Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning: A Canadian Case Study Grochowich, Amanda Aug 31, 2013

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
310-SCARP_2013_GradProject_Grochowich.pdf [ 10.57MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 310-1.0075794.json
JSON-LD: 310-1.0075794-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 310-1.0075794-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 310-1.0075794-rdf.json
Turtle: 310-1.0075794-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 310-1.0075794-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 310-1.0075794-source.json
Full Text
310-1.0075794-fulltext.txt
Citation
310-1.0075794.ris

Full Text

Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning: A Canadian Case Study Amanda GrochowichSchool of Community and Regional PlanningUniversity of British ColumbiaAugust, 2013Front Cover: View of the Golden Ears Bridge and Maple RidgePhoto Credit: http://www.partnershipsbc.ca/NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION IN URBAN PLANNING: A CANADIAN CASE STUDYbyAMANDA GROCHOWICHBCom, University of Ottawa, 2011A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF SCIENCE (PLANNING)inTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESSchool of Community and Regional PlanningWe accept this project as conformingto the required standard......................................................Maged Senbel.....................................................Graham FarstadTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAAugust, 2013? Amanda Grochowich, 20134 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning: A Canadian Case Study I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Maged Senbel for the useful comments, re-marks and engagement throughout the learning process of this project. I would like to thank Graham Farstad for his review of the project as well as for his insights over the past few months. In addition, I would like to thank my family and friends for their tireless support throughout my time at the School of Community and Regional Planning and while completing this project.Acknowledgements5Awknowledgements6 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study Table of Contents7Table of ContentsAwknowledgements Table of ContentsList of AcronymsIntroductionSection One: Natural HazardsWhat is a Natural HazardTypes of Natural HazardsNatural Hazard ImpactsSection Two: Natural Hazards + PlanningCommunicationTraditional Communication ApproachImproved Communication ApproachPrinciples for Effective CommunicationSection Three: Natural Hazards + CanadaBritish ColumbiaLegislationFirst NationsExamplesSection Four: Natural Hazards + Maple RidgeMaple RidgeAnalysisFindingsRecommendationsProject SummaryReferencesBibliographyAppendicesAppendix A - Relevant OCP policies for Forest Fire MitigationAppendix B - Relevant bylaws for Forest Fire MitigationAppendix C - Recommendations of Community Wildfire PlanAppendix D - Relevant OCP policies for Flood MitigationAppendix E - Policy Statement 9.10Appendix F - Relevant bylaws for Flood MitigationAppendix G - Floodplain MapsAppendix H - Relevant OCP policies for Erosion ControlAppendix I - Relevant bylaws for Erosion ControlAppendix J - Relevant OCP policies for Other Hazard TermsAppendix K - Relevant bylaws for Emergency Management57911121314 151823242425282929313234353637475253576062636669717273757779808 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study List of AcronymsAboriginal Affairs and Northern Development CanadaBritish ColumbiaCommunity Disaster Action Team (?)Canadian Mortgage and Housing CorporationDepartment of National DefenceDisaster Financial AssistanceDisaster Mitigation Act (2000)Deverlopment Permit AreaEnvironment CanadaEmergency Management Act (Provincial and Federal)Emergency Management British ColumbiaEmergency Operation CentreEmergency Social ServicesFederal Emergency Response PlanIndustry CanadaIntegrated Community Disaster Plan ProgrammeLocal Government ActMinistry of Environment (B.C.)Official Community PlanOkanagan Mountain Park FireRoyal Canadian Mountain PoliceUniversity of British ColumbiaUnited NationsUnited Nations Office for Disaster Risk ReductionList of Acronyms 9AANDCBCCDATCMHCDNDDFADMADPAECEMA EMBCEOCESSFERPICICDPPLGAMOEOCPOMPFRCMPUBCUNUNISDR10 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study With a changing climate and more frequent extreme weather events, natural hazards can have significant consequences and impacts on a local community. If a local government hasn?t properly prepared for a natural hazard?s impact, then the damage and devastation to a community can be quite severe. A natural hazard or disaster can have serious social, economic and environmental ef-fects on a region. With the advent of the community and disaster planning profession, many local governments have been researching and implementing hazard related land use planning techniques. However, more recently community planners and disaster planners have been working more col-laboratively, and have begun to integrate their two professions.Local communities interested in keeping their residents and assets safe and secure in the face of natural hazard risks often face challenges in properly communicating appropriate and adequate information highlighted by their community and disaster planners to their constituents and local stakeholders. Local governments and decison-makers have become accustomed to disseminating in-formation to the public and have begun to adapt this strategy to the area of natural hazard planning.Of course, important considerations include, what are the best ways to communicate natural hazard planning? And, how available and accessible is natural hazard planning information to a local com-munity?To answer these questions, the District of Maple Ridge, a community in the Metro Vancouver region of B.C. has been selected for a natural hazard planning and communication analysis. By starting with a community?s Official Community Plan (OCP), the research is hoping to highlight the areas and types of natural hazards which are not being properly communicated to residents. If residents are missing important aspects of hazard related information, the community will not be as resilient and secure in the face of a natural disaster.Introduction11IntroductionOwikeno Lake, B.C.Credit: for.gov.bc.caNatural HazardsSection One:?The only constant is change? ? Heraclitus As the natural environment changes, societies have had to adapt and plan to ensure the survival and development of their families and lifeystyles.  Some of these environmental changes are predictable ? we generally know when and how the seasons will change and can adjust accordingly. However, some are unpredictable, unexpected and abrupt - seasonal changes can be exacerbated or an event can occur that thoroughly upsets and reshapes the dynamics of an area. Unexpected, hazardous events can become forceful and dangerous to those who inhabit the affected area, hence the term ?natural hazard?. Specific and comprehensive planning intiatives designed for unexpected events must be implemented to avert devastation. 13Natural HazardsNatural HazardsTornado in the prairiesCredit: Chris Attrell/CKOMNatural hazards can be defined as meteorological and/or geological phenomena that have the po-tential to create emergency or disaster situations for communities and their environments1. They are naturally occurring extreme events, ranging in duration from a few minutes or days, to weeks or months, which threaten the coexistence of people and their environment2. Often, it is only after a community experiences economic, social, or environmental loss that these extreme events become ?natural disasters?3.  It is typical that natural disasters are defined by their consequence and disruption on humans as opposed to solely on the magnitude of the event(s)4. What is a Natural Hazard?14Within the sphere of natural hazards, there ex-ists two principle categories: geological and hy-drometeorological.Types of HazardsClimate and atmospheric hazards, or hydrometeorological hazards, include typhoons, hurricanes, thunderstorms, tornadoes, blizzards, heavy snowfall, avalanches, coastal storm surges, floods, drought, heat waves and cold spells. Geological hazards include earthquakes, volcanic activity and emissions, and geophysical processes such as landslides, rockslides, surface collapse and debris or mudflows5. Landslides, wild fires, locust plagues, epidemics and the dispersal of toxic substances and volcanic eruption material are affected hydrometeorological conditions. 6Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study Summer flood in Medicine Hat,  AlbertaPhoto Credit: Jonathan Hayward/The Canadian PressProcess or phenomenon of atmospheric, hydrological or oceanographic, or geological in nature that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and eco-nomic disruption, or environmental damage. Hydrometerological and Geological HazardsSource: UNSIDR, www.unisdr.orgwho are without spare funds or have limited savings as they are restricted in their ability to sustain themselves and find sufficient or adequate temporary and perma-nent lodging.15The physical destruction that natural hazard events cause can destroy or damage infrastructure and buildings, both commercial and residential. The damage of physical prop-erty associated with natural disaster impacts can have adverse socioeconomic effects. These effects are linked with direct economic losses, indirect financial strains, and/or decreased asset value. The socioeconomic damaged 15Natural HazardsNatural Hazard ImpactsWhen natural hazards develop into natural disasters, there can be wide ranging impacts and conse-quences on a community and its citizens. Natural disasters are capable of injuring or killing people, damaging or destroying infrastructure, and devastating or obliterating economic and social endeav-ours. These consequences can affect a community?s environmental, economic and social pillars. 7Natural disasters can cause severe and irreparable environmental damages, challenges, and concerns. There is no typical environmental effect on a community facing a natural hazard, as they vary depend-ing on the hazard and disaster that may impact a community8. Focal environmental issues consist of a combination of various effects: infrastructure damage or destruction; decrease or eradication of food stores and production capabilities; polluted or lack of potable water; and the contamination and in-fection caused by unburied corpses. These environmental concerns and adverse conditions can have long lasting community impacts.9When affected by environmental conditions, adverse economic effects can include results such as decreased land value, costly clean-up and repairs, and loss of capital and resources, therefore the implications and consequences of natural disasters on communities and individuals have assured, but varying, degrees of economic upheaval.10 In addition to having a direct correlation to decreased land value, natural hazards and disasters can also disrupt, in part or in whole, the local economy11. The im-plications of damaged infrastructure ? roads, bridges, and buildings ? are that services are interrupted and businesses are limited to what they can provide and sustain compared to the usual conditions. Compounding the economic impacts are the individuals who cannot commute to work either due to infrastructure destruction, or because their efforts are more urgently required to care for survivors and/or re-build their community.12Natural disasters can have a wide range of social effects, including but not limited to psychosocial, socio-demographic, socioeconomic, and socio-political impacts13. Psychosocial impacts include fa-tigue, confusion, and impaired concentration along with emotional signs such as anxiety, depression, and grief. Behaviour changes can also occur in individuals.14The socio-demographic effects of natural disasters on individuals, families, and communities can in-clude the following housing challenges: first, finding emergency or temporary shelter, followed by semi-permanent housing, and, finally, new, permanent housing. These challenges tend to affect those A disaster can be defined as an occurrence of widespread severe damage, injury, or loss of life or property with which a community cannot cope and during which the society undergoes severe disrup-tion. Natural DisasterSource: UNSIDR, www.unisdr.orgNatural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study 16occurred during a natural disaster is measured in terms of the cost of repair and/or replacement of the infrastructure, assets and lost income.16The strain of responding and handling a natural disaster can put great socio-political strain on a com-munity, especially if adequate planning was not properly enforced or established. The community leaders, councils, and/or system can suffer if the community?s actions were not, or not considered to be, sufficient to deal with the given crisis. Not only can those who were given responsibilities, such as local government representatives or decision makers, within a community be reprimanded, but the systems - both planning and response procedures - enacted can be called into question and review by the people, or soceity at large, after the disaster. This review process may result in an attempt to redesign a new socio-political system or disaster response strategy.17  Unfortunately, some communities are more prone, and more vulnerable, to natural hazards than others. As a consequence, there are two main factors that are predominantly deemed to dictate the impact of a natural hazard: risk and vulnerability.The United Nations Office of Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) defines risk as the ?combination of the probability of an event and its negative consequences?18. In this instance, as mentioned above, the consequences of natural disasters are considered from the human perspective ? damages or suffer-ing incurred by people and communities. There are two common connotations that are regularly associated with the term ?risk?: probability and consequences. The probability of a natural disaster to occur in a given community or area fo-cuses on the concept of ?chance? or ?possibility?. Risk assessments are conducted for communities to determine the local probability and magnitude. Risk assessments are ?a methodology to determine the nature and extent of risk by analysing potential hazards and evaluating existing conditions? which can determine the level of ?people, property, services, livelihoods and the environment? which is exposed19. Risk assessment tools and techniques include the review and mapping of the location, intensity, frequency and probability of the technical characteristics of a hazard, as well as an analysis of the exposure or vulnerability of the ?physical, social, economic and environmental dimensions?20. The UNISDR describes vulnerability as ?the characteristics and circumstances of a community system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard?; however, it can be expanded to include the element of ?exposure?21. Exposure is defined as ?people, property, systems or other elements present in hazard zones that are ? subject to potential losses?22. Vulnerability covers a multiple of facets, which can also alter and change over time and vary between different communities. The varying facets of vulnerability can include physical, social, economic, and environmental factors23. Examples set out by UNISDR include poor design, defective construction, and substandard materials of buildings; inadequate protection of assets; a lack of public information, access, and awareness to natural disaster mitigation; and a general disregard for wise environmental management24.RiskVulnerability17Natural HazardsAlthough both Japan and Haiti are prone to earthquakes. Japanese citizens are less vulner-able to the impacts of an earthquake. Japan has building codes, zoning regulations and train-ing programs designed to withstand a sizeable earthquake, whereas Haiti is lacking in these institutions and regulations. This lack of preparation and establishment severely increases the risk and probability for damage and increases the vulnerability of the people and their communities.25Source: Disaster Management Center, University of Wisconsin-MadisonEarthquake Example:Devestation after earthquake in Haiti, 2010Credit: UNDP and Wikipedia CommonsPlanningSection Two:Land that is typically attractive for settlement has a tendency to be prone to natural hazards. For ex-ample, fertile soil and seasonal flooding that enriches agricultural productivity have historically been attractive locations for human settlements. However, these benefits can possibly become hazard-ous - as the flooding levels increase, they would destroy established infrastructure and resources26. Some settlements that are located in precarious locations relocate after a large disaster while oth-ers remain in place and continue to thrive, despite the risk27.  Examples of these resilient and static communities include Kobe in Japan and New Orleans in the United States. These cities were hit severely by natural disasters and continue to maintain a high degree of risk and exposure, yet they have remained in place and have rebuilt their communities. While relocation may appear as ?the safest way to avoid natural hazards?, it is an extremely rare reaction to natural disasters by communities28. Relocation has become even less common given the tremendous growth in human settlements over the last century and the increased reliance on advanced technologies to combat natural disasters.29 As relocation efforts decrease, hazard mitiga-tion ?must be incorporated into spatial planning? in order to reduce the vulnerability of people and infrastructure30. Spatial planning, or land use planning as it is more often termed in North America, has been used to mitigate natural hazards since the 1980s31. The concept of integrating spatial planning and natural hazard mitigation was reinforced and publicized by the U.N. in the late1980s by proclaiming the 90?s as the decade for disaster reduction32. However, it took until 2000 for the United States to issue its own national disaster reduction act, the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA). The DMA was one of the first national acts that incorporated planning and hazard considerations and management.33The increased interest and development in natural hazard mitigation correlates with the increased amount of ?insured losses due to natural hazards,? which reached 110 billion USD in 201134. This in-crease in insurance claims has sparked a global discussion on mitigation and adaptation strategies for hazard reduction, as ?there has been an increase in both catastrophic events and insured losses since the 1960?s?35. Today, many planners and decision-makers are exploring the costs and benefits of vari-ous natural hazard mitigation strategies in relation to their respective localities, such as the Cost of Adaptation - Sea Dikes and Alternative Strategies report by Delcan which developed cost estimates 19Natural Hazards + PlanningNatural Hazards + PlanningKobe, Japan: after the earthquake and todayCredit:  Wikipedia and Mary Phillips Travel Blog20for sea level rise related flood protection for the Metro Vancouver region in British Columbia (B.C.)36.The Fraser Basin Council has calculated the cost of a Fraser River Flood to be in the range of $2 - 6 billion, ?not including the indirect costs associated with disruption of critical infrastructure and the economy?37. Disaster-related costs in Canada have increased 2,900% between 1945 and 199938. This increase includes federal, provincial and insured losses39.According to the UNISDR, mitigation is described as actions to decrease or reduce detrimental outcomes caused by hazards and associated calamities40. Mitigation strategies include both hard and soft engineering techniques, as well as policies, programs, and public awareness campaigns41. In com-parison, adaptation is defined as ?the adjustment in natural or human systems? which correspond to an ?actual or expected climatic stimuli? and to moderate the damage or capitalize on advantageous scenarios42.  Adaptation strategies often include protect, retreat, accommodate, and avoid responses43. Essentially, mitigation is used to lessen the magnitude of the hazard, whereas adaptation is used to reduce the community?s vulnerability to the hazard44.Adaptation StrategiesProtect ? a reactive strategy to protect people, property, and infrastructure.Accommodate ? an adaptive strategy that allows occupation while alterations are made to human activities and/or infrastructure.Retreat ? a strategic decision to withdraw, relocate, or abandon private or public assets that are at high riskAvoid ? a strategic decision to ensure development does not take place in areas subject to hazards, or where the risk is low at present and but could increase over time.Source: Sea Level Rise Adaptation Primer: A toolkit to build adaptive capacity on Canada?s South Coasts (The Arlington Group, 2013)45Natural hazards mitigation, otherwise known as ?sustainable hazard mitigation? as referred to by Godschalk et al, is divided into two separate branches of planning: community planning and disaster management46. Modern hazard and risk management plans commonly focus on a single hazard, as opposed to a multi-hazard approach, and often only take into account the most recent, or most prob-able, hazard47.  