LAND AND PROPERTY RIGHTS TRIBUNAL

Citation: Wesley v Kananaskis Improvement District (Development Authority), 2023 ABLPRT

220
Date: 2023-04-14
File No. D23/KANA/ID-003 and 004
Decision No. LPRT2023/MG0220
Municipality: Kananaskis Improvement District

In the matter of an appeal from a decision of Kananaskis Improvement District Development Authority
(DA) respecting the proposed development of W1/2 and E1/2 of Sec. 26-22-9 W5M under the
Kananaskis Improvement District Land Use Order.

BETWEEN:
U. Wesley
and
K. Hoover
Appellants
- and -

Kananaskis Improvement District (Development Authority)

Respondent Authority

BEFORE: H. Kim, Presiding Officer

W. Jackson, Member
D. Thomas, Member
(Panel)

K. Lau, Case Manager

DECISION

APPEARANCES
See Appendix A

Page 1)
File No. D23/KANA/ID-003 & 004 Decision No. LPRT2023/MG0220

This is an appeal to the Land and Property Rights Tribunal (LPRT or Tribunal). The hearing was held via
videoconference, on March 9, 2023, after notifying interested parties. Additional submissions were
received until March 20, 2023.

OVERVIEW

[1] This appeal concerns a conditionally approved 20-unit glamping project proposed for a site east
of Highway 40 and south of Kananaskis Village in the Kananaskis Improvement District. Two appeals
were filed in opposition to the proposed development. The Appellants raised concerns regarding the
impact on bear migration and habitat and the historical and ceremonial importance of the development
site in the Kananaskis Improvement District (KID).

[2] The LPRT upheld the development permit. The LPRT determined that the concerns raised related
to bear habitat and bear migration had been sufficiently addressed during the lengthy Provincial
approval process and as conditions on the Disposition and on the development permit issued by the KID.
The LPRT further determined that the cultural and ceremonial conditions requested by one of the
Appellants would best be addressed by subsequent efforts on the part of the Applicant, the Appellant and
the KID, and not as development permit conditions.

REASON APPEAL HEARD BY LPRT INSTEAD OF SDAB

[3] The appeal was filed with the LPRT instead of the local subdivision and development appeal
board (SDAB) because s. 685(2.1)(a) of the Act and s. 27 of the Matters related to Subdivision and
Development Appeal Regulation AR 84/2022 direct development appeals to the LPRT when the land that
is the subject of the application is the subject of a licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted
by the Natural Resources Conservation Board, Energy Resources Conservation Board, Alberta Energy
Regulator, Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, Alberta Utilities Commission or the Minister of
Environment and Protected Areas and the Minister of Forestry, Parks and Tourism.

[4] In this case, the relevant land is the subject of a disposition (other authorization) under the Public
Lands Act (Minister of Forestry, Parks and Tourism).

PROPOSAL

[5] To develop a 20 unit glamping project on a 3 ha Crown Land site located north of the Evan
Thomas Day Use Area, south of Boundary Ranch, and across Highway 40 from the Kananaskis Country
Golf Course. The land surrounding the proposed development site is undeveloped.

Page 2
File No. D23/KANA/ID-003 & 004 Decision No. LPRT2023/MG0220

BACKGROUND

[6] Kananaskis Country is a park system in the foothills and front ranges of the Rockies east of Banff
National Park; it is comprised of Provincial Parks, protected areas, and public land use zones that

Page 3
File No. D23/KANA/ID-003 & 004 Decision No. LPRT2023/MG0220

accommodate a variety of uses including preservation, protected heritage appreciation, outdoor recreation,
tourism, and industry. Kananaskis Improvement District (KID) is the local government entity that is
responsible for the delivery of municipal services including land use planning to Kananaskis Country
residents, businesses and visitors.

