXT-17-001, prior to March 6, 2017. Your comments will be included with the administration report when this application is considered by Red Deer County Council. Please note: Red Deer County Administration is not able to respond, on an individual basis to feedback received. Should you require further information or clarification on this application, please contact our office between 8:30 am - 4:30 pm Monday to Friday at 403.350.2170.
County Council meetings are an open meeting to the public and you are welcome to attend.
Sincerely, Red Deer County
Connie Sloan, Development Officer
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 71 of 176 SCHEDULE “A”
APPLICATION DETAILS:
Purpose of Application:
The Applicant is applying to amend the Red Deer County Land Use Bylaw 2006/6 to include SE 13-36-2-5 into the “Gravel Extraction Overlay District.” The Applicant is proposing to mine and crush sand and gravel at the site. The mining area of the pit in the first two (of 10) phases will total 11.0 ha (27.18 acres) within the first 5 years of development. Progressive reclamation of the site will occur.
The Applicant will be required to adhere to the regulations within Bylaw No. 2015/27 for the Gravel Extraction Overlay District which sets out hours of operation, dust control and noise control, unless a variance is granted by the Municipal Planning Commission.
Dust control will be required on a portion of Range Road 20. The Applicant will be responsible for dust control within the pit boundary.
Prior to commencement a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) shall be performed as the pit boundary is located less than 800 meters from an existing dwelling (on a separate title) in order to determine projected noise levels and implement measures to mitigate noise.
Hours of operation (i.e. stripping, on-site sales and reclamation) will be limited to 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m., 6 days per week, year round. The pit shall be closed on Sundays and Statutory holidays.
Hauling shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m., 6 days per week, year round. There are restrictions on ban free roads. Hauling shall not occur on Sundays and Statutory holidays. The Applicant is proposing to access the pit via Range Road 20 midway along the east boundary of the quarter section. Range Road 20 will need to be upgraded to County Standards to the proposed access/egress.
Crushing and/or screening shall be permitted as follows: for a pit that is less than 800 meters from an existing dwelling (on a separate title) to the pit boundary, the hours shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m., 6 days per week to a maximum of 10 weeks per year, and shall not occur on Sundays and Statutory holidays. (An increase in the number of weeks may be considered if a variance is granted by the Municipal Planning Commission - MPC).
Proposed Land Use / Lot Description:
The quarter section of land is currently being farmed.
Surrounding Land Use / Environmental Considerations:
Surrounding lands are mainly agricultural in use.
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 72 of 176 The subject land is within the Medicine River Environmentally Significant Area. The land is not within a Flood Plain nor is it within a Flood Fringe area except for a small area above the subdivided out parcels and a narrow strip of low lying land.
Statutory Document Information:
Part 33 of the Red Deer County Land Use Bylaw, Schedule A – Gravel Extraction Overlay District states that this district is to establish an Overlay District to ensure consistent and appropriate regulations are applied to the land for the extraction of sand and gravel materials. This section of the Land Use Bylaw requires and regulates site development plans, reclamation, noise and dust controls, security, hauling routes, and hours of operation.
Reclamation:
The full cost of reclamation securities is required to be submitted to Alberta Environment.
This application will be presented to Council for first reading on March 7, 2017. At that time, a date for the public hearing will be scheduled. Any affected parties will have an opportunity to speak to Council at the public hearing to address any comments or concerns.
If third reading is granted, the Applicant will be required to apply for a Development Permit and provide the necessary studies (i.e. Noise Impact Assessment), prior to issuance of the permit.
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 73 of 176 SCHEDULE “B”
LAND LOCATION MAP
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 74 of 176 SCHEDULE “C” LAND LOCATION AERIAL MAPS
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 75 of 176 SCHEDULE “D” SITE PLAN
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 76 of 176 SCHEDULE “E” FLOOD PLAIN MAPS (Flood Plain identified in red, circle denotes SE 13-36-2-5)
FLOOD FRINGE MAP (within SE 13-36-2-5)
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 77 of 176 SCHEDULE “E” CONTINUED FLOOD PLAIN MAPS
165 METER SETBACK FROM EXISTING DWELLINGS TO PIT WITHIN FLOOD FRINGE
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 78 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 79 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 80 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 81 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 82 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 83 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 84 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 85 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 86 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 87 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 88 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 89 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 90 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 91 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 92 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 93 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 94 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 95 of 176 CHRISTABELRANCH-60 YEARSAFAMILYFARM
REDDEERCOUNTYAB.
Apr. 18, 2017
To the attention of Red Deer County – 38106 Range Road 275- T4S 2L9
Mayor Jim Wood, Council, Connie Sloan & David Dittrick ,
In the matter of File No. TXT-17-001 Howell gravel zoning and re-application
This letter is being sent to ask that you again deny the Howell re-application for gravel zoning and industrial gravel activities on SE 13-36-2-5 on Apr. 25, 2017 . We believe our family and resident community have carried more than enough pit application burden to last a life time. As you are aware, Mr. Miller too (6M Holding) has reapplied for the third time for the area north of SE- 13. Same Flood Plain, same ESA, same Aquifer - same issues. If added up - 8 different Red Deer County commissions have consistently denied gravel applications 8 times siting incompatibility to the Red Deer/Medicine Flats Floodplain area.
In 2013 MPC and ISDAB had access to the entire Howell application, upon which to base their decisions. The Howell Application crept through many iterations from 2009 until Feb. 19th 2013 at which time the Municipal Planning Commission denied, to our understanding, virtually the same application we are faced with today except for the 2 very large end pit scar ponds .
At the 2013 Howell MPC, we heard elected council appreciating the high agricultural productivity of the local land, the intolerable levels noise, dust, and water issues the Howell proposal would place on our resident community and farms. We were pleased to hear councilors laying out the importance of our environment- the ESA designation, the Flood Plain, the Alluvial Aquifer we depend on and the additional flood threats the Howell proposal brought with it. Indeed, the majority of council valued the environment as often advertised.
Mr. Howell then appealed the MPC decision. MFAC were named the Respondents and we bore those heavy costs. On June 24, after Mr. Howell’s three- day appeal process, the ISDAB denied the Howell application, siting incompatibility to adjacent residential and agricultural uses, specifically dust and noise; incompatibility with existing design and character of the area; adjacent agricultural production; significant disruption of ESA topography and natural features; and even a 10- year pit lifetime and hours as unreasonable and incompatible land use.
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 96 of 176 The ISDAB ruled, as we read it, that it was unreasonable to expect those who live in the on the properties in the vicinity of the gravel pit to tolerate the impact of the noise and dust for up to 12 hours a day,5 days a week- crushing and screening 8 weeks year. Mr. Howell had provided a Noise Impact Assessment and dropped his asphalt plans during the process.
By contrast, Bylaw Schedule “A” as presented for the 2017 application allows gravel activity 6 days a week, crushing and/or screening 24 hours a day for 10 weeks with potential for variance-increased hours and activities etc. It must be noted that considerably less hours of operation were deemed an intolerable nuisance and incompatible land use by both Red Deer County MPC and the ISDAB.
Our family has always supported Red Deer County initiatives for example the ESA designation and Off the Creek, Growing Forward Environmental Farm Stewardship programs as well as Provincial Water for Life, Room for the River, Medicine River Watershed, and Cows and Fish. We are part of the active, long term Watershed Group (MFAC) and incredible resident community. We ask you to consider carefully the health, wellness and rights to peaceful enjoyment for our community and our farming families. We are a 4th generation family farm in this location. Council has acknowledged our community’s considerable burden and asked us to “trust the process”. Please deny the Howell application.
Thank you,
Glenn and Dale Christian
2
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 97 of 176 Red Deer County, AB. 38106 Range Road 275, T4S 2L9 Apr. 14, 2017 Re- Howell Excavating Ltd. SE 13-36-02-W5M Gravel Overlay Designation and Large Pit Proposal No. TXT-17-001 To Mayor Jim Wood, Elected Council and Administration, Please be advised in the matter of the Howell re-application No.TXT-17-001. We are extremely concerned with this re- application by Howell Excavating Ltd. The Howell Application was denied by the Municipal Planning Commission [MPC] on Feb. 19, 2013. Mr. Howell appealed the Municipal Planning Commission’s decision. Our community group, Medicine Flats Aquifer Committee [MFAC], was placed in the role of respondent to Mr. Howell’s appeal by County Administration. We carried out this role, to support Red Deer County’s MPC decision, at great personal and non-recoupable expense to us. Mr. Howell’s Appeal occurred on 3 days, namely Apr. 12, June 13, 14, 2013. This application, essentially the same and on the same land, is increasingly incompatible and even more inappropriate since the Flood event of 2013. On June 24, 2013, the Howell Appeal was denied by Red Deer County’s Inter-Municipal Subdivision and Appeal Board for the reasons quoted in part below: Note: - The blue MDP references are included for your convenience.
Properties in the Vicinity - “The Board finds that the proposed use of the subject land for Aggregate Removal, and the design, character and appearance of the proposed gravel pit operation are not compatible with the adjacent existing residential and agricultural uses due to the commercial, industrial nature of this proposed development and the nuisances it would create, specifically dust and noise from the extraction, processing and hauling of the aggregate.” MDP Sections 1& 2(2.5) “While there is a history of aggregate in the area of the proposed site, there has not in recent times, been extraction activity so as to change the character of the area from that of primarily agriculture and country residential. The proposed operation would affect the character of the area for an uncertain and significant period of time. MDP Sections1&3 (3.1- 4) Airborne Emissions – “The Board is not satisfied that it is possible to effectively mitigate the impact of the dust generated by operation of the gravel pit, particularly when the crusher is operating and particularly with respect to the Christian farm, which lies directly east of the proposed site in the path of prevailing westerly winds. The Board heard evidence of damage that could be caused to the adjacent farming operation such as coating of plants and feed and accepts that there is a reasonable likelihood of such damage occurring as a result of the operation of the gravel pit on the subject site.” MDP Parts of Sections 2&3
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 98 of 176 Noise- “The Board finds that the noise that could reasonably be expected to be generated by the operation and associated truck traffic would impact the people living at the properties in the vicinity of SE 13-36-02-W5 in an intolerable way…” ”The Board finds that even the stated minimum 10-year period of expected operation is an unacceptable timeframe for those living in the vicinity to have to tolerate what is in the view of the Board an incompatible use.” “The Board considers it unreasonable to expect those who live on the properties in the vicinity of the gravel pit to tolerate the impact of the noise and dust generated by the proposed use, for up to 12 hours a day, 5 days per week.” All of Sections 1 &2 &3 and Section 6(6.3.1&6.3.2) Statutory Plans and County Policy- “On balance, given the good quality of the farmland as indicated in the evidence, the Board finds that the proposed location is not a suitable site in which to favor aggregate over agriculture” Section 3 (3.1.1through3.1.3) “The Board notes the subject sight is within the area designated as Environmentally Significant. The Board finds that the operation of a gravel pit would represent a significant disruption of the topography and natural features of the site for at least the period during which the gravel pit is in operation.” Section 5 (5.1.1 through5.1.5) Section 4(4.1.3) LUB No. 2013/7 “While the Board was satisfied it was necessary to deny the appeal because of the close proximity to the McKechnie residence and the Christian Farm, the Board also had regard for the impact of the nuisances that would be caused by the proposed use on others residing in the area of the subject lands, some of who made submissions to the Board.” Parts of Sections 1&2& 6(6.3.1& 6.3.2) Section 2( 2.9) Fiscal Impact Assessment - Our lived experience is that the life cycle cost from gravel extractions to build, maintain and/or restore protective infrastructure are always left to the taxpayer and even more heavily burdened on the local community. In summary, we provided the Councilors and the Appeal Board with highly qualified groundwater, surface water, aquatic ecosystem (fishery), legal, noise and agricultural analysis and testimony. Our Experts as referenced above offered far more accreditation than those required by County’s new aggregate overlay. Since that time we have experienced the Flood of 2013 and flood events of 2014, and the subsequent flood disaster buy out of yet another from our community, the Krause’s. The evidence has grown ever more conclusive that gravel excavation activities in this Flood Plain and Aquifer/Water Reservoir are highly uncertain, cumulative, life threatening and certainly not compatible with the existing land uses, community and the natural environment. The Howell application process began in 2009 and ended in 2013, heavily burdening our community members for 4 years. At the same time 6M Holding Ltd. was applying and reapplying for gravel activities less than 1 km. north of SE 13, located in the same flood plain and was found by 4 more Red Deer County commissions to be of the same incompatible land
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 99 of 176 use and nuisance findings as quoted above. Again, our community bore the cumulative Respondent burdens. Nothing has changed within this application to improve it, in fact it is even more uncertain and frightening in prospect. The application for Overlay Zoning, would, if approved, eliminate any avenue of reasonable Appeal to the gravel activities and the application material provided is minimal. The applicant has reportedly indicated to members of our group during a face to face meeting that he, depending on the demand for product, proposes to mine out approximately 120 acres, leaving two very large pit scar ponds. This information presents a much different picture than the current application suggests (27.18 acres). Nor does the current information provide any mention of mining below the established seasonal high water table to remove the full depth of water bearing seams of aggregate – another detail reportedly provided during discussions with members of our group but not contained in this application. What is clear is the hours of operation hours of operation and pit life expectancy are a great deal more onerous than those upon which the MPC and ISDAB based their decisions to deny this application. MFAC members were requested to “trust the process” and the provisions within the MDP. MFAC requests that Council please deny the 2017 Howell application.
