CO‐OPERATIVE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

FINAL

APRIL, 2014 Suite 260, East Atrium 2635 – 37 Ave NE Calgary, AB T1Y 5Z6 Phone: 403-250-1362 1-800-351-0929 Fax: 403-250-1518

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative April 23, 2014 c/o Western Irrigation District File: N:\29\159 CSMI\Reports\Final Box 2372 Strathmore, Alberta T1P 1K3

Attention: CSMI Partners

Dear Partners:

Re: Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

MPE Engineering Ltd. (MPE) is pleased to submit the “Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options Report” to the Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative (CSMI).

MPE has been proud to be part of this CSMI regional collaborative process. The initiative being undertaken by the CSMI respects the interests of all parties concerned. The willingness and cooperation demonstrated in the development of the preferred solution by all partners will form a solid basis to move forward with the regional stormwater management solution proposed.

MPE looks forward to the opportunity to assist CSMI in implementing the next phases of this long‐term solution.

Should you have any inquiries with regards to the report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Yours truly,

Daniel Parker, P.Eng. Senior Engineering Manager

DLP/bl Enclosure

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative (CSMI) was formed to assist municipalities and Western Irrigation District (WID) to work together to find an effective and feasible solution to an issue that affects each sector in different ways.

In late 2011, both the municipal partners and WID ascertained there was a need to undertake a collaborative process with the aim to develop a sustainable stormwater management (SWM) solution for the region in order to assist future land development. CSMI required an engineering assessment of a preferred SWM option that they had developed. CSMI had previously completed a comprehensive evaluation of SWM options. This evaluation established a shared understanding of:

. Current stormwater technology and options, . Each partner’s interests, and . Potential regional stormwater options that CSMI identified as meeting each partner’s interest.

CSMI has proceeded to a more detailed engineering assessment of potential SWM (SWM) alternatives. The objective is to develop a SWM solution that:

. Meets necessary water quality objectives for stormwater runoff, . Provides capacity for the projected stormwater discharge, and . Supports the various requirements of the CSMI Partners’ interests.

CSMI is comprised of the: Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP), Chestermere Utilities Incorporated (CUI), City of Calgary, Rocky View County (RVC), Town of Strathmore, Wheatland County, and Western Irrigation District (WID).

The objective is to ensure that both the municipal and irrigation sectors work together, share resources, and develop a mutually beneficial solution. The shared solution will provide:

1. WID with long‐term sustainability for an irrigation system that supports a vibrant agricultural economy, and 2. Municipalities with the certainty of growth and cost to allow continued urban development and economic development that will arise from it.

THE REGION AND GROWTH

The irrigation distribution infrastructure has become central to the regional drainage patterns of the CSMI area. The general nature of drainage is from west to east; starting just within the eastern boundary of the City of Calgary. The general study boundaries of the area are the City of Calgary on the west, Irricana and Rockyford on the north, the Bow River on the south and with its eastern reaches extending as far as the Standard and Crowfoot Creek.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

ii Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

The region’s proximity to the burgeoning economies of Calgary and surrounding region has meant steady and continuous land development. Population growth within the Calgary region has fueled the expansion of goods and services, and the need for residential and other types of development. The specific growth areas studied include an areae on th eastern side of Calgary, and areas in and around Chestermere, Conrich, Langdon, and Strathmore. As this development grows, so too does the impact on water quality for the downstream receiving bodies.

The area encompassed within CSMI area is separated into six study areas (See Table 1 and Figure 1). Each study area is experiencing its own development pressures, challenges, and of significance, they all share a single stormwater discharge point with an irrigation conveyance system.

Table 1 Study Areas

MUNICIPAL JURISDICTIONS LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT STUDY AREA WITHIN AREA AREAS RURAL AREAS City of Calgary Belvedere, Shepard (Janet) Industrial 1 Highway 1 South Rocky View County None and West Chestermere Town of Chestermere

2 Highway 1 North Rocky View County Conrich, Delacour RVC North

East Chestermere 3 Chestermere Town of Chestermere None South Chestermere

4 Langdon Rocky View County Hamlet of Langdon RVC South

Wheatland Wheatland 5 Wheatland County Wheatland Industrial Industrial County

Strathmore and Town of Strathmore West/North/East/South Strathmore Wheatland 6 Eagle Shores Wheatland County Eagle Shores County

The growth areas (“Land Development Areas”) are expected to experience significant growth over the next 25 years.

As part of the planning process, three milestone dates were used for estimating population and land use absorption. These were years 2016, 2024 and 2039. The population forecasts for each of these milestone dates were calculated based on existing planning documents for each study area. Generally, the growth rates for the CSMI region are approximately 2% to 4%. It was calculated that over the next 25 years there is an approximate population increase of 77,000 people. This will create a demand of approximately 7,621 ha of urban residential, industrial/commercial and country residential land development.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

iii WHEATLAND COUNTY ROCKY VIEW COUNTY KEOMA KATHRYN

MACDONALD LAKE HWY 21 HWY

C CANAL

HWY 564 DELACOUR

HWY 1 9 HWY SERVICEBERRY CREEK NORTH DALROY

B CANAL LYALTA

CONRICH HARTELL CITY COULEE OF CALGARY HWY 1

CHESTERMERE HWY 1 STRATHMORE CHESTERMERE

WEED LAKE CHEADLE HWY 1 STRATHMORE AND SOUTH LANGDON WHEATLAND EAGLE LAKE EAGLE INDUSTRIAL LAKE HWY 24 HWY HWY 817 HWY LANGDON ESRD WH A CANAL CANAL A CANAL

SIKSIKA I.R. CSMI MAIN CANAL STUDY AREAS MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY STUDY AREA BOUNDARY DEVELOPMENT AREA/ASP BOUNDARY (Ha) SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: APRIL 2014 JOB: 29159-001 FIGURE: 1 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND OPTIONS

Stormwater runoff within the region flows naturally towards the irrigation canal distribution system. Control of the nutrient loadings from planned and existing urban land development has proven to be a challenge. Stormwater runoff from rural areas also contributes to nutrient loading into receiving water bodies. High nutrient loads are a concern for receiving water bodies (natural and irrigation distribution systems). The impact of water quality affects the operation of an irrigation distribution system.

The aim of CSMI is to develop “Sustainable Stormwater Management Options” for the region that is designed to meet the needs of both the municipal and irrigation sectors. Nutrient loading not only results from urban land development, but also from rural areas in the form of agricultural practices and natural processes that occur in the environment (i.e. erosion, nutrient cycling). Therefore, the SWM solution should consider both urban and rural, structural and non‐structural options and strategies.

In essence, the overall SWM system to service the CSMI study area should strive to:

. Manage runoff pollutants at source, . Control runoff volumes to minimize impacts on the receiving water body, . Ensure peak flow rates from urban land development meet ESRD Stormwater Drainage Standards and Guidelines, . Convey the stormwater to its ultimate end‐use or destination, and . Provide an ultimate endr‐use (o destination) of the stormwater.

To minimize the impact of increased runoff volumes and poor water quality in the CSMI’s study area, the types of key stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) that can be employed in future land development areas include:

. Minimize generation of runoff. . Retain runoff on‐site through evapotranspiration, infiltration and/or reuse. . Capture, hold and use runoff within a development or municipal area for reuse (green space irrigation). . Treat stormwater using filtering and settling systems.

Specific options reviewed included:

1) Source Control: Low Impact Development and Source Control Practices.

2) End‐of‐Pipe Control: Urban constructed wetlands and traditional wetponds stormwater facilities with or without reuse.

It was found that a number of these practices are applicable for CSMI, particularly the application of Low Impact Development (LID) practices for reduction of runoff volumes. Although these water quality treatment techniques are being applied more broadly in other parts of the world, there is still significant local knowledge to be gained within Alberta (i.e. the design of these practices require “optimization” for phosphorus management). This is true for all SWM BMPs, including wetponds and wetlands. Therefore, water quality monitoring, together with researchd an development, is required in the CSMI area for evaluation and acceptance of these types of BMPs as an assured method of meeting water quality guidelines or SWM guidelines.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

v Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Improvements to the rural stormwater runoff water quality will further enhance irrigation water quality, and possibly recreation water quality. Therefore, as part of the development of an overall SWM alternative for the CSMI rural region, an analysis and overview of the rural phosphorus contributions, as well as discussion of opportunities for reducing phosphorus loads for rural areas, was undertaken.

Deterrents to implementation of Rural BMPs are:

. The uncertainty producers face in the effectiveness of the management practices, . The age of the farm operator, and . The cost to implement.

Generally, agricultural producers are innovative and implement management practices that are economically viable and compatible with operations. There are, however, a percentage of producers that may never adopt these practices.

There are three generic options that are available to convey the stormwater runoff within the CSMI area. In general, they are:

a) In‐Canal during the “Irrigation Season” (May 1 through to September 30), b) In‐Canal during the “Off‐Season” (September 30 through to May 1), and c) Out‐of‐Canal.

The In‐Canal during the Irrigation Season conveyance option would permit stormwater runoff conveyed through the irrigation system during the period of time that the canals are in operation. Runoff would enter the distribution system at specific inlet locations and be required to meet specific water quality targets.

The In‐Canal during the Off Season Release conveyance option is defined as the catching and storing of stormwater runoff from development areas and then releasing into the canal system after the irrigation season is completed. Rural runoff would continue to be accepted as is the current practice; or in the interest of improving the irrigation water quality ‐ Rural BMPs could be implemented.

The Out‐of‐Canal conveyance option aims to limit or prevent runoff discharges into the main irrigation supply canal system to avoid impacting the canal’s water quality. This option creates a conveyance system independent of the irrigation distribution system. In some components, a parallel conveyance system to the main irrigation canal is developed. This system could be staged and implemented over time as development occurs. The initial stages would use a “Catch, Store and Off‐Season Release” concept. The system would be designed based on the pre‐development stormwater flows for the full catchment areas. This is described as follows:

. For initial land development phases, the developer may be required to construct stormwater facilities as necessary to store all runoff during the irrigation season. Sizing of the facilities will be appropriate for the development area to achieve the short‐term operation scenario in accordance with the CSMI proposed guidelines. The intent would be to eventually incorporate these facilities into the ultimate SWM facilities for the long‐term continuous discharge as per the Out‐of‐Canal SWM alternative.

. The “Off‐Season” release would discharge into the existing irrigation canal system as it is currently constructed, with the exception that a Chestermere Lake bypass would have to be put in place.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

vi Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Rural stormwater runoff can continue to be accepted as the current practice; or in the interest of improving the irrigation water quality, Rural BMPs should be implemented.

DEVELOPED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

Considerations used to develop SWM alternatives were:

. Alternatives that encapsulate established technologies and practices that are already being applied within the local region, . Emerging technologies and practices that are being implemented locally or that have an excellent chance of becoming a recommended practice in the near (<10 year) future, . Practices that are easily adaptable to each study area, and . Rural BMPs that are coupled with underdrains at strategic locations.

The alternatives developed include:

. Stormwater Collection and Treatment . Stormwater Conveyance . End‐Use (Irrigation [Agricultural] or into a Natural Receiving Water Body)

The Rural BMPs are included in each alternative because rural areas are a contributor to nutrient loading during significant runoff events.

SWM alternatives have been developed according to the following two categories:

1. In‐Canal 2. Out‐of‐Canal

The four main SWM alternatives reviewed are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Proposed Stormwater Management Alternatives – Generic

STORMWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT STORMWATER END USE ALTERNATIVE CONVEYANCE DESTINATION URBAN RURAL Irrigation – 1‐1 Wetponds Only BMPs In‐Canal (Agriculture) Wetponds with Urban Irrigation – 1‐2 BMPs In‐Canal Greenspace Irrigation (Agriculture) Intensive LID Practices Irrigation – 1‐3 BMPs In‐Canal with Wetponds (Agriculture) Reduced LID Practices Release to Natural 2‐1 BMPs Out‐of‐Canal with Wetponds Water Body

The In‐Canal SWM alternatives are all considered long‐term solution. Figure 2 provides an overall schematic of the different routing options for the stormwater flows.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

vii

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

viii

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

SWM ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION

The proposed SWM Alternatives developed were evaluated on the three main evaluation processes:

1) Phosphorus Modelling of In‐Canal Alternatives 2) Project Capital Costing 3) Evaluation Matrix

Table 3 summarizes the comparison of the “In‐Canal SWM Alternative” and the “Out‐of‐Canal SWM Alternative” advantages and challenges.

Table 3 SWM Alternatives (Long‐Term) Comparison Advantages and Challenges

SWM ALTERNATIVE ADVANTAGES/CHALLENGES 1‐3 IN‐CANAL ADVANTAGES

Economic: Least amount of regional infrastructure required because stormwater is conveyed directly into adjacent irrigation canal.

Functionality: Would be simplest to operate and maintain for the outfall conveyance components. Would promote the advancement of emerging technologies to achieve WQ objectives.

Environmental: Potential to meet enhanced provincial long‐term stormwater quality guidelines.

Community: Provides more incentives to implement Rural BMPs.

CHALLENGES

Economic: The intensive LID practices required within the development cells represent a significant increase in the development costs.

Functionality: Stormwater BMPs require optimization for the Alberta region to ensure the nutrient loading reductions assumed in the modelling is achieved. Considerable research and development is required for optimization of LID practices. These can be considered a moderate to a high efficiency nutrient removal strategy. The issue is that LID practices have not been completely developed to be considered fully applicable as a treatment method to meet the water quality guidelines at this time. The level of risk is currently high in terms of adverse impact on the irrigation system.

Functionality: Developments could be delayed or additional costs incurred to retrofit infrastructure for the effectiveness required of stormwater BMPs assumed. Optimization of the LID practices could potentially take five years or more to be realized.

Environmental: Least potential for development of wetland compensation opportunities as all of the released runoff will become part of the irrigation flows, with ultimate release into the irrigation tail‐out systems.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

ix Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

SWM ALTERNATIVE ADVANTAGES/CHALLENGES 2‐1A OUT‐OF‐CANAL ADVANTAGES

Economic: Overall this option has the lower total project costs (capital expenditure and O&M) of the two SWM alternatives.

. On‐site development capital costs are lower because of the reduction in the intensive LID practices. LID practices are still promoted but not to the extent as required for the In‐Canal alternative.

Functionality: Lower risk to all partners because stormwater is conveyed to natural water courses. No additional stormwater will be added to the irrigation conveyance system.

. Timing wise this option will allow development to begin immediately. It is more conducive to staging, hence moving forward on a pace as dictated by development.

. Operationally less water quality monitoring required. Easier to maintain dedicated conveyance channels as part of an independent stormwater collection system.

. Infrastructure can be staged more easily as development proceeds, with no throw away costs.

Environmental: Opportunity to develop regional wetlands and potential for compensating wetlands. Stormwater end use will be for environmental purposes.

CHALLENGES

Functionality: Requires more regional infrastructure to be implemented.

Community: With an Out‐of‐Canal solution, there is less urgency to promote Rural BMPs and other improved water quality practices in order to meet water quality objectives.

. Less urgency for partner collaboration to meet stormwater quality objectives.

Environmental: Need to ensure any adverse downstream impacts are minimized or mitigated against. Future regulatory requirement for receiving streams must still be met.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

x Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions were drawn from the analysis.

1. While there are numerous possible strategies and/or options that have potential to reduce nutrient loading from stormwater runoff, there are only a few that can be effectively implemented based on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges assessment. Achieving the surface water quality guidelines set by ESRD provincially and the irrigation water quality guidelines set by the WID can only be accomplished by implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) at the source in both urban and rural areas.

2. To maintain a sustainable irrigation conveyance system, the preferred SWM Alternative is: Out‐of‐Canal Alternative whereby all urban development stormwater runoff is diverted away from the irrigation system, treated as necessary through stormwater BMPs and eventually released into a natural water course (i.e. Bow River or Red Deer River basins).

3. The Out‐of‐Canal SWM alternative provides reduced risk to the overall irrigation infrastructure compared to the In‐Canal SWM alternative.

4. Stormwater runoff generated by rare precipitation events such as a 1:100 year flood should be allowed to surcharge into the irrigation system thus providing an emergency escape route for the runoff, and then have it diverted at the nearest spill location.

5. The Out‐of‐Canal SWM system does not require strict irrigation nutrient loading guidelines to be met by urban development, but rather the critical considerations of the natural receiving stream.

6. The conveyance elements of the Out‐of‐Canal SWM Alternative can support growth up to the ultimate ASP buildout with some culvert and erosion protection enhancements.

7. The catchment areas: Strathmore West and Strathmore North Study Areas should be considered for diversion under B‐Canal and flow directly to Serviceberry Creek, so as not to impacte th already poor water quality within B‐Canal.

8. To lower the TP nutrient loading into the irrigation canals from rural catchment area runoff at the point of confluence of a major natural drainage channel, the preferred option is to divert the runoff under the canal, (i.e. an underdrain). The underdrain system is proposed to be constructed at three locations along B‐Canal, including the catchment areas for Strathmore West and North.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

xi Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

PREFERRED SWM ALTERNATIVE: ELEMENTS OF A STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK Based upon the findings discussed in Section 5.9, the CSMI Partners, at the CSMI Workshop #5 meeting held on January 20, 2014, agreed that the:

SWM Alternative: 2‐1A Out‐of‐Canal

was the preferred alternative for the CSMI area.

“Implementation” of the preferred SWM Solution, is proposed to be undertaken in two phases. These phases are:

Phase I Implementation Planning Phase Phase II Project Works – Construction

The Implementation Planning Phase includes tasks required to be completed prior to adoption and construction commencement of the preferred SWM alternative. The proposed identified tasks include:

Process

1. Governance Evaluation 2. Consultation and Regulatory Communication 3. Water Reuse Policy 4. Public Education and Outreach

Technical

1. Water Balance Analysis (including Weed Lake, Eagle Lake and Wetland Assessment) 2. Concept Level Design and Costing 3. CSMI SWM Design Policy Development 4. CSMI Regional Collaborative Rate Setting 5. Execution (Construction) Stage Development 6. Water Quality Monitoring Program Development 7. Rural BMP Initiative Program

The projected range of cost for the above tasks is approximately $0.8M to $1.3M.

Upon completion of the implementation phase, the final Project Works – Construction Phase can commence with Stage 1 as illustrated on Figures 3 and 4.

Class D (screening level) opinions of probable cost and the resulting per hectare of projected development land are summarized in Table 4.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

xii Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Table 4 Projected CSMI Collaborative Regional Infrastructure Costs

SUB‐SYSTEM ITEM STUDY AREAS TOTAL

HIGHWAY 1 SOUTH & HIGHWAY 1 WHEATLAND SYSTEM 1 (West) LANGDON CHESTERMERE NORTH INDUSTRIAL CSMI Regional $39.1 M $44.2 M $5.9 M $3.8 M $93.0 M Costs by Area ($M) 25‐Year Projected 2,160 ha 3,321 ha 856 ha 671 ha 7,008 ha Area Served (ha) STRATHMORE STRATHMORE SYSTEMS 2 and 3 (East) EAGLE SHORES WEST & NORTH SOUTH & EAST CSMI Regional $ 2.2 M $ 2.9 M $ 0.4 M $5.5 M Costs by Area ($M) 25‐Year Projected 170 ha 358 ha 85 ha 613 ha Area Served (ha)

TOTAL COST (No GST) ...... $98.5 M

TOTAL AREA (Gross Developable) ...... 7,621 ha

AVERAGE COST PER HECTARE ...... $13,000 / ha

Note: Costs are Class D (Screening Level) Opinions of Probable Cost.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

xiii DALROY DALROY B CANAL STAGE I-N STAGE II-N LYALTA CREEK TO SERVICEBERRY TO HWY 1 NORTH

C CANAL CONRICH

CONVEYANCE CHANNEL PARALLEL TO SOUTH BRANCH B HARTELL COULEE PARALLELS HWY 9 HWY HWY 791 HWY B CANAL STAGE III-N STAGE V

CHESTERMERE HWY 1 STAGE III-S SOUTH CHESTERMERE STAGE IV HWY 1 BYPASS STAGE II-S PIPE WHEATLAND INDUSTRIAL STAGE II-S WEED LAKE DELIVERY IMPROVEMENTS CHEADLE TO WETLANDS CHEADLE UPGRADE STAGE I-S LANGDON DITCH PUMP TO STORMWATER OUTFALL CONVEYANCE UPGRADE WEED LAKE DITCH CHANNEL LANGDON ESRD WH PARALLEL TO CANAL A CANAL

LANGDON STUDY AREAS SERVICED: - HWY 1 NORTH

A CANAL - HWY 1 SOUTH - CHESTERMERE - LANGDON - WHEATLAND INDUSTRIAL

EXISTING MAIN CANAL PROPOSED STORM PROPOSED PUMP POTENTIAL FORCEMAIN P CONSTRUCTED PROPOSED LOCAL WETLANDS DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE PROPOSED REGIONAL CSMI DISCHARGE TO CONVEYANCE PIPE WEED LAKE PROPOSED LOCAL TRUNK SERVICEBERRY CREEK STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM i STORAGE/TREATMENT NETWORK EXISTING RAINBOW FALLS SUB-SYSTEM 1 WEST UNDERDRAIN DEVELOPMENT AREAS PROPOSED REGIONAL à EXISTING UNDERDRAIN STAGING PLAN CONVEYANCE CHANNEL PROPOSED BERM à PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN WEST CREEK DITCH SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: APRIL 2014 JOB: 29159-001 FIGURE: 3 i STAGE II TO EXISTING CREEK i WID SERVICEBERRY DITCH CREEK

TO SERVICEBERRY STAGE I STAGE II

STAGE I PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN PROPOSED EXISTING UNDERDRAIN WID DITCH STAGE I B CANAL

PROPOSED NORTH A CANAL NORTH UNDERDRAIN STRATHMORE STAGE I EXISTING UNDERDRAINS A CANAL

STRATHMORE EAST STRATHMORE WEST

STRATHMORE SOUTH

EAGLE STAGE II SHORES

EAGLE LAKE A CANAL UPGRADED EXISTING DITCH

NOTES: PROPOSED 1. STUDY AREAS SERVICED: STORMWATER - STRATHMORE EAST, WEST, NORTH AND SOUTH TREATMENT - EAGLE SHORES WETLANDS 2. STRATHMORE EAST ONLY HAS OPTION FOR IN-CANAL ALTERNATIVE

EXISTING MAIN CANAL à EXISTING UNDERDRAIN PROPOSED LOCAL TRUNK PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN NETWORK à CSMI POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTED UPGRADED EXISTING DITCH WETLANDS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EXISTING DITCH DEVELOPMENT AREAS SUB-SYSTEM 2 EAST SUB-SYSTEM 3 EAST DISCHARGE TO STAGING PLAN i SERVICEBERRY CREEK SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: APRIL 2014 JOB: 29159-001 FIGURE: 4 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations have been drawn from this report.

1. Proceed with the preferred SWM alternative, 2‐1A, Out‐of‐Canal Alternative.

2. Proceed with the initial Implementation Planning Phase. Key decisions, confirmation of next steps and costs, concept level design refinement and stormwater guidelines should be developed as soon as possible to allow imminent land development to proceed in the region.

3. Future land development should incorporate the following to meet the CSMI collaborative SWM guidelines:

i) Low Impact Development practices, ii) Stormwater reuse (green space irrigation) to reduce overall stormwater volume, and iii) Wetponds and/or wetlands for management kof pea flows.

4. For the upcoming 2014 Irrigation Season, implement an enhanced water quality monitoring program. This program must be continued and further refined through evaluation of locations and sample timing on a more frequent basis in order to establish a benchmark for moving forward.

5. Initiate discussion with the regulators, particularly ESRD to familiarize them with the initiative and to review the regulatory framework.

6. Seek a resolution of Council/Board for each partner to support in principle this initiative and the preferred alternative. As well, seek a similar resolution of the various partner agencies.

7. Seek consensus in developing a common Off‐Site Levy formula to support this initiative and maintain a level of cost equity among partners.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

xvi Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

CORPORATE AUTHORIZATION

This report has been prepared by MPE Engineering Ltd. under authorization of Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative. The material in this report represents the best judgment of MPE Engineering Ltd. given the available information. Any use that a third party makes of this report, or reliance on or decisions made based upon it is the responsibility of the third party. MPE Engineering Ltd. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by a third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based upon this report.

Should any questions arise regarding content of this report, please contact the undersigned.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

xvii

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TRANSMITTAL LETTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CORPORATE AUTHORIZATION ...... XVII 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 BACKGROUND ...... 4

2.1 CO‐OPERATIVE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP (CSMI) ...... 4 2.2 STORMWATER WATER MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES ...... 4 2.3 IRRIGATION WATER QUALITY TARGETS...... 5 2.4 IRRIGATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OVERVIEW ...... 6 2.5 EXISTING STORMWATER RUNOFF RELATIONSHIP TO IRRIGATION OPERATIONS ...... 9 2.6 MUNICIPAL INTERESTS ...... 9 3.0 DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH WITHIN THE REGION ...... 10

3.1 OVERALL REGION ...... 10 3.1.1 The Region of Study ...... 10 3.1.2 Study Areas ...... 10 3.2 GROWTH PROJECTIONS: 2 YEAR, 10 YEAR AND 25 YEAR HORIZONS ...... 16 3.2.1 Population ...... 16 3.2.2 Development Areas ...... 16 4.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: STRATEGIES AND OPTIONS ...... 18

4.1 GENERAL ...... 18 4.2 STORMWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT OPTIONS ASSESSMENT ...... 19 4.2.1 Urban – Structural ...... 19 4.2.2 Urban (Non‐Structural) BMPs ...... 26 4.2.3 Rural BMPs ...... 26 4.3 STORMWATER CONVEYANCE OPTIONS ...... 31 4.3.1 In‐Canal: Irrigation Season ...... 31 4.3.2 In‐Canal: Off‐Season Release ...... 32 4.3.3 Out‐of‐Canal Conveyance ...... 33 4.4 STORMWATER END‐USE ...... 33 4.5 POLICIES ...... 34 5.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES: ANALYSIS ...... 35

5.1 GENERAL ...... 35 5.2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT ...... 35 5.2.1 General ...... 35 5.2.2 Infrastructure Requirements for a SWM Alternative ...... 48 5.3 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATIONS ...... 51 5.3.1 Irrigation Canal Phosphorus Modelling ...... 51

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

xviii Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS…continued

5.4 OUTFALL CONVEYANCE CAPACITIES ...... 70 5.4.1 Outfall Conveyance Sizing ...... 70 5.4.2 Irrigation Canal Conveyance Capacity Assessment...... 70 5.5 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ...... 72 5.6 EVALUATION MATRIX ...... 75 5.6.1 Matrix Development ...... 75 5.7 DISCUSSION ...... 79 5.8 SWM ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION SUMMARY ...... 80 5.9 CONCLUSIONS OF ANALYSIS ...... 82 6.0 PREFERRED SWM ALTERNATIVE: ELEMENTS OF A STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK ...... 83

6.1 SELECTED SWM SOLUTION IMPLEMENTATION ...... 86 6.1.1 Phase I ‐ Implementation Planning Phase ...... 86 6.1.2 Phase II ‐ Construction of the SWM System ...... 88 6.2 PROBABLE PROJECT COSTS ...... 91 6.3 POTENTIAL RISKS ...... 96 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 97 8.0 REFERENCES ...... 98 9.0 GLOSSARY ...... 101

9.1 DEFINITION OF TERMS ...... 101 9.2 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...... 102

APPENDICES

Appendix A Development and Growth

Appendix B SWOC Analysis – Rural and Urban

Appendix C Rural Strategies

Appendix D Modelling

Appendix E Evaluation

Appendix F Project Cost Projections

Appendix G CSMI Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase, January 16th, 2013

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

xix Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 2007 WID Water Quality Guidelines Table 3.1 Study Areas Table 3.2 Projected Land Development – 2, 10, and 25 Year Site Horizons Table 4.1 Source Control BMPs Table 4.2 SWOC Analysis (Source Control Practices) Table 4.3 End‐of‐Pipe Options BMPs Table 4.4 SWOC Analysis (End‐of‐Pipe Options) Table 4.5 Rural BMPs – Structural Table 4.6 Rural BMPs – Non‐Structural Table 4.7 Rural BMPs – Livestock Operations Table 5.1 Proposed Stormwater Management Alternatives – Generic Table 5.2 In‐Canal: Routing Options by Study Area Table 5.3 Out‐of‐Canal: Routing Options by Study Area Table 5.4 Range of TP Loading Rates for Land Development Table 5.5 Total Annual Loading to Canals Table 5.6 A Canal Capacities Table 5.7 B Canal Capacities Table 5.8 C Canal Capacities Table 5.9 Selected SWM Alternatives for Costing Table 5.10 Probable Project Cost (25 Yr) – Local and Regional Infrastructure: Study Areas:Y HW 1 South, HWY 1 North, Chestermere, Langdon, Wheatland Industrial

Table 5.11 Probable Project Cost (25 Yr) – Local and Regional Infrastructure: Study Areas: Strathmore West, North, East & South, Eagle Shores

Table 5.12 SWM Alternatives ‐ Assessment Parameters Table 5.13 SWM Alternatives: Highest Ranked Short‐Term and Long‐Term Parameters Table 5.14 SWM Alternatives (Long‐term) Comparison ‐ Advantages and Challenges Table 6.1 Implementation Planning Key Tasks Table 6.2 Staging for Sub‐System 1 (West) to Service HWY 1 South/HWY 1 North/Chestermere/Langdon/Wheatland Industrial Study Areas

Table 6.3 Staging for Sub‐System 2 (East) to Service Strathmore West/Strathmore North Study Areas Table 6.4 Staging for Sub‐System 3 (East) to Service Strathmore South/Strathmore East Study Areas Table 6.5 Phase I – Estimated Budget for Implementation Planning Work Table 6.6 CSMI Collaborative Regional SWM System Projected Class D Opinion of Probable Cost by Sub‐System Table 6.7 Projected Regional CSMI Collaborative Infrastructure Costs Table 6.8 Staging Costs and Associated Gross Development Required Table 6.9 Potential Risks

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

xx Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 CSMI Region Figure 3.1 Study Areas Figure 3.2 Ultimate Build Out of Development Areas Figure 5.1 Schematic: Stormwater Route Options Figure 5.2 Study Area: Hwy 1 South and Chestermere SWM Alternative: 1‐3 In‐Canal Local Trunk Network Figure 5.3 Study Area: Hwy 1 North SWM Alternative: 1‐3 In‐Canal Local Trunk Network – Option A Figure 5.4 Study Area: Hwy 1 North SWM Alternative: 1‐3 In‐Canal Local Trunk Network – Option B Figure 5.5 SWM Alternative: 2‐1 Out‐of‐Canal Option A Study Area: Hwy 1 North Drains to Weed Lake Figure 5.6 Chestermere Lake Regional Conveyance Pipe Bypass Figure 5.7 Weed Lake Infrastructure Upgrades Figure 5.8 SWM Alternative: 2‐1 Out‐of‐Canal Option B Study Area: Hwy 1 North Drains to Serviceberry Creek Figure 5.9 SWM Alternative: Out‐of‐Canal Study Areas: Strathmore and Eagle Shores Figure 5.10 Schematic of SWM System Components Figure 5.11 A Canal 2006‐2013 Sample Data vs WID Guidelines Figure 5.12 B Canal 2006‐2013 Sample Data vs WID Guidelines Figure 5.13 C Canal 2006‐2013 Sample Data vs WID Guidelines Figure 5.14 A Canal Avg. TP 75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development and Rural BMPs) Figure 5.15 A Canal Avg. TP <75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development and Rural BMPs) Figure 5.16 A Canal Avg. TP >75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development and Rural BMPs) Figure 5.17 A Canal Avg. TP 75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development and No Rural BMPs) Figure 5.18 A Canal Avg. TP <75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development and No Rural BMPs) Figure 5.19 A Canal Avg. TP >75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development and No Rural BMPs) Figure 5.20 B Canal Avg. TP <75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development and Rural BMPs) Figure 5.21 B Canal Avg. TP 75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development and Rural BMPs) Figure 5.22 B Canal Avg. TP >75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development and Rural BMPs) Figure 5.23 B Canal Avg. TP <75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development B/C Canal Split and Rural BMPs) Figure 5.24 B Canal Avg. TP 75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development B/C Canal Split and Rural BMPs) Figure 5.25 B Canal Avg. TP >75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development and B/C Canal Split Rural BMPs) Figure 5.26 C Canal Avg. TP 75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development to Discharge to C Canal with Rural BMPs) Figure 5.27 C Canal Avg. TP <75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development to Discharge to C Canal with Rural BMPs) Figure 5.28 C Canal Avg. TP >75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development to Discharge to C Canal with Rural BMPs) Figure 5.29 C Canal Avg. TP 75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development to Discharge to B/C Split with Rural BMPs) Figure 5.30 C Canal Avg. TP <75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development to Discharge to B/C Split with Rural BMPs) Figure 5.31 C Canal Avg. TP >75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development to Discharge to B/C Split with Rural BMPs) Figure 6.1 Stormwater Management System Proposed Sub‐System 1 West Staging Plan Figure 6.2 Stormwater Management System Proposed Sub‐System 2 East/Proposed Sub‐System 3 East Staging Plan

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

xxi Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Process The Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative (CSMI) is a collaboration between municipalities and Western Irrigation District (WID) to provide a practical stormwater management (SWM) solution for the developing region. Through a shared vision, a comprehensive high level evaluation of potential SWM options evolved which considered:

. Current stormwater technology and technology options, . Capacity required for the projected stormwater discharge, and . Potential regional stormwater options that CSMI identified as meeting the partners’ interests.

CSMI initiated a more detailed engineering assessment, with this report being the deliverable. It provides a more complete and in‐depth analysis of the “Preferred Stormwater Management Infrastructure Options”.

The main objectives for the development of a preferred Stormwater Management (SWM) alternative are to:

. Meet necessary water quality objectives for stormwater runoff, . Achieve each partner’s individual interests, and . Support the collective interests of the CSMI Partners.

CSMI partnership retained MPE Engineering Ltd. (MPE) to complete the engineering assessment of preferred SWM options.

The next phase could be the refinement and implementation of the recommended SWM alternative(s).

Members CSMI is comprised of the following partners:

 Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP)  Chestermere Utilities Incorporated (CUI)  City of Calgary  Rocky View County (RVC)  Town of Strathmore  Wheatland County  Western Irrigation District (WID)

Issues Stormwater runoff within the region flows naturally towards the irrigation canal distribution system. Control of the nutrient loadings from planned and existing urban land development has proven to be a challenge. Stormwater runoff from rural areas also contributes to nutrient loading into receiving water bodies. High nutrient loads are a concern for receiving water bodies (natural and irrigation distribution systems). Stormwater management guidelines are in place for land development, but are general in nature, as they primarily focus on controlling release rates, and to a lesser extent, water quality and volume. Water quality standards target Total Suspended Solids, but do not specifically address limits on

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

1 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014 the parameters of concern, such as Total Phosphorus (TP), salinity and bacteria. These other parameters directly impact the operation of an irrigation distribution system.

On the municipal side, the partners need certainty and reasonableness of cost and a ‘ready’ stormwater discharge point to allow for continued growth and development. Solutions such as the Shepard Regional Drainage Plan (SRDP) remain on the horizon, but this remains difficult to stage and therefore costly and the timing could be 10 to 15 years in the future.

Premise The CSMI collaborative was developed to explore potential workable SWM alternatives to meet all of the partners’ requirements. The objective is to ensure that both the municipal and irrigation sectors collaborate together, share resources and develop a mutually beneficial solution. This shared solution will provide:

. WID with long‐term sustainability for an irrigation system that supports a vibrant agricultural economy, and . Municipalities with the certainty of growth and associated cost to allow for continued urban development and economic development that arises from it.

The Study The CSMI partnership requires a SWM solution to meet the above premise. The scope of work required to complete the development of the SWM alternatives include the following:

. Refine and screen the preferred options identified in the initial phase of work, . Assess the viability of both infrastructure and non‐infrastructure SWM alternatives, . Consider how the proposed SWM alternatives could improve the receiving water bodies water quality and still meet the stormwater needs of the municipal partners, . Identify potential SWM alternatives for the short‐term (2 to 10 years) and long‐term (25 year) timeframes, . Generate Class D cost estimates (probable project costs) for the SWM alternatives developed in the analysis, . Recommend a preferred SWM alternative to pursue, and . Develop a strategic framework as a guiding document for CSMI Partners moving forward, both as a group and individually, for the implementation and staging of the preferred SWM alternative.

To complete this assessment, the methodology adopted is as follows: . Group the drainage catchment areas within the CSMI region into study areas, with each generally sharing a common discharge location. . Develop growth scenarios that project land development area within each study area on a two, ten, and 25 year basis. . Use locally developed municipal planning data from each partner to develop these projections. . Screen the preferred SWM options presented in the initial assessment, and select the most promising options to proceed with in this analysis. . Refine alternatives for the options selected from the screening process. . Undertake a water quality modelling analysis of the irrigation canals for the SWM alternatives that potentially impact the water quality of the irrigation flows. . Generate high level probable project costs and operation and maintenance costs for each SWM alternative for comparative purposes.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

2 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

. Evaluate alternatives against a range of economic, functionality, environmental and community criteria. . Prepare a detailed cost estimate of the preferred SWM alternative. . Outline a Strategic Framework for the implementation and staging of the recommended SWM alternatives.

Note: The Reader is advised to refer to Sections 8.0 and 9.0 for references, acronyms and definition of terms that will assist while reading this report.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

3 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Partnership (CSMI)

CSMI was formed to assist municipalities and WID to work together to find an effective and feasible solution for SWM that benefits both parties in different ways.

In late 2011, the municipalities and WID ascertained there was a need to undertake a collaborative process with the aim to develop a sustainable SWM alternative for the region’s future land development. With Alberta WaterSMART Solutions facilitating the process, the CSMI Partnership was established. In addition to the partners, representatives from the CRP were asked to participate as a full partner. Representatives from Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Department (ESRD) are included as parte of th CSMI with an “observer” status.

To date, CSMI has worked in a collaborative and progressive manner towards creating a workable solution. CSMI developed a high level “Strategic Options Assessment” in January 2013 (details are included in Appendix G). The preferred sustainable management options being reviewed within this report are a result of the collaborative process undertaken to date.

In order to understand the full breadth of the SWM issue and the need for collaboration to develop feasible options, the following background information is provided.

2.2 Stormwater Water Management Guidelines

Urban land development is known to generate higher volumes of runoff than predevelopment or rural conditions on a per unit area basis, simply from the increase in impervious area within an urban footprint. Depending on the land use and density, runoff can have relatively high concentrations of contaminants and nutrients. If inadequately treated, these can deteriorate water quality in a receiving water body. The pollutants are either in a soluble or particulate form (attached to suspended sediments), both of which are washed off the various ground surfaces and collected as stormwater flows towards a receiving water body.

ESRD has established standards and guidelines for management of storm drainage facilities for various land development forms (i.e. residential, commercial, industrial) in the “Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waterworks, Wastewater, and Storm Drainage Systems,” (ESRD, 2006) and “Stormwater Management Guidelines,” (ESRD 1999). The guidelines aim to reduce total suspended solids (TSS) removal and manage peak flow rates to predevelopment levels. They outline and encourage Best Management Practices (BMPs) to “retain as much of the natural runoff characteristics and infiltration components of the undeveloped land as much as possible and to reduce or prevent water quality degradation,” (ESRD, 1999). There is no direct consideration, however, for the management of nutrient loads. The ESRD guidelines outline minimum requirements for stormwater runoff management. Other local authorities have independently developed catchment‐specific SWM guidelines to mitigate against downstream impacts. For instance, WID developed stormwater guidelines in 2007, (refer to Section 2.3). Each municipality may have guidelines in place that exceed the ESRD Stormwater Management Guidelines.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

4 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Water quality guidelines for stormwater runoff also fall under the “Surface Water Quality Guidelines For Use In Alberta” established by ESRD in November, 1999 (ESRD 1999). These Surface Water Guidelines are recommended to protect various water uses. These uses are for:

. Aquatic life, . Agriculture (livestock watering and irrigation), and . Recreation and aesthetics.

Within the CSMI area, most of the drainage catchments areas (rural and urban) drain to the irrigation distribution system. Therefore, the objective of CSMI is to develop a SWM alternative so that stormwater runoff from rural catchment areas meets the ESRD Surface Water Quality Guidelines and, if into an irrigation system, the WID Stormwater Guidelines (MPE, 2007).

2.3 Irrigation Water Quality Targets

The CSMI region encompasses both rural areas (agronomic) and urban development areas, both existing and planned. Land development generates significantly greater runoff volumes than rural drainage areas.

For years, a limited number of urban storm outfalls drained into the ESRD’s Western Headworks canal that feeds the WID’s irrigation distribution systems. Impacts such as heavy weed and algae growth from the poor stormwater quality to both Chestermere Lake and the canals are well documented. Generally, the urban municipalities were implementing the ESRD Stormwater Guidelines for urban land development. An irrigation distribution system is more sensitive and vulnerable than a traditional drainage system that drains to a natural water body. An irrigation canal decreases in size moving downstream and the hydraulic velocities tend to be lower than natural drainage channels. The reverse situation would apply for a natural drainage system.

These factors, combined with increased volumes of nutrient loaded stormwater runoff water that is introduced into these canals, result in:

. Little natural buffering capacity to cope with excessive nutrient and pollutant loads, . High nutrient loads leading to rapid and excessive weed growth that choke canal capacity, . Hydraulic design capacity dropping downstream, opposite natural streams and drainage channels, . More pollutants and nutrients entering the canals as it moves downstream, increasing concentrations, and . Cumulative effects leading to the highest and most harmful concentrations near the end of the system.

Generation of WID Stormwater Guidelines WID established targets to protect the canals from excessive weed growth, to maintain irrigation water quality, and to preserve the quality of return flow to natural streams. Analysis of flows within the WID irrigation distribution systems confirm that as the distance from the Bow River Headworks (WH diversion on the Bow River) increases, the downstream water quality deteriorates. This deterioration is generally attributable to stormwater runoff flows. Therefore, WID recognized the need to develop water quality targets to ensure that the irrigation water quality would comply with these objectives.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

5 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Within the CSMI region, stormwater runoff generally drains into the irrigation distribution system (WH Canal and WID system). WID developed an initiative that affected all future land development post 2007; namely, all stormwater runoff entering the irrigation system must meet these newly established guidelines. The developed water quality guidelines and comparison of these to the Province of Alberta’s “Surface Water Guidelines” are provided in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 2007 WID Water Quality Guidelines

*ESRD SURFACE WATER QUALITY PARAMETER DISTRICT‐WIDE TARGET GUIDELINES Total Phosphorus (TP) 0.03 mg/L 0.05 mg/L Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 10 mg/L ‐‐ Bacteria 100 per 100 ml Fecal Coliforms 100 per 100 ml Fecal Coliforms 0.6 mS/cm Electrical Salinity 1.0 dS/cm Electrical Conductivity (EC) Conductivity (EC)

*Excerpts from ESRD “Surface Water Quality Guidelines For Use in Alberta,” (1999).

The entire range of targets and limits are provided in “Western Irrigation District Stormwater Guidelines, Draft“ (MPE, 2007). Further discussions with respect to these water quality guidelines are provided in Section 5.3.

To meet these guidelines, any land development initiatives would require a significant capital expenditure for the requisite land. Treatment of stormwater to the current ESRD Surface Water Quality Guidelines would likely adversely impact irrigation water quality. To meet the WID Guidelines, either a mechanical water treatment plant to provide certainty of treatment, or establishment of evaporative ponds for stormwater runoff, appear to be the primary options for SWM. This can be cost‐prohibitive for land development.

The CSMI group is endeavoring to develop a more practical approach that will assist in cultivating a shared vision that will benefit all partners.

2.4 Irrigation Distribution System Overview

The following is an overview of the irrigation distribution system. This provides an understanding of how the stormwater catchment areas, stormwater volumes, and the water quality guidelines relate to the irrigation system. Figure 2.1 illustrates the irrigation system works and the receiving natural drainage catchment areas within the CSMI planning area. For purposes of this study, the CSMI study area is assumed to encompass all contributing rural catchment that flows into (towards) an irrigation system.

The WH Canal is owned and maintained by ESRD. WID operates the WH Canal. Chestermere Lake is a reservoir owned and operated by WID. It operates as a holding reservoir and provides a conveyance function before irrigation flows are diverted into either A Canal or B/C Canal. The B/C Canal eventually splits irrigation flows into B and C Canals. A, B, and C Canals distribute to irrigators throughout WID. The general nature of overland drainage is from west to east, starting just within the eastern boundary of the City of Calgary.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

6 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

The general study boundaries of the region are the City of Calgary on the west, the Town of Irricana and Village of Rockyford on the north, the Bow River on the south and with its eastern reaches extending as far as the Village of Standard and Crowfoot Creek.

The ESRD and WID water quality guidelines are applicable to the irrigation works described above (WH Canal, Chestermere Lake, A, B and C Canals). A and B Canals have been rehabilitated over the last 15 to 20 years to improve capacity and reduce maintenance costs. C Canal is proposed to be rehabilitated in the next few years. In addition to irrigation water for crop production, the canal provides raw water conveyance for potable water use at Graham Creek Reservoir (RVC), Rockyford, Standard and Gleichen (Wheatland County), and a number of private domestic users. Each of these municipalities provides their own raw water reservoir. The irrigation system also provides domestic water to numerous acreage developments, particularly on the western side of the district.

Beyond the main canals there is an intricate network of lateral canals required to deliver irrigation water to individual users. These lateral canals are not shown in Figure 2.1, but range in size depending on the irrigable areas they service (or previously serviced). To reduce water losses and improve irrigation system performance, some of these laterals have been replaced with gravity pipe systems, mainly in areas where soils exhibit high infiltration rates.

Within the irrigation distribution system there are drainage channels (both natural and constructed) that provide:

. Irrigation flows for users who irrigate from these channels, and/or . Return flows to either the Bow or Red Deer River system from the distribution systems.

For the area analyzed for this study, there are two major natural drainage channels which provide both irrigation flow and return flow from irrigation works (see Figure 2.1). One is along Weed Lake Ditch and Hartell Coulee downstream of the Weed Lake outlet; the second is Serviceberry Creek downstream of C Canal diversion. Serviceberry Creek is a natural stream and receives runoff from its natural catchments, as well as stormwater overflows from B and C Canals, and return flow from the canal system laterals. Of note, there is a 10 km reach of Serviceberry Creek east of Delacour (off of C Canal) used by WID as a part of the C Canal delivery.

A third natural channel is the Eagle Lake system. Eagle Lake also receives irrigation return flows from the numerous upslope laterals. A constructed outfall passes surplus volume to natural water courses east of Eagle Lake that eventually drain to the Bow River. No irrigation water is drawn from Eagle Lake or the downstream drainage channels.

The governing Water Quality Guidelines for the dWee Lake Ditch and Hartell Coulee and Serviceberry Creek would generally follow the provincial ESRD Surface Water Quality Guidelines.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

7 ROSEBUD CREEK

HWY 791

HWY 9 SPILLS TO

ROCKY VIEW SERVICEBERRY CREEKb COUNTY C CANAL HWY 21 HWY

HWY 840 HWY WHEATLAND COUNTY

HWY 564

HWY 564 b SERVICEBERRY SPILLS TO CREEK SERVICEBERRY CREEK

B CANAL

HARTELL

COULEE b

CITY CHESTERMERE SPILLS TO CHESTERMERE BOW RIVER OF LAKE HWY 1 CALGARY HWY 561 NORTH

WEED A CANAL

LAKE WEED LAKE EAGLE HWY 560 DITCH LAKE b SPILLS TO BOW RIVER HWY 24 HWY

ESRD WH 817 HWY CANAL A CANAL LANGDON NAMAKA

RESERVOIR LAKE HWY 22X b

SPILLS TO HWY 901 BOW RIVER

SIKSIKA I.R. HWY 1 NOTE: CATCHMENT INTO ESRD A CANAL WH CANAL WITHIN CITY OF CALGARY NOT SHOWN

BOW RIVER WID CANAL CATCHMENT CSMI CREEK CSMI REGION MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

MAIN CANAL

BOW RIVER SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: APRIL 2014 JOB: 29159-001 FIGURE: 2.1 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

2.5 Existing Stormwater Runoff Relationship to Irrigation Operations

The irrigation distribution system is in place for drought‐proofing. It provides supplemental water during periods of low rainfall for agricultural production. The system is operated based upon the demands from irrigators. From a simplified perspective, water volume demands are totaled on a daily basis and this demand is then diverted from the Bow River. There are more complicated determinants related to diversion and lag time of irrigation flows, but this is beyond the need of this report. There is limited storage capacity within WID; therefore the district must maintain a diversion amount very close to the irrigation demand. Chestermere Lake is considered a “storage reservoir” for the WID distribution system; however it has very limited storage capacity and is primarily used for distribution of flows for the three canal systems.

As stated previously in Section 2.1, the irrigation system receives stormwater runoff from catchment areas upslope of the canals. There are some municipalities that have “use of works” agreements in place with WID to manage the stormwater runoff conveyed through the WID. These agreements are for defined areas.

Depending upon how broad a precipitation event occurs (the area it covers) or the amount of the rainfall, the irrigation diversion rate may or may not be adjusted. In extreme high runoff events, both irrigation and runoff flows are diverted via constructed structures (spillways) into a natural drainage course. In runoff events of lower magnitude, runoff volumes that flow through the irrigation works are passed into a receiving water body at the end eof th irrigation system. Because WID has limited storage capabilities, the stormwater runoff volumes for virtually all events flow through the irrigation works. These volumes are not used for agricultural irrigation purposes as these stormwater flows cannot be depended upon for irrigation demands.

2.6 Municipal Interests

Municipalities aim to provide opportunities for current and future growth, primarily through land development. In order for this growth to be responsible and sustainable, the municipality provides an outline of infrastructure requirements that land development initiatives must adhere to. This outline provides a certainty of infrastructure cost, as well as timelyd an readily available guidelines that can be followed during construction. A SWM solution will be part of the infrastructure requirements that all land development must incorporate into its costs and timelines.

For the municipal partners within CSMI, it has been an ongoing challenge to provide clear direction with regards to these requirements. Development wants to proceed in a cost‐effective and timely schedule. The municipalities can provide direction for SWM guidelines for land development, but do not have a clear directive for a discharge point for stormwater runoff, thus posing the question “Are there other options available for stormwater runoff management?”

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

9 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

3.0 DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH WITHIN THE REGION

3.1 Overall Region

This section reviews the projected growth of development for the region. From these projections, a basis for an SWM alternative is developed based upon land development sizing.

3.1.1 The Region of Study The region’s proximity to the burgeoning economies of Calgary and surrounding area has resulted in steady and continuous growth in land development. Steady population growth within the Calgary region has fueled the expansion of goods and services, and the need for residential and other types of land development. The specific growth areas studied include an area within Calgary, and areas in and around Chestermere, Conrich, Langdon, and Strathmore.

3.1.2 Study Areas For purposes of this study, the CSMI area is broken into six study areas. Each study area is experiencing its own development challenges. Also of significance, each study area has overland storm water runoff flow into one common canal or a specific reach of canal.

The following study areas are developed: Table 3.1 Study Areas

MUNICIPAL JURISDICTIONS LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT STUDY AREA WITHIN AREA AREAS RURAL AREAS City of Calgary Belvedere, Shepard (Janet) Industrial 1 Highway 1 South Rocky View County None and West Chestermere Town of Chestermere

2 Highway 1 North Rocky View County Conrich, Delacour RVC North

East Chestermere 3 Chestermere Town of Chestermere None South Chestermere

4 Langdon Rocky View County Hamlet of Langdon RVC South

Wheatland Wheatland 5 Wheatland County Wheatland Industrial Industrial County

Strathmore and Town of Strathmore West/North/East/South Strathmore Wheatland 6 Eagle Shores Wheatland County Eagle Shores County

Figure 3.1 provides an overview of the six study areas and their respective drainage boundaries.

