Westlock County Agenda Flood Hazard Area Development Advisory Committee Meeting Friday, January 3, 2020 @ 9:00 AM Council Chambers
Page
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2.1. Adoption of the January 3, 2020 Flood Hazard Area Development Advisory Committee Agenda.
3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
3 - 4 3.1. Adoption of the December 6, 2019 Flood Hazard Area Development Advisory Committee Organizational meeting minutes. Flood Hazard Area Development Committee - Organizational - 06 Dec 2019 - Minutes (1)
5 - 6 3.2. Adoption of the December 6, 2019 Flood Hazard Area Development Advisory Committee meeting minutes. Flood Hazard Area Development Advisory Committee - 06 Dec 2019 - Minutes (2)
4. MATTERS FOR REVIEW
7 - 130 4.1. Review of Flood Hazard Area Development Committee Documents from the December 6, 2019 meeting.
14-2019 Municipal Development Plan Amendment Bylaw on Flood Matters 17-2019 - LUB Amending Bylaw on Flood Development Matters 20-2019 - Flood Hazard Area Development Advisory Committee Bylaw 19.07.07 Municipal Planning Services (MPS) Report Westlock Flood Terms of Reference_Jul5_2017 Some current land use planning challenges AUMAca
Page 1 of 130 Okotoks Flood Plain Policy July 2001 Municipal_Affairs__Overview_of_Bill_27__Floodway_Development_Regulation_Consultation Floodway_Reg_DiscussionPaper fh-identificationprogram-dec10-2014 FDR_forWaterColMeeting_20Nov2014 20120523_bill-027 6801949-2014-respecting-our-rivers-alberta-flood-mitigation 2013-resilience-mitigation-framework-alberta-floods-2013-12 04-21-17-RMA Update-on-Proposed-Floodway-Development-Regulation 19.05.24 List
5. IN-CAMERA
5.1 Legal Opinion, FOIPP Section 27 (1)(a)
6. ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 of 130
MINUTES OF THE FLOOD HAZARD AREA DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF WESTLOCK COUNTY HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING IN WESTLOCK, ALBERTA ON Friday, December 6, 2019 at 10:00 AM
Members Present Members Absent Brian Coleman, Member Colin Felstad, Member Jared Stitsen, Member Lana Beamish, Member Reint Boelman, Member Myrddin Jespersen, Member Terry Sheehan, Member
Staff Present Leo Ludwig, Chief Administrative Officer Laurie Strutt, Director of Planning & Community Services, Recording Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER
CAO Leo Ludwig called the meeting to order at 10:00 am.
2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2.1. Adoption of the December 6, 2019 Flood Hazard Area Development Advisory Committee Organizational Meeting Agenda
01/19 Moved by Member Brian Coleman that the December 6, 2019 Flood Hazard Area Development Advisory Committee Organizational Meeting Agenda be adopted as circulated. CARRIED.
3. PROCEDURE BYLAW 07 2019
3.1. Review of the Procedure Bylaw 07 2019
4. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRPERSON
4.1. Appointment of Chairperson
CAO Ludwig called for nominations for the position of Chairperson. The nominations were
Initial ______Westlock County - December 6, 2019 Flood Hazard Area Development Advisory Committee - Organizational Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 130
completed by secret ballot.
The following members were nominated: Member Boelman and Member Sheehan.
Member Boelman agreed to let his name stand. Member Sheehan respectfully declined to let his name stand.
Nominations were closed and Member Boelman was elected Chairperson by acclamation.
5. APPOINTMENT OF VICE CHAIRPERSON
5.1. Appointment of Vice-Chairperson
CAO Ludwig called for nominations for the position of Vice-Chairperson. The nominations were completed by secret ballot.
The following members were nominated: Member Felstad, Member Jespersen and Member Sheehan
Member Sheehan agreed to let his name stand. Member Felstad was not present and Member Jespersen respectfully declined to let his name stand.
Nominations were closed and Member Sheehan was elected as Vice-Chairperson by acclamation.
Elections were concluded.
Member Boelman assumed the Chair.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Boelman adjourned the meeting at 10:10 am.
Reint Boelman, Chair Laurie Strutt, Recording Secretary
Initial ______Westlock County - December 6, 2019 Flood Hazard Area Development Advisory Committee - Organizational Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 130
MINUTES OF THE FLOOD HAZARD AREA DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF WESTLOCK COUNTY, HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING IN WESTLOCK, ALBERTA ON Friday, December 6, 2019 at 10:00 AM
Members Present Members Absent Brian Coleman, Member Colin Felstad, Member Jared Stitsen, Member Lana Beamish, Member Reint Boelman, Member Myrddin Jespersen, Member Terry Sheehan, Member
Staff Present Leo Ludwig, Chief Administrative Officer Laurie Strutt, Director of Planning & Community Services
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Boelman called the meeting to order at 10:10 am.
2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2.1. Adoption of the December 6, 2019 Flood Hazard Area Development Committee Agenda
01/19 Moved by Member Stitsen that the December 6, 2019 Flood Area Hazard Development Advisory Committee Agenda be adopted as circulated.
CARRIED.
3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
4. MATTERS FOR REVIEW
4.1. Confidentiality Agreement • Reviewed by the Flood Hazard Area Development Advisory Committee
4.2. Review of Bylaws • Reviewed by the Flood Hazard Area Development Advisory Committee
4.3. Municipal Planning Services, July 7, 2019 Report
Initial ______Westlock County - December 6, 2019 Flood Hazard Area Development Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 130
• Reviewed by the Flood Hazard Development Advisory Committee.
4.4. Flood Area Documents • Reviewed by the Flood Hazard Development Advisory Committee.
5. IN-CAMERA
5.1. No in-camera items were reviewed or discussed.
6. NEXT MEETING
6.1. The next meetings will be held January 3, 2019 at 9:00 am and January 10, 2019 at 1:00 pm.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Boelman adjourned the meeting at 12:17 pm.
Reint Boelman, Chair Laurie Strutt, Recording Secretary
Initial ______Westlock County - December 6, 2019 Flood Hazard Area Development Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 130 WESTLOCK COUNTY BY-LAW NO. 14-2019 WESTLOCK, ALBERTA
Being a bylaw of Westlock County, in the Province of Alberta, that authorizes Westlock County to amend Bylaw 05-2016 – the Municipal Development Plan Bylaw.
WHEREAS pursuant to Section 632 of the Municipal Government Act, being Chapter M-26 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000, and amendments thereto (the “MGA”), a municipality must by Bylaw adopt a Municipal Development Plan;
AND WHEREAS Section 632(3)(f) of the MGA states that a Municipal Development Plan must contain policies respecting the protection of agricultural operations;
AND WHEREAS the Council of Westlock County has deemed it necessary to address development in flood hazard areas;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF WESTLOCK COUNTY, DULY ASSEMBLED, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Title 1.1 This bylaw may be cited as the “Municipal Development Plan Amendment Bylaw on Flood Matters”.
2. Preamble and Schedules 2.1 The preamble and any schedules hereto form a part of this bylaw.
3. Amendments to ‘Part 3 – General Objectives’ of Bylaw 05-2016 3.1 Policy 3.2.2.5 be deleted and replaced with new Policy 3.2.2.5: “The County shall discourage the development of permanent structures within flood hazard lands.”
3.2 Policy 3.2.2.6 be deleted and replaced with new Policy 3.2.2.6: “On lands within flood hazard areas, the County shall encourage the retention of vegetation and topographic features with the intention of: (a) minimizing the impacts on wildlife corridors; (b) retaining existing drainage patterns; and (c) retaining native vegetation.”
Page | 1 ______Westlock County Bylaw #14-2019 Initial Initial
Page 7 of 130
3.3 Policy 3.2.2.7 be deleted, and Policy 3.2.2.8 be re-numbered to 3.2.2.7 and Policy 3.2.2.9 be re-numbered to 3.2.2.8.
4. Amendments to ‘Part 4 – Specific Plan Objectives and Policies’ of Bylaw 05-2016: 4.1 That Policy 4.2.1.1(d) be deleted and replaced with new Policy 4.2.1.1(d): adjacent to riverbanks outside the flood hazard area, unless the banks are certified as being stable by an engineer prior to development;”.
4.2 That new Policy 4.2.1.1(e) be added: “in flood hazard areas.”
4.3 Policy 4.2.1.2 be deleted, and Policy 4.2.1.3 through to and including Policy 4.2.1.13 each be re-numbered to one number lower (Example: 4.2.1.3 becomes 4.2.1.2, etc.)
5. Amendments to ‘Part 5 – Overlay Policies’’ of Bylaw 05-2016: 5.1 That Section 5.3 be deleted in its entirety, and Section 5.4 be re-numbered to Section 5.3.
6. Amendments to ‘Part 7 – Municipal Development Plan Maps’ of Bylaw 05-2016: 7.1 That Map 7.2 - Future Land Use Map, be deleted and replaced with Map 7.2 - Future Land Use Map, from Schedule ‘A’ hereto.
This Bylaw shall come into effect upon third passing and signature thereof.
READ A FIRST TIME THIS 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019.
______Reeve
Original signed and on file
______Chief Administrative Officer
Page | 2 ______Westlock County Bylaw #14-2019 Initial Initial
Page 8 of 130
READ A SECOND TIME THIS 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
______Reeve
Original signed and on file
______Chief Administrative Officer
RECEIVED UNANIMOUS CONSENT FOR CONSIDERATION OF THREE READINGS IN ONE MEETING VIA COUNCIL RESOLUTION #296-2019, THIS 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019.
READ A THIRD TIME AND PASSED THIS 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019.
______Reeve
Original signed and on file
______Chief Administrative Officer
Page | 3 ______Westlock County Bylaw #14-2019 Initial Initial
Page 9 of 130 SCHEDULE ‘A’: MAP 7.2 – FUTURE LAND USE MAP
Page | 4 ______Westlock County Bylaw #14-2019 Initial Initial
Page 10 of 130 WESTLOCK COUNTY BY-LAW NO. 17-2019 WESTLOCK, ALBERTA
Being a bylaw of Westlock County, in the Province of Alberta, that authorizes Westlock County to amend Bylaw 04-2016 – the Land Use Bylaw.
WHEREAS pursuant to Section 7 of the Municipal Government Act, being Chapter M-26 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000, and amendments thereto (the “MGA”), a Council may, by bylaw, providing for the safety, health and welfare of people and the protection of people and property;
WHEREAS pursuant to Section 8 of the MGA, a Council may, by bylaw, deal with any development, activity, industry, business or thing in different ways, divide each of them into classes and deal with each class in different ways;
AND WHEREAS Section 640(2)(c)(vii) of the MGA states that a Land Use Bylaw must establish a method of making decisions on applications for development permits and issuing development permits for any development, including provision for any other matters necessary to regulate and control the issue of development permits that to the Council appear necessary;
AND WHEREAS Section 693.1 of the MGA provides that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations: (a) controlling, regulating or prohibiting any use or development of land that is located in a floodway within a municipal authority, including, without limitation, regulations specifying the types of developments that are authorized in a floodway; (b) exempting a municipal authority or class of municipal authorities from the application of all or part of this section or the regulations made under this subsection, or both; (c) modifying or suspending the application or operation of any provision of this Act for the purposes of giving effect to this section; (d) defining, or respecting the meaning of, “floodway” for the purposes of this section and the regulations made under this subsection;
AND WHEREAS the Lieutenant Governor in Council has not provided or made any regulations under Section 693.1 of the MGA;
AND WHEREAS Section 639.1 of the MGA mandates that a municipality must consider the protection of agricultural operations in preparing its Land Use Bylaw;
AND WHEREAS the Council of Westlock County has reviewed and considered a wide variety of issues and options regarding development on lands within flood hazard areas, and particularly
Page | 1 ______Westlock County Bylaw #17-2019 Initial Initial
Page 11 of 130 considering the protection and welfare of existing agricultural operations, Council has deemed it necessary to specifically address development in flood hazard areas;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of Westlock County, duly assembled, enacts as follows:
1. Title 1.1 This bylaw may be cited as the “Land Use Amendment Bylaw on Flood Hazard Area Development”.
2. Preamble and Schedules 2.1 The Preamble and attached Schedules form a part of this bylaw.
3. Amendments to ‘Part 1 – General Administrative Procedures’ of Bylaw 04-2016 3.1 That the following definitions be added to Section 1.7:
“Bank” means the natural boundary of a body of water as determined by an Alberta Land Surveyor in accordance with the Surveys Act.
“Design Flood” means a 1 in 100-year flood event, or a flood which has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Although a design flood can be referred to as a 100-year flood, this does not mean that it will only occur once every hundred years.
“Existing Development” means a development located on lands within the Pembina River Flood Hazard Area that was legally authorized prior to the approval of designation of the Pembina River Flood Hazard Area Overlay in the Bylaw.
“Flood Fringe” means the portion of the flood hazard area outside the floodway. Water in the flood fringe is generally shallower and flows more slowly than in the floodway.
“Flood Hazard Area” or “FHA” means the area that is typically divided into floodway and flood fringe zones and may also include areas of overland flow.
“Flood Level” means the calculated level or elevation to which water would rise during a design flood as determined by the Province or in the absence of information from the Province, by a qualified professional engineer.
“Flood Mitigation Measure” means a measure taken to reduce the risk of flood damage to existing or new development or lands including but not limited to elevated pads, fill, back sloping, dykes and certain construction methods intended to reduce the risk of flood damage during a design flood.
Page | 2 ______Westlock County Bylaw #17-2019 Initial Initial
Page 12 of 130 “Flood Proofed” means measures have been taken to protect developments located within the flood fringe from flood damage, including but not limited to the elevation of buildings at least 0.5m (1.64ft) above the flood level, locating electrical panels, shut-off valves and water lines above the flood level, and restricting the use of rooms below the flood level.
“Floodway” means the portion of the flood hazard area where flows are deepest, fastest and most destructive. The floodway typically includes the main channel of a stream and a portion of the adjacent overbank area.
“New Development” means any new development located on lands within the Pembina River Flood Hazard Area that is legally authorized subsequent to the approval of designation of the Pembina River Flood Hazard Area Overlay in the Bylaw.
“Overland Flow” means areas of overland flow that are part of the flood hazard area outside of the floodway; and are typically considered special areas of the flood fringe.
“Pembina River Flood Hazard Area” or “Pembina River FHA” means the area illustrated on the Pembina River Flood Hazard Area Overlay on the Land Use District Maps 9.1, 9.3 and 9.8.
4. Amendments to ‘Part 2 – Development Permits, Rules and Procedures’ of Bylaw 04-2016: 4.1 The wording in Section 2.4(2)(k) be entirely deleted and replaced with: “where the proposal is included or is adjacent to the flood hazard area, a Flood Hazard Area Planning and Hydrogeological Engineering Report, prepared by a qualified geotechnical engineer, in support of the application which addresses as a minimum the following: (i) the location of all proposed permanent buildings on the site and the proximity of these buildings to the floodway and flood fringe; (ii) proposed site alterations necessary to elevate the proposed development of any permanent buildings; (iii) acceptable types of fill material which can be used to elevate permanent buildings; (iv) the type(s) of foundation, weeping tile and drainage which are required and suitable for permanent buildings within the flood hazard area; (v) all erosion protection that will be required to protect the site; (vi) the impact that the proposed development and any necessary site alternations will have on off-site lands within the flood hazard area; and
Page | 3 ______Westlock County Bylaw #17-2019 Initial Initial
Page 13 of 130 (vii) ongoing mitigation measures required to ensure that developments or lands adjacent to the lands on which the proposed development is situated are not adversely affected by the proposed development.”
4.2 That a new Section 2.10 be added as follows: 2.10 – Subdivision and Development Application Requirements within the Pembina River Flood Hazard Area. (1) Excluding applications made pursuant to Section 7.45, each application for a subdivision or development within the Pembina River FHA shall be accompanied by a Flood Hazard Area Planning and Hydrogeological Engineering Report, prepared by a qualified geotechnical engineer in support of the application which addresses as a minimum the following: (a) the location of all proposed permanent buildings on the site and the proximity of these buildings to the floodway and flood fringe; (b) proposed site alterations necessary to elevate the proposed development of any permanent buildings; (c) acceptable types of fill material which can be used to elevate permanent buildings; (d) the type(s) of foundation, weeping tile and drainage which are required and suitable for permanent buildings within the Pembina River FHA; (e) all erosion protection that will be required to protect the site; (f) the impact that the proposed development and any necessary site alternations may have on off-site lands within the Pembina River FHA; and (g) ongoing mitigation measures required to ensure that developments or lands adjacent to the lands on which the proposed development is situated are not adversely affected by the proposed development.
4.3 That existing Sections 2.10 through to and including 2.18 each be re-numbered to one number higher. (Example 2.10 becomes 2.11, etc.)
5. Amendments to ‘Part 6 – General Provisions’’ of Bylaw 04-2016: 5.1 That Sections 6.16(13) to 6.16(16) be deleted in their entirety.
5.2 That a new Section 6.16(13) be added as follows: “Excluding applications made pursuant to Section 7.45, the development of permanent buildings will not be allowed within a floodway. However, at the discretion of the Development Authority, the development of parks, parking lots or temporary buildings that have been flood proofed, to the satisfaction of the Development Authority, may be allowed.”
Page | 4 ______Westlock County Bylaw #17-2019 Initial Initial
Page 14 of 130 5.3 That a new Section 6.16(14) be added as follows: “Subject to Section 6.16(13), development will not be allowed on slopes in excess of 15% or unstable slopes subject to soil slippage or other mass movement except that the Development Authority may allow development in areas with slopes in excess of 15% where a geotechnical report, prepared and stamped by a registered professional engineer or hydrogeologist has been provided to the satisfaction of the Development Authority and the development has been designed in accordance with all the recommendations in the report.
