Staff Initials: Dept. Head: CAO: Page 1 of 3

Peace River Regional DistrictREPORT

To: Chair and Directors Date: February 16, 2017

From: Tyra Henderson, Corporate Officer

Subject: NCLGA Resolutions

RECOMMENDATION: [All Directors - Corporate Unweighted] 1. That the Board approve the following two resolutions for submission to the 2017 NCLGA

Convention:

ILLEGAL DUMPING PEACE RIVER REGIONAL DISTRICT

WHEREAS illegal dumping of waste on private and crown land continues to be an issue across the Province resulting in unsightly, unsanitary and potentially dangerous refuse deposits in natural rural areas that should be protected and preserved for public enjoyment in ‘supernatural British Columbia’;

AND WHEREAS the problem of illegal dumping is an area of shared jurisdiction between multiple Provincial Ministries including Environment and Forest, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations, which results in decreased accountability and gaps in service:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the NCLGA and UBCM lobby the Provincial Government to designate a single Ministry as responsible for regulation of illegal dumping in the Province, including enforcement of said regulations and cleanup and removal of dumped waste,

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the NCLGA and UBCM respectfully request that the Province provide adequate funding to the designated Ministry to ensure minimum staffing levels can be maintained in all areas of the Province to address the issue of illegal dumping.

Background Information: This issue was previously identified as a concern under UBCM Resolution Number B27 (1996), B22 (2012) and B29 (2012).

The Ministry of Environment (MOE) has advised the Peace River Regional District (PRRD) that in addition to Conservation Officers working in the BC Parks and Conservation Officer Service Division of the Ministry, that MOE Environmental Protection Officers, MoFLNRO staff, RCMP, and local government bylaw enforcement officers may respond to complaints of illegal dumping. The PRRD wishes to see a lead agency take responsibility for this function.

R-16

February 23, 2017

Report – Chair and Directors – NCLGA Resolutions (wind/dumping) February 16, 2017 Page 2 of 3 In June of 2016, the Terrace Standard newspaper published a news story about illegal dumping in the area, and the Cowichan Valley Citizen newspaper also published a news story regarding illegal dumping in an area frequented by outdoor enthusiasts and a mere few kilometers from a regional recycling facility, confirming that the issue of illegal dumping is not localized in the northeast or northwest areas of the province. According to statistics from the Society of BC Conservation Officers, there was a significant decrease in the levels of field strength staffing in all Regions of the Province (except the Okanagan) between 2001 and 2012, ranging from 23% to a 50% reduction. (http://wcel.org/sites/default/files/Staffing%20Level%20Comparison%202001%20to%202012%20-%20Final%20May%202013.pdf)

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:

WIND TURBINE SITING ON CROWN LAND PEACE RIVER REGIONAL DISTRICT WHEREAS the placement of wind turbines on crown land that is adjacent to private property has effects on the private property and its owners; AND WHEREAS the private property owners and other stakeholders such as local government expect proper consultation regarding placement and permitting of any large projects affecting them and their right to private enjoyment of their properties: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the NCLGA and UBCM lobby the Provincial Government to require that local government land use regulations apply to all small scale energy generation projects, including wind energy projects, regardless of their location on public or private property to ensure proper consultation with affected landowners and local governments takes place in advance of construction of wind energy projects in the Province. Background Information: BC Hydro launched its current Standing Offer Program (SOP) in April of 2008. The program allows private or public proposals for small scale energy generation project (over 100KW and up to 15MW) to be ‘sold’ to BC Hydro who are then obliged through the “standing offer” program, to purchase the energy (if the proposals meet the predetermined criteria). Since the inception of the program, two public reviews have taken place, one in 2010 and a second in 2014. The feedback received through these engagements resulted in revised Standing Offer Program Rules and a Standard Form Electricity Purchase Agreement being released in March of 2016. Local government or adjacent landowner (stakeholder) consultation was not identified in the 2014 SOP Review Summary of Feedback themes. (https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-portal/documents/corporate/independent-power-producers-calls-for-power/standing-offer/standing-offer-program-april-2014-engagement-summary-of-key-themes.pdf) Since the inception of the program, 25 projects have been approved, and an additional 11 projects are under consideration. ( https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/acquiring_power/current_offerings/standing_offer_program/current-applications.html)

R-16

February 23, 2017

Report – Chair and Directors – NCLGA Resolutions (wind/dumping) February 16, 2017 Page 3 of 3