Each study area is divided into areas of projected high or moderate growth. The growth areas (“Development Areas”) are expected to experience significant growth over the next 25 years. It is important to examine these study areas as developments expand, because the development growth will change runoff characteristics of the existing non‐developed land as well as the stormwater runoff water quality. Figure 3.2 provides the projected 25 year growth in the development areas of each study area.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

10 WHEATLAND COUNTY ROCKY VIEW COUNTY KEOMA KATHRYN

MACDONALD LAKE HWY 21 HWY

C CANAL

HWY 564 DELACOUR

HWY 1 9 HWY SERVICEBERRY CREEK NORTH DALROY

B CANAL LYALTA

CONRICH HARTELL CITY COULEE OF CALGARY HWY 1

NORTH A CANAL

CHESTERMERE HWY 1 STRATHMORE CHESTERMERE

A CANAL WEED LAKE WEED LAKE CHEADLE HWY 1 DITCH STRATHMORE AND SOUTH LANGDON WHEATLAND EAGLE LAKE EAGLE INDUSTRIAL LAKE HWY 24 HWY HWY 817 HWY LANGDON ESRD WH A CANAL CANAL A CANAL

SIKSIKA I.R. CSMI MAIN CANAL STUDY AREAS MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY STUDY AREA BOUNDARY DEVELOPMENT AREA/ASP BOUNDARY (Ha) SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: APRIL 2014 JOB: 29159-001 FIGURE: 3.1 ROCKY VIEW COUNTY KEOMA WHEATLAND COUNTY KATHRYN

MACDONALD LAKE

C CANAL

2B. HWY 564 DELACOUR SERVICEBERRY CREEK HWY 9 HWY

DALROY

B CANAL LYALTA

CONRICH 6B. 589 Ha

2A. HARTELL 3883 Ha COULEE CITY HWY 1 6A. NORTH A CANAL 1940 Ha OF 1C. 6E. CALGARY 1845 Ha 5C. 633 Ha

1A. CHESTERMERE 1430 Ha HWY 1 STRATHMORE 4B. 6C. 6D. 3A. 5A. 1981 Ha 2381 Ha 446 Ha 1987 Ha WEED WEED LAKE CHEADLE LAKE 1D. DITCH 1B. 569 Ha 5B. EAGLE 1307 Ha 210 Ha LAKE A CANAL A CANAL 6F. HWY 24 HWY HWY 817 HWY LANGDON

ESRD WH CANAL 4A. 3721 Ha A CANAL

SIKSIKA I.R.

MAIN CANAL CSMI MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY ULTIMATE BUILD OUT OF DEVELOPMENT AREAS STUDY AREA BOUNDARY DEVELOPMENT AREA /ASP BOUNDARY (Ha) SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: APRIL 2014 JOB: 29159-001 FIGURE: 3.2 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

For each study area, separate land uses are identified and estimated. The land uses identified are:

. Industrial/Commercial (I/C) . Urban Residential (UR) . Country Residential (CR)

Through the context of this study, the land use terminology is meant to be referred to in general terms and not to be taken in planning context. For example, CR is likely to vary in size from 1 to 10 acres but has been assumed to be 2 acres with imperviousness of approximately 15% used in the analysis, while UR is defined around one‐tenth of an acre per lot with imperviousness of approximately 65%.

The following sections give an overview of each study area. Refer to Figure 3.2 for reference within these sections.

3.1.2.1 Highway 1 South The Highway 1 South Study Area overland runoff flows towards the WH Canal upstream of Chestermere Lake. The drainage area boundary varies from that of the drainage pattern established in the SRDP (AECOM, 2011). The SRDP allowed drainage well north of Highway 1 to flow southwards to WH Canal. The RVC Conrich Master Drainage Plan (MPE, 2013) provided an alternative drainage plan which directed overland flow north of Highway 1 eastward to B/C or C Canal. For purposes of this study, based on perceived development timing differences between the two study areas, all natural runoff north of the boundary between Highway 1 South and Highway 1 North areas will be directed towards the east, (i.e. towards B/C and/or C Canal) as per the RVC plan.

It is to be noted selection of the final route must be determined through detailed analysis. The proposed re‐routing of natural runoff north of Hwy 1 towards the east could jeopardize natural runoff flows currently diverted for a licensed golf course irrigation diversion (close to Hwy 1A in the Town of Chestermere). A review of SWM alternatives and impacts to flows must be completed. As well, input must be received from all stakeholders in order to determine the most favourable routing for this area.

Highway 1 South is divided (based on jurisdiction) into three development areas. They are Belvedere (1A), Shepard (Janet) Industrial (1B) and West Chestermere (1C).

Belvedere lies within the City of Calgary and occupies about 65% of the Calgary land. For the purpose of this report, reference to Belvedere is applied to all the Calgary lands shown on Figure 3.2 (directive as per discussions with City of Calgary staff). Belvedere is expected to begin construction in 2024; full buildout of the area will not be achieved by 2039.

The Shepard (Janet) Industrial isd locate within RVC with the land zoned as I/C.

The Town of Chestermere expects that West Chestermere (west of the lake) will accommodate most of the Town’s growth over the next 25 years. It is zoned mostly as UR. Growth rates for both Janet Industrial and West Chestermere are expected to be moderate. Each of these development areas has existing CR development that is anticipated to be absorbed into either UR or I/C development in the long‐term.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

13 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

3.1.2.2 Highway 1 North The Highway 1 North Study Area lies north of the TransCanada Highway. The area incorporates the Conrich Area Structure Plans (ASP) area (2A) and the rural component referred to as RVC North (2B). Stormwater runoff is assumed to be directed to the WID canal system, entering either into B/C Canal and/or C Canal.

The land use areas are developed as per the ASP prepared for that region. High UR growth is expected within the Conrich ASP. Lower growth rates are expected for Delacour and the rural areas north of Conrich. The Conrich ASP accommodates both industrial and residential developments. It is anticipated that there will be moderate CR development within the RVC North area. The majority of the RVC North land use will remain rural in nature.

3.1.2.3 Chestermere The Chestermere Study Area incorporates the east side of the Town of Chestermere and a small area of Rocky View County (3A). The stormwater runoff generated in this area flows mostly towards A Canal, downstream of Chestermere Lake. At the request of CUI, South Chestermere (south of A Canal) is included in this study because it is an area targeted for moderate growth. The natural drainage course for South Chestermere flows south to the Shepard Slough and ultimately drains into the Bow River. There is, however, potential for this land to have its stormwater pumped northward to A Canal.

East Chestermere is largely slated for UR development. Currently a significant amount of this land is existing CR and future development is expected to have higher density. The CR development will be replaced with UR. Given the fragmented development within the area, complete re‐development will be in the distant future. South Chestermere will be developed as UR and I/C with the industrial development being concentrated in the section of land south of 50th Avenue.

3.1.2.4 Langdon The Langdon Study Area is located in the southeast sector of RVC. This area naturally drains to the recently restored ephemeral wetland known as Weed Lake. The initial restoration of Weed Lake was carried out between 2005 and 2008. The objective of the restoration was to develop a functional wetland for the benefit of local landowners, downstream water users and wildlife. This includes benefits such as flood runoff management, development of waterfowl habitat, point of discharge for stormwater release, and treated wastewater from the Hamlet of Langdon (Langdon).

Langdon (4A) has experienced significant growth in the past 20 years and continues to develop as per RVC’s plan. It is expected to develop largely as UR with a small commercial component. It is anticipated Langdon could continue to grow moderately once the constraints on stormwater and wastewater servicing are resolved. The remainder of land exists as rural with small CR development scattered throughout .(4B)

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

14 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

3.1.2.5 Wheatland Industrial The Wheatland Industrial Study Area is located within Wheatland County and is largely centered on the land south of Highway 1, bounded by RVC on the west and the Town of Strathmore to the East. The majority of the area drains into Weed Lake Ditch and Hartell Coulee with a small area on the west side draining to Weed Lake. This area is expected to experience moderate growth.

The development area has been broken down for Wheatland Industrial (5A) ASP and Cheadle (5B) ASP. The Hamlet of Cheadle is expected to have moderate growth; this growth will be UR development. The remainder of this land is rural with CR development located sporadically through the area.

3.1.2.6 Strathmore and Eagle Lake The Strathmore and Eagle Lake Study Area is comprised of the Town of Strathmore (Strathmore) and Wheatland County. Around Strathmore there are four defined drainage areas. This is a result of a topographic ridge which splits Strathmore’s drainage areas into four directions. These areas are defined as:

. Strathmore West (6A): West A and North A Canal and existing town site, . Strathmore North (6B): North of the existing town site, . Strathmore South (6C): The existing town site and future industrial south of Highway #1, and . Strathmore East (6E): East of the existing town site and A Canal.

Strathmore West, North and East are largely undeveloped; however there are development plans for each. All areas are planned as UR development with the exception of a portion of Strathmore West. Strathmore South includes the existing town site. It contains UR and Central Business Districts, I/C and UR. Fore th purposes of this report, Strathmore South is divided into I/C and UR.

Growth within the areas will be located within the Town boundaries of Strathmore or in Wheatland County. There is potential for CR development within Wheatland County.

Stormwater drainage from Strathmore West drains northwest, following an existing drainage course towards B Canal. Strathmore North has split drainage with a portion flowing south and the remaining draining north into either North A Canal or B Canal. Strathmore East flows eastward and flows into A Canal.

The remaining two development areas are Wheatland Rural (6F) and Eagle Shores (6D). Wheatland Rural is mainly agriculture; however there are some intensive farming operations in this area. Drainage is directly into Eagle Lake. There is a small component of CR in this area. Eagle Shores was separated out because there is an ASP for this area. It is of significant size, but the development timing is questionable. The type of development for Eagle Shores is classified as UR. Surface drainage is directly into Eagle Lake.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

15 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

3.2 Growth Projections: 2 Year, 10 Year and 25 Year Horizons

A CSMI design parameter required the SWM alternatives be developed for a 25 year site horizon, with short‐term horizons of 2 and 10 years. Three milestones are used for estimating population, land use absorption and water quality for years 2016, 2024 and 2039. The population forecasts for each of these years were calculated based on existing planning documents for each area. A complete listing of these reference documents is provided in Section 8.0. Growth rates were determined upon reviewing the planning documents. This rate of growth was used to project firstly, population, and then land development absorption. Land use acreages for each year were then used in the modelling analysis undertaken in Section 5.0.

3.2.1 Population Based on information received from each municipality, population growth rates were initially estimated for each study area. Refer to calculated populations in Appendix A. The documents used to derive these values are listed in Section 8.0. Planning information was gathered from Municipal Development Plans, Growth Strategies, Servicing Studies, Land Inventories and ASPs for each study area discussed. Population projections were then compared with other neighbouring areas, and discussed with the CSMI Partners. The partners’ feedback was key in developing realistic growth rates, existing spopulation and significant growth trends experienced in each jurisdiction. Dalroy and Lyalta were removed from the CSMI study area as their drainage directly enters Serviceberry Creek. This is considered to have minor impacts on water quality.

Generally, the growth rates for the CSMI region are approximately 2% to 4% per year. There are a few notable exceptions where the expected growth will outpace the average growth rate. Total projected population for the development areas within the study areas is approximately 77,000 people over the 25 year timeframe.

3.2.2 Development Areas Upon establishment of growth rates and population, the land requirements nwere the estimated. The absorption rates for land development are based on the population growth rates. ASPs and MDPs were reviewed for location and land use of where the development would occur. Established development was evaluated to develop a baseline for the existing growth of development.

Upon confirmation by CSMI Partners, the land absorption uptake was established. Table 3.2 provides the projected urban land development values per study area; details are provided in Appendix A. The projected urban land development values form the basis for both stormwater quality analysis and SWM alternative evaluations.

Where CR development surrounds urban centres, it is expected that planning policies will prohibit CR development within approved ASPs. The development areas that exhibit current CR in Belvedere, Shepard (Janet) Industrial, Conrich and Chestermere are all expected to limit future CR growth. CR will not increase over 25 years but remain steady. In all development areas, there is sufficient land to accommodate the projected growth of CR over the 25 year period.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

16 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Table 3.2 Projected Land Development 2, 10, and 25 Year Site Horizons

PROJECTED INCREMENTAL LAND DEVELOPMENT LAND PER TIME HORIZON 25 YEAR STUDY AREA DEVELOPMENT LAND USE *EXISTING PROJECTED AREA 2016 2024 2039 (2014) GROWTH (HA) Highway 1 1A UR 0 0 0 410 410 South CR 65 65 65 65 0 C/I 0 24 24 40 40 1B CR 130 130 130 130 0 C/I 518 550 696 1085 567 1C UR 648 697 937 1629 982 CR 194 194 194 194 0 Highway 1 2A UR 130 155 323 1269 1140 North CR 583 647 700 700 117 C/I 194 233 484 1904 1710 2B CR 324 343 435 678 354 Chestermere 3A UR 194 201 230 297 103 CR 324 324 324 324 0 3B C/I 0 25 34 58 58 Langdon 4A UR 389 412 524 819 431 4B CR 389 412 522 813 425 Wheatland 5A C/I 30 60 180 360 330 Industrial 5B UR 32 34 43 66 34 5C CR 518 538 624 825 307 Strathmore 6A UR 32 37 60 117 85 6B UR 32 37 60 117 85 6C UR 367 386 444 602 235 C/I 128 135 155 210 82 6E UR 0 15 28 41 41 Eagle Shores 6D CR 0 5 6 8 8 6F CR 130 134 156 206 77

TOTAL PROJECTED 25 YEAR LAND DEVELOPMENT 7621 HA

* At time of writing.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

17 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

4.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: STRATEGIES AND OPTIONS

4.1 General

The aim of CSMI is to develop “Sustainable Stormwater Management Options” for the region that are designed to meet the needs of both the municipal and irrigation sectors. As noted earlier, nutrient loading is not only from land development but also from rural areas in the form of agricultural practices and natural processes that occur in the environment (i.e. erosion, nutrient cycling). Therefore, the SWM solution should include both land development and rural, structural and non‐structural options and strategies.

In essence, the overall SWM alternative to service the CSMI study area should strive to:

. Manage runoff pollutants at source, . Control runoff volumes to minimize impacts on the receiving water body, . Ensure peak flow rates from urban land development are controlled to meet ESRD Stormwater Drainage Standards and Guidelines, . Convey the stormwater to its ultimate end‐use or destination, and . Provide an ultimate end‐use (or destination) of the stormwater.

It is optimum to allow a high level of water quality to enter the canal. This is in keeping with both the ESRD stormwater drainage guidelines and the WID water quality guidelines (i.e. impetus to treat at source). This approach is preferred rather than treatment occurring within the irrigation conveyance system or by the end user of the irrigation system. The approach “treat at source” places a higher responsibility closer to source versus transferring the risk to either a municipality or the WID.

The preferred options developed in the initial assessment undertaken by CSMI (see Appendix G) and based on the above criteria are categorized as follows:

. Stormwater Collection and Treatment Options . Stormwater Conveyance Options and Strategies . End Use (Irrigation {Agriculture} or into a Natural Receiving Water Body)

Ultimately, a SWM alternative for the future urban land development areas and the existing rural areas of the region will be comprised of the three components noted above.

Development of the feasible SWM alternatives for the region will be based on both of the following analyses: SWOC Analysis: A review of the “Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Challenges” for each option reviewed per component.

Nutrient Modelling Analysis: A nutrient modelling of the main irrigation canals was conducted for the SWM alternative that proposes to allow the stormwater runoff to flow into the canals during irrigation season. The modelling is to determine the impact on the irrigation water quality along the canal.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

18 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

The following provides a generic description and a SWOC analysis of the various options and strategies applicable to each component. This analysis provides an understanding of the applicability of the specific option towards development of a SWM alternative. The detailed SWOC analyses referenced are provided in Appendix B. Section 5.0 reviews the nutrient modelling analysis of any In‐Canal SWM alternatives.

4.2 Stormwater Collection and Treatment Options Assessment

4.2.1 Urban – Structural Stormwater runoff increases significantly within urban land development areas when compared to pre‐ development condition. To minimize the impact of increased runoff volumes and poor water quality in the CSMI’s area, the types of key stormwater BMPs that can be employed include:

. Minimize the generation of runoff, . Retain runoff on‐site through evapotranspiration, infiltration and/or reuse, . Capture, hold and use runoff within a development or municipal area for green space irrigation (reuse), and . Treat stormwater using filtering and settling systems.

The extent to which these practices need to be implemented, and the associated cost involved, is directly related to the imperviousness of the catchment or development.

Specific options reviewed include:

1) Source Control: Low Impact Development and Source Control Practices.

2) End‐of‐Pipe Control: Urban constructed wetlands and traditional wetpond stormwater facilities with or without reuse.

These options are discussed below:

4.2.1.1 Source Control Options Low Impact Development (LID): LID is a term used to describe a land planning and engineering design approach to manage stormwater runoff. LID emphasizes conservation and use of on‐site natural features to reduce runoff volumes, filter water and protect water quality. This approach implements engineered small‐scale hydrologic controls such as Source Control Practices to replicate the pre‐ development hydrologic regime of watersheds.

Source Controls or On‐site Management Practices (SCP): A SCP reduces runoff quantity and improves quality of stormwater before it reaches a conveyance system. The controls are applied at the individual lot or multiple lots that drain a small area (InfraGuide, 2005). SCP can be considered a type of stormwater BMP. Stormwater SCPs are considered to be part of an LID development strategy.

Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 provide an overview of LID practices and the associated SCP and their applicability to the planning area. It is important to note that these systems are utilized in conjunction with end‐of‐pipe BMPs. Appendix B provides the detailed SWOC analysis for the LID and SCP proposed for the region.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

19 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Table 4.1 Source Control BMPs

APPLICABILITY TO SOURCE CONTROL PRACTICE DESCRIPTION CSMI REGION Depressed landscaped areas underlain by a fine Bioretention media layer and a granular equivalent sub-base with a sub-drain pipe. Area High (Rain Facilitates attenuation of runoff flow and treatment Garden) of stormwater through settling, fine filtration, extended detention and some biological uptake.

Shallow grassed channel, accepting flows from small areas of adjacent paved surfaces. Swales/ High Bioswales Provide flow attenuation as well as treatment of stormwater through settling, fine filtration, extended detention and some biological uptake.

Veneers of living vegetation installed on top of buildings.

Green Roofs Manage stormwater through a variety of hydrologic Low-Moderate processes that otherwise take place at ground level. Mostly applicable in institutions and commercial application.

A modular suspended pavement system that holds Suspended unlimited amounts of lightly compacted soil while supporting traffic loads beneath pavement. Pavement Moderate

Systems Mostly applicable for town center, institutions and commercial application.

Collection of runoff from a roof area or other impermeable surface before it discharges onto the Rainwater ground or drains into a storm sewer system. High Harvesting

(Photo: Joel Cantu, Houston Texas)

Ability of soil to effectively store and slowly release water is dependent on soil texture, structure, depth, Absorbent organic matter content and biota. High Landscaping

(Photo: www.riparia.ca)

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

20 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

APPLICABILITY TO SOURCE CONTROL PRACTICE DESCRIPTION CSMI REGION

A permeable surface, which allows precipitation and runoff from adjacent areas to percolate into the Permeable ground beneath. Low Pavement Most suitable for footpath and low traffic areas. (Photo: www.quietnature.ca)

A below grade structure that can capture sediment and grit along a storm sewer system. Typically Oil and Grit used for industrial and commercial site, however High Separators the City of Calgary is also requiring them for residential main drainage lines instead of a fore- bay in a wetpond.

Filter system uses fine filters and absorbent media to capture suspended solids and TP. Could be Stormwater applied in a source control practice application but Low - Moderate Filter System more commonly applied at the discharge to a wetpond.

The LID options summarized in Table 4.1 are considered sustainable long‐term solutions that achieve volume controls and reduce the pollutant loading to downstream features such as wetponds and the associated deferred liability of removing the buildup of pollutants.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

21 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Table 4.2 SWOC Analysis (Source Control Practices)

PRACTICE FINDING

. Effective volume control measure that is low cost . Usually located on private lots as garden beds and lawns Absorbent Landscape . Impervious areas directed onto the landscape . Limit compaction to maintain effectiveness . Achieve water quality treatment on a small footprint . Provide a volume control function, particularly where the underlying soil have good to moderate infiltration Bioretention and Bioswales . Unknown phosphorus treatment efficiency, recommend optimization to ensure high efficiency . Can be located with street ROW . Medium cost to construct . Used to water gardens and lawns . Manually operated systems need to ensure use to be Rainwater Harvesting effective . Potential for use as toilet flushing within the home institutional or commercial property . Provide significant thermal benefits . Reduces effective impervious area of highly impervious Green Roofs developments . Relatively expensive upfront costs . Ideally suited to intensive use areas such as commercial and village centers where there is limited ability to use other practices . Achieve potentially high evapotranspiration rates once Suspended Pavements tree begins to mature . Trees are healthier and grow larger resulting in lower maintenance and replacement costs compared to typical tree plantings in high use areas . Relatively expensive capital costs . Reduces effective impervious areas to highly developed areas . Functional surface Permeable Pavement . Higher construction and maintenance costs . Issues with local sanding practices impacting performance . Effective in capturing the larger sediment particle size provided it bypasses high flows Oil and Grit Separator . Requires regular maintenance to maintain effectiveness . Requires a storm sewer system . Effective pretreatment measure for downstream facilities

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

22 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

LID and SCP Summary In summary, it was found that a number of these practices are applicable for CSMI, particularly the reduction of runoff volumes. Although these techniques are being applied more broadly in other parts of the world for water quality treatment, there is still significant local research and development required within Alberta (i.e.n the desig of these practices requires “optimization” for phosphorus management). This is true for all SWM BMPs, including wetponds and wetlands. Therefore water quality monitoring, together with research and development, is required in the CSMI area to acceptance of the BMPs as an assured method of meeting water quality guidelines Mor SW guidelines.

Recent research is demonstrating that bio‐retention could emerge as a leading practice, potentially achieving 90% reduction of phosphorus loads, hence the need for continued research and development. To achieve the water quality targets, other technologies such as proprietary filter systems may be required to supplement an interim or more permanent treatment measure.

4.2.1.2 End‐of‐Pipe Stormwater Control Options

End‐of‐Pipe Stormwater BMPs or Regional Stormwater Controls: These are practices that reduce runoff volumes, attenuate flow rates and treat stormwater at the outlet of drainage systems, prior to reaching the receiving streams or waters. These controls are usually implemented to manage the runoff from larger drainage areas. These systems include wet (stormwater) ponds, constructed wetlands, and detention storage areas. Typical end‐of‐pipe BMPs options are illustrated in Table 4.3.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

23 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Table 4.3 End‐of‐Pipe Options BMPs

APPLICABILITY TO END-OF-PIPE SOLUTIONS DESCRIPTION CSMI REGION

Impoundment areas used temporarily store stormwater runoff in order to promote settlement of runoff pollutants, as well as to Wetponds restrict downstream discharge to High predetermined rates to reduce downstream flooding and erosion potential. (photo source: www.calgary.ca)

Modified natural wetlands with outlet control structures or other engineered components to Engineered increase stormwater storage and treatment Natural capabilities. They would be downstream of High Wetlands other LID practices and wetponds / constructed wetlands. (photo source: www.riparian.ca).

Wetlands designed and constructed Constructed specifically for SWM purposes and provide Moderate - High Wetlands some ecological value and amenity.

Collection of runoff from the drainage system Stormwater (storm sewers, swales, roadways, etc.) in a Capture and SWM facility and use of that runoff for High Reuse irrigation of a public green space such as Facilities sports fields, golf courses, cemeteries, environmental and municipal reserves.

Filter systems use fine filters and absorbent media to capture suspended solids and TP. A filter system can be placed at the outlet of Stormwater wetponds as the flow rates can be controlled to maximize treatment efficiency. It can be Filter Moderate an effective short-term measure. An System evaluation of the operating costs would be required to assess its suitability as a long- term measure. Maintenance is an issue municipalities must budget for.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

24 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

End‐of‐Pipe Summary

The detailed SWOC analysis provides the following general comments (Table 4.4):

Table 4.4 SWOC Analysis (End‐of‐Pipe Options)

OPTION FINDING

. Can provide significant ecological and amenity, besides providing water quality treatment and flood control Urban Constructed Wetland . Work in conjunction with existing natural wetlands . Can use large land areas which affect development costs . Smaller footprint than constructed wetlands . Effective in flood management Wetpond, Dry Pond . Effectiveness as a stormwater treatment BMP is not well defined for local applications . Currently permitted within WID guidelines Evaporative/Holding Ponds . Large land base required, which thereby affects (Catch and Release Off‐Season) development costs . Effective as a volume control . Provides benefits in reduce use of potable water Stormwater Capture and Reuse . ERSD policy limitation on permitted uses and how much can be reused

4.2.1.3 Discussion LID and SCP have been shown to be highly effective for reduction of nutrient loading of stormwater runoff in other locations in the world. End‐of‐pipe facilities have varying degrees of nutrient loading treatment capabilities but are effective in flood management. SCPs such as bioretention have been shown to be effective in reducing runoff volume in land development applications. They will, however, require further optimization through local research and development as well as monitoring to establish their effectiveness in the removal of nutrients for CSMI. They are considered a favorable solution, provided they can achieve moderate to high phosphorus removal. The immediate adoption of LID and SCP will still improve the performance of nutrient removal for downstream facilities and reduces the overall operation and maintenance. Therefore, LID and SCP can be immediately utilized for SWM alternatives presently but the level of effectiveness locally cannot be defined. Only further research and development, as well as time will determine this.

LID Practices on Private Lots A number of the preferred LID practices are located on private lots, which raises the question of their long‐term maintenance, operation, and performance. Consideration should be given to how socially acceptable specific LID practices are and the likelihood that they will remain operational. Consideration is also given to what potential mechanisms or encouragement/incentives can be provided to ensure private lot LID remains operational over the longer term. Selection of LID practices on private lots should consider a private owner’s ability to implement and maintain, private LID. One solution is to have the municipalities maintain and operate the facilities via an easement on private property.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

25 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Maintenance and Other Factors In addition to hydrologic and hydraulic loading rates, the effectiveness of the various stormwater practices depends on having a level of maintenance and operational compliance. In order to identify suitable LID practices, a number of factors need to be considered including function (i.e., volume reduction and water quality treatment capabilities) operation and maintenance requirements, and location (i.e. on public or private land).

The location is important as the owner is typically responsible for the future maintenance and, therefore, the long‐term performance of a facility. As more LID practices are being applied locally, the corresponding experience and comfort from local landowners, the development community, and the municipalities will follow.

4.2.2 Urban (Non‐Structural) BMPs Within the urban setting there are strategies that can reduce nutrient loading. These include:

. Limiting or banning use of phosphorus‐based fertilizers, . Undertaking vacuum street‐sweeping to reduce TSS concentrations in stormwater runoff, and . Cleaning catch‐basin to reduce TSS concentrations in stormwater runoff.

In summary, the SWOC analysis illustrates that implementation of these measures is not time exhaustive or expensive, ebut th potential reductions in phosphorus loads from these measures may not be substantial. For instance, current street sweeping practices typically being used in the region are not effective in management of phosphorus. Significant changes in equipment and increases in frequency of sweeping are required to improve the phosphorus loading reduction.

4.2.3 Rural BMPs Multi‐year water monitoring within WID has demonstrated that phosphorus concentrations become higher with increasing distance downstream along the canal system. Improvements to the rural stormwater inflow will further improve irrigation water quality for users downstream and improve recreation water quality. Therefore, as part of the development of an overall preferred SWM alternative for the CSMI region, an analysis and overview of the rural phosphorus contributions, as well as a discussion of opportunities for reducing phosphorus loads from rural areas, was undertaken by Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. (Palliser). The following is a summary of the findings and observations. Detailed analysis is provided in a full review in Appendix C.

Sources of Rural Phosphorus Phosphorus in rural agricultural areas originates from both point and non‐point sources. Point sources include runoff from known areas such as confined feeding operations while non‐point sources originate from pastures and croplands. Non‐point sources of phosphorus are generally difficult to measure because the source is diffuse. BMPs are used by the agricultural industry to improve soil and water quality, farm production, and ranch operations. Stormwater nutrient management, particularly of phosphorus, has been identified as a concern within the Bow River Basin. Strategies are underway to reduce phosphorus transport and loading. The Bow River Phosphorus Management Plan (BRPMP), consisting of a group of stakeholders, is developing strategies and actions to address the phosphorus level entering the Bow River and its tributaries between Bearspaw Dam and Bassano Dam.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

26 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Phosphorus is found in multiple forms in the environment. TP is the combined measure of particulate and dissolved, inorganic and organic phosphorus. Particulate forms of phosphorus are generally absorbed to soil particles and are transported when soils are eroded by wind, snowmelt runoff, rainfall runoff and human activity. Dissolved phosphorus is the form that is most readily available to plants. Particulate phosphorus can also be available for plant growth over time as biochemical processes convert particulate phosphorus into dissolved forms.

BMPs considered for phosphorus reduction within the CSMI planning area are needed to address the management of both particulate and dissolved forms of phosphorus. Although the CSMI target planning period is generally the irrigation season (April through October), management actions should also target the spring runoff period and sub‐watersheds that have high phosphorus delivery potential (Reddy et al. 1999).

Studies have shown that snowmelt phosphorous export may comprise more than 20% of the total annual phosphorous export and more than 12% of the annual dissolved reactive phosphorus export in watersheds (Su et al. 2011). Snowmelt and spring runoff can contribute to phosphorus loads that accumulate in the various systems (i.e. canals, natural waterways, lakes, reservoirs and wetlands) and become an internal source of phosphorus later.

Structural Rural BMPs Structural BMPs can control the volume of phosphorus entering surface water. This can be achieved by physical containment combined with treatment, re‐use and/or restricting the transport of phosphorus in the environment. Table 4.5 provides an overview of the structural Rural BMPs (both for farm and livestock operations). Structural BMPs and relocation of poorly placed livestock facilities may be effective to reduce phosphorus losses from rural areas. The performance expectations for each BMP are discussed in greater detail in Appendix C.

Non‐Structural Rural BMPs Non‐structural BMPs reduce phosphorus export by controlling the use, generation and accumulation of pollutants at or near a pollutant source. Tables 4.6 and 4.7 provide a summary of select rural non‐ structural BMP options for crop lands and for livestock operations for potential reduction of phosphorus. The performance expectations for each non‐structural BMP is discussed in greater detail in Appendix C. BMPs for crop and livestock categories are discussed separately, however crop production and livestock management are often integrated on mixed farms.

The use of non‐structural BMPs can improve farm phosphorus use efficiency and profits while improving water quality downstream. In cropping systems, BMPs are accompanied by soil sampling and interpretation of soil test results. These help to calculate variable application rates, and organic and inorganic fertilizer application methods that reduce nutrient losses. Within livestock operations, BMPs focus on prevention of run‐on and also runoff control. Pasture and range management strategies maintain healthy upland vegetation, functioning riparian areas, stable slopes, and hence improve water quality.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

27 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

4.2.3.1 Rural Catchments: Stormwater Runoff Bypassing Irrigation Works

The previous discussions have focussed on Rural BMPs with the concept that the stormwater runoff would be entering the irrigation works. Rather than allowing the runoff to enter the irrigation works, another option is to have this runoff bypass the irrigation works. This is accomplished by having the runoff flow undern irrigatio works. The infrastructure consists of a pipe installed below the canal bed and allowing the runoff to flow under the canal through the piping system.

The obvious impact is the irrigation water quality is not affected by the runoff. A Rural BMP is recommended to complement any SWM alternative because:

. Underdrains are typically only installed at a select number of large defined natural catchment drains, and . The objective still remains to improve surface water quality.

The use of underdrains has been incorporated into the SWM alternatives.

The BMPs in Tables 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 have been shown to effectively reduce nutrient loadings to receiving water bodies. Intuitively, individual BMPs reduce nutrient loading at the farm‐scale, but to be measurable, the implementation of multiple BMPs at the catchment scale is required.

Table 4.5 Rural BMPs – Structural

APPLICABILITY TO WATERSHED SCALE BMPS DESCRIPTION CSMI REGION

Holding Construction of holding ponds and reservoirs Ponds, at the farm-scale to better control of nutrients during the irrigation season and reduce the Reservoirs, Moderate potential for future internal phosphorus Berms and loading at downstream locations from runoff Dykes outside of the irrigation season.

Restore connectivity of natural drainage Restoration paths and capitalize on natural of Natural nutrient/sediment retention. Moderate - High Drainage Use grass waterways to retain nutrients; Paths harvest material as forage thereby removing nutrients from system.

Use of wetlands, including natural wetlands, Constructed restored wetlands and constructed wetlands to store water. Involves water management /Natural Moderate - Low to reduce flooding in the CSMI planning area Wetlands and reduce nutrient and sediment transport from the area.

Note: References for Table 4.5 are found in Appendix C.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

28 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Table 4.6 Rural BMPs – Non‐Structural

APPLICABILITY TO FARM OPERATION BMPS DESCRIPTION CSMI REGION Adopt “4R” Principles: Right fertilizer source, Right application rate, Right time, and Right place. Regular soil-testing, variable Nutrient application rates. High Management The use of a target for phosphorus in soils to help to reduce phosphorus inputs and

subsequent losses to surface water. Restore connectivity of natural drainage Riparian paths and capitalize on natural Areas and nutrient/sediment retention. Moderate Riparian Use grass waterways to retain nutrients; Buffers harvest material as forage thereby removing nutrients from system.

Minimize soil erosion by snowmelt or rainfall. Maintain permanent cover crops where soils Soil are marginal. High Conservation Apply conservation tillage practices. from the area

Apply water conservation techniques to minimize runoff, including the use of low- pressure center pivot (LPCP) technology, Irrigated high-efficiency sprinkler nozzles and variable Moderate Efficiency rate application controllers. Create edge of field retention ponds or constructed wetlands.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

29 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Table 4.7 Rural BMPs – Livestock Operations

APPLICABILITY TO LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS BMPS DESCRIPTION CSMI REGION Runoff Control from Divert run-on to reduce volume of water exposed to contaminants (i.e., phosphorus). Existing High Remove snow from corrals prior to melt. Livestock Holding ponds to capture runoff. Facilities

Rotate fields receiving manure to increase crop removal of Phosphorus. Do not apply to frozen or snow-covered soils. Do not apply when rainfall is imminent to Manure prevent flash losses of soluble P. High Management Maintain ground cover to reduce erosion and runoff (i.e., forages are most effective at reducing runoff and erosion. Avoid application on fields with high slope.

Balance livestock demands with available forage supplies (stocking rate). Avoid grazing rangeland/pasture during Range/ vulnerable periods: early spring (timing). Pasture Distribute livestock to maintain healthy range Moderate - High Management using tools like fencing, salt placement, water and portable shelters (distribution). Provide adequate rest periods after grazing (rest and rotation).

Encourage the use of riparian pastures (defined by dividing the landscape into pasture units based on similar plant Riparian Area communities and topography; bottomlands Moderate Management are fenced separately from the uplands). Provide alternative drinking water supplies (off-stream watering).

4.2.3.2 Rural BMP Implementation

Deterrents to implementation of Rural BMPs are:

. The uncertainty producers face in the effectiveness of the management practices, . The age of the farm operator, and . The cost to implement.

Generally, agricultural producers are innovative and implement management practices that are economically viable and compatible with operations. There are, however, a percentage of producers that may never adopt these practices.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

30 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Rural BMPs, whether structural or non‐structural, are considered long‐term solutions to phosphorus management. While some projects may result in immediate nutrient load reductions (e.g. relocation of livestock facilities or runoff control measures), others may take many years to demonstrate load reductions instream (i.e. nutrient management plans where soils have been saturated with phosphorus).

Rural BMPs will be implemented through time, and in some cases only with economic incentives. Rural BMPs are necessary to improve water quality within the irrigation system; realistically it may take 25 plus years to reach 90% implementation rates.

4.2.3.3 Rural BMP and SWM Alternatives Analysis

Based upon the above discussion it is evident that to improve the irrigation water quality overall, Rural BMPs must be part of a SWM alternative. In order to determine the effects on the irrigation water quality, these strategies were also part of the modelling analysis (Section 5.3). The nutrient load reductions were established to range from a low of 5 ‐ 10% to a high of 30 ‐ 40% as measured at the catchment scale. The low and high ranges were adopted in the evaluation of SWM alternatives in the modelling analysis. The ranges were utilized to understand the sensitivity of the effect on irrigation water quality and help provide guidance in determination of a recommended SWM alternative.

4.3 Stormwater Conveyance Options

There are three generic conveyance options that are available to move the stormwater runoff within the CSMI region. In general they are:

a) In‐Canal during the “Irrigation Season” (May 1 through to September 30), b) In‐Canal during the “Off‐Season” (September 30 through to May 1), and c) Out‐of‐Canal.

Specifically, within each identified study area, there are variations of these generic options (i.e. routings). The assessment of the various SWM alternatives must consider how these conveyance options will affect the irrigation water quality given the collection and treatment options discussed previously. The conveyance options take into consideration stormwater runoff from land developed, urban areas and rural areas.

When assessing the conveyance options, runoff from both urban and rural areas are modelled simultaneously. The next sections provide descriptions of each generic option, along with the SWOC analysis undertaken.

4.3.1 In‐Canal: Irrigation Season This option considers stormwater runoff conveyed through the canal system during the irrigation season. Runoff enters the canal system at specific inlet locations and is required to meet specific water quality targets.

For the study areas located near the City of Calgary, the canal system provides major spillways to convey major flood events into natural drainage courses.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

31 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

The detailed SWOC analysis summarizes this option as follows:

. Advantages to this conveyance option include:

o Irrigation infrastructure is already in place to manage the stormwater flows, o Limited infrastructure and/or land acquisition is required, and o Opportunities exist to implement Rural BMPs to reduce phosphorus loading further downstream in the canal. o Would promote the advancement of emerging technologies such as LID practices to achieve WQ objectives.

. Disadvantages for this conveyance option include:

o Stormwater discharge quality would require a relatively high level of treatment to ensure the guidelines are met, o High risk and implications to the municipality if development does not meet water quality criteria, o Optimization of LID practices is required for phosphorus management to meet the desirable water quality criteria, and will take time (5 to 10 years projected), o Rural BMPs are required to be implemented successfully over a large area, and o Canal flow capacity decreases further down the system.

A review of the water quality performance of this option is presented in Section 5.0.

4.3.2 In‐Canal: Off‐Season Release Off‐season release is defined as the catching and storing of stormwater runoff from development areas and then releasing into the canal system after the irrigation season is completed (after September 30).

To minimize water quality impacts on the main water bodies along the canal, a bypass is considered for the following storage reservoirs:

. Chestermere Lake Reservoir . Langdon Reservoir

Analysis and evaluation show that these reservoirs are nutrient sinks when canal inflow water quality is poor (i.e. sedimentation of particulate phosphorus and uptake by plants and microbial organisms occurs). When water quality is high (low concentrations of phosphorus), these water bodies/wetlands can become sources of phosphorus due to re‐suspension/desorption of nutrients. This occurs particularly at Langdon Reservoir which is a shallow, open water wetland. Waterfowl contributions are also a likely factor at Langdon Reservoir.

The detailed SWOC analyses summarize the above options below:

. Advantages to this conveyance option include:

o The irrigation system is located close to the developable areas, therefore limited infrastructure is required, o This is a short‐term solution that can address some immediate issues, and o Some nutrient loading will have decreased in the storage areas.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

32 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

. Disadvantages to this conveyance option include:

o Large tracts of developable land are lost to evaporation/holding ponds, o There will be some nutrient release into the canal system that could become an internal source later, namely when the canal operations resume in the spring, and o This option is considered, at best, a short‐term small scale solution.

. The contemplated Chestermere Lake bypass can provide an interim off‐season release and be part of a long‐term option that does not affect the Lake’s water quality.

. The contemplated bypass around Langdon Reservoir only provides benefit to an off‐season release. Construction of a bypass is constrained by the proposed expansion of the reservoir in 2014‐2015 and the future widening of Highway 22X. It also requires significant land acquisition. This option has not been considered further as it only represents a short‐term solution.

4.3.3 Out‐of‐Canal Conveyance The Out‐of‐Canal conveyance option aims to limit or prevent runoff discharges into the main irrigation supply canal, hence avoid impacts to the canal’s water quality. This system creates a conveyance system completely independent of the main irrigation distribution system. In some cases it would parallel the main irrigation canals. This system could be staged and implemented over time as development occurs. The initial stages would use an off‐season release. This conveyance option would utilize existing canal right‐of‐way (ROW). It will use lateral canals that are underutilized for delivering irrigation water. Further review of staged development of this option will be discussed later.

Outcome of the SWOC analysis suggests:

. Advantages of this option include the following:

o This option provides the “best confidence” of keeping the nutrient loading from urban land development out of the canal. Hence, the most desirable from the viewpoint of developing or maintaining higher water quality for the irrigation water supply. It provides additional opportunities to provide water quality treatment in areas external to the land development areas. o Utilizes existing infrastructure and land ROW and reduces impacts on land production where existing ROW needs to be widened.

. Disadvantages of this option include the following:

o Need to purchase some ROWs. o May be limitations to design grades.

4.4 Stormwater End‐Use

The third component of a SWM alternative is end‐use. This deals with where or what the stormwater is utilized for upon entering the major stormwater collection system. The two basic options are:

1) Irrigation for agricultural purposes, and 2) Return flow to a natural receiving body of water.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

33 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Option 1: Irrigation (for Agriculture) Given the discussion in Section 2.4, stormwater runoff cannot be expected to meet the quality required for agricultural irrigation. The possibility of stormwater eventually meeting irrigation quality does exist given emerging technologies, but this has not been optimized for the local region. The possibility of storing and diluting stormwater with higher quality irrigation water, or using the stored water locally, is potentially feasible. This option would likely require more land, and could be considered as a small component of a larger solution, but on its own does not represent a large scale solution at this time.

Option 2: Return Flow to a Natural Body of Water This option would be the natural result of stormwater conveyance options that preclude stormwater from entering the main irrigation system. Stormwater would ultimately be diverted into natural water bodies (streams and/or lakes), constructed wetlands, or natural wetlands and eventually spill to the Red Deer River or Bow River systems. The aim is to reduce the risk of the irrigation system not meeting irrigation water quality standards.

Runoff volumes from both urban and rural areas could have the same end‐use options. Presently, rural runoff volumes that drain toward the canal become irrigation flows. As discussed previously in the Rural BMP section, some rural runoff volumes could be diverted directly to natural drainage channels, by‐ passing the irrigation system completely. BMPs would be encouraged to improve the water quality of these bypassed flows. Improvements to the water quality by undertaking Rural BMPs are analyzed in Section 5.0.

Prior to any bypass being completed, the impact to downstream channels and users will have to be assessed, and some mitigation measures may be required.

4.5 Policies

A summary of the current Federal and Provincial legislation, plus the policies and guidelines of various agencies is provided in Appendix C. In general, the legislation, policies and/or guidelines are in place for the protection of and/or the conservation, restoration, and compensation of existing wetlands, wetland areas and riparian lands. Most of the partner municipalities within CSMI have specific conservation and management policies or plans already in place. After a very generic overview, what appears to be lacking within these policies are:

1) Water quality objectives (beyond basic TSS removal) of the stormwater runoff generated and released from developments, and 2) Performance monitoring of built facilities, both from a discharge quantity and quality perspective.

A full analysis of the Water Act Licensing, general policies and discussion, including how these are to be addressed, are beyond the scope of this study. They must be addressed in the future as part of the CSMI initiative and will be dependent upon the preferred SWM Alternative selected.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

34 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

5.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES: ANALYSIS

5.1 General

Section 4.0 discussed the strategies and component options for each of the SWM alternatives. The SWOC analysis provided assessment of each component, thereby allowing some options to be ruled out. This section provides an overview of SWM alternatives that CSMI can consider within each study area, or a combination of study areas.

This section introduces SWM alternatives that are considered most applicable to the CSMI area. Each major SWM alternative has the ability to service every study area. For any SWM alternative that is ultimately discharged into the irrigation canal system, a nutrient analysis (model) is carried out to determine how the alternative affects irrigation water quality. Upon completion of the modelling, an economic analysis on the various SWM alternatives is undertaken and utilized in an evaluation matrix analysis. The matrix is utilized to compare economic and social components of each SWM alternative.

5.2 Alternative Development

5.2.1 General There are numerous potential SWM alternatives that could be applied in the CSMI area. Considerations in developing the alternatives are:

. Alternatives that encapsulate established technologies and practices that are already being applied within the local region, . Emerging technologies and practices that are being implemented locally or that have an excellent chance of becoming a recommended practice in the near (<10 year) future, . Practices that are easily adaptable to each study area, and . Rural BMPs that are coupled with underdrains at strategic locations.

The alternatives developed will include the three components identified in Section 4.1, namely:

. Stormwater Collection and Treatment . Stormwater Conveyance . End‐Use Destination

Rural BMPs are included in each alternative because rural areas are a significant contributor to nutrient loading during major runoff events. Phosphorus deposited in the canal system has the potential to become resuspended in the future. Currently there are some Rural BMP programs in place that can assist with Rural BMP adoption and implementation.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

35 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

An example of Rural BMPs initiative is the BRPMP. The objective of the BRPMP looks to all stakeholders to reduce the levels of phosphorus in the Bow River; the broader focus is on phosphorus mitigation. This is based on the premise that it is both Industry and Society’s collective obligation to promote a healthy environment (environmental stewardship). It is recognized that Rural BMPs should be considered over the long‐term (25 years plus). Education and awareness of the need for phosphorus control, if not started, should begin immediately within both rural and urban areas, with the understanding that BMP adoption may take years.

SWM alternatives have been developed in two categories:

1. In‐Canal 2. Out‐of‐Canal

Different alternatives are developed for each category listed above, depending upon treatment options and/or routing options. The naming convention for each alternative is as follows:

Main Category Identification Prefix Number In‐Canal 1 Out‐of‐Canal 2

The second number, or suffix, represents the sub‐category alternative. Table 5.1 outlines the four main alternatives developed.

Table 5.1 Proposed Stormwater Management Alternatives – Generic

STORMWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT STORMWATER END USE ALTERNATIVE CONVEYANCE DESTINATION URBAN RURAL

Irrigation – 1‐1 Wetponds Only BMPs In‐Canal (Agriculture)

Wetponds with Urban Irrigation – 1‐2 BMPs In‐Canal Greenspace Irrigation (Agriculture)

Intensive LID Practices Irrigation – 1‐3 BMPs In‐Canal with Wetponds (Agriculture)

Reduced LID Practices Release to Natural 2‐1 BMPs Out‐of‐Canal with Wetponds Water Body

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

36 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure 5.1 provides an overall schematic of the different stormwater routing options for the various alternatives. The collection and treatment options are as per Table 5.1, but routing paths vary.

Tables 5.2 and 5.3 provide a synopsis of the various study areas and how stormwater runoff is routed.

Figures 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 illustrate the In‐Canal routing options for Highway 1 South, Highway 1 North, and Chestermere study areas. Langdon North, Wheatland Industrial, Strathmore North, West and South, and Eagle Shores study areas do not have In‐Canal SWM Alternatives. The study areas are as illustrated on Figure 3.2.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

37

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

38 CONRICH

C CANAL B CANAL HWY 1 NORTH

B/C CANAL

HWY 1 HWY 791 HWY

CHESTERMERE

CHESTERMERE HWY 1 SOUTH HWY 1

b

DISCHARGE b TO A CANAL

DISCHARGE TO A CANAL

A CANAL

HWY 560

ESRD WH CANAL

STUDY AREAS SERVICED: - HWY 1 SOUTH - CHESTERMERE

EXISTING MAIN CANAL PROPOSED LOCAL DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE PROPOSED LOCAL TRUNK NETWORK WEST CREEK DITCH PROPOSED STORM PIPE DIVERSION DRAIN EXISTING RAINBOW FALLS UNDERDRAIN CSMI PROPOSED STORM FORCEMAIN STUDY AREA: PROPOSED PUMP HWY 1 SOUTH AND CHESTERMERE

P SWM ALTERNATIVE: 1-3 IN-CANAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS b LOCAL TRUNK NETWORK

DISCHARGE TO CANAL SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: APRIL 2014 JOB: 29159-001 FIGURE: 5.2 DELACOUR C CANAL

HWY 564 DELACOUR

DALROY

HWY 791 HWY 9 HWY DALROY

C CANAL

HWY 1 NORTH

C CANAL B CANAL WETLANDS

b CONRICH

DISCHARGE TO C CANAL

B/C CANAL HWY 1

b

DISCHARGE HWY 1 TO B/C CANAL SOUTH CHESTERMERE CHESTERMERE

HWY 1

EXISTING MAIN CANAL PROPOSED LOCAL DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE PROPOSED LOCAL TRUNK NETWORK CSMI PROPOSED REGIONAL CONVEYANCE CHANNEL STUDY AREA: HWY 1 NORTH

POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS SWM ALTERNATIVE: 1-3 IN-CANAL

LOCAL TRUNK NETWORK b DEVELOPMENT AREAS OPTION A DISCHARGE TO CANAL SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: APRIL 2014 JOB: 29159-001 FIGURE: 5.3 DELACOUR C CANAL

HWY 564 DELACOUR

DALROY HWY 9 HWY HWY 791 HWY DALROY

C CANAL

HWY 1 NORTH

C CANAL B CANAL WETLANDS

b CONRICH

DISCHARGE TO C CANAL

B/C CANAL b

DISCHARGE TO B/C CANAL HWY 1 SOUTH CHESTERMERE CHESTERMERE

HWY 1

EXISTING MAIN CANAL PROPOSED LOCAL DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE PROPOSED LOCAL TRUNK NETWORK CSMI PROPOSED REGIONAL CONVEYANCE CHANNEL STUDY AREA: HWY 1 NORTH

POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS SWM ALTERNATIVE: 1-3 IN-CANAL

LOCAL TRUNK NETWORK b DEVELOPMENT AREAS OPTION B DISCHARGE TO CANAL SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: APRIL 2014 JOB: 29159-001 FIGURE: 5.4 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Table 5.2 In‐Canal: Routing Options by Study Area

LAND DEVELOPMENT STUDY AREAS STORMWATER ROUTING OPTIONS AREAS Hwy 1 South, Chestermere 1A, 1B, 1C, 3A, 3B A Canal

Langdon, Wheatland Industrial 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B Weed Lake Ditch/Hartell Coulee

Hwy 1 North: Conrich South 2A B/C Canal

Hwy 1 North: Conrich North, RVC North 2B C Canal

Strathmore – East 6E A Canal Note: Study areas and designations as per Figure 3.2.

The Out‐of‐Canal conveyance solution focuses on bypassing stormwater flows around or under irrigation works. Routing options have been established to meet this requirement. Figures 5.5 to 5.9 illustrate the Out‐of‐Canal Alternatives and the routing options.