[7] KID has a land use planning structure which differs from that of Alberta municipalities and other
Improvement Districts. Land use planning is governed by the provisions of the KID Land Use Order
(23/12/2009) which was adopted by Ministerial Order 10/10 TPR. The provisions of Part 17 (Planning
and Development) of the Act, apply “to the extent and only the extent they are required to give effect to
the Land Use Order or are expressly adopted” by MO 10/10 or the Land Use Order. In addition to the
provisions of the Act adopted by the Land Use Order, the provisions of Part 17 which apply to KID,
including modifications, are set out in Schedule 2 of the Land Use Order.

[8] A development permit for the 20-unit glamping project was issued on November 17, 2022 by the
KID Development Officer, and was appealed by two individuals, each acting on behalf of a group, on
December 8, 2022 to the local Subdivision Development Appeal Board who determined the appeal should
be heard by the LPRT and in accordance with s. 686(1.1) the appeal was forwarded to the LPRT.

ISSUES

[9] The legislation requires the LPRT, acting as the Kananaskis Subdivision and Development
Appeal Board, to address whether a proposal complies with the relevant provisions of the KID Land Use
Order. In this case the parties focused on the following specific issues:

1. Is the development appropriate in this location in view of the potential impact on bear
migration and habitat?

2. Should conditions of the development approval be modified or added in response to the

concerns of the Ta Otha Clan and the Appellant?

SUMMARY OF THE DA’S POSITION

[10] Development applications in the KID are subject to the review and approval process established
by the KID Land Use Order (Ministerial Order 10/10) and do not follow the provisions of Part 17 of the
Municipal Government Act.

• Development applications are regulated through the Subdivision and Development Authority
(SDA) review and permit process. Development permit applications are referred to various
Provincial departments for comment, and public meetings are called where required or
appropriate.
• The Kananaskis Country Interdepartmental Committee (KCICC) oversees land use in KID. It
functions as the Planning and Development Tribunal or Coordinating Authority.
• A long-term land use plan has been developed and the committee reviews and advises on
decisions affecting land use.
• The Development Officer is responsible for confirming that a development application is
complete, coordinates the review process, presents applications to the SDA, and is the primary
contact for applicants.
• Development appeals are rare in KID; this appeal is only the second.

Page 4
File No. D23/KANA/ID-003 & 004 Decision No. LPRT2023/MG0220

[11] The glamping project application underwent a detailed review consistent with the standard KID
development review process. The proposed project is consistent with and meets the requirements of the
KID Land Use Order. No concerns were raised during the SDA application review.

[12] Consultation activities related to specific facets of the project and the various requirements that
the proponent had to fulfill were undertaken and completed; the SDA decided that no further consultation
was required.

[13] The project was approved with a substantial number of conditions which were required to meet
the provisions of Appendix A of the Land Use Order including several which will require the developer to
submit additional studies. Further, conditions can still be applied as these studies are reviewed.

SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S POSITION

[14] The project dates to 2016 when Ridgeback Glamping (the Applicant) was invited by a Tourism
Alberta investment official to consider pursuing a project. It took some time to evaluate a number of
possible Rocky Mountain/Foothills project locations (all public lands/parks) and, subsequently, to obtain
the needed approvals and dispositions that are required for a development on Crown Land. Along the way
the project was supported by several Provincial land managers.

[15] In August 2022, Britt Radius, a consulting company, submitted a development application to KID
on behalf of Ridgeback Glamping for the subject site. Ridgeback Glamping has a 35 year lease on the 3
ha development site; a number of factors led to its choice:
• The site was previously disturbed and cleared; there are few regenerating trees;
• Much of the area is steeply sloped; the natural grade/elevation provides for unobstructed views;
• The site is protected from flooding and is outside of an avalanche area; and
• There is year round access to Highway 40 and close proximity to local businesses.