Sincere Regards, Dale Christian ( for MFAC members as attached)
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 100 of 176 2016/17 Members of the Red Deer River/Medicine River Flats Alluvial Aquifer and Flood Plain Committee (MFAC) Adele / John McKechnie Bev / Doug Schneider Candace Abraham Chris Bridges Craig McPhee Dale / Glenn Christian Dale Gies Dean Sundquist / Faye Pethick Gary Westman Joel / Ginger Christian Kyle Gies Marianne Nicholson Mark Spence Peter Wood / Cheryl Barrett Simon Spence Susanne / Jason Telford Trevor / Tanya Christian
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 101 of 176
Red Deer County 38106 – Rg Rd 275 Red Deer County, AB T4S 2L9
Attention County Counselor’s:
This is my formal objection for the development of a gravel mining and processing project by Howell’s Excavating Ltd. (File #TXT-17-001), on land located within the Red Deer County. The proposed project is to be located on lands within SE13-36-2 (W5M).
This proposed mining operation is across the Medicine River from my property. I bought this property in June of 2010 in order to have a place to get away from the noise and pollution in the city. If this development proceeds I will be right back in the middle of a noisy, dusty and commercial area in which I was trying to get away from by buying a property in a rural, agricultural area.
If this development does go through there will be many more concerns other than just mine and my surrounding neighbours quality of life and property values. Some of these concerns have been passed on to me from my neighbours as they have been involved in this process much longer than me. These concerns are outlined as follows:
Groundwater
The project is to be placed directly west of my residence on the Medicine River. This is an area with a very shallow water table as proven by the many shallow water wells used to supply residences and to water livestock. The proposed pits would extend into the groundwater. This would necessitate dewatering.
Has consideration been made to the potential impact upon quantity and quality of the existing shallow water wells by alterations to the ground water through dewatering of the zone? What compensation can be offered to those who could potentially lose their livelihood if they are unable to water their livestock?
Dewatering of the pits and gravel operations would result in accumulation of fine soil particles (clay and silt) in “waste water”. The excess water would have to be disposed of in some manner. Who regulates the release
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 102 of 176 March 17, 2017 Page 2
of the “waste water”? What testing of the water is required prior to release to the environment? What records are kept of the testing?
Medicine River/Red Deer Rivers
As an avid fisherman I have just begun to fish the Medicine River and have enjoyed the peace and tranquility of the area in addition to some good fishing. I have been told Dickson Creek is a spawning stream. There was a fish study completed a couple of years ago, that could be consulted, for confirmation of the productivity of the river. Further many local people frequent this stretch of river for the fishing.
Who will monitor the water quality of the Medicine River to ensure fish populations are not impacted by the proposed activity?
Who will monitor the water quality of the Red Deer River to ensure fish populations are not impacted by the proposed activity?
Flooding
The Medicine River level fluctuates naturally with seasons and precipitation. I have only lived on the river since 2010 but have been informed of the significant flooding in the area. I have seen pictures of major floods right on the proposed mining site in this application.
This region has a long history of flooding. For example, in the spring of 2005, there was a flood that resulted in farms and residences along the Medicine River being evacuated. The gravel pit on the Red Deer River (approximately 2.5 kilometres south of the proposed project) flooded, the earthen dams failed and siltation ponds released into the Red Deer River. The County of Red Deer was left with a large remediation bill and the Red Deer River was inundated with silt. I believe there are lessons from the 2005 flood to be learned and applied to developments along rivers in flood plains. Yet in the application the proposed project is to be located directly adjacent to the Medicine River.
Due to the productivity of the river and the shallow ground water table I believe:
No gravel mining should be permitted into the natural ground water table.
Air Quality
Sound travels through the river valley. Has consideration been given to the placement of the gravel crusher and how the noise will impact my enjoyment of my property? The actively farmed land to the south of my property has been listed as an abandoned homestead; however, my house has not been mapped and it is within 600 m of the proposed crusher. I am concerned about how the noise generated by the project will impact me.
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 103 of 176 March 17, 2017 Page 3
I am also concerned about dust and emissions generated by the project potentially negatively impacting the air quality in the river valley.
Conclusion
The Medicine River is a productive yet sensitive riparian ecosystem. It is vulnerable to degradation from removal of vegetation, siltation and alteration of groundwater. By living on the river I have gained a great appreciation for the Medicine River and the people who farm and raise livestock in this region. I believe there is a need for more community consultation as there are a great number of questions to be answered. It has become evident that there is a need for safeguards to be put in place prior to granting permission for a gravel mining and processing plant on the banks of the Medicine River.
Sincerely,
Dale Gies Landowner and Resident
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 104 of 176 Objections to Howell’s Excavating Ltd Application for a Gravel Extraction Overlay District on SE-13-36-02w5
Red Deer County, AB. 38106 Range Road 275, T4S 2L9 17-04-12 Honourable Mayor Wood, Elected Councillors and RDC Administration:
Re: Howell Excavating Ltd’s. Application for a Gravel Extraction Overlay District on SE-13-36-02w5 in the Fragile Medicine Flats Alluvial Water Aquifer (Hyporheic Zone).
Our Concerns, and should be yours, with the Impacts Gravel Pits Will Potentially Have on the Medicine Flats, Us, Our Families, Future Families, Friends and Public.
Let it be known that we strongly object to another re-application for a large industrial gravel excavation activity to take place in a fragile alluvial water aquifer.
If any of you whom this letter is addressed to have been keeping up on water well activities in the Red Deer County, you will already know that water is a precious and scarce commodity in this area. There is limited water outside of the Medicine Flats that is suitable for drinking and with enough quantity to carry out a livestock operation.
A Gravel Pit such as the one proposed will likely block or at minimum partially block the flow of the Alluvial Aquifer that presently supplies both an ample quantity of excellent quality water for some 17 water wells in the flats.
If this current application is approved, you will be potentially taking away the residents, of the Medicine Flats pure, safe, adequate water supply, and their opportunity to continue to maintain their livelihood within the Medicine Flats.
Applications to Extract Gravel in this area have been denied previously, the latest denial by SDAB was on June 24, 2013. Nothing has changed since that time, OR, maybe you can tell us what has changed.
• The proposed land use is still not compatible with the Red Deer County’s MDP stating that Prime Agricultural Land is to be preserved.
o A Gravel Extraction operation in the Alluvial Aquifer will leave end lakes and downgrade any existing land from PRIME agricultural land to minimal use, contrary to the County’s MDP which claims that prime farm land is a first priority within Red Deer County.
• This area is still in an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) and not deemed compatible use within an ESA.
Page 1 of 2
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 105 of 176 Objections to Howell’s Excavating Ltd Application for a Gravel Extraction Overlay District on SE-13-36-02w5
• The area in question is still susceptible to flooding and not recommended for Gravel Extraction activities due to the hazards associated with flooding in Gravel Extraction operations, and specifically the Medicine Flats.
o There will still be negative impacts on the flood plain confluence and aquifer when considered in a CUMULATIVE assessment with past gravel exploitations and end uses or pit scars.
• Noise will still be a detriment to landowners, and may even contribute to long term noise related health issues to more susceptible individuals. Are you willing to put residents health at risk?
• Airborne Emissions will still be a concern as it is very difficult to effectively mitigate the dust impact generated by operation of the gravel pit. Again a potential health risk.
• The Gravel Extraction will still potentially damage and plug off the Alluvial Aquifer, disrupting flow to the landowners wells and also affect the flow to the Medicine River where it creates excellent Walleye spawning grounds. IN FACT, HOWELL’s WATER HYDROLOGIST (might be wrong title) FROM WATERLINE RESOURCES ADMITTED THAT ANOTHER PIT INTO THE AQUIFER WOULD DEFINITELY CAUSE SERIOUS DAMAGE. ALTHOUGH HE COULDN’T OR WOULDN’T QUANTIFY EXACTLY HOW MUCH DAMAGE THE HOWELL PIT WOULD ACTUALLY CREATE.
• There will still be an impact to property values which would be significantly impacted downwards with a Gravel Pit in our backyards. Are you as Councilors prepared to put the County at risk of being sued for property devaluations?
By this written submission it should be made clear that we object to any suggestion that this application be considered independently of other gravel developments. Indeed this application must be considered in a CUMULATIVE MANNER and with a full and rigorous third party environmental impact assessment as has previously been requested specifically by the Red Deer River Watershed Alliance.
Thank you,
Dean Sundquist & Faye Pethick
Page 2 of 2
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 106 of 176 April 17, 2017
Dear Mayor Wood and Elected Councillors
RE: Application TXT-17-001
Having received notification from Red Deer County Development Department of yet another rendition of an application for gravel extraction from Howell’s Excavating Ltd, I have these points to make:
1. Community Costs:
• It was my understanding that the decisions to deny had been made not once but several before. While the irreversible impacts remain the same, why are my family and our neighbors being forced to go through this again and again just to remain as they currently are, and have lived, for generations. Why are we continually subjected to this stress, our livelihoods put at risk, and forced, yet again, to assume prohibitive costs fighting these ill founded proposals that lower and alter an already fragile flood plain and sever the ground water flows to our wells and productive lands? • I suggest that, in Red Deer County, the rights of people to derive a living from their lands should not be deemed secondary to land speculators and gravel miners. Particularly when their proposals have been rejected multiple times for valid and supportable reasons. • As pertains to the current applicant, he was warned prior to his purchase of this land that gravel extraction had been rejected multiple times and informed of the damage that would occur if such a project was to occur. Further, his investments’ risk was well explained and unless he was given assurances from county officials (something I am very certain never occurred), he had little reason to expect this proposed activity to be given a go ahead.
2. Adverse Personal Experience with Gravel Pits:
• My property is NE 06-036-01-W5M and my family lives and farms on several properties even closer to the proposal. All of this land is in the Red Deer River/Medicine River floodplain. This area is underlain by the Red Deer River/Medicine River alluvial aquifer and receives the contribution of several creeks and augmented drainage channels not accounted for in this application.
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 107 of 176 • My property has been devastated and large portions of my property have been lost due to upstream gravel pits and their reclamation - mines that were allowed on Sections 12-036-02-W5M and parts of Section 7-036-01-W5M.