Table 5.3 Out‐of‐Canal: Routing Options by Study Area

LAND DEVELOPMENT STUDY AREAS STORMWATER ROUTING OPTIONS AREAS Divert around Chestermere Lake, utilize Hwy 1 South, Chestermere, 1A, 1B, 1C, 3A, 3B, 4A, Langdon Ditch, Weed Lake, Hartell

Langdon, RVC South 4B Coulee, to ultimately spill to Serviceberry Creek Utilize Weed Lake Ditch/Hartell Coulee to Wheatland Industrial 5A, 5B ultimate spill to Serviceberry Creek Drain adjacent to B Canal (or parallel ditch), utilize South Branch B Ditch, Hwy 1 North: Option A 2A Weed Lake, Weed Lake Ditch/Hartell Coulee to ultimately spill to Serviceberry Creek Delacour Wetlands, Bypass C Canal to Hwy 1 North: Option B 2A ultimately spill to Serviceberry Creek Natural/irrigation Channels, Underdrains Strathmore West, North 6A, 6B on North A and B Canal to ultimately spill to Serviceberry Creek Strathmore East, South, and Eagle Existing upgraded and proposed 6C, 6E, 6D, 6F Shores Channels to Eagle Lake Note: Study areas and designations as per Figure 3.2.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

42 DALROY DALROY B CANAL

LYALTA CREEK TO SERVICEBERRY TO HWY 1 NORTH

C CANAL CONRICH PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN FOR LARGE RURAL CATCHMENT AREA

HARTELL COULEE HWY 9 HWY HWY 791 HWY REGIONAL CONVEYANCE CHANNEL CONVEYANCE PARALLEL TO CHANNEL SOUTH BRANCH B PARALLEL TO CHESTERMERE B CANAL SEE FIGURE 5.7 HWY 1 SOUTH CHESTERMERE

HWY 1 SEE FIGURE 5.6 WHEATLAND INDUSTRIAL

DELIVERY CHEADLE WEED TO WETLANDS LAKE CHEADLE UPGRADE LANGDON DITCH PUMP TO STORMWATER OUTFALL A CANAL UPGRADE REGIONAL WEED LAKE DITCH LANGDON ESRD WH CONVEYANCE CANAL CHANNEL PARALLEL TO A CANAL LANGDON STUDY AREAS SERVICED: - HWY 1 NORTH - HWY 1 SOUTH - CHESTERMERE - LANGDON - WHEATLAND INDUSTRIAL EXISTING MAIN CANAL PROPOSED STORM PROPOSED PUMP POTENTIAL FORCEMAIN P CONSTRUCTED PROPOSED LOCAL WETLANDS DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE PROPOSED REGIONAL POTENTIAL RE-USE - MAIN CONVEYANCE PIPE ? CANAL WEED LAKE PROPOSED LOCAL TRUNK ! STORAGE/TREATMENT NETWORK EXISTING RAINBOW FALLS CSMI UNDERDRAIN DEVELOPMENT AREAS PROPOSED REGIONAL DISCHARGE TO SWM ALTERNATIVE: 2-1 OUT-OF-CANAL CONVEYANCE CHANNEL PROPOSED BERM i SERVICEBERRY CREEK OPTION A STUDY AREA: HWY 1 NORTH WEST CREEK DITCH WETLAND DELIVERY AND EXISTING UNDERDRAIN RE-USE à DRAINS TO WEED LAKE PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN à SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: APRIL 2014 JOB: 29159-001 FIGURE: 5.5 CHESTERMERE LAKE

WH CANAL EXISTING PROPOSED REGIONAL RAINBOW FALLS CONVEYANCE PIPE UNDERDRAIN ADJACENT TO à A CANAL PROPOSED REGIONAL CONVEYANCE PIPE PROPOSED PROPOSED HWY 1 SOUTH REGIONAL UNDERDRAIN CONVEYANCE PIPE A CANAL PROPOSED REGIONAL CONVEYANCE CHANNEL ADJACENT TO A CANAL

CSMI PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN à CHESTERMERE LAKE PROPOSED REGIONAL CONVEYANCE CHANNEL REGIONAL CONVEYANCE PIPE BYPASS EXISTING RAINBOW FALLS UNDERDRAIN PROPOSED REGIONAL CONVEYANCE PIPE SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: APRIL 2014 JOB: 29159-001 FIGURE: 5.6 EXISTING REGIONAL CONVEYANCE PIPE

PROPOSED REGIONAL CONVEYANCE CHANNEL UPGRADE EXISTING BERM Weed Lake

PROPOSED BERM

PROPOSED WEED LAKE BERM DITCH

PROPOSED REDIRECT LOCAL RURAL CHANNEL DRAINAGE

PROPOSED EXPANDED LANGDON STORMWATER TREATMENT WETLANDS

EXISTING REGIONAL CONVEYANCE PIPE PROPOSED REGIONAL CONVEYANCE CHANNEL CSMI PROPOSED LOCAL CONVEYANCE CHANNEL WEED LAKE INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES WETLAND DELIVERY AND RE-USE PROPOSED BERM POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: APRIL 2014 JOB: 29159-001 FIGURE: 5.7 à

STUDY AREAS SERVICED: - HWY 1 NORTH - HWY 1 SOUTH SERVICEBERRY - CHESTERMERE DELACOUR C CANAL CREEK - LANGDON - WHEATLAND INDUSTRIAL DELACOUR HWY 564

PROPOSED CONVEYANCE PIPE AND CHANNEL

DALROY B CANAL DELACOUR DALROY

WETLANDS LYALTA CREEK HWY 9 HWY HWY 791 HWY à TO SERVICEBERRY SERVICEBERRY TO HWY 1 à

NORTH à

CONRICH à

HARTELL COULEE

CHESTERMERE HWY 1 SOUTH CHESTERMERE

HWY 1 SEE FIGURE 5.6 WHEATLAND INDUSTRIAL à

WEED CHEADLE DELIVERY P LAKE CHEADLE TO WETLANDS PUMP TO UPGRADE STORMWATER LANGDON DITCH OUTFALL

A CANAL CONVEYANCE UPGRADE CHANNEL WEED LAKE DITCH ESRD WH PARALLEL TO LANGDON CANAL A CANAL à EXISTING MAIN CANAL PROPOSED STORM POTENTIAL PROPOSED PUMP 24 HWY FORCEMAIN P CONSTRUCTED LANGDON PROPOSED LOCAL WETLANDS DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE PROPOSED REGIONAL POTENTIAL RE-USE - MAIN CONVEYANCE PIPE ? CANAL WEED LAKE PROPOSED LOCAL TRUNK ! STORAGE/TREATMENT NETWORK EXISTING RAINBOW FALLS CSMI UNDERDRAIN DEVELOPMENT AREAS PROPOSED REGIONAL DISCHARGE TO SWM ALTERNATIVE: 2-1 OUT-OF-CANAL SERVICEBERRY CREEK CONVEYANCE CHANNEL PROPOSED BERM i OPTION B WEST CREEK DITCH WETLAND DELIVERY AND STUDY AREA: HWY 1 NORTH PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN RE-USE à DRAINS TO SERVICEBERRY CREEK EXISTING UNDERDRAIN à SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: APRIL 2014 JOB: 29159-001 FIGURE: 5.8 i

TO EXISTING i WID EXISTING CREEK DITCH WID DITCH CREEK SERVICEBERRY

à TO SERVICEBERRY à à PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN EXISTING WID PROPOSED DITCH UNDERDRAIN

PROPOSED STORMWATER CONVEYANCE B CANAL à

NORTH A CANAL NORTH STRATHMORE

EXISTING STRATHMORE UNDERDRAINSà EAST à

PROPOSED A CANAL

à UNDERDRAINS à à à STRATHMORE WEST

STRATHMORE SOUTH

EAGLE SHORES EAGLE LAKE A CANAL UPGRADED EXISTING DITCH

NOTES: PROPOSED 1. STUDY AREAS SERVICED: STORMWATER - STRATHMORE EAST, WEST, NORTH AND SOUTH TREATMENT - EAGLE SHORES WETLANDS 2. STRATHMORE EAST ONLY HAS OPTION FOR IN-CANAL ALTERNATIVE

EXISTING MAIN CANAL DISCHARGE TO PROPOSED LOCAL TRUNK i SERVICEBERRY CREEK NETWORK CSMI PROPOSED REGIONAL EXISTING UNDERDRAIN CONVEYANCE CHANNEL à SWM ALTERNATIVE: OUT-OF-CANAL PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN STUDY AREAS: UPGRADED EXISTING DITCH à POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTED STRATHMORE AND EAGLE SHORES EXISTING DITCH WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT AREAS SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: APRIL 2014 JOB: 29159-001 FIGURE: 5.9 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

5.2.2 Infrastructure Requirements for a SWM Alternative The alternatives combine both infrastructure and non‐infrastructure (non‐structural) approaches. Some require more infrastructure than others. Generally, the Out‐of‐Canal options have more infrastructure requirements than the In‐Canal options. The SWM alternative components are assigned into two categories. Figure 5.10 provides a schematic of the two categories, which are:

. Local . Regional

Figure 5.10 Schematic of SWM System Components

Urban Development Area

Undeveloped (Rural) and Agricultural Areas

Rural BMPs

Stormwater Collection and Treatment (Local) Infrastructure Infrastructure envisioned for the “Stormwater Collection and Treatment” (Local) component of a SWM alternative will consist of:

. LIDs (various), . Wetpond/Wetland, and a . Local Drainage “Trunk” Network.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

48 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

This infrastructure will be entirely within the land development sites. It is anticipated to be constructed by individual developers and will be specific for individual municipalities. These works will ultimately be owned and operated by individual municipalities.

The type and size of the first two items will vary according to the SWM alternative, (i.e. There are different requirements for an In‐Canal SWM alternative versus the Out‐of‐Canal SWM alternative).

For the In‐Canal SWM alternatives, the water quality released into the irrigation system is to meet the WID Stormwater Guidelines (MPE, 2007). In order to meet these guidelines, a more intensive level of on‐site LID facilities is required versus the LID requirements for the Out‐of‐Canal SWM alternative. With the intensive level of LID facilities, the storage requirement (wetponds) will theoretically be lower to meet the adopted release rate, because LID facilities provide a portion of the storage requirements.

For the Out‐of‐Canal SWM alternative, the level of LIDs can be reduced compared to the requirements of the In‐Canal SWM alternative because the receiving water bodies’ water quality requirement is not as sensitive. Not as much emphasis is put upon controlling volume and stormwater runoff. The level of on‐site LID treatment would be reduced compared to the In‐Canal SWM alternative requirements. Reduction of LID means more storage is required; hence slightly larger wetponds are required for the Out‐of‐Canal SWM alternative.

The trunk network within the local infrastructure is envisioned to consist of open drainage swales or conveyance channels and culverts at road crossings. This configuration is assumed for cost comparison of the various alternatives. This configuration could be incorporated into linear parks, depending upon the type of development proposed. Actual alignment and design of the trunk network would be detailed in the Master Drainage Plan level study for each development area. It could include the incorporation of pipe system for various land constrained legs of the system, provided it makes for a better or preferred solution.

For the In‐Canal SWM alternatives, a permanent structure will be required for the respective canal inlets (discharge point).

Stormwater Conveyance (Regional) Infrastructure (CSMI Collaborative) Infrastructure envisioned for the “Stormwater Conveyance” (Regional) component of a SWM alternative will consist of:

. Open conveyance channels, . Closed piping systems, . Underdrains, . Improvements to existing works (i.e. Weed Lake, Weed Lake Ditch/Hartell Coulee channel), and . External wetlands.

Description of Infrastructure Figures 5.5 to 5.9 illustrate the general location of the various components of the infrastructure. For feasibility analysis projections, current release rates as defined for the SRDP have been adopted in addition to full buildout of the main development nodes.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

49 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Conveyance routes, as much as possible, are proposed to be within existing WID ROW. This reduces the cost of land requisition and impact on property owners. Following a canal alignment typically means the conveyance channel and/or pipe system are constructed on positive grades. Stormwater conveyance channels are assumed to be constructed as a grass‐lined open channel with grades ranging from more than 1% in areas of steeper terrain down to 0.06% in some of the irrigation canal alignments. There are, however, a number of locations where conveyance is assumed to be achieved through culverts given restricted ROW or where significant excavation would be required to provide positive drainage.

For the ultimate buildout, dedicated conveyance channels adjacent (parallel) to the main canals are proposed. Allowance for additional ROW has been made. Upgrades are required to the irrigation channel laterals that are proposed to be converted to stormwater outfall channels given they are undersized for the projected flows.

It is envisioned that the works and upgrades would be staged according to development projections. Critical legs such as the bypass around Chestermere Lake are required immediately. Management of stormwater could initially be by “Catch, Store and Off‐Season Release,” utilizing existing capacities of the minor irrigation channels. As development proceeds and capacity requirements increase, upgrades or installation of dedicated stormwater channels will be required. Upon completion of the parallel conveyance system, the short‐term “Catch and Release” operations would no longer be required.

Weed Lake Some of the SWM alternatives use Weed Lake for storage and potentially as a treatment facility. The extent of modifications to Weed Lake will depend on the selected alternative, but could include:

. Increasing the temporary storage capacity by constructing a berm between the northern and southern portions of the Lake. . Providing a separate outfall for Langdon along with additional wetlands to the south of Glenmore Trail, to service future development in Langdon. . Providing a submerged divider berm in the Lake to reduce short circuiting of flows.

Flows from Weed Lake would be directed down the Weed Lake Ditch to Serviceberry Creek via Hartell Coulee.

Additional wetlands are assumed to be developed to offset the additional runoff volumes that are generated from land development. These wetlands are anticipated to be constructed along the conveyance system. They would be constructed in suitable low productive land and could be optimized for ecological and/or treatment functions. It is assumed that 3% of the contributing land development area will be required for wetland areas. A water balance analysis is required in the future to confirm the size of the wetland areas. This would be accompanied by assessment of the influence of Weed Lake modifications, refinement of potential downstream improvements, and setting volume control targets for development. These would be determined in the next level of implementation and are beyond the scope of this study.

Significant opportunities exist to use less productive land in the vicinity of Weed Lake to develop additional wetlands. This includes the use of adjacent WID ROW such as along South Branch B Lateral, and adjacent drainage ROW to access additional suitable wetland sites. With such improvements, additional land development beyond the 25 year growth projection could be accepted and utilized.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

50 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

5.3 Alternative Evaluations

An extensive evaluation of the proposed SWM alternatives is presented. The three main evaluation processes undertaken were:

1) Phosphorus Modelling of In‐Canal Alternatives 2) Economic Analysis 3) Evaluation Matrix

5.3.1 Irrigation Canal Phosphorus Modelling The In‐Canal SWM alternatives have a direct impact on irrigation canal water quality. Water quality modelling helps determine the impact of various In‐Canal alternatives. Modelling is also used to populate the decision support matrix and aid in the selection of a preferred alternative.

Phosphorus is modelled in the canal system as it is the primary nutrient to cause weed and algae growth. While other water quality indicators could be modelled, other constituent concentrations related to TSS and E.Coli, for instance, are likely to be within acceptable levels if Phosphorus levels are controlled.

Modelling is essential to determine if an In‐Canal alternative will improve or be detrimental to the irrigation water quality, and to understand what level of treatment at source is required to meet irrigation water quality.

The modelling involved two main components, estimating the runoff volumes and phosphorus loads for the existing rural and proposed land development areas under the various BMP treatment alternatives. These results were then used in a mass balance model of the irrigation canal. The model was simulated over a 50 year time horizon to capture climate variability in the analysis. Further details are provided below.

5.3.1.1 Land Development and Rural Runoff Modelling

Runoff and water quality modelling of the land development and rural areas involved using MUSIC (eWater 2013) water quality model. Separate models were developed for the differing land uses and BMP measures considered for the alternatives for a 100 ha area to derive unit area hydrographs and TP loadings. The modelling considered a range of BMP performance criteria to test the sensitivity of the modelling assumptions. The rural runoff was calibrated against the most representative stream flow data available to provide a unit area hydrograph. The model also provided a TP loading based on loading rate estimate for smaller agricultural catchments within Alberta. The range of annual average TP loading rates and the average runoff volume from the modelling for typical land development BMP treatment alternatives and rural catchments are provided in Table 5.4. The range of rural TP loading rates reflects the various observations between catchment from the irrigation water quality model. The range given for land development represents the performance variations of the stormwater BMP alternatives.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

51 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Table 5.4 Range of TP Loading Rates for Land Development

LAND USE TREATMENT WETPOND WETPOND, REUSE, RURAL WETPOND ALTERNATIVE REUSE LID TP Loading (kg/ha/yr) 0.09 – 0.18 0.34 – 0.57 0.26 – 0.47 0.13 – 0.23

Avg. Annual Runoff (mm/yr) 12 147 110 68

5.3.1.2 Irrigation Canal Water Quality Modelling

The irrigation canal nutrient model is a spreadsheet based model that simulates the TP concentration along the length of the main canals. Loadings generated by instream processes (or dry weather accumulation) and runoff from the urban and rural areas discharging into the canal (Chestermere Lake to end point {tailout} of each main canal) are estimated. Modelling shows that TP concentration is influenced primarily by rainfall runoff, irrigation flow volumes, and their respective water quality. Details discussing the assumptions and methods used for the canal phosphorus model are provided in Appendix D.

A model of existing baseline conditions was developed to replicate, as close as practical, the observed conditions in the irrigation canals. Model results were calibrated by comparing eight years of monitored data collected during the current operating regime. Stormwater discharge from the various In‐Canal alternatives was then added to the existing baseline model. Simulations were run for the 2, 10 and 25 year projected land development areas that contribute runoff to each canal. The impacts of the Rural BMPs on canal water quality were included in each alternative. Rural BMP nutrient loading improvements were assumed to take effect after the 10 year land development growth scenario (10 year horizon).

High and low performance levels for the BMPs were estimated to provide an upper and lower range of expected water quality within the canal. A summary of the average annual TP loadings entering each irrigation canal for a 25 year land development absorption is provided in Table 5.5. The range provided for rural runoff represents the loading after the application of Rural BMPs. The land development range represents the loading reductions after the application of different treatment alternatives.

Table 5.5 Total Annual Loading to Canals

TOTAL ANNUAL TP FROM TOTAL ANNUAL TP FROM TOTAL ANNUAL TP FROM LAND

IRRIGATION FLOWS (KG/YR) RURAL RUNOFF (KG/YR) DEVELOPMENT (KG/YR) A Canal 770 1400 ‐ 1900 600‐2640

B Canal (B/C Split) 380 800 ‐ 1100 250‐1100

C Canal Alternative 512 1500 ‐ 2200 500‐2200

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

52 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

The simulation models are only considered for the long‐term (25 year) In‐Canal alternatives. The short‐ term “Off‐Season” In‐Canal flows or the Out‐of‐Canal alternatives do not directly affect the irrigation water quality with the main canals, therefore modelling was not undertaken. A summary of the historic data analysis and model set‐up and results are provided in the following subsection. Further details are provided in Appendix D.

5.3.1.1 Irrigation Canal Water Quality Objectives and Analysis

The WID Guidelines provide site specific water quality objectives to protect the canals from excessive weed growth, to maintain irrigation quality water and to preserve the quality of return flows back to natural streams. The objectives were developed in 2007 based on the existing water quality guidelines for phosphorus (Environment Canada 2004, The Bow River Task Force 1991) along with historical water quality data within the canal.

In examining the historic water quality, the sample data was divided into two sets. One set that exhibited TP concentrations less than the 75th percentile TP concentration (the 75 percent of samples with the lowest concentrations which typically represents the June to September rural non‐runoff period) and those that exceeded the 75th percentile (typically influenced by rural runoff, often in the month of May). Within the < 75th percentile data set a target (chronic objective) and a limit (acute objective) was adopted. In the >75th percentile data set a limit (acute objective) was adopted. Limits are concentrations not to be exceeded by any individual sample, while targets are concentrations not to be exceeded by the average value of the data set.

The District wide objective was based to a large degree on the existing water quality guidelines and includes TP concentrations set as follows:

. <0.03 mg/L (target <75th percentile) . <0.05 mg/L (limit <75th percentile) or the 75th percentile . <0.10 mg/L (limit >75th percentile)

A finer resolution of these targets and limits for each canal were set longitudinally from Chestermere Lake to the end (tailout) of each of the three main canals (A, B, and C) based on the observed water quality monitoring data. The targets and limits are lower at the top of each canal and increase as water flows down the canal. This is reflected in TP concentrations (see Figures 5.11, 5.12 and 5.13) as the length of the canal is travelled.

A review of the observed data indicates that the 0.1 mg/L TP concentrate limit is exceeded within the main canals from time to time under existing conditions. It was found that a comparison of the maximum TP concentration is not a good measure due to the typically observed variability of TP. Therefore, the average TP for the greater than 75th percentile of data points was chosen as the comparison between existing conditions and the In‐Canal alternatives being modelled.

The intent of the criteria is to protect irrigation water quality along the canal system. In particular, it is required for users at the end of the system where the canal flow capacity is reduced, while at the same time nutrient loads from runoff inflows along the entire upstream system have accumulated.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

53 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Rather than comparing canal water quality only to the 0.1 mg/L TP limit for various alternatives, it is more relevant to consider the incremental impact that each alternative has on existing conditions. This is an important consideration for the modelling exercise, where the variability is likely to be higher. TP concentrations are estimated for every day, resulting in the more extreme conditions being captured in the analysis. The modelling methods may also result in higher maximum TP concentrations compared to what might be observed in practice, even though it might match the observed average.

5.3.1.2 Historic Irrigation Canal Water Quality

In 2006, WID changed its operation practices to manage flows in a more active manner to better match supply with demand and to limit return flows. This change in operation influenced the water quality in the canal. This operating regime enabled the flows in the canal to match demand as close as possible. Not as much flow would be in the canal, which resulted in less dilution of stormwater runoff nutrient loading. Therefore, in this analysis, only water quality samples collected over the irrigation seasons since 2006 were used in the irrigation phosphorus model for existing conditions. The observed water quality data was also analyzed and compared in each main canal against the original targets and limits provided in the 2007 WID water quality guidelines.

A Canal

The analysis of A Canal observed baseline data is shown on Figure 5.11. It indicates the following:

. Observed Average <75th percentile phosphorus data is generally below the WID Guidelines’ target. . Observed 75th percentile phosphorus data is also below the WID Guidelines limit. . Observed Average > 75th percentile phosphorus data is below the suggested 0.1 mg/L maximum TP concentration. Individual readings, however, do exceed this maximum value from time to time.

This indicates that the canal does have water quality “capacity”, which can be further improved if Rural BMPs and selected underdrains reduce the phosphorus loadings from runoff events. When considering the data, the observed average > 75th percentile is likely to capture the higher concentration of phosphorus that the canals experience during runoff events, due to the bi‐weekly sampling frequency. This is somewhat evident by the average water quality for > 75th percentile exceedence values from the irrigation canal phosphorus model.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

54 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure 5.11 A Canal 2006‐2013 Sample Data vs WID Guidelines

B Canal

The analysis of B Canal observed baseline data is shown on Figure 5.12. It indicates the following:

. Observed Average <75th percentile phosphorus data is generally above the WID Guidelines target. . Observed 75th percentile phosphorus data is also above the WID Guidelines limit downstream of Lyalta, and exceeds the target at Standard. . Observed Average >75th percentile phosphorus exceeds the suggested 0.1 mg/L limit along more than half of the canal length downstream to Lyalta.

This indicates that the B Canal has no capacity to accept further phosphorus loadings. However, there appear to be greater opportunities to reduce the phosphorus with the use of Rural BMPs and physical underdrains.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

55 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure 5.12 B Canal 2006‐2013 Sample Data vs WID Guidelines

C Canal

The analysis of C Canal observed baseline data is shown on Figure 5.13. It indicates the following:

. Observed Average <75th percentile phosphorus data is generally below the WID Guidelines target. . Observed 75th percentile phosphorus exceedence is also below the WID Guidelines limit. . Observed Average >75th percentile phosphorus is within the suggested 0.1 mg/L limit. As discussed earlier, individual samples, on occasion, do exceed the 0.1 mg/L limit.

C Canal is similar to A Canal in that for the non‐runoff events, the existing water quality is within an acceptable range so there is some water quality “capacity” available but less than for A Canal. The large rural catchment along C Canal between Chestermere and the diversion out of Serviceberry Creek deteriorates irrigation water quality during runoff events.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

56 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure 5.13 C Canal 2006‐2013 Sample Data vs WID Guidelines

5.3.1.2 Irrigation Canal Water Quality Modelling Results

Model Overview

Simulation models were undertaken for the long‐term In‐Canal alternatives. Results of the irrigation canal model analysis were provided to assess potential impacts of discharging stormwater directly into the canal given various levels of treatment scenarios within the urban areas. The influence of Rural BMP and canal underdrains is also included in the results. The modelled upper and lower range of anticipated performance is provided for each alternative, and compared against existing conditions and the relevant targets and limits. The results are tabulated from Chestermere Lake to the furthest point modelled along each canal.

A Canal

The main difference among the In‐Canal alternatives for A Canal is the type of BMPs employed in the land development areas. Modelling results for the 25 year development horizon under various Urban BMP scenarios (including the Rural BMPs) are provided in Figures 5.14, 5.15 and 5.16. For comparison, theP Urban BM scenarios without Rural BMPs are included in Figures 5.17, 5.18 and 5.19.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

57 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

The model results indicate the following:

. The effect of the In‐Canal options is most noticeable for the >75th percentile of phosphorus concentrations and least for the average <75th percentile. . The wetpond urban treatment alternative has the largest negative impact on canal water quality, while the LID practices alternative has the least negative impact. . Average TP for >75th percentile values, the water quality target limits are exceeded for all of the SWM alternatives. The best SWM alternative is the application of LID practices. . LID practices with Rural BMPs appear to achieve water quality results within the WID Guideline targets and limits, and results arer bette than the current baseline water quality in the canal. . Without Rural BMPs, the irrigation water quality for each alternative is higher than current baseline water quality conditions (refer to Figures 5.17, 5.18 and 5.19). . The adoption of Wetponds (with and without reuse) as an In‐Canal SWM alternative would require performance at the higher end of the range for both Wetponds and Rural BMPs for them to be considered an acceptable alternative from a canal water quality perspective.

For the long‐term health of the A Canal system (with urban stormwater runoff being accepted in the canal) and for an overall improvement in canal water quality, the following should be considered:

. Any urban land developments within the region must proceed with LIDs, Wetponds, and the implementation of Rural BMPs. . Underdrains must be constructed to divert the large catchments away from A Canal (to improve rural runoff impacts on the canal). . Major stormwater events must be spilled or diverted from canal flows as soon as possible, to minimize downstream flood impacts. This does not help downstream water quality.

Figure 5.14 A Canal Avg. TP 75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development and Rural BMPs)

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

58 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure 5.15 A Canal Avg. TP <75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development and Rural BMPs)

Figure 5.16 A Canal Avg. TP >75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development and Rural BMPs)

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

59 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure 5.17 A Canal Avg. TP 75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development and No Rural BMPs)

Figure 5.18 A Canal Avg. TP <75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development and No Rural BMPs)

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

60 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure 5.19 A Canal Avg. TP >75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development and No Rural BMPs)

B Canal

As discussed previously in Section 5.3.1.1, the water quality in B Canal is the poorest of the main canals and, under current baseline conditions, exceeds the current WID water quality Guidelines. Therefore, it is desirable to immediately employ Rural BMPs and underdrains in select locations to improve the existing watern quality, eve if no urban runoff or limited amounts are directed to the canal. There are a number of opportunities to underdrain significant rural areas that currently drain into the canal. Proposed underdrains along B Canal will enable future development on the north and west sides of Strathmore to bypass the canal.

The improvement to the irrigation water quality with Rural BMPs and selected underdrains is illustrated in Figures 5.20, 5.21 and 5.22.

The model results indicate the following:

. That water quality in the canal is reduced to be within the WID Guideline targets and limits when limited urban runoff is directed to the canal. . The difference between the upper and lower bounds is the improvement in the Rural BMPs. . Proposed underdrains account for the majority of the difference between the existing and upper bound performance, indicating that the underdrains would provide a significant improvement based on the assumptions of the model.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

61 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

The main urban SWM alternative where significant urban runoff is directed into B Canal is that where the development area north of Hwy 1 is directed to B/C Canal just upstream of the B/C split. This has the positive effect of dividing the stormwater discharge and, therefore, spreading the phosphorus load so the impact is minimized on a single canal. The water quality along the canal for the different Urban BMP alternatives is illustrated in Figures 5.23, 5.24 and 5.25.

The model results from the SWM alternative where Highway 1 North discharges to the B/C Canal indicate the following:

. The effect of the In‐Canal option is most noticeable for the average of > 75th percentile of phosphorus concentrations and least for the average < 75th percentile values. . The Wetpond urban treatment alternative has the largest negative impact and the LID practices alternative has the least impact on irrigation water quality due to the lower flows in B Canal. . Average TP for >75th percentile values exceeds the water quality target limits for all of the SWM alternatives. The LID SWM alternative and the lower bounds of the other alternatives, however, are below existing conditions. . The LID Practices alternative together with Rural BMPs can achieve water quality results within the WID Guideline targets and limits, and concentrations are mostly below the current baseline water quality in the canal. . The adoption of Wetponds (with and without reuse) as an In‐Canal SWM alternative would require performance at the higher end of the range for both Wetponds and Rural BMPs.

Water quality in B Canal system needs to be improved whether or not urban stormwater runoff is directed into the canal and the following should be considered:

. Irrigation canal water quality improvement can be made through Rural BMPs and construction of selected underdrains (i.e. have the large rural catchment areas runoff flow under the canal). . Underdrains on the northern side of Strathmore can enable future development in Strathmore to bypass B Canal. . Discharging the Highway 1 North Area to B/C Canal combined with Rural BMPs can result in water quality that is better than existing conditions.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

62 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure 5.20 B Canal Avg. TP <75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development And Rural BMPs)

Figure 5.21 B Canal Avg. TP 75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development And Rural BMPs)

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

63 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure 5.22 B Canal Avg. TP >75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development And Rural BMPs)

Figure 5.23 B Canal Avg. TP < 75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development B/C Canal Split And Rural BMPs)

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

64 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure 5.24 B Canal Avg. TP 75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development B/C Canal Split And Rural BMPs)

Figure 5.25 B Canal Avg. TP >75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development B/C Canal Split And Rural BMPs)

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

65 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

C Canal

Urban development in the Highway 1 North study area will primarily be mainly directed to C Canal, or could be split between B and C Canals for the In‐Canal SWM alternatives. The other major positive influence on water quality in the canal is the use of BMPs in the urban area. Modelling results for the 25 year development horizon with the various Urban BMP alternatives and Rural BMPs for the areas north of Highway 1 entering C Canal are illustrated in Figures 5.26, 5.27 and 5.28. For that divided between B and C Canals, results are given in Figures 5.29, 5.30 and 5.31.

The model results indicate the following:

. The Urban BMP alternatives are all worse than existing conditions, except for the higher performance LID alternative. . LID alternatives, together with Rural BMPs, appear to achieve water quality results generally within the WID Guideline targets and limits. . Without Rural BMPs, the irrigation water quality for each alternative will be worse than existing conditions, in a similar fashion to A Canal. . The adoption of Wetponds with reuse would require a performance at the higher end of the range for both Wetponds and Rural BMPs. . Average TP for > 75th percentile values, the WQ target limits are exceeded for most of the SWM Alternatives (except higher performance LIDs). . Dividing the discharge between B and C Canals (B/C Split Alternative) results in lower negative impacts to the water quality in C Canal. B Canal, however, is also negatively impacted by such an alternative. . The simulation results from the analysis for A Canal are similar to the C Canal simulation, except that the water quality degrades to levels worse than historic levels in C Canal. This is a result of the added loading of TP from a larger catchment area and the lower irrigation flows in C Canal when compared to A Canal.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

66 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure 5.26 C Canal Avg. TP 75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development to Discharge to C Canal with Rural BMPs)

Figure 5.27 C Canal Avg. TP <75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development to Discharge to C Canal with Rural BMPs)

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

67 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure 5.28 C Canal Avg. TP >75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development to Discharge to C Canal with Rural BMPs)

Figure 5.29 C Canal Avg. TP 75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development to Discharge to B/C Split and Rural BMPs)

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

68 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure 5.30 C Canal Avg. TP <75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development to Discharge to B/C Split and Rural BMPs)

Figure 5.31 C Canal Avg. TP >75th Percentile (25 Year Land Development to Discharge to B/C Split and Rural BMPs)

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

69 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

5.4 Outfall Conveyance Capacities

5.4.1 Outfall Conveyance Sizing This analysis assumes stormwater conveyance systems from the land development areas were sized to accommodate a 1 in 100 year release rate of 0.8 L/s/ha for the contributing developed area. This is in keeping with the recommendation from the SRDP. Restricting outflow to such a release rate increases the size of wetponds, thereby increasing the treatment potential within urban areas and increasing stormwater reuse potential within these areas.

The proposed stormwater conveyance systems are generally sized to accommodate flows from the existing catchment area that the development areas are located in (greater than the assumed 25 year land development horizon). Total catchment area where the proposed land development is occurring is approximately 12,000 ha. Therefore, any conveyance system will be oversized for the 25 year land development time horizon. The incremental increase in structure size between the 25 year development horizon and ultimate buildout in most cases is not significant.

For rainfall events that exceed the 1:100 Average Recurrence Interval (ARI), the runoff volumes that would exceed the Local SWM facilities’ storage capacities would pass into the canal system via emergency overflow spills. These extreme flows would be diverted to the closest canal spillway location as will be discussed in the next section.

5.4.2 Irrigation Canal Conveyance Capacity Assessment Irrigation canals have spillways at specific locations to divert excess flow into natural drainage courses. This allows operations personnel to release water flow in an emergency condition (i.e. in a major precipitation event where significant runoff is occurring). Within the WID system there are several spillways. For the CSMI area, stormwater runoff volumes generated in the extreme events, would be diverted to the closest canal spillway.

A review of specific canal reaches for the hydraulic carrying capacities within the CSMI planning area is presented. The premise for an irrigation canal is that any flow above the design Full Supply Level (FSL) and below the top of bank (TBK) is available to carry stormwater runoff flow (QFB).

This analysis assumes that the irrigation canal will be at FSL when a major stormwater contributing runoff event occurs. A carrying capacity at 300 mm above FSL was also analyzed (Q300). The 300 mm above FSL is the level at which gravel armour is placed. The gravel armour is in place for erosion protection. This is of interest, in order to see if the stormwater runoff could be carried within this 300 mm depth. Therefore, for each segment of canal, the stormwater runoff from the contributing upstream area for the QFB and Q300 was analyzed. Tables 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8 provide a summary of the analysis for specific reaches of A, B, and C Canals within the CSMI area.

A limitation to the QFB capacity is the carrying capacity of road crossing culverts. Detailed analysis as to the exact carrying capacities above FSL at any major constraint (road crossings where culverts exist) must be carried out prior to implementation of any stormwater flows carried within the canal systems.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

70 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Table 5.6 A Canal Capacities

ASSUMED *RUNOFF INCREMENTAL Q DESIGN CANAL CAPACITY UNIT FOR 1:100 CUMULATIVE CANAL LOCATION CATCHMENT 3 FLOW RUNOFF YR EVENT (M /S) 3 Q300 QFB AREA (HA) 3 (M /S) 3 3 (L/S/HA) (M /S) (M /S) (M /S) Chestermere Lake to Langdon Reservoir 4,671 2 9.3 9.3 28.3 8.9 35 Langdon Reservoir to 12 Mile Coulee Spill 4,681 2 9.4 18.7 28.3 8.9 35 **12 Mile Coulee Spill to Strathmore 1,259 2 2.5 2.5 28.3 7.3 35 * Per incremental catchment. ** Assumes upstream 18.7 m3/s stormwater runoff flow diverted at 12 Mile Coulee Spillway.

Table 5.7 B Canal Capacities

ASSUMED *RUNOFF INCREMENTAL Q DESIGN CANAL CAPACITY UNIT FOR 1:100 CUMULATIVE CANAL LOCATION CATCHMENT 3 FLOW RUNOFF YR EVENT (M /S) 3 Q300 QFB AREA (HA) 3 (M /S) 3 3 (L/S/HA) (M /S) (M /S) (M /S) Chestermere Lake to 2500 1 2.5 2.5A 22 4.0 10 B/C Split B/C Split to South 1,400 1 1.4 2.6 12.2 5.5 15.9 Branch B South Branch B to 6,100 1 6.1 8.7 12.2 5.5 15.9 Hartell Coulee * Per incremental catchment. A Flows split between B and C canal (1.25 m3/s to each canal).

Table 5.8 C Canal Capacities

ASSUMED *RUNOFF INCREMENTAL Q DESIGN CANAL CAPACITY UNIT FOR 1:100 CUMULATIVE CANAL LOCATION CATCHMENT 3 FLOW RUNOFF YR EVENT (M /S) 3 Q300 QFB AREA (HA) 3 (M /S) 3 3 (L/S/HA) (M /S) (M /S) (M /S) Chestermere Lake to 2,500 1 2.5 2.5A 22 4.0 10 B/C Split B/C Split to 7,041 1 7.0 8.3 8 3.0 10 Serviceberry Diversion * Per incremental catchment. A Flows split between B and C canal (1.25 m3/s to each canal).

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

71 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

In general, the QFB carrying capacities of the canals will accommodate a major rainfall event at the unit runoff rates listed. Comparing the Q300 carrying capacity to the projected runoff event shows it can carry some of the projected flows. The assumed unit rates listed differ for A Canal versus B and C Canals because of the significant difference in the catchment area characteristics. For A Canal Catchment Areas, there are significantly less trapped lows than there are in B and C Canal Catchment Areas. Therefore, for A Canal Catchment Areas there will be greater generation of surface runoff. The SRDP proposes to limit the unit runoff rate to 0.8 L/s/ha for its area. This is lower than the unit runoff rates assumed for rural areas used in this assessment. Thus the projected runoff rates listed in Tables 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8 have a large factor of safety included.

5.5 Economic Analysis

For economic comparison of the two SWM alternatives assessed, high level cost analysis is undertaken. Refer to Figure 5.10 for the two categories of infrastructure. Class D (screening level) Opinions of Probable Costs are developed for the SWM alternatives that are considered most viable for the CSMI study areas. Cost projections are developed for the two alternatives shown in Table 5.9.

Table 5.9 Selected SWM Alternatives for Costing

ALTERNATIVE ON‐SITE CONVEYANCE URBAN RURAL

1‐3 LID c/w Wetpond BMP In‐Canal

2‐1 LID c/w Wetpond BMP Out‐of‐Canal

Figure 5.1 provides an overview of the alternatives that were analyzed for project cost.

Probable costs include Local (Land Development) infrastructure and Regional (CSMI Collaborative) infrastructure (refer to Section 5.2.2 and Figure 5.10 for reference). Local costs are those costs that are deemed to occur within a land development area. They are defined as the responsibility of the land development community within each study area.

Costs assigned to the Local infrastructure are:

. Onsite LID components (i.e. water resource infrastructure, bioretention works, absorbent landscaping features, etc.), . Wetponds and/or wetlands, . Right‐of‐way costs for all LIDs, . Stormwater drainage collection “trunk” network, . Operation and maintenance of LID components (wetponds, wetlands) and the drainage collection trunk network.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

72 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Costs that are assigned to the Regional CSMI Collaborative are:

. Regional (outside of development area) conveyance works, . Improvements to existing canal facilities, . Implementation of Rural BMP Initiatives, . Shared costs for items such as water quality monitoring, research and development, and education, and . Operation and maintenance of the regional components.

Within each development area, the stormwater collection works upstream of the LID and wetponds are assumed to be local to each development and therefore, not included in the local project cost comparison. Total projects included all costs for the Local (stormwater collection and treatment component) infrastructure and the Regional (stormwater conveyance component) infrastructure.

Overriding assumptions made for the costing analysis include:

. LID facilities have been included for all new development and at the levels discussed in Section 5.2.2. . The City of Calgary’s policy requiring Oil & Grit (O&G) separators for new development is applied if LID facilities are not installed. The O&G separators are assumed equivalent in cost to the installation of LID facilities (i.e. bioretention facilities). . Rural BMP costs and canal underdrains are shared by all land developments. . The Regional infrastructure costs are apportioned to the contributing area. . Project costs are developed on a 25 year basis to coincide with the project time horizon requirements. . The 25 year operation and maintenance costs are equated to a net present value.

Cost assumptions are provided in Appendix E. Tables 5.10 and 5.11 provide the probable cost for each proposed SWM alternative per various study areas. A breakdown of the probable cost per alternative plus assumptions made for the development of total project costs are provided in Appendix E. Upon selection of the preferred SWM alternative, a more detailed costing of that alternative will be provided in Section 6.0.

The promotion of Rural BMPs and the construction of selected rural underdrains are components needed to achieve the overall objectives of the collaborative. Funding contributions provided by the partnership, together with other available sources of funding, will assist the successful promotion of the preferred SWM alternative. Development of a regional SWM alternative depends on successfully integrating many contributing factors and stakeholder interests; some of which are based on good will to promote and benefit the greater objectives. Contribution to the rural works by the CSMI Partners aids to support this good will.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

73 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Table 5.10 Probable Project Cost (25 Yr) ‐ Local and Regional Infrastructure Study Areas: HWY 1 South, HWY 1 North, Chestermere, Langdon, Wheatland Industrial

25 YEAR* CAPITAL EXPENDITURE (M) O&M* LIFE CYCLE STORMWATER ALTERNATIVES TOTAL** (M) (M)

1‐3 In‐Canal (Langdon, Wheatland Ind. drain to $450 ($413) $146 $596 Hartell Coulee) 2‐1A Out‐of‐Canal Option A‐HWY 1 North Via $428 ($339) $119 $547 Weed Lake 2‐1B Out‐of‐Canal Option B‐HWY 1 North Via Serviceberry $410 ($339) $117 $527 Creek * 25 Year Project Net Present Value. ** The total represents Regional and Local infrastructure costs. The Local costs are shown in brackets.

Table 5.11 Probable Project Cost (25 Yr) ‐ Local and Regional Infrastructure Study Areas: Strathmore West, North, East & South, Eagle Shores

25 YEAR* CAPITAL EXPENDITURE (M) O&M* LIFE CYCLE STORMWATER ALTERNATIVES TOTAL ** (M) (M)

2‐1 Out‐of‐Canal $37 ($30) $10 $47 (All Areas) 2‐1/1‐3 Out‐of‐Canal (Strathmore West, North, $35 ($27) $10 $45 & South)/In‐Canal (Strathmore East) * 25 Year Project Net Present Value. ** The total represents Regional and Local infrastructure costs. The Local costs are shown in brackets.

Table 5.10 demonstrates that the Out‐of‐Canal SWM alternatives’ Total Probable Project Cost are significantly lower in cost than the In‐Canal SWM alternative’s Total Probable Project Costs.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

74 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

5.6 Evaluation Matrix

5.6.1 Matrix Development The SWM alternatives were also analyzed not only from an economic (costing) parameter, but also from other evaluation parameters. A total of 18 evaluation parameters were identified and are grouped into the following main categories:

. Economic . Functionality . Environmental . Community

Table 5.12 provides an overview of the evaluation. To measure the items against the SWM alternatives, a numeric weighting was developed. Each category was assigned an equal weighting (25% weight). All but two parameters are assigned an equal value of 5%. “Capital costs” and meeting “CSMI Partners’ Interests” were assigned 10% each. Each SWM alternative was scored based on the established weighting. Although this is a relatively subjective assessment, by using the same evaluation criteria on each alternative, it was possible to provide a relative comparison of alternatives.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

75 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Table 5.12 SWM Alternatives ‐ Assessment Parameters

CATEGORY PARAMETERS MEASUREMENT DESCRIPTOR WEIGHT

ECONOMIC Capital Costs What are the capital costs for this SWM alternative? 10%

O & M Costs for the What are the operational costs to the municipalities for this SWM alternative? 5% Municipalities

O & M Costs for the Canal System What are the operational costs to the WID for this SWM alternative? 5%

Can this SWM alternative take advantage of wetland compensation, phosphorus credits or other Green Credits 5% environmental initiatives?

How much control does this SWM alternative have to prevent sudden water surges from high rain FUNCTIONALITY Rare Events 5% events and are there opportunities for this alternative to provide storage during dry periods?

Does this SWM alternative require funding up front or can it be developed in phases along with the Staging/Phasing 5% development of land? Does this alternative use existing infrastructure effectively?

Water Quality (End User) How effective is this SWM alternative in providing proper water quality to the WID ratepayer? 5%

How reliable is this SWM alternative on a yearly basis and is the technology proven? What is the risk Reliability 5% of failure? How adaptable is this alternative under changing circumstances, such as unexpected outcomes (i.e. Adaptability performance in BMP compared to expected), changes in policy or between short‐term and long‐term 5% strategies? Does this SWM alternative protect the environment outside the Irrigation system? Is this alternative ENVIRONMENTAL Water Quality (Environment) 5% sensitive to changing water quality expectations?

Sensitive Areas Does this alternative prevent downstream erosion of sensitive areas, such as Serviceberry Creek? 5%

Does this alternative promote stream and wetland health such as enhancing ecological biodiversity, Stream and Wetland Health naturalized stream flows, restoring natural systems, or protecting existing wetlands and riparian 5% areas? How favourable would Alberta ERSD be in supporting this measure or philosophy? Will this Regulatory Compatibility 5% alternative stand the test of time given changing government regulations? Does this alternative promote good water stewardship, such as using water in a sustainable way, Water Stewardship water efficiency, fitness for purpose, reducing withdrawals and associated return flows to the Bow 5% River?

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Table 5.12 continued…

CATEGORY PARAMETERS MEASUREMENT DESCRIPTOR WEIGHT

How compatible is this alternative with all of the partners’ interests? And how compatible is this alternative in addressing the immediate concerns while providing an effective plan for the long‐ COMMUNITY Partners’ Interests 10% term? Does it promote the long‐term sustainability of irrigation and municipal development in the region?

Economic Development How much does this alternative promote economic development? 5%

How much does this alternative impact landowners with drainage easements and/or regional Landowner Rights 5% wetlands? What is the regional benefit to the community as a whole, including Ducks Unlimited and First Regional Benefit to Community Nations? Are there other benefits to implementing an alternative over another, such as improved 5% knowledge or technological development applicable or transferable to the region?

TOTAL 100 %

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

77 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Evaluation Matrix Results

The completed evaluation matrixes are provided in Appendix E. The preliminary results for the various study areas, as grouped in Section 5.2, are summarized in Table 5.13. Listed is the highest ranked SWM alternative for a:

1. Short‐term solution 2. Long‐term solution

Table 5.13 SWM Alternatives: Highest Ranked Short‐Term and Long‐Term Alternatives

SWM ALTERNATIVE STUDY AREA # ON‐SITE TREATMENT CONVEYANCE END‐USE SHORT‐TERM Hwy 1 South, Chestermere, Off Season Release via Release to Wetpond and LID, Green Space Langdon, RVC South, 2‐1 Weed Lake to Natural Irrigation Wheatland Industrial Serviceberry Creek Water Body Hwy 1 North: Conrich, RVC Wetpond and LID, Green Space Off Season Release to Release to 2‐1 North Irrigation Serviceberry Creek Natural d Strathmore – North and Wetpond and LID, Green Space Out‐of‐Canal to Release to 2‐1 West Irrigation Serviceberry Creek Natural d Strathmore – East and Wetpond and LID, Green Space Out‐of‐Canal with Release to 2‐1 South Irrigation Underdrains to Eagle Natural Wetpond and LID, Green Space k Release tod Eagle Shores 2‐1 Irrigation Eagle Lake Natural LONG‐TERM d Release to LID, Wetpond, Green Space Hwy 1 South, Chestermere 2‐1A Out‐of‐Canal Natural Irrigation & Rural BMPs Water Body Release to Hwy 1 North: Conrich, RVC LID, Wetpond, Green Space 2‐1A Out‐of‐Canal Natural North Irrigation & Rural BMPs Water Body Release to RVC South, Langdon, LID, Wetpond, Green Space Out‐of‐Canal Weed 2‐1A Natural Wheatland Industrial Irrigation & Rural BMPs Lake to Hartell Coulee Water Body Release to LID, Wetpond, Green Space Out of‐Canal with Strathmore – North & West 2‐1A Natural Irrigation& Rural BMPs Underdrains Water Body Out‐of‐Canal with Release to LID, Wetponds, Green Space Strathmore – East 2‐1A Underdrains to Eagle Natural Irrigation& Rural BMPs Lake Water Body Out‐of‐Canal with Release to Strathmore – South and LID, Wetpond, Green Space 2‐1A Underdrains to Eagle Natural Eagle Shores Irrigation& Rural BMPs Lake Water Body

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

78 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

5.7 Discussion

The overriding objective for the development of the CSMI regional SWM alternatives is to provide a ready stormwater alternative that supports the ongoing growth of the region’s municipalities, while at the same time ensuring the sustainability of the irrigation industry through protection of water quality. Through the SWOC and modelling analysis, it is evident that if stormwater is allowed to discharge into the irrigation system, the nutrient loading of stormwater runoff must be minimized. This is applicable to both urban and rural stormwater runoff. Therefore, BMPs for both urban and rural areas must be implemented to maintain both municipal growth and to support the irrigation system.

The modelling analysis suggests that the application of LID Practices and Rural BMPs would be required to meet water quality guidelines.

LIDs LID practices and the associated SCP are an emerging group of stormwater BMPs that have proven to be effective in reducing runoff volume and improved water quality outside of Alberta. However, their effectiveness in reducing phosphorus loads in the local climate is promising, but not specifically measurable at this time. Bioretention, for example, has achieved high efficiency in other regions of the world. Good treatment efficiencies have been achieved through research efforts. It is expected that similar research and development efforts will be required in Alberta. In addition there is emerging research showing the potential to achieve very high efficiencies. These research efforts and associated field verification will take time (five to ten years) and commitment to achieve favorable outcomes. In the shorter term, these practices are effective in reducing the volume of urban runoff and, therefore, reducing downstream water quality impacts. In the future, any installation could be retrofitted to optimize phosphorus treatment.

With respect to reviewing the adaptability of the various LID technologies to the Alberta climate, it is imperative that research and development efforts continue. The impediment to more adoption of LID technologies is their optimization for the Alberta region from a phosphorus management perspective. Confidence that they can provide improvement to urban water quality is growing. A pertinent question to ask is “How or what adaptive approaches/design parameters are required for the Alberta region?” Other current limitations are the level of experience of designers and contractors to build such installations and for municipalities to maintain them. However, there is a local impetus to increase the knowledge base. Some of the CSMI Partners are leading such efforts. Other initiatives, such as the BRPMP, will also increase the need for research as well as an increased focus on phosphorus load reductions. From the nutrient loading perspective, a level of confidence needs to be obtained before committing to an In‐Canal alternative. Until practice in this technology is better established, the risk associated with In‐Canal alternatives is higher than desired.

Rural BMPs Rural BMPs have also been shown to be effective, however they require time to be adopted and implemented. When the Rural BMPs become adopted they may only show benefits after an extended period of time, possibly 15 to 25 years to be fully realized. In the meantime, structural improvements such as underdrains can be immediately effective in reducing phosphorus loads to the irrigation canal.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

79 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

In summary, to rely upon BMPs as part of an In‐Canal solution without fully understanding their effectiveness as a phosphorus management tool may result in lower performance than anticipated. The impacts on water quality could lead to unanticipated consequences. This increases the risk to all of the partners, with the potential for compensation and expensive retrofit works to mitigate these impacts.

5.8 SWM Alternative Evaluation Summary

Based on the above findings and discussion, a summary comparison of the advantages and challenges of the two primary SWM alternatives is presented. Table 5.13 illustrates the highest rank SWM alternatives for the various study areas based on economic, functionality, environmental and community. The evaluation matrix provides a subjective detailed review. Table 5.14 summarizes the highest ranked “In‐ Canal SWM Alternative” to the highest ranked “Out‐of‐Canal SWM Alternative” advantages and challenges.

Table 5.14 SWM Alternatives (Long‐Term) Comparison Advantages and Challenges

SWM ALTERNATIVE ADVANTAGES/CHALLENGES 1‐3 IN‐CANAL ADVANTAGES

Economic: Least amount of regional infrastructure required because stormwater is conveyed directly into adjacent irrigation canal.

Functionality: Would be simplest to operate and maintain for the outfall conveyance components. Would promote the advancement of emerging technologies to achieve WQ objectives.

Environmental: Potential to meet enhanced provincial long‐term stormwater quality guidelines.

Community: Provides more incentives to implement Rural BMPs.

CHALLENGES

Economic: The intensive LID practices required within the development cells represent a significant increase in the development costs.

Functionality: Stormwater BMPs require optimization for the Alberta region to ensure the nutrient loading reductions assumed in the modelling is achieved. Considerable research and development is required for optimization of LID practices. These can be considered a moderate to a high efficiency nutrient removal strategy. The issue is that LID practices have not been completely developed to be considered fully applicable as a treatment method to meet the water quality guidelines at this time. The level of risk is currently high in terms of adverse impact on the irrigation system.

Functionality: Developments could be delayed or additional costs incurred to retrofit infrastructure for the effectiveness required of stormwater BMPs assumed. Optimization of the LID practices could potentially take five years or more to be realized.

Environmental: Least potential for development of wetland compensation opportunities as all of the released runoff will become part of the irrigation flows, with ultimate release into the irrigation tail‐out systems.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

80 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Table 5.14 continued…

SWM ALTERNATIVE ADVANTAGES/CHALLENGES 2‐1A OUT‐OF‐CANAL ADVANTAGES

Economic: Overall this option has the lower total project costs (capital expenditure and O&M) of the two SWM alternatives.

. On‐site development capital costs are lower because of the reduction in the intensive LID practices. LID practices are still promoted but not to the extent as required for the In‐Canal alternative.

Functionality: Lower risk to all partners because stormwater is conveyed to natural water courses. No additional stormwater will be added to the irrigation conveyance system.