The size of these wind energy projects exempts them from Provincial or Federal Environmental Assessment requirements as well as any public consultation requirements. Local governments may establish procedures and information submission requirements for projects proposed on private land, and the private use of Crown land. However, selected energy projects located on crown land are exempt from local government land use regulations pursuant to the BC Utilities Commission Act. This exemption runs counter to the long standing principle that local government holds land use authority for the private use of Crown land. This exemption also means that the public consultation processes normally applicable to land use regulation decisions are not required, and affected residents and communities have no opportunity for input. Local governments across the Province are dealing with these small scale energy generation projects, as the Standing Offer Program applies not only to wind projects, but can include solar, tidal energy or run of the river projects as well.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE At the February 9th Regular Board meeting the Board requested that resolutions be drafted regarding the siting of wind turbines on Crown land and illegal dumping, for Board consideration and approval at the February 23rd meeting to meet the NCLGA submission deadline of March 3rd. The resolutions have been drafted to meet the NCLGA resolution guidelines and must receive Board endorsement to be accepted by the NCLGA. (Individual Directors may not submit resolutions.)

OPTIONS 1. The Board may direct staff to amend the proposed resolutions prior to submission to NCLGA.2. The Board may decline to adopt the proposed resolutions and not submit them to the NCLGA.

STRATEGIC PLAN RELEVANCE: n/a

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION(S): n/a

COMMUNICATIONS CONSIDERATION(S): Any resolutions endorsed by the Board will be forwarded prior to March 3rd for inclusion in the 2017 NCLGA resolution package.

OTHER CONSIDERATION(S): Board Members attending the NCLGA Convention in Terrace in May 2017 may be called upon to speak to the resolution(s) submitted by the PRRD. The background information will be attached to the resolution for the benefit of all delegates to the convention and the Director introducing the resolution can rely on this information to advocate for support of the resolution.

R-16

February 23, 2017

February 23, 2017

R-16

R-5

February 23, 2017

R-16

Staffing Level Comparison 2001 to 2012 

Effects of staffing reductions and the effects of deployments to Field Operations 

Society of British Columbia Conservation Officers 

Prepared by Darryl Struthers, President SOBCCO    Finalized May 6, 2013 1 | P a g e

This document has been produced by the Society of British Columbia Conservation Officers.  The document 

compares staffing levels from 2001 to 2012 and how the Service’s field presence and focus has changed 

due to organizational changes and how staff are deployed throughout the Province.  The tables clearly 

show that the burden of work has been transferred to our field Conservation Officers over the past decade; 

yet their numbers have drastically declined.  The tables also demonstrate that staffing levels have not 

recovered since positions were lost and offices were closed in 2001.  

Please note that in 2001: Senior CO’s (SCO), District CO’s (DCO), Industrial Investigations Officers (IIU), Wildlife Control CO’s (WCO) and field CO’s all responded to complaints, dealt with problem wildlife and investigated all types of environmental crime from time to time.  As of 2008, by‐in‐large only field CO’s respond to complaints/calls for service.   

Region 1 – Vancouver Island 

2001  2012 

Campbell River  5 (1SCO, 1DCO & 3 CO’s)   Campbell River  4 (1 Sgt & 3 CO’s) 

Duncan  3 (1 SCO, 1 DCO, 1 CO) Duncan  2 (1 Sgt & 1 CO) 

Nanaimo  7 (1 REM, 1 DCO, 1WCO, 1 CO, 2 

IIU) 

Nanaimo  9 (2 Ins, 1Sgt, 2 CO’s, 4 D/Sgt) 

Port Alberni  2  Port Alberni  2 

Port Hardy  2  Port Hardy/McNeil  1 

Victoria  2  Victoria  2 

Queen Charlotte  1 

Total CO’s  20  Total CO’s  21 

Field Strength   19  Field Strength  12 = ~ 37 percent reduction. 