3. Adverse Environmental Impact:
• The accumulated environment damage has caused extreme Red Deer River re- routing, road washouts and subsequent buy outs paid for by taxpayers and by my property losses and damages to that property. • Flood events and groundwater flows in this floodplain are pertinent because both the Medicine and Red Deer rivers are joined overland and by underground gravel flows and by many channels. Yet, to put their applications in the best light for approvals, the proponents continue to avoid this fact. Highway 54 is merely a visual separation of devastations that will be the legacy of gravel mining in this flood plain aquifer. On the south side – gravel mining moonscapes and shared devastation with neighboring properties. On the north side devastation waiting to happen should this newest application be allowed.
4. Past MPC & SDAB decisions:
• It is doubtful that the municipal government of the day planned for these environmental devastations, south of Howell’s proposals, but they happened, and continue to happen with ever increasing, unintended, yet very expensive ferocity. • It is my understanding that the MPC and the SDAB said no to past proposals to mine out this quarter section for both intolerable nuisance and environmental reasons. All of those reasons remain intolerable and costly nuisances & the environmental negative impacts from the Howell proposal remain irreversible, permanent and fraught with the same risks.
To repeat already stated concerns with the Howell’s Excavating proposals for gravelling this area:
Precedent setting: Approval of one gravel pit in the area will set precedence for further pits. This is evidenced south of the hi-way and over the County.
Irreversible Damage: Gravel removal and the resulting creation of end pit lakes produces permanent changes to the landscape that will be irreversible and cause cumulative long term damages to neighboring properties, the fishery and all down stream users. Because of the
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 108 of 176 massive volumes of materials being removed the “lakes” and the contoured land around the lakes will be lost forever. And the impacts they produce will be permanent and cumulative.
Valuable farm land will be lost and land fragmentation will occur.
Groundwater risks:
• Gravel removal below the proven high water table has a high probability of affecting groundwater levels and connectivity. Silting and blinding off shallow aquifer flows are integral impacts from excavating, crushing, loading, backfilling, and contouring. The underground flow from the Red River through the gravels, feeds the areas water well, irrigates the crops from underneath, and provides flow to the Fishery ( Hyporheic Zone). Evidence of severing the gravel flows and the permanent destruction of good food producing land is easily seen south of the Hi-way in on NW 7 and elsewhere where gravel has been taken from alluvial aquifers. • Presently the aquifer stores and filters water flows. Opening up the aquifer and creation of pit lakes substantially increases the chances of contamination of the aquifer, provides for evaporative losses and warming of the shared aquifer water. In addition, disturbance gravel mining activities release naturally occurring contaminants into the aquifer. It is expected that the open ponds and low drainage areas will provide for contaminate pooling and draining of agricultural chemicals, manures and spilled hydrocarbons into the shared aquifer.
This is, by my count, the 8th iteration of proposal for gravel extraction on this quarter to go before Red Deer County Council, and I have repeatedly expressed my concern regarding this land use proposal at this location beginning back in 2009. Thank you yet again for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Candace Abraham NE 06-036-01-W5M Red Deer County
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 109 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 110 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 111 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 112 of 176 Red Deer County April 13th 2017 38106 Range Road 275 Red Deer County
Attention: Red Deer County Development Department, Honourable Mayor and Council
Re: Submission to the Public Hearing: File TXT-17-001: Application to include the SE-13-36-2-W5M in the Gravel Extraction Overlay District
The issue of gravel mining in the SE 13-36-2-W5M and in the entire Medicine Flats has been researched, discussed, evaluated many times and Council has made the decision that gravel mining is not in the public’s best interest on this property but Council is being asked yet again to consider mining on this same property. I suggest that nothing has changed since the last application, the alluvial aquifer still exists, the adjacent residents that would be affected by noise are still there, the risk to the environment is still there, this quarter section is still prime farmland, the proposed mining area in the application hasn’t changed substantially and the flood risk still exists, in fact the flood potential has increased as the erosion of the banks upstream continues. Council only needs to review the previous application, the scientific data presented and the submissions made by concerned citizens to reconfirm their decision that the Medicine Flats is not an appropriate location for more gravel mining.
Municipal and Provincial taxpayers have born the costs associated with the previous Council’s decision to allow gravel extraction in the Medicine Flats south of Highway 54 including the buying out residences, rebuilding roads and installing bank protection. It appears that the costs to taxpayers may increase exponentially in the future as the river continues to reroute through the spent gravel pits exposing Highway 54 and RR 20 to direct attack by the river. The proposed development is in the same area with similar types of problems. If this development is approved and it results in damage to property, water wells and infrastructure in the area, the taxpayer may once again foot the bill.
If this rezoning is approved there are bound to be more applications on adjacent lands north of the highway. The accumulative effects of multiple mining sites could be significant and should be considered. The changes to the topography created by gravel extraction are permanent and every generation in the future will have to deal with the problems that are created. You only need to walk the ground south of Highway 54 to envisage what could happen to the entire Medicine Flats if gravel mining continues.
Please reconfirm your decisions of the past by turning down this application to amend the Land Use Bylaw to include SE 13-36-2-W5M in the Gravel Extraction Overlay District.
Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration
Jim Martin Red Deer County
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 113 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 114 of 176 Apr 17, 2017 Re: Howell’s Excavating Ltd. Application TXT-17-001 Dear Mayor Wood and Elected Council, Butte Action Committee (BAC) is a grassroots watershed advocacy group committed to protecting Alberta’s fresh water for future generations. BAC is very aware of the fragile, sensitive, significant area for which this application is proposed and heavy environmental impacts gravel mining in the unique river(s) confluence has already taken. BAC is writing to strongly object to the Howell proposal in the interest to protecting aquifers and surface water. From 2009 through 2013- the Howell Gravel Excavation Application figures were reconfigured many times and yet failed to meet the (MDP) of Red Deer County(RDC) and Appeal by an ISDAB. Lowering a floodplain, stripping the protective cover from shared source- water, excavating out the alluvial material of the River Aquifer and plugging off water communication is just not good long term land use planning. Compelling evidence demonstrating the consequences of gravel mining activities in this area is apparent immediately south of Howell’s proposed application. Red Deer County’s ESA and ALUS are commendable, achieving notable recognition. The environmental desecration south of Hi-way 54, is not appreciated and appears at odds to the ESA and ALUS goals as well as Red Deer County’s claim as a great place to live, work and grow for the impacted community. • Community Wellness Impacts may be partially illustrated by Dennis and Jody Krause in their objection statement Howell 2013, “When Stewart and the County started their operations in NE and NW of 12- they probably never expected what happened from their excavations. The only difference in the Howell application is the Hi-Way between the applications. Hi-Way 54 has been overtopped several times and will be again. If this pit goes ahead, there will be another and another until there is nothing left.” Krause’s property is the local 2014 Flood buy-out. • Alberta Drought and Flood Mitigation spending- There is only one taxpayer. The negative impacts and consequences of gravel mining in this Flood Plain and Alluvial Aquifer are opposite to all the current goals of F&D Municipal funding and initiatives.
• Red Deer River Basin Flood Mitigation Study follow up on this specific area reads “In our discussion about the environment complexity of this area I was specifically referring to the proximity of the confluence of the Little Red Deer and Medicine Rivers, the proximity to the Dickson Dam outlet (creating an evolving river environment due to the Dam operations) the groundwater connectivity (as you reported) and of course the highway/roadway infrastructure and gravel pit operations.”
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 115 of 176 • Room for the River to Move states “Red Deer County has a land use bylaw prohibiting development in the 1:100 floodplain.” • New MGA just tabled considers the municipal purpose which is to “to foster the well- being of the environment”. • MUGS Source Water Quality Primer Oct. 2016 – “Environmental integrity is dependent on healthy aquatic ecosystems.” MUGs requests for Crown Water Reservation adds water volume concerns. • AAMD&C Position Statement on Water- includes municipalities protecting Alberta’s rivers, groundwater, lakes, wetlands and the sensitive areas adjacent to them as an important priority as well as flood, drought and climate change. • AAMD&C says that on air, land, water and biodiversity, Municipalities play a key role in front line environmental management in all of these areas. “Municipalities are responsible for land use planning and environmental decisions where water bodies and wetlands are factors.” • AAMD&C Position Statement on Agriculture addresses preservation priority of agricultural lands from loss and fragmentation. • AUMA points out that, “One of the most important ways that we can effectively manage our water is to change the way we manage our land.” • Cumulative Effects Management – ALSA Regional Plans approach includes impacts assessment of existing and new activities and is driven by cumulative effects of development on air, water, land and biodiversity. • In 2013, Red Deer County’s elected council rejected the Howell Gravel Application for these recorded reasons- “The proposed discretionary use for Aggregate Removal would negatively affect the quality of life for the areas residents; have a negative effect on the water quality relative to human consumption, the habitat, the river; and the impact on the air quality would have a negative effect on the residents, crops and animals.” • RDC’s Medicine River Valley Concept Plan to promote residential growth and enhance agricultural viability clearly includes SE 13-36-2-5.
No Demonstrated County Need • In 2005- RDC Operations reported 80 years of gravel secured RDC use. • 2016 public records show acquisition of several more RDC secured gravel holdings adding to their secured 80 yr. gravel supply. • The 2016 AAMD&C Got Gravel survey shows RDC has the maximum reserves need reported. • Howell was made aware of the resident community’s objection to his application well in advance of title changes as shown. • Existing family owned businesses include several farms and small ag. holdings that are extremely dependent upon the aquifer/river flows. Are existing agricultural businesses less important than gravel applications in Red Deer County?
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 116 of 176 • The use of 1:100 Flood level as a setback for mining is meaningless as the 1:100 statistics are constantly changing as new flow data is obtained each year. • Under common law, you have a right to both use and enjoy your property, but not to interfere with your neighbor’s rights to use and enjoy their property. On the subject of public good, AAMD&C writes that it is not sufficient to say that a greater good is being served. ( AAMD&C on Forced Regionalization)
Source Water Contamination • 2014 Dodd’s Lake Hydrocarbon Spill shows how quickly and costly water contamination into a waterbody can occur. • 2012 Plains Midstream spill into the Red Deer River resulted in Plains offering to haul water and test wells in this aquifer dependent area. • Experts advise it would be impossible to meaningfully mitigate spills into the aquifers opened pit face. • Large pit scar lakes, such as Howell is proposing leave significant risk for future contamination, aquifer warming, and provide significant annual evaporative loss. • Howell’s claim to having an “expert” construct 42 acres of scar pit ponds into “viable, successful wetlands and a functional prosperous habitat” as reclamation is not insured, not scientifically explained and not cost evaluated. • AEP’s Flood Hazard Identification Program2009 states that dykes are not to be built to create development opportunities on flood prone land and that responsibility managing flood hazard is shared among municipal, provincial and individual land owners. • RDC’s Groundwater Study 2005 identifies this area’s gravel aquifer wells. • Climate Change are not considered and yet climate models are projecting for increased precipitation in Alberta and a shift of flow characteristics of rivers and more water conveyed through the system in a shorter period of time. * In conclusion, The Butte Action Committee is strongly against the Howell Excavating application because it would only further perpetrate known environmental disaster and place the entire flood plain in peril. Due to forecasted decreases in summer flows of up to 50%, extreme increases in winter flows and increased risk of flood frequency, it is hoped that Red Deer County would avoid the unintended consequences for sensitive riverine environments counter to the goals of Water for Life. An estimated 80% out of floodplain sand and gravel deposits, are within in the province to exploit. It is imperative that particular attention be paid to groundwater-surface water interaction “explicitly” addressed in sand and gravel assessment approach to insure water security. Sincerely. Butte Action Committee Members, Judy Winter ( Secretary for BAC )
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 117 of 176
ALBERTA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION "Defending Wild Alberta through Awareness and Action”
April 13, 2017
Mayor Jim Wood Red Deer County Email: [email protected]
RE: Howell Excavating Ltd. Reapplication for SE 13-36-2-W5 Overlay Zoning and Aggregate Activities
Alberta Wilderness Association (AWA) is writing to state our opposition to the Howell Excavating Limited’s reapplication to extract aggregate from SE 13-36-2-W5 due to significant risk to water resources and fisheries in the area.