. Timing wise this option will allow development to begin immediately. It is more conducive to staging, hence moving forward on a pace as dictated by development.

. Operationally less water quality monitoring required. Easier to maintain dedicated conveyance channels as part of an independent stormwater collection system.

. Infrastructure can be staged more easily as development proceeds, with no throw away costs.

Environmental: Opportunity to develop regional wetlands and potential for compensating wetlands. Stormwater end use will be for environmental purposes.

CHALLENGES

Functionality: Requires more regional infrastructure to be implemented.

Community: With an Out‐of‐Canal solution, there is less urgency to promote Rural BMPs and other improved water quality practices in order to meet water quality objectives.

. Less urgency for partner collaboration to meet stormwater quality objectives.

Environmental: Need to ensure any adverse downstream impacts are minimized or mitigated against. Future regulatory requirement for receiving streams must still be met.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

81 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

5.9 Conclusions of Analysis

A number of conclusions can be drawn from the analysis discussed in Section 5.0.

1. While there are numerous possible strategies and/or options that have potential to reduce nutrient loading from stormwater runoff, there are only a few that can be effectively implemented based on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges assessment. Achieving the surface water quality guidelines set by ESRD provincially and the irrigation water quality guidelines set by the WID; can only be accomplished by implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) at the source in both urban and rural areas. 2. To maintain a sustainable irrigation conveyance system, the preferred SWM Alternative is: Out‐of‐Canal Alternative whereby all urban development stormwater runoff is diverted away from the irrigation system, treated as necessary through stormwater BMPs and eventually released into a natural water course (i.e. Bow River or Red Deer River basins). 3. The Out‐of‐Canal SWM alternative provides reduced risk to the overall irrigation infrastructure compared to the In‐Canal SWM alternative. 4. Stormwater runoff generated by rare precipitation events such as a 1:100 year flood should be allowed to surcharge into the irrigation system thus providing an emergency escape route for the runoff, and then have it diverted at the nearest spill location. 5. The Out‐of‐Canal SWM system does not require strict irrigation nutrient loading guidelines to be met by urban development, but rather the critical considerations of the natural receiving stream. 6. The conveyance elements of the Out‐of‐Canal SWM Alternative can support growth up to the ultimate ASP buildout with some culvert and erosion protection enhancements. 7. The catchment areas: Strathmore West and Strathmore North Study Areas should be considered for diversion under B‐Canal and flow directly to Serviceberry Creek, so as not to impact the already poor water quality within B‐Canal. 8. To lower the TP nutrient loading into the irrigation canals from rural catchment area runoff at the point of confluence of a major natural drainage channel, the preferred option is to divert the runoff under the canal, (i.e. an underdrain). The underdrain system is proposed to be constructed at three locations along B‐Canal, including the catchment areas for Strathmore West and North.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

82 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

6.0 PREFERRED SWM ALTERNATIVE: ELEMENTS OF A STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

Based upon the findings discussed in Section 5.9, the CSMI Partners, at the CSMI Workshop #5 meeting held on January 20, 2014, agreed that the:

SWM Alternative: 2‐1A Out‐of‐Canal

was the preferred alternative for the CSMI area.

This section provides a framework for the proposed implementation planning phase and proposed construction phase. It reviews in more detail the probable project costs and projected average construction cost per developable area, projected phasing of the works, staging of proposed construction, and identification of potential risks. The core items are listed below:

Implementation Phase Develop an implementation schedule outlining next steps (detail and Construction Staging: studies and administrative analysis) and potential staging of construction works of the required infrastructure.

Probable Project Costs: Provide Class D probable project cost estimate to establish the Regional Infrastructure costing and a projected average construction cost on the 25 yr. potential development land areas for the various study areas.

Identify Potential Risks: Identify potential risks that could impact the scheduling and implementation of the preferred SWM system.

Figures 6.1 and 6.2 provide an overview of the infrastructure works for the preferred SWM alternative proposed for the various study areas. The figures illustrate both the Local and the Regional systems. The Local stormwater collection systems are assumed to be the joint responsibility of the municipality and development community; refer to Section 5.2.2. Regional infrastructure is considered CSMI Collaborative works. This section addresses CSMI Regional Collaborative works for the three items listed above.

The preferred SWM alternative involves an Out‐of‐Canal solution draining primarily to Serviceberry Creek, with the exception of Strathmore South and the adjacent areas within Wheatland County which drain to Eagle Lake.

The preferred SWM alternative involves a multiple component approach to manage water quality and the volume of discharge within the land development areas. This includes LID practices such as source control practices, wetponds and wetlands (with the potential to provide for green space irrigation). The CSMI Regional Collaborative works will include upgrades to existing conveyance channels, installation of new conveyance infrastructure, upgrades to existing wetlands (i.e. Weed Lake), construction of new wetlands and management of existing receiving streams.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

83 DALROY DALROY B CANAL STAGE I-N STAGE II-N LYALTA CREEK TO SERVICEBERRY TO HWY 1 NORTH

C CANAL CONRICH

CONVEYANCE CHANNEL PARALLEL TO SOUTH BRANCH B HARTELL COULEE PARALLELS HWY 9 HWY HWY 791 HWY B CANAL STAGE III-N STAGE V

CHESTERMERE HWY 1 STAGE III-S SOUTH CHESTERMERE STAGE IV HWY 1 BYPASS STAGE II-S PIPE WHEATLAND INDUSTRIAL STAGE II-S WEED LAKE DELIVERY IMPROVEMENTS CHEADLE TO WETLANDS CHEADLE UPGRADE STAGE I-S LANGDON DITCH PUMP TO STORMWATER OUTFALL CONVEYANCE UPGRADE WEED LAKE DITCH CHANNEL LANGDON ESRD WH PARALLEL TO CANAL A CANAL

LANGDON STUDY AREAS SERVICED: - HWY 1 NORTH

A CANAL - HWY 1 SOUTH - CHESTERMERE - LANGDON - WHEATLAND INDUSTRIAL

EXISTING MAIN CANAL PROPOSED STORM PROPOSED PUMP POTENTIAL FORCEMAIN P CONSTRUCTED PROPOSED LOCAL WETLANDS DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE PROPOSED REGIONAL CSMI DISCHARGE TO CONVEYANCE PIPE WEED LAKE PROPOSED LOCAL TRUNK SERVICEBERRY CREEK STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM i STORAGE/TREATMENT NETWORK EXISTING RAINBOW FALLS PROPOSED SUB-SYSTEM 1 WEST UNDERDRAIN DEVELOPMENT AREAS PROPOSED REGIONAL à EXISTING UNDERDRAIN STAGING PLAN CONVEYANCE CHANNEL PROPOSED BERM à PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN WEST CREEK DITCH SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: APRIL 2014 JOB: 29159-001 FIGURE: 6.1 i STAGE II TO EXISTING CREEK i WID SERVICEBERRY DITCH CREEK

TO SERVICEBERRY STAGE I STAGE II

STAGE I PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN PROPOSED EXISTING UNDERDRAIN WID DITCH STAGE I B CANAL

PROPOSED NORTH A CANAL NORTH UNDERDRAIN STRATHMORE STAGE I EXISTING UNDERDRAINS A CANAL

STRATHMORE EAST STRATHMORE WEST

STRATHMORE SOUTH

EAGLE STAGE II SHORES

EAGLE LAKE A CANAL UPGRADED EXISTING DITCH

NOTES: PROPOSED 1. STUDY AREAS SERVICED: STORMWATER - STRATHMORE EAST, WEST, NORTH AND SOUTH TREATMENT - EAGLE SHORES WETLANDS 2. STRATHMORE EAST ONLY HAS OPTION FOR IN-CANAL ALTERNATIVE

EXISTING MAIN CANAL à EXISTING UNDERDRAIN PROPOSED LOCAL TRUNK PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN NETWORK à CSMI POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTED UPGRADED EXISTING DITCH WETLANDS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EXISTING DITCH DEVELOPMENT AREAS PROPOSED SUB-SYSTEM 2 EAST PROPOSED SUB-SYSTEM 3 EAST DISCHARGE TO STAGING PLAN i SERVICEBERRY CREEK SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: APRIL 2014 JOB: 29159-001 FIGURE: 6.2 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

The sizing and function of the treatment measures require future refinement by conducting a water balance model analysis, which is beyond the current scope of work. This water balance analysis is also required to set targets for future land development areas.

To provide initial guidance on the likely requirements, a preliminary water budget was formulated for the Out‐of‐Canal Solution. It is estimated that the proposed downstream treatment features have an annual average volume control capacity equivalent to approximately 50 mm to 70 mm of runoff from the assumed 25 year growth projections. Therefore a potential volume control target could be in the order of 60 mm on an annual average basis. This is close to the median value of the 40 mm to 90 mm recommended in the SRDP and therefore would be consistent with past recommendations.

6.1 Selected SWM Solution Implementation

To move the process forward, two phases and a number of associated tasks are suggested. These suggested phases are:

Phase I Implementation Planning Phase Phase II Construction of Project Works

As a first step, funds need to be secured for the first phase. This phase can be self‐funded through CSMI or via potential grant funding (for at least a portion of it).

Discussion on these two phases and the proposed staging is as follows:

6.1.1 Phase I ‐ Implementation Planning Phase The following lists key planning studies and programs anticipated to be undertaken prior to adoption and construction commencement of the preferred SWM Alternative. These studies, categorized into process (planning and administrative) and technical, include:

Process

1. Governance Evaluation 2. Consultation and Regulatory Communication 3. Water Reuse Policy 4. Public Education and Outreach

Technical

1. Water Balance Analysis (including Weed Lake, Eagle Lake and Wetland Assessment) 2. Concept Level Design and Costing 3. CSMI SWM Design Policy Development 4. CSMI Regional Collaborative Rate Setting 5. Execution (Construction) Stage Development 6. Water Quality Monitoring Program Development 7. Rural BMP Initiative Program

The projected objectives of each are listed in Table 6.1:

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

86 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Table 6.1 Implementation Planning Key Tasks

PROPOSED PLANNING OBJECTIVE STUDIES AND PROGRAMS

PROCESS

Governance Evaluation Determine the organizational structure, going forward, with respect to the CSMI partnership. Will review proposed structure of the collaborative, how the decision making process will be undertaken; ownership of the CSMI collaborative works and how will operate and maintain the CSMI SWM system.

Consultation & Regulatory Advance CSMI’s interests by providing affected parties the opportunity to become informed about, and Communication engaged in the CSMI SWM system concept, and to address or resolve potential issues or concerns.

Water Reuse Policy CSMI partners to continually monitor and potentially develop water reuse programs for their respective communities. Continue to monitor provincial policies with respect to re‐use and applicability, as appropriate, to CSMI.

Public Education and Outreach CSMI will need to design an educational program. The aim to educate the general public, various organizations and different technical committees on the goals and objectives of CSMI. Attendance at public meetings, conferences, annual general meetings, and open houses will be required. A series of public open houses in the various communities is considered.

TECHNICAL

Water Balance Analysis A water balance analysis of the preferred Out‐of‐Canal SWM alternative is required to assess the potential impacts of the discharges from the development area to determine a suitable level of offsets such as setting land development volume control targets, and to identify external wetlands and/or receiving stream/conveyance protection works. The evaluation will establish if the proposed budgets and suggested interim volume control targets adequately mitigate potential downstream impacts.

Concept Level Design and A concept level design for each of the CSMI SWM systems infrastructure components is to be carried out. Costing Design parameters would be established, initial assumptions would be confirmed, ROW requirements would be established and Class C (Indicative) Cost Estimate completed.

CSMI SWM Design Guidelines Development of common stormwater guidelines for land development within the CSMI region will be Policy Development required. Development of some site specific guidelines for specific contributing areas may also be required. The outcome would be a set of guidelines to direct developers in the design and construction of their on‐site facilities, and a target for water quality performance goals. These guidelines will build upon existing established guidelines in the region (i.e. City of Calgary, ESRD, and WID).

CSMI Regional Collaborative Development of a CSMI Regional Collaborative rate structure is required. Items to be addressed would include Rate Setting development of guiding principles for equitable capital and O&M cost sharing, establish regional and sub‐ regional rates and levies, and review any potential incentive alternatives to achieve optimal performance.

Execution (Construction) Stage Develop the construction staging sequence upon completion of the Concept Level Design and Costing Development analysis. Construction staging would include works that are considered immediate in “Critical Path Items” to be implemented in the short term, depending on funding.

Water Quality Monitoring Enhancement and refinement of the existing annual water quality monitoring currently underway in the Program Development CSMI region would be completed.

Rural BMP Initiative Program Develop a program for the initiation of Rural BMPs. The program would concentrate on an education and awareness focus, with construction in later stages.

*Suggested order of priority to be undertaken.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

87 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

It is proposed that these studies and programs should be carried out prior to any major construction works. Suggested studies and programs that can run concurrent are as follows:

. Water Balance Analysis . Governance Evaluation . Consultation and Regulatory Communication . Water Quality Monitoring Program Development . Development of the Rural BMP Program

The water balance modelling would look to better define the potential impacts on the downstream receiving bodies (such as Serviceberry Creek) to determine the optimal combination of volume control measures within the land development areas and external areas to manage water quality and minimize erosion potential. This includes exploring water quality aspects and developing a preferred management regime for Weed Lake and the other proposed wetlands. Therefore, the technical studies that are anticipated to run consecutively, in order, are as follows:

1. Water Balance Evaluation 2. CSMI Region Stormwater Guidelines 3. Concept Level Design and Rate Setting

6.1.2 Phase II ‐ Construction of the SWM System The construction of SWM System for CSMI is anticipated to commence upon completion of the Phase I Implementation Planning Phase. The local works would be constructed at the time of land development. Construction of the CSMI Regional Collaborative works is proposed to be undertaken in stages. e Thes stages will be based upon the carrying capacities of existing works and development priorities. It is envisioned that the funding for each stage will be based on accrued fees collected from ongoing land development (discussed in Section 6.2), with some recoverable upfront cost contributions a possibility.

The proposed staging is preliminary at this point in time. Confirmation of the final staging schedule must be completed as outlined in Phase I.

Individual staging plans are contemplated for the following SWM systems:

SWM SYSTEM STUDY AREAS PER SYSTEM INCLUDE:

Sub‐System 1 (West) HWY 1 South, HWY 1 North, Chestermere, Langdon, Wheatland Industrial

Sub‐System 2 (East) Strathmore West, Strathmore North

Sub‐System 3 (East) Strathmore East, Strathmore South, Wheatland Rural

The proposed staging for the Regional CSMI Collaborative works for each sub‐system are provided in Tables 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4. Also refer to Figures 6.1 and 6.2.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

88 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

The Short‐term Solutions proposed staging may incorporate an initial short‐term operations scenario based upon the “Catch, Store and Off‐Season Release” concept. This is described as follows:

. For initial land development phases, the developer may be required to construct stormwater facilities as necessary to store all runoff during the irrigation season. Sizing of the facilities will be appropriate for the development area to achieve the short‐term operation scenario in accordance with the CSMI proposed guidelines. The intent would be to eventually incorporate these facilities into the ultimate SWM facilities for the long‐term continuous discharge as per the Out‐of‐Canal SWM alternative.

. The “Off‐Season” release would discharge into the existing irrigation canal system as it is currently constructed, with the exception that a Chestermere Lake bypass would have to be put in place.

This short‐term operation scenario is applicable for the HWY 1 South, HWY 1 North, Chestermere, and Strathmore North and West study areas. Timing for the Belvedere Land Development area within the City of Calgary is such that it may not contribute in the short‐term scenario. The remaining study areas would operate under a continuous release scenario.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

89 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Table 6.2 Staging for Sub‐System 1 (West) to Service HWY 1 South/HWY 1 North/Chestermere/Langdon/Wheatland Industrial Study Areas

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS STAGE CSMI REGIONAL WORKS CONSTRUCTION (SHORT‐TERM/LONG‐TERM)

I . Short‐term operate under the “Catch, . Construct Chestermere Lake Pipeline Bypass Store and Off‐Season Release” connected to existing Rainbow Falls Scenario. underdrain. . Langdon/Wheatland Industrial will . Janet Industrial to spill to WH Canal with flow operate under the long‐term intercepted by bypass. continuous release. . Construct temporary outlet into A Canal from pipeline bypass. . Construct Hwy 1 South main collector system up to WH Canal. . Construct Hwy 1 North main collection drain system up to B/C Canal. II . Continuation of operating scenario as . If initial development begins within the noted above for study areas. (At the Belvedere lands, potentially spill to WH Canal completion of this stage short‐term potentially via the Janet Industrial short term operating scenario can be stopped.) spill route. . Construct underdrain at A Canal Crossing and a parallel drainage pipe channel adjacent to A Canal from underdrain to tie to Langdon Ditch. . Construct underdrain at B/C Canal, construct parallel drainage channel adjacent to B Canal from B/C Split to South B Lateral. . Minor upgrades to Hartell Coulee. III . Long‐term operating scenario for all . Upgrades (ditch rehabilitation, culvert study areas. upgrades) to Langdon Ditch (15 meter ROW). . Construct new parallel ditch adjacent to South Branch B Lateral (60 meter ROW). . Supplemental water delivery system for terminable users adjacent to Langdon Ditch (if required). IV . Long‐term operating scenario for all . Construct north/south divider berm to study areas. increase retention storage in weed Lake by approximately 3 Million m3. . Construct separate outfall for southern portion of Weed Lake. . Construct central berm in Weed Lake to increase flow path and reduce short circuiting (if required). V . Long‐term operating scenario for all . Upgrades to Hartell Coulee drain. study areas. . Installation of wetlands (as required).

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

90 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Table 6.3 Staging for Sub‐System 2 (East) to Service Strathmore West/Strathmore North Study Areas

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STAGE CSMI REGIONAL WORKS INSTALLATIONS OPERATION I . Out‐of Canal long‐term operating . Installation of underdrain at B Canal at scenario. time of West Strathmore development commencement. . Installation of underdrain at North A and B Canal at time of North Strathmore development commencement. II . Out‐of Canal long‐term operating . Upgrades to existing drainage courses. scenario. . Implementation of wetlands (as required).

Table 6.4 Staging for Sub‐System 3 (East) to Service Strathmore South/Strathmore East Study Areas

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STAGE CSMI REGIONAL WORKS INSTALLATIONS OPERATION I . Out‐of Canal long‐term operating . Installation of underdrain at A Canal at scenario. time of East Strathmore development commencement. II . Out‐of Canal long‐term operating . Upgrades to existing drainage ditch to scenario. Eagle Lake. . Implementation of wetlands (as required).

6.2 Probable Project Costs

This section reviews probable project costs (opinions of probable cost) for Phase I (implementation and planning) and Phase II (construction) as outlined in Section 6.1. Costs are based upon Class D (screening level) estimates and are for preliminary budgeting and comparison only. Cost will be refined in the proposed future phases. Costs provided are in projected 2014 dollars and include contingencies and engineering. All costs are exclusive of GST. For each of the phases the following were established:

. Implementation Planning Phase Costs . Probable Capital Construction Costs . Projected Average Cost per Hectare Per Study Area

The Implementation Planning Phase Costs and the Probable Capital Construction Costs are utilized to develop a projected average cost per hectare for each study area. This average cost is apportioned on a contributing‐developed‐hectare basis for the works required to service a study area. All areas that share a facility contribute to the cost.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

91 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

The average cost per hectare is based on the 25 year developed buildout land area, the conveyance facilities are designed for a higher level of buildout including existing land development area (+/‐ 12,000 ha). Details of the project costs and economic assumptions used to establish the above are provided in Appendix F. Table 6.5 outlines the estimated budget to undertake the implementation planning work. Tables 6.6 outlines the projected construction costs.

Table 6.5 Phase I – Estimated Budget for Implementation Planning Work

PROJECTED ANALYSIS RANGE OF COSTS

PROCESS

Governance Education $50,000 ‐ $150,000

Consultation & Regulatory Communication $150,000 ‐ $200,000

Water Reuse Policy $10,000

Public Education and Outreach $25,000

TECHNICAL

Water Balance Analysis $100,000 ‐ $150,000

Concept Level Design & Costing $200,000 ‐ $300,000

CSMI SWM Design Guideline Policy Development $75,000 ‐ $100,000

CSMI Regional Collaborative Rate Setting $50,000 ‐ $75,000

Execution (Construction) Stage Development $25,000 ‐ $50,000

Water Quality Monitoring Program Development $100,000 ‐ $200,000

Rural BMP Initiative Development $50,000 ‐ $75,000

TOTAL COST $ 800,000 ‐ $ 1,300,000

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

92 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Table 6.6 CSMI Collaborative Regional SWM System Projected Class D Opinion of Probable Cost by Sub‐System

STAGE PROBABLE COST ($M) SUB‐SYSTEM 1 (WEST) I North 3.2 South 4.0 II North 11.0 South 9.5 III North 9.7 South 12.4 IV 10.5

V 32.7

Total Projected Cost System 1 $93.0 M $93.0 M

SUB‐SYSTEM 2 (EAST) I 0.8

II 0.7

III 0.7

Total Projected Cost System 2 $2.2 M $ 2.2 M

SUB‐SYSTEM 3 (EAST) I 0.9

II 0.7

III 1.7

Total Projected Cost System 3 $ 3.3 M $ 3.3 M

TOTAL REGIONAL COSTS $98.5 M

Note: 1) GST not included. Engineering and contingency allowance included. 2) Costs do not include local development costs. 3) Costs exclude the Eagle Shores development.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

93 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

The projected average costs per hectare based on the total contributing area for the projected 25 year development buildout are presented in Table 6.7. Projected cost on a per hectare basis for the projected developable lands is also provided. The projected cost per hectare for the CSMI Regional Infrastructure costs are lower for Hwy 1 North compared to Hwy 1 South. This is due to Hwy 1 North using a larger assumed land development area and is closer to the area of ultimate buildout compared to Hwy 1 South.

Table 6.7 Projected Regional CSMI Collaborative Infrastructure Costs

SUB‐SYSTEM ITEM STUDY AREAS TOTAL

HIGHWAY 1 SOUTH & HIGHWAY 1 WHEATLAND SYSTEM 1 (West) LANGDON CHESTERMERE NORTH INDUSTRIAL CSMI Regional $39.1 M $44.2 M $5.9 M $3.8 M $93.0 M Costs by Area ($M) 25‐Year Projected 2,160 ha 3,321 ha 856 ha 671 ha 7,008 ha Area Served (ha) STRATHMORE STRATHMORE SYSTEMS 2 and 3 (East) EAGLE SHORES WEST & NORTH SOUTH & EAST CSMI Regional $ 2.2 M $ 2.9 M $ 0.4 M $5.5 M Costs by Area ($M) 25‐Year Projected 170 ha 358 ha 85 ha 613 ha Area Served (ha)

TOTAL COST (No GST) ...... $98.5 M

TOTAL AREA (Gross Developable) ...... 7,621 ha

AVERAGE COST PER HECTARE ...... $13,000 / ha

Note: Class D (Screening Level) Opinions of Probable Cost.

The regional infrastructure work could be funded through contributions from upcoming land development. Table 6.8 illustrates the projected adsorption development areas required to pay for the infrastructure costs per Sub‐System. The cost per hectare utilized is as per the values calculated in Table 6.7 for each study area. It tis noted tha ultimately CSMI will determine how the regional works are to be funded. This will be one of the tasks to be completed in the Implementation Planning phase.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

94 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Table 6.8 Staging Costs and Associated Gross Development Required

PROBABLE COST INCREMENTAL REQUIRED GROSS STAGE ($M) DEVELOPMENT AREA ABSORPTION (HA) SUB‐SYSTEM I (WEST)

North $3.2M 242 I South $4.0M 223 North $11.0M 825 II South $9.5M 522 North $9.7M 728 III South $12.4M 683

IV $10.5M 844

V $32.7M 2941

SUB‐TOTAL $93.0M 7,008 HA

SUB‐SYSTEM 2 (EAST)

I $0.8M 63

II $0.7M 56

III $0.7M 51

SUB‐TOTAL $2.2M 170 HA

SUB‐SYSTEM 3 (EAST)

I $0.9M 110

II $0.7M 92

III $1.7M 241

SUB‐TOTAL $3.3M 443 HA

TOTAL $98.5M 7,621 HA

Note: 1) Costs do not include local development costs. Costs do not include GST. Costs include allowances for engineering and contingency. 2) Costs and gross development area absorption excludes Eagle Shores development.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

95 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

6.3 Potential Risks

The preferred SWM alternative presented in this report is based on a high level feasibility analysis. It is acknowledged there are potential risks that could delay or stall the successful outcome. Listed below are some of the foreseeable risks. The above risks will be addressed within the Phase I Implementation Planning. studies The proposed studies will quantify the risks as well as provide mitigative measures addressing each. Table 6.9 Potential Risks

POTENTIAL RISK DESCRIPTION

Jurisdiction Differences To date, the degree of collaboration between the CSMI Partners has been very successful. Municipalities are governed by their electorate; what is politically accepted today can change in the future due to political pressures, potentially causing conflicting interests and directions among the partners. Political Willingness and Preserving the status quo versus implementing new more advanced technologies can slow Institutional Momentum progress. There is always a chance that one party may not want to change, while others desire a new direction. Funding Implementation of the selected SWM systems requires up front investments prior to commencement of substantial new land development. Off Site Levies must be established and adopted to support ongoing capital investments. Lack of funds will delay the initiative. Costs As with any large, multi‐year initiative, inflationary costs in the construction industry can be a risk. Acceptance of Rural BMP There will likely be initial resistance from the development community to contribute funds to Program – Development kick start a Rural BMP Program. An effective communication and educational program Communities describing the merits and reasoning why the development community benefits will be required. Acceptance of Rural BMP An effective educational program describing the merits, rationale and benefits of participating Program – Rural Community in a Rural BMP program should be directed to the rural community. Some initial resistance may have to be overcome. Land Acquisition A large portion of the right‐of‐way (ROW) requirements are under the control of WID. There will be certain areas where additional ROW is required. There may be landowners unwilling to cooperate. Water Quality Impacts It is assumed that “Catch, Store and Off‐Season Release” short‐term operation will have minor effects on the irrigation water quality. This will only be proven out by initial piloting and monitoring. There is some risk that the irrigation water quality could suffer because of storage and release of stored nutrients in the canal beds after the “off‐season” flush. In addition, the water quality of the receiving stream (Serviceberry Creek) could be impacted by the additional stormwater runoff flows; monitoring is key. Wetland Development Rural landowners may have reluctance to sell land for the development of wetland areas that Acceptance benefit land development. An education and communication program along with potential incentives should be promoted.

Stream Flow Volumes and There is a risk that with increased volumes and varying water quality it may be detrimental to Water Quality the receiving water body (i.e. Weed Lake, Hartell Coulee Drain or Serviceberry Creek). The preferred SWM alternative has allowed for mitigation of both volume of discharge and water quality. Further analysis is required.

Site Conditions Once initial geotechnical, historic resources, pipelines and environmental screening studies are completed, the risks due to site conditions will be reduced.

Policy Issues Provincial policies at odds with, or changed/upgraded in the future prior to implementation of the projects.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

96 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations have been drawn from this report.

1. Proceed with the preferred SWM alternative, 2‐1A, Out‐of‐Canal Alternative. 2. Proceed with the initial Implementation Planning Phase. Key decisions, confirmation of next steps and costs, concept level design refinement and stormwater guidelines should be developed as soon as possible to allow imminent land development to proceed in the region. 3. Future land development should incorporate the following to meet the CSMI collaborative SWM guidelines: i) Low Impact Development practices, ii) Stormwater reuse (green space irrigation) to reduce overall stormwater volume, and iii) Wetponds and/or wetlands for management kof pea flows.

4. For the upcoming 2014 Irrigation Season, implement an enhanced water quality monitoring program. This program must be continued and further refined through evaluation of locations and sample timing on a more frequent basis in order to establish a benchmark for moving forward. 5. Initiate discussion with the regulators, particularly ESRD to familiarize them with the initiative and to review the regulatory framework. 6. Seek a resolution of Council/Board for each partner to support in principle this initiative and the preferred alternative. As well, seek a similar resolution of the various partner agencies. 7. Seek consensus in developing a common Off‐Site Levy formula to support this initiative and maintain a level of cost equity among partners.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

97 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

8.0 REFERENCES

AECOM. 2011. Shepard Regional Drainage Plan. Prepared for the Shepard Regional Drainage Committee, November 2011.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resources Development (ESRD). 2006. “Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waterworks, Wastewater & Storm Drainage Systems”, Environmental Assurance Division, Environmental Policy Branch, Drinking Water Branch, January 2006.

Alberta Environment (AENV). Stormwater Management Guidelines for the Province of Alberta, Alberta Environmental Protection, 1999.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resources Development (ESRD). 1999. “Stormwater Guidelines for the Province of Alberta”, Municipal Program Development Branch, Environmental Division, Environmental Sources, January 1999.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resources Development (ESRD). 1999. “Surface Water Quality Guidelines For Use In Alberta”, Prepared by ESRD, Environmental Assurance Division, Science and Standards Branch, November 1999.

Bow River Water Quality Task Force. The Bow River‐ Preserving Our Lifeline. 58 p and Appendices. 1991.

Environment Canada. 2004. Canadian Guidance Framework of the Management of Phosphorus in Freshwater Systems. Report No. 108. Ecosystem Health Science‐Based .Solutions National Guidelines and Standards Office Water Policy and Coordination Directorate. Environment Canada p 114. eWater. 2013. MUSIC – Model for Urban Stormwater Improvement Conceptualisation.

The City of Calgary. 2013. "Belvedere Area Structure Plan", City of Calgary, Planning, Development and Assessment, Land Use Planning & Policy, May 2013.

The City of Calgary. 2011. "Calgary Regional Transportation Model, Plan It /CMP Forecast Series", The City of Calgary, Transportation, 2011.

The Calgary Regional Partnership. 2012. "2012 Calgary Metropolitan Plan", June 2012.

The Calgary Regional Partnership. 2012. "A Context for Change Management in Calgary Regional Partnership Area", February 2012.

The City of Calgary. 2011. "Strategic Growth & Capital Investment", City of Calgary, Planning, Development and Assessment, Land Use Planning & Policy, December 2011.

The City of Calgary. Stormwater Management Strategy. 2005.

The City of Calgary. 2009. "East Regional Context Study", City of Calgary, Planning, Development and Assessment, Land Use Planning & Policy, April 2009.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

98 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

The City of Calgary. 2011. "Land Use and Travel, Plan It /CMP Scenario Series", Prepared by the City of Calgary, Transportation Planning, Forecasting, Land Use Planning & Policy, Geodemographics, July 2011.

The City of Calgary. 2013. "Suburban Residential Growth 2013‐2017", The City of Calgary, Planning, Development and Assessment, Land Use Planning & Policy, May 2013.

Langdon Water Works Ltd. 2012. "Langdon Strategic Servicing Plan", Prepared by C2W Planning & Design and Sim Flo Systems Inc., May 2012.

MPE Engineering Ltd. 2013. Conrich Master Drainage Plan Draft Report, Prepared for Rocky View County, August 2013.

Reddy, K.R., R.H. Kadlec, E. Flaig and P.M. Gale. Phosphorus retention in streams and wetlands: A review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology. 29(1): 83‐146. 1999.

Rocky View County. 2013. "Conrich Area Structure Plan ‐ Background Report", Prepared by Melissa Ayers, July 2013.

Rocky View County. 2012. "Waste Water Demand Calculation", August 2012.

Rocky View County. 2006. "Dalroy Community Area Structure Plan", May 2006.

Rocky View County. 2005. "Delacour Community Area Structure Plan", September 2005.

Rocky View County. 2013. "County Plan", Prepared by Rocky View County, Development Services, November 2013.

Rocky View County. 2012. "Land Inventory and Residential Development Capacity", September 2012.

Rocky View County. 2012. "Rural Growth Management, A Discussion on Growth", July 2012.

Rocky View County. 1999. "Hamlet of Langdon Area Structure Plan", April 1999.

Su, J.J, E. van Bochove, G. Thériault, B. Novotna, J. Khaldoune, J.T. Denault, J. Zhou, M.C. Nolin, C.X. Hu, M. Bernier, G. Benoy, Z.S. Xing and L. Chow. Effects of snowmelt on phosphorus and sediment losses from agricultural watersheds in Eastern Canada. Agricultural Water Management 98(5):867–876. 2011.

Town of Strathmore. 2008. "Growth Study", Prepared by Brown & Associates Planning Group, October 2008.

Town of Chestermere. 2009. "Municipal Development Plan", July 2009.

Town of Chestermere. 2007. "Growth Study”, Prepared by Town of Chestermere Annexation Committee & Brown & Associates Planning Group, March 2007.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

99 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Wheatland County. 2011. "Regional Growth Management Strategy", Prepared by Dillon Consulting, June 2011.

Wheatland County. 2012. "Hamlet of Cheadle, Area Structure Plan", Prepared by Dillon Consulting, June 2012.

Wheatland County. 2008. "Wheatland West Industrial Park, Area Structure Plan", Prepared by Matrix Planning, January 2008.

Wheatland County. 2009. "Eagle Shores Area Structure Plan & Phase 1 Outline Plan", Prepared by Brown & Associates Planning Group, October 2009.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

100 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

9.0 GLOSSARY

9.1 Definition of Terms

Development Area Existing/future land development (primarily urban or country residential) defined by planning documents that contribute stormwater runoff to the study area.

Impervious A type of surface that does not permit rainfall to infiltrate, resulting in the generation of a high portion of the rainfall as runoff.

In‐Canal Alternative A SWM option whereby the runoff from land development will drain into the main irrigation canal system.

Land Development Subdivision of land for the purpose of converting land to uses of greater intensity.

Off‐Season Release A SWM option where stormwater runoff is collected and held during the irrigation season (May‐September) and released during the irrigation off‐season, typically during late fall or early spring.

Out‐of‐Canal Alternative A SWM option whereby the runoff will not be directed to a main irrigation canal, but rather be directed by channels, irrigation laterals, and/or underdrains to a natural water body (for example, Serviceberry Creek).

Reuse The capture and holding of stormwater for the purpose of reapplying this water for irrigation within land development areas or another approved application.

Strategic Framework Provide the direction and steps to be taken to enable the preferred SWM alternative to be implemented in an orderly and staged manner.

Percentile Value of a data point where a certain percentage of all data points are lower. For example, the 75th percentile means that 75% of values are less than the specific percentile value.

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

101 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

9.2 Abbreviations and Acronyms

ARI Average Recurrence Interval ASP Area Structure Plan BMP Best Management Practice BRPMP Bow River Phosphorus Management Plan CR Country Residential CSMI Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative ESRD Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development FSL Full Supply Level HWL High Water Level I/C Industrial/Commercial LID Low Impact Development MDP Municipal Development Plan NWL Normal Water Level

Qfb Freeboard Capacity

Q300 Capacity Between FSL & 300 mm above FSL ROW Right‐of‐Way SCP Source Control Practice SFR Single Family Residential SRDP Shepard Regional Drainage Plan SWF Stormwater Management Facility SWM Stormwater Management TBK Top of Bank TP Total Phosphorus UR Urban Residential WID Western Irrigation District WQ Water Quality

Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

102 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

APPENDIX A

Development and Growth

Table A.1 Population Forecast for Study Areas Projected Existing Projected Population 25 Year Study Growth Rate Population Area Land Development Area Source (%) 2014 2016 2024 2039 Increase 1 City of Calgary estimated 29 yr build out starting beyond 2024. Timing wil be confirmed through the city capital planning 1A. Belvedere process. 13.71 947 967 1053 23500 22553

Belvedere could be advanced through the Growth Managment Framework if a funding & financing proposal is approved. 1B. Shepard (Janet) 2012 RVC Land Inventory & R. Development Capacity 3.00 21 22 28 44 23

1C. West Chestermere Population forecasts from Chestermere 3.76 13200 14211 21093 33214 20014 Note *1 Total population shown in Study Area 3. 2 2A. Conrich 2013 Conrich Area Structure Plan 9.56 938 1126 2338 9194 8256

2B. RVC north of Conrich 2013 RVC County Plan 3.00 1377 1461 1851 2884 1507

2C. Delacour RVC CSMI email response 1.65 1374 1419 1617 2067 693

3 Chestermere (Total) Note *2 Total population includes West Chestermere 3.76 16500 18500 26500 41500 25000 3A. East Chestermere Population forecasts from Chestermere 3300 3414 3960 5042 1742 3C. South Chestermere 0 875 1447 3244 3244

4 4A. Langdon 2012 RVC Land Inventory & R. Development Capacity 3.03 4197 4569 6057 8847 4650

4B. RVC within study area 2013 RVC County Plan 3.00 807 856 1084 1689 882

5 5B. Cheadle Cheadle ASP 2.92 127 135 172 261 134

5C. Wheatland rural area 2012 Calgary Metropolitan Plan 1.88 214 222 258 341 127

6 Strathmore (Total) Strathmore CSMI email response 2.55 14524 15274 18682 27255 12731 6A. Strathmore West 717 754 922 2678 1961 6B. Strathmore North 0 0 1550 5884 5884 6C. Strathmore South 13232 13915 15470 17020 3788 6E. Strathmore East 575 605 740 1673 1098 6D. Eagle Shores 2012 Calgary Metropolitan Plan 1.88 300 311 361 478 178

6F. Wheatland rural area 2012 Calgary Metropolitan Plan 1.88 294 305 354 468 174

Total CSMI Regional Population by Year 54820 59378 81448 151742 Population Increase in the CSMI Region over 25 years 76908 Table A.2 Land Use Absorption by Development Area (ha) 25 Yr Projected Existing Projected Growth Land Development Area Growth (%) Land Use 2014 2016 2024 2039 (ha) Study Area: Highway 1 South 1999 1A. Belvedere 13.71 Residential 0 0 0 410 410 Country Residential 65 65 65 65 0 Comm./ Industrial *1 0 24244040 1B. Shephard (Janet) 3.00 Country Residential 130 130 130 130 0 Industrial Industrial 518 550 696 1085 567 1C. West Chestermere 3.76 Residential 648 697 937 1629 982 Country Residential 194 194 194 194 0 Study Area: Highway 1 North 3321 2A. Conrich 9.56 Residential 130 155 323 1269 1140 Country Residential 583 647 700 700 117 Industrial 194 233 484 1904 1710 2B. RVC north of Conrich 3.00 Country Residential 324 343 435 678 354 Study Area: Chestermere 161 3A. East Chestermere 1.71 Residential 194 201 230 297 103 Country Residential 324 324 324 324 0 3B. South Chestermere 3.76 Industrial 0 25345858

Study Area: Langdon 856 4A. Langdon 3.03 Residential 389 412 524 819 431

4B. RVC within study area 3.00 Country Residential 389 412 522 813 425

Study Area: Wheatland Industrial 671 5A. Wheatland Industrial 10.45 Industrial 30 60 180 360 330

5B. Cheadle 2.92 Residential 32 34 43 66 34

5C. Wheatland rural area 1.88 Country Residential 518 538 624 825 307

Study Area: Strathmore & Eagle Shores 613 6A. Strathmore West 2.55 Residential 32 37 60 117 85

6B. Strathmore North 2.55 Residential 32 37 60 117 85

6C. Strathmore South 2.55 Comm. / Industrial 128 128 155 210 82 Residential 367 386 444 602 235 6E. Strathmore East 2.55 Residential 0 15282841

6D. Eagle Shores 1.88 Country Residential 05688

6E. Wheatland rural area 1.88 Country Residential 129 134 155 206 77

Land Absorption in the CSMI Region over 25 Years 7621 *1 East Hills Development is expected to start in 2016. This development will discharge stormwater to the Forest Lawn Creek catchment area located west of the Belvedere area. Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

APPENDIX B

SWOC Analysis ‐ Rural and Urban

Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Challenges Analysis: Stormwater Management Strategies and Options

Urban and Conveyance

Prepared by: MPE Engineering Ltd.

Prepared for: CSMI

i

SWOC Analysis 22/04/2014 STRATEGIES URBAN TREATMENT STRATEGIES - LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT

Strategy UT1. Low Impact Development (LID) and Source Control Practices (SCP’s) are used to reduce the volume and improve the quality of stormwater at its source. Strengths Weaknesses  Incorporation of Low impact Development  Limited local knowledge and understanding of (LID) practices minimizing downstream the ability of LID practices to reduce environmental impacts. phosphorus concentrations.  Improves water quality and provides a more  Current ESRD stormwater reuse policies may natural hydro-period to enhance the limit the ability to reduce the discharge performance and management of downstream volumes entering the canal, thereby not stormwater and treatment facilities and minimizing the water quality impacts on the potential volume discharged to the irrigation canal. canal.  SCP’s will require optimization for managing  Reduces drainage discharge volumes, phosphorus particularly after the typical wet season in May and June which directly reduces the phosphorus loads.  Reduces the size of the downstream wet ponds / wetlands from the flood storage perspective.

Opportunities Challenges  Application of LID practices, which include  Limited local knowledge and understanding of Source Control Practices (SCP’s) and better the effectiveness of LID practices in reducing planning practices, provide a more phosphorus concentrations. environmentally sustainable drainage system  Presenting innovative designs that may require  Bioretention, bioswales, vegetated ditches, compromise with currently accepted design wetlands, wet ponds, stormwater recycling are standards and processes. the most suitable stormwater management practices within the public lands and ROW’s  Practices require local research to develop design specifications that achieve optimal  Source control practices such as absorbent water quality outcomes. landscapes, bioretention / bioswales, rainwater reuse, on-site detention /retention, permeable  The limited ability to infiltrate stormwater using paving (low traffic areas), oil and grit SCP’s due to the presence of clay tills over the separators are the most relevant within private majority of the study area will require other lots. techniques to achieve the desired volume control and water quality improvements.  Recent research in other countries that a good

bioretention design specification can reliably reduce phosphorus loadings by 60 to 80%.  Emerging research indicates that advanced bioretention systems may have the capacity to reduce phosphorus loads by more than 90% including the uptake of soluble forms.

1

SWOC Analysis 22/04/2014

Summary

LID practices are an emerging strategy to provide a more sustainable approach to minimizing downstream environmental impacts. They can provide substantial opportunities to reduce operating and maintenance costs for downstream wet ponds, conveyances and outfalls. Significant regional effort (research and example sites) is expected in the short to medium term in order that these practices become main stream for reducing pollutant loadings from urban stormwater, with the CSMI becoming one of the leaders.

2

SWOC Analysis 22/04/2014 URBAN CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS

Strategy UT2. Urban Constructed Wetlands provides multiple benefits and can be integrated with the existing wetland areas

Strengths Weaknesses  Effective in reducing phosphorus on a  Requires larger area of land to provide sustainable basis if suitably sized and detention storage requirements designed  Difficult to provide treatment wetlands that also  Improves biodiversity and ecosystem services provides a compensatory wetland function over traditional stormwater wet ponds under the new wetlands policy  Integrate with existing wetlands  Hydrological and water quality aspects of urban runoff can impact the performance of  Provides opportunities to improve water quality constructed wetlands. and provide flood and volume controls for the development.

Opportunities Challenges  Application of LID practices provides suitable  Requires upstream pretreatment to minimize pretreatment on constructed wetlands by water quality impacts. improving water quality and reducing runoff volume.  Providing designs which allows the constructed wetland to act as a treatment  Potential to provide compensatory wetlands facility as well as classed as a naturalized that offset the loss of wetlands due to prairie compensatory wetland development

Summary

Constructed wetlands can provide significant ecological and amenity in additional to water quality treatment and flood control capacity. There is potential to integrate constructed wetlands with natural wetlands that are to be retained, however constructed wetlands can take up a larger land area.

3

SWOC Analysis 22/04/2014 WET POND STORMWATER FACILITY

Strategy UT3. Wet ponds are a traditional system that provide the most efficient facility to manage peak flows and can provide storage for stormwater reuse facility

Strengths Weaknesses  Smaller land footprint area compared with  Expectation of local residents that a wet pond constructed wetlands to provide flood should look and be maintained like a lake. detention storage  Potential water quality issues, particularly if the  Can provide amenity if suitably designed and upstream catchment water quality is adequate water quality pretreatment is inadequately managed. achieved.  Require filling to development in areas where  Familiarity with the development and grading is critical construction community  Potential for suspension of finer particles with attached phosphorus due to wind action or

high flows.  Designs often provide poor ecological habitat and water quality can be impacted by animals (e.g. Canadian Geese) that can more easily access the shore line compared to more naturalized systems such as wetlands.

Opportunities Challenges  Suitable to provide a modified design which  Deferred liability of desilting ponds can be a enables it to act as a holding storage for substantial cost. stormwater reuse system.  Poor erosion and sediment control during  Design to enable the main sedimentation construction can result in significant silt buildup ponds to be taken off line to be dewatered, to within the pond resulting in a significant permit efficient silt removal, while the deferred financial cost. remaining portion of the wet pond remains

operational.

 There is potential to improve performance by installing stormwater filter systems such as absorbent media to assist the capture of phosphorus. The effectiveness and cost of such systems have not been tested locally, so there overall benefit is unknown.

Summary

Wet ponds are a familiar stormwater treatment facility that is effective in flood management, however there is long term liability if upstream stormwater pretreatment, such as source control and non-structural BMP’s are not practiced. They exhibit limited ability to treat the soluble forms of phosphorus. Their overall performance from a phosphorus treatment perspective is poorly understood.

4

SWOC Analysis 22/04/2014 OFF SEASON RELEASE

Strategy UT4. Involves storing the runoff within oversized pond storages during the irrigation season and discharged into the canal during the non-irrigation season

Strengths Weaknesses  Currently permitted under the WID stormwater  Significant storage volume (2500 to 4000 guidelines m3/ha) is required to capture the runoff from the irrigation season.  Enable development to proceed without needing to provide significant downstream  Requires a significantly higher area of land infrastructure than a typical wet pond and outfall system.  Provide a good short term solution while  Considered a short term drainage solution downstream infrastructure is being constructed.  Limited period of time to discharge off-season before and after the winter.  Canals would have adequate capacity to cater for offseason releases, however may be  Requires more effort and resources to operate limited during the spring melt period. compared with the typical drainage system.

Opportunities Challenges  Reduce area by providing a deeper storage  Potential for sediment and associated either below or above ground by pumping into phosphorus to be deposited in the canal the storage. system, potentially impacting the quality of the canal irrigation water at a future date.  Provide a source of irrigation water for low flow periods  Potential to reduce size of storage and provide emergency discharge capacity for significant runoff events during the irrigation season.

Summary

An off season release is currently permitted under the WID guidelines. However this option is mostly considered as an interim solution to permit development to proceed while other improvements or downstream infrastructure is being constructed. It may be suitable to permit existing developments that are difficult to otherwise service to be drained using a more permanent off-season release method.

5

SWOC Analysis 22/04/2014 URBAN NON STRUCTURAL MEASURES

Strategy UT5. Non structural measures include limiting or banning or restricting use of phosphorus based fertilizers and limited impacts from other significant sources, vacuum street sweeping.

Strengths Weaknesses  Generally relatively low cost to implement  Limited capacity to reduce overall phosphorus loadings.  A number of programs are currently being used within a number of municipalities  Require the other BMP’s such as wet ponds and LID practices.  Improves performance and reduces maintenance costs for the downstream  Significant increases in maintenance and stormwater BMP’s education program budgets would be needed

to make any substantial improvements. Opportunities Challenges  Align with the non structural measures within  Municipalities will need to change current the Bow River Phosphorus Management Plan practice of limited mechanical street sweeping (1 – 2 times per year) to frequent vacuum  Provide sumps in catch basins to capture silt street sweeping (6 – 8 times per year). and associated bound phosphorus.  Changing habits of residents and land owners

Summary

Will help with reducing the phosphorus loading to the storm facilities and future maintenance costs, however the potential reductions in phosphorus loads from these measures may not be substantial without increased investment above current expenditure.

6

SWOC Analysis 22/04/2014 CONVEYANCE STRATEGIES DIRECT DISCHARGE INTO IRRIGATION CANALS

Strategy C1. Discharge urban stormwater runoff from the study area into the adjacent irrigation canals during the irrigation season Strengths Weaknesses  The main secondary canals ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’  Municipalities could be exposed to increased have relatively good conveyance capacity to liability if agreed water quality targets are not manage stormwater flows from the study area. met or impacts on the canal operations and irrigators is greater than expected.  Canals are located adjacent to existing and future development, therefore requiring less  Will require higher levels of operation and infrastructure works and land acquisition than maintenance which may take valuable time other alternatives. away from irrigators.  Lower conveyance capital costs compared to  Once discharges enter the irrigation canal alternative outfall options such as out of canal there are no more opportunities to provide or other regional options treatment.  Discharging stormwater into the canal during  Lower irrigation flow due to reduced area or the irrigation season result in the stormwater improved irrigation efficiency will increase the being reused by the WID irrigators. phosphorus impacts in the canal.  Diverts flow away from the Bow River,  Reliant to managing quality and volume of reducing the phosphorus loading. runoff from the urban areas to limit impacts  May have limitations for servicing development beyond the assumed area of development for the 25 year time horizon  The canals are used to provide water to a major Rocky View County and other community water treatment plants for potable water supply and numerous properties for domestic use.  Can result in impacts on the receiving streams due to the limited storage and therefore ability for the irrigators to use the stormwater. Opportunities Challenges  Potential to direct Strathmore East, Delacour,  A number of existing urban development areas Chestermere, Belvedere, 84th Street and have limited treatment before discharge and Conrich into the WID canals. therefore may have larger impact on the canal water quality.  Implementing rural BMP’s can potentially offset some of the urban discharge impacts.  Other water quality constituents other than phosphorus within urban stormwater (e.g.  Construction under drains to direct stormwater salinity) may provide adverse impact on crop to their natural flow path to limit phosphorus production and canal operations. impact on the canal water from these areas.  Reuse of stormwater within the WID may not  Potential to use development levies to be compliant with current ESRD water reuse compensate irrigators and the WID to manage policy. the increased impacts due to discharges.  Higher risk to municipalities if water quality

guidelines not being met.

7

SWOC Analysis 22/04/2014 Summary

The canal is located immediately adjacent to development so there is limited infrastructure and land acquisition required to be built to reach the canals. There are some opportunities to undertake rural BMP’s to reduce the phosphorus loading in the canal. This option requires the use of LID practices and rural BMP’s to achieve acceptable phosphorus concentrations in the irrigation canal.

8

SWOC Analysis 22/04/2014 OUT OF CANAL CONVEYANCE OUTFALL

Strategy C2. Create an outfall that is independent to the main irrigation canals to direct water for further storage and treatment before being discharged to Serviceberry Creek or back into the irrigation canals. The outfall would consider opportunities to incorporate underutilized infrastructure and WID ROW.

Strengths Weaknesses  Provide an outfall solution with no urban water  Will be more costly to construct an quality impacts on the main irrigation supply. independent conveyance system compared to the in canal drainage.  Water quality treatment requirements would not be a stringent as the in-canal options.  Need to acquire land outside of the development areas.  Provides opportunities to provide additional treatment capacity on less valued land from an  Could result in downstream impacts in urban development and agricultural Serviceberry Creek and Hartell Coulee. perspective

 Can move forward on a outfall solution with higher confidence  Can be staged by permitting off-season release or a temporary discharge to the canal.  Provides an outfall for future land development beyond the current time horizon.  Land acquisition typically involves widening the existing ROW, limiting landholder impacts.  The main canals have a 10 to 15m width beyond the canal which would allow some conveyance to be provided where acquiring land became problematic.

Opportunities Challenges  Potential to direct rural catchments away from  May require the acquisition of land where the irrigation canal. owners are resistant to cooperate  Direct flows into restored wetlands  The conveyance channels that run parallel to the irrigation canals will have flatter grades  Use existing underutilized WID infrastructure than typical stormwater conveyance channels and land.

 Develop constructed or naturalized wetlands in areas along the outfall alignment

Summary

Even though the out of canal conveyance will be more costly, it will provide opportunity for further treatment and mitigation of potential impacts. It provides more certainty around minimizing impacts on the irrigation canal system. The outfall will also be staged through the use of the existing WID infrastructure.