6. Amendments to ‘Part 7 – Special Provisions’ of Bylaw 04-2016: 6.1 That the wording in Section 7.27(2) be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: “Residential uses shall be prohibited on land having critical development constraints including: (a) on slopes in excess of 15% or unstable slopes subject to soil slippage or other mass movement except that the Development Authority may allow development in areas with slopes in excess of 15% where a geotechnical report, prepared and stamped by a registered professional engineer or hydrogeologist has been provided to the satisfaction of the Development Authority and the development has been designed in accordance with all the recommendations in the report; (b) within the floodway; (c) within the 30 Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) contour or higher of a licensed and paved existing airport; (d) within 300 metres of the active area of a resource extraction operation, sewage lagoon, nuisance ground or landfill, or other activities potentially detrimental to a residential development; (e) within 100 metres of a rail line unless a physical barrier, natural or manmade, is located or constructed between the proposed residential site and rail line.”
6.2 A new Section 7.44 be added as follows:
7.44 – Pembina River Flood Hazard Area Overlay
The purpose of this Overlay is to provide for the safe and efficient use of lands that may be within the flood hazard area of the Pembina River and its tributaries within Westlock County in addition to the requirements of the underlying District in their vicinity. 1. This Overlay applies to those lands identified on the Land Use Districts Maps 9.1, 9.3 and 9.8 within the Pembina River Flood Hazard Area.
Page | 5 ______Westlock County Bylaw #17-2019 Initial Initial
Page 15 of 130 2. Notwithstanding language to the contrary in Section 8 of this Bylaw, all uses in the Pembina River FHA shall be discretionary. 3. When an application for a subdivision or a development permit within the Pembina River FHA is made the application must include the information in Section 2.10 of this Bylaw, with the exception of development permit applications made pursuant to Section 7.45. 4. The Development Authority shall not allow the development or placement of any permanent building nor shall the Subdivision Authority allow the subdivision of lands for purposes other than agricultural operations in areas identified as a floodway. 5. The Development Authority may allow development and the Subdivision Authority may allow subdivision of lands in areas identified as the flood fringe subject to being provided additional information including but not limited to a Flood Hazard Area Planning and Hydrogeological Engineering Report prepared and stamped by a registered professional engineer or hydrogeologist which includes the information identified in Section 2.10 of this Bylaw and subject to the development or subdivision, as the case may be, having been designed in accordance with all the recommendations in the report.” 6. Prior to the issuance of a Development Permit for the construction of any building within the Pembina River FHA, the Development Authority may require that the applicant submit a certificate from a qualified, registered Professional Engineer or Architect indicating that the following factors have been considered in the design of the building: (a) Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation guidelines for building in flood-susceptible areas; (b) the flood proofing of habitable rooms, electrical panel and heating units, and operable windows; (c) basement drainage; and (d) site drainage. 7. All new development approved within the flood fringe shall be flood proofed. In the case where the new development is an addition to an existing development, only the addition is required to be flood proofed. 8. Basements are not allowed for new developments in the flood fringe. Where a new development is an addition to an existing development that includes an existing basement, the expansion of the basement shall not be allowed. 9. New development shall be setback a minimum of 20 metres from the floodway in order to provide a buffer between the development and the floodway. Back slopping associated with flood mitigation measures may be developed up to the floodway limit but such slopes should not exceed 4:1.
Page | 6 ______Westlock County Bylaw #17-2019 Initial Initial
Page 16 of 130 10. In the case where a subdivision is approved within the flood fringe, the applicant for subdivision shall be responsible for ensuring the design and implementation of flood mitigation measures affecting all of the proposed new lots, to the satisfaction of the Subdivision Authority as a condition of subdivision approval.
6.3 Add new Section 7.45 as follows:
7.45 – Exemptions to Development Constraints and Prohibitions in the Pembina River Flood Hazard Overlay Area.
Notwithstanding Section 7.44(3) and 6.16.13 the following development may be allowed in the Pembina River FHA, and a Flood Hazard Area Planning and Hydrogeological Engineering Report is not required as part of an application for these developments:
1. Replacement of an existing development, namely the habitable dwelling unit approved as part of an existing farmstead or country residential use, with a new single detached dwelling. This exemption does not include a new/replacement dwelling if the existing dwelling is not removed or demolished within 60 days of the occupation of the new dwelling; 2. Additions or alterations to an existing development, namely the habitable dwelling approved as part of an existing farmstead or country residential use, subject to the addition or alteration not creating more than a single-dwelling unit; 3. Replacement of an existing development, namely a building that is either accessory to the dwelling unit or used in connection with the raising or production of crops or livestock, and situated on a parcel of land used in connection with such agricultural operations as part of an existing approved farmstead, subject to (i) the new development being the same size or smaller; and subject to (ii) the existing development that is being replaced being removed or demolished within 6 months of the date on which the development permit is issued; and 4. Construction of new buildings for agricultural operations as part of an existing farmstead or country residential use or on lands used primarily for agriculture operations but does not include the construction of new buildings used in connection with the raising or production of livestock.
7. Amendments to ‘Part 8 – Land Use Districts’ of Bylaw 04-2016: 7.1 That Section 8.1 be amended by adding the following wording to 8.1(2):
A Pembina River Flood Hazard Area Overlay is identified in Part 9 hereto in Maps 9.1, 9.3 and 9.8. Lands within the Pembina River Flood Hazard Area are subject to
Page | 7 ______Westlock County Bylaw #17-2019 Initial Initial
Page 17 of 130 additional development rules and constraints, in addition to the rules and constraints contained in the underlying Land Use Districts, except as otherwise exempted herein. All uses within the Pembina River Flood Hazard Area are discretionary, notwithstanding the permitted use status in the underlying land use district and subject to section 7.45.
8. Amendments to ‘Part 9 – Maps’ of Bylaw 04-2016: 8.1 That Maps 9.1, 9.3 and 9.8 be removed and replaced with new Maps 9.1, 9.3 and 9.8 as shown in Schedule ‘A’ hereto, which outline the Pembina River Flood Hazard Overlay area.
This Bylaw shall come into effect upon third passing and signature thereof.
READ A FIRST TIME THIS 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019.
______Reeve
Original signed and on file
______Chief Administrative Officer
READ A SECOND TIME THIS 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
______Reeve
Original signed and on file
______Chief Administrative Officer
Page | 8 ______Westlock County Bylaw #17-2019 Initial Initial
Page 18 of 130 RECEIVED UNANIMOUS CONSENT FOR CONSIDERATION OF THREE READINGS IN ONE MEETING VIA COUNCIL RESOLUTION #300-2019, THIS 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019.
READ A THIRD TIME AND PASSED THIS 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019.
______Reeve
Original signed and on file
______Chief Administrative Officer
Page | 9 ______Westlock County Bylaw #17-2019 Initial Initial
Page 19 of 130 SCHEDULE ‘A’
MAP 9.1
Page | 10 ______Westlock County Bylaw #17-2019 Initial Initial
Page 20 of 130 SCHEDULE ‘A’ continued
MAP 9.3
Page | 11 ______Westlock County Bylaw #17-2019 Initial Initial
Page 21 of 130 SCHEDULE ‘A’ continued
MAP 9.8
Page | 12 ______Westlock County Bylaw #17-2019 Initial Initial
Page 22 of 130 WESTLOCK COUNTY BY-LAW NO. 20-2019 WESTLOCK, ALBERTA
Being a bylaw of Westlock County, in the Province of Alberta, that authorizes Westlock County to establish a temporary Flood Hazard Area Development Advisory Committee.
WHEREAS pursuant to Section 7(f) of the Municipal Government Act, being Chapter M-26 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000, and amendments thereto (the “MGA”), a municipality has jurisdiction to pass bylaws for municipal purposes respecting services provided by or on behalf of the municipality;
AND WHEREAS Section 145 of the MGA authorizes Council to establish a Committee of Council and set out its functions and procdures;
AND WHEREAS the Council of Westlock County has deemed it desirable to establish a temporary Advisory Committee on Flood Hazard Area Development matters;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF WESTLOCK COUNTY, DULY ASSEMBLED, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Title This bylaw may be cited as the “Flood Hazard Area Development Advisory Committee Bylaw”.
2. Preamble and Schedules The preamble and any schedules hereto form a part of this bylaw.
3. Establishment of the Flood Hazard Area Development Advisory Committee Council hereby establishes a temporary Flood Hazard Area Development Advisory Committee whose functions, composition and mandate are outlined in Schedule ‘A’ hereto.
Page | 1 ______Westlock County Bylaw #20-2019 Initial Initial
Page 23 of 130 READ A FIRST TIME THIS 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019.
______Reeve
Original signed and on file
______Chief Administrative Officer
READ A SECOND TIME THIS 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
______Reeve
Original signed and on file
______Chief Administrative Officer
RECEIVED UNANIMOUS CONSENT FOR CONSIDERATION OF THREE READINGS IN ONE MEETING VIA COUNCIL RESOLUTION #304-2019, THIS 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019.
READ A THIRD TIME AND PASSED THIS 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019.
______Reeve
Original signed and on file
______Chief Administrative Officer
Page | 2 ______Westlock County Bylaw #20-2019 Initial Initial
Page 24 of 130
SCHEDULE ‘A’
WESTLOCK COUNTY FLOOD HAZARD AREA DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE
1. Preamble
1.1 A municipal Committee to be known as the “Flood Hazard Area Development Advisory Committee” hereinafter referred to as “the Committee” is established as a Municipal Committee in accordance with the Municipal Government Act (MGA).
1.2 The Committee shall abide by and be subject to all Federal and Provincial legislation and Municipal Policies, Bylaws rules and regulations.
2. Mandate
2.1 The Committee has been established to provide recommendations to Council on matters related to development in Flood Hazard Areas of the County for potential consideration of incorporation into the Land Use Bylaw and the Municipal Development Plan. Final recommendations will be provided to Council no later than February 28, 2020.
3. Composition
3.1 The Committee shall consist of seven (7) members as follows: (a) Five (5) public members appointed by Council resolution, each of whom shall be a person qualified to be elected or to hold office as a member of Council. A minimum of one (1) and a maximum of two (2) public members will be members who do not own or rent/lease property within the Flood Hazard Area Overlay as outlined in the Land Use Bylaw or Municipal Development Plan; (b) Two (2) members of Council appointed to the Committee by Council resolution.
3.3 The Chair of the Committee shall be appointed within the Committee. The Chair will not be a Council member.
4. Term of Office
4.1 Term of the members appointed to the Committee shall be from the date of appointment until April 30, 2020. After April 30, 2020, the Committee will cease to exist. The term is purposely set two months past the deadline date for final recommendations to Council to allow the Committee to continue to liaise with Council during the period the recommendations will be reviewed by Council and potentially the public.
5. Meetings
Page | 3 ______Westlock County Bylaw #20-2019 Initial Initial
Page 25 of 130 5.1 The Committee shall hold a minimum of five (5) meetings during the Term and, in addition, at any time at the request of a majority of the members of the Committee or at the call of the Chair. 5.2 All meetings of the Committee shall be open to the public except where a meeting may be closed to the public by the Municipal Act, or other applicable legislation.
5.3 A person may be expelled from a meeting for improper conduct at a meeting.
5.4 A simple majority of the members of the Committee constitutes a quorum.
5.5 The Committee proceeding shall be as outlined and in accordance with Council’s Procedural Bylaw.
5.6 All Committee members shall adhere to Council’s Code of Conduct.
6. Administration
6.1 Any responsibilities not clearly identified within these Terms of Reference shall be the responsibility of Westlock County. Council may, at its discretion, change the Terms of Reference for this Committee at any time. Any changes proposed to these Terms of Reference by the Committee shall be recommended to Council through a report to Council via the Chief Administrative Officer.
7. Vacancies
7.1 Each member of the Committee serves solely at the pleasure of Council.
7.2 A member of the Committee who is a member of Council ceases to be a member of the Committee if he or she ceases to be a member of Council.
7.3 A member may resign from the Committee by providing notice in writing.
7.4 If the seat of a member of the Committee becomes vacant, the Committee shall: (a) Declare the seat to be vacant at its next meeting; and (b) Immediately notify the County of the vacancy. If the Committee doesn’t have the minimum required members to function, Council will as expeditiously as possible appoint a new member to the Committee.
7.5 Any member of the Committee who fails to attend two successive scheduled meetings of the Committee, with no just cause, shall be subject to forfeiting his or her appointed seat at the discretion of the Committee, and if such is the case, Council shall appoint a person to fill the vacancy in accordance with section 7.4 above.
8. Committee Records
8.1 The Committee shall keep minutes of its meetings. Once approved, the minutes shall be posted on the municipal website where every member of the Committee, Public and Council may have access.
Page | 4 ______Westlock County Bylaw #20-2019 Initial Initial
Page 26 of 130
8.2 The County’s Executive Assistant shall retain and preserve the records of the Committee including resolutions, minutes, and proceedings of regular, special or Committee meetings. Such records will be retained and preserved in accordance with the record retention period established by Council.
9. Resources
9.1 The following County resources: Chief Administrative Officer, Director of Planning and Community Services and County Planner (or alternates), shall provide support, advisory and liaison services to the Committee.
10. Powers and Duties
10.1 The members, while carrying out their mandate shall have regard for the organizational structure of the municipality and shall not provide specific direction to the County staff. Such direction is only to be provided by the Directors of Westlock County, or the CAO. In addition, members shall not become involved in staff work or direct staff in the performance of their duties. Such direction shall be solely provided by the County.
10.2 Subject to the limitations and conditions in this section (including MGA conditions relating to matters requiring the consent and approval of Council) the following terms are to be exercised, in all respects, in accordance with this mandate and all legal requirements, including those of the MGA and Procedural Bylaw. In the event of a conflict, the Municipal Council will have final discretion:
(a) The Committee’s financial administration functions will be performed by the County, taking recommendation from the Committee. (b) If applicable, the Committee will recommend to the County how finances are expended. (c) The Committee will serve in an advisory capacity to provide Flood Hazard Area Development recommendations to Council for the Municipal Development Plan and the Land Use Bylaw. (d) The Committee may assist in developing policy and/or bylaw language for matters within their mandate for recommendation to Council. (e) All Committee members must act in the best interest of the County and the community as a whole, without conflicting, circumventing, or discrediting the authorities and credibility of the County and Council. (f) Committee members shall work to identify, create and promote partnerships and liaise with legal counsel, community groups, organizations and individuals in the delivery of the obligations of this mandate. (g) The Committee shall speak with one voice and all decisions arising from Committee meetings shall be supported as recommendations of the Committee.
12. Budget
Page | 5 ______Westlock County Bylaw #20-2019 Initial Initial
Page 27 of 130 12.1 Outside of internal County resources provided under Section 9.1 hereof, the Committee will be provided with a budget of $25,000.00 for mileage expenses for members to attend meetings and for legal and other professional advice.
12.2 All expenditures must be pre-approved by Council through the annual budget or by Council resolution in accordance with the County’s Procurement Policy.
13. Reporting
13.1 The Committee Chair will report to Council and provide the following:
(a) A monthly progress report; (b) The final report with recommendations no later than February 28, 2020.
14. Insurance
14.1 As the Committee is a Committee of Council, coverage is extended under the County’s general liability insurance and Errors and Omissions policies.