Founded in 1965, AWA works throughout Alberta towards more representative and connected protection of the unique and vital landscapes that are the source of our clean water, clean air, and wildlife habitat. With more than 7,000 members and supporters in Alberta and across Canada, AWA remains committed to ensuring protection of wildlife and waters in Alberta.
It has come to our attention that Red Deer County is considering Howell Excavating Limited’s application to extract gravel on land located near the confluence of the Medicine River and Red Deer River. The land location for the development is SE ¼ of Section 13 Township 36 Range 2 West of the 5th Meridian (proposal attached), and is located within the 1:100 year floodplain. AWA is concerned that extracting gravel from this area may pose significant environmental risks to local water quality, wildlife, and groundwater flow. As you may be aware, an integral part of a river is the shallow connected groundwater in the floodplain beyond its active channel. Any land uses that affect the river-connected groundwater are known to affect the river (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The river is connected to groundwater in the floodplain beyond what is visible on the surface. Choices on land uses within the floodplain affect the river. Source: U.S. Geological Survey 1993.
455 – 12 Street NW, Calgary, AB T2N 1Y9 Phone 403.283.2025 Fax 403.270.2743 [email protected] www.AlbertaWilderness.ca
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 118 of 176 The connected groundwater systems in this area sustain many important native fish species including walleye, mountain whitefish, and northern pike. Floodplain mining may increase the risk of pollutants entering water bodies from flooded gravel pits and increase the risk of sedimentation in rivers. We are especially concerned about this possibility as the location of the proposed mine has flooded before.
AWA completed a tour of this proposed site in the fall of 2015. We note that the gravel pits located adjacent to this location have flooded previously and have resulted in the river flooding into these gravel pits – resulting in fish being stranded in the pits. AWA believes that, due to the fact that this location has flooded before and there is a high possibility that the location containing these gravel pits would flood again, it would be highly irresponsible to allow gravel mining in this area.
Additionally, we are concerned that gravel mining at the proposed location will interrupt important groundwater/ surface-water connections, resulting in lower dissolved oxygen levels and higher water temperatures. This area is a critical area of groundwater movement between the Medicine and Red Deer River, with many meandering streams and channels. Altering and fragmenting groundwater movement poses additional stresses not only on the native fishery, but could also decrease groundwater supply to local water bodies and landowner wells, creating local water security issues.
In conclusion, AWA is not supportive of this development as we firmly believe that gravel mining should be located outside 1:100 year floodplain. We have concerns about the risks that extracting gravel at this location may pose on local fisheries and groundwater supply. We respectfully urge you to reject the Howell Excavating Ltd. reapplication for SE 13-36-2-W5 overlay zoning and aggregate activities.
With regards,
ALBERTA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION
Joanna Skrajny, Conservation Specialist
cc: Dave Dittrick, [email protected]
455 12 ST NW, Calgary AB T2N 1Y9 Phone 403.283.2025 Fax 403.270.2743 [email protected] www.AlbertaWilderness.ca
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 119 of 176 PO Box 4541 Edmonton AB T6E 5G4 780.757.4872 [email protected] URL http://www.aenweb.ca
Aggregate Coalition Alberta Fish and Game Association, Edmonton Trout Fishing Club & Dickson Fish and Game Association Bearspaw Residents Butte Action Committee Canadian Society of Environmental Biologists Alberta Chapter Central Athabasca Stewardship Society Cochrane Environmental Action Committee Environmental Law Center Keepers of the Athabasca Lac Ste. Anne Community Group Medicine River Watershed Society Meewasin Community Council Onoway River Valley Conservation Association North Saskatchewan Riverkeeper Pigeon Lake Watershed Association Red Deer River Naturalists South McDougal Flats Area Protection Society South Peace Environmental Association Southern Alberta Group for the Environment Trout Unlimited Canada Water Matters Society of Alberta
March 3, 2017
Red Deer County Council Attn: Mayor Wood and Council, Re: Howell Excavation Ltd. Application for Zoning and Gravel Mining, File-TXT-17-001
The Alberta Environmental Network is a non-profit, non-partisan association consisting of member groups based throughout Alberta. Individuals participating in these groups include a broad range of highly knowledgeable people dedicated to conservation and protection of Alberta’s environment. The Aggregate Coalition is one of several working groups of Alberta Environmental Network. On behalf of the member groups of the Aggregate Coalition, I address this letter to you, because healthy citizens and communities require a healthy environment.
We applaud the progress of Red Deer County in identifying and mapping Environmentally Sensitive Areas. This progress demonstrates greatly needed leadership in responsible land use planning, and recognition of the vital importance of healthy ecosystems. We also applaud previous well-reasoned decisions of Red Deer County to exclude gravel mining from Environmentally Sensitive Areas, demonstrating respect for present and future county residents, whose livelihoods, health and quality of life depend on healthy air, land and water.
Thus, it is with dismay that we learn that Red Deer County Council will now consider yet another application to mine an area of vital environmental, ecological and hydrological function at SE-13-36-2- W5. The riparian area, floodplain, alluvial aquifer and hyporheic zone, clearly identified by the County as Environmentally Sensitive Area, are in extremely close proximity to numerous family farms and family homes, and provide essential ecological services to those families, farms and homes.
This begs multiple questions, including, but not limited to the following. What is the point of identifying Environmentally Sensitive Areas, only to turn around and allow their destruction? How many times does the county consider it reasonable to force families to endure massive stress and expense to defend themselves against applications for mining of their neighborhoods? How can you consider it wise or beneficial business or governance to squander resources on endlessly repeated applications of this nature? Why would you not develop a responsible aggregate resource strategy restricting mining to dry upland areas while protecting biodiversity, water resources and known sensitive areas?
We strongly encourage the Red Deer County Council to uphold previous wisdom and leadership, and the intent of your Environmentally Sensitive Areas mapping, and refuse first reading or approval of this application to mine an aquifer and negatively impact multiple local families and agricultural operations.
Respectfully Submitted
D. Mendelsohn, Co-Chair AEN Aggregate Coalition
Cc: Premier Rachel Notley, Auditor General Merwan Saher
1
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 120 of 176 A FISHERY AT RISK
Potential Effects of Gravel Mining on Fish Populations
Prepared for
Glenn and Dale Christian Christabel Ranch
By
Peter J. McCart, PhD Zoology (Fisheries)
Innisfail, Alberta June 2010
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 121 of 176 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1
2.0 THE RIVER...... 1 The Data Base...... 2 Water Temperatures...... 2 Oxygen Concentrations...... 3
3.0 THE FISH...... 6 General Biology of the Walleye...... 7 Walleye in the Medicine and Red Deer Rivers...... 8 Adult Walleye...... 8 Young-of-the-Year...... 9 Status of the Population...... 10
4.0 THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND FISH HABITAT...... 10 Background...... 10 Project Support Documents...... 11 Concerns...... 13 Surface Water...... 13 Groundwater...... 13
5.0 CONCLUSION...... 14
6.0 LITERATURE CITED...... 15
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Summary of Monthly Water Temperatures...... 3
Table 2 Oxygen Conditions Under Winter Ice...... 4
Table 3 Summary of Occurrence of Oxygen Supersaturation...... 4
Table 4 Catches in Fish Traps...... 6
Table 5 Estimated Numbers of Spawning Walleye...... 10
Cover Photo: The Medicine River, downstream of its historical confluence with the Red Deer River; upstream of its present one. Looking downstream from the Medicine River Bridge on Highway 54.
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 122 of 176 A FISHERY AT RISK
1.0 INTRODUCTION 6M Holdings Ltd. has proposed a “gravel extraction facility,” The Dickson Creek Pit, on Medicine Flats adjacent to the lower Medicine River (to the east) and its tributary stream, Dickson Creek (to the north). The 6M Application (prepared by Aspen Land Group Inc., 2010) states that “As the fish habitat...will not be affected and as fish entrapment within the end pit lakes will be prevented up to 1:100 year flood event, it is assumed that an approval will not be required under the Federal Fisheries Act.” The application does not, however, include an environmental impact assessment describing water quality, fish habitat, and fish populations in reaches of the Medicine, which would support such an optimistic conclusion. In what follows, I’ve tried to develop an assessment based on the scattered documentation I have at hand. The assessment is preliminary, and many questions still remain.
2.0 THE RIVER There have been several studies of water quality in the Medicine River. Water quality has been degraded by municipal discharges (Eckville sewage), industry, construction, and agricultural runoff from both cropland and livestock enterprises. Discharges from the Medicine, together with the Little Red Deer River, adversely affect water quality at least as far downstream as the city of Red Deer. Overall, water quality in the Medicine River appears to be degraded to the extent that it might already be marginal habitat for some species of fish. I haven’t had time to pursue water quality questions in detail, but have emphasized those aspects likely to have the most immediate effect on the wellbeing of fish populations—water temperature and oxygen concentrations. The Data Base
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 123 of 176 Alberta Environment has maintained a database for water quality in the Medicine River at Highway 54, since 1974. This station is less than 2 km downstream of the proposed 6M operation. The data are sporadic. There are periods of several years (the five-year period between 1992 and 1997, for example) during which no data were collected. Apparently no sampling has been done since 2006. In addition, there has been little sampling under winter ice, and most of the available data relating temperature to oxygen concentrations are for the open water season only. Water Temperatures Winter and early spring water temperatures recorded at Highway 54 range from a low of -1°C (January 9, 1984) to a high of +32°C (March 30, 1999). Even allowing for differences in instrumentation over the years and the possibility that some of the March data were obtained after at least partial breakup of ice, it seems likely that winter water temperatures rarely exceed 0.3°C at the sampling site. Winter water temperatures, however, may be influenced, at least locally, by groundwater flows that enter the stream as springs. These springs occur in several places downstream of Dickson Creek. There are no data describing water quality at these sites, but NRL Association Inc. (2010) examined one of the springs adjacent to the proposed development area, and described the water as “warm to the touch and snow and ice melted around it.” These leads, by allowing flowing water to be oxygenated by contact with the air, might be important to both overwintering fish and fish migrating upstream under ice to spawning areas in late winter and early spring. Glenn Christian of Christabel Ranch (personal communication) has described how he and Phillip Anderson observed fish, mostly suckers, so crowded into one of these leads they were stranding and dying on the surrounding ice. He has a photograph, dated February 8, 2003, showing this, and has observed similar behaviour at other times during the winter. Table 1 summarizes monthly water temperature data for the period 1974- 2006. During the open-water season (April 1 through October 31), mean temperatures in the lower river increase from 4.4° C (range, 0.06 to 11.0) in April to a peak of 19.0 (range 7.3-23.0) in August, then decline to 6.0 (range 2.4-9.1) in October. The data
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 124 of 176 indicate that, over the ice-free season, the Medicine River is a cool- to warm-water stream.
Table 1 Summary of Monthly Water Temperatures in the Lower Medicine River at Highway 54, 1974-2006. Based on data from Alberta Environment Database for the Medicine River. Number of Temperature (°C) Month Observations Mean Range April 15 4.4 0.06-11.0 May 14 12.0 6.3-17.5 June 10 16.8 13.0-22.0 July 17 18.6 13.8-23.1 August 10 19.0 7.3-23.0 September 8 12.5 5.3-19.8 October 7 6.0 2..4-9.1
Oxygen Concentrations It should be noted that oxygen is unusual among water quality parameters in that its solubility decreases as temperatures rise. At 0°C, for example, the oxygen concentration of surface water at saturation is about 14.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L). The comparable values are 10.9 mg/L at 10°C, 8.8 mg/L at 20°C, and 8.1 mg/L at 25°. (These values are for a sea-level air pressure of 760 mg/Hg.) Oxygen concentrations in surface waters may be either lower or, less frequently, higher than saturation values. (see below). Table 2 summarizes data describing mid-winter oxygen concentrations, during the period from December 1 through March 15 when the sampling station at Highway 54 was almost certainly frozen over. The data are for the years 1974 through 1986 and I’ve found no records of winter sampling in the 24 years since then. The mean value for mid-winter oxygen concentrations was 3.0 mg/L, or only about 15% of saturation at 0°C. Such values generally indicate a high level of organic materials, either externally produced (eg. effluents from sewage and livestock operations, erosion of organic soils) or internally generated (eg. by aquatic plants stimulated by high nutrient inputs). With the continuing development in the basin, I would expect mid-winter oxygen concentrations to be even lower in recent years, possibly approaching zero in some reaches.