[16] The project will have a small footprint and has been designed to result in minimal disturbance:
• The need to cut additional trees is limited.
• The 20 units, each accommodating two persons, will generate only 30 vehicles arriving and
departing each day including management staff, registered visitors, and guests. The 20 units
represent only one-half of the number permitted by the KID Recreational Policy.
• Highest traffic flow is expected mid-morning and later afternoon. Access will be provided off
Highway 40; a graveled 600 m access road to the site and a turnoff lane from Highway 40 will be
constructed.
• The 20 units, as well as the project office, will be serviced by onsite water and sewer systems,
and by available electricity. Power lines will be located underground.
• The intent is to keep the site in its natural state as much as possible. Trees stubs, shrubs and
vegetation may need to be removed to meet fire buffer and bear safety requirements, access and
facility development, and the provision of water, sewer and electricity. The camping units will be
secured with screw piles, allowing for eventual removal.
• An on-site environmental assessment (with about 20 cm of snow cover) was completed. There are
no wetlands or water courses in the area which appears to be well drained with sandy, gravelly
soils.
• Wildlife surveys (data sets) for the area were reviewed as part of the disposition process and no
concerns were found; sheep and goats are mentioned, bears are not. During the site inspection no
wildlife or vegetation issues were identified; deer, coyote and lynx tracks (among others) which
are common in the area were seen. There are development approval conditions relating to the
mitigation of potential wildlife (including bears) along with a duty to report. The camping

Page 5
File No. D23/KANA/ID-003 & 004 Decision No. LPRT2023/MG0220

structures, originally proposed to be soft-sided, will be hard-sided.

• Previous studies on area historic resources and artifacts were also reviewed and no concerns
related to the subject area were found. Again, a development approval condition addresses this
matter including a continuing duty to report.

[17] The project is compliant and compatible with the requirements and guidelines of applicable
regional, sub regional, municipal and local plans:
• The Evan Thomas Provincial Recreation Area Management Plan encourages residents and
visitors to discover and enjoy the natural, historical and cultural resources of the province through
a variety of high quality recreation opportunities and facilities.
• The Kananaskis Recreation Policy limits new roofed accommodation facilities to a maximum of
15,000 sf on a site of less than 3 ha. The proposed project is only one half of that maximum.
• The proposed development meets the building design, FireSmart, BearSmart, and Dark Sky
provisions of the KID LUO.
• The goals of South Saskatchewan Regional Plan are to position the region as a year round tourism
destination, and to encourage tourism investment within already developed or disturbed lands.
• As the project has moved through the numerous phases of Provincial approval, a number of
background studies have been submitted including a conceptual plan, site servicing mapping, a
stormwater management plan, environmental supplements, sensitive species surveys, and a
wildfire risk assessment. All conditions and requests have been followed.

[18] In summary, the development is focused on being a quiet, low impact, small scale retreat offering
self-sufficient accommodations incorporating awe inspiring surroundings. Letters of support have been
provided by Travel Alberta and by Tourism Canmore Kananaskis indicating the need and demand for a
project such as the one that has been approved.

[19] With regards to the Appellants’ concerns related to bear migration and bear habitat:
• It is well known that the Kananaskis Valley is a wildlife corridor and a sensitive area for grizzly
movement; there are numerous wildlife surveys and environmental reports on the subject.
• The disposition and the development permit approvals contain conditions that are based on the
content and recommendations of the various wildlife surveys and reports.
• The Appellant‘s submission does not provide any data related to the proposed development area.
• The proposed project design and operation includes numerous measures and features intended to
mitigate bear-human conflict.

[20] With regards to the Appellants’ concerns related to historical artifacts, and traditional and cultural
use of the land and the related requests:
• This matter was addressed in the Disposition and development permit applications. The Land
Analysis Tool, the Historical Resource Value exercise, and the Conservation Land Registry have
not identified any historical resources or concerns within the proposed development area.
Legislation requires the Minister to be notified of any future historical resource discoveries.

[21] With regards to the Appellants’ concerns regarding consultation:

• Three of the Stoney Bands (Bearspaw, Chiniki and Wesley) were unwilling to proceed with
consultation despite taking the initial steps and invoicing for the administrative review. As a
result, an elder’s consultation and a physical review of the development area did not take place.
• One Nation conducted an administrative review and had no objection. Two Nations conducted an
onsite with elders, did not find any historical artifacts/resources and had no objections to the
development. One Nation did not respond to 2020 and 2022 engagement requests.