Page | 6 ______Westlock County Bylaw #20-2019 Initial Initial
Page 28 of 130 om‘ 2 / o
E_< N Nopm O9} . _..mC m._H_‘Cn_rr :cz_n=.>_. 1522,20 mmzsnmu U__.mn.B:Emzizmmamno33::_.n< mm_\<_mmm
Boom I Sm m.o.mm~ ,>\mm:on_n>523 45”. N9
mm wmnonzsmzmmo:2. manEm m3m:n_3m:$ no253$ _m:omm
>mum:<05 wmocmmnEm :m 0:.‘ no33m:nm m_.mE.o < >nEEo:m__<.Em _.mno33m:o Em: om vmwmH0*M vmmm5 2 Hm Page 29 of 130 Ummm3 o.“3» __ I _ Zc:.o:um_ Um $36.. I m.m:mE\Q&.m3. H < : Pu__n _uo__n<.u..~.N.m O: 3:3n_nm_ _%% <<_E_: =08 :mNm_.n_mwmmmEm 95.2 Em: mznocammEm 33320: o? E §_33_N_:m Em _3_umn.Goz <<_E_:m 83%;. 2.: _\m.B_:_:mmx?zzmmwmmzmmmum?mah man. 3 :m.§E_:m :m: Em. A I mhmn?nEm: Q&.m3. 3:6 I D_\mlmF..wmmho\E.mm w.< >3. VI §=E.Q.bm\ bm Kr Em «mno3Em:m_ EB Em 953.2 m3m:a Em m:.E«m Ea cmm_<_mn.8 am_m»m Em _um3E:m 2,5 :03 Im~m_d >wmmO _ummm~3 m vmmm5 S Hm Page 30 of 130 _ummmmm2 in _...=a cum_w<_m<<.. Dmnoiamaamn. >3m:m3m:nm MmnmazMI mm:mE\\S.E§..£.wm Sm .cBnmn.E.m.... H < ..Ummmm:loom Bmmam mH3 So 22:. Iwmmwa>_.mmBmmzm Em mwmmE3 _m.2Emm__ _n_ooa_u_m_:Z_mu_uEmBmmzm Em mmzsmmzozomzooam?mz? mamm_m _._§a Emmzm mno.Hm::m__ O 2% Emmzm Em no3E:mno: omEm :_Am_Eooa mamEm ma N < ..mm=xBmmsm Em :mE_\m_ 3:33 3 m 3% .4 < ummm.u.3" m mmmmHm3 pm Page 31 of 130 3% 8 9. ‘Gm mxmmazmEmmsm E:_E_:mmowm.Q:nE«mm E3 < :03 _.m Icon 2023 3mm:m Smmmcamm :m MmnuunN I bm.\m\§3mS. hm3S.Mht\m....Ea mxanmmcsmm H. < :3 _ummmmu.2 ‘Gm EVO_..mo_:m3 mmzosBmmmcwmm _.mnE«mm.8 mzmcamEm” Em 2001 1% mwmm1m:0” m1 N. < =~.Hommc_u1_< 30: manUm E mum:m0u__nm1o:1.0..mm:c11<_w_o: 0a am ....m3.0:MI mmamxni.uBS.&.0:m H. < =33 Em 1m nmmmm2 m ummmHm2 Hm Page 33 of 130 _ummmmm2 in A / am :: 2 AE (113 ‘ /_MWm// 7 Mm3~SVI .whmQ.m\Po S..&.a:m H < Am.on m_o_mmm3 mxnmmw3 Ex. o_. czm?mzm m_oummmcgmn?.8 mo:mzuummmoa oEm_. Emmm 3o E SE3 om.313 3__m$ owmS. zm c:_m.n.mmnE N < H. Em «mno33m:n_ 2:: Em3__oE_:m:m<< $33 am3823 mmmmnzosmb I $332: m:. Em uczuowm0+E_m O H. dim o Kr ._.EmDm _ummm8 o« in ._.:mDm >: :mS am Ho. 3 Em nmmmSrmammm:v~:<.0: _mmuc3 %n%%§_ I mS.o.m§mm wow.....:S.B:§mi.m\ mmmmzxmmman.m:S.B:SmE.m\mmmmzxmmmmm3mE.m H. < Ummm3 2 3w AA x / AWN/2%,A/W/W,«.< 3 E‘:5__ // aA.%w.A//pi _A 3 _A_.1: 47 < 2252 _S:_.._n__um_Emszimwm2_nmm E8. :9 E53? §o.&$.$E m3m_ _..am:U:__._mm®3_._:u_m:.mu.nm wmmmm1 m vmmmmm3 Hm Page 36 of 130 _ummmmm3 in July 5, 2017 Our File: 2131-00350-07 Kathleen Deshoux Development Officer Westlock County 10336 – 106 Street Westlock, Alberta T7P 2G1 Attention: Kathleen Deshoux Re: Flood Analysis Requirements As part of the Westlock County Municipal Development Plan, the County has adopted the policy that “no permanent structures will be allowed within the 1:100-year flood plain of any river, stream or lake shore.” The County wants to keep floodplain and flood prone areas in their natural state. To ensure the success of the policy, the extent of the 1:100-year flood plain needs to be determined when developments are proposed near water bodies. This letter identifies the necessary requirements to complete and submit a floodplain mapping analysis to the County of Westlock. Several guidelines and methods for analysis have also been provided. 1. Objectives Riverine floodplain mapping consists of hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to estimate the water surface elevations and extents under the design flood. The objective of the analysis for the County is to: Accurately identify areas subject to riverine flooding under the 100-year return period discharge (the “design flood”) to determine the appropriate location and design parameters for proposed development. Determine the water surface elevations along the section of river under consideration Document analysis and results that support the conclusions, in a format specified by the County, for review. Follow the applicable Provincial guidelines. 2. Procedures and Requirements To meet the objectives in Section 1 there are several requirements that must be submitted to the County. The following sections outline the steps and submissions required to complete a floodplain analysis and provide review and approval. Prepared for Westlock County | Page 1 Page 37 of 130 2.1. Hydrological Analysis The hydrologic analysis predicts the flow in a watercourse for a given extreme event. The recommended design event for Westlock County is the 100-year return period peak instantaneous discharge. To estimate the discharge for the design event for the Pembina River, a stochastic frequency analysis relying on stream gauge information is considered an acceptable method. The requirements are listed below. Requirements For the hydrological analysis, the developer (or consultant) must provide the County with: 1) A map of the catchment area; 2) Details on the method of statistical analysis used; 3) A list of water level and/or flow gauging stations analysed; and a) If the data is missing flows the method of data filling must be included in the report 4) The results of the statistical analysis including the 100-year return period peak instantaneous discharge. 2.2. Hydraulic Analysis The hydraulic analysis predicts the water surface elevations and extents, under design flood conditions, along the river reach in question. Standard practice in the Province of Alberta is that the hydraulic analysis is completed using a computational hydraulic model. Requirements For the hydraulic analysis, the developer (or consultant) must provide the County with: 1) Details on the modeling software used and reason for its selection; 2) Details on data collection methodology/assumptions made for key model parameters including: a) Cross section geometry b) Floodplain elevations c) Channel slope d) Loss coefficients e) Details of channel structures (i.e. bridges, weirs, etc.) f) Starting water surface elevation g) The length of hydraulic reach analysed. (The length must be greater than 250 m upstream and 250 m downstream of the point of interest to ensure that the model develops a stable water surface) Prepared for Westlock County | Page 2 Page 38 of 130 2.3. Reporting The County will review all floodplain studies for accuracy and compliance. In order for the County to conduct a review a detailed report of the analysis is required. Requirements The developer’s (or their consultant’s) report must include: 1) A list of the objectives; 2) Background on the study area; 3) Summary of hydrological analysis; 4) Hydrological analysis results including 100-year instantaneous peak discharge; 5) Background on the computational hydraulic model selected; 6) Background on the computational hydraulic model development; 7) Computational hydraulic modeling results including water surface elevations and floodwater extents for design discharge; and 8) Recommendations Please note that the report must be sealed by a qualified professional engineer registered to practice in the Province of Alberta (APEGA). 3. Closing We trust the above information meets your requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned if you require further clarification. Regards, McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. Prepared by: Reviewed by: Jack McKee, MESc, E.I.T. Doug Johnston, P. Eng Water Resource Engineer Senior Hydrotechnical Engineer McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. McElhanney Consulting Service Ltd. email: [email protected] email:[email protected] Prepared for Westlock County | Page 3 Page 39 of 130 Some current land use planning challenges | AUMA.ca News Job Postings Contact us About us Membership Business services Advocacy services Events Log in / Sign up Home / Advocacy services / Programs & Initiatives / Municipal Planning Hub / How we plan / Some current land use planning challenges Some current land use planning challenges Flood plains Sections Many Alberta municipalities are located near water bodies for ease of communication and transport. Periodic flooding has been a part of these communities since their Achieving economic inception. The Municipal Government Act (MGA) requires municipalities to take this development objectives into account when approving municipal land use plans and deciding on subdivision Achieving social and development permit applications. Consideration begins with the municipal objectives development plan (MDP). The MDP may address environmental matters and contain statements regarding any development constraints. Where flooding is likely to occur Achieving cultural and in a municipality, the MDP typically devotes a section to describing the nature of the aesthetic objectives flooding, the area affected, and policies regarding development in the area. Achieving environmental In deciding on an application for subdivision the subdivision authority must consider objectives any potential for flooding. A land use bylaw may establish specific provisions Planning with others regarding the development of buildings in areas subject to flooding. A joint federal provincial program led to sophisticated flood plain mapping being prepared for a Some current land use number of Alberta communities. This mapping process identified appropriate land planning challenges uses for areas affected by flooding, which municipalities were encouraged to incorporate into their MDPs and land use bylaws. Recent experience with flooding in southern Alberta identified a need for more specific provisions. An amendment to the MGA in 2013 enables the adoption of specific regulations relating to the development of land in flood plains. Consultations on the proposed regulations were completed in 2014. The discussion paper produced by the Floodway Development Regulation Task Force (FDRTF) noted that once the proposed Floodway Development Regulation is in force: Municipalities will need to ensure that their statutory plans and land use bylaws are consistent with provisions of the Floodway Development Regulation, where applicable. Municipalities may not approve an application for subdivision in a floodway if the application is inconsistent with the provisions of the Regulation. Municipalities may not issue a development permit for any use or development Some current land use planning challenges _ AUMA.ca.html[2019-05-08 3:18:40 PM] Page 40 of 130 Some current land use planning challenges | AUMA.ca of vacant land in a floodway if the proposed development is inconsistent with the provisions of the regulation. Floodway typically include the river channels and overbank areas. The FDRTF’s discussion paper identifies four areas for consideration in drafting the regulation: New development in floodways (prohibitions and authorized uses) Existing development in floodways (prohibitions and authorized uses and development) Exemption provisions; and Other related discussions. Consensus was reached in a number of areas including: No new development should be constructed in the floodway; Elevating a building (above a determined flood level) as a form of mitigation above flood waters in a flood way is not considered appropriate; There is to be no redevelopment or additions to existing buildings in the floodway that will result in expanding the building footprint and/or changing the building use; There should be no infill development in the floodway; and, Any exemptions for floodway areas need to be based on an agreed set of criteria and need to demonstrate appropriate mitigation measures that are sufficient enough to reduce/minimize risk to life and property. The regulation has not been finalized. The report can be viewed at http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta.ca/1934 Energy projects Energy developments pose a significant challenge for urban communities. As noted previously, oil and gas wells and pipelines are exempt from the requirements of the planning provisions of the Municipal Government Act (MGA). The relationship to energy projects is considered here under three headings: new facilities, existing facilities, and abandoned facilities. New facilities Access to oil and gas resources in Alberta is obtained either through lease of exploration rights from the province or negotiation with private holders of titles to minerals. Once a company has obtained the right to explore it must obtain the approval of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) before any development occurs. The AER has set out in Directive 056: Energy Development Applications and Schedules the requirements and procedures for filing a license application to construct or operate any petroleum industry energy development that includes facilities, pipelines, or wells. The directive includes requirements for engaging with affected parties and notes that local authorities play an important part in the plan for orderly land use and should be involved at an early stage in planning an energy development and participant involvement program. Applicants are encouraged to resolve any outstanding concerns before filing an application with the AER. If the concerns cannot Some current land use planning challenges _ AUMA.ca.html[2019-05-08 3:18:40 PM] Page 41 of 130 Some current land use planning challenges | AUMA.ca be addressed the applicant must file a non-routine application for reasons of participant involvement, and include a written summary of concerns for AER review. Resident concerns typically relate to safety, odours, and impact on land values. Of particular concern are facilities that deal with sour gas. When preparing a municipal development plan a municipality may include statements considering development constraints and must contain policies compatible with the Subdivision and Development Regulation to provide guidance on the type and location of land uses adjacent to sour gas facilities. Some municipalities have established the position of oil and gas coordinator in dealing with energy projects. Existing facilities The AER is responsible for identifying and classifying sour gas facilities. A planning authority must not approve an application unless it is consistent with setback distances from sour gas facilities as identified by the AER. A planning authority must not approve an application that is within 100 meters of an existing oil or gas well unless a lesser distance is approved by the AER. There is no setback required from pipelines apart from the right of way of the pipeline unless the pipeline is identified as a sour gas facility in which case setback distances will be established by the AER. Abandoned facilities The risk from abandoned wells is extremely low. However, such wells are not visible from the surface and thus pose a risk to excavation and construction equipment and the safety of the operator if they are not properly located. Abandoned wells rarely require maintenance, but adequate access to the site needs to be maintained should a leak occur. The Subdivision and Development Regulation requires municipalities to identify abandoned wells as part of a subdivision or development permit application review. Setbacks established by the AER are to be applied to prevent accidental contact with a wellbore, and to allow for well access if required. Detailed procedures and requirements are set out in Municipal Affairs information bulletins, which are available here. Contaminated sites Contaminated sites represent potentially significant risks to human health and the environment. The Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act administered by Alberta Environment and Parks sets out the regulatory requirements surrounding substance release, remediation, and reclamation. Municipalities have a responsibility to determine whether a site is suitable for the intended use. Municipalities should establish appropriate policies in their municipal development plans respecting the assessment of land prior to approving an area structure plan, plan of subdivision, or issuing a development permit. The City of Edmonton has recently adopted and published an Environmental Site Assessment Guidebook. The report identifies four different stages of investigation which are briefly described below: Some current land use planning challenges _ AUMA.ca.html[2019-05-08 3:18:40 PM] Page 42 of 130 Some current land use planning challenges | AUMA.ca An Environmental Overview is used solely for the purpose of area structure plans. Phase I ESA involves a non-intrusive desktop review of the current and historical environmental information relevant to the site. Phase II ESA involves intrusive investigation and delineation of areas of potential environmental concern for contaminants through characterization of soil and groundwater. This must be conducted if recommendations in the Phase I ESA indicate that areas of potential environmental concerns are present on the site or if the City (Environmental Energy and Coordination Unit) believes that it is warranted. Phase IIII ESA, which involves remediation and/or exposure control, includes various type of remediation technology which may include excavation and disposal, soil vapour extraction, risk management and/or exposure control of the site or a combination of the above. The report then relates the different stages of investigation to each stage of the planning approval process. These are briefly described below: Area structure plan – an environmental overview is required. Rezoning – a level 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is required if the existing zoning is industrial, commercial, urban service, agricultural and reserve or special area. A level 1 ESA is not normally required if the existing zoning is exclusively residential. Subdivisions – a level 1 ESA should cover the entire parcel. Development permit – a level 1 ESA is required if the development officer believes contaminants exist. A detailed description of the contents of each level of assessment is provided in the report. The City of Lethbridge’s Sunridge Subdivision provides an example of an environmental site assessment. Brownfields Brownfields are derelict properties where past actions have resulted in actual or perceived contamination that is preventing redevelopment. Thousands of these properties blight main streets and neighborhoods in municipalities across Alberta. At a time of economic uncertainty and increased concern about the state of the environment, brownfield redevelopment provides an opportunity for municipalities, the province, and the private sector to collaborate on solutions that enable efficient land use, promote economic development, and improve Alberta’s reputation as a responsible steward of natural resources. AUMA has developed an online hub to provide municipalities with information on legislation, policies, best practices, and resources related to brownfield redevelopment. The Brownfields Hub also profiles AUMA’s advocacy efforts urging the province to address barriers to redevelopment. Some current land use planning challenges _ AUMA.ca.html[2019-05-08 3:18:40 PM] Page 43 of 130 Some current land use planning challenges | AUMA.ca Agriculture Agriculture is an essential part of Alberta's economy and identity. In recent decades the agricultural sector has been under increasing pressure from expanding rural and urban developments. This has resulted in the permanent loss of some of the province’s most productive farm and ranch lands. In response to this issue, the Alberta Land Institute (an independent, non-partisan research institute based at the University of Alberta that connects research and policy for better land management) commissioned a study to examine the extent of agricultural land conversation and fragmentation in the province. The first deliverable of this 3 year study was a report detailing A Review of Land cover Patterns from 2000-2012 and Land use Policy. Using high resolution satellite imagery, the review found that over twelve years approximately 123,900 hectares (0.82 percent) of the agricultural land base in the province was converted for development. While this loss may seem minor on a provincial scale, the concentration of development occurred in the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor. Within this region, about 38,250 hectares (4.3 percent) of the agricultural land was converted. The review also found that agricultural land conversion is happening at a significant level on the highest quality agricultural land within in the province. Of the agricultural land converted, 68.4 percent was from the two highest quality categories of agricultural land. The Alberta Land Institute’s review also looked at land use policies in the province. It concluded that one of the major issues is the disconnect between goals and directives to protect agricultural land set out in policy and the decisions made in practice. Short- term pressures and gains appear to override working towards long-term objectives. For example, the Municipal Government Act requires that municipalities include protection of agricultural operations in their Municipal Development Plans and bylaw. While many MDPs include protection of agricultural land, municipalities are not bound to deliver on the contents of MDPs. Councils and local planners must be on board with the fundamental goals of land preservation in order to engage in proper implementation. The Alberta Land Institute’s paper suggests that performance with respect to preserving agricultural lands might be improved if the provincial government were to follow-up on municipal plans. In addition, the review points to land use tools that municipalities can use to including cluster zoning, purchase of conservation easements, tradeable development credits, urban growth boundaries and more comprehensive planning. These tools are featured in the Efficient Use of Land Tools Compendium as well as on the Conservation and Stewardship Tools webpage developed by Alberta’s Land Use Secretariat to support land use decisions that reduce the footprint of human activities on Alberta’s landscape. Some current land use planning challenges _ AUMA.ca.html[2019-05-08 3:18:40 PM] Page 44 of 130 Some current land use planning challenges | AUMA.ca Net Change in Agricultural Land 2000-2012 (Source: the Alberta Land Institute) While development may be eating away at traditional agricultural land, many municipalities are finding ways of integrating agriculture into urbanized areas. There is increasing recognition of the importance of food in building community and identification of urban agriculture as an opportunity to increase the sustainability and quality-of-life of communities, as well as a means for economic development. For example, in 2012 The City of Edmonton adopted fresh: Food and Urban Agriculture Strategy to guide the City towards the vision of “a resilient food and agriculture system that contributes to the local economy and the overall cultural, financial, social and environmental sustainability of the city.” The City has already taken steps put that vision into action through Approving a zoning bylaw change to enable more urban agriculture activities throughout the city. Forming the Edmonton Food Council to shape the future of food and urban Some current land use planning challenges _ AUMA.ca.html[2019-05-08 3:18:40 PM] Page 45 of 130 Some current land use planning challenges | AUMA.ca agriculture in Edmonton. Permitting bee keeping through a license process. Conducting urban hens pilot project! Partnering with Northlands to increase local food purchasing of major distributors and institutions. In 2014 the City of Airdrie launched an urban agriculture pilot project which includes a community orchards initiative and a backyard hens pilot program. The City also promotes the local farmers market, community gardening, and the Food Bank’s Plant a Row Grow a Row program where residents can share some produce from their home gardens with the Food Bank. The City of Red Deer has adopted a Chicken Bylaw to regulate and control the keeping of chickens on a property within an urban area. This bylaw requires residents to apply for and maintain a chicken license on an annual basis. (Photo Source: City of Red Deer) Private Property Rights