According to Laurie Pearce, the goals of community planning and disaster management have historically been very similar, as both are ?conducted in isolation away from the community? and are concerned with the tangible and human components of the region. Both are primarily developed and institutionalized at the local level of government and take a ?predictive approach? to planning and that overall community safety is improved and increased through the efforts made to community and disaster planning48. The planners responsible for these hazard planning proposals and strategies aim to improve the overall safety and security of a community ?while maintaining its cultural heritage and maximizing the quality of human life? for residents49. Despite the parallels in goals and implementation, community Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study 21Natural Hazards + Planningand disaster planning have historically remained divergent fields.In most recent years, contemporary community planning has generally been evolving from this iso-lated, predicted approach, and even most recently in areas related to disaster planning. A prominent example of community based disaster planning includes the efforst made by the Danish Red Cross and local organizations in the Phillipino community of Lugsongan50. This community has been a pilot project for the Integrated Community Disaster Planning Programme (ICDPP).The ICDPP approach ?works directly with affected people to reduce their vulnerability to natural hazards?51. It provides communities with disaster management knowledge tailored to their local risks. The ICDPP approach is a 6 step model which integrates and promotes the importance of training and education at each step.52 The six steps are: site selection criteria and process, partnership with municipal and province government units, Community Disaster Action Team (CDAT) formation and training, risk and resources mapping, community mitigation measures, and long lasting effects53. A brief explanation of each step follows. Step 1: Site selection criteria and processAreas, or regions, are selected based on a vulnerability assessment.54Step 2: Partnership with municipal and province government unitsIn order to have the buy-in and support for the planning approach from the beginning, collabora-tion and partnership initiatives between all level of governments is important. With these partner-ships, planners and decision-makers are likely to gain access to additional technical and/or financial support, and the partnerships help to reinforce the long-term implementation and survival of the programme.55Step 3: Community Disaster Action Team (CDAT) formation and trainingIn the case of the Phillipines, a group of volunteers received training in hazard management, dissemi-nated information, and colloborated with the entire community to prepare a ?Community Disaster Action Plan?. In this process, the CDAT team is fundamental in getting the plan together, which is the basis for deciding how the community will improve their safety.56Step 4: Risk and resources mappingThis step highlights the local hazards, as well as who and what would be at risk, given the identified hazards. The mapping exercises are often used in community discussions and for land use planning. 57Step 5: Community mitigation measuresThis step develops the Disaster Action Plan from step 3. The community establishes mitigation mea-sures that would reduce the threat, risk and impact from the natural hazards highlighted in step 4. 58Step 6: SustainabilityThis step links to step 2, where the long term impact, or sustainability, of the measures can only be ensured with the appropriate partnerships, collaboration and integration initiatives with all levels of government59.22 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study For a community disaster plan to be effective, community members, planners and disaster manage-ment professionals must prepare for three time frames - before, during and after a disaster. As well, community based plans should be developed with residents, community planners and local stake-holders in cooperation and conjunction with local emergency teams ? police, fire, first responders, and disaster managers. Through this increased collaboration and appropriate public engagement, new developments, important initiatives, and infrastructural retrofits will not be developed, located, or implemented beyond the level of acceptable risk of the community60. The consequences of local hazard(s) on a given community can be reduced or offset through appro-priate land use planning - including the implementation of zoning bylaws, building codes, and mitiga-tion strategies created by community and disaster management personnel61.A separate framework for sustainable hazard mitigation is presented by Godschalk et al (1998). This framework additionally reinforces the importance of stakeholder participation, collaboration and ap-propriate planning mechanisms. Godschalk et al (1998)?s framework consists of four points:1. Stakeholder participation - consisting of ?community help and support in formulating and imple-menting a mitigation plan?62. 2. Planning components - ?integrates the hazard, risk and vulnerability assessments into community values and is then use to formulate policy and planning actions in order to meet community expecta-tions?63.3. Plan types ? ?deciding whether or not the sustainable hazard mitigation plan should be fully integrated with the community development plan?64.4. Mitigation strategies ? which must respond to the following community-based questions:1.What is the degree of cooperation?2. Which local authority will take the lead role?3. How will the strategy affect current development as opposed to future development?4. To what degree will hazards be controlled and how will this be affected by human behavior?5. What will the emphasis be on pre-disaster as opposed to post-disaster behavior?6. To what degree will outside partners be involved? 65Myers, (1997, p.1) states:?People who work to manage natural hazards must repackage themselves and what they know from the local community?s viewpoint, across adjustments and across hazards, but in context of non-hazard community goals. Our research is telling us that local stakeholders? capacity to manage their own en-vironment, resources, and hazards must be increased, and that it is the locals who must decide what they are willing to lose in future disasters?66. This reinforces the recommendation to further integrate di-saster planning with community planning. From a land-use perspective, the disciplines are intricately linked - zoning by-laws, Development Permit Areas (DPA), and building codes work toward mitigating the local hazards of a community. What needs to be developed, is the communication and integration of the public through community imvolvement and an increased sense of responsibility at the local level. Acceptable RiskAcceptable Risk: The level of poten-tial losses that a society or com-munity considers acceptable given existing social, economic, political, cultural, technical and environmen-tal conditions. Source: UNSIDR, www.unisdr.org23Natural Hazards + PlanningCommunicationFor community and disaster management planners to be effective, they must be aware of stakehold-ers perceptions and expectations from them, and of their planning initiatives. Some of the shifts in public demands that have manifested in recent years, as reported by the New South Wales State Emergency Services includes the desire for a greater level of community participation, a decreased tolerance for undue risk, an increasd expectation for the emergency services provided, and a declined level of trust in government and authories67. In addition, there have been changes to the complexity of the communication systems involved, as well as the level of urbanization.68 From these demands, the New South Wales State Emergency Services has highlighted a shift of emergency service provid-ers expectations as well. Therefore, emergency services have required to evolve the level of local and integrated planning; a greater need of community participation within planning process; the improved use of technology in both planning and disaster communication initiatives; a general need for greater cost effectiveness and public accountability; and the need for partnerships and the diffusion of orga-nizational ?silos?69. With these shifts in perception, the generated prefered approach tends to be inclu-sive, community-centric and multi-disciplinary, and generally more pro-active70.  A proactive approach includes an increased focus on mitigation, prevention, and communication initiatives to combat the effects of natural disasters and diminish the associated risk71. These perception shifts are corroborated and summarized by Saltar, via Laurie Pearce, as shifts from a focus on:? Hazards to Vulnerability? Reactive to Proactive? Single Agency to Partnerships? Science Driven to Multidisciplinary Approach? Response Management to Risk Management? Planning for Communities to Planning with Communities? Communicating to Communities to Communicating with Communities 72Through the shifts to proactive, multisciplinary, planning and communicating with communities, the importance of an effective communication outreach approach is presented. These shifts emphasis the importance of ?working and relating with communities? and how disaster managers and community planners are now encouraged to more effectively engage with the public.73 Overall, these factors can be considered as elements that ?reinforce a need for innovative, rigorous planning? for community safety programs and designs74. Prevention, mitigation, and post-disaster ini-tiatives must be included a complete planning communication approach.Community Engagement Session, Halifax, N.S.Credit:  RP+5, http://pdcentre.ca/2013/08/rp5-engagement-session/Residents feel responsible for their communities, community and disaster planners must assist them by providing them with the information that they need, so that they can assist in securing and sup-porting their community?s natural hazard mitigation plans.24 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study Traditional Communication ApproachesPublic awareness programs constitute a traditional approach towards public education and aware-ness. These programs inform the community about particular hazards and risks typically through the distribution of prepared material. The material generally includes recommended actions for residents to undertake to protect themselves, their family, and their property in the case of a specific hazard, threat or issue. This communication process is historically designed for a single homogenous group of people, expected to have similar needs, and is often unidirectional.75 It is ill suited for areas with a diverse set of audiences, as one communication outreach initiative would be unlikely to meet the needs, and be accessible to everyone. The traditional approach requires that emergency professionals and/or government officials be ?ac-tive agents? while community members be the passive recipients of the message76. Due to its sim-plicity, this method is commonly used and implemented despite its lack of inclusion and consistent success rate. The effectiveness of the traditional approach is often measured by the amount of re-sources distributed or to what level the general public could recall the message, as opposed to actual behaviour change or a more relevant indicator77. There is an implicit assumption that an approach designed to increase the public?s awareness of an issue or request a behaviour change will illicit the desired response and thus mitigate the risk.  Yet there is no proof that a unidirectional communication approach regarding hazard policies will be effective, especially when the policies or programs were determined without an appropriate level of public engagement78.  Improved Communication ApproachesTraditional communication approaches may be improved by identifying and addressing all concerns of relevant stakeholders79. Through improvements in various fields, such as health promotion, social mar-keting, and adult education, progress in appropriate hazard related communication approaches have been compiled80. Flood related research suggests that effective communication systems must include: ? increasing awareness and engagement through community engagement;? improving the communication of risk levels, factors, and conditions; and? recognizing the target audience, or the difference ones.81State Emergency Services compiled a list of approaches which, when integrated, may improve com-munication outcomes, pertaining to health and safety. The list includes:? comprehensive systems-based interventions ? when community behaviour is positively affected through the ?interaction between legislation, organisation policy and practice, social networks, engineering solutions, and community norms?82.? participative strategies ? when local groups and networks are empowered, generally to ?identify problems, define solutions and initiate action plans?83.? use of social marketing methods as a means of persuasion. Examples include the public educa-tion campaigns of both State of California?s FloodSafe and the United Kingdom?s National Flood Warning Center. 84Approaches are generally improved when the traditional top-down model of public communication and awareness is modified85.25Natural Hazards + PlanningPrinciples for Effective CommunicationA report from the Department of Forest Resources at Oregon State University has presented four principles for effective communication when it comes to public outreach initiatives pertaining to wildfire hazards. Although developed within the wildfire management context, these principles ought to be able to be extended as communication principles for natural hazards in general and therefore be relevant as a base for both community and disaster management planners. The four principles highlighted are:? Effective communication as a product of effective planning;? Unidirectional and interactive communication approaches to public outreach;? Communication activities focused on local conditions and concerns; and  ? A comprehensive communication strategy. 86When outreach activities are implemented with only the general goal of ?educating the public? rather than focussing on communicating specific goals and indicators, effectivice commuincation can not oc-cur. Effective communication is dependant on knowing what needs to be communicated, as well as the best way to reach the public. When relevant objectives have been determined, with the assistance of professional experts, at the beginning of the planning process and an appropriate approach has been selected, effective communication can result. By selecting specific communication goals from the beginning, many problems, delays, and costs are avoided throughout the process. 87Now, communication objectives are often classified one of two ways - either they are designed to build awareness or to bring about behaviour change88. With each communication objective, the audience?s information needs, their expected roles and responsibilities, their previous and expected interactions with emergency personnel, and the local conditions with which they are familiar must be considered89. For a successful communication campaign, these considerations must be attended to within the communication strategy. Both unidirectional and interactive approaches are important for an effective communication ap-proach, otherwise the goals of the communication outreach initiative will not be reached. Without the use of the most effective approach given the expected communication objective outcome, the information may be available to those who ought to be aware of it, but nothing will result. Often, the intended audience will not adopt the recommended measures and even fail to understand the material. This may be linked to the preconception of planners and decision-makers who deem that ?it is their responsibility to develop information and deliver it to the public?yet fail to understand when nothing results.90For habits to change, or for understanding to occur, the information delivered must be both inter-preted and appreciated by the intended audiences91. Programs that simply provide information are ?not very successful in improving, understanding or changing behaviour?92. Therefore, it is imperative that the manner in which natural hazard information is presented is not only clear and concise, but also adapted to the intended audience and objectives as well as open to potential interaction and feedback.93Research suggests that audiences ?progress through various stages? when establishing their opinions on hazard related matters94. At each stage, a specific communication method is best suited to the 26 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study audience?s understanding. There is a general three-stage decision making process for the audience, in which they:1. become aware of the issue;2. form an opinion; and3. decide to adopt (or not) the new behaviour. 95 For the first stage, the traditional unidirectional communication method is often the best. This uni-directional form of communication is generally recommended when the audience is seeking basic information and awareness.96 The second stage is best designed for an interactive communication approach. At this stage is when interactive methods are ?more likely to increase citizen support or encourage behaviour change?97. Lastly, once the audience has assimilated the information and have developed an opinion on the matter is when the interactive method is the most effective at altering or bringing about a change in their habits and behaviours.98 When determining the best communication method, it is important to consider that the method which will reach the widest audience will ?only deliver a superficial amount of information?99. There-fore, methods that will reach the widest audiences are generally best used when working on the initial step of the decision-making process ? when attempting to build awareness, not fostering behaviour change. Research suggests that ?outreach activities that rely only on unidirectional means? suffer from limited influence on an audience?s attitudes or behaviour change towards the given theme100. Bro-chures, signs, and public service announcements are examples of unidirectional outreach activities and ought to be used as as step one method.While developing an opinion and contemplating a change in behaviour (steps two and three) audi-ences are most responsive to an interactive communication method. At this stage, audiences are likely to be deciding if the new idea or behaviour is worth adopting and will be looking for more specific information101. Having a basic understanding and knowledge of the issue at this stage, audiences are now prepared and ready to engage in discussions or actively view demonstrations on the topic. These interactive approaches will also assist in reducing the uncertainty about the new idea or change; therefore promoting the benefits of behavioural adaption.102 The wildfire outreach programming research has determined that ?personal contact contributed sub-stantially to communication success?, regardless of the type of information being delivered103. How-ever, even unidirectional information was found to be ?more effective? when delivered in person104. Regardless, it is important to keep in mind that an effective, comprehensive strategy will include both unidirectional and interactive methods.Communication activities that focus on their specific local conditions and concerns are more likely to assist in decreasing the uncertainty with hazard related planning. Local audiences are often most concerned with the ?compatibility of treatment? in regards to their respective values for the location - they would like the mitigation strategy to align with their values105. If values ? such as aesthetics, rec-reation, and privacy, for example, ? are not taken into account based on the audience?s environment and local context, then the likelihood of change and adoption is much lower106. In addition to their values, the audience?s perception about the local planning process ? whether or not the planners, council members, and decision-makers are ?scientifically sound, fair and inclusive? ? can affect the 27Natural Hazards + Planninglevel to which the information presented is seriously considered and fervently embraced107. Specific projects may require tailored information at the neighbourhood level108.A comprehensive communication strategy can be a significant interaction between all stakeholders, especially when the stakeholders are respected and the stratgey is implemented meaningfully109. Therefore, planners and decision makers need to consider how to generate these meaningful discus-sions in each and every circumstance ? focusing not only on what information will be communicated but how the information will be communicated110. It is no longer considered a satisfactory community and disaster planning effort to focus solely on the information communicated; relationships must be built and used as the foundation to create long-term impacts in the community111. As always, in order to fully reach and be interpreted by the target