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 125 of 176 Table 2 Oxygen Conditions Under Winter Ice, Medicine River at Highway 54, 1974-1986. Oxygen Concentration (mg/L) Year Samples (n) Mean Range 1974 6 3.8 2.6-5.1 1976 1 1.1 -- 1984 2 2.3 0.8-3.8 1986 2 2.3 1.5-3.1
Totals 11 3.0 0.8-5.1
Table 3 summarizes data describing oxygen concentrations during the open- water season recorded at Highway 54 from 1974 through 2006. Also indicated is the number of samples exceeding 100% saturation for the recorded water temperatures. Such samples are termed “supersaturated.”
Table 3 Summary of Occurrence of Oxygen Supersaturation during the Open- Water Season in the Medicine River at Highway 54, 1974-2006. Based on data from Alberta Environment Database for the Medicine River. (Where both Field and Winkler oxygen data available, Field preferred.) Oxygen Readings Supersaturated Readings Number of Showing Supersaturation (mg/L) Year Readings Number % of Total Mean Range 1974 2 2 100 112.5 106-119 1983 13 2 15 112.0 105-119 1992 5 2 40 130.5 105-156 1997 6 3 50 107.0 106-108 1999 20 2 10 126.0 108-144 2000 10 1 10 124.0 124 2002 13 4 31 128.5 105-185 2004 8 5 62 143.5 107-190 2006 7 4 57 126.0 104-144
All Years 84 25 30 125.7 104-190
Over the years, 25 of the 84 samples (30%) have been supersaturated. The highest incidence of supersaturation (100%) was in 1974 when only two samples were taken. The next highest was in 2004, when five out of eight open-water samples
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 126 of 176 (62%) were supersaturated. One of these, taken August 18, 2004, was approximately 190% of saturation. Note: Such elevated oxygen concentrations might lead one to suspect instrument error. However, on those occasions when both metered (electronic) and Winkler (chemical analysis) values are available for the Medicine River, they are similar. For example, on August 7, 2002, the metered value was 17.0 and the Winkler value 16.76 mg/L, at a stream temperature of 18°C. Both indicate saturation values between 180 and 185%. In the materials I’ve reviewed regarding water quality, I’ve found no reference to, or discussion of, oxygen supersaturation in the Medicine River. Briefly then, oxygen supersaturation, especially at the high levels observed in some of the Medicine River samples, can cause a condition known as gas bubble trauma (GBT) (Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life, 1999). Young-of-the-year may develop bubbles as early as the yolk sac stage, causing them to float upside down. Older fish may develop bubbles under the skin, in their fins, tails and mouth, or behind their eyes (pop-eye disease). Fish in very shallow water are more susceptible than those in deeper water (ie. greater than 1m). The condition is often lethal. In streams like the Medicine River, the most likely causes of oxygen supersaturation are oxygen production by photosynthesizing aquatic plants (enhanced by nutrients associated with municipal discharges and agricultural runoff) and the exposure of the water (by the removal of streambank vegetation) to solar radiation. The shallow margins of the Medicine River are characterized by a heavy growth of aquatic plants. In addition, groundwater may be supersaturated with gases (Dryden, 2003), though there appear to be no data on oxygen concentrations in groundwater entering the Medicine River.. The Canadian Water Quality Guidelines state that since “...natural background levels that are higher than recommended guidelines may be harmful to fish, any anthropogenic increase over background levels should not be tolerated for the protection of aquatic life.” (Emphasis added.) Anthropogenic or manmade influences are probably a major contributor to oxygen supersaturation in the Medicine River.
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 127 of 176 3.0 THE FISH There have been two detailed studies of fish populations in the lower Medicine River. These were conducted in 1993 (Wieliczko and Buchwald, 1995) and 2009 (In preparation) and involved pound nets with upstream and downstream traps and electofishing. In both years, trap catches were dominated by three species of suckers—in order, longnose, white, and shorthead redhorse suckers. The most abundant sports species were northern pike in 1993 and walleye in 2009 (Table 4). All of these species are spring spawners. There were incidental catches of brown trout, lake whitefish, mountain whitefish (all fall spawners) as well as burbot (a winter spawner), mooneye, goldeye, and yellow perch (all spring spawners. These incidental species are thought to be utilizing the stream for feeding, not reproduction.
Table 4 Catches in Fish Traps, Lower Medicine River, Spring of 1993 and 2009, Upstream and Downstream Catches Combined. Data from Wieliczko and Buchwald (1995) and letter from V.G. Buchwald to Dale Christian, Christabel Ranch, dated July 9, 2009. Period of Operation April 8 to May 14 1993 April 25-June 1 2009
Total Catch 3702 2577 % Catch by Species Brown Trout <0.1 0.0 Lake Whitefish 0.5 0.2 Mountain Whitefish 0.9 0.1 Mooneye <0.1 0.0 Northern Pike 4.3 0.8 White Sucker 25.5 18.0 Longnose Sucker 56.3 37.2 Shorthead Rednose Sucker 9.9 11.9 Burbot <0.1 0.2 Yellow Perch <0.1 0.0 Walleye 2.4 31.5
Most of the effort in these two studies was devoted to walleye, considered to be a “priority species.” The following is a brief summary of what is known about this
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 128 of 176 species in general and, more specifically, about its life history in the Medicine and Red Deer Rivers. General Biology of the Walleye Scott and Crossman (1973), in their Fishes of Canada, describe the walleye as widespread in Canada from the north shore of the St Lawrence in Quebec, westward to the Rockies, and north to the mouth of the MacKenzie River. It is probably the most economically valuable species of fish in Canada’s inland waters. In Alberta, it has supported both commercial and sports fisheries in lakes (Sullivan, 2003). By the 1990s, however, many populations were in a state of collapse, largely due to overfishing. Strict rules were instituted to limit both commercial and sports fishing of overexploited stocks, including those of the Medicine River and the reach of the Red Deer River upstream of the Joffre Bridge. For many years, anglers have not been allowed to keep catches of walleye. Such restrictions seem to have been effective, as walleye populations over much of the province appear to be recovering (V. Buchwald, personal communication). Walleye spawn from early to late spring in lakes or in tributary streams. Spawning areas in streams are often located in turbulent water, presumably because such areas are well-oxygenated and promote the development of eggs and larvae. Walleye typically home to spawning areas. The pre-spawning migration may begin well before spawning commences. Males tend to reach the spawning grounds first and the females follow. Spawning takes place as temperatures rise above about 6.5° and ice breaks up. At spawning, which occurs at night, a group of males follows a female onto the spawning substrate and fertilizes the eggs as they fall to the bottom. Females generally move back to their feeding grounds (ie. downstream in tributary streams) as soon as they finish spawning. Males remain for a longer time, spawning with a succession of females. Eggs fall into spaces in the substrate and develop there. At emergence, the young move into shallow waters and begin feeding when temperatures reach about 15°. Initially, the young feed on small invertebrates, but larger walleye are almost entirely predators on other fish.
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 129 of 176 Walleye in the Medicine and Red Deer Rivers Since the early 1990s, there have been several studies of walleye in the lower Medicine River and reaches of the Red Deer River as far downstream as the Joffre Bridge east of the city of Red Deer. Studies in the Medicine River in 1991 (Rees and Buchwald, 1992a) and 1992 (Wieliczko and Buchwald, 1995a) sampled adult walleye by electrofishing and young-of-the-year by seining. Studies in the Red Deer River from Dickson Dam to the Joffre Bridge (Rees and Buchwald 1992a; Wieliczko and Buchwald 1995b) sampled young-of-the-year walleye by seine in 1991 and 1992. In 1993 and 2009, there were studies focusing on adult walleye, which were sampled by using a pound net and traps set up downstream of Highway 54 and by electrofishing. The 1993 studies are described by Wieliczko and Buchwald, 1995. A report of the 2009 study is not yet completed, though V. Buchwald has released some information in letters to the principals of Christobel Ranch and in the form of personal communications. Blackburn (2007) describes changes in walleye abundance in the Red Deer River from the Dickson Dam to the Joffre Bridge between 1991 and 2005. The principal findings of these studies were: Adult Walleye 1. Walleye enter the Medicine from the Red Deer River in late March and early April and gather in its lower reaches prior to moving upstream to spawn. This gathering may begin under ice cover. As temperatures and river discharge rise, fish move upstream to spawn. 2. Spawning typically begins in mid-April but is influenced by water temperature and doesn’t normally occur until temperatures reach 5.6 to 6.7°. 3. Spawning in the Medicine occurs to at least 23.1 km upstream of its mouth, in the approximate location of the bridge near Stephansson House.
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 130 of 176 4. V. Buchwald states (letter to Christobel Ranch, dated July 09, 2009) that his group electrofished the lower Medicine River as far as Markerville in 2009 and that the “kilometer by Dickson Creek had the highest catch rates for walleye in this part of the river...” 5. Walleye typically spawn over coarse substrates, but there is no detailed information regarding the location or characteristics of such habitats in the lower Medicine River or the distribution of spawners among them. Anecdotal information suggests what such habitats might be like. Glenn Christian tells me he has observed shallow gravel rills alternating with sandy-silty pools up to 15 ft (about 4.8m) in depth, along the course of the lower Medicine River. This combination might provide excellent walleye spawning habitat. Spawning fish could congregate in the deep pools during the day, then move onto the shallower, coarser rills at night to spawn. The survival of eggs and alevins might be further enhanced if the coarse materials were infiltrated by groundwater of a quality superior to run-of-the-river water. 6. After spawning, most walleye move downstream out of the Medicine and into the Red Deer River. The year-round resident population, if any, is small. 7. V. Buchwald (personal communication) estimates that about 95% of the walleye inhabiting the Red Deer River from the Dickson Dam to the Joffre Bridge originate from spawning in the Medicine River. Recently, a fish tagged in the Medicine River was captured in the Red Deer River near Nacmine, about 250 km downstream. The Medicine, therefore, is a critical spawning and rearing area for walleye in an extremely long reach of the Red Deer River. Young-of-the-Year 1. After emerging from the spawning beds, young-of-the-year (Y-O-Y) walleye move downstream before taking up residence in low or near- zero-velocity areas. In the Medicine River, such areas are typified by higher than average water temperatures, silt substrates, and aquatic
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 131 of 176 vegetation. Many Y-O-Y walleye don’t remain in the Medicine River, but move downstream to the Red Deer River. 2. Most of the Y-O-Y walleye sampled in the Medicine River were captured in its lower reaches, near the mouth of the stream. 3. Y-O-Y walleye in the Medicine River grow faster than those in the Red Deer River, but more slowly than those in the Blindman River.
Status of the Population In the early 1990s, mark-recapture estimates showed “the Medicine River population to be low.” The strict zero-catch limit in force for both the Medicine and Red Deer rivers has apparently benefited these fish. Over a sixteen-year period, the numbers of walleye spawners in the Medicine River increased by about seven times (Table 5).