Page 6
File No. D23/KANA/ID-003 & 004 Decision No. LPRT2023/MG0220

• Alberta Indigenous Relations deemed the consultation with all 5 First Nations (Blood, Piikani,
Siksika, Stoney and Tsuut’ina) adequate.

[22] With regards to the Appellants’ requests:

• Ridgeback Glamping would like to engage with the Ta Otha Clan and the Stoney with a view to
presenting historic and cultural knowledge (via information media and artwork display) in each
guest room.
• Given the disposition restrictions, insurance limitations, and the site’s limited area and
topography, additional events or ceremonies on site cannot be considered.
• Ridgeback Glamping would be proud to initiate discussions between the Stoney/Ta Otha Clan,
Alberta Parks, and KID with a view to moving forward on the requests on approved sites in the
vicinity of the project.

SUMMARY OF ALBERTA TRANSPORTATION’S POSITION

[23] The proposal is within 300 m of Highway 40. A permit from Alberta Transportation (AT) for
highway access is required, and was granted in September 2022 subject to a number of
conditions, including:
• The access will be at the existing golf course intersection, which is already a Type 4
intersection with adequate deceleration lanes, and was determined to be adequate for the
expected traffic volume.
• An approach must be constructed to AT standards, and an additional turning lane will be
required to allow for left turns from the north and right turns from the south. The
developer will also be required to construct the approach as well as the access road.
• Tree clearing is required, to improve sight distance.

[24] In response to concerns from Appellant Hoover that this intersection, directly across from
the golf course access, was very busy, AT advised that collision data was available on the AT
website and in AT's opinion, the intersection is adequate for expected traffic volumes. With
respect to concerns that speed limits were not being enforced, AT noted that a speed limit study
would be required. The DA noted that while the RCMP detachment resident in KID had
decreased, the delivery of service had increased and the level of enforcement had not declined

SUMMARY OF APPELLANTS’ POSITION

[25] Two Appellants (Elder Una Wesley and Mr. Ken Hoover) filed separate appeals to the proposed
development.

Summary of Elder Wesley’s Submission

[26] Una Wesley is an Elder of the Sacred Land of the Kananaskis Valley, a guide/mentor for Grizzly
Bear/wildlife protection, and a former Bearspaw Chief and councilor. Elder Wesley’s was unable to
attend the appeal hearing, but she made a written submission which Mr. Hoover presented on her behalf.

[27] Discussion regarding the proposed project has taken place with other knowledge keepers who
know the Kananaskis Valley as the Sacred Valley. The Valley is a significant grizzly bear and wildlife
location; the grizzly is the most sacred animal to the people of the Stoney Nation.

Page 7
File No. D23/KANA/ID-003 & 004 Decision No. LPRT2023/MG0220

[28] The area that Ridgeback Glamping and the Alberta Government would like to see developed is a
traditional hunting, cultural, ceremonial and ancestral right of way for the Ta Otha Clan; a historical site
assessment (artifacts, medicines, pioneers) should have been completed. Although the Archaeological
Survey Director advised her there were no current dig sites earmarked for this specific area, this view is
disputed. Oral histories reveal that family ancestors have put their feet and hands in the ground here for
hundreds of years. Elder Wesley would like the area to be kept out of the hands of non-Stoneys and
presented back to her family.

[29] Regarding consultation, a $1000 payment was issued to the Stoney Nation. However, no Elders
were consulted and no real engagement with the Stoney Nation - or with the public - took place. Concerns
were raised regarding the transparency of the consultation process.