audience, these communication strategies must be robust, written in an appropriate language and manner, and published and pro-moted in a suitable means. An available contact person is also appreciated.As such, the world of sustainable hazard mitigation planning retains two particular challenges: the ability to integrate community and disaster management planning, and the need to encourage a high level of community participation and communication112.CanadaSection Three:There exist various planning and emergency management tools and legislation applicable in Canada at the local, provincial, and federal levels. However, in Canada, the onus and initial responsibility to respond and handle natural hazard mitigation planning or disaster and emergency response falls under the responsibility of the local government.This section highlights the provincial and federal legislation, as it would pertain to a local government in the province of B.C. British ColumbiaIn B.C., the powers, roles and responsibilities of local governments are set out via provincial law by the provincial governement. For a community in B.C., most powers and responsibilities are set out by the Community Charter and the Local Government Act (LGA). The Ministry of Community Sport, and Cultural Development is ?responsible for all local government legislation and provides provincial oversight of local governments on a day to day basis?113. Two main types of local governments exist in B.C. - municipalities and regional districts - which cover the majority of the settled areas in the province114.There are 27 regional districts, which are ?corporations governed by boards of directors? in B.C.115. These boards consist of directors who are either elected ?by residents of the unincorporated ar-eas (electoral area directors) or appointed by ?the elected councils of its member municipalities (electoral area directors)116. Regional districts are typically responsible for providing services, passing regional-level bylaws, community planning inititatives and ?acting as the local government for those residents living in unincorporated areas?117.Municipalities are ?villages, towns, districts or cities? within the province which are run by a mayor and councilors that are elected ?by the citizens of the municipality?118. Eighty-seven percent of the population falls within one of the 162 municipalities that exist in B.C.119. Municipalities, which this re-port focuses on, are also responsible for providing services, passing bylaws, and ?ensuring that devel-opment occurs in an organized manner that meets the needs of the residents of the municipality?120.The Local Government Act:The LGA is the principle piece of provincial legislation that affects a local governments planning capabilities as it sets out the municipal and regional powers for land use management, as well the creation and operational structure of regional districts and municipalities121. Sections of the LGA that pertain to land use planning with direct links to a local governments ability to deal with natural hazard planning mitigation initiatives have been pulled-out. These relevant sections, from Part 26 are:? Section 877, affects planning and land use management by requiring that the applicable OCP includes statements and map designations of any restrictions to the use of land in the area due to hazardous conditions or an environmental sensitivity to development?122.? Section 905.1, permits changes to the local zoning bylaw when hazardous conditions that were previously unknown to the local government are discovered, even after the phased develop-29Natural Hazards + CanadaNatural Hazards + Canadament agreement was initially established123.? Section 909, states that a local government may use bylaws to set standards on landscaping in order to prevent ?hazardous conditions?124.? Section 919.1, states that an OCP may designate a DPA for the ?protection of development from hazardous conditions?125. Land, designated under this section and that falls within this clause, may then be required to ?specify areas of land that may be subject to flooding, mud flows, debris torrents, erosion, land slips, rock falls, subsidence, tsunami, avalanches or wildfires? or any other potential hazard within the development permit. It may also prohibit septic tanks or other water systems from being constructed in unstable soil or degraded water areas. In relation to wildfires, this clause can stipulate that ?the character of the development? be conserved and therefore restrict ?the type and placement of trees and other vegetation in proximity to the development?126.Official Community PlansAn OCP is a plan, or statement, which includes objectives and policies, usually amassed through pub-lic engagement activities, that have been put forward to guide the local governments ?decisions on planning and land use management?127. The community?s OCP often sets out the vision statement, overall direction and policies pertaining to growth and development. OCPs must work along side, and coordinate with, policies and goals of regional growth strategies and other local plans.128Detailed regulations, such as zoning bylaws, or Development Permit Areas (DPA) are not required to be incorporated in an OCP129. OCPs do not apply to land outside of the local government?s boundaries, or land that it cannot control (such as Crown land or First Nations land)130.Other LegislationIn addition to the L.G.A., the Emergency Management Act (EMA) explains and divides the responsi-bilities pertaining to emergency management within B.C. This Act gives responsibility to local gov-ernments ?at all times? for the ?direction and control of the local authority?s emergency response?131.When local authorities are unable to cope, or when natural hazard mitigation initiatives have failed, the provincial All Hazards Plan is the next relevant disaster document. It is the most recent hazard planning document published by the B.C. government. The All Hazards Plan ?outlines the response framework for emergencies and disasters? which includes the activation of the Emergency Manage-ment British Columbia (EMBC) operation centres132.Should the need arise that the federal government be called in, the Minister of Public Safety, under the federal Emergency Management Act is responsible for ?coordinating the Government of Canada?s response to an emergency?133. The Government of Canada also has the Federal Emergency Response Plan (FERP) which is the federal equivalent to B.C.?s All Hazards Plan.134 Under the FERP, the Depart-ment of National Defence (DND) can send Canadian Forces personnel or other resources; Envi-ronment Canada (EC) can provide subject matter expertise; and Industry Canada (IC) can provide additional ?situational awareness of telecommunications infrastructure?135.Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study 30First NationsAboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) is responsible for providing simi-lar support and provisions for First Nations communities. In B.C., the EMBC has signed a Letter of Understanding with AANDC that states that EMBC will provide supportive measures to First Na-tions communities when requested by either AANDC or a local Band Council136.31Natural Hazards + CanadaNatural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study 32Date: Summer, 2003Population Affected: 45,000 people evacuatedLocation: Okanagan Region, B.C.The 2003 fire season was the largest, most intense, damaging and expensive fire on record for the province137.By the end of the season, over 2,470 indi-vidual fires had occurred; over 330 homes were destroyed; and three pilots had died. The total cost, in 2003 dollars, is over $700 million, which includes property losses and forest fighting costs.138 The most damaging fire was the Okanagan Mountain Park Fire (OMPF), started August 16th, 2003 by lightning. It alone accounted for the destruc-tion of 238 homes with numerous other homes and businesses suffering smoke and water damage. Over 26,000 residents were evacuated while another 15,000 remaining on evacuation notice throughout the month that the OMPF continued to burn.139The OMPF had an extensive economic impact on the region as it occurred during the peak tourist season. The Okanagan Mountain Park itself was directly affected by these losses, as was the Kettle Valley Railway, a national historic site, which cost $15 million dollars to rebuild after it was burnt down. Tourism Kelowna implemented various strategies to offset the nega-tive coverage the region was receiving in an attempt to maintain its tour-ism industry post-OMPF. In addition, there is evidence that the OMPF was the cause of detrimental health impacts, particularly related to respiratory diseases.140Major Forest Fires of 2003Landslides & Snow AvalanchesDate: January 2003Fatalities: 30Location: B.C. & AlbertaIn communities throughout Western Canada, over 30 people were killed dur-ing the January to April avalanche season, while two people were successfully evac-uated. The costs of damages and injury are unknown141. Mudslides & FloodingDate: December 1996Estimated Damage: $215 Million (1996 dollars)Location: Metro Vancouver, Gulf Islands, and Vancouver Island, B.C.At the end of December 1996, an unusu-ally large snowfall occurred in southwest-ern B.C. Ferry services were cancelled, airports were closed, highways and roads were closed due to flooding, avalanches and downed hydro wires. 142Date: June, 1948Estimated Damage: $210 Million (2010 $)Location: Fraser River, B.C.The Fraser River flood of 1948 is the second largest on record for the Fraser River.  Over 22,000 hectares of land flooded ? nearly one third of the entire lower Fraser Valley floodplain area ? after having breached a dozen dyking measures144. The two trans-continental rail lines were also damaged; the Trans-Canada Highway flooded; and many urban areas and industries were cov-ered in debris145. Over 16,000 people were evacuated, 2,000 homes were damaged or destroyed, and the estimated damage at the time was $20 million dollars (or $210 mil-lion in 2010 dollars)146. Some of the dam-age occurred in Kamloops, Prince George, and Quesnel, but the vast majority of the damage and costs arose from the damaged incurred by the lower Fraser Valley. Date: October 2003Estimated Damage: $40 MillionLocation: Squamish, B.C.The Cheakmus River in Squamish severely flooded after record rainfall, which result-ed in a 150-year flood147. Over 800 people were impacted by road washouts and com-munity flooding148.Date: March, 2007Estimated Damages: UnknownLocation: Metro Vancouver, B.C.After a weekend of heavy rain, B.C.?s lower mainland sustained mudslides and flooding. Approximately 170 houses flooded and an evacuation warning was announced. 149Major FloodingHail & Severe ThunderstormDate: August, 1994Estimated Damage: $11 MillionLocation: Salmon Arm, B.C.In one day of Thunderstorms in Salmon Arm, over $11 million dollars of damage.14333Natural Hazards + CanadaForest Fire in L.A.Credit:  www.acclaimimages.comMaple RidgeSection Four:The District of Maple Ridge (the District, or Maple Ridge) is a community on the north shore of the Fraser River, nestled between the City of Pitt Meadows, the Coastal Mountain Range, and the District of Mission. It is now part of the Metro Vancouver region.150While a young community - established in 1874 with less than 50 families - Maple Ridge has grown to over 70,000 residents, and expects to reach over 100,000 residents by 2030151. The District has a median age slightly below that of the Metro Vancouver region, with a higher percentage of young families, children, and seniors152. It also has a ?much smaller proportion of visible minorities? than most other municipalities within Metro Vancouver153. Overall, the District has a small town feeling, rural character and plenty of access to outdoor activities.154In terms of local government and planning activities, the District?s most recent OCP was published in 2006. Since then, it has received many amendments, but has not yet been fully re-published. In the OCP, the District?s corporate mission statement is set as ?the responsibility to promote a safe and liveable community for our present and future citizens?155. In conjunction with that, is the vision statement from the OCP which states that the District will ?strive to protect its Community Values...as it becomes more vibrant and prosperous, offering residents a strong local economy, stable and special neighbourhoods, thoughtful development, a diversity of agriculture, and respect for the built and natural environment?156. From these statements, the District has committed, in plan, to the safety, security and liveability of its residents. From a natural hazard perspective, the District has many hazards to bear in mind - mu-nicipal publications list the top hazards as flood, fire, rail incident, interface wild fire, power outage, natural gas incident, marine incident, landslide, and earthquake157. Being a young and enthusiastic municipality, with a variety of natural hazards and a strong commitment to safety, the District was selected for the following natural hazard planning and communication analysis. Natural Hazards + Maple RidgeNatural Hazards + Maple RidgeMaple Ridge Hazards- Flood- Fire- Rail Incident- Interface Wild Fire- Power Outage- Natural Gas Incident- Marine Incident- Landslide- EarthquakeMaple Ridge in relation to Metro Vancouver, B.C.Credit: Maple Ridge Real Estate.caMaple Ridge3536 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study As discussed in the previous sections, natural hazards can have a significant impact on a municipality?s residents, hard infrastructure, social networks and the natural environment.158 In order to mitigate natural hazard risks, a community must be prepared. With the advent of the community and disaster planning profession, many local governments have been researching and implementing hazard related land use planning for decades159.  However, in recent years the integration of community and disaster planning along with a stronger focus on public engagement and participation has appeared.160 Today, community-based disaster planning has become the ideal approach, but has not yet been widely implemented.161 For communities that have not implemented a community-based disaster planning approach, but have demonstrated interest in providing security for their residents in the face of natu-ral hazards, an effective communication outreach program can be considered an interim step - they are attempting to engage with the public above and beyond the previously required level of public engagement and addressing multiple hazards. Local governments and decison-makers have become accustomed to disseminating information to the public - local zoning amendments require it - and could easily understand and adapt to the concept of promoting natural hazard planning information. The natural hazard planning and communication analysis has been completed by doing a thorough search of the natural hazard related policies and bylaws as well as a search of any additional hazard-specific plans or general information pertaining to natural hazards, disaster management, emergency services, etc at the community level. The idea is to determine how much information is easily available, and accessible, to interested residents. The information was gathered through online research, primar-ily from documents and links available on, or through, the Districts own website (www.mapleridge.ca) but also through other online sources, including the local newspaper, in order to grasp the natural hazard planning related picture that residents would have access to. For the traditional planning related documents, the community?s OCP was the starting point. The first stage, was to identify if there was a record of a particular hazard (e.g. fire, flood, landslide, etc.) either in a planning related document or online, as the online resources were often more recently updated than the OCP itself. From there, the task was to determine if the hazard was being explained within the local context (either at the District or Regional District level) or if mitigation strategies, or local actions, were being communicated to the general public. If a hazard was mentioned, with an explana-tion and some follow-up information provided, then the hazard was considered to be adequately dealt with. If those three conditions were met, with obvious evidence of a targeted communication/public awareness or education campaign, then the hazard was considered effectively dealt with. If not all three conditions were met, then the hazard was considered poorly dealt with, however some mitigating notes may be added at this stage. For example, a hazard with an extremely low probability and low impact for the community would not necessarily need to have all three conditions met, yet by having the hazard mentioned at least once should warrant an ?adequate? as opposed to a ?poor?. Natural Hazard Planning and Communication Analysis:37Natural Hazards + Maple RidgeOverall, the District?s OCP demonstrates some initial efforts on integrating community planning and disaster preparedness through mitigating natural hazard risks. Several hazards have been developed in more detail than others, but as a growing community that is to be expected as the level of planning resources and potentially vulnerable residents grow. Clearly the District has not been able to de-velop, or demonstrate a strong interest in, a community-based disaster planning approach, however clear effort has been made to communicate some mitigation techniques to residents. Conveniently for the District, the intended audiences are relatively homogenous - the District is not known for its demographic diversity - however that isn?t to say that targeted communication efforts are still not recommended. The District has made aware that it values both its residential interests and its busi-ness or commercial related interests.Specific hazard related planning and communication findings will now be addressed:Forest Fire Hazard:Given that over sixty percent of Maple Ridge is forested, it is important for residents and businesses to be aware of the forest fire related hazards within the District162. Forest fires are by far the fore-most hazard that Maple Ridge has worked on. They have developed (and presumably implemented) several mitigation strategies and publications. Unfortunately, it is outside the scope of this work to determine if the policies, plans, and requirements are being appropriately implemented.PlanningThe District?s OCP refers to seven policies (see Appendix A) ? two specifically for forest fires and the rest for hazards in general ? and two fire-related bylaws (see Appendix B). Clear action has been made on fire related hazards since 2003 (the publication of the Fire Hall Master Plan), including the policies and references in the OCP of 2006.Policy 5-4 of the OCP addresses the expected level of collaboration between municipalities, regional governments, and senior levels of government pertaining to natural hazard mitigation and community protection.163  Essentially, this policy permits the District?s documents to be updated as new guidelines and recommendations are made available by either the Provincial, or Federal governments. As Maple Ridge does not have unique, within the context of the province, threats or risks to natural hazards, this policy is an excellent way to conserve resources - provincial and federal governments typically have a larger resource base and have the capacity to conduct research and provide ?best practice? recommendations and guidelines compared to most smaller local governments. The focus on col-laboration and partnerships is further reinforced by Policy 5-14. As mentioned above in Section 2, higher levels of collaboration and partnership are likely to encourage more effective and complete communication approaches.Policy 5-13 refers to ?trees, natural forests and woodland areas? rather than specifically referring to forest fire hazards164. Nonetheless this is an important policy to include for planning and communica-tion purposes, as residents and developers must understand the District?s stance on this subject. This Policy and the new Wildfire DPA (discussed on the following pages) policies must be appropriately explained and communicated to relevant residents (those with properties that have increased wild-fire risk or are within the proposed Wildfire DPA) as they must understand and appreciate which Natural Hazard Planning and Communication Findings:38 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study trees are appropriate to be kept, and at which distance. In order to appropriately communicate this topic to residents, business owners and developers alike, new communication material should be developed. Clear and simple diagrams, photos demonstrat-ing the policy, along with an explanation and a list of precedents would greatly assist disseminating this message to the intended audiences.The District acted on Policy 5-18 by publishing the Fire Department Master Plan (authored by B.A. Blackwell & Associates), as well as publishing the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (B.A. Blackwell & Associates) in 2007 (which built off the earlier Wildfire Risk Management Strategy, 2006). The Dis-trict moved quickly to create and publish documents on wildfire related hazards, which was likely in response to the fatal wildfire season of 2003 ? which also spurred action by the B.C. government.Both the Community Wildfire Protection Plan and the Alberta government?s FireSmart ? Protecting Your Community were written based on local contexts. The Community Wildfire Protection Plan presented several recommendations (see Appendix C for a complete list) specific to the District itself - not just general wildfire related land use policies, but specific action items for the District to complete.Given the difference between publication dates, the Fire Department Master Plan (which deals with the internal services and capabilities of the Fire Department) does not include the recommendations from the Community Wildfire Protection Plan. There is no evidence of amendments being made to the plan since 2003. However, as long as the District meets the Fire Department Master Plan requirements of having access to a satisfactory amount of fire halls and personnel, then there should be little issue in fulfilling the personnel and support criteria required to meet the current level of wildfire risk in the District.  