Municipalities may wonder how far they can go in regulating private land and under what circumstances they may need to provide financial compensation to landowners impacted by municipal decisions. The Alberta Land Institute (ALI) has developed an online Guide to Property Rights describing the scope of property rights held by landowners in Alberta and addresses issues of expropriation, regulation of property rights, and compensation. The Guide to Property Rights also describes changes to the property rights framework arising from provincial legislation, including the Alberta Land Stewardship Act (ALSA). While the guide seeks to correct the myth that ALSA grants powers to the provincial Cabinet that are inconsistent with Canadian legal tradition, it also points out Some current land use planning challenges _ AUMA.ca.html[2019-05-08 3:18:40 PM] Page 46 of 130 Some current land use planning challenges | AUMA.ca the need for greater clarity around what is eligible for compensation. Environmental Impact Assessments An environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a process to predict the impact of projects on the environment before they are carried out. In Alberta, projects may trigger a provincial or federal EIA depend ending on what matters the project will touch on. Municipal projects such as dams have the potential to trigger both a provincial and federal EIA, leading to a long and resource intensive process before the project can be completed. Provincial Environmental Impact Assessments The current EIA process in Alberta is based on the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, with processes set out in the Environmental Assessment Regulation and activities that trigger an EIA set out in the Mandatory and Exempted Activities Regulation. Some activities may also trigger an EIA under the Water Act. EIAs for energy resources activities such as upstream oil, oil sands, natural gas, and coal development are processed separately by the Alberta Energy regulator. Activities that trigger a mandatory provincial EIA in Alberta include: dams greater than 15 metres in height; water reservoirs with a capacity greater than 30 million m3; hydroelectric plants that generate over 100MW; and, landfills that accept hazardous waste. In preparing a provincial EIA in Alberta, proponents must assemble a detailed list of documents including a plan and guidelines for First Nations consultation, project summary tables and location maps, terms of reference for the EIA, and a proposal for how the public will be notified about the terms of reference. The proponent uses the finalized terms of reference to complete their full EIA report, which is then submitted to the provincial Environmental Assessment team for a technical review. This team decides whether or not the EIA report is complete, and forwards it on to a regulatory board to decide whether the proposal is in the public interest. Click here for more information on the provincial EIA process. Federal Environmental Impact Assessments The current federal EIA process is based in the 2012 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). Pursuant to this Act, the federal government developed a regulation to designate physical activities that automatically trigger a federal EIA. Example projects that trigger federal EIAs include: fossil fuel electrical generating facilities with a capacity of 200MW or more; dams or dykes that result in a reservoir of 1500ha or more; structures that divert 10,000,000m3/year of water from a natural water body into another natural water body; public highways requiring 50 km or more of new right of way; aerodromes in built-up areas of cities or towns; and Some current land use planning challenges _ AUMA.ca.html[2019-05-08 3:18:40 PM] Page 47 of 130 Some current land use planning challenges | AUMA.ca interprovincial bridges or tunnels. As well, the CEAA states that environmental effects of projects must be taken into account if they result in changes impacting areas under federal jurisdiction such as fish or migratory birds, changes on federal lands or outside the province where the project is carried out, or effects on Indigenous peoples. These clauses are highly important to municipalities, as numerous municipal projects may contain one or more of these impacts. For instance, road construction over migratory bird habitat and bridge or dam construction through navigable waterways or fish habitats may trigger a federal EIA. Click here for more information on the federal EIA process. Stay informed Subscribe to a newsletter Our newsletters will keep you up to date. AUMA / AMSC 300, 8616 - 51 Ave, Main line: 780-433-4431 Sitemap Edmonton, AB, T6E 6E6 Toll-free within Alberta: 310-AUMA (2862) Some current land use planning challenges _ AUMA.ca.html[2019-05-08 3:18:40 PM] Page 48 of 130 Okotoks Flood Plain Policy July 2001 Page 49 of 130 PUBLISHING INFORMATION TITLE: OKOTOKS FLOOD PLAIN POLICY AUTHORS: TOWN OF OKOTOKS PLANNING SERVICES STATUS: APPROVED BY OKOTOKS TOWN COUNCIL JULY 16, 2001 PRINTING DATE: AUGUST 2001 ADDITIONAL COPIES: THE TOWN OF OKOTOKS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUSINESS CENTRE P.O. BOX 20 OKOTOKS, ALBERTA T1S 1K1 (403) 938-4404 www.okotoks.ca prepared by Planning Services, Town of Okotoks Page 50 of 130 Okotoks Flood Plain Policy July 2001 1. INTRODUCTION This policy document has been prepared at the request of the Town of Okotoks Council to ensure that ---- ---- all policies of the Town of Okotoks related to development in flood prone areas: x are readily available to all landowners and interested parties in a concise, comprehensive and clear document; and x are integrated with other relevant planning policies related to the provision of services, appropriate densities and land uses, and the sensitive integration of new development in existing developed areas. The preparation of this document included an extensive public consultation process. Throughout the public consultation process, landowners and stakeholders were strongly encouraged to provide the Town with written comments. All written comments have been retained in the Town’s filing system (D06 FL). This document includes a Definitions Section [Section 2 on Page 2] to assist users of this document in interpreting the policies that follow. A Background Section [Section 3 on Page 4] follows. This section provides context regarding the relationship between municipal, provincial and federal flood risk area policies. The Policy Sections [Sections 4 to 6 beginning on Page 6] follows and contains the Town’s land use and development policies specific to the flood risk area. These policies do not preclude the application of other standard Town of Okotoks regulations and rules as contained in the Land Use Bylaw [LUB] and Municipal Development Plan [MDP]. The document concludes with an Implementation Section [Section 7 on Page 17]. prepared by Planning Services, Town of Okotoks Page 1 July 2001 Page 51 of 130 Okotoks Flood Plain Policy Definitions 2. DEFINITIONS Italicized words and phrases used in the body of this document are defined in this Section. In this policy document: “Bank” means the natural boundary of a body of water as determined by an Alberta Land Surveyor in accordance with the Surveys Act. “Design Flood” means a 1 in 100 year flood event, or a flood which has a one percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in any year. “Essential Public Infrastructure” means publicly funded infrastructure which may include but is not limited to erosion protection works, sewage disposal facilities, water treatment facilities, major utility mains, park access roads and major road connections. Such infrastructure is required for the greater public good in an urban setting and at times requires their development partially or wholly in the flood risk area. “Existing” means buildings or structures that were developed in flood prone areas prior to designation of the Okotoks flood risk area on May 11, 2000. “FDRP” means the Canada-Alberta Flood Damage Reduction Program. This program was initiated by senior levels of government in 1989 for the purpose of mapping and designating flood risk areas in urban communities and increasing awareness of flood risk in designated communities. “Flood Fringe” means those lands as illustrated on the Flood Risk Map that would be inundated by shallow, slow moving and generally less destructive floodwaters during a design flood. “Flood Level” means the calculated level or elevation to which water would rise during a design flood. Flood levels vary from location to location depending on variations in the width of the flood channel, grades etc. The Flood Risk Map indicates the calculated flood level at a number of cross-sections along the Sheep River. Site specific flood levels are determined by Alberta Environment or its successor in response to subdivision and development application referrals from the Town. “Flood Mitigation Measure” means any measure taken to reduce the risk of flood damage to both existing or new development and includes among other measures elevated pads, fill, back sloping, dykes and certain construction methods intended to reduce the risk of flood damage during a 1:100 year flood event. “Flood Risk Area” means the area as illustrated on the Flood Risk Map that would be flooded during a design flood. “Flood Proofed” means measures have been taken consistent with the FDRP to permanently protect new developments located within the flood fringe from flood damage. An effective and preferred method of flood proofing is to use elevated pads or fill to raise buildings at least 0.5 m (1.64 ft.) above the calculated flood level. Flood proofing also includes safeguards such as locating electrical panels and shut-off valves and water lines above the calculated flood level and restricting the use of rooms below the flood level. prepared by Planning Services, Town of Okotoks Page 2 July 2001 Page 52 of 130 Okotoks Flood Plain Policy Definitions “Floodway” means the river channel and adjoining lands as illustrated on the Flood Risk Map that would be inundated by deep, fast moving and destructive floodwaters during a design flood. “Flood Risk Map” means the map dated January 1996 or any subsequent replacement produced by Alberta Environment or its successor pursuant to the FDRP that depicts the flood risk area in Okotoks including the floodway and flood fringe zones and provides calculated flood levels along selected cross- sections along the river. “Full Urban Standards” means that a site or subdivision is serviced by municipal water, sewer and storm water systems and the roads providing access to the site or subdivision are paved, have curb and gutter and include a sidewalk system, street lighting etc. “Low density Residential” means single detached dwellings on lots sufficient in size to accommodate a private water well and retain a rural or semi-rural setting. “New Development” means filling and any building or other structure including additions to existing buildings or structures that are proposed within the flood risk area. prepared by Planning Services, Town of Okotoks Page 3 July 2001 Page 53 of 130 Okotoks Flood Plain Policy Background 3. BACKGROUND Okotoks Municipal Development Plan [MDP] The Town’s current policy framework regarding land use and development within the flood risk area is found in the Town’s MDP [Escarpment and Shoreline Areas Section]. In summary the MDP states that: x The Sheep River and its associated shorelines and flood risk area have and will continue to shape the design and character of the Town and contribute significantly to the Town as a desirable place to live; x The general policy of the Town is to restrict urban development in the flood risk area; x The Town will attempt to secure the undeveloped (1998) river valley lands (flood risk area) as natural open space for conservation, public use and enjoyment by 2005 and rehabilitate these lands to a natural state by 2010; x The 1988 UMA Flood Mitigation Alternatives Report shall be used as a guideline for reviewing proposals in the flood risk area; x Development within the floodway should be limited to recreational uses, linear parks and pedestrian/bicycle pathway systems (low intensity public uses); and x Limited development of lands (low intensity private uses) within the flood risk area may be considered but only if it can be demonstrated that both public access and shoreline stability will be protected and that the development proceeds in accordance with the guidelines of the current Flood Mitigation Study. Okotoks Land Use Bylaw [LUB] The Okotoks LUB includes general requirements that regulate the use and development of lands subject to flooding [Section 9.11.0]. Canada Alberta Flood Damage Reduction Program The Town of Okotoks is one of sixty-six Alberta communities included in the Canada-Alberta Flood Damage Reduction Program [FDRP]. This program is designed to reduce the financial cost incurred by both landowners and governments due to flooding. Under this program, a Flood Risk Map has been prepared for Okotoks illustrating the area designated as having a flood hazard. The mapping shows two zones: the floodway and the flood fringe. The floodway presents the greatest risk for flood damage and new development in this zone is strongly discouraged. New development in the flood fringe may prepared by Planning Services, Town of Okotoks Page 4 July 2001 Page 54 of 130 Okotoks Flood Plain Policy Background be permitted under this program provided it is adequately flood proofed. Under the FDRP, senior levels of government… …will not: develop new government buildings; provide financial assistance under any government program for new development; or provide flood disaster assistance for development that occurs after designation under the FDRP… …within the floodway. Under the FDRP, new development will be allowed within the flood fringe provided that the new development is adequately flood proofed. Further, any development within the flood risk area already in place at the time of designation (existing) will be eligible for flood disaster assistance. An addition or enlargement to an existing building does not disqualify an existing building from flood disaster assistance. Normal maintenance and repair to existing structures is also permitted under the program. Investigation of Flood Mitigation Alternatives in the Sheep River Basin This report, commonly referred to as the 1988 UMA Report, made a series of recommendations that were based on flood plain analysis and mapping conducted by Alberta Environment in 1985. It is important to note that the 1988 UMA report does not distinguish between flood fringe and floodway lands. In summary, this report determined that only a few new developments could occur in the flood plain without causing a significant increase in flood water levels and hence increased impacts on other properties in the flood plain. As a result, the report recommends against new development occurring in much of the flood plain. The report also states that the installation of dykes at certain locations would allow additional development to occur in the flood plain without adverse impacts on other properties in the flood plain. Such additional development should occur only after a dyke is constructed and that such additional development be raised above flood levels. The recommendations for development within the flood risk area that flow out of the FDRP differ considerably from the UMA Report due primarily to the greater detail regarding the flood risk as depicted by the 1996 Flood Risk Map. The UMA Report, however, continues to be a helpful technical resource for the Town when considering development within the flood risk area. prepared by Planning Services, Town of Okotoks Page 5 July 2001 Page 55 of 130 Okotoks Flood Plain Policy Flood Risk Area Policies 4. FLOOD RISK AREA POLICY The policies in this Section are intended to apply within the flood risk area of the Sheep River as depicted on Figure 1. Guiding Principles - Flood Risk Area ¾ To follow FDRP guidelines; ¾ To prohibit new development other than trails and walkways including associated park furniture and essential public infrastructure in the floodway; ¾ To ensure the municipality and subsequently tax payers do not assume any liability for new development in the flood risk area; ¾ To minimize the risk of flood damage to both public and private property within the flood risk area of the Sheep River; ¾ To avoid any new development that would incur damage in a design flood; ¾ To utilize cost effective flood mitigation measures that minimize construction and long term maintenance costs for both the municipality and individual landowners; ¾ To exercise extreme caution regarding proposals involving extensive filling, and development in close proximity to the floodway; ¾ To only accept changes to the Flood Risk Map as approved by Alberta Environment or its successor; ¾ To treat all landowners within the flood risk area equitably insofar as flooding issues are concerned, recognizing that other planning issues may determine varying limitations for development from one location to another; and ¾ To ensure compatible transition between all new development and the existing and the planned Sheep River Open Space system. prepared by Planning Services, Town of Okotoks Page 6 July 2001 Page 56 of 130 Page 57 of 130 Okotoks Flood Plain Policy Flood Risk Area Policies Referrals Policy 4(i) The Town will refer all proposals for subdivision or development within the flood risk area to Alberta Environment or its successor for comments and recommendations. Floodway Policy 4(ii) The location of the floodway is established by the Provincial Government. Proposals submitted to the Province to adjust the floodway limit are not supported by the Town. Policy 4(iii) No new development other than trails and walkways including associated park furniture and essential public infrastructure shall be permitted within the floodway. Policy 4(iv) All privately owned land within the floodway shall be designated Restricted Development (RD) District and all publicly owned land within the floodway shall be designated Environmental Protection (EP) District in the LUB. Policy 4(v) When a subdivision is proposed where any portion of the title area is located within the floodway, all lands within the floodway shall be dedicated as Environmental Reserve [ER]. Policy 4(vi) Notwithstanding Policy 4(v) above, when an existing dwelling is located partially or wholly within the floodway, a reasonable area within the floodway may be retained under private ownership through subdivision. Such an area may encompass, among other similar features, the building envelope, parking area, access driveway, manicured yard including ponds, septic disposal field and water well but shall not include land extensive features such as pastures, corrals, cultivated fields etc. In no case shall such an area extend more than 80m from the dwelling further into the floodway. Policy 4(vii) For parcels containing an existing dwelling or other permanent building, an Environmental Reserve Easement is considered an appropriate alternative to Environmental Reserve dedication. Such an easement should be designed to preserve floodway land in its natural state but should not be intended to facilitate public access to and along the Sheep River or its tributaries. Where an Environmental Reserve Easement is considered, all portions of the parcel within 30m of the bank of the Sheep River or its tributaries must be dedicated as Environmental Reserve to provide for public access to and along the Sheep River and its tributaries. prepared by Planning Services, Town of Okotoks Page 9 July 2001 Page 58 of 130 Okotoks Flood Plain Policy Flood Risk Area Policies Policy 4(viii) The Town’s approving authorities shall not approve grading within the floodway unless it is associated with trails and walkway systems including associated park furniture and essential public infrastructure. Policy 4(ix) Existing vegetation and topography within the floodway should not be disturbed to maintain the Sheep River corridor as a pristine natural area with the intent to: x minimize impacts on wildlife corridors; x retain existing drainage patterns; and x retain the natural mix of plant species in the Sheep River Valley. Flood Fringe Policy 4(x) All new development approved in the flood fringe shall be flood proofed. In the case where the new development is an addition to the existing building, only the addition is required to be flood proofed. However, reasonable measures to reduce the risk of flood damage to the existing building may be required. Policy 4(xi) Basements are discouraged within new development in the flood fringe in accordance with the FDRP. In the case where the new development is an addition to an existing building that includes a basement, the existing basement may remain but expansion of the basement is discouraged. An underground parking area is not deemed to be basement development and may be considered in accordance with the FDRP. Policy 4(xii) New development should be setback as far as feasible from the floodway and in no instance shall new structures be permitted within 10m of the floodway. Back sloping associated with flood mitigation measures, may be developed up to the floodway limit but such slopes should not exceed 4:1. This development setback area is intended to provide a buffer and margin of safety between development and the floodway. It also preserves the option for future construction of a dyke if deemed desirable at some time in the future to protect existing dwellings that are not flood proofed. Policy 4(xiii) In the case where a subdivision is approved within the flood fringe, the applicant for subdivision shall be responsible for servicing and making provision for flood mitigation measures on all proposed new lots. Policy 4(xiv) The applicant for any new development shall provide verification from a qualified professional engineer that the new development conforms with FDRP and Town of Okotoks flood risk policies upon completion of the development. prepared by Planning Services, Town of Okotoks Page 10 July 2001 Page 59 of 130 Okotoks Flood Plain Policy Flood Risk Area Policies Dykes Policy 4(xv) Dykes are considered an acceptable but costly and partial form of flood mitigation and should only be considered to protect existing dwellings that are not already flood proofed. Due to the high capital and maintenance cost associated with a dyke and their limited effectiveness, the Town does not intend to construct any dykes within the Town. Policy 4(xvi) The construction of dykes or other flood mitigation measures is strongly discouraged within the floodway and should only be considered where existing buildings preclude their development away from the floodway. As such, new development should be setback as far as possible from the floodway. prepared by Planning Services, Town of Okotoks Page 11 July 2001 Page 60 of 130 Okotoks Flood Plain Policy Flood Fringe Land Use and Servicing Policies 5. FLOOD FRINGE LAND USE AND SERVICING POLICIES The policies in this Section are intended to apply within the flood fringe of the Sheep River as depicted in Figure 1. Guiding Principles ¾ To ensure all new development is harmonious with both the surrounding riverine environment and adjacent neighbourhood built form. ¾ To ensure that all new development is connected to the Town sanitary sewage system, serviced with a suitable potable water supply, storm water management systems, and adequate vehicle and pedestrian circulation systems. ¾ To take all reasonable measures to minimize the risk of contamination to groundwater which is the water source both for the Town’s water system and a number of private water wells. ¾ To ensure that any infrastructure associated with servicing new development is consistent with and compatible with infrastructure servicing surrounding development. ¾ To ensure the proponent for any new development bears all costs associated with servicing that development. ¾ To ensure that new development does not cause the imposition of upgraded services to existing development that would result in an immediate financial cost to the owner of any existing development1. Land Use and Density Policy 5(i) With the exception of the Lineham East residential sub area [LE sub area], the Town will consider LUB amendments from Restricted Development District to any land use district that is consistent with: x the land use and development policies contained in MDP; x this policy document; and x the Railway Area Analysis and Policy Report. Policy 5(ii) Within the LE sub area, the Town will only consider LUB amendments from Restricted Development District to accommodate low density residential development that is consistent with the existing level of service in this area. 1 This policy is not intended to preclude development(s) that might over time increase property values in a particular area and hence may have an impact on property taxes. Such a financial cost is not deemed appropriate for the Town to take into consideration. prepared by Planning Services, Town of Okotoks Page 12 July 2001 Page 61 of 130 Okotoks Flood Plain Policy Flood Fringe Land Use and Servicing Policies Policy 5(iii) Within the LE sub area, minimum lot size for low density residential lots in a new subdivision is 0.81 ha (2 acres). Servicing Policy 5(iv) With the exception of the LE sub area, the Town requires all new development to be serviced to full urban standards. Policy 5(v) Within the LE sub area, the Town requires all new development to be serviced with: Direct access to a public road developed to a condition acceptable to the Town, or an access easement if access to an existing lot proposed for new development is not feasible from a public road; A municipal sanitary sewer connection; and Either a private water well or municipal water supply. The Town does not support water coops and communal wells as a water supply. New development will be required to connect to the municipal water supply at the time that municipal water lines are adjacent to property lines. Policy 5(vi) Within the LE sub area, the Town requires all new parcels created by subdivision to have direct access to a public road developed to municipal standards. Policy 5(vii) Where water wells are proposed to service a subdivision to accommodate new development within the LE sub area the proponent of the subdivision shall meet all requirements of the Provincial Water Act prior to endorsement of a subdivision. Policy 5(viii) Within the LE sub area, all new public roads created by subdivision shall be constructed to a rural standard (no parking). Policy 5(ix) All new development shall incorporate a storm water treatment and conveyance system that employs Best Management Practices, meets the requirements of Alberta Environment or its successor and Town of Okotoks Engineering Standards, and is consistent with the Sustainable Okotoks initiative. Policy 5(x) As is the case throughout the Town, the proponent of a subdivision or development is responsible for all on and off-site servicing costs. Off-site levies and acreage assessments will apply in full to all subdivisions and new development. prepared by Planning Services, Town of Okotoks Page 13 July 2001 Page 62 of 130 Okotoks Flood Plain Policy Flood Fringe Land Use and Servicing Policies Policy 5(xi) Where a new development requires installation of a utility service line abutting an existing development not serviced with that utility, the existing development shall not be required to connect to that service. This policy does not preclude a resident from requesting connection to Town services. (Note: This Policy may conflict with Town Utility Bylaws.) prepared by Planning Services, Town of Okotoks Page 14 July 2001 Page 63 of 130 Page 64 of 130 Okotoks Flood Plain Policy Parks and Open Space Policies 6. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE POLICIES The policies in this Section are intended to apply within the flood risk area of the Sheep River as depicted in Figure 1. Guiding Principles ¾ To secure the entire floodway as a natural open space area. Purchase of Open Space Policy 6(i) The Town will continue to acquire lands in the vicinity of the Sheep River for the purpose of achieving a significant and continuous natural open space corridor from the west to the east boundary of the Town. The priority of the Town is acquiring floodway lands as these lands cannot support new development and they represent a significant land area contiguous to the Sheep River. The majority of the floodway is undisturbed and contains the bulk of the natural tree cover along the river. Policy 6(ii) Notwithstanding Policy 6(i), the Town may consider other opportunities to acquire lands abutting the floodway either within the flood fringe or outside of the flood risk area if it is determined that such land is required for more intense park development than may be appropriate within the floodway. Use of Public Open Space Policy 6(iii) Within the floodway, improvements on publicly owned lands shall be limited to trails and walkway systems including associated park furniture (e.g. benches, garbage containers) and essential public infrastructure. Policy 6(iv) Parks and other publicly owned development within the floodway that are considered existing development under the FDRP may remain in accordance with this program. Policy 6(v) Within the flood fringe, new development on publicly owned lands shall be consistent with the FDRP. prepared by Planning Services, Town of Okotoks Page 16 July 2001 Page 65 of 130 Okotoks Flood Plain Policy Implementation 7. IMPLEMENTATION The implementation initiatives below are required to ensure consistency between the various planning documents of the Town of Okotoks. x The MDP should be amended to clarify that the Town relies on the FDRP as the primary source for policy direction regarding development in the flood risk area but that the UMA Report will also be considered. If there is a conflict between the FDRP and the UMA report, the FDRP will prevail. The MDP should also make appropriate reference to this document. Such amendments require a public hearing. x The LUB should be reviewed and amended as required to ensure it is consistent with, and makes reference to, this document. Such amendments require a public hearing. prepared by Planning Services, Town of Okotoks Page 17 July 2001 Page 66 of 130 6/28/2017 Municipal Affairs: Overview of Bill 27, Floodway Development Regulation Consultation Overview of Bill 27, Floodway Development Regulation Consultation Bill 27, the Flood Recovery and Reconstruction Act, enacted in December 2013, amends the Municipal Government Act (MGA) providing for: regulation making powers for controlling, regulating or prohibiting any use or development in a floodway; and a provision to exempt floodway development in municipalities with significant development already in a floodway such as Fort McMurray and Drumheller. These amendments support government efforts to rebuild safer and stronger communities. A regulation will set out limitations on development in a floodway needed to ensure we rebuild in a manner that limits the potential for future flood damage. A twophased stakeholder engagement took place between May and October, 2014. In the first phase of the consultation a Task Force was established. Municipal Affairs invited representation from the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association, the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, the Urban Development Institute, the cities of Calgary and Edmonton, the towns of Drumheller, Canmore, High River and the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo. In the second phase, input gathered from the Task Force was taken to a broader audience of municipalities with identified flood hazard areas for additional comments during a one day symposium. As part of Phase II, input from the Task Force on the proposed regulation (Task Force Discussion Paper) was posted on the Municipal Affairs website with the ability for community members and other interested parties to provide comments on what had been proposed. Community members and interested parties who wished to provide input were encouraged to work with their municipality to share their perspectives and had the opportunity to provide their written comments directly to Municipal Affairs through a dedicated email link. The consultation on the proposed Floodway Development Regulation is now complete. Please check this website periodically for updates regarding the status of the regulation. Frequently Asked Questions and Answers regarding the Floodway Development Regulation Question What are the changes to the Municipal Government Act (MGA) enacted by Bill 27: Flood Recovery and Reconstruction Act that will be addressed in the proposed Floodway Development Regulation? Answer • Regulation making powers to allow for the creation of a Floodway Development Regulation which will control, regulate or prohibit use or development of land that is located in a floodway and define authorized uses in a floodway. http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta.ca/1934 1/6 Page 67 of 130 6/28/2017 Municipal Affairs: Overview of Bill 27, Floodway Development Regulation Consultation • An exemption provision for floodway development that will account for the special circumstances of municipalities with significant development already in a floodway such as Fort McMurray and Drumheller. Question What is a floodway? Answer A floodway is identified through a flood hazard identification study in accordance with the Flood Hazard Identification Program Guideline published by the Department of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) The Flood Hazard Identification Program Guideline identifies flood hazard as the area within which flooding will most likely occur during a flood. Within the flood hazard area there are two classifications of land: floodway: during a flood, land within the floodway will typically experience flooding of onemetre depth or greater with velocities of one metre per second or faster. Typically the floodway includes river channels and adjacent overbank areas. flood fringe: flood fringe is the land along the edges of the flood hazard area that would likely experience relatively shallow water (less than one metre deep) during a flood event, with lower velocities (less than 1m/s). Question Why does the government want to restrict future development in floodways? Answer The floodway is that portion of land in a flood hazard area where flows are deepest, fastest and most destructive. The floodway typically includes the main channel of the river and a portion of the adjacent overbank area. Floodways represent an ongoing risk to people who wish to build there. Restricting and regulating development in floodways will help limit property damage and risks to public safety posed by future floods. Question Why is development in the flood fringe not restricted as well? Answer Mitigation measures have proven effective in flood fringe areas because the depth and flow of floods is much lower than in a floodway, where the velocity of flow and depth of flooding makes mitigation nearly impossible. Development in the flood fringe can obstruct the flow without significantly increasing water levels upstream or downstream. The flood fringe can be developed as long as appropriate measures are taken to protect life and property. This does not mean that flood damage will not occur depending on the intensity of the flood event. Question Will the provisions of the Regulation be in effect all across Alberta? Answer http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta.ca/1934 2/6 Page 68 of 130 6/28/2017 Municipal Affairs: Overview of Bill 27, Floodway Development Regulation Consultation Upon coming into force the regulation will apply to those municipalities where there are flood hazard areas mapped by ESRD. Fort McMurray and Drumheller will be exempted, from some or all of these restrictions. Question Why does the government need to be able to make exceptions for some municipalities that want to develop in a floodway? Answer In some cases, it would be impractical, impossible or economically detrimental for some municipalities, such as in Drumheller or Fort McMurray, to restrict floodway development. Work is underway with Drumheller and Fort McMurray to address the risk of flooding through other types of mitigation measures. This provision will allow the government to vary how the legislation and proposed regulation will apply in these unique situations. Question Will government allow existing structures to be rebuilt in a floodway if they are intended for the same use as the original property? Answer Yes, this approach honours the investment and choices made by current owners of properties in a floodway, regardless of whether they have been affected by a disaster. The regulation is intended to control ongoing use of developed lands in a floodway by ensuring that redevelopment is limited to structures similar to existing uses. Question Will the government allow new structures such as homes or businesses to be built in a floodway? No, the floodway must remain free of any new structures that would obstruct the river flow during a flood. Obstructions such as buildings can be damaged during a flood event and could also make flood conditions worse in both the upstream and downstream river flows. The most effective form of mitigation to protect the health and safety of people is to keep people away from the flood water rather than attempting to keep the flood water away from people. Question Why is the government amending the MGA and creating a Floodway Development Regulation to restrict future developments in floodways before a review of the MGA has been completed? Answer Development in floodways poses extreme risks to human life, property, and to the economy of Alberta, as was experienced during the flooding events of 2013. To mitigate future risks from extreme flooding, immediate action is necessary to prevent further inappropriate development on land within a floodway. Question What types of future development are being considered as authorized uses in the floodway? http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta.ca/1934 3/6 Page 69 of 130 6/28/2017 Municipal Affairs: Overview of Bill 27, Floodway Development Regulation Consultation Answer Input from stakeholders will help shape the list of acceptable land uses; however, authorized uses that are being considered in the floodway are uses with low flood damage potential. Such uses: do not affect flood elevations; do not increase the public safety risk of a flood; and do not create the potential for highcost flood damages. Such uses might include but are not necessarily limited to the following: agricultural activities; public or private infrastructures (roads, utilities, bridges, etc.); water and waste water treatment plants intake and outfalls; private and public recreational uses, natural areas and environmental reserves; residential or commercial uses not requiring buildings (lawns, gardens, play areas, parking areas etc.) Question What is the current role of municipalities with respect to approval of development in flood hazard areas? Answer The authority for land use planning and development rests with the municipality. Part 17 of the MGA sets out the specific municipal authority for planning including the authority to prepare and adopt plans and bylaws, receive and approve subdivision and development permit applications and hear most appeals of planning decisions. Municipalities are not currently required to address flood hazard lands in their land use bylaw. As a result, bylaws may be absent or inconsistent in scope and application across the province. The regulation will ensure a consistent minimum level of land use control in flood hazard areas is applied across the province. Municipalities may choose to apply higher restrictions. Question Once this regulation comes into force what will be required of municipalities to comply with the floodway restrictions when approving development? Answer Municipalities will need to ensure their statutory plans such as new area structure plans and the land use bylaw are consistent with these provisions where applicable. Municipalities may not approve an application for subdivision in a floodway, based on the maps prepared by the Department of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD), if the application is inconsistent with authorized uses identified for floodways in the Regulation. Municipalities may not issue a development permit for any use or development of vacant land in a floodway, based on the maps prepared by ESRD, if the proposed development is inconsistent with authorized uses identified for floodways in the Regulation. Question How does ESRD create flood hazard maps that define the floodway? Answer http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta.ca/1934 4/6 Page 70 of 130 6/28/2017 Municipal Affairs: Overview of Bill 27, Floodway Development Regulation Consultation The Flood Hazard Identification Program provides information to assist communities in the appropriate development of areas that are susceptible to being impacted by the design flood event. The design flood event has a one per cent chance of occurring annually (this is also known as the 1:100 year flood event). Even though a flood may have a relatively low chance of occurring in any one year, it is possible for several large flood events to occur within a few years of each other. The components of a flood hazard study include a hydrological assessment, topographic data collection, hydraulic modeling and transfer of model data to a flood hazard map. The model uses the design flow from the hydrological assessment and collected river topography data to calculate water levels throughout the study area. The floodway area is defined by the water depth and velocity from the model The final step in the flood hazard study is to take the information from the model and display it on a map. The map provides visual information about the location of the floodway. http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta.ca/1934 5/6 Page 71 of 130 6/28/2017 Municipal Affairs: Overview of Bill 27, Floodway Development Regulation Consultation Date modified: 20141104 © 1995 2017 Government of Alberta Copyright and Disclaimer Using this Site Privacy Statement http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta.ca/1934 6/6 Page 72 of 130 Floodway Development Regulation Task Force Discussion Paper FLOODWAY DEVELOPMENT REGULATION Dated: August 20, 2014 Page 73 of 130 Table of Contents 1. Introduction...... 3 2. General Background ...... 3 3. List of Task Force Member Organizations ...... 4 4. Task Force Terms of Reference ...... 4 5. Application of Act (Section 693.1 of MGA) ...... 5 6. Definitions ...... 6 7. Potential Considerations ...... 7 7.1 New Development in Floodways ...... 8 a. Prohibitions/Restrictions ...... 8 b. Proposed Authorized Uses ...... 8 7.2 Existing Development in Floodways ...... 10 a. Prohibitions/Restrictions ...... 10 b. Proposed Authorized Uses/Development ...... 10 7.3 Exemption Provisions ...... 11 Appendix 1: Other Related Discussions ...... 13 Appendix 2: General Background on the Subdivision & Development Approval Process ...... 15 Appendix 3: Background on the Appeals Process ...... 17 August 2014 Task Force Discussion Paper - Floodway Development Regulation Page 2 of 17 Page 74 of 130 Draft Discussion Paper Floodway Development Regulation 1. Introduction In 2014, Alberta Municipal Affairs established a Task Force of municipal government and development industry stakeholders to provide input on the creation of the Floodway Development Regulation. This discussion paper presents the Task Force’s views on the approaches that should be considered on new and existing development in floodways, and on exemption provisions and other related policy considerations. In some cases, the Task Force members agreed on the approaches to be considered and have provided input for consideration during the drafting of the regulation. As the perspectives of all members of the Task Force have been documented, cases of caution and differing opinions have also been noted. As a next step in the process of developing the regulation, a wider audience of municipalities (with identified flood hazard areas) and development industry officials are being invited to comment on this discussion paper by September 26, 2014, through completing and submitting a workbook via e-mail, or hard-copy mail and/or by attending a one-day symposium on September 12 to further share their views. The Discussion Paper and workbook will also be posted on the Municipal Affairs’ website to enable other interested parties to submit their input via e-mail, or hard-copy mail no later than September 26, 2014. 2. General Background While flooding has been a historical risk associated with Alberta’s multitude of rivers and streams, an increase in extreme weather events and population growth have increased the impact of floods in terms of public safety and the magnitude of property damage and loss. Flood damages represent a significant expense in recent years for the public, municipalities and provincial and federal disaster assistance programs. While the weather cannot be controlled, action can be taken to reduce flood impacts by restricting development in high risk areas. As part of a commitment to implement new controls on future development in flood hazard areas, and to minimize flood impacts and support resilient communities, the Government of Alberta, in December 2013, enacted Bill 27, the Flood Recovery and Reconstruction Act, which amends the Municipal Government Act (MGA) in order to provide for: Regulation-making powers for controlling, regulating or prohibiting any use or development in a floodway, as well as establishing authorized uses; and August 2014 Task Force Discussion Paper - Floodway Development Regulation Page 3 of 17 Page 75 of 130 Ministerial exemptions for a municipal authority or class of municipal authorities from some or all of the general provisions of the Regulation. The Government of Alberta is currently working with the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (Fort McMurray) and the Town of Drumheller, which have special circumstances and significant existing development in the floodway, to develop exemption zones. Once a regulation under this legislation comes into force, it will apply to those municipalities where there are flood hazard areas mapped by Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD). The Regulation will ensure that a consistent, minimum level of land use control will apply in the floodway(s) within these municipalities. Municipalities may choose to impose more restrictive measures within their Land Use Bylaw and statutory plans. Municipalities currently without ESRD flood hazard mapping may implement interim control measures through their land use bylaws on development in potential floodway areas until ESRD mapping is completed. At this time, mapping has been complete for approximately 70% of Alberta’s populated areas and for approximately 10% of the total geographic area. While the province has made a significant investment in mapping ($8.7 million over the next 6-7 years), there is no identified completion date for flood hazard mapping throughout the province. As well, post flood assessments are underway to determine any required changes to existing maps, particularly for high risk communities. 