[30] The project presents an opportunity to build bridges with Ridgeback Glamping and the Alberta
Government and to engage in a meaningful, respectful way that honours the Stoney Nation’s past and
present. If the project is approved Elder Wesley and her family request the following:
• That a site visit and ceremony take place in May 2023 as “a sign of respect for those who came
before us.”
• That storyboards and artwork honouring the Ta Otha Clan be designed by Elder Wesley’s family
and placed on the subject property.
• That a space be reserved on the site for Elder Wesley’s family to place a tipi and hold a ceremony
at various times of the year.
• That some timber (trees) be removed from the site and given to Elder Wesley’s family. This
timber might be used for tipi poles; the gift would be an immeasurable sign of respect.

Submission of Mr. Ken Hoover

[31] Mr. Hoover lives and works in Kananaskis, and is an active member of the “Protect this Park”
organization. He began working with the Stoney Nation and the Protect the Park organization five years
ago during a public land dispute at Fortress Mountain where mountain grizzly habitat was being
threatened.

[32] Mr. Hoover advised that many people share his perspective. From a resident standpoint they
wonder why such a development is needed or warranted. Their organization strives to protect the last
bastion of wild spaces. The proposed project will have adverse impacts, but unfortunately these will not
be known until afterwards. The proposed project should not be approved.

[33] The Kananaskis Valley, especially the area around the golf course, is a huge wildlife corridor; it
is particularly important for grizzly. The area is already crowded with lodges and campgrounds; not
enough resources are dedicated to ensure the protection of bear habitat.

[34] Mr. Hoover’s organization has been partnering with the Ta Otha Clan knowledge keepers to build
bridges with the Alberta Government based on respect so that bear habitat can be protected. A GPS collar
program has been initiated through the foundation. Although they have been looking for bear and wildlife
data for the last 3 years, they have had difficulty receiving responses from the government or other
agencies and institutions.

[35] In support of his position Mr. Hoover submitted a report prepared by Mr. Ryan Phinney, a bear
specialist with experience in the Kananaskis Valley and elsewhere in Alberta, in BC and in Montana. In
summary Mr. Phinney advised:
• This region is a natural wildlife corridor; elk move across the golf course into the Evan Thomas
drainage area and gravitate to regions where there is no human activity.

Page 8
File No. D23/KANA/ID-003 & 004 Decision No. LPRT2023/MG0220

• This region is an access point to the valley; grizzlies and other wildlife will use natural corridors
to move west to east in the direction of East Kananaskis and the Foothills.
• Males will travel from BC using the Evan Thomas to traverse the area undetected. Several
females denned in that part of the valley and spent most of their season throughout the Evan
Thomas; they have been seen often on the horse trails and at the camps. The region is used by
several resident female grizzly bears, as well as breeding females from elsewhere who bring their
cubs front country via this drainage system.
• When a development is proposed in an ecologically sensitive area such as this one, what is not a
foreseeable issue quickly becomes one. Interrupting natural corridors with human activity can
alter how wildlife uses the land, creating stress to the animals and further habituation to humans.
• Attractants like food, garbage or human waste will draw bears to this location. Any disturbance
such as roads or trails furthers the growth of dandelions and buffalo berries, important food
sources for the area’s bears. Any further removal of the canopy and cutting of grass/landscaping
will also contribute to the attraction of bears as well as cougars and wolves which follow the
ungulates into the drainage area. The elk, on the other hand, will avoid the area.
• The proposed development will be very detrimental to the health of the grizzly bear population;
the proposed site is one of the few areas throughout the entire valley in which bears can still
freely move with little to no human interference. This development in this location will bring
human-wildlife conflict and detract from the resources (sic) – the ripple effect will be immediate.

FINDINGS

1. The potential impacts of approval on bear migration and habitat have been sufficiently
addressed through the conditions attached to the development permit.

2. The concerns of the Stoney Nakoda/Ta Otha Clan cannot be accommodated by conditions in
this permit and are better addressed through discussions with the appropriate Provincial
Department and/or KID.

DECISION

[36] The appeal is denied. The conditional approval of the DA is confirmed as issued.