District action will be required in order to meet future wildfire risk, should additional residential developments be built in wildfire hazard areas.The in-progress Wildfire DPA highlights wildfire prone areas.165 These wildfire prone areas are also highlighted within the OCP as areas for future residential development166. Recommendations from the Community Wildfire Protection Plan assist in addressing this obvious conflict of intending to build in wildfire prone areas. The Wildfire DPA would be a strong land-use planning technique to assist in the providing appropriate guidelines and building codes for wildfire prone areas. As part of the DPA development process, the District hosted a Public Open House in October, 2012 and posted Wildfire DPA posters online167. Unfortunately, there is no record of further progress on the Wildfire DPA development since that date, and evidence suggests that those actions entirely consist of the Districts? efforts of public engagement on this matter.On a separate web page from the Wildfire DPA information site, the District highlights its key pri-orities for wildfire management planning168.  As found on the Community Wildfire Protection site (which does provide a link to the draft Wildfire DPA web page):? Hazard and risk mapping of the District to establish areas of the community that are at greatest risk from fire;? Facilitation of communication and education to local residents, all levels of government, and the general public;? Facilitation of a review and amendment of existing and proposed Development Permits based 39Natural Hazards + Maple Ridgeon the hazard mapping assessment;? Facilitation of revisions to building standards and bylaws; and? Identification of potential locations for strategic fuel breaks and forest stand-level fuel reduction both within and outside the community. 169CommunicationAs indicated in the previous section, Maple Ridge appears to have expended most of its resources and efforts towards forest fire hazard planning. The District has commissioned several studies, pro-duced several plans and is in the process of developing and implementing a wildfire DPA. Maple Ridge is making a concerted effort to present fire hazard related information to its residents. However, most of their current communication approaches fall under the traditional approach. Pro-viding that the District is still in an information awareness stage, this can be considered acceptable.Communication efforts include having a page on the District?s website devoted to community wild-fire protection and provides those interested with a link to the Community Wildfire Protection Plan and the Wildfire Management System report as well as other non-natural hazard fire related information. Additionally, the site provides access to other fire hazard related education material, primarily pub-lished by the Government of Alberta and the Government of Canada.170As mentioned above, the website highlights the Districts key priorities for wildfire management planning, which prioritizes the importance of communication, collaboration and public engagement with the following wording: ?facilitation of communication and education to local residents, all levels of government, and the general public?171. In addition, the ?Topics of Interest? sidebar provides links to the Arson Prevention Program for Children, a Fire Code Change bulletin, the Outdoor Burning page, and the application for the Paid-On-Call Fire Fighter program. It also includes links related to other, general hazard such as ?Tips for Using 9-1-1?, as well as the contact information for the Maple Ridge Fire Department. 172Overall, Maple Ridge is presenting a good amount and variety of information sources. However, the website links seem a bit sporadic. It can take quite a bit of sleuthing if a resident is looking for a specif-ic item - such as the application for the Fire Fighter program or specific local fire hazard information. The website has not been put together in a fashion which would assist viewers to pursue additional information, or know what other information could be available. The links are often presented with-out much context and are unlikely to encourage further browsing. As highlighted above, the Community Wildfire Protection Plan has 21 recommendations for the District (again, see Appendix C for the complete list). Three recommendations are relevant to the District?s communication initiatives. They are (not listed in order):? Recommendation 1: The District should create an interactive website that outlines community fire risks and proactive steps that individual homeowners can take to make their homes safer. Other information, such as fire danger and FireSmart principles, should be maintained on the local site so that fire management issues specific to Maple Ridge could be easily communicated to the local population. 173? Recommendation 2: The Maple Ridge Fire Rescue Service should work with the Maple Ridge 40 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study Regional Chamber of Commerce ? in particular sections that depend on forest use, i.e. tourism and recreation ? to inform and educate the local business community on FireSmart preparation and planning. 174? Recommendation 3: The District should work with local developers to construct a FireSmart show home to be used as a tool to educate and communicate the principles of FireSmart to the public. The demonstration home would be built to FireSmart standards using recommended materials for interface communities.  Additionally, vegetation adjacent to the home would be managed to guidelines outlined in the FireSmart program. 175As summarized earlier, the District of Maple Ridge does have a few web pages providing informa-tion on community wildfire prevention and risk. Overall, it is quite difficult to consistently locate all fire related web pages. For example, while searching for local conditions one would likely miss the Wildfire DPA and other Community Wildfire information initiatives. In terms of local conditions, the Forest Fire Danger rating can be found on the District?s website (Emergency Services -> Fire De-partment -> Forest Fire Danger) with a link to the provincial Wildfire Management Branch for more details, but little else.176 The information is extremely segregated and obscure. Given the percent of Maple Ridge that is forested and the amount campgrounds in nearby parks, this lack of information and direction can be quite a concern. As it presently stands, the current website does serve as a portal to access fire related information, but is not engaging or easy to use. Whereas a static website is simply a high-tech version of the traditional communication approach ? information flowing in one direction - the recommended interactive website would make the information far more interesting to viewers and would permit individuals to gather all relevant information ? local conditions, public education initiatives, etc. ? in one place, as well as being tailored to multiple interest groups.With the rise, and relative ease, of social media use in community planning, there is limited (only one reference on the Flooding Information page) reference to the District?s social media accounts. Social media can assist the District in engaging with residents, and viewers. In fact, it could likely bridge the gap of only having a static website, while the District pursues the interactive website recommenda-tion.If implemented, the first recommendation would improve the accessibility as well as the understand-ing of residents by bringing together all the hazard related information from across the site. This would greatly increase the effectiveness of the District?s communication initiatives.The second recommendation illustrates that while Maple Ridge is primarily a residential commu-nity, there still are many businesses and economic initiatives within its boundaries that need to be addressed in mitigating the risk of natural hazards. As evidence, Maple Ridge has made a point to launch an ?Invest in North Fraser? campaign to bring more economic activity to the District177. This campaign reinforces the importance of having a communication approach which targets not only residents, but business owners and operators as well.Despite operating or owning a business in the District, not all business owners and operators will necessarily reside within Maple Ridge. Therefore, non-resident business owners and operators can 41Natural Hazards + Maple Ridgebe left out of discussions, information campaigns, and decisions that affect their goods and services. In terms of the recommendation to partner with the Maple Ridge Chamber of Commerce, there is no mention of a reference to the Chamber of Commerce on the hazard websites, nor to hazard mitigation initiatives on the Chamber?s website. There is a link to the Emergency Preparedness for Industry and Commerce Council of B.C. on one hazard-related site on the District?s website178. It is only mentioned once, but given the focus on increasing the economic activity of the District, should really be mentioned more often. The last recommendation provides an excellent way to engage the public in a non-traditional means without requiring a visit to the District?s website. By constructing a demonstration home, residents would be able to see and experience fire related guidelines in person. This would assist in develop-ing a better understanding and visualization of what fire hazard mitigation guidelines involve. It also provides an opportunity for concerned or interested residents to interact with informed District representatives.As always, there would be associated challenges with this initiative ? namely finding a developer will-ing to collaborate with the District and build the demonstration house. However, given recent news articles by the Maple Ridge News in early January 2013, there does seem be a need to explain the benefits of fire protection guidelines to the public, but more importantly, to Council as well, as there are rising concerns that land values and housing prices will decrease179.Given the evaluation system, the District?s communication approach thus far would qualify as effec-tive. Should the District implement the three recommendations from the Community Wildfire Protec-tion Plan, then the evaluation would soundly qualify as effective. In summary, while the District does have a wide range of information available, it is difficult to find and it is easy to overlook and miss pieces of important information. By encouraging local partnerships and collaborations, consolidating the information (with content review by a professional expert), and targeting both residents and business owners and operators, the District can greatly improve the effects of their natural hazard mitigation efforts.Flood Hazard PlanningThe District?s OCP highlights many flood and/or water related land use policies (see Appendix D for a pull out of relevant policies). Policy 5-4, detailed above under forest fire hazards, is the only policy to explicitly refer to the term floodplains. The only other reference to the term is in a policy statement (see Appendix E) docu-ment, which regulates earthfill within a floodplain. Otherwise, all OCP policies, such as 5-28 and 5-33, discuss storm water management techniques and habitat protection without specifically referring to floodplains or a flood.  This is likely an oversight by the District which may be amended given the increased visibility of flood hazards in the media during the summer of 2013, with the floods in Alberta and Toronto.In general, Maple Ridge has policies and bylaws (see Appendix F) that should adequately protect riparian areas and watercourses, providing they are being implemented and enforced. While not directly related to flood hazards, protecting riparian areas and watercourses is recommended, as 42 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study they affect the quality and health of the water and watercourse, support liveable places, and diminish flood risk180. Without specific flood-related policies, this style of protection is the only form currently available to the District.As the most recent floodplain map is from 2009, the District will most likely struggle in the future with the need to finance updated floodplain mapping.  It is important for a community to have access to updated floodplain maps as building in a floodplain or without flood-mitigative designs, could ad-versely impact the community given a heavy-enough flood.  Zoning requirements, bylaws, and DPAs are often developed off of the available maps. Therefore, for the community to be secure, it requires access to updated and pertinent information.The District has a presentation available online, from April 2011, which states flooding is the top hazard for Maple Ridge, out of the top nine hazards181. Given the amount of work completed on for-est fire planning, it is likely that Maple Ridge has yet to focus the same amount of resources towards flood related hazards, despite the reported flood risk for the community.The majority of flood related information is presented as ?general information? on the District?s web-site (discussed below). The information ranges from preventative strategies, flood recovery options as well as disaster financial assistance information.CommunicationSince the publication of the OCP, the District appears to have made little visible progress on flood related hazards ? no new publications have been made available. The publication of the next OCP will likely reflect a shift in focus from fire to flood related hazards, depending on Council and public engagement activities.Similar to navigating the online material pertaining to fire hazards, the bylaws, policies and policy statements related to flooding are difficult to navigate, and likely challenging to digest by the general public. The District needs to focus on communicating clear, concise, accessible information which is available and readable by the general public.As mentioned above, the flooding information is published on a static website, where there is infor-mation about flooding and flood hazards, yet according to the website code, it has not been updated since late November 2012.  Rather, the first paragraph encourages viewers to visit the District?s social media pages for updated information on current flooding conditions. A search through the history of the District?s Twitter and Facebook page revealed no direct hazard information having been men-tioned in the last several months.An interesting component to accessing the flood information on the District?s website is that before proceeding to the information, one must read a disclaimer and click ?accept? before gaining access to the information182. The disclaimer is likely to remove the liability from the District as to the accuracy and validity of the information. While likely being a valid and sound legal action, it can be disconcert-ing for residents who might reconsider the validity of the data available to them.43Natural Hazards + Maple RidgeIn order to determine whether flood planning and warnings are relevant to a particular resident, there must be a system to indicate which areas are at risk. The District, via the website, permits inter-ested people to do a rough ?do-it-yourself ? floodplain analysis by including two maps (see Appendix G). One is the Fraser River Floodplain Map (MOE, March 2008), which highlights the Fraser River floodplain of the Lower Fraser Valley. This map does not come with street numbers, which could make it difficult for readers unfamiliar with maps and spatial analysis to accurately determine if they are within the floodplain. In addition, there might be confusion as to the likelihood of the floodplain being flooded, or the magnitude of the expected flood. The dike information on the map can be unclear to members of the general public, as well, there are challenges of explaining ?1 in 200 year? flood risk concepts. In comparison, the second map, the North and South Alouette River Floodplains (2009), is detailed enough to show some street names, allowing the general public to better orient themselves, providing they are already aware of which section of the District is along the Alouette River.In addition to the ?do-it-yourself ? floodplain analysis, links are provided to a variety of gage and util-ity sites as presumed sources of up-to-date and historical information. Otherwise, the site provides information and links to resources (mainly Provincial and Federal resources and publications) to help residents and businesses minimize damage, including in areas of:? Family, farm or business preparation? Animal Care? Vehicles and Drive Safety Recommendations? an wide range of FAQs 183Given Maple Ridge?s reputation as being a rural area, it was promising to see the District tailoring the flood related information. Flood-related animal care is a concern which some, but not all, municipali-ties in the Metro Vancouver region would need to concern themselves with. Presenting and having this information accessible to the public highlights the District?s recognition the unique needs of its residents.However, the website does not link to nor promote specific flood-protection measures. The links to Fortis BC and BC Hydro are broken ? requiring a separate search to find the recommended best practice information on dealing with natural gas and hydro in the event of a flood. The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) checklist provides advice on what to do after a flood, but there is no substantial recommendations or information on ways to flood-proof your home in advance of a flood184. The website does provide information about sandbags ? including where resi-dents can access them? but as they are often seen as a measure of last resource, it would be more beneficial for residents to have access to other preventative measures. Given New York?s response to Superstorm Sandy and  the media coverage of the summer flooding in Alberta and Toronto, it is most likely that new information packages, measures and guidelines will surface (such as A Stronger More Resilient New York). These new guidelines will most likely highlight suggested programs and methods of flood-resistance for a local community. The District would do well to incorporate these new guidelines and publications, as they become available, to their library of flooding information available for residents. 