9

SWOC Analysis 22/04/2014 OPTIONS

DIRECT DISCHARGE INTO ‘A’ CANAL

(Note analysis below should be read together with Conveyance Strategy 1) Option C1. Discharge future urban areas from City of Calgary and the east/west sides of Chestermere into A Canal after achieving a suitable level of water quality treatment

Strengths Weaknesses  Provides a high flood conveyance capacity  Rural areas are evenly distributed and enter canal at numerous points and therefore any  Highest capacity to accept urban stormwater proposed under drains would only direct small due to the higher irrigation flow rates and rural areas away from the canal. relatively small contributing rural catchments.

 Located immediately adjacent to existing and future development, therefore requiring limited infrastructure works and land acquisition.

Opportunities Challenges  Potential to direct Strathmore East, Belvedere,  A number of existing urban development areas Chestermere, RVC Janet Industrial into A have limited treatment before discharge and Canal. therefore may have larger impact on the canal water quality.  Rural areas discharging into A Canal appears to exhibit a higher phosphorus discharge per  Monitoring data indicates that Langdon unit area when examining the water quality Reservoir can be a phosphorus source when data compared with the other canals, which the irrigation water has a lower phosphorus provides an opportunity to provide rural BMP concentration. to offset urban discharge impacts.

 Some potential to construct under drains to direct stormwater to their natural flow path and limit phosphorus impact on the canal water from these areas.  The upgrade and deepening of Langdon Reservoir may help reduce it being a phosphorus source.

Summary

A Canal has the highest capacity to accept stormwater from a quantity and water quality perspective. The canal is located immediately adjacent to development so there is limited infrastructure and land acquisition required to be built to reach A Canal. It can be used to convey stormwater for an interim off-season release. There are some opportunities to undertake rural BMP’s to reduce the phosphorus loading in the canal.

10

SWOC Analysis 22/04/2014 DIVERSION AROUND CHESTERMERE LAKE

Option C2. The diversion could involve extending the existing Rainbow Falls Underdrain into A canal to minimize water impacts on Chestermere Lake.

Strengths Weaknesses  Avoids stormwater water quality impacts on  The West Creek catchment is partly developed Chestermere Lake from development which and urban stormwater runoff after wet pond use WID infrastructure to provide a stormwater treatment would be directed to A Canal under servicing outlet for development to the west of interim and longer term in-canal options unless Chestermere Lake the existing flow arrangement into Chestermere Lake is maintained.  Can be constructed in a relatively short timeframe and at a reasonable cost.  Stormwater that bypasses Chestermere Lake during the irrigation season does not have the  Construction is located within WID property benefit of water quality treatment by the Lake. /ROW.  Can divert stormwater around Chestermere Lake for off-season release from areas like RVC 84th Street development  Provides a component of a longer term solution

Opportunities Challenges  Existing Rainbow Falls underdrain crossing the  Interim off season releases will still require an WH Canal can provide adequate capacity for outlet before Langdon Reservoir or ultimate buildout of areas to the west of construction of a bypass around Langdon Chestermere provided the Conrich area is Reservoir in order to minimize water quality directed towards B/C canal impacts.  Can form part of any potential out of canal option

 Could be designed to direct West Creek back into Chestermere Lake during the irrigation season when off season release is being used  Can be used to intercept off-season releases that are sent down the WH canal

Summary

Diversion around Chestermere Lake can provide an interim offseason release and long term option that does not impact the lake water quality. It can be built in WID ROW and at a moderate cost. It could be designed to maintain the current status quo for interim off-season discharge solutions so that flow from West Creek still enters Chestermere Lake.

11

SWOC Analysis 22/04/2014 DIVERSION AROUND LANGDON RESERVOIR

Option C3. Diversion around southern side of Langdon Reservoir to permit off season release to bypass the reservoir.

Strengths Weaknesses  Protects Langdon Reservoir from water quality  Only a short term solution to avoid impacts on impacts during an off season release Langdon Reservoir during off-season

releases.  Significant cost and design constraints for a temporary solution that does not form part of a long term solution.  Results in impact due to increased phosphorus loading to the Bow River.  Only a temporary solution.  Requires significant private land acquisition.

Opportunities Challenges  Could be incorporated with the upgrading of  Highway 22X, including future upgrades, is a Langdon Reservoir limitation to building a gravity ditch system  Lead time for land acquisition  Major power line along alignment  The water quality impacts of discharging urban stormwater through Langdon Reservoir is not well understood, however it could be seen that it would deposit phosphorus into the lake. There is a high probability that phosphorus will be released back into the irrigation water during the irrigation season.

Summary

The construction of a bypass around Langdon Reservoir will only provide a benefit under an off-season release scenario. The construction of a bypass requires significant land acquisition and has a number of infrastructure constraints such as Highway 22X and the proposed widening. This option has not been consider further in this study.

12

SWOC Analysis 22/04/2014 DISCHARGING STORMWATER THROUGH CHESTERMERE LAKE

Option C4. Involves directing the stormwater from urban development through Chestermere Lake. The lake will provide treatment, reducing the phosphorus concentration in the irrigation flows The lake would need to be maintained by regularly managing the weed growth and periodic desilting.

Strengths Weaknesses  Reduces the impacts on the irrigation water  May place a higher burden on the Town of quality for the in canal option Chestermere as increased phosphorus loads will result in higher management costs which  Provides a large wet pond for the treatment of may not be adequately compensated. stormwater.  Would need to increase sediment  Significant savings on land costs to achieve a management. similar level of water quality treatment upstream of A canal (ie use of prime  May pass existing liability for sediment development land). accumulation onto the CSMI.  Increases weed growth, maintenance and desilting activities  May not be acceptable to residents.  Difficult to treat stormwater effectively once in the Lake and mixed with irrigation water.

Opportunities Challenges  Help pay for improvement to the lake like  Gaining local landholder support dredging  Minimize wildlife impacts on adjacent crops

 Poorer water quality may not be acceptable for existing residents.

Summary

Could be an option that could be applied for an in canal short term solution if water quality from the urban areas does not meet expectations.

13

SWOC Analysis 22/04/2014 DIRECT DISCHARGE TO B/C CANAL

(Note analysis below should be read together with Conveyance Strategy 1) Option C5. Discharge future urban areas around Conrich being directed into the B/C Canal upstream of the McElroy Lake following a suitable level of water quality treatment

Strengths Weaknesses  Divides stormwater discharge between B and  A portion will discharge to B canal which C canal and reduces the impact on a specific exhibits the poorest water quality of the main canal from a water quality perspective. WID canals.  The Lake can provide some additional  A piped section is probably needed to convey treatment capacity. stormwater from the Conrich ASP to the WID B/C Canal, increasing the costs above an  Could follow ROW for a significant portion open channel conveyance. making land acquisition less problematic.  Would need to provide conveyance of areas to  Provides a higher flood flow capacity the east and north of CN Logistics Park in a compared with discharging to either B or C separate alignment to C canal Canal.  The outfall alignment is not located close to  The Conrich ASP drainage alignment is the expected initial growth areas within the considered to be slightly less costly than Conrich ASP. discharging flows to C Canal

 WID B and C canals are used to convey irrigation water to potable water treatment plants at the Graham Creek Reservoir, Rockyford and Standard.  Less opportunities for building constructed wetlands outside of the urban areas before discharge to the canal.  Reducing the water quality of both canals unless a high level of urban treatment can be achieved. Opportunities Challenges  Could form part of an out of canal option if a  May require the acquisition of land where land drainage alignment between Inverlake Road owners are resistant to co-operate and the WID ROW at the B/C Canal split.

 Rural BMP’s and underdrains can provide

significant improvements to B canal.

Summary

Discharging into the B/C Canal has some overall advantages over just discharging to a single canal as there is a lower water quality impact on a particular canal. However, there may be higher impacts and associated costs for managing the larger irrigation system, unless high efficiency BMP can be achieved.

14

SWOC Analysis 22/04/2014 DIRECT DISCHARGE TO B CANAL

(Note analysis below should be read together with Conveyance Strategy 1) Option C6. Discharge future urban areas around Conrich and North and Northwest Strathmore being directed into B Canal after achieving a suitable level of water quality treatment

Strengths Weaknesses  Provides suitable conveyance capacity  Exhibits the poorest water quality of the main WID canals.  Most opportunities to potentially improve downstream water quality through the  Reliant to managing quality and volume of construction of underdrains and rural BMP’s. runoff from the urban areas to limit impacts  Will require land acquisitions to enable stormwater to be conveyed from the Conrich ASP to B Canal.  The most direct route between the Conrich ASP and B Canal involves following an existing flow path that involves obtaining an easement through the middle of a property  WID B canal is used to convey irrigation water to a potable water treatment plant at Standard. Opportunities Challenges  Potential opportunities to build underdrains to  May require the acquisition of land where land restore natural flow paths to Serviceberry owners are resistant to cooperate Creek, thereby improving the water quality  Difficult to achieve an alignment along existing property boundaries.

Summary

B Canal has the poorest water quality and requires improvement even if stormwater is not directed into the canal. Exhibits the most opportunity to bypass rural areas away from the canal by constructing underdrains and implement rural BMP’s.

15

SWOC Analysis 22/04/2014 DIRECT DISCHARGE TO C CANAL

(Note analysis below should be read together with Conveyance Strategy 1) Option C7. Discharge future urban areas around Conrich and Delacour being directed into C Canal after achieving a suitable level of water quality treatment

Strengths Weaknesses  Provides suitable conveyance capacity  Lower irrigation flow are due to reduced area or improved irrigation efficiency will increase  Highest capacity to accept urban stormwater the phosphorus impacts in the canal. due to the higher flow rates and relatively small rural catchments.  Reliant to managing quality and volume of runoff from the urban areas to limit impacts  Lower capital costs compared to alternative outfall options  WID C canal is used to convey irrigation water to potable water treatment plants the Graham  Discharging stormwater into the canal during Creek Reservoir and Rockyford the irrigation season results in the stormwater being reused by the WID irrigators.  Potentially only a minor additional cost to build an out of canal option to Serviceberry Creek  Existing WID ROW can be used to provide some wetland treatment before discharging into the canal.  Additional area of wetlands could be created to make further water quality improvements.  WID has ROW on land between wetland and C canal

Opportunities Challenges  Rural areas appear to exhibit a higher  May require the acquisition of land where land phosphorus discharge per unit area compared owners are resistant to cooperate with the other canals  Need to acquire land for creation of the larger  WID plan to redevelop C canal could provide wetland to the east of C canal. opportunities for using the canal for stormwater conveyance.  Would need to build numerous underdrains to improve water quality further.

Summary

Includes opportunities to provide additional treatment wetlands downstream of the urban development. This alternative has the flexibility of extending an outfall to Serviceberry Creek. However, most of the urban treatment options other than LID results in an unacceptable WQ impacts on the canal.

16

SWOC Analysis 22/04/2014 OUT OF CANAL DISCHARGE TO WEED LAKE

(Note analysis below should be read together with Conveyance Strategy 2) Option C8a. This option uses existing canal ROW and underutilized canals to direct flow towards Weed Lake. The Belverdere, RVC Janet Industrial and Chestermere urban areas will be directed using a parallel drain to A Canal and then using the WID Langdon Ditch to direct the runoff to Weed Lake. A ditch for the Conrich ASP area would drain in a separate conveyance parallel to B Canal and then using the existing South Branch B canal to reach Weed Lake. (Refer Figure 5.5)

Strengths Weaknesses  Maximizes use of existing WID ROW and  Potentially difficult to drain Conrich ASP area municipal owned land. to a parallel drain adjacent B canal without crossing private property.  Reduces flooding impacts on the irrigation canals  Would need an additional underground pipe length on the SE side of Chestermere due to  Use existing underutilized canals WID ROW being developed or acquire land on  Land acquisition is adjacent to existing WID the southern side of the canal. ROW, limiting farming operational impacts  Need to acquire land to build the ultimate  Existing irrigation canal has access tracks outfall option which can be used for maintenance of the stormwater outfall.

Opportunities Challenges  Potential to improve Weed Lakes water quality  Gaining local landholder support  Provide a disposal method for discharges from  Need to address a number of land constraints the Langdon wastewater treatment plant along the alignment.  Ensure impacts on the receiving stream in Hartell Coulee is minimized.

Summary

Conveyance to Weed Lake enable the existing WID ROW and underutilized infrastructure to be used to convey land development runoff.

17

SWOC Analysis 22/04/2014 MODIFY WEED LAKE TO OPTIMIZE FUNCTION AND CAPACITY

(Note analysis below should be read together with Conveyance Strategy 2) Option C8b. This option uses existing canal ROW and underutilized canals to direct flow towards Weed Lake. These flows can provide a temporary storage and treatment before delivery to a number of potential routes, constructed wetlands, irrigation reuse or discharge into Serviceberry Creek.

Strengths Weaknesses  Modify Weed Lake to improve treatment  Reuse of water from Weed Lake will result in capacity and storage capacity waste water being combined with stormwater would require management of downstream  Direct stormwater through a number of and offtakes using potable water supplies. conveyance canals/ditches to either natural or constructed wetlands. This would provide further treatment or environmental benefits for either irrigation reuse or discharge to Serviceberry Creek.  Stormwater can provide a buffer for the wastewater stream  Weed Lake is owned by a CSMI partner and Ducks Unlimited

Opportunities Challenges  Potential to improve Weed Lake water quality  Gaining local landholder support  Provide a disposal method for discharges from  Manage stakeholders interests such as Ducks the Langdon wastewater treatment plant Unlimited  Expand Weed Lake on the south side to  Adequately balance the active flood storage provide additional treatment wetlands for against the retention of water for volume future development in Langdon control purposes  Alternate outfalls to Serviceberry Creek could  Ensure stormwater is a benefit rather than a be developed to provide flexibility, including detriment to the function of Weed Lake. supplying water for wetlands that are proposed

along the alignment.

 Create a Berm to divide the north from the south to increase flood storage and operational capacity within the larger north

portion of the lake. The current lake operation is constrained by the Glenmore trail crossing.  Provides temporary storage until flows can be released to the many potential wetlands sites.

Summary

Weed Lake provides a significant storage that permits flexibility in managing stormwater in a proactive manner.

18

SWOC Analysis 22/04/2014 OUT OF CANAL DISCHARGE TO SERVICEBERRY

(Note analysis below should be read together with Conveyance Strategy 2) Option C9. This option extends Option 8a to enable an outfall to Serviceberry Creek adjacent to Hwy 564.

Strengths Weaknesses  Additional cost to construct an out of canal  Would need an additional underground pipe to outfall not significant compared to the cut through the embankment along Hwy 564. additional benefits of preventing WQ impacts on C canal  Need to acquire land to build the ultimate outfall option with the remaining length being a  Reduces flooding impacts on the irrigation ditch. canals  Lower opportunities to construct wetlands  Use existing WID ROW before reaching Serviceberry Creek.  Can provide an outfall for Delacour  Land acquisition is adjacent to existing Hwy ROW, limiting farming operational impacts

Opportunities Challenges  Potential to reuse water into C canal from the  Gaining local landholder support Delacour wetland

Summary

Provides an alternate outfall if the outfall to Weed Lake has become unfavorable..

19

SWOC Analysis 22/04/2014 OUT OF CANAL DISCHARGE TO SERVICEBERRY FOR STRATHMORE NORTH & NORTH WEST

(Note analysis below should be read together with Conveyance Strategy 2) Option C10. This option involves building an underdrain under North Branch A, and B Canal in two locations to direct these development areas to Serviceberry Creek.

Strengths Weaknesses  North area can use existing WID ROW and  Would need an additional underground pipe to ditch to provide an outfall from North Branch A cut through the embankment along Hwy 564. to Serviceberry  Need to acquire land to build the ultimate  Avoids impacts on the irrigation canals outfall option with the remaining length being a ditch.  North West Strathmore can also use the existing WID ROW from B Canal to Serviceberry

 An ditch / drainage course exists (with adequate capacity) from the future development areas to the proposed B canal underdrain  Land acquisition is adjacent to existing Hwy ROW, limiting farming operational impacts

Opportunities Challenges  Potential to build wetlands along the  Gaining local landholder support for a change alignments. of use for the existing WID ROW drains  Achieving land acquisition for an outfall alignment between the North West Strathmore and B canal.  Potential for erosion if runoff volumes exceed existing predevelopment conditions may require erosion protection along a majority of the alignment.  The existing conveyance for the proposed outfall for NW Strathmore appears to be privately owned.

Summary

Discharging stormwater from the area will result in improved water quality in B canal by the construction of several underdrains. The outfall can follow existing WID ROW which reduces land acquisition and outfall costs.

20

SWOC Analysis 22/04/2014 OUT OF CANAL DISCHARGE TO EAGLE LAKE

(Note analysis below should be read together with Conveyance Strategy 2) Option C11. This option involves building an underdrain under A Canal to service East Strathmore and either providing a new outfall or tie into the existing South Strathmore outfall and build constructed wetlands before flows reach Eagle Lake.

Strengths Weaknesses  Avoid water quality impacts on A canal  May need to build total outfall if a separate outfall to the existing is not possible.  Can stage development by tying into the existing outfall  Need to acquire land to build the ultimate outfall option with the remaining length being a  Construction of a wetland system can treat ditch. runoff from the rural areas in additional to providing additional treatment for the rural  Increase volumes to Eagle Lake and increase runoff. erosion issues downstream.  Existing outfall has 60 cfs capacity and may have adequate capacity to accept stormwater from a significant area of future land development.

Opportunities Challenges  Improve water quality entering Eagle Lake.  Achieving land acquisition for an outfall alignment if staging makes it difficult to  Potential to build additional wetlands or high discharge into the existing outfall efficiency bioretention treatment systems (when they are developed) to treat the water in Eagle Lake.

 Potential to construct wetlands and other stormwater BMP’s on municipal lands.

Summary

The continued development around Eagle Lake would require adequate volume and water quality control together with improvements to rural discharges to limit further impacts on the Lake.

21

SWOC Analysis- 16/11/2013

Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Challenges Analysis: Stormwater Management Strategies and Options

RURAL STRATEGIES

Prepared by: Palliser Environmental Ltd.

Prepared for: CSMI

i

SWOC Analysis- 16/11/2013 RURAL STRATEGIES - STRUCTURAL HOLDING PONDS AND RESERVOIRS

Strategy 1. Holding ponds and reservoirs to store water, manage run-off, reduce nutrient transport and minimize flood risks downstream.

Strengths Weaknesses  Runoff control to reduce nutrient export  Construction and operating costs may be prohibitive  Potential to regulate peak flow and directly benefit landowners in watershed  Additional management required to irrigate or release captured water  Storage capacity may provide small-scale irrigation opportunities  Public benefit – although located on private property – potential to mitigate downstream flooding and sediment loading  Nutrient reductions at outlet of dams may be reflected in water quality further downstream

Opportunities Challenges  Construction and operating costs could be  Current plans and policies may impede ability offset by the public to re-use water onsite for small-scale irrigation projects  Potential for accessing funding through the Growing Forward program (2013-2018)

Summary

The creation of small dams and reservoirs at the farm scale would allow snowmelt that may be high in P to be captured and retained, particularly at livestock sites, outside of the irrigation season. This would reduce the potential for future internal P loading at downstream locations. Rainfall runoff would be captured, treated and released to the system according to water quality and flow volumes. This strategy would be implemented in combination with other structural strategies (Strategy 2 and Strategy 3) that restore connectivity of natural drainage paths and maintain, enhance, restore and create wetlands.

Collectively, a network of 26 small dams reduced peak flow due to snowmelt by about 9-19% and rainfall runoff by 13-25%. These results are for runoff frequencies ranging from a 1 in 2-year event to a 1 in 100-year event (Tiessen et al. 2011). The average annual percentage reductions in flow, sediment and various forms of N and P for two reservoirs, Steppler and Madill dams, were monitored. Despite differences in construction, both reservoirs significantly reduced the export of sediment TN and TP. This reduction occurred during snowmelt- and rainfall-generated runoff events. During rainfall, the reservoirs were occasionally sources of particulate P (average annual increase of 3% for Steppler and 15% for Madill). However, since dissolved nutrients were the year-round dominant form of N and P in the watershed (> 70% each), the two reservoirs were successful in reducing overall TN and TP loads (Tiessen et al. 2011). 6-15% reduction in P (occasional increase in P during rainfall events) (Tiessen et al. 2011)

1

SWOC Analysis- 16/11/2013 RESTORATION OF NATURAL DRAINAGE PATHS/WATERWAYS

Strategy 2. Restoration of natural drainage paths/waterways within the CSMI planning area to restore connectivity between wetlands and tributaries that may have been isolated by irrigation infrastructure or other activity using. Under-drains may be constructed in areas where natural drainage flows directly into WID canals and where natural drainage courses and downstream wetlands/reservoirs exist to accommodate additional flow. Grass swales and ephemeral waterways may also be restored at the farm-scale.

Strengths Weaknesses  Potential to regulate peak flow and directly  Construction costs may be high at some benefit landowners in watershed locations  Reduce ponding issues at edge of field in  Adjacent landholders may not be interested in cropped areas additional water crossing farmland if management has evolved without the natural  Greater surface area for nutrient retention drainage course  Aid in the restoration of wetlands and enhance  Must be implemented in combination with existing storage reservoirs other strategies that address the sources of P  Improved habitat conditions to support greater in the planning area to be effective. biodiversity  Underdrains may flow into existing spills

Opportunities Challenges  Better drainage may improve local conditions  Understanding the implications of altered flows in cropped areas to landholders in the planning area  Enhanced water features (i.e., reservoirs) in some areas due to more reliable flow of water

from larger contributing area

Summary

Restoration of natural drainage paths/waterways within the CSMI planning area would restore connectivity between natural wetlands and tributaries that may have been isolated by irrigation infrastructure or other activity. Underdrains, culverts, pipelines and berms are possible tools that could be used. This would 1) increase the area available for nutrient uptake and sedimentation, 2) reduce the number of direct drains into irrigation canals, 3) reduced soil erosion, 4) potentially improve soil conditions in cropped fields by reducing localized ponding and improving overall drainage, 5) aid in flood control, and 6) aid in the restoration or enhancement of wetlands (see Strategy 3). Although natural erosion, resuspension of P from bottom sediments and release of P from microbial and plant decomposition occurs in ephemeral and permanent streams and rivers, a healthy, functioning watershed promotes balance and will trap and retain phosphorus when water is able to flood riparian zones and wetlands. Restoration of natural drainage paths/waterways cannot be implemented in isolation from other strategies that must address P reduction and retention at the source.

2

SWOC Analysis- 16/11/2013 WETLANDS

Strategy 3. Use of wetlands, including natural wetlands, restored wetlands and constructed wetlands to store water. Involves water management to reduce flooding in the CSMI planning area and reduce nutrient and sediment transport from the area. Strengths Weaknesses  Captures runoff and associated phosphorus in  Requires access to suitable land a managed wetland  Must be managed to enhance nutrient  Constructed wetland can be designed for retention and water quality improvement enhanced phosphorus retention performance functions  Constructed wetlands can augment/enhance  Need to acquire private land or partner with natural wetland’s ability to perform functions private landholders  Increases biodiversity and ecological habitat  May be costly  Restoration of natural wetlands reduces  Must be implemented in combination with potential for flooding impacts on irrigation other strategies that address the sources of P canals and downstream in the planning area to be effective. Opportunities Challenges  Attract wetland compensation funds as  Gaining local landholder support outlined in the Alberta Wetland Policy  Minimize wildlife impacts on adjacent crops  Funding available through Growing Forward

program (2013 to 2018) to assist with wetland restoration on private land  Partner with private landholders  Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS) pilot program underway in the County of Vermilion River (2010), Parkland County (2012) and County of Red Deer (2013) supports wetland conservation and restoration. Summary

The benefits of maintaining and restoring wetland functions within watersheds have been well documented. Wetlands store water during floods and slowly release water when conditions are drier, vegetation slows the flow of water to facilitate nutrient uptake and sedimentation and, a variety of habitat structures for mammals, shorebirds, waterfowl and aquatic life promote high levels of biodiversity. The altered timing of flows and flow volumes through wetlands can either enhance nutrient retention or promote nutrient transport. Unmanaged, wetlands may become a source of P during periods of high flow. A variety of ephemeral, marsh and open water wetlands in the watershed will promote nutrient retention in the planning area.

The performance of P retention in natural wetlands depends on the source of stormwater, pretreatment, loading rates, flow volume, size of wetland, retention time, season, soil chemistry and vegetation. Researchers have reported nutrient load reductions of 5-20% (Neely and Baker 1989; Mitsch and Gosselink 1993) and 35-42% load reductions in a natural wetland receiving irrigated pasture runoff (Knox et al. 2008 in US EPA 2010). Yang et al. (2008) found that an acre of wetland in the Prairie Pothole region filtered about 0.043 kg/N/year, 0.009 3 kg/P/year, stored 4 tons of CO2 equivalents/year, and controlled 6.5 tons of soil erosion and 1,200 m of flood water. At the Hilton Wetland, east of Strathmore, AB, load reductions were based on flow; although TP concentrations were high, the flow volume was low and thus the wetland reduced P export (Ontkean et al. 2003). DP was the dominant form of P in the wetland. At Langdon Reservoir, a historically shallow, open-water wetland, P loads tend to increase downstream. Generally, constructed wetlands perform better than natural wetlands with successful P trapping observed (nearly 100%) for these wetlands designed to receive agricultural runoff (Reddy et al. 1999). Two agricultural runoff wetlands achieved a combined P mass retention of 53% (Kovacic et al. 2005 in US EPA 2010). Similar to Strategy 2, maintaining and restoring wetlands cannot be implemented in isolation from other Strategies that must address P reduction and retention at the source. 3

SWOC Analysis- 16/11/2013 FACILITY RELOCATION AND DESIGN

Strategy 4. Relocate existing livestock facilities that have a high nutrient loss potential (e.g., corrals) away from natural drainage courses and surface water. Where relocation is not feasible consider managing runon (e.g., by way of diversion berms, eaves troughs on buildings or other) to reduce the volume of water in contact with nutrients.

Strengths Weaknesses  Reduces the potential for nutrient loss to  May be costly surface water from livestock facilities that are improperly sited  May not be located in an area that is as convenient for producers to manage livestock  May address rural point sources in some catchments  May increase time and labour inputs

Opportunities Challenges  Funding may be available through the Growing  Gaining local landholder support Forward program (2013 to 2018)

Historically, livestock operations were sited on sloping lands, adjacent to coulees and ephemeral waterways to help manage drainage on site and reduce health risks to livestock. Today, this practice is discouraged to prevent nutrient and contaminant transport to surface water. Where possible, older corrals and shelters located next to steep slopes should be reconstructed in locations where the potential for contaminant loss is low. If relocation is not feasible, run-on control measures should be implemented. Implementation of this Strategy may significantly reduce nutrient loss in some catchments.

4

SWOC Analysis- 16/11/2013 RURAL STRATEGIES - NON-STRUCTURAL NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

Strategy 5. Nutrient management includes planning (soil testing and interpretation) and the use of variable application rates for organic and inorganic fertilizers based on location and crop requirements.

Strengths Weaknesses  Application of organic and inorganic fertilizers  Requires additional record keeping to meet crop demand.  May require special equipment for variable  Reduces phosphorus in runoff by matching rate application fertilizer application with crop demand  May require special knowledge  Improved on-farm efficiency with potential for economic return (or at least no loss of income)  Adoption of practices already underway in the two rural municipalities.

Opportunities Challenges  Funding available through Growing Forward  Adoption of new techniques and technology by program (2013 to 2018) to assist with: variable producers rate technology, nutrient management planning  Growing Forward cost-sharing formula may not be financially feasible

Summary

Nutrient management involves the adoption of the “4R” principles: Right fertilizer source, Right application rate, Right time and Right place. To achieve these principles regular soil-testing and evaluation, record keeping and variable application rates for organic and inorganic fertilizers based on location and crop requirements is necessary. Manure is often applied to cropland as a method of disposal on mixed farms. Note that manure management is a regulated activity under the Agricultural Operations practices Act (AOPA). There are multiple BMPs that may be used to reduce P losses from manured lands:  Select crops with high P requirements to increase P removal (phosphorus mining)  Rotate fields receiving manure to increase crop removal of P  Do not apply to frozen/snow-covered soils or when rainfall is imminent to prevent flash losses of soluble P  Maintain ground cover to reduce erosion and runoff  Avoid application on fields with high slope  Adhere to manure storage and application setbacks from waterways (e.g., 30-90 m depending on slope)  Maintain riparian and grass buffers to reduce sediment transport. Do not apply P to buffer zones.

In an analysis of the impact of nutrient management planning at the farm-scale, one study demonstrated that there was no reduction in crop yield measured when P inputs were reduced by 59% (5 kg ha-1 yr-1, 4.5 lb ac-1 yr- 1) (Lie et al. 2011). The type of tillage practices used at the farm-scale can influence P transport from fields. Conservation tillage increased TP loss by 12% compared to conventional tillage due mainly to a higher portion of dissolved P (although particulate phosphorus loss was reduced) (Khakbazan et al. 2013). In no-till systems, effective reduction in P loss to surface water can result. P fertilizer that is deep-banded or placed near the seed, can reduce P runoff loss by 50% compared to broadcast fertilizer applications (Kansas State University 2002). Clausen et al. 1996 found that manure management BMPs combined with rotational grazing reduced TP loads by 29% relative to the control watershed (refer to Strategy 12 – Pasture and Range Management).

5

SWOC Analysis- 16/11/2013 NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

Strategy 6. Develop a recommended target for maximum soil-test phosphorus concentrations within the CSMI planning area and encourage P-based nutrient/manure management.

Strengths Weaknesses  Provides a management target for agricultural  Identifying a suitable phosphorus target producers to help interpret soil-test results, nutrient planning and potential impacts at the  Additional cost for manure analysis farm-level.  Requires additional record keeping  Application of organic and inorganic fertilizers  May require special equipment for variable to meet crop demand based on phosphorus rate application opposed to nitrogen.  May require special knowledge  Reduces phosphorus in runoff by matching fertilizer application with crop demand  Improved on-farm efficiency with potential for economic return by reducing input costs (or at least no loss of income)

Opportunities Challenges  Funding available through Growing Forward  Perception of more regulation program (2013 to 2018) to assist with: variable rate technology, nutrient management  Willingness to adopt planning

Summary

Soil-test phosphorus (plant-available phosphorus) levels greater than 60 ppm (about 120 kg/ha) in the top 15 cm of soil provide no additional benefit to most crops grown in Alberta. The use of a target for phosphorus in soils would help to reduce P inputs and subsequent losses to surface water. Studies have shown that soil-test phosphorus is a predictor of phosphorus concentrations in runoff (Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. and AARD 2008) This should be a voluntary target that can be used in conjunction with Strategy 5.

6

SWOC Analysis- 16/11/2013 NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

Strategy 7. Innovative manure management strategies that include composting and export of finished product to remove nutrients from the CSMI planning area.

Strengths Weaknesses  Decrease in soluble P in streams draining  Composting alone has no net effect on TP areas where significant quantities of manure content of end product had been composted and removed from the watershed  Special storage and handling requirements, including land and equipment  May provide diversification of products at the farm-level.  May not be widely applicable  Manure viewed as a resource. Opportunities Challenges  Market opportunity for compost materials  Willingness to adopt

Summary

Composting of manure reduces the volume and weight of the end product but does not affect the phosphorus content. Bekele et al. (2006) in US EPA (2010) found a 19-23% decrease in soluble P in streams draining areas where significant quantities of manure had been composted and removed from the watershed. Implementation of this Strategy would require significant volumes of manure and innovative thinking that would allow for the sharing of resources (e.g., sharing of a composting windrow to manage the process or a shared or central handling facility).

7 SWOC Analysis- 16/11/2013 SOIL CONSERVATION

Strategy 8. Soil conservation efforts should be made to reduce the presence of bare soil and soil erosion.

Strengths Weaknesses  Addresses transport of particulate P in the  May require specialized equipment planning area  May be costly

Opportunities Challenges  Funding may be available through the Growing  Gaining local landholder support Forward program (2013 to 2018)

Summary

Soil conservation measures includes maintaining permanent cover crops where soils are marginal and the use of conservation tillage practices to minimize the risk of soil loss.

1

SWOC Analysis- 16/11/2013 VEGETATED (RIPARIAN) BUFFER/FILTER STRIPS AND GRASS WATERWAYS

Strategy 9. Establish and/or widen vegetated buffer strips adjacent to a water course or waterbody on cropland that are maintained in permanent vegetation. Vegetated filter strips may be designed downstream of livestock areas (i.e., corrals, other holding ponds).

Strengths Weaknesses  Capture runoff and associated phosphorus  Requires access to suitable land  May be associated with restoration of natural  Need to acquire or gain use of private land drainage/waterways  May fragment larger tracts of farm land making  Increases habitat and associated biodiversity seeding and harvest more difficult  Reduce flooding impacts on the irrigation  Requires some level of maintenance to ensure canals effectiveness and long-term durability  Vegetation can be harvested and used as a  Forage harvesting may require additional source of forage on-farm equipment/contract  Comparatively low-cost Opportunities Challenges  Restore and/or enhance historical drainage  Gaining local landholder support system  Funding may be available through the Growing Forward program (2013 to 2018)  Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS) pilot program underway in the County of Vermilion River (2010), Parkland County (2012) and County of Red Deer (2013) supports wetland conservation and restoration.

Summary

Vegetated riparian and grass buffers zones and filter strips protect water quality by slowing the flow of water, thus facilitating the trapping of sediment, organic matter, nutrients and pesticides. Riparian and grass buffer performance depends on soil texture, slope, width, saturation (flooded conditions reduces soluble P removal), continuity within the watershed and management. Buffers are generally better at removing sediment-bound P than DP. Some research suggests that buffers have little effect, while others indicate a substantial impact on the transport of phosphorus in watersheds, ranging from 50% reduction of TP (20% reduction of soluble P) (in Polyakov et al. 2005) to 60-90% reduction in P (Line et al. 2000; Young et al. 1980). Udawatta et al. 2002 found that grass and agroforestry grass buffer strips in northern Missouri watershed reduced TP by 8% and 17%, respectively after 3 years. Similar to the other non-structural BMPs recommended, riparian and grass buffers should be implemented along with other Strategies to obtain results that are measureable at the catchment- scale.

2 SWOC Analysis- 16/11/2013 IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY

Strategy 10. Implement irrigation efficiency strategies to minimize water loss from irrigated land.

Strengths Weaknesses  Reduces runoff potential of irrigated land and  May require special equipment for variable associated transport of nutrients and sediment. rate application Improves on-farm energy and water use  Additional costs associated with upgrade. efficiency  May require special knowledge

Opportunities Challenges  Funding available for design and installation of  Willingness to adopt irrigation equipment that improves water use

efficiency through the Growing Forward program (2013 to 2018)

Summary

Runoff and associated P losses occur on irrigated lands when water is applied to saturated soils. Water conservation techniques may be applied to minimize runoff potential. Low pressure centre pivot irrigations systems that are equipped with variable-rate irrigation system components (e.g., controllers and software) can help to reduce energy and water use, as well as nutrient loss from irrigated fields.

3

SWOC Analysis- 16/11/2013 OFFSTREAM WATERING

Strategy 11. Provide alternative drinking water supplies to livestock, in combination with other pasture/range management techniques (see Strategy 10).

Strengths Weaknesses  Reduces livestock access to surface water ,  Additional maintenance and management thereby reducing bank erosion and associated required sediment and nutrient transport (Miller et al. 2011)  Direct benefits for producers that include better weight gain in livestock (Willms et al. 2002) and less risk of livestock loss  Other associated benefits such as improvements to riparian health and function, reduction in bare soil

Opportunities Challenges  Water systems can be tailored to meet needs  Willingness to adopt of operation  Funding available to purchase and develop offstream watering systems through the Growing Forward program (2013-2018)

Summary

Provision of alternative water supplies to livestock on farms and acreages can reduce bank erosion and associated sediment loss and nutrient transport. Generally, riparian health improves as livestock spend less time near the waterbody. Alternative water supplies may be implemented with or without fencing to exclude livestock from the waterbody, or may be implemented with the development of riparian pastures (defined by dividing the landscape into pasture units based on similar plant communities and topography; i.e., bottomlands are fenced separately from the uplands [see also Strategy 12 Pasture/range management]).

The benefits of alternative drinking water supplies have been well-documented and include: better drinking water quality, more desirable water temperature and reduced incidence of animal disease (in Afari-Sefa et al. 2008). There have also been significant results showing livestock weight gain associated with the provision of offstream watering systems: Cows 0.2-0.4 lb/day, Calves 0.2-0.4 lb/day, Heifers 0.6-1.8 lb/day, Heifer Calves 0.1 lb/day, and Steers 1lb/day (in Afari-Sefa et al. 2008). Alternative drinking water supplies also alters animal behaviour thereby resulting in nutrient reductions. In a study conducted near Lethbridge, AB, researchers found a 20% reduction in median number of cattle on the river bank and a 72% reduction in the number of cattle in the river (Miller et al. 2011). Moderate improvements to riparian health score from 60% (2005) to 65% (2007) along with increased. canopy cover (26-53%) and total basal area, biomass and mulch (37-106%) were also observed. Bare soil decreased by 38% (Miller et al. 2011). With offstream watering, fencing and a 10-16 m buffer, P loads to surface water were reduced by 76% (Line et al. 2000).

4 SWOC Analysis- 16/11/2013 PASTURE AND RANGE MANAGEMENT

Strategy 12. Implement pasture and range management techniques that benefit vegetation (forage supply) and water quality, including management of stocking rate, distribution, timing, rest and rotation, riparian pastures and portable shelters.

Strengths Weaknesses  Maintenance of healthy forage in tame  Additional inputs may be required (e.g., pastures and native rangeland reduces runoff permanent or temporary fencing, alternative volume and improves runoff quality water supplies, portable shelters).  Reduces erosion and subsequent sediment  Requires additional planning, maintenance transport by minimizing bareground. and management  Comparatively low-cost Opportunities Challenges  Funding available for certain management  Willingness to adopt options through the Growing Forward program

2013-2018

Summary

Range and pasture management strategies that promote grass production include balancing livestock demands with available forage supplies (stocking rate), avoiding grazing rangeland/pasture during vulnerable periods: early spring (timing), distributing livestock to maintain healthy range using tools like fencing, salt placement, water and portable shelters (distribution), and providing adequate rest periods after grazing (rest and rotation). Range and pasture management is usually incorporated with alternative drinking water supplies (Strategy 11) to assist with livestock distribution away from waterbodies.

Clausen et al. 1996 found that manure management BMPs combined with rotational grazing reduced TP loads by 29% relative to the control watershed.

5

SWOC Analysis- 16/11/2013 IN SYSTEM CONTROL OF ALGAE AND AQUATIC WEEDS

Strategy 13. Control of submerged aquatic plants and algae and emergent vegetation using herbicides, biological control treatments and mechanical cutting and harvesting.

Strengths Weaknesses  Status quo maintained  Phosphorus loading continues and increases with increased growth and development  Can be combined with other strategies to manage aquatic plants and algae  Chemical treatment not always effective. Even with current treatment, poor water quality still persists in some areas.  Costly  Labour intensive  Limits recreation opportunities that may result from CSMI feature enhancements in the planning area  Downstream water quality does not meet desire uses  Limited understanding of long-term effects of chemical addition

Opportunities Challenges  Cost-share among users  Staged implementation of options that sequentially  New and more effective control agents  Reduce the use of chemical and biological agents due to reduced phosphorus loads

SUMMARY Excess phosphorus promotes the growth of aquatic plants and algae within streams, rivers and canals. Aquatic plants reduce the flow capacity of irrigation infrastructure (e.g., canals and ditches) in terms of timing of water delivery and, increases seepage due to higher water levels in older, degrading infrastructure. Irrigation districts actively manage submerged aquatic plants and algae annually with the herbicide Magnicide H and other specialized biological control agents that control growth. Automated screen cleaners are used to remove plants and trash that are caught on screens to improve water flow through the system. Furthermore, emergent vegetation (i.e., cattails) are mechanically cut and harvested and ditches cleaned to maintain flows through the system.

In addition to district-level management, producers also incur costs from increased plant and algae growth. Some producers have purchased automated cleaners to address issues on their own. Poor water quality within dugouts that provide water for livestock is also a concern. Taste and odour issues resulting from the growth of algae in dugouts may reduce weight gain in cattle and salt accumulation in soils may reduce crop production, resulting in a loss of income for producers. Sediment transport increases wear-and-tear on irrigation equipment.

The continued use of herbicides, biological control agents and mechanical cutting and harvesting techniques to control aquatic plants and algae is considered an option but not a long-term solution if phosphorus loading continues or increases in the future.

6 SWOC Analysis- 16/11/2013 EDUCATION AND AWARENESS

Strategy 14. Phosphorus education and awareness campaign should be developed to reduce phosphorus losses by voluntary action.

Strengths Weaknesses  Comparatively low-cost  Relies on voluntary action and may not produce results at the scale needed to see  Non-intrusive results  Encourages local stewardship initiatives  Costs to implement projects may be a  A variety of tools (i.e., social media, deterrent newsletters, meetings, newspaper, local events, websites) where phosphorus message can be delivered  Provides the rationale for implementing the other Strategies  Makes data and research publically available Opportunities Challenges  Work through communication strategies  Disseminating information in a way that will already in place within CSMI partner engage a variety of audiences organizations  Willingness to adopt voluntarily  Coordinate with the Bow River Phosphorus Management Plan activities  Partner with the Bow River Basin Council  Incentives available through the Growing Forward Program 2013 to implement BMPs  Wheatland County Water Quality Protection Initiative

Summary

Phosphorus education campaigns can reduce phosphorus loadings from point and non-point sources through voluntary action.

7 SWOC Analysis- 16/11/2013 LIST OF ACRONYMNS SCP’s – Source Control Practices LID – Low Impact Development ROW – Right-of-Way ESRD – Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development

10 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

APPENDIX C

Rural Strategies

BENEFICIAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND

OPPORTUNITIES FOR REDUCING PHOSPHORUS LOADS FROM RURAL AREAS

WITHIN THE CSMI PLANNING AREA

Prepared for: The Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Prepared by: Palliser Environmental Services Ltd.

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Table of Contents 1.0 Background ...... 1 2.0 Phosphorus Dynamics ...... 1 3.0 Land Use in the Rural Area ...... 2 4.0 Beneficial Management Practices and Opportunities to Reduce Phosphorus Loads ...... 5 4.1 Rural BMPs Selection for the CSMI Planning Area ...... 5 4.2 Structural BMPs ...... 5 4.2.1 Runoff/run‐on control via the construction of small holding ponds, reservoirs, berms and dykes...... 5 4.2.2 Restoration of Natural Drainage Paths and Waterways ...... 6 4.2.3 Maintain, Enhance, Restore and Create Wetlands ...... 7 4.2.4 Livestock Facility Relocation and Design ...... 10 4.3 Non‐Structural BMPs ...... 10 4.4 Other Rural Strategies to Consider ...... 14 4.4.1 In‐System Aquatic Plant and Algae Control and Management ...... 14 5.0 Performance Expectations of Multiple BMPs (Structural and Non‐Structural) Implemented at the Watershed Scale ...... 14 6.0 Discussion on the Implementation of Rural BMPs ...... 15 6.1 Willingness to Adopt ...... 15 7.0 Economics ...... 17 8.0 Rural Strategies Implementation Plan...... 20 8.1 Performance Indicators ...... 20 8.2 Fund Development ...... 21 8.2.1 Innovative Phosphorus Trading Program ...... 21 8.2.2 Alberta Growing Forward 2 Stewardship Plan Program ...... 21 8.2.3 Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS) – incentive based ...... 22 8.2.4 Bow River Phosphorus Management Plan ...... 22 8.2.5 Ecological Goods and Service Payment Program – Reverse Auction ...... 22 8.2.6 Wheatland County Water Quality Protection Initiative ...... 22 8.3 Community Engagement ...... 22 8.4 Rural BMP Implementation ...... 23

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page i

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

8.5 Riparian Health Strategy ...... 24 8.6 Wetland Strategy ...... 25 8.6 Water Quality Monitoring Requirements ...... 25 8.6.1 Objective 1. Baseline Water Quality Monitoring (Grab samples) ...... 26 8.6.2 Objective 2. Characterize Rural Runoff Quality (Event Sampling) ...... 27 8.6.3 Objective 4. Evaluate BMP Performance ...... 27 8.6.4 Objective 5. Continuous monitoring at strategic locations within the CSMI planning area……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….27 8.7 Additional Considerations (not included in the budget) ...... 27 8.7.1 Program Management ...... 27 9.0 Timeline and Budget ...... 28 10.0 Literature ...... 35 Appendix A‐1: Summary of Legislation and Policies Relevant to the SWM Alternatives and Rural Strategies ...... 40

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page ii

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

1.0 Background

Beneficial management practices (BMPs) are used by the agricultural industry to maintain quality soil and water resources and productive farm and ranch operations. Stormwater nutrient management, particularly phosphorus, was identified as a concern within the Bow River basin and strategies are underway to reduce phosphorus transport and loading (e.g., Bow River Phosphorus Management Plan). The Co‐Operative Stormwater Management Initiative (CSMI) is a partnership among The City of Calgary, Town of Strathmore, Rocky View County, Wheatland County, Chestermere Utilities Incorporated (CUI) and the Western Irrigation District (WID). Their goal is to identify integrated solutions to stormwater management that would benefit municipal and irrigation district landowners and water users.

The Western Irrigation District provides quality water to its members. The WID has been monitoring water quality in canals, lakes and reservoirs since 1996. In 2006, water quality objectives were determined for the A, B and C canal based on the 1996 – 2005 dataset and targets were identified for Chestermere Lake (Madawaska Consulting 2005, 2006a). Since then, water quality monitoring has been undertaken to determine if water quality objectives are being met. In addition, the water quality objectives are used to make decisions regarding the discharge of stormwater to irrigation canals.e Th WID water quality monitoring program was developed in partnership with other resource managers to facilitate sharing of information and data exchange (Palliser Environmental Services 2013).

As part of the CSMI, a review was undertaken of appropriate BMPs that might be used within the planning area to reduce phosphorus loads to surface water from rural areas. The review includes a description of practical BMPs that could be used to reduce phosphorus in runoff, expected performance of the BMP at the farm‐scale and catchment scale and the costs associated with implementation. A SWOC analysis was completed for the various BMP options to understand Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Challenges associated with each strategy. The results of the SWOC are presented in Appendix B of the main report prepared by MPE Engineering Ltd..

2.0 Phosphorus Dynamics

Phosphorus is an essential nutrient required for plant growth. Excessive phosphorus in freshwater can cause eutrophic conditions and increase the growth of algae and aquatic plants. In some circumstances, increased plant abundance can change the chemistry of the water, affect oxygen concentrations (through photosynthesis/respiration and decay of organic matter), affect aesthetics and affect the physical movement of water. Sources of phosphorus can include animal manure (e.g., cattle, waterfowl), commercial inorganic fertilizers, sewage treatment plants and domestic sludge, food processing plants, urban runoff, atmospheric deposition, and natural levels found in soils and bottom sediments.

Phosphorus is found in multiple forms in the environment. Total phosphorus is the combined measure of particulate dissolved, inorganic and organic phosphorus. Particulate forms of phosphorus are generally adsorbed to soil particles and are transported when soils are eroded by wind, snowmelt and rainfall runoff and human activity. Dissolved phosphorus is the form that is most readily available to plants, although particulate phosphorus is potentially available for plant growth through time. Biochemical processes convert particulate phosphorus into dissolved forms. BMPs considered for phosphorus reduction within the CSMI planning area need to address the management of both particulate and dissolved forms of phosphorus.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 1

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Water quality studies in southern Alberta showed that as agriculture intensity increased in watersheds, the amount of phosphorus in streams also increased (Lorenz et al. 2008). Livestock production from large operations and small, acreage or hobby farms, was identified as a main source of agricultural phosphorus in surface water in rural areas. There is a direct relationship between soil‐test phosphorus and phosphorus concentrations found in runoff. Soil‐test phosphorus concentrations greater than 200 ppm increases the risk of phosphorus loss (Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. and AARD 2008). Farm tillage practices also influences the fraction of phosphorus lost from fields (i.e., dissolved or particulate). Studies have shown that conservation tillage practices can increase the loss of dissolved forms of phosphorus (Tiessen et al. 2010).

In addition to external sources of phosphorus in streams, lakes and wetlands, internal loading resulting from instream processes, including natural bank erosion, resuspension of particulate phosphorus, and release of dissolved phosphorus via decomposition of organic matter. Internal loadings of phosphorus in wetlands, streams and lakes may significantly contribute to phosphorus export, particularly if nutrient retention capacity is limited (Reddy et al. 1999). Poister et al. (1994) noted that 85% to 90% of phosphorus demand from primary production was met by internal recycling. Other authors reported that internal loading was the dominant source of P in summer and could be as high as 50% of the TP measure in the water column (Welch and Jacoby 2001). At Pine Lake, AB, about 61% of the TP loading to the lake was from sediment release and other internal sources, compared to 36% of surface runoff (Sosiak and Trew 1996). The internal loading rate for Pine Lake was reported at 1.2 mg/m2/d. Krongvang et al. (1999) reported inlake TP retention of 0.30 g P/m2/yr.

The timing of runoff events also influences phosphorus transport in the environment. Snowmelt runoff generally accounts for about 90% of the runoff volume in southern Alberta (Jensen et al. 2011). Although the planning period for the CSMI is generally the irrigation season (April through October), management actions should also target the spring runoff period, particularly in those sub‐watersheds that have high delivery potential (e.g., critical source areas) (Reddy et al. 1999). Studies have shown that snowmelt P export may comprise more than 20% of the total annual P export and more than 12% of the annual dissolved reactive phosphorus export in watersheds (Su et al 2011). The snowmelt and spring runoff period can contribute phosphorus loads that can accumulate in the system (i.e., canals, natural waterways, lakes, reservoirs and wetlands) and become a future internal source of phosphorus.

Finally, water management can play a key role in lake and reservoir phosphorus dynamics. Klotz and Linn (2001) reported that the amount of phosphorus released when sediment samples were dried was greater than continuously wet controls, indicating potential for the release of phosphorus from sediment when water levels are drawn down. Qui and McComb (1995) in Klotz and Linn (2001) reported that drying dessicated about 75% of microbial biomass in wetland sediments, and that most phosphorus flux in dried sediment came from expired bacteria cells. Watts (2000) found that biotic release of phosphorus resulted from drying was greatest for reservoir sediments high in organic phosphorus that tend to have higher microbial biomass. Although drawdown is important in lakes, the impact that drying and freezing have on intermittent streams or irrigation return‐flow channels is unknown. These processes may be important where water fluctuations are extreme throughout the growing season (Riemersma et al. 2006).

3.0 Land Use in the Rural Area

Thirty catchments (i.e., sub‐watersheds) have been identified within the CSMI planning area that drain directly to irrigation canals. The catchments include areas that are influenced by management within

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 2

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative the City of Calgary, Town of Chestermere, Town of Strathmore, Rocky View County, Wheatland County and the Western Irrigation District. The sub‐catchments range in size from 482.8 ha to 7,883 ha. Each of these catchments is characterized by varying proportions of dry cropland, irrigated cropland, pasture and rangeland. Confined feeding operations (CFOs) are located in 7 of the thirty catchments, although there are other CFOs that operate adjacent to the catchments and likely manage lands within the catchments (Table 1).

The Western Irrigation District (WID) irrigation infrastructure consists of the A, B and C canals that deliver water to over 400 farms and 39,000 ha of land. The water also supplies water to over 12,000 people in four communities. Table 1 summarizes the land area encompassed by irrigation in the catchments within the A, B, and C canal distribution areas. The A Canal has the highest percent of irrigated land located in the catchment areas (14%) and B Canal has the lowest percentage of irrigated land located in the catchment areas. Conversely, B Canal has the highest number of confined feeding operations within the catchment areas and A Canal has the lowest number (Table 1).

Table 1. Summary of catchment characteristics within the CSMI planning area.

Irrigated Land Confined Feeding Catchment Area Irrigated Land as a Percentage of Canal in Catchments Operations (ha) Catchment Area (%) (ha) in Catchments 1 A Canal 24,428 3,400 14 (2 nearby, upstream of Strathmore) 4 B Canal 21,628 1,973 9 (1 nearby) 2 C Canal 19,576 2,210 11 (1 nearby)

Figure 1 shows the types of irrigated agriculture within each of the A, B and C Canal distribution areas. Note that the irrigated crop area has not been determined for the individual catchments in this evaluation and relies on general trends. A and B Canal districts produce similar irrigated crop types with respect to crops like cereal and oil‐seed, peas and corn (68% and 66%, respectively) compared to 58% of irrigated area growing these crop types in the C Canal district. Hay crops make up 16%, 22% and 24% of irrigated land in the A, B and C Canal areas. dNative an tame pastures are irrigated on 10%, 8% and 16% of the A, B and C Canal districts, respectively (Figure 1). Sod makes up 6% of the irrigation land in the A Canal district. Zero to 2% of irrigated area supports nurseries and market gardens.