Table 5 Estimated Numbers of Spawning Walleye, Medicine River. Based on mark-recapture data. (Data provided by V. Buchwald.) Year Estimated Numbers 95% Confidence Limits 1992 647 420-1154 1993 619 319-972 2009 4673 3904-5822
The increase in spawning numbers in the Medicine is paralleled by an increase in the abundance of walleye in the Red Deer River from Dickson Dam to the Joffre Bridge (Blackburn, 2007). Between 1991 and 2005, both abundance (fish/km) and catch-per-unit-effort (fish/hr electrofishing) increased--the former by a factor of nearly 2.6, the latter by a factor of 3.1.
4.0 THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND FISH HABITAT Background In recent years, groundwater-surface water interactions have become a subject of scientific interest. Markle and Schincariol (2007) reviewed much of the relevant literature. The following is a brief summary of their review.
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 132 of 176 Groundwater discharge to streams and rivers exerts a fundamental influence of stream and river ecology. The distribution of aquatic animals often reflects the timing and availability of groundwater discharge volume, distribution, and temperature in order to fulfill various life cycle requirements. Areas of cool discharging groundwater moderate stream temperatures by cooling the stream in summer and warming the stream in winter. The moderating influence of discharging groundwater on surface water temperature enhances the spawning and nursery habitat for some species of fish. In contrast, even small changes in the timing and temperature of discharging groundwater can adversely affect temperature-sensitive species present in the discharge area, and cause measurable changes to the biotic fauna. As we move toward integrated watershed management, the link between groundwater and surface water interaction is increasingly gaining in importance. In their own work, Markel and Schincariol assessed the effects of gravel and sand extraction and the effect of thermal plume transport on temperatures in a nearby stream. They found that (without the technicalities of hydrogeology which are beyond my competence) thermal alteration of groundwater plumes as a result of sand and gravel (aggregate) extraction could affect streams as much as 250m down-gradient. Within that zone, even small temperature changes of 2 to 3°C could shift temperatures in streams beyond the maximum temperatures for brook trout spawning and adversely alter the structure of macroinvertebrate community. They state that the cumulative effects of several operations on streams within their study area (a situation that might arise at Medicine Flats) are still unknown. They conclude that assessing the effects of thermal plumes on fish and macroinvertebrates in streams will require a highly integrated, multi-disciplinary study. This is the background against which I’ve tried to assess the impacts of the proposed 6M project on fish habitat in the Medicine River. Granted, there are differences between the environment at Medicine Flats and that of the authors’ study area in Eastern Canada, but the principles remain the same. These cases are complex,
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 133 of 176 the effects on stream habitats may be severely negative, and to avoid hasty decisions and unintended consequences, they should be studied in detail. Project Support Documents I’ve examined the project support documents, the Application, (Aspen Land Group, 2010); and the Hydrological Investigation Report (NLR Associates, 2010), to determine what it is they say about the possible effects of gravel extraction on fish habitat in the Medicine River. With regard to fish habitat and DFO Authorization under the Federal Fisheries Act, the Application considers only the effects of surface runoff and fish entrapment in the end pit lakes (see Section 3.4 of the Application). ...the pit will be setback a minimum of 30 m from the top of the right banks of both the Medicine River and Dickson Creek. The pit area will also be protected from being inundated during major flood occurrences up to the 1:100 year flood along the Medicine River. In addition, all surface runoff from the disturbed areas associated with the pit will, as much as possible [emphasis added], be maintained on-site and redirected to existing excavations or other low areas within the pit. As the fish habitat associated with the creek or the river will not be affected and as fish entrapment within the end pit lakes will be prevented up to a 1:100 year flood event, it is assumed that an approval will not be required under the Federal Fisheries Act. With regard to groundwater, the Application makes no mention of impacts on fish habitats in nearby streams. Initially, groundwater accumulating in the pits will be pumped to a “groundwater recharge pond centrally located within the mining area, and then as mining proceeds from pit to pit...” (Section 5.7). It is expected that, “given this method of handling pit water...the impact on the groundwater regime will be localized to just the immediate areas adjacent to the areas being dewatered.” This suggests that there will be no impact on the quality, quantity, or seasonality of groundwater inputs to fish habitat on the Medicine River. With regard to the NLR report, it does describe (Section 5) groundwater flowing across the proposed minesite in a northeasterly direction, and discharging to
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 134 of 176 the Medicine River in a range of 35 to 550 m3/day, depending on assumptions concerning hydraulic conductivity and thickness. This groundwater has a midwinter temperature (January 1, 2010) of between 5.5 and 6.0° (Section 3.3). No data describing oxygen concentrations of the groundwater are available. Beyond noting that seepage water in the Medicine River was “warm to the touch and snow and ice melted around it” (Section 5), NLR seems to have done little work that would be helpful in determining how groundwater flows affect fish habitat in the Medicine River. To be fair, such studies were not part of their scope of work (Section 1.2). They do, however, note that removal of gravelly materials is not expected to affect groundwater quantity (no overall net loss of water to the system), but that groundwater flow paths and rate of flow may be modified, and that measures to reduce potential effects should be incorporated (Section 6, Page 6-3). They also note that groundwater quality might be affected by fuel spillage and herbicide use (p 6-3). There is no mention of changes in temperature, oxygen, or nutrient concentrations. Among recommendations for further work, NLR lists hydrochemical sampling in the Medicine River as well as gauging flows along the reach of river in question (presumably the reach adjacent to the minesite). Concerns My main concerns are with the effects of the proposed minesite on fish habitat in the reaches of the Medicine River adjacent to and downstream of the development. Surface Water I expect that, except for major floods, surface water can be controlled and not enter the Medicine River directly. I am, however, concerned about the phrase “as much as possible” included in the Application (see above). Under certain adverse conditions, I can conceive of the applicant pumping surface water to either Dickson Creek or the Medicine River. I would like to see these conditions spelled out. In addition, I have concerns about surface water diverted to pits where it is likely to be entrained as groundwater (see below). Groundwater
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 135 of 176 Groundwater (both quality and quantity) is my major concern, especially as it affects fish habitat in the Medicine River. 1. While NLR does not expect mining of gravels to affect groundwater quantity overall, I wonder about the seasonality of flows. Will, for example, the groundwater pumped to either the central collecting pit or the worked-out pits be iced-in during the winter and only belatedly entrained to enter the river after walleye spawning has ended by mid- April? 2. NLR notes that the flow paths and rates of flow of groundwater may change. How might this affect habitat now utilized by spawning walleye, and to which they might be homing? Will it be less suitable in future? 3. Will the temperature of re-entrained groundwater be affected by passing through these pits? Will it be warmer in summer and colder in winter? Would this be good or bad for fish habitat? 4. I have similar questions about oxygen concentrations of previously ponded groundwater entering the Medicine River. Will these be higher or lower than those of groundwater now entering the Medicine? 5. And what of nutrient concentrations in the groundwater? The mine operation will disturb previously farmed and likely nutrient-rich topsoils. These will come into contact with pit water, and nutrients (eg. phosphorus and nitrogen) will be leached. Will these nutrients be entrained and end up in an already overly- enriched stream? What will be the effects of additional nutrient enrichment on plant production and oxygen concentrations in the river? The latter are already dangerously low in winter and dangerously high in summer. 6. I agree with NLR that there should be additional hydrochemical sampling and flow gauging in the Medicine River. To determine the quantity and quality of groundwater inputs, the sampling programme
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 136 of 176 should include a control station upstream of, as well as several stations adjacent to and downstream of the minesite. 7. The sampling should be done in conjunction with a detailed survey of the characteristics of fish habitat, including location, quality of both surface and groundwater, .stream substrates, and seasonal fish utilization by species, life history stage, and numbers.
5.0 CONCLUSION The available information suggests that water quality and fish habitat in the Medicine River has deteriorated over the years, and its fish populations are already under duress. My own view is to err on the side of caution. As things stand, a Fisheries Authorization should not be granted for this project. If it is, and if the walleye population, in particular, suffers a significant decline as a result of project- related impacts, anglers will have endured all those years of zero-catch limits for nothing.
6.0 LITERATURE CITED Anderson, A.-M. 1998. Raw water quality in the Red Deer River with respect to the operation of the Anthony Henday Water Treatment Plant. Alberta Environmental Protection, Water Sciences Branch, 7 pp + Tables and Figures. Aspen Land Group Inc. 2010. Pit Registration, Water Act Approval and Development Permit Applications for 6M Holdings Ltd., Dickson Creek Pit. Blackburn, J. 2001. Sport fish distribution and relative abundance on the Lower Red Deer River from Dickson Dam to Joffre, Alberta, 2005. Data report, D-2007- 005, produced by Alberta Conservation Association, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. 25 pp + Appendix. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 1999. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of the Environment: Dissolved Gas Supersaturation. 7 pp. Dryden, H.T. 2003. Gas saturation and its implications. Hatchery Internal. Issue 5, 3 pp.
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 137 of 176 Markle, J.M. and R.A. Schincariol. 2007. Thermal plume transport from sand and gravel pits—Potential thermal impacts on cool water streams. Journal of Hydrology. 338, pp174-195. NLR Associates Inc. 2010. Hydrological Investigation Report, 6M Holdings— Proposed Gravel Extraction Facility. Rees, K. and V. G. Buchwald, 1992a. Presence of walleye young-of-the-year in the Red Deer River between Dickson Dam and the Joffre Bridge, summer 1991. Unpublished Report, Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife, Wildlife Division, Red Deer, Alberta. 20 pp. Rees, K. and V.G. Buchwald. 1992b. Presence of walleye in the Lower Medicine River, Summer 1991. Unpublished Report, Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Division, Red Deer, Alberta. 15 pp. Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin 184. 966 pp. Sullivan, M.G. 2003. Active management of walleye fisheries in Alberta: Dilemmas of managing recovering fisheries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23:1343-1358. Wieliczko, J. and V.G. Buchwald. 1995a. Presence of walleye and other sports fish in the Medicine River, spring and summer 1992. Unpublished Report, Alberta Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Service, Fisheries Management Division, Red Deer, Alberta. 47 pp. Wieliczko, J. and V.G. Buchwald. 1995b. Presence of walleye young-of-the-year in the Red Deer River between Dickson Dam and the Joffre Bridge, Summer 1992. Unpublished Report, Alberta Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Service, Fish Management Division, Red Deer, Alberta. 32 pp. Wieliczko, J. and V.G. Buchwald. 2010. Medicine River walleye spawning assessment, 1993. Unpublished Report, Alberta Conservation Association, Cochrane, Alberta and Alberta Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Service, Red Deer, Alberta. 32 pp.