Region 2 –Lower Mainland 

2001  2012 

Chilliwack  5 (1 SCO, 1DCO, 2 CO’s, 1 IIU) Chilliwack  3 (1 Sgt, 2 CO’s)

Powell River  2  Powell River  2 

Sechelt  2  Sechelt  2 (1 Sgt, 1 CO)

Squamish  3 (1 DCO, 2 CO’s) Squamish  5 (1 Ins, 1 Sgt, 3 CO’s)

Maple Ridge  2  Maple Ridge  4 

Surrey  9 (1 REM, 1 SCO, 2DCO’s, 2 CO’s, 2 

IU CO’s, 1 SIU)

Surrey  4 ( 2 CO’s, 2 D/Sgt) 

North Vancouver  1 

Total CO’s  23  Total CO’s  21 

Field Strength  22  Field Strength  15 = ~ 32 percent reduction 

R-16

February 23, 2017

Staffing Level Comparison 2001 to 2012 

Effects of staffing reductions and the effects of deployments to Field Operations 

Society of British Columbia Conservation Officers 

Prepared by Darryl Struthers, President SOBCCO    Finalized May 6, 2013 2 | P a g e

Region 3 – Thompson 

2001  2012 

Clearwater  2  Clearwater  2 

Clinton  1 Closed in 2001 

Kamloops  5 (1 REM, 1 SCO, 1 DCO, 1 CO, 1 IIU) Kamloops  11 (2 Ins, 1 Sgt, 2 CO, 5 D/Sgt PIB, 1 D/Sgt SIU)

Lillooet  2  Lillooet  1 

Merritt  2  Merritt  3 

Salmon Arm  1 Closed in 2001 

Total CO’s  13  Total CO’s  17 

Field Strength  12  Field Strength  8 = ~ 33 percent reduction. 

Region 4 – Kootenay 

2001  2012 

Castlegar  2  Castlegar  2 

Creston  2  Creston  2 (1 Sgt, 1 CO)

Cranbrook  5 (1SCO, 1 IIU & 3 CO’s)  Cranbrook  5 (Ins, 4 CO’s) 

Fernie  2  Fernie  4 (1 Sgt, 3 CO’s)

Invermere  2  Invermere  2 

Nakusp  1  Nakusp  Closed in 2001 

Nelson  5 (REM, SCO, 2 CO and 1 IIU) still

confirming IIU.

Nelson  2 (1 CO, 1 D/Sgt) 

Golden  2  Golden  1 

Revelstoke (opened  2002) 

1 Sgt 

Grand Forks  1 

Total CO’s  21  Total CO’s  20 

Field Strength  20  Field Strength  15 = ~ 25 percent reduction 

R-16

February 23, 2017

Staffing Level Comparison 2001 to 2012 

Effects of staffing reductions and the effects of deployments to Field Operations 

Society of British Columbia Conservation Officers 

Prepared by Darryl Struthers, President SOBCCO    Finalized May 6, 2013 3 | P a g e

Region 5 – Cariboo 

2001  2012 

Alexis Creek  2 Closed in 2001 

Bella Coola  2 Closed in 2008 

Quesnel  2 3 (2 CO’s, 1 D/Sgt) *** D/Sgt may 

be PG based.

100 Mile House  2 2 

Williams Lake  5 (REM, SCO, DCO, 1CO, 1 IIU ) 5 (2 SGT’s, 1 D/SGT, 2 CO’s)  * WL

Conflict Sgt. reports to PG.

Total CO’s  13  Total CO’s  10 * 

Field Strength  12  Field Strength  6 = ~ 50 percent reduction 

Region 6 ‐ Skeena Region 

2001  2012 

Burns Lake  2 CO’S  Burns Lake  2 

Houston  1 CO  Houston  Closed in 2001 

Smithers  4 CO’S (REM, SCO,DCO,CO)  Smithers  4 (1 Ins, 1 Sgt & 2 CO’s)

New Hazelton  2 CO’S  New Hazelton  Closed in 2001 

Terrace  4 CO’s (1 SCO, 1DCO, 1 CO, 1 IIU)  Terrace  4 (1 Sgt & 3 CO’s) 

QCI  2 CO’s  QCI  Moved to Region 1 2010 

Dease Lake  2 CO’s  Dease Lake  1 

Atlin  1 CO’s  Atlin  1 

Total CO’s  18  Total CO’s  12 

Field Strength  17  Field Strength  9 = ~ 47 percent reduction 

Region 7a – Omineca 

2001  2012 

Vanderhoof  2 CO’S  Vanderhoof  1 

Prince George  7 (REM, SCO, 2 IIU, DCO, 2CO’s)  Prince George  9 (2 ins, 1 sgt, 2 d/sgt, 4 CO’S)

Valemount  1  Valemount  Closed in 2001 

MacKenzie  2  MacKenzie  1 

Total CO’s  12  Total CO’s  11 

Field Strength  11  Field Strength  6 = ~ 45 percent reduction 

R-16

February 23, 2017

Staffing Level Comparison 2001 to 2012 

Effects of staffing reductions and the effects of deployments to Field Operations 