44 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study In addition to flood prevention, the website highlights a few aspects about what may occur after a flood. It is important that the District highlights post-flood recovery, as well as protection to pro-vide reassurance to residents - people like to know that there is a plan for after the hazard strikes. The District states that insurance will likely not cover flood damage and re-direct the reader to the Provincial Disaster Financial Assistance (DFA) program185. Since the 2013 summer floods in Alberta, many residents may be more aware of the lack of private insurance than before. Nonetheless it is an important component to continue to highlight, as many residents may not fully comprehend what their insurance covers and that the funds of the disaster assistance program are only eligible for cer-tain, ?qualified? natural disasters186. In addition, there could be concerns that by advertising the fact that the Province ? likely with Federal assistance ? will assist with repairs and rebuilding, may lessen the importance and incentive of protecting flood-prone buildings.If residents and business owners do not internalize and recognize the importance of flood-proofing at-risk buildings given the existence of the DFA program, it may weaken the strength of the flood-prevention recommendations posted on the District?s website. Residents may feel as if the costs of repairs will be covered and therefore see little need to implement proactive or protective measures. This false sense of security could be reinforced by the fact that preventative flood-proofing measures are not highlighted, promoted or published on the District?s website, yet the DFA program is.The B.C. Emergency Social Services (ESS) program is not highlighted nor are its actions and post-hazard support publicized. The ESS program is designed to provide limited, short-term assistance with food, lodging, clothing, emotional support, and family reunification in the event of a disaster187. However, the short description on the website fails to note that local authorities are responsible for operating the ESS program, not the provincial government. Recognizing the level of support and activity expected of the local authorities in the event of a disaster may affect the level of support for various services by the general public, which could be reflected in future public engagement activities and plans.187 In summary, flood-related hazards should qualify as merely ?adequate?, as there is insignificant mention in the OCP. Most policies and bylaws refer to land uses which will affect a flood, but does not directly address flood hazards. Again, the information is unidirectional and difficult to amass online.Earthquake and Emergency Preparedness & PlanningWithin the District?s OCP, there is no mention of earthquakes or earthquake related policies (such as building standards or evacuation plans and procedures linked with an earthquake hazard) yet there is a considerable earthquake risk for the region, which should be acknowledged188.In terms of standards, the Building Code of B.C. is continually updated to reflect the latest infor-mation which should incorporate earthquake resilient designs and standards. If the district was so inclined, they could require stricter guidelines, but this would likely be too large of a drain on their resources and/or be in conflict with Council?s desires to increase development (as stricter designs would likely be more expensive for developers to build, and thus a less attractive place to build). With that in mind, relying on the Building Code of B.C. seems a reasonable solution. Provincial publications, relating to earthquakes and effects of earthquakes, some of which are on the 45Natural Hazards + Maple RidgeDistrict?s website include:? British Columbia Earthquake Response Plan (2008)? Earthquake Preparedness Handout? British Columbia Tsunamis Notification Process Plan (2008)As well as an Earthquake Hazard Map for the Metro Vancouver region.In terms of emergency preparedness, the District only discusses the Municipal Emergency Program, highlights the members of the Emergency Management Committee and the location of the Emer-gency Operations Centre. 189CommunicationIn terms of information available to the public, nearly all documents referenced online on hazard planning and emergency management are provincial or federal publications, with the exception of an ?Emergency Program Presentation?, which does not have presentation notes so the context and goal of the presentation is lost. It is an extremely challenging document to comprehend - it could easily illicit negative emotions and fear in residents, as it is mainly provides photos of disasters, with little to no text for context.190A consistent message throughout several of the emergency services pages is the awareness and desire of the District that residents be self-sufficient for 72 hours post-disaster191. The District does provides links to several guides on ways to become self-sufficient for that time period. There is a bit of confusion from the District with ?sustainability? and ?hazard protection?, as on the same page as promoting the 72 hours, they also promote actions and ways to help make Maple Ridge ?one of the most sustainable communities in the world?, which is not likely to assist in the event of a disaster192.Although there is no direct mention of earthquakes in the OCP, the website of the District does sup-ply some information to the general public about earthquakes.  Primarily, the information is found in the 72 hours self-sufficient documents (mentioned above) but they do provide a link to a document titled ?Drop, Cover and Hold On? on many web pages. It is a one page publication, with an unknown author, comparing two styles of earthquake survival techniques193.This document is an odd choice to have published under the title ?Drop, Cover and Hold? (gener-ally expected to be a set of instructions many people from B.C. would be familiar with from older earthquake public awareness campaigns or from earthquake drills at school) as opposed to purely promoting and reinforcing the Drop, Cover and Hold technique, the document spends more time negating the other method, which may cast doubt over both strategies for residents reading the doc-ument.194 If the District wishes to promote a discussion on various earthquake survival techniques, there are likely much more appropriate titles for such documents to have, as well as general publica-tions to promote. To avoid confusion, the District should match the content and title of earthquake response publications.An additional omission is the ?award winning evacuation plan?, the Integrated Joint Evacuation Plan, created in collaboration with the City of Pitt Meadows is not available online195. Nor is it ever really referenced, short of press releases from 2007196. Neither the City of Pitt Meadows nor the District of Maple Ridge have the evacuation plan published. While there may be potential security or safety 46 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study reasons for why the District is keeping the entire plan away from the public, it is far more likely that residents may be reassured or appreciate knowing that such a document exists, even if they may be unable to know the explicit steps expected of them during the event of an evacuation. Granted, given the District?s focus on the ?72-hour self-sufficient?, it would seem far more logical to present the Evacuation plan so that residents could properly prepare (either for the evacuation, or being self-sufficient). At the very least, the District could more actively promote where and how residents will be informed of an evacuation alert (such as websites, radio frequencies, etc) and potential evacu-ation routes.In summary, the District?s Earthquake and Emergency Preparedness and Planning regime is relative poor. It is not explicitly mentioned in planning documents, nor clearly communicated. There is many aspects of their communication approach which can be improved. In all likelihood, the planners, de-cision-makers, council and emergency professionals need to re-establish which messages they want to communicate to the public, to avoid unnecessary confusion by the general public. Other Hazard Related Information Planning & CommunicationOther natural hazard related policies include landslide/erosion related OCP policies (see Appendix H and Appendix J), erosion related bylaws (see Appendix I) and a general emergency prepared-ness bylaw (see Appendix K). These policies and bylaws generally constitute mitigation strategies on preventing natural hazards (such as avoiding a landslide, or mitigating the effects of a flood). For the most part, they are not explicitly linked to natural hazard planning but are general land-use policies.In addition, the District mentions a West Nile Virus Response Plan, highlighted in the OCP.  According to reports, it was developed but it is not available online197. The specifics of this plan, while again not available online, does demonstrate the District?s ability to react to current issues and strategies facing the Metro Vancouver region. The land use planning component is standard, with a weak communication approach which results in an overall ?poor? rating. Again, the above land use policies are not well communicated, nor is their existence well explained to the general public, who may still have troubles interpreting and under-standing why, or how, they may assist in mitigating the effects of a natural hazard. Throughout these four sections, there is little emphasis by the District to promote local responsibil-ity. There is some attempt in the flooding section, with the ?Do-it-Yourself ? floodplain analysis and general information provided, but overall it is not strongly communicated. The District will need to work towards fostering this sense of local responsibility for the behaviour changes to actually take effect. More public engagement opportunities and ways to provide feedback may assist in this regard. In terms of partnerships and collaboration, there is no mention of the local First Nations anywhere on the hazard related websites or in the OCP.  A recommendation from the Community Wildfire Pro-tection Plan does suggest collaborating with the Katzie and Kwantlen First Nations in regards to cut-tings and forest tenure, however more collaboration and integration should be expected.199 Should the District be attempting to follow policy 5-4 (the one that stresses collaboration) then the Katzie First Nations should be brought to the table, so that the most comprehensive, effective mitigation of natural hazards on everyone?s families, properties and lifestyles can occur. 47Natural Hazards + Maple RidgeWhile there is evidence of the integration of community planning and natural hazard planning within the District of Maple Ridge?s OCP and the information available online, there are still many areas for improvement. The Mission and Vision Statements speak to a concerned local government that respects the safety and liveability of the residents and business owners and operators of Maple Ridge. There are four broad areas where the District could improve their natural hazard mitigation planning and communication for everyone.Recommendation 1: Integrate Natural Hazard Planning and Community-based PlanningTo begin, the District should continue to pursue the integration of natural hazard and emergency services planning within their community planning initiatives. The District is expecting to develop sev-eral new neighbourhoods over the coming years that would benefit from an integrated, community based approach to community development. By promoting a community-based approach, the Dis-trict will see natural hazard planning which is supported by residents and resilient to natural hazards. In addition, the current drive to procure increased economic activity within the District?s boundaries would be strengthened by a supportive natural hazard plan.Of course, to have an effective natural hazard and community based approach, the District must be sure to address all hazards that threaten the security and safety of its constituents, and to make sure that the plans, strategies and actions of residents, emergency responders and local government officials are not redundant, conflict or negatively affect each other, which leads to the following rec-ommendation:Recommendation 2: All-hazards ApproachThe District is adequately working towards this recommendation - nine hazards have been high-lighted. However, the nine hazards are not dealt with equally, which needs is where the District needs to improve. Thus far, the strong action on local wildfire hazards is to be commended, and 21 strong recommendations have already been provided by experts on the best way to mitigate and adapt to the wildfire risk in Maple Ridge. Therefore the District needs to address the remaining natural hazards in a similar fashion, as there is little discussion of major flooding or marine hazards, railway incidents, or earthquakes in the OCP or online. In order to ensure an integrated and all-hazards approach, several separate aspects need to be ad-dressed.Recommendation 3: CollaborationTo have an effective and resilient plan, a local government can not do it alone. It takes partnership, collaboration and resource sharing between local stakeholders, organizations, and regional, provincial and federal governments. In the case of Maple Ridge, collaborative efforts need to be strengthened with the Katzie First Nations, the University of British Columbia (UBC), economic/business oriented organizations and emergency responders and local planners.The Katzie First Nations, UBC, along with Provincial government, all have interests and assets invested within the forests of Maple Ridge. In order to be able to provide appropriate wildfire services or erosion control initiatives, an open and transparent lines of communication need to open. This begins Recommendations:48 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study by forming partnerships and relationships with these stakeholders. Economic/business organizations such as the Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Chamber of Commerce or the Emergency Preparedness for Industry and Commerce Council of B.C. also need to collaborate with the District to ensure that appropriate, relevant information is reaching all audiences. By increasing the level of collaboration between emergency responders and community planners, reaching the goal of recommendation 1 should be feasible. With this increased collaboration, com-munity plans should be more comprehensive and effective in the face of hazard and liveability stan-dards. Between recommendations 1 to 3, the District should also see an increase in the level of public en-gagement activities and education and awareness campaigns. Recommendation 4: Improved Communication and Outreach InitiativesShould the District properly implement a collaborative, all-hazards approach integrated into their community planning initiatives, then an increase in communication and outreach initiatives will be required. For these to be effective, the techniques and initiatives currently in place will need to im-proved and appropriately tailored to the intended audience and communication goal. At the very least, the District needs to update and expand the natural hazard related information available on their website, this would likely strengthen the District?s sense of preparedness and abil-ity to respond in the face of a natural hazard or disaster. To meet that goal, the following actions are recommended:? The District should consolidate natural hazard related information and assess the best way to disseminate this information to each audience. For information which is designed to raise aware-ness, static unidirectional communication channels are appropriate. However, the District should make the information engaging and interactive whenever possible - particularly when attempting to change a behaviour pattern. Unidirectional communication methods are useful for making an audience become aware of an issue, but isn?t necessarily the most effective means for an audience to form an opinion or to adopt a new behaviour or idea. At the simplest level, the District could explore a stronger social media presence ? Facebook and Twitter accounts do already exist. The local RCMP have their own Twitter account which does highlight areas of concern, including fire incidents, within the District.199 The local Fire Halls, or Emergency Services branch of the District could do something similar. ? Information should be easy to locate and navigate. It should be accessible and readable - prefer-ably with limited jargon and clear, concise statements. The District will need tailored communica-tion approaches for multiple audiences, including young families, seniors and business owners and operators. Ideally, the information will be provided with enough context and clarity as to not raise negative emotions through confusion.  For example, while specific zoning requirements are likely too much detail for interested people, an announcement that they are working towards mitigating of the risk of landslides, by preventing 49Natural Hazards + Maple Ridgesoil erosion through greening activities ? including maintaining the presence of native trees and vegetation and not building on steep slopes ? would be much more engaging and reassuring for an audience.? Determine the communication and outreach goals of each initiative, so that the public awareness, education and outreach activities will be focused and effective. Through the increased collabora-tion between stakeholders (including but not limited to emergency responders and economic-oriented organizations) will assist in properly identifying and assessing these goals.? Other strategies could include strengthening the informal networks found within Maple Ridge as well programs and activities to target specific audiences. Programs and coordinated outreach activities with school groups and community centers are one example. The recommendation by Blackwell & Associates to build a FireSmart home would be an excellent initiative. As a precedent, emergency responders in San Francisco have developed, in collaboration with various partners, the concept of Resilient Ville ? a game that encourages neighbourhood to be prepared for and know how to react in the event of a disaster200. In addition, with the recent interest and publi-cation along the eastern seaboard of the United States many new precedent setting programs and initiatives may surface. Given the current status of natural hazard planning in the District, this would be a prime opportunity to benefit from the global research, interest and innovative com-munication and planning responses in mitigating such disasters.While all facets of planning and communication will improve through the previous recommendations, there remain several hazard-specific recommendations that should be addressed.For flood-related hazards: ? As good flood-hazard policies are based off of the most recent flood plain maps, the District will need to investigate ways to continually to be able to fund floodplain mapping into the future.? With the updated maps, the District will have access to relevant information with which to cre-ate relevant policies and plans, which will be continually updated to account for changing factors.? The District should inform residents if they do live on a floodplain. Floodplain analysis should not be left to proactive residents who happen to explore the District?s website and find the floodplain maps. All residents and businesses should be made aware if they are in fact on, or at risk, of a flood. ? Properly compile flood related information and conduct the necessary additional research, plan-ning and outreach initiatives.? Present flood related mitigation and prevention techniques and tools, including promoting flood-safe building designs on the District website, or through other relevant communication approaches. ? Create an effective communication strategy to explain the ?1 in 200? year flood concept. General audiences likely assume that this means the flood will occur every 200 years, as opposed to the 0.05% chance of the flood occurring every year.For Emergency Preparedness:? Increase and strengthen the amount of information available about emergency preparedness - highlight specific local conditions and factors when possible - as it would strengthen the feel of preparedness and ability to respond if more information was posted about potential issues of hazards and evacuation. While not all details need to be presented, certain amounts of informa-Overall, the best practice recommendations for communities interested in mitigating the natu-ral hazard risks would include:? integrating natural hazard planning, emergency preparedness and community planning as early on in the process as possible.? maintaining an all-hazards approach.? conducting both unidirectional and interactive communication approaches for public edu-cation, awareness and outreach initiatives.? incorporating public participation as much as possible? providing accessible information, for multiple stakeholder groups, which is accessible and transparent? promoting the continued monitoring and updating of best practice recommendations for natural hazard mitigation as well as community outreach tools.50 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study tion should be made available to the public so that they can feel secure as well as trust the deci-sion makers and emergency responders in the event of an emergency or natural disaster. While the website currently advertises that information will be available in the event of an emergency, having the information in advance would assist residents in preparing their 72-hour plans if they had additional scenario and/or information about potential evacuation (or lack thereof) capaci-ties.For example, the Community Wildfire Plan highlights areas of concern within the District that may be susceptible to smoke or questionable air quality during a large forest fire. If the demographics of Maple Ridge stay as they are, with a high percentage of children and seniors, air quality can become a serious concern. While the Community Wildfire Plan recommends that the local hospi-tal make arrangements for this scenario, it would also be beneficial to have a local government response plan tailored to those with accessibility issues and health concerns as well. In addition, letting residents know that certain areasAnother area of concern is the Districts involvement with the provincial Disaster Response Routes program. In the past, Maple Ridge had promoted this program but in recent years pro-motion has waned. These types of programs are necessary to be properly communicated to residents in the event of an emergency. As Maple Ridge is bounded on two sides by bridges, one by forest and mountains and the other with likely only one working road to the neighbouring district, this would be a serious issue in the event of a disaster, and therefore deserves appropri-ate attention while in the planning stages.In addition, the District should explore joint-emergency program options. For example, the Ma-ple Ridge Amateur Radio Club currently has many resources on