In addition to different rural land use characteristics, catchments have differing slopes, soil types and drainage networks. The selection of beneficial management practices must consider land use and physical geography in order to effectively reduce nutrient transport from the area. In addition, producers must be provided with a variety of strategies and options that will be compatible with on‐ farm operations and that are financially feasible. Incentives may be provided for BMPs that have public benefit or to increase the rate of adoption.

The following discussion provides an overview of select BMP options and associated performance in phosphorus reduction that could be applied to acreage, farm and livestock operations within the CSMI planning area. It should be noted that to be effective, numerous BMPs should be implemented at the catchment scale.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 3

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Market Non‐Crop Gardens Fallow 0% 0% 0% Native/Tame Nursery Pasture 2% 10% Sod Hay 6% 16%

General Crops 66% A Canal

Market Non‐Crop Gardens 0% Fallow 1% 0% Nursery Native/Tame 1% Pasture Sod 8% 0% Hay 22%

General Crops 68% B Canal

Market Non‐Crop Gardens Nursery 0% 0% Fallow 1% 0% Native/Tame Sod Pasture 1% 16%

Hay 24%

General Crops 58% C Canal

Figure 1. Summary of irrigated crop types in the A, B and C canal distribution system (WID 2013, pers. comm.).

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 4

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

4.0 Beneficial Management Practices and Opportunities to Reduce Phosphorus Loads

4.1 Rural BMPs Selection for the CSMI Planning Area

BMPs have been categorized into structural and non‐structural BMPs and include management practices that aim to ACT:

1) Avoid nutrient loss, 2) Control nutrients at the source, and 3) Trap nutrients from non‐point sources.

The BMPs identified in the following sections are appropriate for mixed agricultural lands within the CSMI planning area. Further discussions should be held with agricultural producers operating within individual catchments to refine the selection.

A discussion on expected performance is included along with a description of the BMPs. Although many studies have shown that multiple BMPs are required to reduce nutrient transport from the uplands to surface water, internal loadings and the nutrient retention capacity of wetlands and streams may also be significant and must be accounted for in the overall performance evaluation (Reddy et al. 1999) (refer to Section 2.0).

4.2 Structural BMPs

Structural BMPs can be used to control the volume of phosphorus (i.e., load) by physical containment combined with treatment or re‐use and/or by restricting the transport of phosphorus in the environment by removing, reducing or re‐directing the transport mechanism (i.e., rainfall runoff). The following describes four structural BMPs that may be effective in reducing phosphorus losses in the CSMI planning area.

4.2.1 Runoff/run‐on control via the construction of small holding ponds, reservoirs, berms and dykes.

The creation of small holding ponds and reservoirs at the farm scale would allow snowmelt that may be high in phosphorus to be captured and retained outside of and during the irrigation season, particularly downstream of livestock facilities. This would provide better control of nutrients during the irrigation season and reduce the potential for future internal phosphorus loading at downstream locations from runoff outsidee of th irrigation season. Rainfall runoff would be captured, treated and released to the system when runoff water meets applicable WID water quality objectives and/or established provincial objectives and, appropriate discharge rates facilitate dilution and assimilation of runoff water in the receiving waters (i.e., small volumes of treated stormwater may be easily released and assimilated into the receiving waters while larger volumes may be released at a slower discharge rate). This strategy would be implemented in combination with other structural strategies that restore connectivity of natural drainage paths and maintain, enhance, restore and create wetlands.

In addition to controlling runoff, berms and dykes may be constructed to direct clean‐water run‐on around areas that may be high risk for nutrient loss, including sites such as livestock corrals, seasonal

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 5

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative feeding and bedding areas and confined feeding operations. Diverting run‐on reduces the volume of water exposed to contaminants (i.e., phosphorus).

Performance Expectations

 Collectively, a network of 26 small dams constructed in the Tobacco Creek watershed in Manitoba reduced peak flow due to snowmelt by about 9‐19% and rainfall runoff by 13‐25%. These results are for runoff frequencies ranging from a 1 in 2‐year event to a 1 in 100‐year event (Tiessen et al. 2011).  Holding ponds constructed in the Tobacco Creek watershed in Manitoba significantly reduced annual loads of sediment by 66‐77% and TP by 9‐12%. This corresponded to an average annual retention of 6‐25 Mg y−1 (7‐28 tonnes yr−1) of sediment and 10‐17 kg P y−1 (22‐37 lb P yr−1). Both reservoirs reduced annual loads of dissolved P to downstream water bodies (by 10‐15%), and were generally effective in removing dissolved phosphorus during both snowmelt and rainfall‐ generated runoff. Occasionally the reservoirs were sources of particulate P (average annual increase of 3‐15%). However, since dissolved nutrients were the year‐round dominant form of N and P in this watershed (> 70% each), the two reservoirs were successful in reducing overall TP loads (Tiessen et al. 2011).  The maximum possible nutrient export reduction from the watershed due to a holding pond BMP was estimated at 64% of total P and 57% of total N (Li et al. 2011).

4.2.2 Restoration of Natural Drainage Paths and Waterways

Restoration of natural drainage paths and waterways within the CSMI planning area would restore connectivity between natural wetlands and tributaries that may have been isolated by irrigation infrastructure or other activity. Underdrains, culverts, pipelines and berms are possible tools that could be used. Restoring natural systems could 1) increase the area available for nutrient uptake and sedimentation, 2) reduce the number of direct drains into irrigation canals, 3) reduce soil erosion, 4) potentially improve soil conditions in cropped fields by reducing localized pondingd an improving overall drainage, 5) aid in flood control, and 6) aid in the restoration or enhancement of wetlands (refer to Section 4.2.3).

Restoration of natural drainage paths/waterways cannot be implemented in isolation from other strategies that address phosphorus reduction and retention at the source.

Performance Expectations

Phosphorus dynamics in flowing streams and rivers is complex. Retention or export of phosphorus is dependent on the physical, chemical and biological composition of individual systems. Generally, researchers have reported that streams and rivers are nutrient sinks during periods of low flow and nutrient sources during high flow periods. Low flows facilitate a greater interaction between the water column and benthic sediments and biota. The reduced velocity and turbulence during low flows results in less resuspension of sediments and sediment‐bound phosphorus and promotes settling and greater phosphorus storage in the sediment. Researchers found that about 80% of phosphorus stored during low flow periods in summer was resuspended in the first storm events in autumn and winter. Instream bed sediments and marginal streambank zones amounted to 23.4% of the gross TP export from a study basin (Krongvang et al. 1999). In a study from the Great Lakes region, Miller et al. (1982) estimated 10% of TP export in streams was due to streambank erosion.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 6

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Other processes that reduce sediment transport in streams and waterways include healthy, functioning riparian areas that trap sediment and nutrients during periods of high flow. Krongvang et al. (1999) found that entrapment of sediment on the floodplain represented 2.7‐5.4% of TP export. Phosphorus retention will depend on the interaction between macrophyte (aquatic plant) biomass, the uptake of dissolved phosphorus by aquatic biota, the extent of riparian zone and the concentration of nutrients in the overlying water (Kronvang et al. 1999). Changes in the equilibrium stream dissolved phosphorus concentration within the water column and the concentration of nutrients in the overlying water will determine whether the system is a source or sink for phosphorus (Kronvang et al. 1999). Seasonal differences in performance are likely to occur as cold temperatures reduce biological activity.

Generally:  Phosphorus uptake lengths (i.e., the length of stream required to assimilated phosphorus) ranged from 412 m to 10,273 m (Ball and Hooper 1963) and from 200 to 900 m in streams having large areas of pasture and high numbers of CFO operations (Haggard et al. 2001).  McDowell et al. (2001) found that water samples taken furthest upstream contained, on average, the lowest concentrations of dissolved reactive phosphorus) (DRP and TP in a Pennsylvania, USA watershed. Conversely, storm flow produced the opposite effect, with greater DRP and TP concentrations found upstream. This paralleled a decrease in the percentage of near‐stream soils (<60 m) having soil‐test phosphorus concentrations greater than 200 mg/kg .

In the CSMI planning area, natural stream enhancement would improve riparian function, reduce erosion and subsequent sediment transport and facilitate nutrient assimilation. However, it is difficult to provide any accurate type of nutrient reduction estimate that might be achieved due to natural variability among streams in the environment. Monitoring would be essential to quantify nutrient reductions due to restoration of natural streams. Riparian strategies should aim to maintain and improve riparian health (Table 2). A common approach to riparian setbacks and buffers should also be applied within the area and would help future land use decision‐making by municipalities and industry.

Table 2. Summary of riparian strategies to apply within the CSMI planning area.

Strategies Description Maintain riparian health status within the “healthy” category – score of 80 or Maintain Riparian Health above according to the Cows and Fish assessment protocol. For riparian areas that score less than 80 on health assessments, identify main factors contributing to poor health scores (i.e., streambank stability, presence of Improve Riparian Health weeds). Address issues systematically through streambank stabilization measures, weed control efforts). Apply riparian setbacks appropriate to local jurisdiction policy, existing Apply Riparian Setbacks and legislation and land use. A common setback within the planning area would be Buffers beneficial.

4.2.3 Maintain, Enhance, Restore and Create Wetlands

There may be lost or altered ephemeral or seasonal wetlands in the planning area that could be restored to facilitate the trapping of nutrients. Natural wetland restoration and enhancement combined with the creation of wetlands in key locations could reduce phosphorus loading from rural areas through time when combined with other BMPs.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 7

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Wetlands are the transition zones between the uplands and aquatic systems. Wetlands provide a variety of functions in the environment, including: water storage, groundwater recharge, water treatment, sediment retention, flood protection, nutrient recycling, provision of wildlife habitat and biodiversity (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993; Young 1994). Wetlands can be found around lakes and reservoirs and within streams and rivers. Riparian wetlands receive only seasonal flooding but are otherwise separate from a waterway except for return flows and lateral flows from uplands (Mitsch 1995). Constructed wetlands are built in non‐wetland areas, and are generally used to retain nutrients (Kadlec and Knight 1996).

Phosphorus retention in wetlands occurs from deposition in soils and uptake into plant litter and vegetation and subsequent long‐term burial in sediments. If the annual phosphorus input into the wetland is greater than output, the wetland acts as a sink or phosphorus storage reservoir (Johnston 1991; Mitsch and Gosselinkh 1993; Mitsc 1995). Wetlands may also be a source of phosphorus if outputs are greater than inputs. A single wetland may be a sink for inorganic forms of phosphorus and a source of organic forms of the same nutrient (Mitsch 1995). The most important factor influencing phosphorus retention in wetlands is the hydrologic balance (i.e., retention time of surface water and timing of precipitation events) and, to a lesser extent, by internal processes such as litter fall patterns, plant uptake and production and the rate of microbial processes (Neely and Baker 1989).

Performance Expectations

Similar to stream and river performance expectation, overall wetland performance is expected to be variable and will depend on a number of factors such as the source of stormwater (i.e., inflow quality), pretreatment, loading rates, flow volumes, size, retention time, season, soil chemistry and vegetation.

In natural wetlands, hydrology generally results in a seasonal export of phosphorus; in constructed wetlands hydrology, retention time and seasonal variability are incorporated into design to maximize nutrient retention. The Des Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration Project receives up to 40% of the river’s average flow before being returned to the river through control structures. Greater P retention occurred when flows were lower (50 mm/week) compared to 300 mm/week. In four of the wetland cells, 83‐96% of phosphorus was retained during low flows compared to 63‐68% during high flows (Mitsch 1992). Although the constructed cells were able to retain a greater percentage of the P load during low flows, the actual load retained was greater during high flows. Johnston (1990) assessed the role of lake level on TP retention in a lakeside wetland and found export from the wetland decreased as the lake level increased.

Adsorption and deposition of sediment may be mostly responsible for nutrient trapping (e.g., 80% of phosphorus is estored in th sediments (Hammer 1989; Richardson and Craft 1993)). Removal rates differ according to soil type, land use and anthropogenic influence. In mineral soils, phosphorus retention averaged 1.5 g P/m2/yr compared to organic soils that measured 0.26 g/m2/yr. At Frank Lake, AB, 60% of phosphorus inputs were retained in the sediments (White 1997; White et al. 2000). Furthermore, phosphorus retention is generally reduced in winter and spring and greatest in summer and fall when flows are lowest. At Frank Lake, TP reduction decreased from 71% (May‐October), to% 26 (February) and 19% (April) (White 1997; White et al. 2000).

Natural wetlands,

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 8

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

 P retention ranges from 5‐20% of nutrient loads (Neely and Baker 1989; Mitsch and Gosselink 1993).  A natural flow‐through wetland receiving runoff from irrigated pasture in N. California retained 35‐42% of loads entering the wetland (Knox et al. 2008 in US EPA 2010).  Yang et al. (2008) found that an acre of wetland in the Prairie Pothole region can filter about 0.043 kg/N/year, 0.009 kg/P/year, store 4 tons of CO2 equivalents per year, and control 6.5 tons 3 of soil erosion and 1,200 m of flood water.  At the Hilton Wetland, east of Strathmore, AB, load reductions were based on flow. Even though TP concentrations were high, the flow volume was low and thus reduced P export (Ontkean et al. 2003). Dissolved phosphorus was the dominant form of P in the wetland.  Langdon Reservoir, AB, is within the WID system and is often a source of phosphorus to downstream receiving waters. Langdon Reservoir is shallow and the water column is fully mixed. Resuspension of bottom sediments can be a source of phosphorus in the reservoir. Water level fluctuation also results in drying of reservoir sediments, that when re‐submerged, become a source of phosphorus. Finally, the reservoir attracts numerous species of waterfowl that nest and breed along the shores. The waterfowl contribute phosphorus directly to the water column.  One ha of riparian wetland could sequester more phosphorus than was released by 35 ha of agricultural land (Ray and Inouye 2006 in UMA Engineering Ltd. 2007).

Constructed Wetlands  Constructed wetlands generally show greater success as sinks for phosphorus compared to natural wetlands since they are designed to treat runoff water and there is better control over processes that influence phosphorus retention. Successful phosphorus retention was observed (nearly 100%) for these wetlands designed to receive agricultural runoff (Reddy et al. 1999).  Two agricultural runoff wetlands achieved a combined P mass retention of 53% in the Lake Bloomington, Illinois watershed (Kovacic et al. 2005 in US EPA 2010).

In the CSMI planning area, wetland strategies should be applied that aim to maintain existing wetlands, restore and enhance natural wetlands and create wetlands for water quality functions (Table 3). Proper wetland design and management will be essential to the success of this strategy. Similar to riparian strategies, wetland setbacks and buffers should be applied consistently throughout the planning area.

Table 3. Summary of wetland strategies.

Strategies Description Maintain Existing Wetlands No further loss of wetlands, where possible. Ephemeral wetlands: “Prairie potholes” systems that store water and retain nutrients are often farmed when conditions allow (dry years). Ephemeral wetlands should be identified and, where practical, naturally restored. Restore Natural Wetlands Marshes: Restore drainage paths to maintain water levels within marsh environments. Open Water Wetlands: Manage water levels to prevent drying of wetland sediment that contributes to resuspension of dissolved phosphorus. There are a number of wetlands in the CSMI planning area that could be Enhance Natural Wetlands enhanced by managing flows and improving natural functions (i.e., increasing by managing flows and retention time, phosphorus and sediment storage ability). These include: Eagle improving function Lake, Graham Reservoir, Langdon Reservoir (e.g., increase water depth to

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 9

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Strategies Description reduce drying of sediments), McElroy Slough and Weed Lake). Construct treatment wetlands at key locations within the CSMI planning area to Create Wetlands intercept stormwater, increase retention time and retain sediments and nutrients.

4.2.4 Livestock Facility Relocation and Design

Historically, livestock operations were sited on sloping lands, adjacent to coulees and ephemeral waterways to help manage drainage on site and reduce health risks to livestock. Today, this practice is discouraged to prevent nutrient and contaminant transport to surface water. Where possible, older corrals and shelters that are located next to steep slopes and waterways should be reconstructed in locations where the potential for contaminant loss is low. If relocation is not feasible, run‐on control measures should be implemented (refer to Section 4.2.1).

Performance Expectations

 Implementation of this strategy may significantly reduce nutrient loss in some catchments by removing phosphorus sources.

4.3 Non‐Structural BMPs

Non‐structural BMPs reduce phosphorus losses by controlling the use, generation and accumulation of pollutants at or near a pollutant source. Table 4 provides a summary of select non‐structural BMP options to reduce phosphorus from cropland and livestock operations. BMPs for crop and livestock categories are discussed separately on occasion, however, crop production and livestock management are often integrated on mixed farms. The use of non‐structural BMPs can improve farm phosphorus use efficiency and profits while improving water quality downstream. In cropping systems, BMPs include soil sampling and interpretation of soil test results to inform variable rate fertilizer application, and organic and inorganic fertilizer application methods that reduce nutrient losses. On livestock operations, BMPs are focused on run‐on and runoff control, and pasture and range management strategies that maintain vegetation and environmental process and function.

Table 4. Summary of BMP options to reduce phosphorus export rural areas (i.e., farm operations, livestock operations, acreages) in the CSMI planning area.

BMP Description Farm Operations Practice  Adopt “4R” Principles: Right fertilizer source, Right application rate, Right time, and Right place  Regular soil‐testing and variable application rates for organic and inorganic Nutrient fertilizers based on location and crop requirements Management  Recommend a target for maximum soil‐test phosphorus (i.e., between 150 to 200 ppm) and encourage P‐based nutrient/manure management. Note that manure applied based on nitrogen will result in the accumulation of phosphorus in soil. The use of a target for phosphorus in soils would help to reduce phosphorus inputs and subsequent losses to surface water

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 10

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

BMP Description Performance Expectations  No reduction in yield was measured when P inputs were reduced by 59% (5 kg ha‐1 yr‐1, 4.5 lb ac‐1 yr‐1) (Li et al. 2011)  Conservation tillage increased TP export by 12% compared to conventional tillage due mainly to a higher portion of dissolved P (although particulate phosphorus loss was reduced) (Khakbazan et al. 2013)  In no‐till systems, effective reduction in P losses to surface water can result. P fertilizers should be deep banded or placed near the seed, which can reduce P runoff losses by 50% compared to broadcast fertilizer applications (Devlin et al. 2002)  Soil‐test phosphorus levels greater than 60 ppm (about 120 kg/ha) in the top 15 cm of soil provide no additional benefit to most crops grown in Alberta Practice  Establish riparian or grass buffers adjacent to cropland  Widen existing riparian areas, buffers  Mechanically harvest buffer to remove nutrients

Performance Expectations Riparian areas and  Variable performance that depends on soil texture, slope, width, saturation (flooded riparian buffers conditions reduces soluble P removal), continuity within the watershed, management, (synonymous with existing soil phosphorus concentrations vegetative filters  Generally better at removing sediment‐bound phosphorus than dissolved phosphorus and vegetative  Little effect – but changed phosphorus forms buffers) to slow  50% reduction TP; 20% reduction Soluble P (in Polyakov et al. 2005) runoff and trap  60‐90% reduction in P (Line et al. 2000; Young et al. 1980) sediment‐bound  Little research has been done in Alberta with respect to quantifying riparian area and phosphorus buffer performance, particularly when implemented at the watershed scale (i.e., wide‐ spread implementation)

Note that performance expectations are highly variable according to site (as mentioned above). Although it is likely that improvements made to riparian function and implementation of riparian buffers will reduce phosphorus transport, monitoring will be essential to quantify the impact within the CSMI planning area. Practice  Minimize soil erosion by snowmelt or rainfall  Maintain permanent cover crops where soils are marginal.  Apply conservation tillage practices Soil conservation

Performance Expectations  Conservation tillage may reduce particulate phosphorus losses, but may increase loss of dissolved fractions Practice  Apply water conservation techniques to minimize runoff, including the use of low‐ pressure center pivot (LPCP) technology, high‐efficiency sprinkler nozzles and variable rate application controllers and Irrigated  Create edge of field retention ponds or constructed wetlands. agriculture

Performance Expectations  Achieve greater than 85% efficiency with high‐efficiency sprinkler nozzles

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 11

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

BMP Description Livestock Operations Runoff control from Practice existing livestock  Remove snow from corrals prior to melt. facilities (also refer to structural BMPs Performance Expectations in Section 4.2.1)  Reduction in volume of contaminated runoff. Practice  Select crops with high P requirements to increase P removal (phosphorus mining)  Rotate fields receiving manure to increase crop removal of P  Do not apply P fertilizer on high P testing soils Manure  Maintain ground cover to reduce erosion and runoff management  Incorporate manure where possible  Do not apply to frozen or snow‐covered soils (Also refer to  Do not apply when rainfall is imminent to prevent flash losses of soluble P Nutrient  Maintain ground cover to reduce erosion and runoff (i.e., forages are most effective at Management reducing runoff and erosion Planning above.)  Avoid application on fields with high slope.  Maintain buffers and riparian strips. Reduces sediment transport, do not apply any Manure source of P to buffer or riparian areas management is a regulated activity Performance Expectations by the Agricultural  Clausen et al. (1996) found that manure management BMPs combined with rotational Operations grazing reduced TP loads by 29% relative to the control watershed. Practices Act Practice (AOPA)  Compost manure and export end product

Performance Expectations  19‐23% decrease in soluble P in streams draining areas where significant quantities of manure had been composted and removed from the watershed (Bekele et al. 2006). Relocate existing Practice facilities with high  Relocate livestock facilities away from natural drainage courses and surface water. nutrient loss potential (Note Performance Expectations that siting of new  Small reduction in TP loads (AARD 2007) facilities is regulated by AOPA.) Practice  Balance livestock demands with available forage supplies (stocking rate).  Avoid grazing rangeland/pasture during vulnerable periods: early spring (timing).  Distribute livestock to maintain healthy range using tools like fencing, salt placement, Range/pasture water and portable shelters (distribution). management  Provide adequate rest periods after grazing (rest and rotation).

Performance Expectations  Clausen et al. (1996) found that manure management BMPs combined with rotational grazing reduced TP loads by 29% relative to the control watershed. Practice Riparian area  Encourage the use of riparian pastures (defined by dividing the landscape into pasture management units based on similar plant communities and topography; bottomlands are fenced

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 12

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

BMP Description separately from the uplands).  Provide alternative drinking water supplies (offstream watering)

Performance Expectations  Reduces streambank erosion and sediment transport  Improved streambank stability and erosion control (in Afari‐Sefa et al. 2008)  Potential benefits of alternative drinking water system to livestock: better drinking water quality, more desirable water temperature, reduced incidence of animal disease (in Afari‐Sefa et al. 2008).  Reported livestock weight gain from offstream watering systems: Cows 0.2‐0.4 lb/day, Calves 0.2‐0.4 lb/day, Heifers 0.6‐1.8 lb/day, Heifer Calves 0.1 lb/day, and Steers 1lb/day (in Afari‐Sefa et al. 2008).

Provision of offstream water without fencing  20% reduction in median number of cattle on the river bank and a 72% reduction for cattle in the river. Prevented river pollution by cattle for the majority of water quality variables measured.  Most N and P fraction concentrations in rainfall simulation runoff were not significantly reduced; may be related to the high precipitation in the pre‐BMP year of 2005 (Miller et al. 2011).  Moderate improvements to riparian health score from 60% (2005) to 65% (2007). Canopy cover at the cattle access site near the river was significantly increased by 26‐ 53% and total basal area, biomass, and mulch were significantly increased by 37‐106%; bare soil and NO3‐N in surface soil were decreased by 38‐89%, respectively (Miller et al. 2011).

Provision of offstream water with fencing  76% reduction in P load (with 10‐16 m buffer) (Line et al. 2000).  20‐50% reduction in TP, total kjeldahl nitrogen and TSS, Vermont streams (Meals 2004)  32% reduction of instream deposition of fecal P (James et al. 2007)  With streambank fencing to exclude cattle, rangelandh healt scores improved from 55 to 72%; vegetation cover increased from 13 to 21%; bare soil decreased by 72‐93% (Miller 2010)  Other runoff variables (including concentrations and loads of total suspended solids, and certain N and P fractions) in the cattle‐excluded pasture were generally not improved by streambank fencing (Miller 2010) General Practice  Report on soil and water quality to the agricultural industry within the CSMI planning area to improve local understanding of the phosphorus issue. Education and

Awareness Performance Expectations  Phosphorus education campaigns can reduce phosphorus loadings from point sources and play a broader role in environmental policy.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 13

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

4.4 Other Rural Strategies to Consider

4.4.1 In‐System Aquatic Plant and Algae Control and Management

Excess phosphorus promotes the growth of aquatic plants and algae within streams, rivers and canals. Aquatic plants reduce the flow capacity of irrigation infrastructure (e.g., canals and ditches) in terms of timing of waterd delivery, an increase seepage due to higher water levels in older, degrading infrastructure. Clogging of screens and racks that are used to trap weeds before entering sections of canal, ditch or pipeline can restrict flow or sometimes result in a complete blockage (UMA Engineering Ltd. 2007). Aquatic weeds include submerged vegetation such as filamentous algae, milfoil, and pondweed, and emergent vegetation (e.g., cattails, rushes and sedges). Filamentous algae is the most significant problematic within southern Alberta’s irrigation districts (UMA Engineering Ltd. 2007).

Magnicide H is a herbicide used by irrigation districts to control the growth of submerged, aquatic plants and algae in canal distribution systems. In addition, other specialized biological control agents are used to manage vegetation and algae, along with automated screen cleaners that remove vegetation at key turn‐out locations in the system. Emergent vegetation (i.e., cattails) cutting and ditch cleaning is also undertaken regularly to maintain flows throughe th system.

In addition to costs at the district level, producers also incur costs from increased plant and algae growth. Some producers have purchased personal automated screen cleaners to manage vegetation and algae issues. Poor water quality within dugouts that provide water for livestock is also a concern. Taste and odour issues resulting from the growth of algae in dugouts may reduce weight gain in cattle and salt accumulation in soils may reduce crop production, resulting in a loss of income for producers. Additional sediment transport in canals increases wear‐and‐tear on irrigation equipment. The Town of Chestermere also incurs annual costs for weed management at Chestermere Lake where submerged, aquatic plants are mechanically harvested.

The use of herbicides and mechanical controls can manage the growth of aquatic plants and algae resulting from excess phosphorus in irrigation canals, however, these methods are likely not effective solutions in the long‐ term.

5.0 Performance Expectations of Multiple BMPs (Structural and Non‐Structural) Implemented at the Watershed Scale

The use of non‐structural BMPs to reduce the transport of contaminants in the environment has been promoted to the agricultural industry for decades. However, many researchers have found it difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of individual BMPs to improve water quality at the site‐level due to varying landscapes, soils, crops and other agricultural practices (Li et al. 2011). Greater success in demonstrating the impact of multiple BMPs on nutrient reduction was made at the sub‐watershed scale (Li et al. 2011). There are only a few studies that have been designed to understand the complex interactions among multiple BMPs, the biophysical setting (soils, landscapes and climate) and the land use within the watershed. The following case studies highlight performance expectations when multiple BMPs are implemented at the watershed scale.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 14

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Case Study: South Tobacco Creek, Manitoba (Li et al. 2011)

In the South Tobacco Creek watershed, south‐central Manitoba, the application of multiple BMPs in agricultural areas substantially reduced nutrient losses to surface water. Significant nutrient reductions were observed at the outlet of a small (205‐ha, 507‐ac) sub‐watershed after five BMPs (i.e., holding ponds, riparian area and grassed waterway management, grazing management (rotational grazing in riparian areas), nutrient management and crop conversion to forage) were implemented.

Collectively, the BMPs reduced the average annual total P, dissolved P and particulate P export by 38%, 41% and 42%, respectively. The average annual total N, dissolved N and particulate N export was reduced by 41%, 43% and 38%, respectively. The BMPs did not produce any significant change in runoff volumes. Of the five BMPs implemented, the holding pond and nutrient management appeared to provide the largest proportion of nutrient reduction.

Case Study: Lower Little Bow River BMPs (AARD Factsheet)

From 2001 to 2003, several BMPs were implemented in the Lower Little Bow River and Battersea Drain watersheds in Southern Alberta. Effort was made to determine the effectiveness of each BMP, including livestock relocation, livestock exclusion, diversion berms to divert clean water away from a seasonal feeding and bedding area and a buffer strip, to reduce TP, TN and fecal coliform loading. Generally, the effectiveness of individual BMPs could not be measured at this scale. The exception was the livestock relocation where a small reduction in TP load was observed.

Other Watershed‐Scale Studies

Phosphorus loss from animal waste storage facilities was reduced by 46% and from cropland runoff 19% with the implementation of BMPs (Garrison and Asplund 1993). Inamdar et al. (2001) evaluated agronomic and structural BMPs in a 1,463 ha mixed‐use watershed in Virginia. Seven years later, total phosphorus loads were reduced by 4% due to reductions in particulate phosphorus. Clausen et al. (1996) found that manure management BMPs and rotational grazing reduced TP loads by 29% relative to the control watershed. Udawatta et al. (2002) found that grass and agroforestry grass buffer strips in northern Missouri watershed reduced TP by 8% and 17%, respectively after 3 years.

6.0 Discussion on the Implementation of Rural BMPs

A number of things influence the implementation of rural BMPs, with the prime factor being the willingness to adopt and implement BMPs by agricultural producers and rural landowners.

6.1 Willingness to Adopt

Agricultural producers are generally innovative and implement management practices that are economically viable and compatible with operations. Early adopters have already implemented, and a certain percentage of agricultural producers may never adopt. A number of impediments to adoption of new conservation practices by land managers have been identified including: cost, compatibility with the current farming systems, complexity of new systems, difficulties in trialling new systems and uncertainty about their performance (Pannell et al. 2006; Botha and Parminter 2006). In Wheatland County, a survey was completed to better understand agricultural producer perspectives regarding BMPs. Half of survey respondents reported using best management practices to reduce livestock

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 15

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative impacts on water. Cost was identified as the key barrier to implementing best water management practices (Boehme 2000).

Education, gender, age, and on‐farm residence were found to have significant effects on the adoption of some BMPs. Farms with larger animal production are more apt to implement manure management practices, crop rotation, and riparian buffer strips (Ghazalian et al. 2009). Also, farms with larger cultivated acres are more inclined to implement herbicide control practices, crop rotation, and riparian buffer strips (Ghazalian et al. 2009). Reliance on voluntary adoption of ‘Current Recommended Practices’ is unlikely to deliver changes in management practices at the scale required to have sufficient environmental impacts (Roberts et al. 2012). If BMP adoption cost exceeds the expected benefit, agricultural producers will likely not change their behaviour without incentives (Afari‐Sefa et al. 2008). Incentives should be provided to increase adoption in priority areas.

Within the CSMI planning area, an indicator of willingness of producers to adopt BMPs is the number of participants in the Environmental Farm Plan program, the number of Growing Forward applications received from producers in the study area, and the number of dollars allocated to BMP implementation in the rural municipalities.

Producers in the CSMI planning area have actively participated in the Environmental Farm Plan process. In Rocky View County, 241 EFPs were completed in 2007 and 2008, 10 in 2009 and 2010, 2 in 2011, 3 in 2012 and 1 in 2013. In Wheatland County, ten producers participated in the EFP process representing an area greater than 22,650 acres (note that 2 participants did not submit acre numbers) (Kellie McDonald, AARD, pers. comm). Note that statistics for pre‐2009 are not available for Wheatland County as this information is currently held by the Environmental Farm Plan Company, the previous administrator for the EFP program.

In Wheatland County, producers are adopting nutrient management BMPs, with the largest number of projects related to portable shelters for livestock during winter to help distribute nutrients across a field rather than have nutrients accumulate in one place (S. Schumacher, pers. comm.). This is similar to findings in Rocky View County, where portable shelters comprise the majority of BMPs adopted. Table 5 shows the number of projects by project type that have been funded in Rocky View County and Wheatland County since 2009. Grazing and winter feeding management projects have the highest number of applications, followed by integrated crop management projects and then manure management projects. Of the integrated crop management (ICM) projects funded, the BMP related to variable rate technology (VRT) for improved fertilizer and pesticide application received the highest number of applications in Rocky View and Wheatland counties, along with fuel storage. Of the grazing and winter feeding (GWFM) projects available for funding, portable windbreaks were most popular followed by alternative watering and fencing BMPs (Table 6).

For manure management, the types of projects funded include manure applicator equipment, run‐ on/off control projects for livestock facilities, and a liquid manure storage facility to increase capacity to required 9 months.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 16

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Table 5. Growing Forward Stewardship Program Applications, September 1, 2009 to March 31, 2013 (Source D. Chrapko, AARD, pers. comm.).

Integrated Crop Grazing and Winter Feeding Manure Management County Management (ICM) Management (GWFM) (MM) # of Projects $ Spent # of Projects $ Spent # of Projects $ Spent Rocky View 23 $133,500 47 $121,400 3 $40,000

Wheatland 27 $131,500 37 $90,300 10 $158,900

Total 50 $265,000 84 $211,700 13 $198,900

Table 6. Type and number of BMPs implemented in Wheatland County and Rocky View County through the Growing Forward 1 Program (Source D. Chrapko, ARD, pers. comm.).

BMP Wheatland County Rocky View County Grazing and Winter Feeding Management Projects Portable Windbreaks 12 13 Summer Watering Systems 7 6 Fencing Sensitive Areas 6 8 Year‐round watering systems <6 6 Cross‐fencing <6 8 Total Projects ~37 47 Integrated Crop Management Projects Variable Rate Technology (VRT) for improved 7 10 fertilizer and pesticide application Fuel Storage 13 10 Pesticide Management <6 <6 Improved Seeding Systems ‐<6 Shelterbelt Establishment <6 ‐ Total Projects ~27 ~23

7.0 Economics

Farms that are technically inefficient tend to be environmentally inefficient (Tamini and Bruno 2009). Bigger farms and producers who hold a technical school, college or university degree are generally more efficient and more likely to adopt BMPs. Reducing phosphorus in runoff entails cost at the farm level (Taminin and Bruno 2009). An analysis of more than 3.5 billion dollars spent on nutrient controls in the Chesapeake Bay watershed between 1985 and 1996 found that nutrient management was the least costly practice for nutrient control. The estimated average cost in 2010 for development and record keeping for a comprehensive nutrient management plan per farm in Virginia was $1,190 (US EPA 2010).

In a watershed‐scale evaluation of BMPs in two watersheds in Alberta, the total cost of BMPs per site ranged from $174 to $76,163 for materials and supplies, including labour if work was contracted. The cost included the implementation eof th BMP in the first year and subsequent maintenance for some sites. Average cost per site was $15,000. The least expensive (<$500) involved soil sampling and development of a nutrient management plan. About 70 to 80% of the cost of the most expensive BMPs was for hauling manure greater distances to alternative fields. Pasture and wintering sites were relatively expensive ($28,448 to $40,159). Labour from technical experts and farmers required for BMP

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 17

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative implementation and maintenance ranged from 5 to 350 person‐hours per site, with an average of 48 person hours per site. The cost to implement run‐on and runoff controls at a Confined Feeding Operation was $82,000 (Olson and Kalischuk 2011).

There is also a cost associated with management of aquatic plants and algae resulting from excess phosphorus in the system (Table 7). The chemical and mechanical control of aquatic weeds and algae is currently being carried mainly by the WID (irrigation canals) and the Town of Chestermere (Chestermere Lake). This amounts to about $238,000 annually for the WID (J. dHemsing an B. Sander, WID, pers. comm.), not to mention equipment replacement costs, and between $71,000 and $121,000 for the Town of Chestermere, depending on year, with an additional $300,000 cost associated with the replacement of weed harvesters every 10 years (D. Roberts, Chestermere Utilities Inc., pers. comm).

Table 7. Cost estimate for chemical and mechanical control of aquatic plants and algae in irrigation canals.

Management Action Description Annually One Time Cost of Chemicals $45,000 Labour $10,000 Application of Magnicide H $10,000 every 5 years for Equipment new trailer Biological Control Agent $6,000 Ecostocks Labour $5,000 $38,000 to $50,000 (5? Capital cost number of cleaners) Automated Screen Cleaners Maintain, repair and operate $35,000a automated screen cleaners Keep water flowing $130,000 Cattail cutting/ditch cleaning Equipment unnecessary wear $15,000 every $25,000 new under and tear and replacement 2 yrs carriage Determine if water quality is Water monitoring $45,000 meeting targets and limits. Harvest and removal of Labour 31,000 vegetation from lakes and Equipment (operation, repair $40,000 to $300,000 every 10 years reservoirs and maintenance) $90,000b for weed harvesters Producers Capital cost $4,500 Automated Screen Cleaners Maintain, repair and operation $1,000 costs Pump part replacement Poor weight‐gain in livestock

(water quality issues) aIncludes maintenance, SCADA and time to check and ensure operations. bVaries annually.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 18

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Table 8. Summary of costs associated with the implementation of rural BMPs.

BMP Description Challenges Reference Opportunity cost of time spent in developing the NMP was Consultation fees, soil nutrient and manure sample test fees, a major concern to farmers. Farmers also reported and field mapping were covered under the program, up to a Nutrient difficulty finding markets for new crops grown as part of Afari‐Sefa et al. maximum of $1,500. In addition, there was a 50% cost‐share Management the NMP program recommendations. Inability to market 2008 funding (up to $750) for subsequent NMPs implemented on Plans crops, and reduced crop yield due to lower fertilization the same farm (Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and rates, increased risks associated with nutrient Fisheries, 2007) management planning and could hamper NMP adoption. Manure Manure transportation and spreading costs ranges from Paterson et al. Locating land within economical hauling distance. Management $1.45/tonne to $13.33/tonne. 2006 47% of total fencing cost was for materials used in constructing the electric fence and offstream watering system. Miscellaneous labour and consultant fees were 75 m fence, including maintenance for 20 year lifespan was Fencing with 32% of total BMP costs (or $1011), of which 89% were $3,136, or $42 per m, with an annual cost of $319. Afari‐Sefa et al. Offstream fees for design and consultancy. The opportunity cost of 2008 Watering land was relatively small (i.e. 7%) partly because the farm Annual maintenance cost was $24, or 8% of annualized BMP System was located in rural Nova Scotia. Annual maintenance of cost. the fencing system includes labour to clear weeds, monitoring electrical wire fence controllers or energizers, and monitoring/clean the offstream watering system. Substantial costs for technical consulting required for designing and constructing the stormwater diversion drainage system. In addition, renting of equipment for

The total cost for the stormwater diversion drainage system preliminary construction work (22% of the total cost for was $6,755 or $32 per m of drainage system. 60% of the the stormwater diversion drainage system) was not Afari‐Sefa et al. Stormwater total cost was for professional/technical consulting and required for the livestock exclusion fencing. The 2008 Diversion miscellaneous labour ($4080), followed by equipment rental opportunity cost of land for the stormwater diversion ($1468 or 22% of total costs). drainage system was 0.3 % of total cost. The life expectancy of the drainage system was estimated at 25 years, and required $33.72 for annual maintenance. Annual maintenance cost was 5% of total cost.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 19

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

8.0 Rural Strategies Implementation Plan

The implementation of rural strategies to reduce phosphorus loads to surface water in the CSMI planning area is discussed in this Section. First a summary of performance indicators is provided that can be used to determine the level of success achieved through implementation of the rural strategies. Then a series of actions required to achieve performance expectations is given, including: fund development, community engagement, BMP implementation, the riparian strategy, the wetland strategy and water quality monitoring requirements.

8.1 Performance Indicators

Performance indicators are used to determine the state or condition of the rural program implementation. There are five indicators that can be measured to determine if the rural strategy implementation is successful. Table 9 summarizes these indicators and the measures used to determine success. Expected adoption and performance in phosphorus reduction for rural BMP implementation is summarized in Table 10.

Table 9. Summary of rural strategy performance indicators.

Rural Strategy Performance Indicator Community Engagement Number of producers participating in CSMI and the number acres represented. Decreasing trend in phosphorus concentration at sites that typically exceed WID Water Quality targets and limits. Maintain riparian health status within the “healthy” category – score of 80 or above Riparian Health according to the Cows and Fish assessment protocol. Common riparian setbacks applied within the CSMI planning area. Hectares of wetland area within the CSMI region. Treatment wetland performance: Total phosphorus (particulate and dissolved Wetlands forms) concentration is lower at the outflow compared to the inflow concentration. Common setbacks from wetlands applied within the CSMI planning area. BMP Implementation Number of BMPs implemented in the CSMI planning area.

Table 10. Summary of BMP adoption, expected costs and performance within the CSMI planning area.

Year BMP Adoption Estimated # Projects Estimated Costa Estimated Percent P (Participation) Implemented Load Reductionb $300,000 2014‐2015 (2 yrs) 10% 20 0 ‐ 12% (20 projects) $900,000 2016‐2023 (10 yrs) 40% 80 13% ‐ 25% (60 projects) $1,500,000 2024‐2038 (25 yrs) 90% 180 25% ‐ 40%+ (100 projects) aCost assumes average of $15,000 per BMP project (Olsen and Kalischuk 2011). Costs will likely vary from $1,500 for nutrient management plans to more than $70,000 for run‐on or runoff control and facility re‐location projects. bReductions will vary by BMP. Under drain construction could result in 100% reduction phosphorus entering canals.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 20

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

8.2 Fund Development

There are a number of opportunities for partnership and cost‐sharing using innovative programming and collaboration with other agencies and organizations aimed at phosphorus management.

8.2.1 Innovative Phosphorus Trading Program

In Ontario, the South Nation River watershed has a regulated water quality trading program where new or expanding wastewater dischargers must control all phosphorus loadings into receiving waters. To achieve this, dischargers buy phosphorus credits from South Nation Conservation (SNC), a community based watershed organization. The Total Phosphorus Management, allows dischargers to offset increased P loads by controlling P from non‐point sources using best management practices. SNC’s cost‐ share Clean Water grant program is the delivery mechanism for implementing the phosphorus reduction BMP’s. The quantity of phosphorus removed by each BMP is calculated using a mathematical formula derived from primary research. The amount of phosphorus credits that need to be bought depends on: 1) the amount of phosphorus that the discharger contributes, and 2) the offset ratio required by regulation; in the SNR watershed, an offset ration of 4:1 is mandated (i.e., 4 kg of P must be removed from non‐point sources for every 1 kg of P that the discharger contributes (O’Grady and Boutz, South Nation Conservation n.d.).

8.2.2 Alberta Growing Forward 2 Stewardship Plan Program

The Alberta Growing Forward 2 program is a five‐year program that was initiated in April 2013. The program will invest in strategic programs focused on research and innovation, environmental stewardship, food safety, biosecurity, business management, market development, traceability, livestock welfare, energy efficiency and water management. Table 11 summarizes the cost‐share opportunities for agricultural producers who want to implement BMPs. Cost shares vary but range from 30% to 70% of eligible expenses.

Table 11. Growing Forward 2 funding opportunities for BMP implementation.

Program BMP Description Economic Opportunity Riparian area fencing and management Cost share of 70% up to $ 50,000 Year round/summer watering systems Cost share of 50% up to $30,000 On‐Farm Portable shelters and windbreaks Cost share of 50% up to $10,000 Stewardship Wetland restoration Cost share of 70% up to $50,000 Programs Improved Manure storage facilities Cost share of 50% up to $50,000 Livestock facility runoff control Cost share of 50% up to $50,000 Livestock facility and permanent wintering site relocation Cost share of 50% up to $50,000 Improve energy and water usage through better irrigation equipment, increasing the sustainability of water resources Irrigation on farm operation. Cost shares include the purchase and Cost share% of 40 up to $5,000 Efficiency installation of new low‐pressure centre pivot (LPCP) irrigation equipment, including high efficiency sprinkler nozzles and variable‐rate irrigation system components, among others.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 21

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

8.2.3 Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS) – incentive based

Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS) is a voluntary, incentive‐based, private land conservation project that pays landowners and farmers to maintain and enhance the natural assets that they manage. ALUS projects have been implemented in multiple provinces, with three municipalities in Alberta participating (i.e., County of Vermilion River, Parkland County and Red Deer County). The project provides payment to rural landowners who manage for soil conservation, native grassland retention, clean air and water, wetland restoration and conservation, and biodiversity on their operations. Payments are made according to land rental agreements and prices.

Implications: Opportunity to partner with ALUS to achieve phosphorus reductions through implementation of rural strategies such as wetland restoration and riparian buffers.

8.2.4 Bow River Phosphorus Management Plan

The Bow River Phosphorus Management Plan project consists of a group of stakeholders that is developing strategies and actions to address the levels of phosphorus entering the Bow River and its tributaries between the Bearspaw Dam and the Bassano Dam. The intent of the project is to collectively take action to manage phosphorus at current or reduced levels over the long term (a 50 year horizon), taking into account the ever increasing pressure of population and growth in this region.

8.2.5 Ecological Goods and Service Payment Program – Reverse Auction

Implementation programs, activities and BMPs are designed to change the sources and transport of phosphorus. These BMPs, when installed, reduce the sources and movement of phosphorus to surface water. Implementation may include a reverse auction incentive program where landowners submit bids on the amount of funding they will accept to install load‐reduction practices (Phosphorus Reduction Task Force 2012).

8.2.6 Wheatland County Water Quality Protection Initiative

The Wheatland County Water Quality Protection Initiative was initiated in 2013 and is an incentive‐ based program aimed at conserving or improving water quality in Wheatland County. The purpose of the Wheatland Water Protection Funding Initiative program is to conserve or improve water quality in Wheatland County. Funding (up to $3500) is available for landowners to implement best management practices that increases the health of riparian areas and protects surface and groundwater sources, including alternative drinking water sources, portable livestock shelters and riparian fencing.

8.3 Community Engagement

To be successful, agricultural producers, acreage owners, residents and landowners within the planning area must be in support of the CSMI. Efforts should first be made to build support within the agricultural community for the CSMI project. Information should be developed and disseminated regarding the phosphorus issue and the CSMI. A workshop should be held with producers to discuss the project and the variety of BMPs that could be implemented in the area. Producers will likely be able to add tot the lis of BMPs or discuss why certain BMPs may or may not be feasible.

Multiple, facilitated landowner workshops should be hosted to:

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 22

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

1) Identify specific rural BMPs that are most appropriate to achieve water quality objectives and farm operation goals, 2) Assess willingness to adopt BMP practices, 3) Develop short‐term strategy to implement acceptable BMPs within a pilot demonstration catchment, and 4) Discuss strategy for long‐term watershed‐scale implementation of BMPs.

Regular updates (i.e., annual) should be provided to the community by way of newsletters, factsheets and a CSMI website.

8.4 Rural BMP Implementation

In developing the Funding Strategy in Section 8.2, and through the facilitated workshops held with agricultural producers, acreage owners, residents and landowners as per Section 8.3, locations for BMP implementation in the short‐term and long‐term will be identified. There are likely about 200 agricultural producers, acreage owners, landowners and residents within the CSMI catchments who would be approached to implement BMPs. It is difficult to determine the response to the BMP implementation proposal and the level of adoption that might take place. However, recent programs focused on implementing agricultural BMPs have proven successful. There is good potential that the community would get involved in BMP implementation, particularly if the incentives are large enough.

To help inform the rural BMP implementation program discussion, culverts that direct rural runoff directly to the irrigation canal infrastructure should be identified and mapped within the CSMI planning area. In addition, areas where livestock have direct access to irrigation canals should be identified and mapped.

Generally, water quality at many of the WID’s monitoring sites is meeting objectives. There are a few areas within the system that have chronic water quality issues and efforts to improve water quality should first be applied in these areas. BMPs should substantially affect the maximum phosphorus concentrations at these sites. It may be that there are a fewr large projects that, when implemented, would result in a substantial reduction in phosphorus load. Removing point sources (i.e., direct drainage paths to canals) will likely achieve a much higher and immediate percent reduction in phosphorus compared to non‐point source BMPs (riparian/grass buffer). BMPs should be implemented within the critical source areas first, if possible. Critical source areas have been identified to some extent through the WID Water Quality Monitoring Program, with the highest priority sites located at the B and C Canals. These critical source catchments could act as a demonstration or pilot to be used as a model for other catchments within the CSMI planning area.

Administration of the BMP Implementation Program would likely be most suited to the rural municipalities who have worked with rural landowners and would have the best insight into program management. As one option, compensation should be paid directly to producers or operators who would implement the BMP projects, but the overall program should be managed by rural municipalities (i.e., Agricultural Service Board) who would oversee the funding and monitor that the projects were implemented to satisfaction.

A facilitator assisting with the workshops described in Section 8.3 should continue to work with the community to assist with the design and implementation of the rural BMPs, in collaboration with rural

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 23

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative municipality agricultural fieldmen and agricultural conservation and communication coordinators. Depending on the project, additional expertise may be required to design some BMPs.

The effectiveness of rural BMPs to improve water quality (reduce phosphorus loading) within the irrigation canals should be monitored. This may be done by continuing with the existing water quality monitoring program undertaken by the WID and by augmenting the existing program with additional sites that will better capture water quality conditions upstream and downstream of the BMP. Five additional sites are proposed to augment the existing program and the cost for these sites is included in the project budget. Note that the objective is not to assess individual BMP performance in this monitoring program, rather it will indicate whether water quality is improved and/or maintained when a suite of BMPs are applied within the CSMI planning area.

8.5 Riparian Health Strategy

Riparian areas are the transition zones between the upland and aquatic environment. As such, healthy, functioning riparian areas contribute to water supply and quality within watersheds. Riparian areas store water during periods of high flow and release it back to the system in periods of low flow. Riparian areas also slow the flow of water and facilitate the sedimentation of suspended solids and the uptake of nutrients into plant and microbial biomass.

Although irrigation infrastructure is typically comprised of engineered and lined canals, water is occasionally conveyed short distances using natural waterways. In addition, natural waterways are often the end‐point for irrigation water and return‐flows. These systems must remain intact and functioning to support high quality water for a variety of uses in the future as well as support aquatic life.

Within the CSMI planning area, there are a number of lotic (flowing) and lentic (non‐flowing) riparian areas that should be monitored to ensure that they maintain function as land use changes through time. Riparian areas associated with Serviceberry Creek, Crowfoot Creek and ephemeral waterways and coulees (e.g., Hartell Coulee) should be managed in a way that maintains or improves ecological function. Water that is released to these systems should be done at a rate and volume that will not negatively impact riparian function.

Typically, the methods developed by the Alberta Riparian Habitat Management Society (Cows and Fish) are used to asses riparian health. These assessments should take place every seven years to ensure that riparian health is meeting performance indicator objectives (i.e., riparian health scores are within the healthy category [80 or above]).

To begin, historical riparian health assessment and inventory data from Cows and Fish, and others, should be obtained, to identify the extent of riparian health assessment and inventory completed in the CSMI planning area and to determine current riparian health status. Based on this review, a riparian health assessment and inventory strategy should be developed to monitor riparian areas in the long‐ term. The number and locations of monitoring sites should be identified based on this review. For the purpose of budgeting in this report, 10 sites within each of the A, B and C Canal catchments are recommended.

Common riparian setback and buffers should be applied within the CSMI planning area if possible. Many of the partner municipalities already apply setbacks and buffers within their respective jurisdictions.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 24

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

These policies and associated bylaws should be reviewed (Refer to policies (Appendix A) and a common approach developed. For municipalities that do not have riparian setbacks established, these should be developed considering existing setback policies and bylaws of neighbouring jurisdictions.

8.6 Wetland Strategy

In order to manage wetlands within the CSMI planning area and integrate certain wetlands into the stormwater strategy, a comprehensive understanding of wetlands in the region is required. Wetlands within the CSMI planning area should be mapped using existing data sets available from the CSMI partners. Wetland inventory map layers can be accessed from the municipalities, the Government of Alberta (GOA) and Ducks Unlimited Canada and others and compiled into one, unified map. The wetlands should be categorized according to the wetland classification system (Stewart and Kantrud 1971) and by wetland value (assigned using the Alberta Wetland Policy guidelines when completed). A request should be made to the GOA to assigns values to the wetlands within the CSMI planning area as a priority. Once the wetlands are assigned values, restoration and enhancement funds may become available through the requirement for wetland compensation.