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 138 of 176 RESUME
Peter James McCart Spruce View, Alberta, Canada
EDUCATION
PhD Zoology Institute of Fisheries 1970 University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada
MSc Zoology Institute of Fisheries 1963 University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada
BA Zoology University of Oregon 1958 Eugene, Oregon, USA
CAREER SUMMARY
Biological Consultant President, Principal Consultant 1973 to Present Aquatic Environments Limited
Assistant Professor Department of Biology 1971 to 1973 University of Calgary
Special Lecturer/ Department of Biology 1968 to 1971 Assistant Professor University of Saskatchewan Regina Campus
Fisheries Scientist Fisheries Research Board of Canada 1963 to 1968 Nanaimo Biological Station
REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS
1960 to 1969 Master’s Thesis • Ecology of pygmy whitefish in BC lakes Doctoral Thesis • Systematic relationships of sockeye and kokanee Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. • Studies of benthic macroinvertebrates, fish populations and stream habitats from Yukon River to Prudhoe Bay
1970 to 1979 Alyeska/Canadian Arctic Gas • Baseline studies of fish habitat and fish populations along alternative gas pipeline routes from Prudhoe Bay to Canadian/US border in British Columbia and Saskatchewan • Impact Assessment
Alberta Environment • Baseline studies and impact assessment Red Deer River Dam project
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 139 of 176 Peter James McCart Page 2
Alberta Oil Sands Environmental • Baseline studies of fish and fish habitat in Research Program (AOSERP) Athabasca and Clearwater rivers and their tributaries • Studies of acute and chronic toxicity of mine depressurization water • Review of biomoniotring within AOSERP research area
Canada Department of Fisheries • Enumeration of salmon spawning at various and Oceans locations in British Columbia
Department of Indian Affairs • Studies of effects of sedimentation on aquatic and Northern Development ecosystems in YaYa Lake, NWT
Esso Resources Limited • Studies of marine benthos and fish populations, Baffin Island and northern Labrador • Baseline studies, toxicity studies and impact assessment, Cold Lake Project
Polar Gas • Baseline studies of fish habitat and fish populations, Spence Bay to Devon Island, NWT
Science Council of NWT • Review of status of fish populations in the Northwest Territories
Syncrude Canada Ltd. • Baseline studies of periphyton, benthos, and fish populations in Athabasca and MacKay rivers • Studies of acute toxicity of mine depressurization groundwater on fish • Studies of recolonization of interceptor ditch
1980 to 1989 Alberta Environment • Baseline studies of lake whitefish in Athabasca River, Peace-Athabasca Delta, and Athabasca Lake with predicted impact of ice-control weir • Studies of fish populations and impact assessment of water-level fluctuations in Cold Lake area • Review of fisheries information for Athabasca River Basin (Wallace and McCart)
Alsands • Baseline studies of aquatic ecosystems and fish populations, Muskeg River • Studies of acute toxicity of mine depressurization groundwater • Monitoring of site drainage effects on Muskeg River
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. • Extensive study of post-project impact of pipeline construction on aquatic habitats and fish populations, Yukon River and North Slope drainages
AOSTRA • Surveys of access routes to underground test facility
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 140 of 176 Peter James McCart Page 3
BC Hydro • Studies of salmon populations in Stikine and Iskut rivers and assessment of impact of hydro development
Canstar • Baseline studies of lakes and streams in project area near Fort McMurray
Dome Petroleum • Impact assessment, aquatic systems and fish populations, Primrose Lake Project
Esso Resources Limited • Baseline studies and impact assessment, aquatic ecosystems and fish populations, Cold Lake Project • Assessment of impacts of Norman Wells Project and Zama Lake pipeline
Mackenzie River Basin Study • Study of benthic invertebrates and fish populations in Slave River Delta
Slave River Hydro • Studies of fish populations in Peace-Athabasca Delta and Lake Athabasca and prediction of impact of water level changes
Syncrude Canada Ltd. • Assessment of potential impacts of upgrading and expansion of mine
Denison/Quintette • Various coalmine projects. Baseline studies of Esso Minerals aquatic ecosystems including fish and prediction PetroCanada/Monkman Pass of effects of development Smoky River Coal
1990 to present Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. • Impact assessment, fish and fish habitat, for two pipeline replacement projects along the Trans Alaska Oil Pipeline
AOSTRA • Effect of downwell injections of process water on water quality in MacKay River
Alberta Fish and Wildlife • Status of lake trout in Cold Lake, Alberta, and and others impact of introduction of a new salmonid
Canada Fisheries and Oceans • Effects of sedimentation from placer mining on fish and fish habitat
Husky Oil • Baseline studies of stream ecosystems, including fish, and assessment of impact of proposed Caroline Development Project
International Joint Commission • Member of international board assessing potential impacts of BC coalmine on stream ecosystems in Montana
Manitoba Hydro • Review of history and management of commercial and Indian sturgeon fisheries on the Nelson River
OSLO Oil Sands Project • Design and direct baseline studies of water
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 141 of 176 Peter James McCart Page 4
quality, algae, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish in project areas • Prepare impact assessment for both Muskeg River (minesite) and Redwater (upgrader) sites
Various sponsors • Review of impacts of Old Man River, Rafferty/ Alameda, and Highwood River projects
Trout Unlimited Canada • Prepared a review of the status of bull trout in Alberta
Amoco Eurasia • Field studies and impact assessment of aquatic habitats and fish in two oilfields on the Ob and Irtysh rivers, Siberia
Exxon • Field reconnaissance and assessment of the potential impact of oil pipeline project on fish and fish habitat Sakhalin Island, Eastern Siberia
BHP Ekati Diamond Project • Member of Independent Environmental Monitoring Agency for BHP’s Diamond Project in the Northwest Territories. This agency assesses the performance of BHP and various government regulatory agencies in protecting the environment
Diavik Diamond Project Assessed the cumulative effects of this project on water Quality and fish (for the Independent Environmental Monitoring Agency). Represented the Lutsel ké Dene Band at Plenary Sessions assessing the environmental Impacts of the project
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 142 of 176 Peter James McCart Page 5
EXPERT TESTIMONY
Courts • Expert witness at Suncor trial on behalf of Suncor • Expert witness at R vs MacMillan Bleodel, Vancouver Island, BC on behalf of MacMillan Bloedel • Expert witness at interim injunction application on James Bay Hydro Project on behalf of the Quebec Indian Federation • Expert witness at R vs Town of St. Paul on behalf of St. Paul • Expert witness at several trials involving Indian treaty rights on behalf of Indians
Hearings • National Energy Board (several occasions) • Environmental Assessment and Review Panels under the auspices of the Federal Environmental Assessment and Review organization (FEARO) (several occasions, including NWT Diamonds) • Northwest Territories Water Board (several occasions, including NWT Diamonds) • Berger Commission on the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline • Alberta Pacific Pulp Mill Hearings • Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (several occasions) • Pearse Commission on West Coast Fisheries • United States Federal Power Commission (Alaskan Arctic Gas Project) • US President’s Committee on Environmental Quality (Alaskan Arctic Gas Project) • Alberta Natural Resources Conservation Board (WestCastle and Kananaskis Golf Projects)
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 143 of 176 Peter James McCart Page 6
SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS
Boday, R.A., J.D. Riest, D.M. Rosenberg, P.J. McCart, and R.E. Hecky. 1989. Fish and fisheries of the Mackenzie and Churchill River basins, Northern Canada, Pages 124 to 144 In D.P. Dodge [ed.] Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium (LARS), Canadian Special Publications, Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 106.
Coburn, A. and P. McCart. 1967. A hatchery release tank for pink salmon fry with notes on behaviour of the fry in the tank after release. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 24 (1):77-85.
Craig, P. and P. McCart. 1975. Classification of stream types in the Beaufort Sea drainages between Prudhoe Bay, Alaska and the Mackenzie Delta, N.W.T. Arctic and Alpine Research 7(2):183-198.
Craig, P.C., and P. McCart. 1976. Fish use of nearshore coastal waters in the western Arctic: emphasis on anadromous species. Pages 361 to 388 in Assessment of the Arctic Marine Environment: Selected Topics. Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
McCart, P. 1965. Growth and morphometry of four British Columbia populations of pygmy whitefish (Prosopium coulteri). J. Fish, Res. Board Can. 22(5):1229-1259.
McCart, P. 1967. Behaviour and ecology of sockeye salmon fry in the Babine River. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 24(2):373-428.
McCart, P. 1967. Scale regeneration in the bluespot goby, Coryphopterus nicholsi. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 24(2)433- 434.
McCart, P. 1969. Digging behaviour of Oncorhynchus nerka spawning in streams at Babine Lake, British Columbia. In T. G. Northcote (ed). Symposium on Salmon and Trout in streams. H.R. McMillan Lectures in Fisheries. Institute of Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
McCart, P. 1970. A polymorphic population of Oncorhynchus nerka at Babine Lake, B.C. involving anadromous (sockeye) and non- anadromous (kokanee) forms. Ph.D. Thesis, Institute of Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
McCart, P. 1970. Evidence for the existence of sibling species of pygmy whitefish (Prosopium coulteri) of three Alaskan lakes. Pages 81 to 98 in C. C. Lindsey and C. S. Woods (eds). Biology of Coregonid Fishes. University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg.
McCart, P. 1980. Detailed review of the systematics and ecology of the western Arctic form of the Arctic char. Fisheries and Marine Service Technical Report. McCart, P.J. 1986. Fish and fisheries of the Mackenzie River system, Pages 493 to 515 In: Davies, B.R. and K.F. Walker [eds.] Ecology of Large River Systems. Monographiae Biologicae Vol. 60 Junk Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
McCart, P. 1997. Bull Trout in Alberta: A review. In: Mackay, W.C., M.K. Brewin, and M. Monita [eds.] Proceedings of the Friends of the Bull Trout Conference, Calgary AB. 17p.
McCart, P. and B. Andersen. 1967. Plasticity of gillraker and number and length in Oncorhynchus nerka. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 24(9):1999-2002.
McCart, P. and N. Aspinwall. 1970. Spawning behaviour of the large-scale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus) at Stave Lake, British Columbia. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 27(6):1154-1158.
McCart, P. and H. Bain. 1974. An isolated population of Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) inhabiting a warm mineral spring above a waterfall at Cache Creek, N.W.T. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 31(8):1408-1414.
McCart, P. and P. Craig. 1971. Meristic differences between anadromous and freshwater-resident Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) in the Sagavanirktok River drainage, Alaska. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 28(1):115-118.
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 144 of 176 Peter James McCart Page 7
McCart, P. and P. Craig. 1973. Life history of two isolated populations of Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) in spring-fed tributaries of the Canning River, Alaska. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 30(8) 1215-1220.
McCart, P. and J. DenBeste. 1987. Colonization of experimentally oiled substrates by periphyton and benthic macroinvertebrates in two Arctic streams. Pages 388 to 402 In: J. H. Vandermeulen and S.E. Hrudey [eds.] Oil in Freshwater: Chmistry, Biology, Countermeasure Technolgy. Pergammon Press, New York.
McCart, P. and V. Pepper. 1971. Geographic variation in the lateral line scale counts of North American grayling, Thymallus arcticus. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 28(5):749-754.
Mudry, D. and P. McCart. 1974. Bulbodacnitis alpinus sp. n. (Nematoda: Cucullanidae) from Arctic char, Salvelinus alpinus L.) from the north slope of Canada and Alaska. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33(2):271-275.
Tsui, P. and P. McCart. 1981a. Chlorinated hydrocarbon residues and heavy metals in several fish species from the Cold Lake area in Alberta, Canada. Intern. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 10:277-285.
Tsui, P. and P. McCart. 1981b. Effects of stream-crossing by a pipeline on the benthic macroinvertebrate communities of a small mountain stream. Hydrobiologia (79):271-276.
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 145 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 146 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 147 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 148 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 149 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 150 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 151 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 152 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 153 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 154 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 155 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 156 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 157 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 158 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 159 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 160 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 161 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 162 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 163 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 164 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 165 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 166 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 167 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 168 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 169 of 176 Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 170 of 176 Apr 17, 2017 Re: Howell’s Excavating Ltd. Application TXT-17-001 Dear Mayor Wood and Elected Council, Butte Action Committee (BAC) is a grassroots watershed advocacy group committed to protecting Alberta’s fresh water for future generations. BAC is very aware of the fragile, sensitive, significant area for which this application is proposed and heavy environmental impacts gravel mining in the unique river(s) confluence has already taken. BAC is writing to strongly object to the Howell proposal in the interest to protecting aquifers and surface water. From 2009 through 2013- the Howell Gravel Excavation Application figures were reconfigured many times and yet failed to meet the (MDP) of Red Deer County(RDC) and Appeal by an ISDAB. Lowering a floodplain, stripping the protective cover from shared source- water, excavating out the alluvial material of the River Aquifer and plugging off water communication is just not good long term land use planning. Compelling evidence demonstrating the consequences of gravel mining activities in this area is apparent immediately south of Howell’s proposed application. Red Deer County’s ESA and ALUS are commendable, achieving notable recognition. The environmental desecration south of Hi-way 54, is not appreciated and appears at odds to the ESA and ALUS goals as well as Red Deer County’s claim as a great place to live, work and grow for the impacted community. • Community Wellness Impacts may be partially illustrated by Dennis and Jody Krause in their objection statement Howell 2013, “When Stewart and the County started their operations in NE and NW of 12- they probably never expected what happened from their excavations. The only difference in the Howell application is the Hi-Way between the applications. Hi-Way 54 has been overtopped several times and will be again. If this pit goes ahead, there will be another and another until there is nothing left.” Krause’s property is the local 2014 Flood buy-out. • Alberta Drought and Flood Mitigation spending- There is only one taxpayer. The negative impacts and consequences of gravel mining in this Flood Plain and Alluvial Aquifer are opposite to all the current goals of F&D Municipal funding and initiatives.