Society of British Columbia Conservation Officers 

Prepared by Darryl Struthers, President SOBCCO    Finalized May 6, 2013 4 | P a g e

7b – Peace 

2001  2012 

Chetwynd  2  Chetwynd  1 

Dawson Creek  2  Dawson Creek  4 (1 Ins, 1 Sgt & 2CO’s) 

Fort Nelson  2  Fort Nelson  2 

Fort St. John  6 (1 SCO, 1DCO, 2 CO’s, 2 IIU) Fort St. John  4 (1 Sgt & 3 CO’s) 

Total CO’s * REM in PG.

12  Total CO’s  11 

Field Strength  11  Field Strength  8 = ~ 27 percent reduction 

8 ‐ Okanagan 

2001  2012 

Grand Forks  1 – Moved to Kootenay in 2008.

Kelowna  2  Kelowna  3 

Merritt  Moved to Okanagan in 2008 Merritt  3 

Penticton  3 (Rem, SCO, 1CO)  Penticton  4 (Ins & 1 Sgt, 2 CO’s) 

SIU  2 (no call response)  Penticton SIU  3 (1 Ins and 2 D/Sgt) 

Princeton  1  Princeton  1 

Vernon  2  Vernon  3 (Sgt & 2 CO’s) 

Total CO’s  11  Total CO’s  17 

Field Strength  8  Field Strength  11 = ~ 23 percent increase

Roll Up 

2001  2012 

Total # CO’s  143  Total # CO’s  139 

Field Strength (FTE’s)  132  Field Strength (FTE’s)  90 (difference of 44) 

% of deployment related to field work/call response 

92 percent of force % of deployment dedicated to field work/call response 

Only 64 percent of force 

Since 2001, we have lost 42 field officers = a 32 percent reduction in field officer response. For Fiscal Year 2002/03 the RAPP line received 2119 poaching/polluting calls and 8094 PW complaints. For FY 2011/12 the RAPP line received 4826 poaching polluting calls and 26779 PW complaints.  A 56 percent and 70 percent increase. 

Field officer / field strength – means a uniformed officer that responds to calls for service as they

relate to dangerous wildlife or violations in progress.  Also provides a proactive patrol presence.

R-16

February 23, 2017

Staffing Level Comparison 2001 to 2012 

Effects of staffing reductions and the effects of deployments to Field Operations 

Society of British Columbia Conservation Officers 

Prepared by Darryl Struthers, President SOBCCO    Finalized May 6, 2013 5 | P a g e

Taken from the West Coast Law Society’s online blog entitled: BC’s plummeting environmental 

enforcement dated March 2, 2010.  Unknown author. 

The graph individually and in combination compares the number of tickets and convictions by Conservation 

Officers from 1990 to 2009. 

http://www.wcel.org/resources/environmental‐law‐alert/bc%E2%80%99s‐plummeting‐environmental‐

enforcement 

Editor’s notes: Reductions to admin support and HQ staff have not been included in this comparison on 

purpose.  Although it should be noted that similar cuts or reductions have occurred with respect to 

administrative support staff during the study period.  It could be said, that such reductions to admin 

support have further attributed to lack of field presence, as COs are then required to spend more time on 

office administration.  

Budget decreases during this time were not factored in or studied. 

Expanded mandates and new legislation that have been added to COS responsibility during this study 

period, did not result in staffing increases 

R-16

February 23, 2017

Electricity Purchase Agreements (as of August 18, 2016)

(Source: https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/acquiring_power/current_offerings/standing_offer_program/current-applications.html)

We've awarded an EPA to the following projects. A project can take several months to a few years before being operational if successfully constructed. Please visit About Independent Power Projects for status on active EPAs.

DEVELOPER PROJECT PROJECT LOCATION

ENERGY SOURCE

CAPACITY (MW)

ENERGY (GWH/YR)

EPA AWARD

YEAR

Advanced Energy Systems 1 LP

South Cranberry Creek Power Project

Revelstoke Hydro 5.5 5.8 2011

Bear Hydro Limited Partnership

Lower Bear Hydro Sechelt Hydro 10.0 46.2 2009

Bear Hydro Limited Partnership

Upper Bear Hydro Sechelt Hydro 10.0 73.3 2009

Canoe Creek Hydro Company Ltd.