REASONS

Bear Migration Routes and Habitat

[37] Mr. Hoover requested the development permit be overturned in light of the proposed
development’s potential impact on wildlife - in particular on bear migration and bear habitat. Elder
Wesley supported this position, stressing the importance of the bear to the Ta Otha Clan. While the LPRT
understands the importance of bear habitat and migration routes from both a cultural and ecological
perspective, it finds the land use planning and development process undertaken is in this case is sufficient
to protect these interests and to mitigate potential negative impacts of approval.

[38] In this case, the Kananaskis Sub Regional Integrated Resource Plan (1986), the Kananaskis
Country Recreation Policy (1999), the Evan Thomas PRA Management Plan (2004), and the South
Saskatchewan Regional Plan 2014-2024 (SSRP) (Amended 2018) guided the glamping project decision.

Page 9
File No. D23/KANA/ID-003 & 004 Decision No. LPRT2023/MG0220

[39] The KID development approval process is intensive; there are two committees comprised of local
and Alberta Government members which review development applications. The Public Land Use District
of the Land Use Order does not have permitted and discretionary uses such as those required for
municipalities in Act requirement for Alberta municipalities. Among other requirements, a proposal such
as the glamping project is required to align with all applicable Kananaskis land use planning policy
documents and with the Disposition approval conditions. The Kananaskis policy documents, the land use
zones, and the possible future land uses that could be approved in certain areas and under what
conditions, were prepared taking wildlife migration patterns and habitat into consideration.

[40] The site is within a KID Public Land Use Zone adjacent to the Evan Thomas PRA. The intent of
the Public Land Use Zone is to manage recreation and resources. The Evan Thomas PRA Management
Plan identifies the area east of Highway 40 for possible future development. The SSRP also supports
tourism development in Kananaskis Country.

[41] The Tribunal notes the application for a public land disposition required submission of a
substantial amount of supporting information necessary to fulfill Alberta Government requirements. The
application was reviewed taking the bear migration and habitat patterns into consideration and the
Tribunal finds the development permit decision takes appropriate consideration the importance of the area
as a bear migration route and the need to protect bear habitat and to balance this perspective with the
tourism and recreation policies. The Appellants submitted no information to support a finding that the
decision is inconsistent with the KID’s planning policies.

[42] The LPRT appreciates Mr. Hoover’s experience and dedication to preservation of bear habitat
and migration patterns, and the information he brought forward in the letter from Mr. Phinney. Mr.
Phinney has considerable experience with bears, though he claimed to be a specialist rather than an
expert. He identified some concerns and red flags as to potential for human bear conflict, and disturbance
of migration patterns; he also confirmed bears use the area as a migration route and certain female
grizzlies have denned throughout that part of the Valley.

[43] However, the evidence brought forward by Mr. Phinney was for the most part general in nature,
not site specific, and not well supported. While it confirms the well-known fact that the Valley is an
important wildlife corridor used by grizzlies, it does not add significantly to the body of knowledge
established by existing reviews taken into account during the planning and development application
process.

Historical Recognition and Ceremonial Use of the Development Site

[44] Elder Wesley stressed the traditional and historical importance of the development area to the Ta
Otha Clan and provided a list of requests (possible development conditions) should the permit be upheld.
The requested conditions included the provision of space for onsite ceremonial activities and the sharing
of the importance of the area to the Ta Otha Clan with glamping unit guests.

[45] The Tribunal understands the importance of the requested conditions to the Ta Otha Clan.
However, the Tribunal does not support the addition of the recommended conditions to the development
permit for the following reasons:
(a) The Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s position related to the site’s limited space, insurance
limitations, and the fact that only activities approved by the Disposition are permitted. Section
15(b) of the Land Use Order requires that development conditions must be in strict compliance
with the Disposition.

Page 10
File No. D23/KANA/ID-003 & 004 Decision No. LPRT2023/MG0220

(b) Section 15 of the Land Use Order provides a list of mandatory development permit conditions,
and Section 16 provides a list of allowable conditions. The conditions requested by the Appellant
are not listed or described in either section.