emergency preparedness as well as local conditions201 . Joint-venture programs may prove cost-effective and an efficient means of providing a secure level of protection to residents.51Future WorkWhile not conducted as a part of this study but has potential as future work, would be to conduct research that would determine if the natural hazard plans, bylaws, policies and general pieces of information currently available were being properly implemented and/or accurately portrayed to the intended audience. An extension of this research would be to survey various demographic and geographic groups within the District, in order to assess the awareness, accessiblity and level of per-ception of natural hazards and disaster response planning. This information would be useful for the District so that they could create and tailor appropriate communication approaches, based on the information awareness and knowledge gaps.Ideally, a follow-up study would be completed once the District?s next OCP has been published. By analyzing the updated OCP, the level of commitment towards safety, security and liveability in the face of natural hazard planning could be determined - it would be useful to note if the level of commitment has increased, decreased or remained as is. Again, this knowledge could be used in as-sessing how municipalities react to, or how residents and local stakeholders perceive, natural hazard planning over a longer time frame. Coastal Mountain Range from Maple RidgeCredit: Maple Ridge Real Esate.caNatural Hazards + Maple Ridge52 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study Natural hazards can have a significant impact on a local community, including damaging or destroy-ing their hard infrastructure, impacting their social networks and affecting the natural environment. In Canada, multiple pieces of legislation distribute powers, roles and responsibilities to local govern-ments in order to plan and prevent natural hazards as well as to provide emergency response ser-vices in the event of a natural disaster. Many land use tools and techniques exist for a local government to mitigate the risk of a natural haz-ard. However, more recent community planning initiatives have integrated community and disaster planning and have included strong public engagement and communication initiatives. This report has highlighted natural hazard related principles and approaches of communication. The main principles addressed in this report are effective communication as a product of effective planning, implement-ing both unidirectional and interactive communication approaches when conducting public outreach, communication activities which focus on local conditions and the importance of a comprehensive communication strategy.From there, this report has conducted a natural hazard planning and communication analysis on a community in the Metro Vancouver region of B.C. - the District of Maple Ridge. The research was intended to determine the extent that natural hazard communication approaches are accessible by the general public, and if there is room for improvement, or gaps, in the approach. In the case of Maple Ridge, they were determined to have an adequate natural hazard planning and communication approach. Several hazards, such as wildfires and floods, received far more promi-nence on the District?s website, and several hazards were non-existent. From this analysis, the follow-ing recommendations were determined: to further integrate natural hazard planning and communi-ty-based planning; pursue an all-hazard approach and to move away from hazard ?silos?; improve the level of collaboration between local organizations, stakeholders, emergency service providers and regional, provincial and federal governments; and improved communication and outreach activities including making hazard related information more accessible and clear, with clear goals and both unidirectional and interactive communication approaches. Additional hazard specific recommenda-tions were highlighted. They were designed for flood related hazards and emergency planning and preparedness which included recommending to update the technical hazard information and the information available to the public, as well as providing an appropriate level of information, including improved techniques and guidelines and presenting several precedents. Project Summary53ConclusionEndnotesSection One: Natural Hazards1.  O?Neill, Developing A Risk Communication Model, 5.2.  Perez & Thompson, Natural Hazards, 43. 3.  Government of Canada, How the Government of Canada Responds.4.  Perez & Thompson, Natural Hazards,46. 5.  United Nations, Terminology.6.  Ibid.7.  Perez & Thompson, Natural Hazards,43. 8.  Ibid, 51. 9.  Ibid, 51. 10. Ibid, 52. 11.  Lindell & Prater, ?Assessing Community Impacts,? 178.12. Perez & Thompson, Natural Hazards, 52. 13.  Lindell & Prater, ?Assessing Community Impacts,? 178.14. Ibid, 178. 15.  Ibid, 179. 16.  Ibid, 179. 17.  Ibid, 180. 18. United Nations, Terminology.19. Ibid.20. Ibid.21. Ibid.22. Ibid. 23. Ibid.24. Ibid.25. Perez & Thompson, Natural Hazards, 26.Section Two: Natural Hazards + Planning26. Schmidt-Thom?, Integration of natural hazards, risk and climate change, 7.27.  Ibid, 7.28. Ibid, 8. 29. Ibid, 7. 30. Ibid, 7.31. Ibid, 9. 32.  United Nations, Resolution 1994/3133. Schmidt-Thom?, Integration of natural hazards, risk and climate change, 9.34. Ibid, 9.35. Ibid, 9.36. Delcan, Cost of Adaptation - Sea Dikes & Alternative Strategies, i.37. Fraser Basin Council, Comprehensive Management for Flood Protection Works. 38. Fraser Basin Council, 2006 State of the Fraser Basin Report, 22.39.  Ibid, 22. 40. United Nations, Terminology.41. Ibid.42. Ibid.43. Arlington Group Planning + Architecture Inc, Sea Level Rise Adaptation Primer, 20.44. Mann, Adaptation vs. Mitigation.45. Arlington Group Planning + Architecture Inc, Sea Level Rise Adaptation Primer, 20.46. Pearce, ?Disaster Management and Community Planning, and Public Participation,? 214.47. Schmidt-Thom?, Integration of natural hazards, risk and climate change, 11.48. Pearce, ?Disaster Management and Community Planning, and Public Participation,? 215.Endnotes54 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study 49. Ibid, 215. 50. Danish Red Cross, Preparing for disaster, 5.51. Ibid, 9.52. Ibid, 9.53. Ibid, 9.54.  Ibid, 9.55.  Ibid, 9.56.  Ibid, 9.57.  Ibid, 9.58.  Ibid, 9.59.  Ibid, 9.60.  Pearce, ?Disaster Management and Community Planning, and Public Participation,? 215.61. Ibid, 214. 62. Ibid, 216. 63. Ibid, 216.  64. Ibid, 216. 65. Ibid, 216. 66. Myers, Insights Emerging.67. O?Neill, Developing A Risk Communication Model, 5. 68. Ibid, 5. 69. Ibid, 4. 70. Ibid, 4. 71. Ibid, 5. 72. Pearce, ?Disaster Management and Community Planning, and Public Participation,? 213.73. Ibid, 213. 74. O?Neill, Developing A Risk Communication Model, 5.75. Ibid, 5. 76. Ibid, 6. 77. Ibid, 5. 78. Ibid, 6. 79. Ibid, 8. 80.  Ibid, 8.  81. Ibid, 8. 82. Ibid, 8. 83. Ibid, 9. 84. Ibid, 9. 85. Ibid, 9. 86.  Toman & Shindler, Wildland Fire and Fuel Management,112.87. Ibid, 112. 88. Ibid, 113. 89. Ibid, 113. 90.  Ibid, 114. 91. Ibid, 114. 92. Ibid, 114. 93. Ibid, 114. 94. Ibid, 114. 95. Ibid, 114. 96. Ibid, 114. 97. Ibid, 114. 98. Ibid, 115. 99. Ibid, 115. 100. Ibid, 115. 101. Ibid, 115. 55Endnotes102. Ibid, 115. 103. Ibid, 115. 104. Ibid, 115. 105. Ibid, 116. 106. Ibid, 116. 107. Ibid, 116. 108. Ibid, 116. 109. Ibid, 117. 110. Ibid, 117. 112. Ibid, 118. 113. Pearce, ?Disaster Management and Community Planning, and Public Participation,? 215.Section Three: Natural Hazards + Canada113. West Coast Environmental Law, Local Government. 114. Ibid. 115. Ibid.116. Ibid.117. Ibid.  118. West Coast Environmental Law, Local Government.119. Government of British Columbia, Municipalities.120. West Coast Environmental Law, Local Government.  121. West Coast Environmental Law, Local Government Act. 122. Government of British Columbia, Local Government Act.123. Ibid. 124. Ibid. 125. Ibid.126.  Ibid.  127. West Coast Environmental Law, Official Community Plans. 128. Ibid. 129. Ibid. 130. Ibid.  131. Government of British Columbia, Emergency Program Act.132. Government of British Columbia, The All-Hazard Plan, 6.133. Ibid, 40. 134. Ibid, 40.  135. Ibid, 40.  136. Ibid, 41. 137. Sandink, The resilience of the City of Kelowna, 35.138.  Ibid, 35.   139. Ibid, 36. 140. Ibid, 37. 141. Canadian Disaster Database, Meteorological - Hydrological: Avalanche. 142. Canadian Disaster Database, Meteorological - Hydrological: Storms and Severe Thunderstorms.143. Canadian Diaster Database, Meteorological - Hydrological: Storms and Severe Thunderstorms.144. Government of Canada, Flooding Events in Canada.145. Ibid.146. Fraser Basin Council, Flood Management.147. District of Squamish. Squamish River and Mamquam River, i.148. Government of British Columbia, History of Natural Disasters in British Columbia.149. Canadian Disaster Database, Meteorological - Hydrological: Storms and Severe Thunderstorms.Section Four: Natural Hazards + Maple Ridge150. District of Maple Ridge, Home151. District of Maple Ridge, History & Heritage.56 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study 152. District of Maple Ridge, Community Context, 6.153. Ibid, 6.  154. Ibid, 6. 155. District of Maple Ridge, Community Context,1.156. Ibid, 1. 157. Ibid, 15. 158. Lindell & Prater, ?Assessing Community Impacts?, 176.159. Pearce, ?Disaster Management and Community Planning, and Public Participation,? 216.160. Danish Red Cross, Preparing for disaster, 5.161. Ibid, 5. 162. District of Maple Ridge, Community Wildlife Protection Plan.163. District of Maple Ridge, Natural Features, 5.164. Ibid, 5.165. District of Maple Ridge, Proposed Wildlife Development Permit Area Map. 166. District of Maple Ridge, Figure 1 - Historic Communities. 167. District of Maple Ridge, Draft Community Wildfire Permit.168. District of Maple Ridge, Community Wildfire Protection.168. Ibid. 170. Ibid. 171. Ibid. 172. Ibid. 173. District of Maple Ridge, Community Wildlife Protection Plan, iv. 174. Ibid, iv.  175.  Ibid, iv. 176. District of Maple Ridge, Forest Fire Danger.177.  Invest in North Fraser, Home. 178. District of Maple Ridge, The Emergency Plan - A Place to Be Safe and Secure.179. Maple Ridge News, Maple Ridge wants more details on wildfire zone. 180. Morgan, et al., Water Sensitive Urban Design, 4.181. District of Maple Ridge. Personal Preparation for Emergencies, 15.182. District of Maple Ridge, Flooding Information.183. District of Maple Ridge, Flooding General Information.184. Government of Canada, After the Flood ? A Homeowner?s Checklist.185. District of Maple Ridge, Flooding General Information.186. Government of British Columbia, Disaster Financial Assistance Program.187. District of Maple Ridge, Flooding General Information. 188. Simon Fraser University, GVRD Relative Earthquake Hazards Map.189. District of Maple Ridge, Municipal Emergency Program.190. District of Maple Ridge. Personal Preparation for Emergencies, 15.191. District of Maple Ridge, The Emergency Plan ? A Place to be Safe and Secure.192. Ibid. 193. District of Maple Ridge, Drop, Cover and Hold On Versus ?The Triangle of Life?.194. Ibid.  195. District of Maple Ridge, Awards.196. Ibid.  197. District of Maple Ridge, 2006 Citizen Report, 5.198. District of Maple Ridge, Community Wildlife Protection Plan, vi.199. Twitter, Ridge Meadows RCMP.200. City and County of San Francisco, Resilientville.201. Maple Ridge Amateur Radio Club. Home.57BibliographyBibliographyCity and County of San Francisco. Resilientville. 2013. http://resilientville.org/. Cheuk, Carol. GVRD Relative Earthquake Hazards Map. Burnaby: Simon Fraser University, 2002.Danish Red Cross. Preparing for disaster - A community-based approach, 2005.District of Maple Ridge. 2006 Citizens Report. Maple Ridge: District Council, 2007. District of Maple Ridge. Community Wildfire Protection. http://www.mapleridge.ca/EN/main/emergency/617/community_wildfire_protection_plan.html. District of Maple Ridge. Community Wildlife Protection Plan: Considerations for Wildland Urban Interface Management in the District of Maple Ridge, British Columbia. North Vancouver: B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd., 2007. District of Maple Ridge. Home. http://www.mapleridge.ca/EN/index.html.District of Maple Ridge: Emergency Services. Draft Community Wildfire Permit. http://www.mapleridge.ca/EN/main/emergency/617/42250/community_wildfire_development_permit.html.District of Maple Ridge: Emergency Services. Drop, Cover and Hold On Versus ?The Triangle of Life?. http://www.mapleridge.ca/assets/Default/Emergency~Services/pdfs/drop_cover_holdon.pdf. District of Maple Ridge: Emergency Services. Flooding Information. http://www.mapleridge.ca/EN/main/emergency/flood_updates.html. District of Maple Ridge: Emergency Services. Flooding General Information. http://www.mapleridge.ca/EN/main/emergency/36615/flooding_general.html. District of Maple Ridge: Emergency Services. Forest Fire Danger. http://www.mapleridge.ca/EN/main/emergency/617/forest_fire.html.District of Maple Ridge. Municipal Emergency Program.http://www.mapleridge.ca/EN/main/emergency/municipal_emergency.html.District of Maple Ridge: Emergency Services. Personal Preparation for Emergencies. April 2011. http://www.mapleridge.ca/assets/Default/Emergency~Services/pdfs/Personal_Prep_Public_Apr-2011.pdf.District of Maple Ridge: Emergency Services. Proposed Wildlife Development Permit Area Map. http://www.mapleridge.ca/assets/Default/Fire~Department/pdfs/Wildfire%20DPA%20Areas%202.pdf.District of Maple Ridge: Emergency Services. The Emergency Plan - A Place to Be Safe and Secure. http://www.mapleridge.ca/EN/main/emergency/2385/emergency_plan.html. District of Maple Ridge: Municipal Hall. Awards. http://www.mapleridge.ca/EN/main/municipal/award.html. District of Maple Ridge: Official Community Plan. Community Context. http://www.mapleridge.ca/assets/Default/Planning/OCP/pdfs/1.0_community_context.pdf.District of Maple Ridge: Official Community Plan. Historic Communities Map.http://www.mapleridge.ca/assets/Default/Planning/OCP/pdfs/figure1.pdf.District of Maple Ridge: Official Community Plan. Natural Features.http://www.mapleridge.ca/assets/Default/Planning/OCP/pdfs/5.0_natural_features.pdf.58 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study District of Maple Ridge: Visitors. History and Heritage. http://www.mapleridge.ca/EN/main/visitors/573/history.html. District of Squamish. Squamish River and Mamquam River Survey and Flood Assessment. Burnaby: Kerr Wood Leidal, 2011.Fraser Basin Council. Comprehensive Management for Flood Protection Works. 2001.Fraser Basin Council. Flood Management: Flood and the Fraser. http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/water_flood_fraser.html. Government of British Columbia. Emergency Program Act (RSBC 1996) Chapter 111. 1996. http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96111_01#section1. Government of British Columbia. Local Government Act (RSBC 1996) Chapter 323, Part 26 ? Planning and Land Use Management. 1996.  http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/96323_30. Government of British Columbia. The All-Hazard Plan. Victoria: Emergency Management British Columbia, 2012. Government of British Columbia: Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. Municipalities. http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/pathfinder-mun.htm.Government of British Columbia: Emergency Management. Disaster Financial Assistance Program. July 17, 2013. http://embc.gov.bc.ca/em/dfa_claims/dfa.html.Government of British Columbia: Ministry of Environment. Sea Level Rise Adaptation Primer - A toolkit to build adaptive capacity on Canada?as south coasts. Victoria: Arlington Group Planning + Architecture Inc. January 2013.Government of British Columbia: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Cost of Adaptation - Sea Dikes & Alternative Strategies. Victoria: Delcan. October 2012. Government of British Columbia: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, Emergency Social Services. History of Natural Disasters in British Columbia. Jun 28, 2006. http://www.ess.bc.ca/history_bc.htm. Government of Canada. After the Flood ? A Homeowner?s Checklist. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corpora-tion, 2008. Government of Canada: Environment Canada. Flooding Events in Canada - British Columbia. December 2, 2010. http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=B7B62836-1.Government of Canada: Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada. How the Government of Canada Responds to Natural Disasters Abroad. January 22, 2013. http://www.international.gc.ca/humanitarian-humanitaire/faq.aspx#q15. Government of Canada: Public Safety Canada. Meteorological - Hydrological: Avalanche - Western Canada. Canadian Disaster Database. http://cdd.publicsafety.gc.ca/srchpg-eng.aspx?dynamic=false.Government of Canada: Public Safety Canada. Meteorological - Hydrological: Storms and Severe Thunderstorms - Maple Ridge BC. Canadian Disaster Database. http://cdd.publicsafety.gc.ca/srchpg-eng.aspx?dynamic=false.Government of Canada: Public Safety Canada. Meteorological - Hydrological: Storms and Severe Thunderstorms - Salmon Arm BC. Canadian Disaster Database. http://cdd.publicsafety.gc.ca/srchpg-eng.aspx?dynamic=false.Government of Canada: Public Safety Canada. Meteorological - Hydrological: Storms and Severe Thunderstorms - South-western British Columbia. Canadian Disaster Database. http://cdd.publicsafety.gc.ca/srchpg-eng.aspx?dynamic=false.Invest in North Fraser. Home. http://www.investnorthfraser.com/.59Lindell, Michael & Carla Prater. ?Assessing Community Impacts of Natural Disasters,? Natural Hazards Review. 4 (2003): 176-185. Mann, Michael. Adaptation vs. Mitigation. https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/175. Maple Ridge Amateur Radio Club. Home. http://mrarc.net/. Melnychuk, Phil. Maple Ridge wants more details on wildfire zone. Maple Ridge: Maple Ridge News. January 9, 2013 http://www.mapleridgenews.com/news/186097191.html.Morgan, Celeste, Justin Abbott, Cristian Bevington, Paul Davis, David Levin, Peter Robinson & Paul Simkins. Water Sensi-tive Urban Design in the UK ? Ideas for built environment practitioners. London: CIRIA, 2013. Myers, Mary Fran. Insights Emerging from the ?Assessment of Research and Applications for Natural Hazards? in the United States. Vancouver: Disaster Preparedness Resources Centre, University of British Columbia. 1997.O?Neill, Peter. Developing A Risk Communication Model to Encourage Community Safety from Natural Hazards. Australia: State Emergency Services, 2004. Pearce, Laurie. ?Disaster Management and Community Planning, and Public Participation: How to Achieve Sustainable Hazard Mitigation,? Natural Hazards 28 (2003): 211?228. Perez, Eddie & Paul Thompson. Natural Hazards: Causes and Effects ? Study Guide for Disaster Management. Madison: Disaster Management Center University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1986. Sandink, Dan. The resilience of the City of Kelowna: Exploring mitigation before, during and after the Okanagan Mountain Park Fire. Toronto: Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, 2009. Schmidt-Thom?, Philipp. Integration of natural hazards, risk and climate change into spatial planning practices. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 2006. Toman, Eric & Bruce Shindler. Wildland Fire and Fuel Management: Principles for Effective Communication. The Public and Wildland Fire Management. 2006.Twitter. Ridge Meadows RCMP. https://twitter.com/RidgeRCMP.United Nations: Economic and Social Council. Resolution 1994/31: International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. July 27, 1994. http://www.un.org/documents/ecosoc/res/1994/eres1994-31.htm.United Nations: Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Terminology. August 30, 2007. http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology. West Coast Environmental Law. Local Government. http://www.bcwatersheds.org/wiki/index.php?title=Local_Government.West Coast Environmental Law. Local Government Act.  http://www.bcwatersheds.org/wiki/index.php?title=Local_Government_Act.West Coast Environmental Law. Official Community Plans.http://www.bcwatersheds.org/wiki/index.php?title=Official_Community_Plans.BibliographyAppendicesAppendicesRelevant Official Community Plan policies for Forest Fires MitigationRelevant bylaws for Forest Fires MitigationRecommendations of Community Wildfire PlanRelevant Official Community Plan policies for FloodsPolicy Statement 9.10Relevant bylaws for FloodsFloodplain MapsRelevant Official Community Plan policies for ErosionRelevant bylaws for ErosionRelevant Official Community Plan policies for ?Other? Hazard TermsRelevant bylaws for Emergency Management61AppendicesABCDEFGHIJKAppendix A5-4 Maple Ridge will incorporate Regional, Provincial, and Federal programs and regulations where appropriate, for the protection of residents with respect to hazard areas, forest fire interface zones, floodplains and areas of standing water.5-13 Maple Ridge will promote the retention of urban and mature trees and of natural forests and woodland areas, and ensure that additional trees and plant material are provided as part of all devel-opment proposals. To enhance the ecological integrity of the District, the use of native trees, plants and nature-scape principles will also be encouraged.5-14  Maple Ridge will continue to pursue initiatives and to co-operate with authorities, agencies and stakeholders in the planning and management of forested areas within the municipality. 