In addition to valuation, wetlands should be assessed and management objectives for each wetland type (i.e., ephemeral wetlands, marshes and open water wetlands) and/or for each major wetland complex should be developed. Understanding how water management may influence wetland function (e.g., improve, enhance or restore nutrient retention functions) will be critical to implementing the SWM alternatives.

Alberta Wetland Policy Implications:  CSMI (or another group associated with ALUS‐type partnership) could possibly manage in‐lieu fee payments for financial restitution for wetland loss on behalf of the province to direct and manage funds directed to the CSMI planning area.  Areas within CSMI should be identified for wetland restoration, replacement, construction to direct permittee‐responsible replacement activityd an funds to the CSMI planning area according to the Alberta Wetland Policy.  In case of permittee‐responsible replacement, the Alberta Wetland Policy seeks to encourage innovation and continuous improvement in wetland restoration and construction. The options and strategies outlined in this study support this innovation and wetland restoration and construction direction.

Similar to the riparian strategy, common wetland setbacks and buffers should be applied within the CSMI planning area if possible. Existing policies and associated bylaws should be reviewed (refer to policies in Appendix A) and a common approach developed.

8.6 Water Quality Monitoring Requirements

Water quality monitoring forms the basis of all decisions made regarding BMP implementation and urban SWM alternatives. Therefore it is a critical element within the overall CSMI Strategic Plan. In addition to riparian health assessments, water monitoring should be undertaken to maintain a level of understanding of baseline water quality conditions, to characterize rural runoff quality and to evaluate the performance of rural BMPs in reducing phosphorus loads to surface water.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 25

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

CSMI Water Quality Monitoring Objectives:

1) Collect baseline water quality data in canals, natural waterways and in lakes, reservoirs and wetlands that can be used to document water quality as land use changes through time. (This would build on the existing program managed by the WID).

2) Characterize the quality of urban stormwater and rural runoff prior to discharge into irrigation canals.

3) Measure the impact of urban stormwater on water quality in irrigation canals and natural receiving waters.

4) Evaluate the performance of multiple urban LID and rural BMPs in reducing phosphorus concentrations in surface water when implementede at th watershed scale.

5) Better understand temporal trends in phosphorus loading within the CSMI planning area.

Possible Research Project Objectives (not included in the budget)

1) Evaluate individual urban LIDs and rural BMPs in reduction of phosphorus in surface water. 2) Evaluate treatment wetland performance.

The following describes the three water monitoring programs recommended within the CSMI planning area. The actual program that would be developed to monitor water quality will ultimately depend on the SWM alternative that is implemented.

8.6.1 Objective 1. Baseline Water Quality Monitoring (Grab samples)

The Western Irrigation District currently monitors water quality at 18 canal sites eight times per year (June to September, every two weeks) and at Chestermere Lake and Langdon Reservoir 5 times per year (May to September, monthly). This program has established long‐term water quality at these sites and water quality trends in each of the A, B and C canals. The seven years of data has shown that several sites have consistently not complied with WID’s water quality objectives and/or show a worsening trend. At B Canal, the sites w‐LYALTA, w‐HWY 21 and u‐STAND are of concern with u‐STAND being highest priority. At C Canal, u‐Rocky and n‐ARDEN are also of concern, but these have a lower priority rating. Although the site u‐GRAHM is only represented by three years of data, there has been low compliance at the site.

The long‐term monitoring that the WID has completed will be useful to determine how effective the BMP implementation program is in the future. However, additional monitoring should be undertaken to fill in some data gaps. Additional monitoring should include grab sampling and also continuous monitoring that would contribute to the better understanding of stormwater impacts on receiving water quality (Objective 3).

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 26

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

8.6.2 Objective 2. Characterize Rural Runoff Quality (Event Sampling)

Rural runoff quality should be characterized to assist with modelling and to better understand phosphorus dynamics in the rural area. Runoff monitoring could occur for two years. Samples would be collected where direct drainage into the canals occurs from different land uses, including irrigated crops (3 sites), dryland crops (3 sites) and pasture (5 sites). At least three events per year should be assessed.

8.6.3 Objective 4. Evaluate BMP Performance

The effectiveness of BMP implementation should be measured at the catchment scale, and is not easily measured at the farm scale. Water monitoring should continue above and below the catchment to determine effectiveness of BMPs to reduce phosphorus. The existing water quality monitoring undertaken by the WID should be sufficient, with additional sites implemented as needed.

8.6.4 Objective 5. Continuous monitoring at strategic locations within the CSMI planning area

Grab sample data reflects water quality conditions at a specific moment in time (i.e., the day it is collected). With continuous monitoring using automated samplers that collect daily composite data, a better temporal phosphorus trend at select sites could be developed. Continuous monitoring captures water quality as water flows change and as rainfall events occur. This information can provide a comprehensive assessment of phosphorus in the environment and also help to better understand stormwater impacts on receiving water (Objective 3).

Possible sites where continuous monitoring would be useful include:

 Upstream end of stormwater canal (for out‐of‐canal option)  Upstream end of A Canal, B/C Canal split, B Canal downstream of Hartell Coulee and C Canal (for in‐canal option)  Serviceberry Creek ‐ upstream and downstream of the CSMI project outfalls (4 sites)  Possibly at Eagle Lake and/or the Bow River (4 sites)

Note that the budget assumes 6 sites for continuous monitoring.

8.7 Additional Considerations (not included in the budget)

8.7.1 Program Management

A program coordinator could be hired to assist with program implementation and facilitate communication among CSMI partners. This position could be for 8 hours per week and could be a temporary position to help with implementation during the first five years.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 27

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

9.0 Timeline and Budget

Table 12. Summary of costs associated with implementation of rural actions within the Stormwater Strategy (in 2014 dollars). The term Partners refers to the City of Calgary, Chestermere Utilities Incorporated, Town of Strathmore, Rocky View County, Wheatland County and the Western Irrigation District. Note that the water monitoring budget is presented separately.

Potential Cost Share

II

Fish

Year Activity Description Budget (?) and

Other ALUS Partners Growing Program Forward Landowners Cows Explore and develop innovative funding strategy to support BMP Fund implementation and evaluation. This 25,000 25,000 Development might include a hybrid program of ALUS, and an innovative Phosphorus Credit Trading Program 5,000 (BRBC; Develop, print and disseminate

5,000 Bow

1) information regarding the CSMI. River PMP) (Year Host facilitated Landowner Workshops in rural areas.Further discussion on rural 2014 Community BMPs should be held with local Engagement producers and agriculture managers. Assess willingness to adopt through landowner discussions. Landowners 10,000 10,000 should review BMPs and determine most appropriate practices to meet operation goals. Discuss strategy for watershed‐scale implementation of BMPs

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 28

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Potential Cost Share

II

Fish

Year Activity Description Budget (?) and

Other ALUS Partners Growing Program Forward Landowners Cows Characterize land use within each of the thirty catchments and work with local producers to develop a general plan for 20,000 20,000 BMP implementation within the catchments. (Linked to workshop activity above) Implement multiple rural BMPs within catchments where producers are willing Rural BMP to adopt. These catchments should be Implementation used as a pilot project to encourage BMP adoption elsewhere and to evaluate performance. Efforts should 120,000 52,000 60,000 8,000 be made to address priority areas recommended in the WID Water Quality Monitoring Report (PESL 2013). In the first year, identify high priority sites; design and work to implement projects at 4 sites (2 BMPs per site). Summarize available riparian health inventory and assessment data to Riparian Health identify current status and priority 7,500 7,500 Strategy restoration opportunities; prioritize sites for future health inventory or assessment. Map wetlands in the CSMI planning InKind InKind (existing data sets). Wetland Strategy Identify catchments where wetland maintenance, enhancement, restoration 50,000 50,000 and creation opportunities exist.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 29

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Potential Cost Share

II

Fish

Year Activity Description Budget (?) and

Other ALUS Partners Growing Program Forward Landowners Cows Assess wetlands and identify management objectives considering preferred stormwater alternatives. Complete the valuation of wetlands in the CSMI planning area to support InKind Alberta Wetland Policy implementation (AESRD) and CSMI goals to restore and enhance wetlands Review and implement Fund Fund Development Strategy prepared in 5,000 5,000 Development 2014. Develop and disseminate newsletter; host facilitated Landowner Workshops in rural areas (two in each of Rocky View Community and Wheatland Counties) to deliver a 10,000 10,000 Engagement progress report. Continue with

landowner discussion regarding BMP 2) implementation. Implement rural BMP projects according

(Year Rural BMP to plan developed in 2014 (Target: 16 480,000 104,000 240,000 104,000 32,000 Implementation project sites x 2 BMPs per site). 2015 Complete baseline riparian health Riparian Health assessment (1,500 per assessment – 30 90,000 45,000 45,000 Strategy sites? – 10 within each of the A, B and C Canals). Review valuation of wetlands prepared by AESRD; prioritize wetland projects in 25,000 25,000 InKind Wetland Strategy context of wetland strategy. Work to plus InKind (AESRD) direct funds to projects according to InKind priority.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 30

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Potential Cost Share

II

Fish

Year Activity Description Budget (?) and

Other ALUS Partners Growing Program Forward Landowners Cows

Review Rural Progress report, review and amend Program at 3 and 12,000 12,000 program as results inform. 10 years

Develop and disseminate newsletter; host facilitated Landowner Workshops in rural areas (two in each of Rocky View Community and Wheatland Counties) to deliver a 10,000 10,000 Engagement progress report. Continue with

10) landowner discussion regarding BMP ‐ 3 implementation. Implement rural BMP projects according (Years Rural BMP to plan developed in 2014 (Target 60 1,800,000 390,000 900,000 390,000 120,000 Implementation project sites, 2 BMPs per site = 2023 1,800,000). –

Complete riparian health re‐assessment

2016 Riparian Health in 2022 (1,500 per assessment – 30 90,000 45,000 45,000 Strategy sites? – 10 within each of the A, B and C Canals).

Wetland Strategy Annual review of wetland priorities. 5,000 5,000

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 31

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Potential Cost Share

II

Fish

Year Activity Description Budget (?) and

Other ALUS Partners Growing Program Forward Landowners Cows

Review Rural Assess progress on reducing and Program at 15, 20 stabilizing P in the CSMI rural planning 12,000 12,000 and 25 years area. Prepare final report.

Develop and disseminate newsletter;

host facilitated Landowner Workshops

25) in rural areas (two in each of Rocky View Community

11‐ and Wheatland Counties) to deliver a 10,000 10,000 Engagement. progress report. Continue with landowner discussion regarding BMP (Years implementation. 2038 ‐ Implement rural BMP projects according Rural BMP to plan developed in 2014 (Target: 100 3,000,000 650,000 1,500,000 650,000 200,000

2024 Implementation project sites (200 BMPs) = 3,000,000). Complete riparian health re‐assessment Riparian Health in 2029 and 2036 (1,500 per assessment 180,000 90,000 90,000 Strategy – 30 sites? – 10 within each of the A, B and C Canals). (90,000 x 2 times) Wetland Strategy Annual review of wetland priorities. 5,000 5,000 25‐Yr TOTAL Project Cost (Minus Monitoring) 5,971,500 1,582,500 2,700,000 1,144,000 360,000 180,000 5,000

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 32

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Table 13. Summary of estimated annual water quality monitoring costs for the A) out‐of‐canal and, B) in‐canal stormwater alternatives.

A. Summary Out of Canal Monitoring Program Sites Frequency Parameters Metals No Metals Equipment Total Baseline Monitoring 40 Jun‐Sep, twice per month TP, TDP, TSS, FC, EC 112,142 75,922 112,142 Continuous Monitoring (P Dynamics) 6 May, Jun, Jul, Daily TP, TDP and TSS 125,783 36,000 161,783 Lakes/Reservoirs and Wetlands 4 May‐Sep, Monthly TP, TDP, TSS, FC, EC 32,000 Urban/Rural Runoff Characterization 22 Three rainfall events TP, TDP, TSS, FC, EC 36,411 342,336

B. Summary In‐Canal Monitoring Program Sites Frequency Parameters Metals No Metals Equipment Total Baseline Monitoring 24 Jun‐Sep, twice per month TP, TDP, TSS, FC, EC 64,621 40,369 64,621 Continuous Monitoring (P Dynamics) 6 May, Jun, Jul, Daily TP, TDP and TSS 125,783 36,000 161,783 Lakes/Reservoirs and Wetlands 4 May‐Sep, Monthly TP, TDP, TSS, FC, EC 32,000 Urban/Rural Runoff Characterization 22 Three rainfall events TP, TDP, TSS, FC, EC 36,411 294,815

Table 14. Summary of expected CSMI monitoring program cost over a 25‐year period.

Water Monitoring Program Year Notes Out of Canal Option In Canal Option (Fewer Baseline Sites) 2014 (Year 1) 367,336 319,815 2015 (Year 2) Minus equipment capital cost. 331,336 283,815 Remove runoff characterization 2016‐2023 (Year 8‐10) and Continuous Monitoring at 1,356,328 976,163 Year 4 2024‐2028 (Year 11‐25) 2,243,291 1,464,316 25‐Yr TOTAL Cost 4,298,292 3,044,110 Note: Additional Flow Monitoring is not included in this water monitoring cost. Year 1 cost Includes estimated program design, start up and program review costs.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 33

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Overall 25‐Year Program Cost

SWM Alternative Rural Strategy Implementation1 Monitoring Total Cost

Rural Strategy Implementation + Out of Canal 2,985,750 4,298,292 7,284,042 Monitoring2

Rural Strategy Implementation + In Canal 5,971,500 3,044,110 9,015,610 Monitoring Note: 1. In determining the Rural BMP project costs for the alternatives the full estimated costs have been applied even though significant funding is available from other programs. The above costs do not include the installation of a number of underdrains to be constructed on B canal as identified in the SWM alternatives. 2. A 50% discount has been applied to the In‐canal Rural BMP costs to determine the out of canal SWM alternative Rural BMP costs. This reflects the reduced imperative to require the adoption of rural BMP on a wider scale.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 34

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

10.0 Literature

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (AARD). 2007. Beneficial Management Practice Evaluation in the Battersea Drain and Lower Little Bow River Watersheds. Factsheet IB001‐2007. Lethbridge, Alberta. 4 pp.

Afari‐Sefa, V., E.K. Yiridoe, R. Gordon, and D. Hebb. 2008. Decision considerations and cost analysis of BMP implementation in Thomas Brook Watershed. Nova Scotia Journal of International Farm Management 4(3): pp. 1‐32.

Ball, R.C. and F.F. Hooper. 1963. Translocation of phosphorus in a trout stream ecosystem. In Schultz, V. and Klement, A.W. Jr. (eds.). Radioecology. pp. 217‐228. Reinhold, NY. 746 pp.

Bekele, A., A.M.S. McFarland and A.J. Whisenant. 2006. Impacts of a manure composting program on stream water quality. Transactions of the ASABE. 49(2):389‐400.

Boehme, P. 2000. Crowfoot Creek Watershed Survey Report. Crowfoot Creek Watershed Group.

Botha, N. and Parminter, T. 2006. The suitability of available technologies and response to government policies for improving waterway quality. 12th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management. Global challenges and local responses. University of British Columbia, 3‐8 July, Vancouver, BC, Canada, page 26.

Clausen, J.C., W.E. Jokela, F.I. Potter III and J.W. Williams. 1996. Paired watershed comparisons of tillage effects on runoff, sediment and pesticide losses. Journal of Environmental Quality. 25:1000‐1007.

Garrison, P.J. and T.R. Asplund. 1993. Long‐term (15 years) results of nps controls in an agricultural watershed upon a receiving lake's water quality. Water Sci.Technol. 28:441‐449.

Ghazalian, P.L., B. Larue and G.E. West. 2009. Best Management Practices to Enhance Water Quality: Who is Adopting Them? Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 41(3):663‐682.

Haggard, B.E., D.E,. Storm, R.D. Tejral, Y.A. Popova, V.G. Keyworth and E.H. Stanley. 2001. Stream nutrient retantion in three northeastern Oklahoma agricultural catchments. Transactions of the ASAE. 44:597‐605.

Hammer, D.A. (Ed.). 1989. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan.

Inamdar, S.P., S. Mostahhimi, P.W. McClellan and K.M. Brannan. 2001. BMP impacts on sediment and nutrient yields from an agricultural watershed in the coastal plain region. Trasanctions of the ASAE. 44:1191‐1200.

James, E., P. Kleinman, T. Veith, R. Stedman, and A. Sharpley. 2007. Phosphorus contributions from pastured dairy cattle to streams of the Cannonsville Watershed, New York. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 62(1):40–47.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 35

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Jensen, T., K. Tiessen, E. Salvano, A. Kalischuk and D.N. Flaten. 2011. Spring snowmelt impact on phosphorus addition to surface runoff in the Northern Great Plains. Better Crops. 95(1):28‐31.

Johnston, C.A. 1991. Sediment and nutrient retention by freshwater wetlands: Effects on surface water quality. Critical Reviews in Environmental Control. 21:491‐565.

Kadlec, R.H. and R.L. Knight. 1996. Treatment Wetlands. Lewis Publishers, New York. 893 pp.

Devlin, D.L., K. McVay, G. Pierzynski and K. Janssen. 2002. Best Management Practices for Phosphorus. Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. MF‐2321. Kansas, U.S.A. 4 pp.

Khakbazan M., C. Hamilton and J. Yarotski. 2013. The Effect of Land Management Changes and Nutrient Runoff Capture on Water Quality and Farm and Watershed Economics. Paper presented the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association’s 2013 AAEA & CAEA Joint Annual Meeting. Washington, DC. August 4‐6, 2013. 17 pp.

Klotz, R.L. and S.A. Linn. 2001. Influence of factors associated with water level drawdown on phosphorus relesase from sediments. Journal of Lake and Reservoir Management. 17:48‐54.

Knox, A.K., R.A. Dahgren, K.W. Tate and E.R. Atwill. 2008. Efficacy of natural wetlands to retain nutrient, sediment and microbial pollutants. Journal of Environmental Quality. 37(5):1837‐1846.

Kovacic, D.A., R.M. Twait, M.P. Wallace and J.M. Bowling. 2005. Use of created wetlands to improve water quality in the Midwest – Lake Bloomington case study. 5th Annual Conference of the American Ecological Engineering Society, Columbus, OH, Elsevier Science Bv.

Krongvang, B., C.C. Hoffmann, L.M. Svendsen, J. Windolf, J.P. Jensen and J. Dorge. 1999. Retention of nutrients in river basins. Aquatic Ecology. 33:29‐40.

Li, S., J.A. Elliott, K.H.D. Tiessen, J. Yarotski, D.A. Lobb and D.N. Flaten. 2011. The Effects of Multiple Beneficial Management Practices on Hydrology and Nutrient Losses in a Small Watershed in the Canadian Prairies. Journal of Environmental Quality. 40(5): 1627‐42.

Line, D.E., W.A. Harman, G.D. Jennings, E.J. Thompson and D.L. Osmond. 2000. Nonpoint‐source pollutant load reductions associated with livestock exclusion. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29(6):1882‐1890.

Lorenz, K., S. Depoe and C. Phelan. 2008. Assessment of Environmental Sustainability in Alberta’s Agricultural Watersheds, Project. Volume 3: AESA Water Quality Monitoring Project. Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, Edmonton, AB, Canada.

McDowell l, R.W. and A. Sharpley and G. Folmar. 2001. Phosphorus export from an agricultural watershed: Linking source and transport mechanisms. Journal of Environmental Quality. 30:1587‐1595.

Meals, D.W. 2004. Water quality improvements following riparian restoration in two Vermont agricultural watersheds. pp. 81‐96 in Lake Champlain: Partnership and Research in the New Millennium. T. Manley et al., eds. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 36

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Miller, J. 2010. Influence of Streambank Fencing on the Environmental Quality of Cattle‐Excluded Pastures. Journal of Environmental Quality 39(3): 991‐1000.

Miller, M.H., J.B. Robinson, D.R. Coote, C. Spires and D.W. Draper. 1982. Agriculture and water quality in the Canadian Great Lakes basin: III. Phosphorus Journal of Environmental Quality. 11:487‐493.

Miller, J., D. Chanasyk, T. Curtis, T. Entz and W. Willms. 2011. Environmental Quality of Lower Little Bow River and Riparian Zone Along an Unfenced Reach with Off‐Stream Watering. Agricultural Water Management 98(10): 1505–1515.

Mitsch, W.J. 1992. Landscape design and the role of created, restored, and natural riparian wetlands in controlling nonpoint source pollution. Ecological Engineering. 1:27:47.

Mitsch, W.J. 1995. Restoration of our lakes and rivers with wetlands – an important application of ecological engineering. Water Science and Technology. 31:167‐177.

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 722 pp. Ghazalian, P.L.,d B. Larue an G.E. West. 2009. Best management practices to enhance water quality: Who is adopting them? Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 41(3): 663–682.

Neely, R.K. and J.L. Baker. 1989. Nitrogen and phosphorus dynamics and the fate of agricultural runoff. In Northern Prairie Wetlands. Iowa State University Press, Iowa. pp. 92‐131.

O’Grady, D. and R. Boutz. n.d. Phosphorus Trading in the South Nation River Watershed South Nation Conservation, 38 Victoria Street, Finch ON.

Olson, B.M. and A.R. Kalischuk (eds.). 2011. Nutrient Beneficial Management Practices Evaluation Project 2007 to 2012: 2010 Progress Report. Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. 370 pp.

Ontkean, G.R., Chanasyk, D.S., Riemersma, S., Bennett, D.R., Brunen, J.M. (2003) Enhanced prairie wetland effects on surface water quality in Crowfoot Creek, Alberta. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada. 38(2):335‐359.

Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. 2013. Western Irrigation District Water Quality Monitoring Program Report. Western Irrigation District, Strathmore, AB.

Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. and Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. 2008. Assessment of Environmental Sustainability in Alberta’s Agricultural Watersheds. Palliser Environmental Services Ltd., Mossleigh, Alberta, Canada. 81 pp.

Pannell, D., G. Marshall, N. Barr, A. Curtis, F. Vanclay and R. Wilkinson. 2006. Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation technologies by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 46(11):1407‐1424.

Paterson, B.A., B.M. Olson and D.R. Bennett. 2006. Alberta soil phosphorus limits project. Volume 1: Summary and recommendations. Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development,

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 37

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. 82 pp.

Phosphorus Reduction Task Force. 2012. Priorities for reducing phosphorus loadings and abating algal blooms in the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River Basin: Opportunities and challenges for improving Great lakes aquatic ecosystems. Great Lake Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 40 pp.

Poister, D., D.E. Armstrong and J.P. Hurley. 1994. A 6‐yr record of nutrient element sedimentation and recycling in three north temperate lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Oceans. 51:2457‐2466.

Polyakov, V., A. Fares and M.H. Ryder. 2005. Precision riparian buffers for the control of nonpoint source pollutant loading into surface water: A review. Environ. Rev. 13: 129‐144.

Qui, W. and A. McComb. 1995. Planktonic and microbial contributions to a phosphorus release from fresh and air‐dried sediments. Australian Journal of Marine Freshwater Research. 46:1319‐1328.

Reddy, K.R., R.H. Kadlec, E. Flaig and P.M. Gale. 1999. Phosphorus retention in streams and wetlands: A review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology. 29(1): 83‐146.

Richardson, C.J. and C.B. Craft. 1993. Effective phosphorus retention in wetlands: Fact or fiction? CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida. Pp. 271‐282.

Riemersma, S., J. Little, G. Ontkean and T. Moskal‐Hebert. 2006. Phosphorus sources and sinks in watersheds: a review. 82 pp. In Alberta Soil Phosphorus Limits Project. Volume 5: Background information and reviews. Alberta Agriculture, food and Rural Development, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.

Roberts, A.M., D.J. Pannell, G. Doole and O. Vigiak. 2012. Agricultural land management strategies to reduce phosphorus loads in the Gippsland Lakes, Australia. Agricultural Systems. 106:11‐22.

Sosiak, A. J. and D.O. Trew. 1996. Pine Lake Restoration Project: Diagnostic Study (1992). Surface Water Assessment Branch, Alberta Environmental Protection, Edmonton, Alberta. 120 pp.

Stewart, R.E. and H.A. Kantrud. 1971. Classification of Natural Ponds and Lakes in the Glaciated Prairie Region. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA. Resource Publication 92. 57 pp.

Su, J.J, E. van Bochove, G. Thériault, B. Novotna, J. Khaldoune, J.T. Denault, J. Zhou, M.C. Nolin, C.X. Hu, M. Bernier, G. Benoy, Z.S. Xing and L. Chow. 2011. Effects of snowmelt on phosphorus and sediment losses from agricultural watersheds in Eastern Canada. Agricultural Water Management 98(5):867–876.

Tiessen, K.H.D., J.A. Elliott, J. Yarotski, D.A. Lobb, D.N. Flaten, and N.E. Glozier. 2010. Conventional and Conservation Tillage – Influence on Seasonal Runoff, Sediment and Nutrient eLosses in th Canadian Prairies." Journal of Environmental Quality 39(3): 964–980.

Tiessen, K.H.D., J.A. Elliott, M. Stainton, J. Yarotski, D.N. Flaten and D.A. Lobb. 2011. The Effectiveness of Small‐scale Headwater Storage Dams and Reservoirs on Stream Water Quality and Quantity in the Canadian Prairies. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 66(3): 158‐171.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 38

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Tamini, L.D and B. Larue. 2009. Technical and environmental efficiencies and best management practices in agriculture. Institute de recherche et de developpemen en agroenvironnement, Laval University. MPRA Paper No. 18964. University Library of Munich, Germany. 42 pp.

Udawatta, R.P., J.J. Krstansky, G.S. Henderson and H.E. Garrett. 2002. Agroforestry Practices, Runoff, and Nutrient Loss: A paired Watershed Comparison. Journal of Environmental Quality. 33:1709‐1719.

UMA Engineering Ltd. 2007. Aquatic Weed and Algae Control in Irrigation Canals Report. Alberta Agriculture and Food, Lethbridge, AB. 68 pp.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2010. Guidance for Federal Land Management in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Chapter 2. Agriculture. Nonpoint Source Pollution, office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 180 pp.

Watts, C.J. 2000. Seasonal phosphorus release from exposed, reinundated littoral sediments of two Australian reservoirs. Hydrobiologia. 431:27‐39.

Welch, E.B. and J.M. Jacoby. 2001. On determining the principal source of phosphorus causing summer algal blooms in western Washington Lakes. Journal of Lake and Reservoir Management. 17:55‐65.

White, J.S. 1997. Adaptive management and nutrient retention in a Northern Prairie wetland restored with agro‐industrial and municipal wastewater at Frank Lake, AB. M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. 99 pp.

White, J.S., S.E. Bayley and P.J. Curtis. 2000. Sediment storage of phosphorus in a northern prairie wetland receiving municipal and agro‐industrial wastewater. Ecological Engineering. 14:127‐138.

Yang, W., X. Wang, T.S. Gabor, L. Boychuk and P. Badiou. 2008. Water Quantity and Quality Benefits from Wetland Conservation and Restoration in the Broughton’s Creek Watershed. Ducks Unlimited Canada Publication. 48 pp.

Young, R.A., T. Huntrods and W. Anderson. 1980. Effectiveness of vegetated buffer strips in controlling pollution from feedlot runoff. Journal of Environmental Quality. 9:483‐487.

Young, D.A. 1994. Wetlands are not wastelands: A study of functions and evaluation of Canadian wetlands. In W.J. Mitsch (ed.), Global Wetlands: Old World and New, Elseveir Science. Amsterdam. pp. 683‐689.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 39

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Appendix A‐1: Summary of Legislation and Policies Relevant to the SWM Alternatives and Rural Strategies

Please refer to the original document for most recent legislation, policy and guidelines.

Federal

Legislation, Policy and Description Guidelines Regulates impacts and pollution to wetlands that constitute fisheries habitat (i.e., spawning grounds or nursery, rearing, food supply, or migration area for fish).

In April 2013, new regulations pertaining to habitat protection were released in Fisheries Act (1985) response to the revised Act. Section 35(1) “No person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.” was changed to “No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery.” Migratory Birds Prohibits the “taking” of migratory birds, nests, and eggs, and the deposit of harmful Convention Act, substances into waters frequented by migratory birds, without federal authorization. Sections 5‐5.1 (1994); Migratory Birds Implications include increasing water levels that may flood bird habitat and potentially Regulations, Section 6 the addition of harmful substances to waters.

Provincial

Legislation, Policy and Description Guidelines AOPA is provincial legislation that sets manure management standards for all Agricultural Operations operations that handle manure. The Act defines siting and construction standards for Practices Act (AOPA) manure storage and collection facilities, addresses the application of manure to agricultural land and ensures environmental protection through an approval process which involvesy directl affected neighbours and municipalities. The MGA enables municipalities to make urban and rural land‐use development decisions through the creation of land‐use bylaws. Bylaws can be used to prohibit or Municipal Government regulate developments that may negatively impact wetlands. The MGA also provides Act (MGA) for the creation of Municipal Reserve and Environmental Reserve, lands which may serve to protect some wetlands. Storm Drainage Wastewater and Storm Drainage Regulation (Alberta Regulation 119/1993 With amendments up to and including Alberta Regulation 170/2012)

The regulation stipulates that storm drainage systems must be designed to meet minimum standards and design requirements set out in the latest edition of the Environmental Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waterworks, Wastewater and Storm Drainage Protection and Systems. Enhancement Act

(EPEA) Prior to commencing an extension of a storm drainage collection system or a replacement of a portion of the storm drainage collection system, the approval/ registration holder must inform the Director in writing of the project.

No person responsible for a storm drainage system shall use or permit the use of a

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 40

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Legislation, Policy and Description Guidelines substance in or dispose of or permit the disposal of a substance into the storm drainage system in an amount, concentration or level or at a rate of release causes or may cause a significant adverse effect.

Substance Release No person shall knowingly release or permit the release of a substance into the environment in an amount, concentration or level or at a rate of release that is in excess of that expressly prescribed by an approval, a code of practice or the regulations.

Conservation Easements A conservation easement is a legal agreement under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA), in which a landowner can choose to preserve the land’s natural value (e.g. wetland value), either indefinitely or for a specific period of time. The draft SSRP was released October 2013 and includes a surface water quality management framework. The framework identifies water quality triggers and limits for South Saskatchewan water quality parameters based on historical data sets at a few locations on the Regional Plan (SSRP) mainstem of the Bow River. A management response is required if triggers or limits are Water Quality exceeded. There is also direction for ongoing water quality monitoring, evaluation and Framework reporting. The aim is that negative trends in water quality are identified early to reduce the risk that regional ambient limits are exceeded. Surface Water Quality This document summarizes water quality guidelines for use in Alberta. Some of the Guidelines for Use in guidelines are outdated and they are currently under review (as of 2013), including the Alberta (AENV 1999) phosphorus guidelines. Stormwater These guidelines outline planning, analysis, design, construction, operation, and Management maintenance of stormwater management systems relevant to Alberta. They are an Guidelines update of "Stormwater Management Guidelines for the Province of Alberta" (Alberta for the Environment 1987). For the most part, the updated guidelines are esimilar to th 1987 Province of Alberta document, although it includes some of the advances in stormwater management (i.e., (AENV 1999) stormwater quality control and BMPs). Alberta’s Wetland Policy came into effect in April 2013 and aims to minimize the loss and degradation of wetlands, while allowing for continued growth and economic development in the province. The goal is to conserve, restore, protect and manage Alberta’s wetlands by protecting the highest value wetlands, conserving and restoring wetlands in areas where losses have been high, managing wetlands through avoiding and minimizing losses and replacement of lost wetland value, and considering wetland management in a regional context.

The Policy covers 1) natural wetlands in Alberta (i.e., bogs, fens, swamps, marshes and shallow open water), and 2) all restored natural wetlands, as well as wetlands Alberta Wetland Policy constructed for the purposes of wetland replacement. Ephemeral water bodies are not (2013) subject to replacement, however, activities that impact these water bodies remain subject to the Water Act.

Relative Wetland Value: Wetlands are compared across a common list of metrics, derived from five key functional groups: biodiversity and ecological health, water quality improvement, hydrologic function, human uses, relative abundance. Wetlands will be assigned to a value category (i.e., High (A) – Low (D)). Note that the value system has not been developed yet.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 41

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Legislation, Policy and Description Guidelines Wetland Mitigation (Avoidance, Minimization, Replacement): Where achievable, wetlands will be replaced type‐for‐type, where not achievable wetland replacement will seek to replace wetland value. Restorative replacement makes up for the permanent loss of a wetland through the restoration, enhancement or construction of another wetland. Non‐restorative replacement is a list of alternatives that must support the maintenance of wetland value, by advancing wetland science and wetland management (i.e., research, monitoring, inventory and data acquisition, health assessment and modeling, public education and wetland securement for the purpose of longterm conservation. Wetland replacement should take place in the area of original wetland loss. Grazing Lease This Code of Practice identifies the roles and responsibilities that public land grazing Stewardship Code of leaseholders have with regard to range, water and riparian management. Practice Generally, the Government of Alberta owns and is responsible for managing the beds and shores of water bodies, as well as riparian areas where the adjoining land is also Public Lands Act Crown land such as on leased, public lands in the settled areas. Any activity that may impact the bed and shore must be approved und the Public Lands Act. Stepping Back from the Provides guidance form riparian land management in the white zone in relation to new Water: A Beneficial developments near water bodies. It provides a variety of options for establishing Management Practices riparian setbacks and buffers. Guide for New Developments Near Water Bodies. Activities impacting water in wetlands are regulated under the Water Act, Section 36. Before any activity within a wetland (or any other water body) is initiated, such as the Water Act creation of drainage ditches, infilling or alteration due to the construction of a road, AESRD must be contacted for approval. Outcomes defined for healthy aquatic ecosystems and safe, secure drinking water Water for Life Strategy supplies. This guide was written for government regulators, land developers, the public, wetland restoration agencies (i.e., Ducks Unlimited Canada), and government departments Wetland whose mandates or activities affect wetlands. It explains how applications under the Restoration/Compensat Water Act are reviewed when loss of wetland area occurs and outlines how wetland ion Guide (Alberta compensation should occur. This guide will be phased out in summer of 2014 and Environment 2007) replaced by the new Alberta Wetlands Policy tools and systems enabled under this policy. Wetlands Management The interim policy provides direction for the management of slough/marsh wetlands in in the Settled Areas of the settled areas of Alberta (the white zone). This guide will be phased out in summer Alberta – an Interim of 2014 and replaced by the new Alberta Wetlands Policy tools and systems enabled Policy under this policy. A number of key resource management areas are recognized in Sections 5 and 6.3 of the provincial Land Use Policies, specifically: • landscapes with ravines, valleys, stream corridors, lakeshores, wetlands and areas Guidelines for of wildlife habitat; Recommended • areas prone to flooding, erosion, landslides and subsidence; Minimum Reserve • water resources, including sensitive fisheries habitat and aquatic resources; and Widths Adjacent to • areas that allow public access to these public resources. Water Features

To meet the intent of the provincial Land Use Policies and to assist municipalities to establish land use patterns and mitigative measures to minimize negative impacts on

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 42

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Legislation, Policy and Description Guidelines natural resources, SRD provides municipal authorities with considerations and guidelines for minimum environmental reserve/easement widths. In preparation for registration of survey plans with the Land Titles Office, the applicant must retain a registered Alberta Land Surveyor to adequately identify and delineate Surveys Act Crown claimable bed and shore of any waterbodies in accordance with Section 17 of the Surveys Act.

Municipal

Municipality Description Calgary Wetland Conservation Plan (2004) The Calgary Wetland Conservation Plan has a no net loss policy for Environmental Reserve Wetlands. The City's guidelines require a setback from wetlands in new subdivisions, an important step toward protecting these areas. In addition, steps are being taken to reduce the residual impacts of construction and development on remaining wetlands.

Wetlands may be protected as Environmental Reserve through the Municipal Government Act (MGA), or through provincial legislation through the Water Act and Public Lands Act, but although these mechanisms may be used for wetland protection, they do not ensure that all wetlands are protected. Environmental Reserve Policy Riparian setback distances are assigned based on stream order. Distances range from 6 m (1st order streams) to 50 m (4th order streams). Setbacks of 30 m are assigned to Class III to VI wetlands. Setbacks can be adjusted based on site‐specific conditions City of Calgary (e.g., slope, cover type and hydraulic conductivity). Guidelines for Sediment and Erosion Control Stormwater Management and Design Manual (2011) This document is a comprehensive design manual that will promote effective, reliable, and economically affordable stormwater systems. Visit http://www.calgary.ca/UEP/Water/Pages/Water‐and‐wastewater‐systems/Storm‐ drainage‐system/History.aspx for a complete history of stormwater management in the City of Calgary. Stormwater Management Strategy Is aimed at protecting watershed health as the City continues to grow. Drainage Bylaw 26M98

Streets Bylaw 20M88 Provides protection for stormwater quality by prohibiting materials and other vehicle fluids (oil, gas) from leaving personal properties by way of natural forces (i.e., rain, snowmelt and water from hoses). Chestermere Wetland Policy (Policy #311) (October 2013) The Chestermere Wetland Policy was recently passed by Town Council at a special meeting held on October 7, 2013. Policy statements in the Town of Cherstermere’s MDP relating to wetlands are included in several areas, including: Town of Chestermere  Section 3. Land Use 18. To use low impact development stormwater management techniques and conservation of significant natural wetlands and drainage channels through incorporation into parks systems or stormwater management systems.  Section 3.6. Parks, Open Space, and Plazas Policy 8: The Town will support the

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 43

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Municipality Description protection and conservation of natural areas within private developments and/or within the public open space system where such areas are characterized by significant biophysical functions or features. The Town’s water conservation and wetland policies will be used in principle to guide the future protection and enhancement of the Town’s wetlands. Retention, of or compensation for, natural wetlands will be required where existing qualified wetlands can be incorporated into low impact development stormwater management plans.  Section 4.2 Stormwater Management Policy 4: Stormwater management facilities including wet ponds, constructed wetlands, or natural wetlands will be incorporated in the drainage systems for stormwater dstorage an treatment purposes. Wetland Conservation Policy and Plan In 2005, wetlands were inventoried, mapped and classified within the Town boundaries. “Environmentally Significant” wetlands were identified as part of the Town of Strathmore Wetland Conservation Plan. In 2007, the Wetland Policy was formed that states the Town will conserve and/or restore wetlands, wetland area and riparian lands where feasible by implementing a 30 m development setback for Class IV and V wetlands and a 6 m setback for Class II and III wetlands. Riparian Land Conservation and Management Policy Promotes the use of “science‐based” standards to develop setback requirements for riparian lands. RVC may dedicate riparian lands as Environmental Reserve or Environmental Reserve Easement at the time of subdivision. Rocky View County Wetland Conservation and Management Policy Promotes the use of “science‐based” standards to develop setback requirements for wetlands. RVC may require the dedication of wetlands as Environmental Reserve or Environmental Reserve Easement at the time of subdivision. Municipal Development Plan (updated October 15, 2013) Section 3.3.2 Water Resources Policies outline the need to inventory all significant waterbodies, encourage protection of groundwater and prevention of pollution to surface water, and for water conservation. “The County will rely on provincial standards to develop setback requirements for riparian lands adjacent to waterbodies.” The County may require the dedication of riparian lands as ER or ER Easements at time of subdivision. The excavation or filling in of all wetlands and riparian areas should be done in accordance with clause 640(4) (k) of the MGA. The County may develop building development setbacks in the Land Use Bylaw to protect riparian areas, which will apply to all land in all land use districts. Section 3.3.3 Stormwater Management Policies include the requirement of stormwater treatment prior to discharge to receiving natural environmental features Wheatland County and water resources, including wetlands, riparian lands and reserve lands. All subdivision and development proposals may be required to provide stormwater management plans, and any site grading/drainage plans for individual development sites shall conform to the stormwater management plan. Where appropriate, development shall incorporate natural drainage course or natural water features, such as bio‐swales or ditches, for stormwater management as opposed to installing piped systems. Regional Growth Management Strategy (2011) Goal 1. Protect and Manage Natural Areas and Environmentally Sensitive Lands Supporting Policy 2. Natural areas, drainage courses, stormwater management facilities, and rights of ways shall be incorporated as components of linked open space systems.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 44

CSMI: Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative

Municipality Description 3. Focus shall be placed on environmentally sensitive development and the provision of open space, including natural parks and trails with vegetative buffers. 4. Implementation of conservation easements, MR and ER shall be encouraged. 6. A minimum of 30 m shall be required for setbacks adjacent to natural water features. 8. The MR dedication should be taken to the fullest extent whenever possible and directed to areas identified as habitat linkages, habitat patches and riparian habitat areas beyond the required setback distance from lands identified as ER. 9. Other tools, such as conservation easements or ER easements, may be considered where maximum required MR dedication and voluntary MR over dedication may not be enough to protect or provide necessary habitat linkages and/or where increased protection of water bodies may be required (i.e., large streams, lakes).

Goal 2. Stormwater Management Supporting Policy States that stormwater management systems shall provide sedimentation and contaminant filtration prior to release to water bodies, and that integrated stormwater management practices should be implemented to improve stormwater quality, preserve the natural hydrology of the watershed and to mitigate the negative impacts of development.

Other

Organization Description Bow River Basin Council Water Quality Objectives have been developed for the mainstem Bow River and for a (BRBC) few tributaries, including the Elbow River and Nose Creek. Bow River Phosphorus The Bow River PMP aims to take action to manage phosphorus at current or reduced Management Plan levels during a 50‐year period, considering the increasing pressure of population and (PMP) growth in this region. The WID has monitored water quality since 1996 to gain a better understanding of water quality within their water distribution system. In addition, the WID has worked to develop water quality targets and loading limits for Chestermere Lake and water quality objectives for the A, B and C Canal systems (Madawaska Consulting 2005, Western Irrigation 2006a). District (WID) WID Stormwater Guidelines (2007, draft) A document to guide future development that may impact the Western Irrigation District (WID) irrigation canal system. A framework for stormwater policies aimed at new urban developments that require stormwater access to the WID canal system.

February 4, 2014 Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. Page 45

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

APPENDIX D

Modelling

IRRIGATION CANAL WATER QUALITY (PHOSPHORUS) MODELLING

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

D.1 INTRODUCTION...... 2 D.2 MODELLING APPROACH ...... 3 D.2.1 Land Development And Rural Runoff Modelling ...... 3 D.2.2 Irrigation Canal Water Quality Modelling ...... 4 D.2.3 Irrigation Canal Water Quality Objectives and Analysis ...... 4 D.3 HISTORIC WATER QUALITY IN THE IRRIGATION CANAL ...... 5 D.4 IRRIGATION MODEL INPUTS ...... 9 D.4.1 Land Development Areas ...... 9 D.4.2 Rural Catchments ...... 12 D.4.3 Irrigation Flows and Water Quality ...... 13 D.4.4 Summary of Runoff and Irrigation Model Loads ...... 14 D.5 IRRIGATION WATER QUALITY MODELLING ...... 15 D.5.1 Existing Conditions Model ...... 15 D.5.2 In-Canal Model Alternatives...... 17 D.5.3 Model Analysis ...... 18 D.6 RESULTS AND FINDINGS ...... 19 D.6.1 A Canal Discussion ...... 20 D.6.2 B Canal Discussion ...... 20 D.6.3 C Canal Discussion ...... 20 D.6.4 Concluding Remarks ...... 21

APPENDIX I LAND DEVELOPMENT STORMWATER MODELLING APPENDIX II MODELLING GRAPHS A CANAL GRAPHS B CANAL GRAPHS C CANAL GRAPHS

1

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

D.1 Introduction

Alternatives that incorporate in‐canal options will have a direct impact on the irrigation canal water quality. Runoff modelling of the irrigation canal determines the impacts of various stormwater management (SWM) alternatives. Modelling is required in order to assess and predict the outcome of applying the different SWM alternatives. Modelling will help populate the decision support matrix and aid in selecting the SWM alternative to implement.

Phosphorus was chosen to be modelled in the canal system as it is the primary nutrient to cause weed and algae growth. While other water quality indicators could have been modelled, other constituent concentrations like Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and E.Coli will likely be within acceptable levels if P levels are controlled. This modelling is essential to determine if an In‐Canal SWM alternative will improve or be a detriment to the irrigation water quality and what level of treatment at source is required to meet the intent of the WID Stormwater Guidelines.

There are many potential SWM alternatives for this region. Considerations used in developing each alternative were:

1) Alternatives that encapsulated existing technologies and practices in use today, and common within the region today; 2) Technologies and practices that have an excellent chance of becoming a recommended practice in the short term (within 10 year); 3) Easily adaptable to each study area; and 4) Includes rural BMPs.

The SWM alternatives developed will include the three components identified in Section 4.0. The rural BMPs are included in each alternative as they are a contributor to the nutrient loading in the main canals. The encouragement of rural producers becoming environmental stewards by adopting BMPs has been a focus of rural municipalities, watershed planning and advisory councils, watershed stewardship groups, and Alberta Agriculture for some time. The emerging implementation of the Bow River Phosphorus Management Plan will put increased focus on the redirecting of phosphorus from various land use by engaging the various stakeholders in the plan areas. The hope is that the various contributors, including CSMI partners, also build on this momentum to improve the environmental outcome of this initiative. This being said, it is recognized the rural BMPs’ uptake will be over the long term (25 years or more).

The In‐Canal SWM alternatives proposed are shown in Table D.1.

2

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Table D.1 Proposed In‐Canal Stormwater Management Alternatives

STORMWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE CONVEYANCE END USE LAND DEVELOPMENT RURAL 1. Traditional Wetponds BMPs In‐Canal Irrigation Traditional Wetponds 2. BMPs In‐Canal Irrigation and Stormwater Reuse Low Impact 3. Development c/w BMPs In‐Canal Irrigation Wetpond

Table D.2 In‐Canal Component Associated Conveyance Canal

CANAL DISTRIBUTION # STUDY AREAS SYSTEM Hwy 1 South, Chestermere, Langdon, RVC south of Hwy 1, 1. A Canal Wheatland Industrial, Strathmore East and Rural 2. Hwy 1 – North – Conrich C Canal 3. Hwy 1 – North – Rural C Canal 4. Strathmore – North – West B Canal

This report provides further details on the modelling approach to assess the urban and rural BMP’s and the influence that their application on the existing and proposed land development discharges on the main irrigation canal.

D.2 Modelling Approach

The modelling involved two main components, estimating the runoff volumes and phosphorus loads for the existing rural and proposed land development areas under each SWM alternative. These results were then used in a mass balance model of the irrigation canal. The model was simulated over a 50 year time horizon to capture climate variability in the analysis. Further details are provided below.

D.2.1 Land Development And Rural Runoff Modelling Runoff and water quality modelling of the land development and rural areas involved using the water quality model MUSIC (eWater 2013). Separate models were developed for the differing land uses and BMP measures considered for the SWM alternatives for a 100 ha area to derive unit area hydrographs and Total Phosphorus (TP) loadings. The modelling considered a range of BMP performance criteria to test the sensitivity of the model assumptions. The rural runoff was calibrated against the most representative stream flow data available (Nose Creek) to provide unit hydrographs. The model also provided a TP loading derived from the irrigation canal phosphorus modelling calibration considering observed annual loading rate estimates for similar agricultural catchments within Alberta.

3

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

D.2.2 Irrigation Canal Water Quality Modelling The irrigation canal phosphorus model is a spreadsheet based model that was developed in order to simulate the loadings and hence phosphorus concentrations in the three main WID canals: A Canal, B Canal and C Canal. The model was simulated for 50 years on a daily basis during the irrigation season and was calibrated to eight years of observed sample data (2006‐2013). This sample data was taken at various locations along each canal every two weeks throughout the irrigation season. Phosphorus was chosen as the water quality parameter to simulate since it is a critical element that impacts weed and algae growth in the canal. Significant weed growth reduces the capacity of the canal and covers the intakes and control gates.

The model uses a mass balance approach that combines the irrigation flow and expected quality out of Chestermere Lake with inflows (volumes and phosphorus loads) from the rural areas entering the canal at various locations downstream. The resulting canal phosphorus concentrations at a specific location is determined by the combined phosphorus load already in the canal and the load from the incoming runoff and then divided by the combined flow rate for each time step. The phosphorus loading model essentially simulates the accumulation of TP load from the urban and rural areas over the length of the canal (Chestermere Lake to end point of the main canal) on a daily time step over the entire irrigation season. In‐stream processes (or dry weather accumulation) was attempted to be accounted for developing a regression equation based on the observed water quality monitoring data.

The model was used to assess the increase in TP concentration resulting from the loadings assumed for each SWM alternative. The simulations were run for the 2, 10 and 25 year growth scenarios for the existing urban and rural catchment area contributions and adjusted for the projected land development area. The benefits of adopting rural BMPs are included in each SWM alternative. The nutrient loading reductions per each SWM alternative were measured against high and low performance levels. For instance, documentation suggests the expected performance range for nutrient loading reduction for wetponds is 45% to 60%. Simulation was undertaken to achieve these upper and lower performance levels. The simulation models were only undertaken on the long term “In‐Canal” SWM alternatives. The short term “Off season In‐Canal” flows nor the Out of Canal SWM alternatives directly affect the irrigation flows water quality.

D.2.3 Irrigation Canal Water Quality Objectives and Analysis The WID Stormwater Quality Guidelines provide site specific water quality objectives to protect the canals from excessive weed growth, to maintain irrigation quality water and to preserve the quality of return flows back to natural streams. The objectives were based on the existing water quality guidelines for phosphorus (Environment Canada 2004, The Bow River Task Force 1991) along with historical water quality data within the canal.

In examining the historic water quality, the sample data was divided into two sets. Those that exhibited TP concentrations less than the 75th percentile TP concentration (the 75 percent of samples with the lowest concentrations of the data set which typically involves the June to September rural non runoff period) and those that exceeded the 75th percentile (typically influenced by rural runoff, month of May). Within the < 75th percentile data set a target (chronic objective) and a limit (acute objective) was assigned and the >75th percentile data set a limit (acute objective). Limits are concentrations not to be exceeded by any individual sample and targets are concentrations not to be exceeded by the average value of the data set.

4

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

The District wide objective was based to a large degree on the existing water quality guidelines and includes TP concentrations set as follows:

. <0.03 mg/L (target <75th percentile). . <0.05 mg/L (limit <75th percentile) . <0.10 mg/L (limit >75th percentile)

A finer resolution of these targets and limits for each canal were set longitudinally from Chestermere Lake to the end of each canal based on the observed water quality monitoring data. Typically the targets and limits are lower at the top of each canal and increase as water flows down the canal reflecting the observation of increasing TP concentrations along the canal as shown in Figures D.1, D.2 and D.3.

A review of the observed data indicated that the 0.1 mg/L TP concentrate limit is exceeded within the main canals from time to time under existing conditions. It was found that a comparison of the maximum TP concentration is not a good measure due to the typically observed variability of TP. Therefore, the average TP for the greater than 75th percentile of data points was chosen as the comparison between existing conditions and the In‐Canal alternatives being modelled. Rather than comparing canal water quality only to the 0.1 mg/L TP limit for various alternatives, it was more relevant to consider the incremental impact that each alternative has over existing modelled conditions. This is an important consideration for the modelling exercise where the variability is likely to be higher. TP concentrations are estimated for every day resulting in the more extreme conditions being captured in the analysis. The modelling methods may also result in higher maximum TP concentrations compared to what might be observed in practice, even though it might match the average.

This study has adopted the same evaluation measures used for the WID guidelines to compare the sampled water quality data with the irrigation canal phosphorus model and to compare the various alternatives that are being modelled.

D.3 Historic Water Quality in the Irrigation Canal

The WID changed the operation of the irrigation canal in 2006 in order to manage flows in a more active manner and to limit return flows. This meant flow rates within the system were controlled closer to irrigation demand. Previously the canals were operated at a higher flow rate and management of flow was not considered critical. This change in operation therefore influenced the water quality in the canal i.e. lower flow rates. Water quality samples have been collected at two‐week intervals over the irrigation season since the operational change. This observed data was used to compare the water quality trend in each main canal against the original targets and limits provided in the 2007 WID Water Quality Guidelines with a summary of the analysis provided below.