3. List of Task Force Member Organizations The Task Force is comprised of administrative leaders with subject matter or policy expertise relating to planning and development in flood hazard areas. Membership consists of representatives from the following organizations: Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties Alberta Urban Municipalities Association City of Calgary City of Edmonton Town of Canmore Town of Drumheller Town of High River Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Urban Development Institute Alberta 4. Task Force Terms of Reference The Floodway Development Regulation Task Force was established by Municipal Affairs as a working group of municipal and development industry stakeholders brought together to share perspectives, and to provide input for the province to consider when developing the Floodway Development Regulation. The objective of the Floodway Development Regulation Task Force is August 2014 Task Force Discussion Paper - Floodway Development Regulation Page 4 of 17 Page 76 of 130 to support the province’s efforts to prevent future flood damage and rebuild safer and stronger communities, while balancing the interests of all stakeholders. The scope of work of the Task Force was directly related to providing input on development in floodways as defined in the Section 693.1 (1) amendment of the MGA and the proposed Floodway Development Regulation. Under this scope, the Task Force was asked to provide advice on topics that include: Regulation definitions; authorized uses in the floodway; considerations for regulating existing development in the floodway; considerations for prohibiting or restricting new development in the floodway; considerations for existing and new development in areas exempt from the Regulation; the application of provisions based on ESRD’s Flood Hazard Maps; implementation requirements including those that affect other provincial legislation and administrative systems; and other considerations relating to planning and development in flood hazard areas that the Task Force members may wish to raise for future government consideration. 5. Application of Act (Section 693.1 of MGA) The authority for land use planning and development rests with the municipality. Part 17 of the MGA sets out the specific municipal authority for planning including the authority to prepare and adopt plans and bylaws, receive and approve subdivision and development permit applications, and in some cases, to establish boards to hear most appeals of planning decisions. The interaction of the proposed Floodway Development Regulation with other legislation and regulations will be considered at the regulatory drafting stage. Once the proposed Floodway Development Regulation is in force: Municipalities will need to ensure that their statutory plans and land use bylaws are consistent with provisions of the Floodway Development Regulation, where applicable. Municipalities may not approve an application for subdivision in a floodway if the application is inconsistent with the provisions of the Regulation. Municipalities may not issue a development permit for any use or development of vacant land in a floodway if the proposed development is inconsistent with the provisions of the Regulation. August 2014 Task Force Discussion Paper - Floodway Development Regulation Page 5 of 17 Page 77 of 130 6. Definitions The following are concepts that may require clarification through definition in the Floodway Development Regulation. The first four concepts are from ESRD’s publication on the Flood Hazard Identification Program, and the “building” and “development” descriptions are from the MGA. Additional concepts that may require clarification through definition, including new development, existing development, and flood map, will be identified and developed as determined necessary to support the provisions of the Regulation. Flood Hazard Area: The flood hazard area is the area of land that will be flooded during the design flood event under encroached conditions. Once this area is defined, the flood hazard area is typically divided into two zones, the floodway and the flood fringe. Floodway: The floodway is the area within which the entire design flood can be conveyed while meeting certain water elevation rise, water velocity and water depth criteria. The floodway includes areas where the water is 1 m deep or greater, the local velocities are 1 m/s or faster and if the river were encroached upon, the water level rise would be 0.3 m or more. Typically the floodway includes the river channel and adjacent overbank areas. Flood Fringe: The flood fringe is the land along the edges of the flood hazard area that has relatively shallow water (less than 1 m deep) with lower velocities (less than 1 m/s). Technically, it is the part of the flood hazard area that is not included in the floodway. The final flood elevations on the flood hazard maps assume that the entire flood fringe has been filled in and all the flow is conveyed by the floodway. Overland Flow: Areas of overland flow are part of the flood hazard area outside of the floodway, and typically considered special areas of the flood fringe. Building: As per Section 616 of the MGA, “building includes anything constructed or placed on, in, over or under land, but does not include a highway or road or a bridge that forms part of a highway or road.” New Building: A building which has not received a development permit from the appropriate development authority at the time the Floodway Development Regulation takes effect. In case of specific situations where a municipality may not require a development/building permit, any new development shall be considered a New Building. Development: As per Section 616 of the MGA, i) an excavation or stockpile and the creation of either of them, ii) a building, or an addition to or replacement or repair of a building, and the construction or placing of any of them on, in, over, or under land, iii) a change of use of land or a building or an act done in relation to land or building that results in, or is likely to result in a change in the intensity of use of the land or building, or iv) a change in the intensity of use of land or a building or an act done in relation to land or a building that results in, or is likely to result in a change in the intensity of use of the land or building. August 2014 Task Force Discussion Paper - Floodway Development Regulation Page 6 of 17 Page 78 of 130 Infill: Development in the existing built-up areas of a municipality, occurring on vacant or underutilized lands, or behind or between existing developments. Non-structural: A use or activity that does not involve the use or construction of a building. Berm/Dike: An embankment, mound, or structure of earthen material constructed to confine or control the flow of water and to prevent flooding of adjacent upland areas. 7. Potential Considerations Appropriate development consists of non-obstructive development that will not increase flow levels in the case of a flood event and includes low salvage cost uses, or infrastructure that needs to be near a river, such as drain outlets. Immediate action to mitigate future risks from extreme flooding is needed. From a public health and safety perspective and to minimize the taxpayers’ financial burden associated with property damage and loss, it is most effective to keep people and property away from the flood water, rather than attempting to keep the flood water away from people and property. Therefore, the basic principle going forward is that: there should be no new inappropriate development in floodways, while respecting the investment and choices made by current owners of properties in a floodway, regardless of whether they have been affected by a disaster. This will require achieving a policy balance between the desire for no obstructions in the floodway and allowing for necessary or appropriate development in the floodway. The Regulation will enable municipalities to manage floodway development by applying the concept of authorized uses. Authorized uses refer to uses that will not adversely affect flood elevations and that will minimize threats to public safety, while decreasing the potential for flood damages. Although there may still be flood damages associated with the authorized uses, these damages will be much less than if inappropriate development had been allowed in the floodway. The Task Force generated lists of input for consideration in the drafting of a Floodway Development Regulation, under these four sub-headings: New Development in Floodways (prohibitions and authorized uses); Existing Development in Floodways (prohibitions and authorized uses/development); Exemption Provisions; and Other Related Discussions (Appendix 1) August 2014 Task Force Discussion Paper - Floodway Development Regulation Page 7 of 17 Page 79 of 130 Task Force members also rated these inputs based on the general degree to which they supported them, in the form of: Support/Consensus o The Task Force agreed that this input should be considered when drafting the regulation Input Raised with Caution o Some Task Force members raised certain cautions about this input being considered when drafting the regulation. Input Raised with Disagreement o Some Task Force members did not agree whether this input should be considered when drafting the regulation. Where the input raised received disagreement by most of the members, it was noted. The intent of rating the input this way was to identify areas of consensus while ensuring that all perspectives were heard. 7.1 New Development in Floodways a. Prohibitions/Restrictions Support/Consensus: No new buildings should be constructed in the floodway, where a building is defined as per Section 616 of the MGA. Elevating a building (above a determined flood level) as a form of mitigation against flood waters in a floodway is not considered appropriate. b. Proposed Authorized Uses Support/Consensus: New uses (excluding buildings) that may be authorized in a floodway are as follows: o Public parks, green spaces, and pathways/walking trails, provided they are engineered in a way that minimizes damages and the obstruction of the flood flow. o Agricultural uses such as crop production, grazing, horticulture, forestry, sod farming and wild crop harvesting. o Projects such as roads or utility infrastructure that are approved by the municipal/ regulatory authority and are engineered in a way that minimizes damages and the obstruction of the flood flow. o Uses designated as Environmental Reserve (ER). Input Raised with Caution: New uses that may be authorized in the floodway are as follows: o A new storm sewer drainage system or sanitary outfall pond, if there is no adverse impact on flood water levels up or down stream. o Agricultural structures requiring development approval by a municipal authority. August 2014 Task Force Discussion Paper - Floodway Development Regulation Page 8 of 17 Page 80 of 130 . There may be inconsistencies between municipalities as each jurisdiction may have different development permit requirements. o Berms and dikes may be considered depending on ESRD approval. . Berms and dikes obstruct flow up and down stream. Additionally, if the flood flow is beyond their designed capacity, these structures have a greater probability of failure. o Gravel pits, subject to an ESRD approval license. . Significant aggregate resources are located near water bodies like rivers that are needed to support construction and development. . Gravel pits and stockpiles may create an obstruction to the flood flow if left in the same location for an indefinite period of time. Input Raised with Disagreement: Public and private recreations may be authorized provided no major buildings or equipment related to the recreational use occur in the floodway and no other aspects of the use occur in a manner that would result in major obstacles on the land in the floodway, causing an obstruction to flood flow. o Private recreations and major buildings need to be defined. o Certain private recreations will require some sort of permanent structure that may obstruct the flood flow up and down stream. All floodway land should be designated as ER. o If all floodway is designated ER then it may provide a high level of flood mitigation through controlling erosion and creating a healthy riparian habitat. o The floodway’s highest purpose is flood control. Activities (even green ones) that fall outside of ER limitations should be prohibited. Certain parks/crops/turf areas strip away riparian vegetation that slows down water flow and provides bank stabilization. o The majority of stakeholders did not share this view and provided the following reasons for their disagreement: . Designating all floodway areas as ER would be overly restrictive and not allow for reasonable low impact uses (without passing a bylaw), such as parks, public or private recreational uses without buildings that would provide a significant benefit to the community without obstructing the flood flow. . Designating all floodway as ER would create a negative impact on many agricultural lands that use the floodway, and would place a large burden on municipalities to manage the land. . Municipalities can only require the dedication of ER at the time of subdivision. Municipalities may not subsequently or retroactively take ER in settled areas. August 2014 Task Force Discussion Paper - Floodway Development Regulation Page 9 of 17 Page 81 of 130 7.2 Existing Development in Floodways a. Prohibitions/Restrictions Support/Consensus: There is to be no redevelopment or additions to existing buildings in the floodway that will result in expanding the building footprint and/or changing the building use. o The purpose is to prohibit any additional building footprints in the floodway that would increase obstruction to the flood flow. There should be no infill development in the floodway, even within existing developments, as it may obstruct the flood flow both up and down stream, creating a safety threat to the public and increasing property damage to existing development. Even if community mitigation efforts (berms, reservoirs) are in place, additions or extensions to existing buildings in floodways should not be allowed. Subdivisions and vacant lots in existing neighborhoods should allow for authorized, low impact uses, such as parks, which will not obstruct the flood flow. Input Raised with Caution: Part of a property in the floodway does not designate the whole property in the floodway for the purpose of applying the Regulation provisions. o If only part of a property is in the floodway, development on the part of property which is outside of the floodway may be authorized, subject to a municipality’s development conditions. Development within the floodway, other than authorized uses, should be prohibited. Subdivisions and vacant lots in existing neighborhoods should allow for authorized, low impact uses, such as roads, which will not obstruct the flood flow. o However, a road is not a natural state. Removing any riparian vegetation reduces natural flood mitigation. Input Raised with Disagreement: Development with provisions for small, ancillary, non-habitable buildings may be authorized in rural situations where there is limited potential to obstruct the flood flow and impact neighboring properties, buildings, and public safety. o However, any new building or structure in a rural floodway situation may create an obstruction to the river flow and create a threat to the safety of the public. b. Proposed Authorized Uses/Development Support/Consensus: Existing uses/development that may be authorized in the floodway are: o Rebuilding in the floodway on an existing building footprint for the same use. o Repairs or renovations of existing buildings for the same type of use on the existing building footprint. August 2014 Task Force Discussion Paper - Floodway Development Regulation Page 10 of 17 Page 82 of 130 o Parks and non-structural recreational uses, with limitations (Ex: no recreational vehicle (RV) parks, since such parks may pose a hazard to life and property if the RVs are left stationary for indefinite periods of time and a flood event occurs). o Small renovations within the existing building footprint (ex: 5% to 10% of the floor area). o Major renovations within the existing building footprint (ex: greater than 10% of the floor area), including rebuilding, should trigger mitigation requirements as prescribed by the approval authority to protect and ensure the building is as flood resilient as possible. o Required municipal infrastructure. o Berms, dikes, or gravel pits may be considered depending on circumstances, subject to ESRD approval. 7.3 Exemption Provisions The Minister of Municipal Affairs may exempt a municipal authority or class of municipal authorities from the application of all or part of the Regulation, thereby allowing the government to vary how the Regulation will apply in situations where it would be impractical, impossible, or economically detrimental to restrict development in the floodway, provided there are adequate measures in place to protect against a flood event. Support/Consensus: Stakeholders’ proposed definition of exemption: o a geographical area in which, based on circumstances, the Regulation or parts thereof do not apply; or o a geographical area in which certain development activities can be undertaken that are not normally allowed in the floodway. Any exemptions for floodway areas need to be based on an agreed set of criteria, and need to demonstrate appropriate mitigation measures that are sufficient enough to remove/minimize risk to life and property of the users, such as diversions, dry dams, dikes and other such measures (depending upon engineering analysis). Input Raised with Disagreement: Municipalities should have the power to decide on exemptions. o The majority of stakeholders did not share this view and provided the following reasons for their disagreement: . A municipality may not have the capacity to complete an engineering analysis and devise a consistent process to carry out appropriate risk management strategies for exempted areas. . If municipalities are allowed to dictate exemptions, they may not have the capacity to analyze the risk caused by exemptions to downstream and neighboring communities. August 2014 Task Force Discussion Paper - Floodway Development Regulation Page 11 of 17 Page 83 of 130 . Details are needed on how an appeal process would work for affected communities to voice their concerns on the impact of an exemption. . Liability for a loss associated with an exemption must be addressed. August 2014 Task Force Discussion Paper - Floodway Development Regulation Page 12 of 17 Page 84 of 130 Appendix 1: Other Related Discussions Support/Consensus: There should be one portal (ex: website) for all provincial flood information. The Regulation should have consideration for existing local and provincial policies for effective implementation at the local level. There should be consistent application of the Regulation across the province based on common criteria. Clarity of responsibilities for addressing flooding issues is needed between the federal and provincial governments, and municipalities. Tools for municipalities to deal with flood hazard areas need to be developed, including tools to apply innovative options for discouraging development in the floodway. The floodway boundaries should be updated based on the most current and complete flood event data. There should be consideration for an additional regulation dealing with the flood fringe. Input Raised with Caution: Place caveats or notifications on existing properties in the floodway whether they have received DRP funding or not. o Some felt caveat/notification provisions should not include municipal or provincial properties. o Certain provincial and federal legislation does not allow for registering caveats on certain types of properties such as Municipal and Environmental Reserves. Additionally, there may be concerns regarding accommodating the registration of certain types of caveats in the land titles system/database. o If caveats or other notifications are registered to properties, there must be a mechanism to remove these caveats if/when the flood hazard maps change and it results in a property no longer being in a designated floodway. Consideration for a consistent buyout policy should be looked at in the future. o A proactive buyout policy should be considered. Buyouts may be less expensive than mitigation options to reduce risk. Input Raised with Disagreement: Expand the uses of ER and ER easements. o A significant number of stakeholders wanted the intended use of ER to remain the same as currently stated in Section 671(1) of the MGA. There should be avenues to appeal any Subdivision and Development Authority (SDA) decision for land in the floodway with the understanding that the minimum standards in the Regulation would apply. August 2014 Task Force Discussion Paper - Floodway Development Regulation Page 13 of 17 Page 85 of 130 o General appeal provisions already exist under the MGA. o When a municipality goes beyond the provincial standards, as set out in the Regulation, the municipality should have the legislative tools provided in the Regulation for use in defending the municipality’s more restrictive standards. Attention needs to be given to addressing how to deal with liabilities for private recreation in floodways in case of a flood event. A policy should address the non-structural mitigation approach, including buyouts and incentives. o After a buyout, the provincial government should consider giving the land back to the municipality, if appropriate. o If incentives are permitted, there may be inconsistencies across the province due to local bylaws. o Non-structural mitigation may not work in developed areas due to a number of factors, including existing municipal services, property values, and other amenities which may not be available in a new location. Flood Hazard Mapping: Support/Consensus: A policy is needed for municipalities with no flood hazard maps. Stakeholders indicated that many municipalities would like to complete their own flood hazard mapping in partnership with ESRD, ensuring that a common provincial standard is maintained. o Funding support from the province should be considered. Municipal statutory plans and land use bylaw/zoning maps should, at a minimum, be aligned with ESRD flood hazard area maps. There should be a policy on the timing of periodic reviews/updates of flood mapping (ex: how often maps are updated). Regulation should address future floodway levels (maps) as they change, including providing legal protection to municipalities for liabilities which may arise from decisions made based on a previous set of maps, which may no longer reflect current conditions. Input Raised with Caution: Policy attention is needed for areas outside mapped flood hazard areas. August 2014 Task Force Discussion Paper - Floodway Development Regulation Page 14 of 17 Page 86 of 130 Appendix 2: General Background on the Subdivision & Development Approval Process The intent of this appendix is to provide a general overview for those who may be unfamiliar with municipal planning processes. Municipal statutory plans and bylaws may vary across the province, so long as they stay within the provisions set out by the Municipal Government Act. All development must comply with the Alberta Land Stewardship Act (ALSA) regional plans, Part 17 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA), the Subdivision and Development Regulation (SDR), and the land use bylaw. Most development will require a development permit. In some cases, statutory plans and land use bylaws must be amended, or subdivision applications approved, before a development permit can be issued. Statutory Plan and Land Use Bylaw Amendments If a development proposal cannot be approved because it does not conform to the land use bylaw, a proponent may apply to the municipal council to amend the bylaw. If a statutory plan amendment is also required to accompany the land use bylaw amendment, municipalities