1. Land Management Framework Project
Phase 1 Progress Report
4/5/2019

2. Phase 1 Goals
Review existing land use policy and environmental legislation to identify gaps
Based on that review, recommend a Land Management Framework that would create consistent policy for the BH moraine
Develop an Initial Implementation Plan to facilitate municipal adoption of the Framework
4/5/2019

3. Phase 1 Progress to Date Met with Planners WG to refine project goals
Compiled comparison of MDP, LUB and non-statutory policies
Reviewed provincial/federal environmental law to identify gaps and opportunities
Created comparative MDP and LUB maps
Outlined land management framework format and performance indictor selection process
4/5/2019

4. Planning Policy Review
Reviewed existing and proposed draft MDPs, LUBs and municipal environmental policies for all 5 municipalities
Proceeded through successive level of planning policy:
Goals, objectives, definitions (MDP)
Broad policy areas and implementation provisions (MDP)
Specific policies and LUZ zoning (LUB, policies)
4/5/2019

5. Planning Review - Results
Although all counties have environmental goals, objectives and policies, the approach and level of detail varies considerably
References to BH moraine area not consistent in all policies (only in recently revised MDPs)
Where reference exists, protection does not include all of moraine within jurisdiction
Environmental protection measures variable in detail and force of law (in policy, vs. MDP or LUB)
4/5/2019

6. Municipal Development Plans
Nature of Provision
Strathcona
Beaver
Leduc
Lamont
Camrose
Goals and Objectives
Environmental (General)
Beaver Hills (Specific)
Agriculture/ Country Residential
Environmental Protection Provisions
Environment/ Wildlife Policies
General
Riparian Protection
Environmental Reserve Provisions
Riparian Area Protection (Specific)
Implementation Policies
Environment (Specific)
Definitions
Environmental
MDP Review Points:
Although all counties have environmental goals, objectives and policies, only Strathcona and Beaver MDPs reference BH moraine
Only Strathcona and Leduc have MDP implementation provisions and defined terms regarding environmental protection
Strathcona, Lamont and Beaver have MDP policy areas related to the moraine, but do not cover the entire area:
Strathcona – about 50% of moraine area
Lamont – about 25%
Beaver – about 10%
Leduc protects Ministik area only
Legend:
Yes No
4/5/2019

7. Application Requirements EIA/ESA/Other Specific Requirement
Land Use Bylaw
Nature of Provision
Strathcona
Beaver
Leduc
Lamont
Camrose
Application Requirements
EIA/ESA/Other Specific Requirement
Additional Information (Non-Specific)
General Regulations
Environmental Standards
Land Use Districts
Environment/Conservation
Other District
Tree Removal or Other Restriction
Definitions
Environment or Related Terms
Non-Statutory Requirements
Environmental Protection
LUB Review Notes:
Strathcona, Leduc and Lamont – general environmental provisions in LUBs
Leduc’s are most specific
Strathcona has numerous policies outside LUB
All but Camrose contain discretionary requirement for EIA, provision for referrals
Only Leduc and Lamont refer to environmental trigger
Strathcona, Leduc and Camrose have land use districts for conservation or watershed protection
Only Leduc has environment-specific definitions in place
Legend:
Yes No
4/5/2019

8. Comparative MDP map includes Draft MDP’s of Strathcona and Beaver County. Attempted to standardize color coding across all 5 counties – gold as agriculture, yellows through browns as residential at increasing density, reds for commercial, purples for industrial, grey for urban areas, green for conservation areas.
Camrose has only the CFO overlay in their MDP – color coding tried to avoid any others used for policy areas.
4/5/2019

9. LUB mapping – Leduc and Camrose have draft versions developed this year, which are included.
Color coding: gold/light yellow = agricultural, tan through brown = residential at increasing density, green = conservation/watershed protection, purple = industrial with darker indicating increasing density, red = commercial.
4/5/2019

10. Environmental Legislation Review
Reviewed federal and provincial environmental legislation, plus the MGA
Main questions:
What laws apply to development in municipalities?
How is federal/provincial legislation typically applied in development situations?
Do municipalities have jurisdiction to develop their own environmental by-laws and policies?
4/5/2019

11. Provincial/Federal Legislation Focus
Environmental management had resource specific approach until 1990’s, with introduction of EIA process
EIAs for new development only, and only for certain projects – review is not automatic
Resource specific law applied through permitting and enforcement –comprehensive review of sustainability only through EIA, if triggered
4/5/2019

12. MGA – General Authority
MGA allows municipalities to manage with broad scope
Main guidance: “protection of the safety, health and welfare of people and community”
Main limitation is test of “fair and reasonable”
Risk of litigation is chief limit considered by municipality in developing any by-laws
4/5/2019

13. MGA – Environmental Jurisdiction
Environmental factors can be considered in land use planning
Traditional focus on hazards, but open to any other relevant considerations
Other commonly used powers include ability to identify and manage key environmental features
Main instruments: ER/MR dedication or conservation easements
4/5/2019

14. Legislation Review Conclusions
MGA allows considerable scope to manage environmental issues of local concern
Any by-laws must stand test of litigation, therefore rely on some level of public acceptance
Land Management Framework must rely on both policy and public awareness
4/5/2019

15. Land Management Framework - Concept
Use same structure as land use planning policy development
Establish consistency at all levels of policy and implementation
Common goals, objectives and definitions
Broad policy areas addressing the moraine area
Specific policy dealing with key resources in each jurisdiction
4/5/2019

16. Framework Structure 1. Definitions 2. Broad policy
Goals and objectives (from the BHI LMA principles document)
Performance Indicators – Key resources
Key terminology (e.g., environment, sustainable development)
2. Broad policy
MDP policy areas to protect key performance indicators
Consistent environmental policies to retain those key resources
3. Specific statutes
Detailed policies directing resource retention
Consistent balance of legislative force (i.e., consistent protection in LUB by-laws and supporting policies)
4/5/2019

17. Land Management Framework – Phase 1 Product
Consulting team can reasonably address first two levels of policy in Phase 1
Will provide recommended clauses re: definitions, goals, and key policy focus
Will only indicate general areas where consistency required at 3rd, specific policy area
Individual municipalities must develop their own specific policies based on the framework
Issues/resources differ in each municipality
Level of public awareness of issues also differs
4/5/2019

18. Next Steps Assess MDP and LUB maps against LMA (Blue and Yellow) zones
Develop summary report with
Summary of background planning and legislation review results
Recommendations for Draft Land Management Framework, performance indicators and Initial Implementation Plan
4/5/2019

19. Questions?
4/5/2019