[46] The Tribunal notes that Ridgeback Glamping volunteered to work with the Ta Otha Clan in order
to provide historical and traditional information to the guests at the site once constructed, and trusts that
there will be follow up at the appropriate time. With regard to the Elder Wesley’s additional requests, the
Tribunal is of the view that these would better be pursued in the area adjacent to, but not on the
Disposition, and trusts that KID Administration can determine what may be accomplished in cooperation
with the Elder Wesley, Ridgeback Glamping, and the appropriate Government Departments.

[47] Elder Wesley also raised the issue of a lack of meaningful consultation with the Ta Otha Clan
knowledge keepers prior to the submission of the application. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s
evidence that all reasonably possible efforts were made to proceed with consultation with the Stoney and
other area First Nations. The LPRT finds these efforts afforded the Stony and other area First Nations a
meaningful opportunity to provide their perspectives and input, and notes consultation efforts were
deemed adequate by the appropriate government department. Finally, the LPRT observes that
consultation at the development application stage generally occurs against the background of previous
consultation that would have taken place when the higher-level planning documents that guide
development are prepared.

Dated at the City of Edmonton in the Province of Alberta this 14th day of April, 2023.

LAND AND PROPERTY RIGHTS TRIBUNAL

__________________________________________
H. Kim, Member

Page 11
APPENDIX A

PARTIES WHO ATTENDED, MADE SUBMISSIONS OR GAVE EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING

NAME CAPACITY
U. Wesley Appellant
K. Hoover Appellant
J. Millen DA
K. Dowling DA
C. Postel Applicant
J. Stout Applicant
G. Benoit Alberta Transportation

APPENDIX B

DOCUMENTS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE HEARING

NO. ITEM
1A1 Notice of Appeal (Una Wesley)
2A2 Notice of Appeal (Ken Hoover)
3R Information Package
4R Kananaskis Country Subregional Plan 1986
5R Supplemental Information Stormwater Management
6R KID Development Process with Flowchart
7R Advisory Interpretation Bulletin 2017-01 Compliance with SSRP
Amendment - 2017-01
8R Briefing Note - Application-22-13_confidential
9R Schedule of Construction
10R Wildlife Survey 2021-11-23 14-54-34
11R Timber-Harvesting-Map-Scott-Jevons
12R Ministerial Order 10-10-TPR
13R Lands Officer Approval_Environment and Parks
14R AB Trans Permit 2022-0005199 for hwy access
15R EvanThomasPRA-MngtPlan_highlighted excerpts
16R 2016-Evan-Thomas-10-year-veg-pla-EXTRACT
17R 2016-Evan-Thomas-10-year-vegetation-management-2016-2025
18R File 17a DLO210192 Disposition Approval
19R File 17b TCL210006 Disposition Approval
20D S12294 Stoney (Wesley) Notif Package
21D S12294 Stoney (Wesley) Consultation Docs
22D S12294 Stoney (Wesley) Notif Verification
23D S12294 Stoney (Wesley) ROC Log
24D Stoney invoice 2020
25D Stoney payment 2020
26D Stoney-Wesley-Notif Package
27D Stoney-Wesley-Notif Verification
28D Stoney-Wesley-ROC Log
29D Environmental Supplement (DLO)
30D Environmental Supplement (TCL)
31D Sensitive Species Survey Form (TCL)
32D Sensitive Species Survey Form (DLO)
33D Adeq Assessment Decision 2021-10-12 13-15-28
34D TCL Approval Standards review copy
35D DLO Approval Standards review copy
36D Support letter for Ridgeback Camping Inc. 2023

APPENDIX C

DOCUMENTS RECEIVED AT THE HEARING

NO. ITEM
37D LOS Ridgeback Glamping - TA (final)

APPENDIX D

DOCUMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE HEARING

NO. ITEM

38R KIDLUOBooklet_MeUL0v
39A Letter to LPRT_Elder Una Wesley
40A Letter to LPRT_Ryan Phinney Bear Specialist Ridgeback
41D Applicant Response