generally will coordinate these amendments where required. A staff report and recommendation are usually prepared and forwarded to council. Notice must be given of an application for both a statutory plan and a land use bylaw amendment and council must hold a public hearing before giving second reading (MGA section 692). Council's decision on proposed amendments to the land use bylaw or statutory plans is final. There is no legislated time frame within which council must consider applications for amendment. Ordinarily, the minimum time is that required for at least two meetings of council, during which period notice must be given and the public hearing held. Depending on the complexity of the amendment, additional time may be necessary to prepare more extensive staff reports and review. Subdivision Application If a development proposal requires land to be subdivided, a subdivision application must be submitted to the municipal subdivision authority. The proposed subdivision must conform to ALSA regional plans, any statutory plan, land use bylaw, the MGA, and the SDR. Under section 6 of the SDR, a subdivision authority must decide on an application within 60 days. An applicant may consider a failure to make a decision within this 60-day period a "deemed refusal." The subdivision authority may refuse an application, approve it, or approve it with conditions. The written decision of the subdivision authority must include reasons for its decision under section 8 of the SDR. Development Permit Application After any required subdivision has been approved or statutory plan or land use bylaw amendments passed, a developer may apply for a development permit. An application for a permitted use that complies with the standards for a district must be approved, with or without August 2014 Task Force Discussion Paper - Floodway Development Regulation Page 15 of 17 Page 87 of 130 conditions. Applications for discretionary uses or applications for permitted uses that do not meet all the standards set out for a district may be approved, conditionally approved, or refused. Applications for uses that are neither permitted nor discretionary within a district must be refused. The development authority must make a decision on a development permit within 40 days, unless the applicant and development authority agree to extend the time, and notify affected persons of the decision in accordance with the land use bylaw. An applicant may consider a failure to make a decision within this period a "deemed refusal." August 2014 Task Force Discussion Paper - Floodway Development Regulation Page 16 of 17 Page 88 of 130 Appendix 3: Background on the Appeals Process The intent of this appendix is to provide a general overview for those who may be unfamiliar with the subdivision and development appeal process. Subdivision Appeals The subdivision authority's decision or deemed refusal may be appealed to the subdivision and development appeal board. An appeal may be launched by the applicant, a provincial government department that was referred the application originally, council of the municipality (if the municipality is not the subdivision authority), or school authority (for matters related to municipal reserve and school reserve). Notice of the appeal must be filed with the subdivision and development appeal board within 14 days of receipt of the notice of the decision or the deemed refusal. If the notice was mailed, section 678(3) of the MGA allows 5 days for the notice to be received. This means the appeal period extends to 19 days if the notice is mailed. If, based on the legislation, the application is determined to involve a provincial interest; the appeal must be to the Municipal Government Board. The subdivision and development appeal board must hold a hearing within 30 days and give a written decision with the reasons for the decision within 15 days of concluding the hearing. The Municipal Government Board must hold a hearing within 60 days and give a written decision with reasons for the decision within 15 days of concluding the hearing. Regardless of which board makes the decision, it can be further appealed to the Court of Appeal on a question of law or jurisdiction. Development Permit Appeals An appeal may be launched by the applicant or by other affected persons by filing a notice of appeal with the subdivision and development appeal board within 14 days of receiving notice of the decision or of the deemed refusal. If mailed, the Interpretation Act deems the notice delivered after 7 days have lapsed, bringing the appeal period to 21 days. Where the use is permitted under the land use bylaw, decisions may be appealed only if the appellant believes the provisions of the bylaw were relaxed, varied, or misinterpreted. The subdivision and development appeal board must hold a hearing within 30 days of receiving the notice of appeal and must give a written decision within 15 days of the conclusion of the hearing. The board's decision may be further appealed to the Court of Appeal on a question of law or jurisdiction. August 2014 Task Force Discussion Paper - Floodway Development Regulation Page 17 of 17 Page 89 of 130 Flood Hazard Identification Program The potential for flooding exists along all rivers and Terminology and Definitions: streams in Alberta. Flood Hazard Area Flooding can cause damage to property, hardship to The flood hazard area is typically people and in extreme events, loss of life. To assist divided into floodway and flood fringe Albertans in mitigating potential flood losses, Alberta zones and may also include areas of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development overland flow. manages the production of flood hazard studies and mapping under the provincial Flood Hazard Identification Floodway Program. The portion of the flood hazard area where flows are deepest, fastest and Individuals and all levels of government have a most destructive. The floodway typically responsibility to reduce flood hazards within their areas includes the main channel of a stream and of jurisdiction and have a role in managing flood a portion of the adjacent overbank area. hazard areas through appropriate land-use planning. New development is discouraged in the floodway. Program History Flood Fringe Flood hazard studies and mapping have been produced The portion of the flood hazard area by the Government of Alberta since the 1970s. Alberta outside of the floodway. Water in the flood Environment and Sustainable Resource Development fringe is generally shallower and flows continues to produce studies and mapping under the more slowly than in the floodway. New Flood Hazard Identification Program. The maps have been development in the flood fringe may be available online since 2004. permitted in some communities and should be floodproofed. Overland Flow Flood Hazard Mapping Flood hazard mapping marks out flood hazard areas along Areas of overland flow are part of the flood streams and lakes using design flood levels. In Alberta, hazard area outside of the floodway, and design floods are one per cent flood events, which are are typically considered special areas of also called 100-year floods. the flood fringe. Design Flood The Flood Hazard Map Application uses GIS technology to display flood hazard mapping prepared for Alberta The current design standard in Alberta communities. is the one percent flood, defined as a flood whose magnitude has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any year. Although it can be referred to as a 100-year flood, this does not mean that it will only occur once every hundred years. Design Flood Levels Modelled water elevations within a flood hazard area based on a design flood (a one per cent flood). Design flood levels do not change as a result of development or obstruction of flows within the flood fringe. Please contact Alberta Environment Encroachment Conditions and Sustainable Resource Development at [email protected] for more information. The flood hazard design case that assumes a scenario where the flood fringe is fully developed. Flood Hazard Identification Program Dec 10, 2014 Page 1 of 2 © 2014 Government of Alberta Page 90 of 130 Floodway and Flood Fringe Zones Learn more and view maps online at ersd.alberta.ca/flood-hazard Flood Hazard Identification Program Dec 10, 2014 Page 2 of 2 © 2014 Government of Alberta Page 91 of 130 Update Bill 27 & Floodway Development Regulation (FDR) Page 92 of 130 Why Bill 27 and the Floodway Development Regulation • The floodway is that portion of land where flows are deepest, fastest and most destructive. • Floodways represent an ongoing risk to people who wish to build there. • The intent is to control new and ongoing use of lands in a floodway and to allow redevelopment of existing properties similar to their current use and footprint. • An approach that honours the investment and choices made by current owners of properties in a floodway. • Restricting and regulating development in floodways will help limit property damage and risks to public Page 93 of 130 safety posed by future floods. Overview of Bill 27 • Bill 27, the Flood Recovery and Reconstruction Act was enacted in December, 2013 and amends the MGA to create. – regulation making powers for controlling, regulating or prohibiting any use or development in a floodway; and – a provision to exempt floodway development in municipalities with unique geographic circumstances and significant development already in a floodway such as Fort McMurray and Drumheller. • Aimed at rebuilding safer and stronger communities and limiting the potential for future flood damage. Page 94 of 130 Consultation on the FDR A two phased approach to stakeholder engagement began in May 2014: • Phase I: – Established a Task Force of AUMA, AAMDC, UDI, the cities of Calgary and Edmonton, the towns of Drumheller and Canmore, and the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo. – Held three meetings and developed a discussion paper and workbook. • Phase II: – The discussion paper was taken to a broader audience of municipalities with flood hazard areas at a one day symposium. 51 stakeholders attended. Page 95 of 130 – An online workbook and survey was accessible to all Albertans. Over 250 feedback submissions were received. Consultation on the FDR • The Phase I task force considered several issues under the following categories: – New Development – Existing Development – Exemption Provisions – Other Related Discussions • These issues were the key discussion points in Phase II. However, stakeholders were still able to comment on non-consensus issues. • Consultation is now complete and evaluation of all stakeholder input is being finalized. Page 96 of 130 Flood Hazard Mapping – Municipal Affairs has been working closely with ESRD’s Flood Hazard Mapping team throughout the consultation. Flood Hazard Mapping Update: – More than 70% of Alberta’s populated areas have completed studies and maps – $8.7 million towards flood hazard mapping studies over the next 6-7 years – Future flood hazard mapping policy for new studies under consideration Page 97 of 130 Next Steps • MA and ESRD will continue to work closely on addressing issues and developing supporting policies. • Careful consideration will be given to the various stakeholder perspectives as part of drafting of the regulation. • Regulation expected in early 2015. Page 98 of 130 Thanks Page 99 of 130 2013 Bill 27 First Session, 28th Legislature, 62 Elizabeth II THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA BILL 27 FLOOD RECOVERY AND RECONSTRUCTION ACT THE MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS First Reading ...... Second Reading ...... Committee of the Whole ...... Third Reading ...... Royal Assent ...... Page 100 of 130 Bill 27 BILL 27 2013 FLOOD RECOVERY AND RECONSTRUCTION ACT (Assented to , 2013) HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, enacts as follows: Emergency Management Act Amends RSA 2000 cE-6.8 1(1) The Emergency Management Act is amended by this section. (2) Section 6 is amended by adding the following after clause (c): (c.1) respecting the providing of funding for the reimbursement of costs incurred by local authorities and individuals in connection with measures taken to reduce or mitigate potential flood hazards, including, without limitation, regulations (i) prescribing or describing the measures to be taken to reduce or mitigate potential flood hazards that are eligible for the reimbursement of costs, and (ii) governing the procedures applicable to and the proof required for the reimbursement of costs; (c.2) respecting the filing and removal of caveats against titles to land in a flood fringe or floodway, as those terms are defined in the regulations, for which funding has been provided pursuant to a disaster recovery program administered under the regulations; 1 Page 101 of 130 Explanatory Notes Emergency Management Act 1(1) Amends chapter E-6.8 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000. (2) Additional regulation-making authority added. 1 Explanatory Notes Page 102 of 130 (3) Section 18(4)(a) is amended by striking out “14 days” and substituting “28 days”. Municipal Government Act Amends RSA 2000 cM-26 2(1) The Municipal Government Act is amended by this section. (2) The following is added after section 615: Municipal emergency exemption 615.1(1) In this section, (a) “disaster” means a disaster as defined in section 1(e) of the Emergency Management Act; (b) “emergency” means an emergency as defined in section 1(f) of the Emergency Management Act. (2) Where it appears to the Minister that a disaster or an emergency exists in a municipal authority, the Minister may by order, with respect to that municipal authority or an adjacent municipal authority, (a) modify one or more provisions of this Act as they apply to the municipal authority, (b) exempt the municipal authority from one or more provisions of this Act or bylaws made pursuant to this Act, or (c) provide the municipal authority with specified authority in addition to that set out in this Act. (3) The Minister may, in an order made under subsection (2), 2 Page 103 of 130 (3) Section 18(4) presently reads: (4) Unless continued by a resolution of the Legislative Assembly, an order under subsection (1) expires at the earlier of the following: (a) at the end of 14 days, but if the order is in respect of a pandemic influenza, at the end of 90 days; (b) when the order is terminated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Municipal Government Act 2(1) Amends chapter M-26 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000. (2) Municipal emergency exemption. 2 Explanatory Notes Page 104 of 130 (a) impose terms, conditions and timelines on the modification or exemption of a provision of this Act or a bylaw or the exercise of additional authority, and (b) specify a date on which the order or any provision of it expires. (4) The Regulations Act does not apply to an order made under subsection (2). (3) The following is added after section 693: Development in floodways 693.1(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations (a) controlling, regulating or prohibiting any use or development of land that is located in a floodway within a municipal authority, including, without limitation, regulations specifying the types of developments that are authorized in a floodway; (b) exempting a municipal authority or class of municipal authorities from the application of all or part of this section or the regulations made under this subsection, or both; (c) modifying or suspending the application or operation of any provision of this Act for the purposes of giving effect to this section; (d) defining, or respecting the meaning of, “floodway” for the purposes of this section and the regulations made under this subsection. (2) Unless the contrary is expressed in regulations made under subsection (1), those regulations (a) operate despite any statutory plan, land use bylaw or other regulations under this Part, and (b) are binding on any subdivision authority, development authority and subdivision and development appeal board and the Municipal Government Board. 3 Page 105 of 130 (3) Development in floodways. 3 Explanatory Notes Page 106 of 130 (3) If a municipal authority is affected by a regulation made under subsection (1), the municipal authority must amend any relevant statutory plan and its land use bylaw to conform with the regulation. (4) Section 692 does not apply to an amendment pursuant to subsection (3). 4 Page 107 of 130 4 Explanatory Notes Page 108 of 130 Page 109 of 130 Page 110 of 130 RECORD OF DEBATE Stage Date Member From To Questions and Comments From To Stage Date Member From To Questions and Comments From To Stage Date Member From To Questions and Comments From To Stage Date Member From To Questions and Comments From To Title: 2012-2013 (28th, 1st) Bill 27, Flood Recovery and Reconstruction Act Page 111 of 130 Respecting Our Rivers Alberta’s Approach to Flood Mitigation Page 112 of 130 The flooding that occurred throughout Alberta in June 2013 was unprecedented. More than 100,000 Albertans were impacted in over 30 communities, and rebuilding costs are estimated to exceed $6 billion. But Albertans are strong, and as we rebuild, we need to explore ways to make our province as resilient as its people. We can’t prevent future floods, but we can take precautions to limit the damage they cause. We know that this is not only the work of weeks or months, it’s the work of years. And I promise you, just as we have been, we will continue to be there every step of the way. – Premier Alison Redford Page 113 of 130 Through various mitigation efforts, we can provide layers of resiliency against flooding, reduce negative downstream impacts and bring together projects at the regional and local levels. Seven key elements will guide our approach to mitigation: watershed management, flood modelling and warning systems, risk management policies, water management and mitigation infrastructure, erosion control, local initiatives, and individual initiatives. Overall Watershed Management Watershed Albertans asked us to take a big-picture view of flood mitigation. To do this Or drainage basin, is an area properly, it’s important to understand how water flows in a region. Where does of land that captures surface water and funnels it to a single water drain and where it is held? How do interconnected drainage points point at a lower elevation. ultimately feed into our rivers? The answers to these questions help us avoid They are complex, natural mitigation projects that have negative impacts downstream and will influence systems, and Alberta has future decisions on water and land use in the watershed. a number of them. When a watershed experiences an increase of water in its system Provincial actions – often due to excessive • Consult with Watershed Planning and Advisory Councils, irrigation districts rain or snow melt – water and other stakeholders across the province levels throughout it can rise. • Implement the Alberta Wetland Strategy to protect and maintain wetlands If overwhelmed by excessive • Maintain and manage healthy river systems in ways that minimize manmade water, flooding may occur. impacts and allow rivers to sustain themselves • Development of guidelines for assessing mountain creek hazards and risks, One per cent flood and a province-wide inventory of debris hazard locations to advance a policy A flood that has a one per cent of managing debris-related risk chance of occurring or being exceeded each year. Flood Modelling Prediction and Warning Systems It’s impossible to know what nature is going to do next – just ask any Albertan how quickly the weather can change – but there are ways to predict where water is going to go during a flood. By developing new models of water flow, we are building the most reliable flood hazard studies and maps possible. When complete, they will provide the necessary insight to better prepare for future floods. Provincial actions • Invest more than $8.5 million to update flood hazard mapping • Accelerate mapping of new areas and high risk communities • Modelling accuracy and forecast evaluation being reviewed 3 Page 114 of 130 Flood Risk Management Policies Flood Hazard Area We will never be able to completely eliminate the flood risk faced by some The total area flooded by communities, but we can take steps to manage it. Part of this is accepting that a one per cent flood. It is usually divided into floodway sometimes it’s more practical to keep people away from water, rather than trying and flood fringe zones. to keep water away from people. This fall, the Redford Government passed legislation to limit future development Floodway Zone in floodways and rolled out a plan to help families relocate out of the most at-risk The portion of the flood hazard areas if they so choose. We’ve also updated building codes and engineering area where flows are deepest, requirements in flood fringe zones. These are some of the simple, common-sense fastest and most destructive. solutions that Albertans asked for. New provincial legislation prohibits further development in these areas, and those Provincial actions who live within them are being • Introduce a relocation program for homes in the most flood-prone areas provided with assistance to relocate. • Passed legislation to prohibit development in floodways • Evaluating potential for flood insurance Flood Fringe Zone Floodwater in the flood fringe is generally shallower and flows more slowly than in the floodway. It is safe Water Management and Mitigation Infrastructure to live in the fringe and new development is permitted. Infrastructure will play an important part in providing layers of resiliency against However, home owners should floods. Dikes, berms, dams and diversions can reduce the flow of water during take precautions and put flood conditions. However, these are large, complex engineering projects that take mitigation measures in place. time to design and build properly. Our commitment to Albertans is to provide flood mitigation solutions that make sense. This means moving forward with the best solutions, not merely the fastest ones. Albertans can be confident that when new flood mitigation infrastructure is approved, it is done so only after we have studied the impact it will have on water management in the region, consulted impacted communities and conducted a thorough environmental impact assessment. Provincial actions • Begin High River diversion canal project in 2014 • Develop comprehensive engineering reports for the Bow, Elbow, Highwood, South Saskatchewan, Sheep, Oldman, Red Deer and Athabasca rivers • Conducting consultation and environmental review on the High River diversion and Elbow River dry dam • Funded feasibility study for Calgary underground diversion • Accelerate approvals for viable upstream mitigation infrastructure following engineering studies 4 Page 115 of 130 Erosion Control Flood Facts Rivers don’t just flow higher during a flood; they flow harder, faster and carry • The Highwood River more debris. This causes erosion, which weakens the stability of a riverbank reached a preliminary peak and can damage homes, infrastructure and the environment. flow of 754m3/s below Little Bow Canal – ten times its To defend against this, we’re undertaking erosion control projects to repair June average – before the and reinforce Alberta’s most susceptible riverbanks. Investing in erosion control gauge was washed away. today makes our rivers more durable—ensuring water flows within natural • More than 22 Olympic-sized channels in the future—and protects important infrastructure such as highways swimming pools of material and bridges during floods. have been scraped to re-establish the safe flow of the Highwood River. Provincial actions • Invest more than $210 million for erosion control projects • Erosion control projects underway in Calgary, Medicine Hat, Canmore, High