Canoe Creek Hydro Ucluelet Hydro 5.5 16.8 2009

Cedar Road LFG Inc.

Cedar Road Landfill Gas Nanaimo Biogas 1.3 10.6 2009

City of Kimberley SunMine Kimberley Solar 1.0 2.1 2014

City of Nanaimo Nanaimo Reservoir #1 Energy Recovery

Nanaimo Hydro 0.3 1.0 2014

Clemina Hydro Power Limited Partnership

Clemina Creek Hydro Valemount Hydro 10.5 36 2016

R-16

February 23, 2017

Fitzsimmons Creek Hydro LP (Innergex)

Fitzsimmons Creek Hydro Whistler Hydro 7.9 34.2 2009

Haa-ak-suuk Creek Hydro Limited Partnership

Haa-ak-suuk Creek Hydro Ucluelet Hydro 6.0 20.5 2013

Louisiana-Pacific Canada Ltd.

LP Golden Biomass Project Golden Biomass 5.0 3.5 2011

Regional District of Nanaimo

Greater Nanaimo Pollution Control Centre Cogeneration

Nanaimo Biogas 0.3 2.0 2011

Moose Lake Wind Limited Partnership

Moose Lake Wind Project

Tumbler Ridge Wind 15.0 56.0 2015

Princeton Energy Inc.

Hunter Creek Run-of-River Hydroelectric Power

Hope Hydro 12.0 40.0 2016

Serpentine Hydro Power Limited

Serpentine Creek Hydro Project Blue River Hydro 10.5 31.0 2016

Snowshoe Power Ltd.

McIntosh Creek Waterpower Project

McBride Hydro 1.2 4.1 2014

Synex Energy Resources Ltd.

Cypress Creek Hydro Gold River Hydro 2.8 12.4 2009

Tolko Industries Ltd.

Tolko Kelowna Cogeneration Kelowna Biomass 8.0 11.0 2014

R-16

February 23, 2017

Wastech Services Ltd.

Cache Creek Landfill Gas Utilization Plant

Cache Creek Biogas 4.8 35.6 2013

Wedgemount Power Limited Partnership

Wedgemount Creek IPP Whistler Hydro 5.4 19.8 2015

Western Forest Products Inc.

Squamish Power Project Squamish Hydro 1.6 11.2 2012

Winchie Creek Hydro Company Ltd.

Winchie Creek Hydro Ucluelet Hydro 4.0 11.6 2016

Zero Emissions Pennask Limited Partnership

Pennask Wind Farm Westbank Wind 15.0 49.8 2015

Zero Emissions Septimus Creek Limited Partnership

Septimus Creek Wind Farm Taylor Wind 15.0 49.3 2015

Zero Emissions Shinish Creek Limited Partnership

Shinish Creek Wind Farm Summerland Wind 15.0 54.5 2015

Total 173.6 638.3

R-16

February 23, 2017

Current accepted applications (as of August 18, 2016)

We're currently reviewing the following applications that have met the key requirements of the Standing Offer Program and have had energy volume reserved in their Target COD year. Processing the applications generally takes several months.

DEVELOPER PROJECT PROJECT LOCATION

ENERGY SOURCE

CAPACITY (MW)

7779615 Canada Ltd. Nahwitti Wind Project Port Hardy Wind 14

Babcock Ridge Wind Limited Partnership

Babcock Ridge Wind Project

Tumbler Ridge Wind 15.0

Ditidaht River Green General Partner Inc.

Little Nitinat River Hydropower Project Port Alberni Hydro 5.0

English Hydro Power Limited Partnership English Creek Hydro Revelstoke Hydro 5.8

Fosthall Creek Power Ltd. Fosthall Creek Power Nakusp Hydro 15.0

HFN Lands Corporation Sarita River Hydropower Bamfield Hydro 5.3

McKay Creek Power Ltd. McKay Creek Hydro Project Revelstoke Hydro 5.2

Synex Energy Resources Ltd.

McKelvie Creek Hydroelectric Project Tahsis Hydro 5.4

Synex Energy Resources Ltd.

Newcastle Creek Hydroelectric Project Sayward Hydro 4.3

Wartenbe Wind Project Limited Partnership

Wartenbe Wind Energy Project Chetwynd Wind 15.0

Zella Holdings Ltd. Lorenzetta Creek Hydroelectric Project Laidlaw Hydro 3.2

Total 93.2

R-16

February 23, 2017