5-15 Maple Ridge will continue to encourage public access and controlled use of dykes, shorelines, ravines, watercourses and forests and woodland areas on public lands where such activity will not impact the health or functioning of ecosystems or natural areas. 5-18 Maple Ridge will review the issues concerning forest fire interface areas, flooding, slope stability and other hazards and will consider developing or revising regulations and guidelines for develop-ment within these areas.5-19 The following should be considered in evaluating development to minimize forest interface hazards:a) the siting of development and construction practices that will not contribute to forest fire risk exposure in forest interface areas;b) the selection of appropriate building materials and maintenance practices that will minimize contribution to the spread of fire;c) the use of landscaping that minimizes contribution to the spread of fire.5 ? 43 The District of Maple Ridge will use an integrated approach to reduce and mitigate the effects of climate change through the following;a)  including climate change considerations and outlining proactive suggestions in community information publications; b)  supporting ongoing federal, provincial and regional initiatives to reduce the production of greenhouse gas emissions; c)  making low impact purchasing decisions in operations and facilities design; d)  encouraging where possible water conservation and the reuse of storm water through a number of measures including the use of drought tolerant species, rain barrels, and efficient ir-rigation techniques; e)  retaining natural vegetation and planting trees where appropriate; f)  integrating risk mitigation measures in development permit areas, area planning, special area development policies (such as the Fraser River Escarpment) and environmental planning policies that address problems associated with forest fires, pest infestations, land slides, and flooding;g) encouraging low impact development measures where possible.Relevant OCP policies for Forest Fire Mitigation62 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study Appendix BBylaw 4111 ? 1988: For the prevention of fires and the spread of fire, and the preservation of life 9. Every owner and occupant of real property shall remove anything and everything from a building or yard which in the opinion of the Fire Chief is a fire hazard or increases the danger or fire. 10. An Officer may at all reasonable times enter any premises and on to any real property to inspect them for conditions  which may cause a fire or increase the danger of a fire or increase the danger to persons and no person shall obstruct or refuse to admit any Officer for the purpose of such inspection. 20. Whenever in any building or premises, there shall exist any flammable, combustible, or explosive material or substance, or any dangerous or unnecessary accumulation of waste materials, or litter, of a nature especially liable to fire, and which materials are so situated, in the opinion of an Officer, so as to endanger life or property, or to obstruct ingress or egress from such building or premises, in case of fire, or which may be liable to interfere with the operations of the Fire Department of the District, or where any condition exists which is considered by the Officer to be a fire hazard, the occupant of such building or premises shall forthwith, on the order of the Officer, have such flam-mable, combustible, or explosive material or substance, or any dangerous or unnecessary accumula-tion of waste materials or litter removed, disposed of, or otherwise dealt with as may be ordered or directed by the Officer.38. Whenever within the District any premises are in a hazardous state or condition, in the opinion of any Officer, in respect to fire, or are dangerous to life or property , or in a condition which may cause fire, or assist in spreading fire within the District, or hazardous and dangerous to surrounding or adjacent property, the Officer may, by written notice served on the owner or on any person to whom a licence has been issued by the District under its business regulation and licensing by-law adopted under the Municipal Act or who is liable or required to obtain a licence under the business licensing and regulation by-law, notify such person that the Officer protests against issuing, granting, renewal, or holding of such license in respect of such notice the reasons or grounds of such protest, and a true copy of such notice shall be lodged with the Director of Inspection Services. 39. Such notice shall specify a reasonable time in which such licensee shall be directed or ordered to remedy the condition, danger, hazard, or menace complained of. If such condition, danger, hazard or menace is not remedied within the time specified, the same shall be deemed to be good cause for the cancellation, suspension or revocation of the license of such person, pursuant to the provisions of the District?s business licensing and regulation by-law adopted under the Municipal Act. 51. Every person who sets out, starts, or kindles any outdoor fire, or fails to extinguish any outdoor fires set out, started, or kindled at any time of the year, whether such fire was started under a permit or not, shall be responsible for such fire, and if he lets such fire get out of control, he shall be liable for all expenses incurred by the District in controlling and extinguishing such fire, and any other fire originating from such fire, and he shall also be liable for the wages of all the persons employed in 63AppendicesRelevant bylaws for Forest Fire Mitigation64 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study controlling and extinguishing such fire, including wages for fire fighters so employed. 54. All permits issued pursuant to this By-law shall be subject to such conditions, restrictions and provisions as the Fire Chief or his designate may consider necessary and expedient to incorporate therein. Bylaw ? 5535-1997: To regulate outdoor burning in the District of Maple Ridge 5. No person shall(a)  except as expressly permitted by this by-law, start or maintain any outdoor fire or allow any outdoor fire on property owned or occupied by that person; (b)  burn any noxious, explosive, corrosive, or toxic material, pesticide or herbicide in an outdoor fire; (c)  burn, in an outdoor fire, material brought from another location; (d)  light, ignite or start or allow or cause to be lighted, ignited or started, an outdoor fire without first obtaining a permit if required by this By-law; or (e)  start or maintain an outdoor fire unless the ventilation index is forecast as ?good?. 6. The following types of outdoor fires may be started and maintained at any time without a permit:(a)  cooking fires fueled by gas, briquettes, propane or electricity and burning in either a manufac-tured barbecue or contained within a permanent barbecue structure with a built-in grill; (b)  fires started and maintained by the Maple Ridge Fire Department for training purposes or to prevent the commencement or spreading of fire; and (c)  cooking fires or campfires at: (i)  the Girl Guides of Canada property located at 26521 Ferguson Avenue; (ii)  the Scouts Canada property located at 273rd Street and Dewdney Trunk Road; (iii)  the Yennadon Youth Hall property located at 23461 - 132nd Avenue; (iv)  any park owned or operated by the District or the Greater Vancouver Regional District where posted signs permit such fires in designated pits or grills. 7. A written permit for an Agricultural Fire may only be issued if the fire is within the area marked ?Area Open to Burning? which is outlined in heavy black ink on the map attached hereto as Sched-ule ?A?.8. A person shall not start or maintain an Agricultural Fire unless an Agricultural Fire Permit has been issued in the form attached hereto as Schedule ?C?, or to like effect.10. No person shall start or maintain an Agricultural Fire:(a)  within one hundred (100) metres of a residential building or business; (b)  within five hundred (500) metres of a school or hospital; (c)  unless a person nineteen (19) years of age or older is, at all times, present at the Agricultural Fire and until the fire is totally extinguished, for the purposes of supervising and extinguishing the fire; (d)  more than fifteen (15) days have elapsed between the termination of any previous burning permit issued pursuant to this By-law or pursuant to the requirements of Open Burning Smoke Control Regulation and Code of Practice; 65Appendices(e)  unless there is emergency equipment on the property where the burning is taking place which is capable of extinguishing the fire; and (f)  except during daylight hours only. 14. No person shall start or maintain a Backyard Fire  (a)  within fifteen (15) metres of any building, structure, overhead wires or cables;  (b)  unless a person nineteen (19) years of age or older is, at all times, present at the Back-yard Fire and until the fire is totally extinguished, for the purposes of supervising and extinguishing the fire;  (c)  unless a water hose connected to an available water supply sufficient in quantity to con-trol the spread of fire, and/or a shovel, or other fire fighting tools or implements are present for the duration of the fire and until it is extinguished; and  (d)  except during daylight hours only. 16. No person shall start or maintain a Recreational Fire (a)  within fifteen (15) metres of any building, structure, overhead wires or cables; (b)  unless a person nineteen (19) years of age or older is, at all times, present at the recreational fire and until the fire is totally extinguished, for the purposes of supervising and extinguishing the fire; (c)  unless a water hose, connected to an available water supply and shovel is present for the dura-tion of the fire and until it is extinguished. 17. In addition to the requirements of this By-law, all burning must meet the requirements of the Waste Management Act, R.S.B.C. 1996 Chp.482 and the Open Burning Smoke Control Regulation and Code of Practice, as administered by the Greater Vancouver Regional District.19. If at any time the Fire Chief on account of the existence of hazardous conditions, inclusive of meteorological or ambient air quality conditions, site conditions and availability of Fire Department personnel to extinguish the fire, deems it advisable, he/she may suspend for such time as it is neces-sary or cancel any right to burn granted pursuant to the By-law including all or any permits issued pursuant to this By-law or he/she may attach to any or all such permits such conditions and restric-tions as deemed proper.20. Notwithstanding any other section of this By-law, Council may pass a resolution setting out the day, time, area and cost for Backyard Fires which will be allowed due to a windstorm creating unusual amounts of branches and other plant debris outside of the permitted periods set out in section 13 herein.Appendix CComplete list of Recommendations in the Community Wildfire Plan by Blackwell & Associates.Recommendation 1: The District should work with local developers to construct a FireSmart show home to be used as a tool to educate and communicate the principles of FireSmart to the public. The demonstration home would be built to FireSmart standards using recommended materials for interface communities. Additionally, vegetation adjacent to the home would be managed to guide-lines outlined in the FireSmart program.Recommendation 2: The District should create an interactive website that outlines community fire risks and proactive steps individual homeowners can take to make their homes safer within the community. Other information, such as fire danger and FireSmart principles, could be maintained on the local site so that fire management issues specific to Maple Ridge could be easily communicated to the local population.Recommendation 3: The Maple Ridge Fire Rescue Service should work with the Maple Ridge Re-gional Chamber of Commerce (particularly those that depend on forest use i.e. tourism and recre-ation) to educate the local business community on FireSmart preparation and planning.Recommendation 4: Many homes and businesses are built immediately adjacent to the forest edge. In these neighbourhoods, trees and vegetation are often in direct contact with homes. The District should create building set backs with a minimum distance of 10 m when buildings border the forest interface.Recommendation 5: The District should begin a process to review and revise existing bylaws and building codes to be consistent with the development of a FireSmart Community. For areas that have been identified as high risk, consideration should be given to the creation of a Wildfire Bylaw that mandates fire resistant building materials, provides for good access for emergency response, and specifies fuel management on both public and private property in areas of identified high wild-fire risk.Recommendation 6: In new subdivisions within identified high risk areas of the District, roofing materials that are fire retardant with a Class A and Class B rating should be a requirement of the development permit. It is recognized that wholesale changes to existing roofing materials within high risk areas of the District are not practical, therefore a long-term replacement standard that is phased in over the roof rotation period would significantly reduce the vulnerability of the community in areas of historic development.Recommendations of Community Wildfire Plan66 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study Recommendation 7: Given the wildfire risk profile of the community, an emergency sprinkler kit capable of protecting 30 to 50 homes should be purchased and maintained in the community. Fire rescue personnel, or a designate of the department, should be trained to mobilize and set up the equipment efficiently and effectively during a fire event.Recommendation 8: The District must work towards improving access in identified areas of the community that are considered isolated and that have inadequately developed access for evacuation and fire control.Recommendation 9: An evacuation plan should be developed for the community and the outlying road and trail networks, which could be cut off or impacted by fire. A large fire may require the evacuation of heavily used trails where vehicle access is restricted.Recommendation 10: During a large wildfire it is probable that the valley bottom (location of the fire hall and Health Care Centre) could be severely impacted by smoke. It is recommended that contingency plans be developed in the event that smoke causes evacuation of the District of Maple Ridge.Recommendation 11: Given the values at risk identified in this plan, it is recommended that, during periods of extreme fire danger (danger class IV), the District work with the Ministry of Forests and Range to maintain a local helicopter with a bucket on standby within 15 minutes response time of the District.Recommendation 12: The fire department should purchase an all terrain vehicle, trailer (both stor-age and pull behind unit) and related equipment to enable improved access for fire suppression in areas that are currently inaccessible.Recommendation 13: The current level of training and available equipment related to interface fire response is considered adequate, but given the risk of fire to the community, the Maple Ridge Fire Rescue Service should adopt an advanced program that fosters continuous improvement and skill renewal.Recommendation 14: It is strongly recommended that the District continue to cooperate or de-velop relationships with the University of British Columbia Research Forest, forest leaseholders/operators and BC Parks to develop a comprehensive fuel treatment program in the area where the District borders the Research Forest, Crown land and BC Parks land. Treatments on District lands should complement any existing treatment programs in the Research Forest, Crown land and on BC Parks land. A detailed inventory and risk assessment of the interface between the Research Forest, BC Parks land and the Community should be a serious consideration.Recommendation 15: A number of high hazard areas immediately adjacent to or embedded in the community have been identified as part of the wildfire risk assessment. These high hazard areas should be the focus of a progressive thinning program that is implemented over the next five to ten years. Thinning should be focused on the highest priority areas: C3 and C4 fuel types. The goals of thinning are to remove hazardous fuels and to reduce the overall fire behaviour potential adjacent 67Appendicesto the community.Recommendation 16: The District should work with British Columbia Transmission Corporation (BCTC) to ensure that transmission infrastructure can be maintained and managed during a wildfire event. Maintaining the transmission corridor to a fuelbreak standard will provide the community with a more reliable power supply that is less likely to fail during a fire event and will reduce the probability of fire spreading into the community. In addition, the District should work with BCTC to schedule slashing and clean-up of debris resulting from vegetation management on transmission right-of-ways and identified high risk areas.Recommendation 17: Within developed areas of the District there are substantial forested areas that are in close proximity to homes and businesses. The District does not currently own detailed inventory for these areas. It is recommended that the District undertake a forest inventory of these areas to determine their hazard and fire behaviour potential. Such an inventory would provide the District with the necessary information to develop plans and/or prescriptions to deal with identified high-risk areas.Recommendation 18: Prioritize the development of a fuelbreak network that builds on existing breaks such as the highway, railway corridor, and BC Transmission Corridor running through the District.Recommendation 19: Discuss options with the University of British Columbia Research Forest, woodlots (Blue Mountain and BCIT) and forest tenures (Katzie and Kwantlen) that are adjacent to the District, to integrate the development of future fuelbreaks with harvest planning using existing cutblocks, logging roads, and topographic features to address identified problem fuel types and spot-ting potential.Recommendation 20: A qualified professional, with a sound understanding of fire behaviour and fire suppression, should develop fuelbreak plans and prescriptions.Recommendation 21: The District should develop a plan for post fire rehabilitation that considers the procurement of seed, seedlings and materials required to regenerate an extensive burn area (1,000-5,000 ha). The opportunity to conduct meaningful rehabilitation post fire will be limited to a short fall season (September to November). The focus of initial rehabilitation efforts should be on slope stabilization and infrastructure protection. These issues should form the foundation of an ac-tion plan that lays out the necessary steps to stabilize and rehabilitate the burn area.68 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study Appendix D5-4 Maple Ridge will incorporate Regional, Provincial, and Federal programs and regulations where appropriate, for the protection of residents with respect to hazard areas, forest fire interface zones, floodplains and areas of standing water.5-8 Maple Ridge will continue to protect watercourses by requiring landowners who are either subdividing or rezoning properties within or adjacent to lands or watercourses identified on the Natural Features Schedule C or designated as Conservation on Schedule  ?B?  of the Official Com-munity Plan, to provide a portion of lands as park land through the development process. At the discretion of Council the following options can be provided:a) the area can be dedicated as park land and be designated  as  ?Conservation?;;?b) land can be protected through a conservation covenant and payment is made to the Municipality in an amount that equals the market value of up to 5% of the land that may be required for park land; orc) combination of parkland dedication and conservation covenant.?5-9 Maple Ridge will identify significant ecosystems and natural features throughout the municipality as Conservation on the Natural Features Schedule ?C?, Schedule   ?B? of the Official Community Plan, or adopted area plans. The Natural Features Schedule will also identify environmentally sensi-tive areas, open space, floodplains, hazard lands, the Fraser Escarpment Area, watercourses, and other natural features, to enable their protection and to minimize the risk of injury or damage to residents and to property.?5-26 The scenic qualities of hillside areas should be preserved by limiting change to natural land-marks such as rock outcrops, vegetation cover, intensive replanting of development sites, and pres-ervation of natural drainage channels and encouragement of measures to reduce storm runoff.5-28 Maple Ridge will consider the preparation of watershed management plans that integrate wa-tercourse protection, stormwater management, and sediment or erosion controls on an ecosystem basis.5-29 Maple Ridge will identify the watersheds of the District and will protect significant municipal watercourses such as the Alouette River, Kanaka Creek and Whonnock Creek systems, by identifying each on the Natural Features Schedule of the Official Community Plan.5-30 Maple Ridge regards the preservation of creeks and wetlands as important and will identify them on the Natural Features Schedule C of the Official Community Plan. A Natural Features De-velopment Permit Area has been established for the preservation, protection, restoration and en-hancement of the natural environment. The Development Permit Area includes all lands designated Conservation on Schedule B or an Area Plan of the Official Community Plan for all lands within 50 metres of the top of bank of watercourses or wetlands as identified on Schedule C.69AppendicesRelevant OCP policies for Flood Mitigation5-31 Maple Ridge will continue to apply adaptive protection measures and the guidelines established through the Streamside Setback Assessment Map, to protect the District?s   watercourses,  ponds and   connected   wetlands,   and will require enhancement and rehabilitation of lands within and adjacent to identified natural features and environmentally sensitive areas as part of the develop-ment process.5-33 Maple Ridge will adopt Provincial guidelines and standards for integrated rain and stormwater management and prepare an Integrated Stormwater Management Plan (ISMP) to maintain water quality and natural runoff rates in municipal watercourses.Source: Chapter Five, Natural Features, Official Community Plan70 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study Appendix E 1.In support of ?Bylaw No. 5763-1999: A Bylaw to Regulate the Placement of Fill on Land in the District? (Bylaw) any applications within the boundaries of a floodplain shall be referred to the Engineering Department. The applicant shall be required to submit a hydraulic assessment of the proposed work addressing the following: a. Current site conditions b. Impact assessment of proposed works c. Proposed Mitigation Plan. 2. No fill permit application will be considered complete within a floodplain without the submission of a Hydraulic assessment. 