• Red Deer River Basin Flood Mitigation Study follow up on this specific area reads “In our discussion about the environment complexity of this area I was specifically referring to the proximity of the confluence of the Little Red Deer and Medicine Rivers, the proximity to the Dickson Dam outlet (creating an evolving river environment due to the Dam operations) the groundwater connectivity (as you reported) and of course the highway/roadway infrastructure and gravel pit operations.”
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 171 of 176 • Room for the River to Move states “Red Deer County has a land use bylaw prohibiting development in the 1:100 floodplain.” • New MGA just tabled considers the municipal purpose which is to “to foster the well- being of the environment”. • MUGS Source Water Quality Primer Oct. 2016 – “Environmental integrity is dependent on healthy aquatic ecosystems.” MUGs requests for Crown Water Reservation adds water volume concerns. • AAMD&C Position Statement on Water- includes municipalities protecting Alberta’s rivers, groundwater, lakes, wetlands and the sensitive areas adjacent to them as an important priority as well as flood, drought and climate change. • AAMD&C says that on air, land, water and biodiversity, Municipalities play a key role in front line environmental management in all of these areas. “Municipalities are responsible for land use planning and environmental decisions where water bodies and wetlands are factors.” • AAMD&C Position Statement on Agriculture addresses preservation priority of agricultural lands from loss and fragmentation. • AUMA points out that, “One of the most important ways that we can effectively manage our water is to change the way we manage our land.” • Cumulative Effects Management – ALSA Regional Plans approach includes impacts assessment of existing and new activities and is driven by cumulative effects of development on air, water, land and biodiversity. • In 2013, Red Deer County’s elected council rejected the Howell Gravel Application for these recorded reasons- “The proposed discretionary use for Aggregate Removal would negatively affect the quality of life for the areas residents; have a negative effect on the water quality relative to human consumption, the habitat, the river; and the impact on the air quality would have a negative effect on the residents, crops and animals.” • RDC’s Medicine River Valley Concept Plan to promote residential growth and enhance agricultural viability clearly includes SE 13-36-2-5.
No Demonstrated County Need • In 2005- RDC Operations reported 80 years of gravel secured RDC use. • 2016 public records show acquisition of several more RDC secured gravel holdings adding to their secured 80 yr. gravel supply. • The 2016 AAMD&C Got Gravel survey shows RDC has the maximum reserves need reported. • Howell was made aware of the resident community’s objection to his application well in advance of title changes as shown. • Existing family owned businesses include several farms and small ag. holdings that are extremely dependent upon the aquifer/river flows. Are existing agricultural businesses less important than gravel applications in Red Deer County?
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 172 of 176 • The use of 1:100 Flood level as a setback for mining is meaningless as the 1:100 statistics are constantly changing as new flow data is obtained each year. • Under common law, you have a right to both use and enjoy your property, but not to interfere with your neighbor’s rights to use and enjoy their property. On the subject of public good, AAMD&C writes that it is not sufficient to say that a greater good is being served. ( AAMD&C on Forced Regionalization)
Source Water Contamination • 2014 Dodd’s Lake Hydrocarbon Spill shows how quickly and costly water contamination into a waterbody can occur. • 2012 Plains Midstream spill into the Red Deer River resulted in Plains offering to haul water and test wells in this aquifer dependent area. • Experts advise it would be impossible to meaningfully mitigate spills into the aquifers opened pit face. • Large pit scar lakes, such as Howell is proposing leave significant risk for future contamination, aquifer warming, and provide significant annual evaporative loss. • Howell’s claim to having an “expert” construct 42 acres of scar pit ponds into “viable, successful wetlands and a functional prosperous habitat” as reclamation is not insured, not scientifically explained and not cost evaluated. • AEP’s Flood Hazard Identification Program2009 states that dykes are not to be built to create development opportunities on flood prone land and that responsibility managing flood hazard is shared among municipal, provincial and individual land owners. • RDC’s Groundwater Study 2005 identifies this area’s gravel aquifer wells. • Climate Change are not considered and yet climate models are projecting for increased precipitation in Alberta and a shift of flow characteristics of rivers and more water conveyed through the system in a shorter period of time. * In conclusion, The Butte Action Committee is strongly against the Howell Excavating application because it would only further perpetrate known environmental disaster and place the entire flood plain in peril. Due to forecasted decreases in summer flows of up to 50%, extreme increases in winter flows and increased risk of flood frequency, it is hoped that Red Deer County would avoid the unintended consequences for sensitive riverine environments counter to the goals of Water for Life. An estimated 80% out of floodplain sand and gravel deposits, are within in the province to exploit. It is imperative that particular attention be paid to groundwater-surface water interaction “explicitly” addressed in sand and gravel assessment approach to insure water security. Sincerely. Butte Action Committee Members, Judy Winter ( Secretary for BAC )
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 173 of 176
ALBERTA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION "Defending Wild Alberta through Awareness and Action”
April 13, 2017
Mayor Jim Wood Red Deer County Email: [email protected]
RE: Howell Excavating Ltd. Reapplication for SE 13-36-2-W5 Overlay Zoning and Aggregate Activities
Alberta Wilderness Association (AWA) is writing to state our opposition to the Howell Excavating Limited’s reapplication to extract aggregate from SE 13-36-2-W5 due to significant risk to water resources and fisheries in the area.
Founded in 1965, AWA works throughout Alberta towards more representative and connected protection of the unique and vital landscapes that are the source of our clean water, clean air, and wildlife habitat. With more than 7,000 members and supporters in Alberta and across Canada, AWA remains committed to ensuring protection of wildlife and waters in Alberta.
It has come to our attention that Red Deer County is considering Howell Excavating Limited’s application to extract gravel on land located near the confluence of the Medicine River and Red Deer River. The land location for the development is SE ¼ of Section 13 Township 36 Range 2 West of the 5th Meridian (proposal attached), and is located within the 1:100 year floodplain. AWA is concerned that extracting gravel from this area may pose significant environmental risks to local water quality, wildlife, and groundwater flow. As you may be aware, an integral part of a river is the shallow connected groundwater in the floodplain beyond its active channel. Any land uses that affect the river-connected groundwater are known to affect the river (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The river is connected to groundwater in the floodplain beyond what is visible on the surface. Choices on land uses within the floodplain affect the river. Source: U.S. Geological Survey 1993.
455 – 12 Street NW, Calgary, AB T2N 1Y9 Phone 403.283.2025 Fax 403.270.2743 [email protected] www.AlbertaWilderness.ca
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 174 of 176 The connected groundwater systems in this area sustain many important native fish species including walleye, mountain whitefish, and northern pike. Floodplain mining may increase the risk of pollutants entering water bodies from flooded gravel pits and increase the risk of sedimentation in rivers. We are especially concerned about this possibility as the location of the proposed mine has flooded before.
AWA completed a tour of this proposed site in the fall of 2015. We note that the gravel pits located adjacent to this location have flooded previously and have resulted in the river flooding into these gravel pits – resulting in fish being stranded in the pits. AWA believes that, due to the fact that this location has flooded before and there is a high possibility that the location containing these gravel pits would flood again, it would be highly irresponsible to allow gravel mining in this area.
Additionally, we are concerned that gravel mining at the proposed location will interrupt important groundwater/ surface-water connections, resulting in lower dissolved oxygen levels and higher water temperatures. This area is a critical area of groundwater movement between the Medicine and Red Deer River, with many meandering streams and channels. Altering and fragmenting groundwater movement poses additional stresses not only on the native fishery, but could also decrease groundwater supply to local water bodies and landowner wells, creating local water security issues.
In conclusion, AWA is not supportive of this development as we firmly believe that gravel mining should be located outside 1:100 year floodplain. We have concerns about the risks that extracting gravel at this location may pose on local fisheries and groundwater supply. We respectfully urge you to reject the Howell Excavating Ltd. reapplication for SE 13-36-2-W5 overlay zoning and aggregate activities.
With regards,
ALBERTA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION
Joanna Skrajny, Conservation Specialist
cc: Dave Dittrick, [email protected]
455 12 ST NW, Calgary AB T2N 1Y9 Phone 403.283.2025 Fax 403.270.2743 [email protected] www.AlbertaWilderness.ca
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 175 of 176 PO Box 4541 Edmonton AB T6E 5G4 780.757.4872 [email protected] URL http://www.aenweb.ca
Aggregate Coalition Alberta Fish and Game Association, Edmonton Trout Fishing Club & Dickson Fish and Game Association Bearspaw Residents Butte Action Committee Canadian Society of Environmental Biologists Alberta Chapter Central Athabasca Stewardship Society Cochrane Environmental Action Committee Environmental Law Center Keepers of the Athabasca Lac Ste. Anne Community Group Medicine River Watershed Society Meewasin Community Council Onoway River Valley Conservation Association North Saskatchewan Riverkeeper Pigeon Lake Watershed Association Red Deer River Naturalists South McDougal Flats Area Protection Society South Peace Environmental Association Southern Alberta Group for the Environment Trout Unlimited Canada Water Matters Society of Alberta
March 3, 2017
Red Deer County Council Attn: Mayor Wood and Council, Re: Howell Excavation Ltd. Application for Zoning and Gravel Mining, File-TXT-17-001
The Alberta Environmental Network is a non-profit, non-partisan association consisting of member groups based throughout Alberta. Individuals participating in these groups include a broad range of highly knowledgeable people dedicated to conservation and protection of Alberta’s environment. The Aggregate Coalition is one of several working groups of Alberta Environmental Network. On behalf of the member groups of the Aggregate Coalition, I address this letter to you, because healthy citizens and communities require a healthy environment.
We applaud the progress of Red Deer County in identifying and mapping Environmentally Sensitive Areas. This progress demonstrates greatly needed leadership in responsible land use planning, and recognition of the vital importance of healthy ecosystems. We also applaud previous well-reasoned decisions of Red Deer County to exclude gravel mining from Environmentally Sensitive Areas, demonstrating respect for present and future county residents, whose livelihoods, health and quality of life depend on healthy air, land and water.
Thus, it is with dismay that we learn that Red Deer County Council will now consider yet another application to mine an area of vital environmental, ecological and hydrological function at SE-13-36-2- W5. The riparian area, floodplain, alluvial aquifer and hyporheic zone, clearly identified by the County as Environmentally Sensitive Area, are in extremely close proximity to numerous family farms and family homes, and provide essential ecological services to those families, farms and homes.
This begs multiple questions, including, but not limited to the following. What is the point of identifying Environmentally Sensitive Areas, only to turn around and allow their destruction? How many times does the county consider it reasonable to force families to endure massive stress and expense to defend themselves against applications for mining of their neighborhoods? How can you consider it wise or beneficial business or governance to squander resources on endlessly repeated applications of this nature? Why would you not develop a responsible aggregate resource strategy restricting mining to dry upland areas while protecting biodiversity, water resources and known sensitive areas?
We strongly encourage the Red Deer County Council to uphold previous wisdom and leadership, and the intent of your Environmentally Sensitive Areas mapping, and refuse first reading or approval of this application to mine an aquifer and negatively impact multiple local families and agricultural operations.
Respectfully Submitted
D. Mendelsohn, Co-Chair AEN Aggregate Coalition
Cc: Premier Rachel Notley, Auditor General Merwan Saher
1
Bylaw No. 2017/8 – a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw No. 2... Page 176 of 176