River, the Municipal District of Bighorn, Rocky View County and Mountain View County, with many more projects in final review • Ensure all major erosion control projects are completed by the end of 2015 and continue to proactively manage erosion across the province Nothing was going to stop the flood that hit us this time. Absolutely nothing. – George Groeneveld, author of the 2006 Provincial Flood Mitigation Report 5 Page 116 of 130 Local Mitigation Initiatives by Municipalities All levels of leadership need to be involved when preparing for future floods. Through consultation and partnerships, we’re empowering local authorities in flood-hazard areas to make the right decisions regarding mitigation efforts. Flood Facts By reassessing future development, considering local engineering projects • 100,000 Albertans were and raising public awareness of flood precautions, municipalities are able affected by the floods to address mitigation in ways that best suit their individual needs. in 30 communities. • 55,000 km2 of the Provincial actions province was impacted. • Consult with municipalities on local mitigation • 32 local governments • Provide a Municipal Recovery Toolkit to help guide communities declared local states with rebuilding of emergency, and the • Plans and funding requests received from Drumheller, Medicine Hat, flood resulted in Alberta Red Deer County, Calgary and High River declaring its first ever State • Implement robust emergency management plans throughout of Provincial Emergency. Alberta communities • Around Canmore, more than 220mm of rain fell in just 36 hours, nearly half of the town’s annual average rainfall. Individual Mitigation Measures for Homes • In the Highwood River basin, rainfall amounts Flood protection for your family starts at home. There are a few simple steps at one weather station you can take to make your home flood resilient. Basements should be properly recorded 325mm in less sealed from the elements and refinished with materials that resist water than 48 hours. damage. Electrical panels that are located below ground should be shielded or moved, and plumbing should be protected from sewer backups. We are working hard to reduce the risk of future flooding in Alberta, but this risk will never be completely eliminated. It’s important that Albertans living in flood-prone areas are prepared. Provincial actions • Update flood mitigation building and repair codes for homes in flood fringes • Ensure Disaster Recovery Program funding is available to assist with individual mitigation 6 Page 117 of 130 Flood Mitigation Timeline Immediate (Fall 2013 – Spring 2014) • Erosion control begins • Relocation of homes in floodway • Flood legislation introduced • Municipal mitigation efforts begin, including dikes and rivers • Accelerate engineering and environmental review of pilot dam upstream of Elbow River • Feasibility and engineering studies of large mitigation projects, including Bow River • Environmental review begins • Updates to flood hazard maps begin • Release the Municipal Recovery Toolkit • Update flood mitigation building codes Short Term (Spring 2014 – Spring 2015) • Highwood River diversion project begins • Complete municipal mitigation projects • Decide on and implement Bow River mitigation • Consultations on water management infrastructure begins • Implement updated modeling and prediction systems Medium Term (Spring 2015 – Fall 2016) • Construction of water management infrastructure begins • All erosion control projects complete • Provincial flood-risk assessment complete • Watershed management solutions implemented • Protection of water and waste-water facilities complete • Floodway policy solutions fully implemented • Implement robust emergency management plans across municipalities Long Term (Fall 2016 – Spring 2020) • Long-term engineering solutions begin to be completed • Municipal mitigation and resiliency plans completed When we think about what happened here in June, people won’t remember the flood. They won’t remember the amount of basements dug out. They won’t remember the damage. But I dare say what they will remember is how people came together to rebuild lives. – Rick Fraser, Associate Minister of Regional Recovery and Reconstruction for High River 7 Page 118 of 130 The future of flood mitigation in Alberta Rethinking how our province addresses flood events began before the June 2013 floods were over. We started with an assessment of what worked and – more importantly – what didn’t. We spoke to people who could provide the most valuable insight. Step one in Alberta’s flood mitigation future was listening. In the weeks and months since the largest natural disaster in Canadian history, we heard from international experts and lifelong Albertans. We made note of lessons learned here at home, in other provinces, the United States and overseas. We gathered ideas on flood mitigation, then stepped back so they could be challenged. The result is a new way of thinking about flood mitigation. It’s the big-picture view that Albertans asked for; one that clearly connects the dots between nature and infrastructure, policy and common sense. Albertans have already seen this plan in action. We’re updating our flood hazard studies to identify areas at risk, introducing new rules to limit development in floodways and developing a plan to help Albertans move away from our province’s most flood-prone areas. Riverbanks that were eroded due to high water and debris during the floods are being repaired and enhanced. And we’re just getting started. Other flood mitigation solutions will follow in the coming months and years. We’ll consult Albertans, First Nations, municipalities, farmers, industry and other stakeholders. Together we’ll find the best solutions to provide layers of resiliency against extreme weather events. We are more focused, more committed than ever to implementing a flood mitigation plan that protects Alberta’s people, infrastructure, economy and environment. This is just one of the many ways we’re building Alberta. www.alberta.ca February 2014 Page 119 of 130 Resilience and Mitigation Framework for Alberta Floods December, 2013 [email protected] Purpose of the Framework The purpose of this framework is to outline the approach Alberta will use to plan, coordinate, assess and implement flood mitigation projects on a watershed basis (see Appendix A for Alberta’s watersheds). The approach will reduce the risk of future flood events causing negative impacts on communities, the economy, and the environment. The approach will consider balancing water supply with water needs given the potential risk of drought. The approved mitigation projects will likely vary for each of the watersheds. Public and stakeholder consultation and cost/benefit analyses will be important components of projects that are brought forward. Alberta’s Flood Mitigation Strategic Plan Flood mitigation is crucial to reduce the impacts of future flood damage. Mitigation includes short- and long-term projects that add layers of resiliency against future floods, reduces negative downstream impacts, and brings together projects at the regional and local levels. The key elements guiding the mitigation approach include: Overall watershed management that looks at flood and drought and ensures upstream solutions don't have negative impacts in downstream communities or vice versa. The best technology for river modelling, prediction and warning systems. A review of all pertinent water management and development policies within risk areas. Working with municipalities, the private sector, the public and other stakeholders to gather and act on the best ideas we can to advance water management infrastructure in Alberta. Enhancing the government's current approach to erosion control. Supporting communities that are developing their own initiatives for flood mitigation. Supporting individual home owners, so they can better protect their homes from future floods. See Appendix B for details on immediate, short, medium, and long term deliverables. 1 Page 120 of 130 The Importance of Hazard, Risk and Vulnerability Assessment It is often said that the best form of mitigation is to avoid the hazard in the first place. Effective mitigation uses a range of options to create and sustain resiliency across the province. A thorough assessment of hazard and risk is critical so that decision-makers can take informed action to reduce vulnerability and increase community resilience. Flood vulnerability may be reduced by reducing the seriousness of the hazard (e.g., shave off peak flows) and reducing exposure (e.g., move people out of flood ways) so risks to people, property, infrastructure, and the environment are lessened. Arguably, the best approach to flood mitigation is to reduce exposure as reducing the hazard is difficult. There are structural and non-structural approaches to resiliency and mitigation. Structural approaches include options such as berms, dikes and building standards. Non-structural includes policy direction, legislation, and natural services opportunities. The fundamental principle guiding resiliency and mitigation decisions is to work with the water, rather than against it. Healthy river systems are to be maintained and managed in such a way as to avoid and minimize manmade impacts to rivers so that the rivers can sustain themselves. Where possible, Alberta will look at mitigation approaches that encourage future developments to be built outside of flood risk zones. However, where that is not possible, the Government of Alberta will look at a suite of mitigation options that minimize future risk of flooding and that create a more resilient environment in the event of a flood or drought occurring. The Government of Alberta will continue to work with local authorities and experts to develop more accurate flood hazard and vulnerability maps, risk assessment tools, and awareness and outreach support to help make sound floodplain management decisions and take action to reduce the risk and vulnerability arising from floods. Resilience and Mitigation Project Review Working with government ministries, municipalities, and 3rd party experts as necessary, the Resilience and Mitigation team of the Flood Recovery Task Force will coordinate and compile a comprehensive list of water management mitigation projects, concepts and ideas. The team will undertake an initial screening to assess the proposed projects, concepts and ideas based on predetermined project screening criteria. The successful projects will then undergo a more in- depth feasibility assessment using third-party consultants as necessary. The Government of Alberta Mitigation Team will review the feasibility assessments and make a final recommendation of prioritized projects to the Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) Flood Recovery Task Force for the projects that should be implemented. Projects endorsed at the ADM level will be submitted for a final funding decision to the Ministerial Task Force. Mitigation projects will be 2 Page 121 of 130 subject to the requirements of provincial and federal legislation and may undergo additional assessment and public consultation steps. See Appendix C for flow chart. Roles and Responsibilities Resilience and Mitigation team o To coordinate with the Government of Alberta Mitigation team to review and prioritize projects on a watershed basis using the Mitigation Selection Criteria Framework and recommendations from external consultants Government of Alberta Mitigation team o Recommend specific short-term mitigation projects to the ADM Task Force; o Work with ministries in a collaborative manner to implement funded projects, ensuring that efficiency and effectively targeted resources continue to guide decisions about mitigation across the province and a long-term provincial approach to water management can occur; and o Enhance external stakeholder and public education and awareness of mitigation and current efforts through public events and conferences. Government of Alberta Ministries o To provide communities and the public with hazard and risk information to increase public awareness of flood hazard and reduce vulnerability through planning and actions; o To bring forward existing proposed mitigation projects; o To assess proposed projects for alignment with provincial as well as departmental policies, planning and priorities; and o Where appropriate, to project manage and implement approved projects or recommendations. Local Authorities (municipalities, irrigation districts, Watershed Planning and Advisory Councils, non-government organizations) o To bring forward existing proposed mitigation projects; o To assess proposed projects against local government policies and priorities; and, o Where appropriate, to project manage and implement approved projects or recommendations. 3 Page 122 of 130 Guiding Principles for Project Selection Projects must mitigate flood risk by enhancing public safety, ensuring environmental sustainability, and enhancing community resilience. Projects that support the flood mitigation strategic plan and support existing natural resource frameworks (e.g. Water for Life and the Land Use Framework) will be given the highest priority. Mitigation projects must demonstrate community benefits. Those projects with the broadest range of support will be considered priority. Projects should be designed for at least the 1% annual exceedance probability (100 year flood risk). Water infrastructure must follow safety guidelines. A social, environmental and economic cost/benefit analysis is required for each proposed project. Benefits must significantly outweigh the costs. o Projects showing other potential benefits, such as hydro-generation or irrigation, will be given a higher priority. o Projects must consider the implications for downstream users. o Projects should consider other natural disasters such as drought. Project Evaluation Criteria Considerations The following questions will be considered to evaluate mitigation project proposals. Resilience and Mitigation Opportunity How much is the project expected to mitigate flood impacts during an event? Does the project consider drought implications, potentially by retaining water rather than moving it downstream more quickly? Economic Is the mitigation concept cost effective and affordable? Will the expected benefits exceed the costs? Social and Cultural Will the community benefit or incur costs from the implementation of the concept? What are the broader regional and community impacts, particularly downstream? 4 Page 123 of 130 Environmental Will there be significant environmental impacts (upstream/downstream)? Can the negative impacts be mitigated? Is there an environmental benefit to the project? Objectives Will the project achieve government and community objectives? Are we solving one problem and creating several others? Is the solution possible under the current regulatory framework? How does the project align with the flood mitigation strategic plan? Is the concept acceptable to the community or communities (upstream/downstream)? Is the concept consistent with longer-term planning and policy? Are there synergies between projects? How will the project enhance overall resilience? Technical Is the concept technically feasible? Will the design be robust and reliable? What is the time frame for project implementation? Are future operational and maintenance costs sustainable? Will this solution have the ability to withstand and mitigate floods greater than a 1-in- 100? Are other alternative options available or have they been considered? 5 Page 124 of 130 Glossary of Definitions Flood hazard area – The flood hazard area is typically divided into floodway and flood fringe zones and may also include areas of overland flow. Floodway – The portion of the flood hazard area where flows are deepest, fastest and most destructive. The floodway typically includes the main channel of a stream and a portion of the adjacent overbank area. New development is discouraged in the floodway. Flood fringe – The portion of the flood hazard area outside the floodway. Water in the flood fringe is generally shallower and flows more slowly than in the floodway. New development in the flood fringe may be permitted in some communities and should be flood proofed. Flood hazard mapping – Flood hazard mapping marks out flood hazard areas along streams and lakes using design flood levels. Design flood levels are also known as one per cent flood events, or 1-in-100 year flood events. Overland flow – Areas of overland flow are part of the flood hazard area outside of the floodway, and are typically considered special areas of the flood fringe. Design flood – The current design standard in Alberta is the one per cent flood defined as a flood whose magnitude has a one per cent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any year. Although it can be referred to as a 100-year flood, this does not mean that it will only occur once every hundred years. Design flood levels – Modelled water elevations within a flood hazard area based on design flood (one per cent flood event). Design flood levels do not change as a result of development or obstruction of flows within the flood fringe. Mitigation – Implementing various measures and sustainable actions in order to reduce or lessen the long-term risk to people and property from future natural disasters. Recovery – The return to a normal, pre-disaster state. Resilience – The capacity of a system to cope with, adapt to or recover from a recurrent disturbance such as a flood. Resiliency includes planning for the future to reduce the need for mitigation. Please visit the flood hazard mapping section of our website for diagrams and more information on these terms. 6 Page 125 of 130 Appendix A: Alberta’s Watersheds 7 Page 126 of 130 Appendix B: The Alberta Flood Mitigation Strategic Plan Page 127 of 130 8 Where required, environmental assessments and consultation to be Appendix C: Flowchart for Resilience and Mitigation Projects Review completed Mitigation Flood Mapping rd Ideas/Project 3 Party Government of and Hazard Initial Screening by Ministerial Task Concepts are Assessment Alberta mitigation Assessments Resilience and Force makes submitted to the Conducted for team submits Conducted Mitigation team decisions Resiliency and Feasibility prioritized projects Mitigation team By: Government of Alberta ministries, municipalities, 3rd party Ensures policy technical experts, alignment, Qualification Projects Community Flood removal of non- based selection prioritized based Mitigation Advisory starters and process is used on impact, Panel Where further approval in to streamline return on rd environmental investment, and principal to and select 3 assessment and time sensitivity. undertake party engineers consultation is not further analysis required, projects are assigned to appropriate municipalities or ministries for implementations Page 128 of 130 9 April 21, 2017 Update on Proposed Floodway Development Regulation The Flood Recovery and Reconstruction Act was enacted in December 2013 initiating amendments to the Municipal Government Act that would provide for regulation making powers to control or prohibit development in a floodway, and a provision to exempt floodway development in municipalities where it already exists. To develop a regulation to support the Flood Recovery and Reconstruction Act, the Government of Alberta initiated stakeholder consultation in 2014 which consisted of the establishment of a Task Force and the availability of an online survey. The AAMDC participated in this process. The AAMDC has been enquiring as to the progress of the proposed Floodway Development Regulation which has not yet been finalized. In response, Municipal Affairs recognizes that municipal leaders want access to information to guide future development and help inform municipal plans. The Ministry emphasizes their commitment to continuing to work with flood hazard communities to find collaborative solutions to promote safe and resilient communities. As the regulation is currently under the Cabinet legislative review and approval process, Municipal Affairs is unable to provide definitive timelines for its completion. As such, AAMDC members are reminded that until the proposed regulation is approved, development decisions continue to be guided by each municipality’s land-use bylaw and policies pertaining to flood hazard areas. The Government of Alberta has indicated that studies to identify river hazards and produce new flood hazard maps are continuing. Studies currently underway include the Bow, Elbow, Sheep, Highwood, Athabasca, and Peace Rivers. In total, approximately 560 kilometers of river will be studied and mapped. In addition, there is ongoing technical work on five studies started in the fall of 2015. These studies include the MD of Bighorn, Canmore, Stoney Nation, Cochrane, Bragg Creek, Tsuut’ina Nation, Calgary, Black Diamond, Turner Valley, Okotoks, High River, Peace River, and surrounding municipal districts and counties. According to Municipal Affairs, the studies are expected to be completed by the end of this year. A study of Fort McMurray started in the fall of 2016 with completion expected in spring 2018. The AAMDC will advise members of developments on the proposed Floodway Development Regulation and flood hazard mapping initiatives when they are available. Enquiries may be directed to: Tasha Blumenthal Policy Analyst 780.955.4094 Kim Heyman Director, Advocacy & Communications 780.955.4079 Page 129 of 130 Barrhead County No development is permitted within the flood plain at all. Their LUB has very similar requirements and they also use the 1986 flood info provided by the Province. Sturgeon County Normally don’t get applications they can usually convince developers it is in their best interest not to develop in those areas or buyers are discouraged with the need for professional involvement. If they were to get an application, they also require engineers and/or a geotechnical professional. MD of Lesser Slave River MDP – No permanent structures shall be permitted with the flood plain of any river, stream or lake shore unless an assessment prepared by a qualified professional determines that the flood plan does not impact the development or if proper flood proofing techniques are applied. A certificate from a qualified, registered professional engineer shall be required to confirm that the development has been properly flood proofed. Lacombe County MDP – Permanent structures shall not be permitted within the 1:100 year floodplain of any river, stream, or lakeshore. For those areas where 1:100 year flood mapping does not currently exist, the County shall require a qualified professional to confirm the 1:100 year flood level of the affected river, stream or lakeshore. The County may, at its discretion, require a developer to carry out flood hazard mapping for a watercourse or waterbody within the development boundary prior to development or subdivision approval. Brazeau County MDP – Brazeau County shall not permit development in areas that are prone to erosion, landslides, subsidence, seasonal flooding or are within the 1:100 flood plain, or any other natural or human- induced hazards affecting the local environment. The boundaries of areas shall be identified by qualified professionals. Development on or in close proximity to hazardous areas may be considered if supported by a geotechnical analysis prepared by a qualified professional. The Development Authority may consider recommendations by applicable provincial and federal departments and agencies in determining setbacks from hazardous areas. Yellowhead County MDP – Development on lands that are or may be subject to flooding, the applicant will be required to provided certification from a Registered Professional Engineer or Architect, licensed to practice in the Province of Alberta. Page 130 of 130