3. No fill permit within a floodplain shall be approved or considered for exemption until a complete application has been received and the hydraulic assessment reviewed by the Engineering Depart-ment. 4. A Hydraulic assessment must be completed by a qualified professional, provide detailed analysis of the existing site conditions, an assessment of the impacts of the proposed fill on surface and ground-water hydrology and identify the criteria and concepts for proposed mitigative works. 5. Any proposed fill that provides flood protection or alters the natural route of overland drainage must also provide a hydraulic model simulating the pre and post flood conditions. 6.Conceptual mitigative works once reviewed must be re-submitted as detailed designs and sealed by a qualified professional. 71AppendicesPolicy Statement 9.10Appendix F Bylaw 6410-2006 In an emergency as determined by the Manager or the Approving Officer, all maintenance work on the Drainage System undertaken by the District of Maple Ridge to deal with the emergency is exempt from the provisions of this Bylaw. 10. The District of Maple Ridge currently requires that subdivision and servicing applicants, and Large Scale Building Permit Applicants follow stormwater management practices set out in the following guides:(a)  Current Department of Fisheries (Federal) Urban Stormwater Guidelines and Best Manage-ment Practices for Protection of Fish and Fish Habitat; (b)  Current Master Municipal Construction Design Guidelines MMCD. Assurances must be provided to the District in writing by the Professional Engineer of record that the stormwater management plans comply with the guidelines in respect of but not limited to the velocity, volume, and water quality requirements of the DFO guidelines.Bylaw 6468-2007Stormwater management plans may be required to be accompanied with a letter of assurance or calculations from the Engineer of Record that demonstrate compliance with the three tier rainwater management approach where possible, as outlines in the following guidelines:(c) current Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection?s Stormwater Planning Guidebook for British Columbia, and(d) current Greater Vancouver Regional District Stormwater Source Control Design Guidelines.12. An ESC Plan provided to the District must: (a)  be prepared and designed in accordance with the Guidelines to prevent the discharge of Pro-hibited Material to the Drainage System; (b)  be certified by the professional civil or geotechnical engineer who has prepared it; (c)  be signed by both the Developer, and by the Environmental Monitor appointed, pursuant to Schedule ?E?; (d)  include detailed plans and design calculations prepared by the Professional Engineer, a phased construction schedule, and a Letter of Undertaking signed by the Environmental Monitor, which let-ter shall be in the form of Schedule ?D? to this Bylaw; (e)  be accompanied by the Security Deposit where required; and (f)  be accompanied by the form of Environmental Monitor?s Appointment (Schedule ?E?) signed by the Developer and the Environmental Monitor.  Relevant bylaws for Flood Hazard Management72 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study Appendix G Floodplain Maps73 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning: A Canadian Case Study ! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (SurreyElectoral Areas A B C D and EDeltaMissionMaple RidgeAbbotsfordLangley TownshipCoquitlamVancouverBurnabyRichmondNorth Vancouver DistrictPitt MeadowsWest VancouverUELPort CoquitlamNew WestminsterLions BayPITT POLDERDIKEBARNSTONISLAND DIKEPORTCOQUITLAMDIKESILVERDALEDIKEALBION DIKEMISSION A DIKEWEST LANGLEYDIKECOQUITLAMDIKEGLEN VALLEYEAST WING DIKEGLEN VALLEYWEST WING DIKEPITT DIKENORTH OFALOUETTE RIVERCNR TRACK,GLOVER ROAD TOARMSTRONG ROADPITT MEADOWSSOUTH DIKEPITT MEADOWSNORTH DIKEPITT MEADOWSMIDDLE DIKESURREY DIKEQUEENS-BOROUGHDIKENORTH D IKESOUTH DIKEFORT LANGLEY DIKEMARINA GARDENSDIKERIVER ROADB DIKEWESTHAM ISLAND DIKERIVER ROADA DIKERIVER ROADC DIKEMISSION B DIKEMATSQUIA DIKE0+852+2202+2684+1303+9254+6354+3450+3701+4906+7064+618 1+5544+2505+2405+56012+2000+0001+0402+0442+9102+1300+515 6+4167+4838+9920+9752+0700+6800+8801+4120+1002+8005+0002+7300+7888+6158+0506+1435+7244+3430+6830+0001+5922+4003+380 3+8501+8393+8801+5572+2302+4333+1203+7440+0001+2743+8145+5358+1099+8763+8715+1037+6348+6873+0941+3013+3107+7499+1565+0616+3324+9404+6703+5589+9455+6794+5923+2452+2751+5240+0000+1220+7711+1921+7952+3713+1303+5974+1002+8001+1600+4600+1004+0004+2307+8003+4381+4730+5750+0003+5700+0003+5502+1150+0003+627 4+2217+0769+3701+8913+7564+8778+1837+0703+8180+9531+9510+0000+8233+0606+4012+4387+8825+7916+5543+7000+0000+660 1+647 2+3202+6180+0002+4400+3963+0282+2000+5171+2190+0000+1520+0004+4501+8140+7770+7627+4174+4731+3911+1251+6613+0948+8180+5531+4332+2433+0482+8000+3803+0950+6461+682 1+9512+4522+8530+0001+309.50+0000+35022+70810+607 11+14013+13411+58226+88312+90344+65229+71822+90616+33012+09124+72511+71713+73410+698 14+33048+03542+91636+74133+89432+69031+54725+28314+60849+28612+30811+64612+85713+54310+14713+78018+00619+70824+48230+44634+35138+47940+43543+82745+9119+6930+23715+72210+0080+000-0+123RIVER ROADGLOVER ROADNO. 1 ROADHIGHWAY 1FERRY ROADHOPCOTT ROADARMSTRONG ROADRIVER ROADWESTHAM ISLAND ROAD8.98.74.23.47.88.68.03.63.13.52.98.63.44.36.87.93.33.25.48.53.77.05.35.75.67.17.28.53.54.47.67.47.07.55.95.87.33.68.73.76.93.36.86.76.66.56.46.36.23.23.15.56.06.15.65.85.94.64.74.84.95.58.88.44.57.18.38.43.42.96.95.05.15.75.45.23.02.97.93.13.23.34.13.43.53.63.73.83.93.08.18.24.04.24.37.77.84.84.95.03.32.812.882.882.882.844.922.972.842.872.892.842.872.912.844.922.84STUDY LIMIT ATUPSTREAM ENDOF PITT LAKEDOWNSTREAMSTUDY LIMITStrait ofGeorgiaPitt LakeMSN, 34743 Fraser III\GIS\34743_WSDikeMapDS1.mxdBC MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENTFRASER RIVER MODEL UPDATEnorthwest hydraulic consultantsDATE: MARCH 20083-4743DWG BY: MSNWATER SURFACE PROFILE PLANAND DIKE LAYOUTLOWER MODELSCALE -024681KilometresMAP PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 10, NAD831:80,000MAP NO. 4Notes: 1) Water levels shown correspond to design flood conditions and do not include a freeboard allowance.2) Design flood conditions are as defined in "Fraser River Hydraulic Model Update" by nhc (2008).3) Water levels correspond to smoothed Mike11 profile.4) Dike stationing, classification and layout as provided by BC Ministry of Environment.5) Dike crest and design water surface profiles are shown in Drawings 34743-3 to 34743-18.LegendWater Surface Elevation (m GSC)! (every 0.1 metres     MIKE11 NetworkDike Stationing (metres)Dike ClassFRFCP DIKE     NON-FRFCP DIKE     OTHER DIKE     ORPHANED DIKE     Dashed line indicates that crest elevation data isnot available or the dike is outside the model scope.Municipal BoundaryMOE FloodplainNOTE THAT UPPER AND LOWER FRASER MAPS HAVE DIFFERENT SCALES.74 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study http://www.mapleridge.ca/EN/main/emergency/36615/flooding_general.htmlAppendix H75AppendicesRelevant OCP policies for Erosion Control5-3 Maple Ridge will continue to participate in Regional, Provincial, and Federal programs that con-tribute to the overall health of  the  District?s  ecosystems  and protection of its natural features, watercourses and open space. 5-6 Maple Ridge will work toward achieving the goal of a positive   benefit   for   the   District?s natural   features   by   designating Conservation areas and by mitigating the potential for habitat impacts with enhancement, restoration, environmental monitoring and other alternatives that are acceptable to the municipality.5-7 Maple Ridge will work in co-operation with Regional, Provincial, and Federal authorities and plans that contribute to the management and protection of the District?s   natural   features,   and may   include   but   are   not   limited to the Fraser River Estuary Management Plan,Blue Mountain Provincial Forest Recreation Management Strategy, Blaney Bog Regional Park, the Kanaka Creek Regional Park Management Plan, and the policies and regulations of the Agricultural Land Commission.5-12 Maple Ridge will encourage soil retention and will limit activities that contribute to soil ero-sion, instability and sedimentation by requiring mitigation techniques to be identified as part of the development review process and implemented and monitored during the construction process.5-20 Development should be directed into area in such a manner to preserve large areas of open space, significant features, and environmentally sensitive lands.5-21 Patterns of density should be encouraged to achieve a mosaic of development sensitive to the natural contours of the land, with retention of mid-slope forested areas and density increases towards upland flat or valley bottom areas. The natural crest of a hill should be respected and devel-opment should be set back sufficiently to maintain the slope of the crest and the vegetation along it. Denser forms of horizontal development should be permitted along hillsides only where they can be off-set by sufficiently large open areas and where building modules can be broken into smaller units and carefully sited.5-22 Landscape disturbance should be minimized by retaining trees and natural vegetation as much as possible and requiring replanting or enhanced planting as a condition of development; providing a minimum of cuts and fills and limiting their depths, minimizing terracing and earth grading; blend-ing graded areas with natural slope; and minimizing the amount of exposed raw earth by phased development and on-site controls.5-23 Minimal disturbance of natural ground contours should be incurred with utility and road align-ments. On-street parking could be eliminated if impractical with existing topography or where the street serves wholly as an access road.5-24 Maple Ridge will review the issues concerning slope stability and will consider developing or revising regulations and guidelines for development within these areas.Source: Chapter Five, Natural Features, Official Community Plan76 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study Appendix I77AppendicesRelevant bylaws for Erosion Control6. ExemptionsExcept in respect to trees referred to in S.4 (i), (j) and (k) no permit shall be required to cut or remove a tree where:a) no more than 3 trees are cut or removed for every acre or part thereof (0.4 hectares) for any reason in any 12 month period; b) a subdivision plan has been approved that identifies tree removal and protection areas; c) a development permit has already been issued that identifies tree removal and protection areas; d) the cutting down of trees as is required to site a building, driveway, septic field, roadway, or utility corridor as approved by a building permit; e) emergency removal of trees that are severely damaged by a natural cause, which as a result pose an imminent danger of falling and injuring persons or property; f) trees are on parks or municipally owned lands and the cutting or removal is conducted by or on behalf of the District of Maple Ridge; g) cutting or removal of trees by standard aboricultural practices for the maintenance of above ground utility conductors by a public utility or its contractors; h) approval for tree removal has been obtained from the BC Ministry of Forests; i) are cutting trees less than 25 centimetres in diameter, measured from a height of 150 centi-metres above natural grade, for survey lines less that 2 meters wide; j) tree cutting or removal is required for construction, improvement, repair or maintenance of public works or services undertaken by a governmental authority. 8. Plans and SpecificationsWhere an application for a permit pursuant to this bylaw is required, application will be made in writing to the Manager of Development and Environmental Services and must contain the following information:a. a statement of purpose and rationale for the proposed tree cutting; b. a site plan indicating the location of the trees to be cut, trees to be protected, topographic and hydrographic features, structures, roads and other pertinent information useful in the determina-tion of location. c. a proposed planting plan for any necessary replacement trees; d. method for appropriate disposal of any woodwaste/clearing debris; e. method for control of drainage and erosion impacts from the tree removal site; f. a copy of any applicable federal or provincial approvals; Parcels that are adjacent to or contain a watercourse: g. every application for tree removal on a property that is adjacent to or containsany part of a watercourse must provide along with the application a survey that identifies top-of-bank prepared by a B.C. Land Surveyor.Parcels greater than 2.5 acres (1 hectare): h. every application for tree removal on parcels greater than 2.5 acres (1 hectare) between Oc-tober 15th to April 15th of any given year will require an erosion and sediment control plan pre-pared by a qualified professional, at the applicant?s expense, to deal with bare and exposed soil.Steep slopes: i. Every application for tree removal on a steep slope, 1:3 (rise over run) or greater, must be accompanied by a report prepared by a qualified geotechnical engineer that certifies that the proposed tree removal will not create increased flooding, erosion, or landslip caused by storm-water runoff directed from the tree removal site.j. A statement signed by the applicant ensuring that the applicant will be responsible for under-taking and completing all works required by the geotechnical engineer in accordance with the report described in subsection (i).Geotechnical Protection Area:k. Every application for tree removal within a Geotechnical Protection Area must  be accompa-nied by a report prepared by a qualified geotechnical engineer that certifies that the proposed tree removal will not create increased flooding, erosion, or landslip on the property or adjacent properties. l. A statement signed by the applicant ensuring that the applicant will be responsible for under-taking and completing all works required by the geotechnical engineer in accordance with the report described in subsection (k). Hazard Tree m. Every application for the Removal of a Hazard Tree shall be accompanied by a report pre-pared by a certified arborist.9. Tree RemovalWhere cutting or removal of trees has been authorized by the District, and a valid and subsisting permit exists, the person undertaking the cutting or removal must:a. dispose of the tree parts by chipping or burning in accordance with Provincial and District regulations; b. keep the Drainage System free of Excessive Suspended Solids Discharge originating from the tree removal area; c. stabilize all bare and exposed soil by Oct. 15th of any given year in order to reduce potential erosion impacts; d. restrict all tree removal work to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. everyday of the week except Sunday, when work is prohibited; Parcels greater than 2.5 acres (1 hectare): e. conduct tree removal on parcels greater than 2.5 acres (1 hectare) from April15th to October 15th of any given year, unless an erosion control plan prepared by a qualified professional has been approved by the District and implemented prior to site disturbance; and Watercourse Protection Area: f. when cutting hazard trees, within the Watercourse Protection Area, leave suchtrees as Large Woody Debris in order to retain fish and wildlife habitat or alternatively replace such tree in accordance with the provisions of Schedule ?D?. 78 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study Appendix J79AppendicesRelevant OCP policies for ?Other? Hazards5-6 Maple Ridge will work toward achieving the goal of a positive   benefit   for   the   District?s natural   features   by   designating Conservation areas and by mitigating the potential for habitat impacts with enhancement, restoration, environmental monitoring and other alternatives that are acceptable to the municipality.5-10 Maple Ridge residents have consistently emphasized the importance of preservation of natural features. A Natural Features Development Permit Area is established for the preservation, protec-tion, restoration and enhancement of natural features within the community. Development Permit guidelines will also be prepared for hazard lands and environmentally sensitive areas  identified  on the  Natural  Features  Schedule  ?C?  or   adopted area plans, in order to minimize disturbances and negative impacts that may occur as the result of development activities.5-34 Maple Ridge will participate in Regional, Provincial, and Federal programs aimed at reducing water consumption and will promote further initiatives that promote water conservation and wise consumption.5-35 Maple Ridge will consider developing a municipal-wide groundwater management strategy that will assist the District in resolving issues regarding groundwater quality, quantity and contribution to local ecosystem health.5-36 Maple Ridge recognizes the importance of groundwater as a significant source of drinking water in non-urban areas and will promote the protection, maintenance, and restoration of ground-water quality outside the urban area. Source: Chapter Five, Natural Features, Official Community Plan Appendix KComprehensive Emergency Planning and Management BylawBylaw ? 6487-2007: To provide for a comprehensive program of emergency planning and manage-ment 4.3 The Emergency Management Organization will be responsible for the following:  a) Preparing an Emergency Plan Manual based on the principles of the British Columbia Emer-gency Response Management System. Such manual shall provide a general direction and frame-work that covers preparedness, response and recovery plans within which the Emergency Man-agement Organization can formulate roles and responsibilities to deal with emergencies and disasters. Minor amendments, such as names, addresses and telephone numbers in the Emer-gency Plan Manual may be approved by the Emergency Management Coordinator. b)  Subject to the final approval of Council, negotiating agreements with other municipalities or governments for the purpose of mutual aid or for the formation of joint organizations. c)  Establishing such sub-committees or working groups as it deems necessary to carry out its duties and obligations. d) Submitting annually to Council a Business Plan as part of the District?s business planning pro-cess. 5  Pursuant to Section 8 of the Act, the Chief Administrative Officer/EOC Director may, whether or not a state of local emergency has been declared under Section 12(1) of the Act, implement all or portions of the District?s Emergency Program, if, in the opinion of the Chief Administrative Of-ficer/EOC Director, an emergency exists or appears imminent or a disaster has occurred within the boundaries of the District. 6. Pursuant to Section 12 of the Act, upon issuance of a Declaration of a State of Local Emergency, the Chief Administrative Officer/EOC Director will activate whatever portions of the Emergency Program are required to resolve, mitigate and recover from the conditions which led to the Dec-laration.  80 Natural Hazard Mitigation in Urban Planning:  A Canadian Case Study 81

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.310.1-0075794/manifest

Comment

Related Items