5

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

A Canal

The analysis of A Canal observed data is shown in Figure D.1 and indicates the following:

. Observed Average < 75th percentile phosphorus exceedance is generally below the WID guidelines target. . Observed 75th percentile phosphorus exceedance is also below the WID Guidelines limit. . Observed average > 75th percentile phosphorus is below the suggested 0.1 mg/L.

This indicates that the canal does have water quality capacity, particularly if rural BMPs and selected underdrains reduce phosphorus loadings for the rural runoff events, which mainly influences water quality for the > 75th percentile of exceedence of phosphorus concentrations. This observation is probably due to the high irrigation flow volumes in A Canal and the smaller rural contributing catchments. When considering the data, the observed average > 75th percentile is likely to be unrepresentative of the level of phosphorus in the canals during runoff events, due to the limited frequency of sampling. This is demonstrated by the average water quality for > 75th percentile exceedance values from the irrigation canal phosphorus model.

Figure D.1: A Canal 2006‐2013 Sample Data vs. WID Guidelines

6

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

B Canal

The analysis of B Canal observed data is shown in Figure D.3 and indicates the following:

. Observed Average < 75th percentile phosphorus exceedance is generally above the WID guidelines target. . Observed 75th percentile phosphorus exceedance is also above the WID Guidelines limit downstream of Lyalta, and is well above the limit at Standard. . Observed average > 75th percentile phosphorus exceeds the suggested 0.1 mg/L limit along the majority of the canal length as is nearly twice the limit.

This indicates that the B Canal has no capacity to accept further phosphorus loadings. However, there appears to be greater opportunities to reduce the phosphorous through the use of rural BMPs and physical underdrains.

Figure D.2: B Canal 2006‐2013 Sample Data vs. WID Guidelines

7

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

C Canal

C Canal is unique in that for a portion of its length, from about Delacour to about 5km east, irrigation flows are in the natural drainage course (bed) of Serviceberry Creek. The irrigation flows are diverted out of Serviceberry Creek just east of Highway #9.

The analysis of C Canal observed data as shown in Figure D.3 indicates the following:

. Observed Average < 75th percentile phosphorus exceedance is generally below the WID guidelines target. . Observed 75th percentile phosphorus exceedance is also below the WID Guidelines limit. . Observed average > 75th percentile phosphorus just below the suggested 0.1 mg/L limit along the majority of the canal length.

C Canal is similar to A Canal in that for the non‐runoff events, the existing water quality is within an acceptable range. However, the rural catchment areas between Chestermere and the diversion out of Serviceberry Creek will deteriorate the irrigation water quality during runoff events.

Figure D.3: C Canal 2006‐2013 Sample Data vs. WID Guidelines

8

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

D.4 Irrigation Model Inputs

D.4.1 Land Development Areas Kerr Wood Leidal was retained to complete the urban modelling portion of the overall phosphorus modelling analysis. The intent of the modelling effort for the land development areas in the system was to:

 Model both water quality and quantity and to develop runoff characteristics for typical land uses  Model stormwater BMPs including LID practices to determine volumes for each SWM alternative  Generate phosphorus loading for the land uses in the study area: country residential (CR), urban residential (UR) and Industrial/Commercial (I/C).

The hydrological model MUSIC was chosen for this study (eWater 2013) to simulate the water quality performance of commonly used LID practices in land development areas.

The models were built on existing MUSIC models for the Stormwater Quality Upgrade WH canal Catchment Level 1 (2007, WH Canal Study). No specific catchment from this study area was modelled. Instead, a typical 100 ha catchment model with wetpond was developed for each land uses given above. The model output was then applied to the irrigation phosphorus water quality model as a unit hydrograph and scaled to represent the actual contributing land development.

Pollutant Loading and BMP

MUSIC uses a mean pollutant (i.e. TSS, TP) concentration as well as a standard deviation to define the log‐normal distribution to develop a stochastically generated water quality to apply typically observed water quality variability to the modelled runoff. These adopted phosphorus concentrations from various land development surfaces were obtained from various references including the Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development’s (ESRD) Stormwater Guidelines (1999) which summarizes the expected concentration of different pollutants. See Tables 6‐1 to 6‐3 in Kerr Wood Leidal’s Technical Memorandum contained in Appendix I of this report.

LID Model Runs

Each land use scenario considered was analysed for three levels of water quality treatment (wetponds only, wetpond and reuse, wetpond with LID practices). Furthermore, each model run was simulated for an upper and lower performance level. The LID component reduces runoff through the use of bioretention areas (rain garden) and absorbent landscaping to promote enhanced evapotranspiration, infiltration into the soil and stormwater reuse. Water quality treatment parameters were selected to achieve the anticipated treatment. See Table 7‐4 in Kerr Wood Leidal’s Technical Memorandum for selected parameters.

9

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

The key requirement of the land development stormwater modelling was to predict the potential variations expected from the various stormwater BMPs treatment trains. Limited WQ performance data for the various stormwater BMPs is available in the Calgary region. Water quality data from the 68th street SE wetpond was used to gain an appreciation of the variability of phosphorus concentrations. This is because the variability timing of discharge and variability of TP concentrations is more important than the overall TP reduction from the BMP treatment train.

Water quality treatment parameters (K and C values) were selected to achieve a higher variability in phosphorus concentrations than what is recommended in the MUSIC manual in additional to achieve overall efficiencies suggested by references such as the US EPA stormwater BMP database. The TP variability is show in Figures D.4 and D.5 for a wetpond with and without LID practices, respectively.

Figure D.4 Wet pond SWM Alternative

10

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.5 LID SWM Alternative

Results for Land Development Modelling

The following table summarizes the range for peak flow reduction and TP reduction for all land uses. Detailed analysis of these results is included in KWL’s Technical Memorandum, Tables 8‐1 to 8‐3. The industrial/commercial tended to produce the lowest reduction and the County Residential the highest reductions provided in Table D.4.

Table D.4 Urban Modelling Results

Treatment Flow Volume Reduction TP Reduction Wetpond 15‐32% 45‐68% LID and Wetpond with Reuse 41‐68% 39‐81% Wetpond and Reuse 31‐70% 55‐76%

11

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

D.4.2 Rural Catchments Rural catchments flowing into the canal have slightly different characteristics depending on location. Soils from catchments flowing into C Canal are typically sandy whereas the soils from catchments flowing into A and B Canals are typically clay till. This can influence the actual amount of phosphorus that is discharged to the canal from surface runoff. For this study, uniform runoff rates have been assumed. TP loading rates have been increased for A Canal in order to meet the observed data. Some of the assumptions in the model include:

 All catchment areas are of similar topographical and soil characteristics, and therefore runoff is proportional to TP loading for all catchments (with A Canal being higher).  Rainfall from the City of Calgary International airport is uniform for all the WID catchment areas.  Rural runoff is proportional to the catchment area draining into the canal.

Stream flow data was used to assist the derivation of the runoff that occurs from the rural catchments draining directly into the WID main canal system. The Nose Creek gauges were used to assist the MUSIC model calibration for the rural catchments.

Figure D.6 shows the adopted MUSIC model calibration against the flows of the West Nose Creek gauge for the period of record. The average annual runoff from the MUSIC model was approximately 12 mm/year. The model was then used to derive TP loads on concentration based on achieving annual average TP loading rates of approximately 0.1 kg/ha.

Figure D.6: Comparison of Nose Creek and Modelled Rural Runoff

12

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

D.4.3 Irrigation Flows and Water Quality The irrigation flows and associated water quality discharging from Chestermere Lake was predicted based on observed data.

A regression function was developed that related the rainfall and evaportranspiration to the predicted irrigation flows using the recorded daily irrigation flows from 2006‐2012 at the WH canal. Figure D.7 shows the regression for the predicted flows compared to the gauged canal flows in the WH canal. The flows were then split between the main WID canals based on a portion of their historical design flow rates. A review on gauged flows on the canals indicated this was a fair assumption with A Canal roughly taking 50%, B Canal 25% and C Canal 25%. Although not always consistent with the gauged flows it allowed the irrigation model to predict flows under the current operating regime for the 50 year model period with a reasonable confidence. This was important as the canal flow is a critical variable in deriving TP concentrations along the main canals.

TP concentrations in the irrigation water discharged from Chestermere Lake is dependent on the WQ in the Bow River and the impact of the City of Calgary direct discharge catchments, the Town of Chestermere runoff, and the treatment capacity of the Lake itself. A number of TP correlations were explored in order to develop phosphorus concentration in the irrigation flows.

A seasonal function that varied TP concentrations was combined with a linear function that increased the TP concentration based on the amount of recent rainfall. A comparison of the predicted TP concentrations against observed data is show in Figure D.8. By deriving an estimate of TP downstream of Lake Chestermere it avoids the complicated interactions of the catchment that drains into the WH Canal and Chestermere Lake and associated buffering and treatment capacity of the Lake. As it is likely that any In‐Canal alternative will discharge downstream of Lake Chestermere, therefore such an approach is considered suitable.

Figure D.7: Modelled vs. Observed daily WH Canal Flows

13

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.8: Comparison of Observed TP Samples vs Modelled TP data

D.4.4 Summary of Runoff and Irrigation Model Loads A summary of the TP loading rates and annual average runoff from the existing rural and future land development areas for different SWM alternatives is provided in Table D.5. The summary indicated that the loadings from land development areas do approach the rural annual loading rates for the higher performance LID practice alternative. However, a significant portion of the land development loading will be new to the canal as the majority of the Hwy 1 North and South areas do not have a significant impact on the canal water quality under existing conditions. A summary of the average annual TP loadings entering each irrigation canal for a 25 year land development absorption is provided in Table D.6. The range of rural TP loading rates reflects the variation observed between catchments from the irrigation water quality model calibration and the application of Rural BMPs. The range given for land development represents the performance variation of the SWM alternatives modelled.

Table D. 5 TP and Hydraulic Loading Rates

Wet Pond + Wet Pond, reuse, Land Use Treatment Alternative Rural Wet Pond Reuse LID TP Loading (kg/ha/yr) 0.09 – 0.18 0.34 – 0.57 0.26 – 0.47 0.13 – 0.23

Avg. Annual Runoff (mm/yr) 12 147 110 68

14

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Table D.6 Total Annual Loading to Canals

Total Annual TP from Total Annual TP from Total Annual TP from Land irrigation Flows (kg/yr) Rural Runoff (kg/yr) Development (kg/yr) A Canal 770 1400‐1900 600‐2640 B Canal (B/C Split) 380 800‐1100 250‐1100 C Canal Alternative 512 1500‐2200 500‐2200

D.5 Irrigation Water Quality Modelling

Model Overview

The simulation models were only undertaken on the long term In‐Canal SWM Alternatives. The short term “Off Season In‐Canal” flows or the Out of Canal alternatives do not directly affect the irrigation water quality. Results of the irrigation canal phosphorus model analysis has been provided to help assess potential impacts from discharging stormwater directly into the canal after various levels of treatment within land development areas. The influence of rural BMP and canal underdrains is also included in most of the results.

D.5.1 Existing Conditions Model The model of existing conditions along the length of the canal is compared against observed data for the main canals as shown in Figures D.9, D.10 and D.11. Observed sampled points from 2006‐2013 were used to best fit the model to existing conditions. The following three graphs compare the statistical analysis of the model results against the observed data. The 75th percentile and less than 75th percentile averages were calculated for the model results (daily data) and for the observed data (recorded every two weeks).

15

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.9: Model Calibration – A Canal Water Quality

Figure D.10: Model Calibration – B Canal Water Quality

16

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.11: Model Calibration – C Canal Water Quality

D.5.2 In‐Canal Model Alternatives Three models were run to simulate the different In‐Canal/SWM alternatives and their effect on phosphorus concentrations in the canal. The modelling alternatives were as follows:

1. Wetpond with Rural BMPs: This SWM alternative only provided wetpond stormwater facilities to all urban stormwater runoff before entering the canal system. 2. Wetpond with stormwater reuse and Rural BMPs: The alternative was similar to the wetpond alternative, but had a reuse component where a portion of the collected stormwater would be put back in the urban catchment to be used for watering municipal reserves and other suitable areas. 3. LID practices with Rural BMPs: The alternative included source control measures such as absorbent landscaping and bioretention before being treated though a wetpond. Stormwater reuse was also included in the alternative.

The introduction of Rural BMPs such as reduced fertilizer application rates, buffer strips, and fencing the canal could reduce the TP loading into the canal by 10‐40% from rural catchments. When applying these BMPs to the modelling scenarios, it was assumed that by the 10 year scenario, the TP concentrations in rural runoff would be reduced by 5% to 10%; and by the 25 year scenario, it would be reduced by 15% to 40%. In addition to the Rural BMP’s (non structural) a number of underdrains were provided in selected locations.

Each of these SWM Alternatives was modelled for the existing condition, along with future growth projections for the 2 year, 10 year and 25 year development horizons.

17

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

D.5.3 Model Analysis The alternatives were analyzed for effectiveness in reducing the phosphorus loading into the canal. Compared to the existing condition and water quality guidelines, the phosphorus concentration from each alternative was plotted along the length of the canal to see how it varied and how they compared with each other, the existing water quality, and the water quality guidelines to assess which options have the best potential in reducing overall TP concentrations as growth and development continues east of Calgary.

A Canal

The model for A canal starts just downstream of Chestermere Lake and ends at the Gleichen sampling location. There are 10 catchment areas that drain into the A Canal before the end of the model simulation, at Gleichen. The total area draining into A Canal is approximately 15,700 ha. A Canal has the most land development area draining into it. The urban inputs into A Canal for the future growth projections are as follows:

Table D.5 Urban Inputs into A Canal JURISDICTION LAND USE YEAR 2 YEAR 10 YEAR 25 Urban Residential 0 174 680 Belvedere Country Residential 65 65 65 Industrial 0 26 120 Country Residential 130 130 130 Shepard (Janet) Industrial Industrial 550 696 1085 South Chestermere Industrial 25 34 58 Urban residential 697 937 1629 West Chestermere Country Residential 194 194 194 Urban Residential 201 230 297 East Chestermere Country Residential 324 324 324 East Strathmore Urban Residential 20 24 36

B Canal

The model for B Canal starts just downstream of Chestermere Lake and ends upstream south of Rockyford to the north and south of Standard in the south. Beyond Conrich, the catchment areas draining into B Canal are agricultural in nature. The total area draining into B Canal is approximately 19,500 ha. Urban inputs will not have a significant impact on the water quality of B Canal. B Canal has the worst water quality when comparing existing conditions for all three canals. This maybe partly explained by its smaller flow; the TP loads are not diluted by larger volumes of water. However the water quality during runoff is poorer compared within C canal, indicating that the TP loading could be higher from these catchments. The urban inputs into B Canal for the future growth projections for discharging the Hwy 1 north to C canal or to B/C canal is provided in Table D.6: As noted earlier, the Strathmore North and West area are directed under B canal to limited impacts on the canal water quality and therefore these growth projections have not been provided in the table below.

18

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Table D.6 Urban Inputs into B Canal

JURISDICTION LAND USE YEAR 2 YEAR 10 YEAR 25 Conrich to C Canal Industrial 64 128 128 Country Residential 350 350 350 Conrich to B/C Canal Urban Residential 155 162 952 Industrial 233 242 635

C Canal

The model for C Canal starts downstream of Chestermere Lake and ends at Rockyford. The total area draining into C Canal is approximately 26,600 ha. Similarly to B Canal, the C Canal’s main urban inputs occur right at the beginning of the canal. Beyond Delacour, the catchment areas draining into C Canal are agricultural in nature. The urban inputs into C Canal for the future growth projections for directing Hwy 1 north to Canal or to B/C canal are provided in Table D.7.

Table D.7 Urban Inputs into C Canal

JURISDICTION LAND USE YEAR 2 YEAR 10 YEAR 25 Country Residential 647 700 700 Conrich to C canal Urban Residential 155 323 1269 Industrial 233 484 1904 Delacour Urban residential 65 74 95 Country Residential 350 350 350 Conrich to B/C Canal Urban Residential 155 162 952 Industrial 233 242 635

D.6 Results and Findings

The results for each SWM alternative will be represented as a range to represent the variability of performance that could be expected. The graphs represented below will have two data series of the same color, a solid line representing low performance, and a dotted line representing high performance for each SWM alternative. The low and high efficiencies of the alternative’s capability of reducing phosphorus are represented by the upper and lower bounds of each SWM alternative, respectively.

This section provides a complete set of graphs showing the results for the 25 year and 10 year development growth projections. A brief discussion has been provided, however the main report provides further discussion which has not been repeated below.

19

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

D.6.1 A Canal Discussion A Canal will have the most urban impacts in the future. It is critical that nutrient loading reduction measures be implemented from both urban and rural catchment areas. However as the irrigation flows are double the other canals there is additional capacity to accept higher TP loads based on the “dilution effect”.

The model results from the 25 year growth projections are provided in Figures D.12 to D.15 and the 10 year growth projections are given in D.16 to D.19.

D.6.2 B Canal Discussion The water quality in B Canal should be improved even if land development stormwater is not directed into the canal. The improvements would involve introducing rural BMPs at the farm level and install underdrains to direct agricultural runoff to Serviceberry Creek. A Rural BMP program takes time as this depends on the rate of adoption. It may take a number of years before a significant decrease in TP can be observed in the canal. Phosphorus in agricultural soils can leach into the canal for a number of years even after the fertilizer application is reduced or halted. BMPs would therefore have to be implemented immediately. Stormwater from land development is generally only directed into B Canal through the B/C Split alternative as shown in Figure 5.3 of the main report. The results of the modelling for this alternative are presented in Figures D.20 to D.27.

B/C Split Alternative

Where stormwater is being directed into B Canal through the B/C Split alternative, implementing LID practices for land development catchments and BMPs for rural catchments has great potential to reduce the TP concentrations below the limit at the 75th percentile and below for the 25 year growth scenario (See Figure D.21). At the 10 year level, (Figure D.25), the Rural BMPs are assumed to have reduced the total runoff TP concentration by 10%. This is not yet sufficient to reduce the TP concentrations to an acceptable level. The average TP concentration for the <75th Percentile will lie right on the limit.

Although B Canal has the poorest water quality of the three canals, it does have a great potential to reduce the catchment areas draining to it. The use of underdrains can be an effective way of reducing the runoff into the canal by directing runoff from entering the canal. An underdrain has been introduced as part of the BMP component of the B canal models. The effect of the underdrain can be seen in the figures as the model performance dips below existing conditions for the 75th percentile for all SWM alternative options for the 25 year land development growth projection.

D.6.3 C Canal Discussion Currently, only a small portion of Conrich drains directly into the C Canal. Eventually, as land development occurs, conveyance routes will need to be built to bring stormwater downstream towards the east. Two alternatives impact the water quality in C Canal. These include directing the majority of flows to C Canal or to the B/C Canal Split (Figures D.28‐D.43). Directing most of the runoff east to the C Canal (after the B/C split) will reduce the urban impacts on B Canal, which is already experiencing the worst water quality issues.

20

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

C Canal Alternative

The >75th percentile average concentrations tend to always exceed the maximum limit of 0.1mg/L and existing conditions.

C Canal, at the 25 year growth scenario, both the LID option and the reuse option show a decrease in TP concentration that satisfies the water quality target for this canal system. For the LID option, the entire range of LID performances is below the WID Guideline limit at the end of the canal at the 75th percentile (See Figure 29). For the <75th percentile average concentrations at the 25 year growth scenario, the full ranges of performance for both the LID and Reuse are below the WID Guideline target of 0.03mg/L at the end of the canal (See Figure D.30).

For the C Canal, at the 10 year growth scenario, all options (wetpond, LID, and reuse) are below or at the WID Guideline limit of 0.05mg/L at the end of the canal for the 75th percentile of TP concentrations (See Figure D.33). Also, all options are below the WID Guideline target of 0.03mg/L for the <75th percentile average concentrations (See Figure D.23).

B/C Split Alternative

The B/C Split scenario has similar results to the C Canal scenario, although the TP concentrations are lower. This is due to the flow (and therefore TP) being divided into the C Canal and B Canal. Although this scenario looks better for C Canal, it is not a good solution for the water quality of B Canal. B Canal already has the worst water quality of all three canals.

D.6.4 Concluding Remarks To maintain sustainable water quality within the irrigation distribution system, widespread implementation of LID technology should be implemented for all new development where stormwater runoff drains to the irrigation works. Rural BMPs play a large role in reducing the TP concentrations below the guideline limit in the long term. Rural BMP awareness and education programs should be put in place in the near future to kick‐start land owners’ willingness to adopt these BMPs. The use of underdrains plays an important role in diverting agricultural runoff from B Canal.

The results indicate the following:

. The effect of the in‐canal SWM alternatives is most noticeable for the > 75th percentile of phosphorous concentrations and least for the average < 75th percentile exceedence. . Average TP for >75th percentile values, the WQ target limits are exceeded for all of the SWM alternatives. The best performing SWM alternative is the application of LID practices. . LID practices with rural BMPs appear to achieve water quality results below the guideline targets and limits and are mostly below the existing modelled water quality in the canal. . Without rural BMPs the irrigation water quality for each SWM alternative is typically higher than existing conditions. . The adoption of wetponds (with and without reuse) as an in‐canal SWM alternative would require a performance at the higher end of the range for both wetponds and rural BMPs and possible to use an additional filter systems as shown on the bottom of Table 4.3 of the main report.

21

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

In general, it can be concluded that to maintain a sustainable irrigation canal system for the In‐Canal alternatives, the following should be applied:

. Any land development within the region ‐ proceed with LID practices, wetponds, and implementation of rural BMPs. . Where possible, underdrains which divert rural runoff under the canals should be implemented, particularly for B canal.

22

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

APPENDIX I LAND DEVELOPMENT STORMWATER MODELLING

Technical Memorandum

DATE: February 3, 2014

TO: David Seeliger, MPE

FROM: Craig Kipkie, P.Eng. Sara Pour, E.I.T.

RE: CO-OPERATIVE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE (CSMI) Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options Our File 2400.011-300

1. Introduction This technical memorandum provides a summary of the development of the MUSIC models as well as a summary of the results for the Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative (CSMI) Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options. The intent of the modelling effort was to: • model both water quality (WQ) and quantity and to develop runoff characteristics for typical urban and rural catchments in the study area • model stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP’s), Low Impact Development (LID’s) and reuse options to determine runoff timing and water quality from urban areas • generate overall phosphorous loading for the study catchments and to for each of the different land uses (urban residential, country residential and industrial) and surface types (roofs, roads, etc.) The MUSIC models are built on the approach and WQ parameters used for the Stormwater Quality Upgrade WH Canal Catchment Level 1 Study (2007) (WH Canal Study). Three modelling scenarios were considered for the each of the following catchments representative of land uses in the study area: • Typical 100 ha Urban Residential catchment • Typical 100 ha Country Residential catchment • Typical 100 ha Industrial catchment The following scenarios were developed for each of the catchments noted above: • 100 ha catchment draining to a wet pond (Wet Pond model) • 100 ha catchment with LIDs draining to a wet pond with reuse for irrigation of up to 30% of the pervious area in the catchment (Wet Pond with LID and Reuse model)

N:\29\159 CSMI\001 Stormwater Mgmt Options\Reports\Draft Report - FINAL\Appendices\Appendix D - Modelling\20131115_MusicModelSum_TechMemo_DRAFT.docx

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

• 100 ha catchment without LIDs draining to a wet pond with reuse for irrigation of up to 30% of the pervious area in the catchment. (Wet Pond with Reuse model) This memo provides a summary of essential background information, sources for and approaches to developing input parameters and preliminary results and recommendations. 2. Background

2.1 STUDY CATCHMENT DESCRIPTION The study area includes the Western Irrigation District (WID) and the surrounding communities who are working together under the CSMI umbrella to develop a sustainable stormwater management system for the region. Common developed land uses in the study area include urban residential (UR), country residential (CR), and industrial. No specific catchment from the study area were modelled instead ‘typical’ 100 ha catchment models were developed for each of UR, CR and industrial land uses. The breakdown of land use in each ‘typical’ model is based on the detailed surface area calculations done for the WH Canal Study as well as visual inspection/rough estimation of various land use coverages in neighbourhoods that are considered typical and representative neighbourhoods.

2.2 MUSIC The model chosen for this study, MUSIC, was developed by the Water Cooperative Research Centre (previously known as the CRC for Catchment Hydrology) in Australia to simulate the water quality performance of commonly used BMPs in urban areas. It was designed to be run as a continuous simulation to assess the performance of BMPs over long periods of time, which is of most interest in water quality modelling, rather than for peak events, which are typically of interest for flood assessments. A description of the main parameters used is provided below.

SOURCE AREA PARAMETERS The model requires soil, groundwater and rainfall parameters for rainfall-runoff calculations and pollutant loading data (mean and standard deviation) to generate pollutant loading from a catchment. Soil parameters used are percent impervious, initial loss (depression storage), soil storage capacity, field capacity and infiltration rate. Groundwater parameters include the daily recharge rate, baseflow rate and deep seepage rate. Rainfall data for water quality modelling is best if defined at relatively small time steps. This allows for better simulation of the treatment processes in BMPs which can have short hydraulic detention periods. MUSIC is able to accept rainfall values at time steps from 6 minutes to 24 hours, with 6 minutes being the most desirable.

BMP PARAMETERS MUSIC requires both physical dimensions of the BMPs as well as treatment parameters which describe the mixing rate of runoff entering the BMP and its ability to remove pollutants from runoff. However, typically only the physical dimensions of the BMPs are entered. The default treatment parameters have

2

N:\29\159 CSMI\001 Stormwater Mgmt Options\Reports\Draft Report - FINAL\Appendices\Appendix D - Modelling\20131115_MusicModelSum_TechMemo_DRAFT.docx

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

been developed based on significant research of BMP performance and are only adjusted if sufficient local data exists to justify a change. For example, the physical parameters required for a wet pond include the permanent pond depth, extended detention depth, surface area and outlet size. If the pond uses an unusual configuration or significant local data exists, then the mixing efficiency and the treatment parameters can be adjusted accordingly. The default treatment parameters for wetponds were modified based on a review of limited local data. BMP modelling parameters are summarized in Section 7. 3. Precipitation and Evapotranspiration To accurately assess BMP performance, rainfall data is required at a relatively small time step. MUSIC is able to process data with a 6 minute time step or greater. The City of Calgary Water Resources provides hourly participation data for the analysis and design of stormwater infrastructure in Calgary. The long term precipitation record, January 1960 to December 2009, is an adaptation of Environment Canada, Meteorological Survey of Canada data, error-checked and cross-checked with local weather observations. This data was used for the modelling. The evapotranspiration data for the model is based on data embedded in the City of Calgary Water Balance Spreadsheet. The spreadsheet contains a long term record (1960 to 2010) of monthly potential evapotranspiration (PET) values. This data was converted to daily rates based on the number of days in each month and was input into music. In all the modelling scenarios described in Section 1, the wet pond evaporative losses are specified at 73% of the model PET. This value is also based on the Calgary Water Balance Sheet and the data on PET for a pond. 4. Land Use Three broad categories of land uses were modelled as three separate/independent catchments: Urban Residential, Country Residential and Industrial. Each of these catchments is divided into constituent land uses (i.e. lots, parks, and road) and each constituent land use is further divided into various surfaces (i.e. roof, impervious area, and pervious area). The breakdown of land use in each ‘typical’ model is based on the detailed surface area calculations done for the WH Canal Study as well as visual inspection/rough estimation of various surfaces coverages in neighbourhoods that are considered typical and representative neighbourhoods. For Urban Residential and Industrial catchments, it was assumed that Parks and Recreation Areas make up 10% of the catchments and Road and Right-Of-Ways (ROWs) make up 23% of the catchment based on similar ratios in the overall WH Canal Study Area. The relative size of different surfaces types within the UR and industrial catchments are generally based on the data included in the WH Canal Study. Where relevant data was not available from the WH Canal Study, assumptions about the land composition were made based on the visual inspection and knowledge of the study area. The WH Canal Study did not consider the Country Residential land use. Therefore, assumptions about the land make up were made based on the visual inspection and knowledge of communities in the WID. Tables 4-1 to 4-3 summarize the modelled land use in each of the catchments.

3

N:\29\159 CSMI\001 Stormwater Mgmt Options\Reports\Draft Report - FINAL\Appendices\Appendix D - Modelling\20131115_MusicModelSum_TechMemo_DRAFT.docx

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

Table 4-1: Urban Residential Model Land Use Summary Overall Total Impervious Impervious Area (ha) Area Coverage Coverage (ha) (%) (%)

UR Roof 21.00 100 UR On-site Impervious Area 26.85 100 Urban Residential UR On-site Lawn Area 18.65 0 Lot UR On-site Gravel Pads 0.50 50 UR Lot Total 67 72 Parks Impervious Surfaces 3.90 100 Parks & Recreation Parks Pervious Surfaces 6.10 0 Areas Park Totals 10 39 ROW Pavement 10.50 100 ROW Residential Gravel Lane 1.30 50 ROW ROW Residential Paved Lane 0.40 100 ROW Other Road 10.80 47 ROW Totals 23 72 Total 100 69

4

N:\29\159 CSMI\001 Stormwater Mgmt Options\Reports\Draft Report - FINAL\Appendices\Appendix D - Modelling\20131115_MusicModelSum_TechMemo_DRAFT.docx

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

Table 4-2: Industrial Model Land Use Summary Overall Total Impervious Impervious Area (ha) Area Coverage Coverage (ha) (%) (%) Industrial Roof 15.0 100 Industrial Paved Parking 3.0 100

Industrial Industrial Paved Storage 29.0 100 Area Industrial Gravel Storage 9.0 50 Industrial Pervious Surfaces 11.0 0 Industrial Total Area 67 78 Parks Impervious Surfaces 3.9 100 Parks & Recreation Parks Pervious Surfaces 6.1 0 Areas Park Totals 10 39 ROW Pavement 18.4 100 ROW ROW Pervious (Lawn) 4.6 0 ROW Totals 23 80 Total 100 100 74

Table 4-3: Country Residential Model Land Use Summary Overall Total Impervious Impervious Area Coverage Coverage Area (ha) (ha) (%) (%) CR Roof 5 100 CR On-site Impervious Area Country Driveway 5 100 Residential CR On-site Pervious Area Lawn 42 0 Lot CR On-site Pervious Area Park 40 0 CR Lot Total 92 11 ROW Pavement 4 100 ROW ROW Pervious (Lawn) 4 0 ROW Totals 8 50 Total 100 14

5

N:\29\159 CSMI\001 Stormwater Mgmt Options\Reports\Draft Report - FINAL\Appendices\Appendix D - Modelling\20131115_MusicModelSum_TechMemo_DRAFT.docx

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

4.1 LID Models Land Use As described in the introduction, for each typical land use model (UR, CR and industrial), three scenarios were considered. In the LID scenario, some of surfaces are treated by rain gardens and absorbent landscaping prior to discharging to the wet pond. Tables 4-4 to 4-6 summarize which surfaces discharge to a rain garden and/or absorbent landscape prior to discharging to a wet pond.

Table 4-4: Urban Residential LID Model Land Use Summary BMP Immediately Area Impervious Downstream (note all (ha) Coverage (%) nodes eventually drain to wet pond)

-2/3 discharges to absorbent landscaping UR Roof 21.00 100 -1/3 discharges to rain gardens Urban Residential UR On-site Impervious Area 26.85 100 Rain garden Lot UR On-site Lawn (absorbent Absorbent Landscaping/ 18.65 0 Landscape) Area Wet Pond UR On-site Gravel Pads 0.50 50 Wet Pond

Parks Pervious Surfaces 3.90 100 Wet Pond Parks & Recreation Parks Impervious Surfaces 6.10 0 Rain garden Areas

ROW Pavement 10.50 100 Rain Garden ROW Residential Gravel Lane 1.30 50 Wet Pond ROW ROW Residential Paved Lane 0.40 100 Rain Garden ROW Other Road 10.80 47 Wet Pond

6

N:\29\159 CSMI\001 Stormwater Mgmt Options\Reports\Draft Report - FINAL\Appendices\Appendix D - Modelling\20131115_MusicModelSum_TechMemo_DRAFT.docx

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

Table 4-5: Industrial LID Model Land Use Summary BMP Immediately Impervious Downstream (note all Area (ha) Coverage nodes eventually drain (%) to wet pond) Industrial Roof 15.0 100 Wet Pond Industrial Paved Parking 3.0 100 Rain Garden

Industrial Industrial Paved Storage 29.0 100 Rain Garden Area Industrial Gravel Storage 9.0 50 Wet Pond Industrial Pervious Surfaces 11.0 0 Wet Pond

Parks Impervious Surfaces 3.9 100 Rain Garden Parks & Recreation Parks Pervious Surfaces 6.1 0 Wet Pond Areas

ROW Pavement 18.4 100 Rain Garden ROW ROW Pervious (Lawn) 4.6 0 Wet Pond

Table 4-6: Country Residential LID Model Land Use Summary BMP Immediately Impervious Downstream (note all Coverage nodes eventually drain Area (ha) (%) to wet pond) Absorbent CR Roof 5 100 Landscaping CR On-site Impervious Area Driveway 5 100 Rain Garden Country Residential Absorbent Lot Landscaping/Wet CR On-site Pervious Area Lawn 42 0 Pond CR On-site Pervious Area Park 40 0 Wet Pond

ROW Pavement 4 100 Rain Garden ROW ROW Pervious (Lawn) 4 0 Wet Pond

7

N:\29\159 CSMI\001 Stormwater Mgmt Options\Reports\Draft Report - FINAL\Appendices\Appendix D - Modelling\20131115_MusicModelSum_TechMemo_DRAFT.docx

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

5. Runoff Parameters The model requires soil, groundwater and rainfall parameters for rainfall-runoff calculations. Soil parameters used are percent impervious, initial loss (depression storage), soil storage capacity, field capacity and infiltration rate. Groundwater parameters include the daily recharge rate, baseflow rate and deep seepage rate. In the case of pervious surfaces, parks and lawns, the soil parameters were modified and calibrated to obtain 70 mm of average annual runoff (11% base flow and 89% runoff) from lawns and 30 mm of mean annual runoff from parks. 6. Pollutant Loading MUSIC requires a mean pollutant (i.e. TSS, Total Phosphorous, etc.) concentration as well as a standard deviation to define the log-normal distribution it applies to the modelled runoff. Alberta Environment’s (AENV) Stormwater Management Guidelines for the Province of Alberta (1999) includes a table that summarizes data from multiple sources on expected concentration of different pollutants in sheetflow runoff from various surfaces (for example: concentration of total phosphorous in runoff from paved parking lots in industrial areas). Phosphorus loading values were first obtained from the ANEV. If ANEV’s guide does not have loading data for a particular surface, then MUSIC default values were used unless an alternative local source of data was available. Tables 6-1 to 6-3 summarize phosphorous loading data.

8

N:\29\159 CSMI\001 Stormwater Mgmt Options\Reports\Draft Report - FINAL\Appendices\Appendix D - Modelling\20131115_MusicModelSum_TechMemo_DRAFT.docx

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

Table 6-1: Urban Residential Model TP Loading Summary TP TP Baseflow Stormflow Source Conc. Conc. (mg/L)* (mg/L)*

UR Roof 0.10 0.10 AENV UR On-site Impervious Area 0.15 0.35 MUSIC Urban Residential UR On-site Lawn Area 0.30 0.30 Literature Review Lot UR On-site Gravel Pads 0.20 0.20 AENV value for dirt walk

Parks Pervious Surfaces 0.15 0.35 MUSIC Parks & Recreation Parks Impervious Surfaces 0.30 0.30 Literature Review Areas

AENV value for paved ROW Pavement 0.62 0.62 driveway ROW Residential Gravel Lane 0.20 0.20 AENV value for dirt walk ROW AENV value for paved ROW Residential Paved Lane 0.36 0.36 driveway ROW Other Road 0.15 0.35 MUSIC

*AENV provides only one mean concentration and does not provide values for baseflow and stormflow. When using AENV as a source, same values were used for both types of flow. 1. Monitoring the long term effectiveness of Metropolitan Cold Weather BMPs, Long term Assessment of Phosphorus Free Fertilizer and Gold Course BMPs, Bertenet et al. (2006). 2. Population Equivalent and Phosphorus (P) loading for Lakeshore Capacity model. Urban Stormwater Runoff Phosphorus Loading and BMP Treatment Capacities, Perry et al. (2009).

9

N:\29\159 CSMI\001 Stormwater Mgmt Options\Reports\Draft Report - FINAL\Appendices\Appendix D - Modelling\20131115_MusicModelSum_TechMemo_DRAFT.docx

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

Table 6-2: Industrial Model TP loading Summary TP TP Baseflow Stormflow Source Conc. Conc. (mg/L)* (mg/L)* Industrial Roof 0.06 0.06 AENV Industrial Paved Parking 2.30 2.30 AENV

Industrial Industrial Paved Storage 0.70 0.70 AENV Area Industrial Gravel Storage 1.00 1.00 AENV Industrial Pervious Surfaces 0.30 0.30 Literature Review

Parks Impervious Surfaces 0.15 0.35 MUSIC Parks & Recreation Parks Pervious Surfaces 0.30 0.30 Literature Review Areas

ROW Pavement 1.60 1.60 AENV ROW ROW Pervious (Lawn) 0.30 0.30 Literature Review

*AENV provides only one mean concentration and does not provide values for baseflow and stormflow. When using AENV as a source, same values were used for both types of flow.

10

N:\29\159 CSMI\001 Stormwater Mgmt Options\Reports\Draft Report - FINAL\Appendices\Appendix D - Modelling\20131115_MusicModelSum_TechMemo_DRAFT.docx

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

Table 6-3: Country Residential Model TP Loading Summary TP TP Baseflow Stormflow Conc. Conc. (mg/L)* (mg/L)* Source CR Roof 0.10 0.10 AENV CR On-site Impervious Area Country Driveway 0.15 0.35 MUSIC Residential CR On-site Pervious Area Lawn 0.30 0.30 Literature Review Lot CR On-site Pervious Area Park 0.30 0.30 Literature Review

ROW Pavement 0.62 0.62 AENV ROW ROW Pervious (Lawn) 0.30 0.30 Literature Review

*AENV provides only one mean concentration and does not provide values for baseflow and stormflow. When using AENV as a source, same values were used for both types of flow.

7. BMP Parameters

7.1 Wet Pond Each modelled catchment drains to a wet pond. Wet ponds in the model were size based on AENV’s design criteria in the Stormwater Management Guidelines: • Permanent pool sized to store the volume of runoff from 25-mm storm over the contributing area • Minimum permanent pool depth of 2.0 m. • 1-in-100 year storm stored within 2 m above the permanent pool (Alternatively, the 2 m can be used to store 1-in-25 year storm. In such cases, an emergency runoff should be constructed). • Detention time of 24 hours. Table 7-1 below provides a summary of the storage provided by the wet pond in each land use scenario.

11

N:\29\159 CSMI\001 Stormwater Mgmt Options\Reports\Draft Report - FINAL\Appendices\Appendix D - Modelling\20131115_MusicModelSum_TechMemo_DRAFT.docx

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

Table 7-1: Wet Pond Permanent and Live Storage Summary for all Land Uses Modelling Scenario Permanent Pool Live Storage (m3/ha) (m3/ha) 100 ha Urban Residential – 250 800 Wet Pond (no reuse)

100 ha Urban Residential – 250 700 Wet Pond with LID and Reuse

100 ha Industrial – 250 1000 Wet Pond (no reuse) 100 ha Industrial – 250 900 Wet Pond with LID and Reuse 100 ha Country Residential – 200 700 Wet Pond (no reuse) 100 ha Country Residential – 200 500 Wet Pond with LID and Reuse

The active storage volumes were derived using the maximum allowable flow out of the wet pond of 0.08 m3/s for the 100ha sample area based on continuous simulation modelling of LID practices for the Draft Conrich Master Drainage Plan (MPE, 2013)

7.2 Rain Garden In the LID modelling scenarios, some of the roofs and other impervious surfaces in the models, including roads and paved parking areas, are directed to rain gardens. Table 7-2 summarizes that criteria and assumptions for sizing these rain gardens.

Table 7-2: Rain Garden Design Parameters Parameter Criteria/Assumption Extended Detention Depth 0.2 m I/P ratio of 20 (I/P ratio is the ratio of Surface Area impervious area draining to a rain garden to the rain garden surface area) Filter Area 60% of the rain garden surface area Unlined Filter Area NA (rain garden is not lined) Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity 25 mm/hr Filter Depth 0.5 m Exfiltration Depth 1 mm/hr Underdrain Rain garden has an underdrain

12

N:\29\159 CSMI\001 Stormwater Mgmt Options\Reports\Draft Report - FINAL\Appendices\Appendix D - Modelling\20131115_MusicModelSum_TechMemo_DRAFT.docx

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

7.3 Absorbent Landscape In the UR and CR LID modelling scenarios, some portion of the roof drains to absorbent landscaping. MUSIC does not have a treatment node for absorbent landscaping. A wet pond with surface area equivalent to the desired area of absorbent landscaping and extended detention depth equivalent to design storage depth of absorbent landscaping (wilting point subtracted from porosity) was used to mimic absorbent landscaping. Table 7-3 summarizes the specifications of the absorbent soil.

Table 7-3: Absorbent Landscape Design Parameters Parameter Criteria/Assumption Depth 300 mm for UR and 150 mm for CR Porosity 53% Field Capacity 32% Wilting Point 13% Area Depends on available lawn area. I/P ratio is 1 for CR and 0.75 for UR. Infiltration Rate 0.1 mm/hr directed to bio-retention area

7.4 Treatment Parameters (C* and k) Selecting appropriate k and C* values is an important consideration in simulating any proposed treatment measure in MUSIC. k and C* are constants in the 1st order kinetic model used by MUSIC to model treatment provided by BMP measures where: • k should reflect the settling velocities of the sediment size targeted for treatment by a given BMP. k has the unit of velocity. • C* should reflect the particle size range which a given BMP measure is not normally designed to remove. C* has the unit of concentration. C* and k values had to be assigned to each BMP modelled in this study: wet pond, absorbent landscaping and rain gardens. A range of k and C* values were modelled and evaluated for each scenario. For each of the nine modelling scenarios described in the introduction, the results for two sets of treatment parameters are included in Section 9: • once assuming high treatment efficiency for the LIDs and wet pond (high k value and low C* value) • once assuming low treatment efficiency for the LIDs and wet pond (low k value and high C* value). Table 7-4 summarizes the treatment parameters used in all scenarios.

13

N:\29\159 CSMI\001 Stormwater Mgmt Options\Reports\Draft Report - FINAL\Appendices\Appendix D - Modelling\20131115_MusicModelSum_TechMemo_DRAFT.docx

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

Table 7-4: Summary of Treatment Parameters (k and C*) used in all Scenarios Wet Pond Wet Pond Wet Pond with LID and Reuse (No Reuse) with Reuse

Absorbent Wet Pond Wet Pond Wet Pond Rain Garden Landscape k (m/yr) k (m/yr) C* (mg/L) k (m/yr) C* (mg/L) k (m/yr) C* (mg/L) k (m/yr) C* (mg/L) k (m/yr) C* (mg/L) UR - High Treatment 20 0.057 6 0.060 3000 0.09 200 0.1 20 0.057 Efficiency

UR - Low Treatment 7 0.050 1 0.065 300 0.09 200 0.1 7 0.050 Efficiency

Industrial - High 20 0.065 7 0.055 3000 0.09 NA NA 20 0.065 Treatment Efficiency

Industrial - Low 7 0.050 1 0.065 300 0.09 NA NA 7 0.050 Treatment Efficiency

CR - High Treatment 20 0.060 7 0.005 3000 0.09 300 0.09 20 0.060 Efficiency

CR - Low Treatment 7 0.050 1 0.006 300 0.09 300 0.09 7 0.050 Efficiency

8. Results The results from all model runs are summarized in Tables 8-1 to 8-3. Each of the 9 modelling scenarios discussed in the memo was evaluated twice: once assuming high treatment efficiency for the LIDs and wet pond (high k and low C* values) and once assuming low treatment efficiency for the LIDs and wet pond (low k and high C* value). Figures 8-1 and 8-2 show the total phosphorus reduction achieved in various model runs. For the Urban Residential model, the total flow generated to the wet pond by the 100 ha catchment was 200 ML/yr without LIDs upstream of the pond and 140 ML/yr with LID measures. The flow volume reduction at the wet pond ranged from 15% to 60% with the lowest flow reduction observed in the Wet Pond model and the highest flow reduction observed in the Wet Pond with LID and Reuse model.

14

N:\29\159 CSMI\001 Stormwater Mgmt Options\Reports\Draft Report - FINAL\Appendices\Appendix D - Modelling\20131115_MusicModelSum_TechMemo_DRAFT.docx

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

The total phosphorous generated by the UR model was 74 kg/yr. With LID measures, the total phosphorus generated decreased to around 36 kg/yr and after the wet pond and reuse down to 12 to 22 kg/yr (for the high and low treatment efficiency, respectively). TP reduction by the wet pond only model ranged from 45% (low treatment efficiency model) to 60% (high treatment efficiency model). With stormwater reuse included with the Wet Pond the percent reduction ranged between 55% (lower treatment efficiency model) to 70% (higher treatment efficiency model).

Table 8-1: Urban Residential Model Results Summary (Flow Volume, Peak Flow and TP Loading)

Flow (ML/yr) Flow (ML/yr) inflow) (wet pond kg/yr) Total Phosphorus( inflow) (wet pond Reduction Flow Volume (at the wet pond) TP Reduction (at the wet pond) Specified Demand Reuse (ML/yr) Met Demand Reuse UR Wet Pond 198 73 15% 60% (High Treatment Efficiency)

UR Wet Pond 198 74 15% 45% (Low Treatment Efficiency)

UR Wet Pond with LID and 136 35 59% 83% 61 93% Reuse (High Treatment Efficiency)

UR Wet Pond with LID and 137 36 47% 70% 40 98% Reuse (Low Treatment Efficiency)

UR Wet Pond with Reuse 198 73 44% 70% 60 98% (High Treatment Efficiency)

UR Wet Pond with Reuse 198 73 35% 55% 40 99% (Low Treatment Efficiency)

For the Industrial model, the total flow generated to the wet pond by the 100 ha catchment was 210 ML/yr without LIDs upstream of the pond and 160 ML/yr with LID measures. The flow volume reduction at the wet pond ranged from 18% to 52% with the lowest flow reduction observed in the Wet Pond model and the highest flow reduction observed in the Wet Pond with LID and Reuse model.

15

N:\29\159 CSMI\001 Stormwater Mgmt Options\Reports\Draft Report - FINAL\Appendices\Appendix D - Modelling\20131115_MusicModelSum_TechMemo_DRAFT.docx

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

The total phosphorous generated by the Industrial model was 180 kg/yr. With LID measures, the total phosphorus generated decreased to 50 kg/yr to 52 kg/yr. TP reduction by the wet pond ranged from 39% (low treatment efficiency model) to 76% (high treatment efficiency model with the highest percent reduction observed at the Wet Pond with Reuse High Treatment Efficiency model.

Table 8-2: Industrial Model Results Summary (Flow Volume, Peak Flow and TP Loading)

Flow (ML/yr) Flow (ML/yr) inflow) (wet pond kg/yr) Total Phosphorus( inflow) (wet pond Reduction Flow Volume (at the wet pond) TP Reduction (at the wet pond) Demand Reuse Specified (ML/yr) Met Demand Reuse Industrial Wet Pond 207 179 18% 69% (High Treatment Efficiency)

Industrial Wet Pond 207 181 18% 53% (Low Treatment Efficiency)

Industrial Wet Pond with LID 155 49 52% 63% 51 95% and Reuse (High Treatment Efficiency)

Industrial Wet Pond with LID 155 52 41% 39% 30 99% and Reuse (Low Treatment Efficiency)

Industrial Wet Pond with Reuse 207 178 44% 76% 55 98% (High Treatment Efficiency)

Industrial Wet Pond with Reuse 198 74 35% 56% 40 99% (Low Treatment Efficiency)

For the Country Residential model, the total flow generated to the wet pond by the 100 ha catchment was 70 ML/yr without LIDs upstream of the pond and 63 ML/yr with LID measures. The flow volume reduction at the wet pond ranged from 27% to 80% with the lowest flow reduction observed in the Wet Pond model and the highest flow reduction observed in the Wet Pond with Reuse model.

16

N:\29\159 CSMI\001 Stormwater Mgmt Options\Reports\Draft Report - FINAL\Appendices\Appendix D - Modelling\20131115_MusicModelSum_TechMemo_DRAFT.docx

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

The total phosphorous generated by the Country Residential model was 32 kg/yr. With LID measures, the total phosphorus generated decreased to 20 kg/yr. TP reduction by the wet pond ranged from 60% (low treatment efficiency model) to 86% (high treatment efficiency model) with the highest percent reduction provided by the Wet Pond with Reuse High Treatment Efficiency model.

Table 8-3: Country Residential Results Summary (Flow Volume, Peak Flow and TP Loading)

Flow (ML/yr) Flow (ML/yr) inflow) (wet pond kg/yr) Total Phosphorus( inflow) (wet pond Reduction Flow Volume (at the wet pond) TP Reduction (at the wet pond) Demand Reuse Specified (ML/yr) Met Demand Reuse CR Wet Pond 70 32 27 % 68% (High Treatment Efficiency)

CR Wet Pond 72 32 32% 60% (Low Treatment Efficiency)

CR Wet Pond with LID and 83 35 70% 81% 25 86% Reuse (High Treatment Efficiency)

CR Wet Pond with LID and 83 35 67% 73% 20 91% Reuse (Low Treatment Efficiency)

CR Wet Pond with Reuse 70 32 58% 76% 25 93% (High Treatment Efficiency)

CR Wet Pond with Reuse 73 32 56% 69% 20 95% (Low Treatment Efficiency)

Figures 8-1 compares the total phosphorus reduction achieved in various model runs using low treatment efficiency parameters and Figures 8-2 compares the total phosphorus reduction achieved in various model runs using high treatment efficiency parameters.

17

N:\29\159 CSMI\001 Stormwater Mgmt Options\Reports\Draft Report - FINAL\Appendices\Appendix D - Modelling\20131115_MusicModelSum_TechMemo_DRAFT.docx

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

Figure 8-1: Comparison of TP reduction in different scenarios with low treatment efficiency parameters

Figure 8-2: Comparison of TP reduction in different scenarios with high treatment efficiency parameters

18

N:\29\159 CSMI\001 Stormwater Mgmt Options\Reports\Draft Report - FINAL\Appendices\Appendix D - Modelling\20131115_MusicModelSum_TechMemo_DRAFT.docx

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options

KERR WOOD LEIDAL ASSOCIATES LTD.

Prepared by: Reviewed by:

Sara Pour, E.I.T. Craig Kipkie, P.Eng. Junior Stormwater Engineer Project Manager

Statement of Limitations This document has been prepared by Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL) for the exclusive use and benefit of the intended recipient. No other party is entitled to rely on any of the conclusions, data, opinions, or any other information contained in this document. This document represents KWL’s best professional judgement based on the information available at the time of its completion and as appropriate for the project scope of work. Services performed in developing the content of this document have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the engineering profession currently practising under similar conditions. No warranty, express or implied, is made.

Copyright Notice These materials (text, tables, figures and drawings included herein) are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL). MPE is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Engineering Assessment of Preferred Stormwater Management Options. Any other use of these materials without the written permission of KWL is prohibited.

Revision History

Revision # Date Status Revision Description Author

1 Nov 15, 2013 DRAFT SMP

19

N:\29\159 CSMI\001 Stormwater Mgmt Options\Reports\Draft Report - FINAL\Appendices\Appendix D - Modelling\20131115_MusicModelSum_TechMemo_DRAFT.docx Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

APPENDIX II IRRIGATION CANAL WATER QUALITY (PHOSPHORUS) MODELLING GRAPHS

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

A CANAL GRAPHS

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.12: 25 Year A Canal Exceedence Curve at Gleichen

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.13: 25 Year A Canal 75th Percentile

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.14: 25 Year A Canal <75th Percentile Average

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.15: A Canal >75th Percentile Average

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.16: 10 Year Exceedence Curve: A Canal Upstream of Rockyford

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.17: 10 Year A Canal 75th Percentile (Lower and Upper Bounds)

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.18: 10 Year A Canal <75th Percentile Average

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.19: 10 Year A Canal >75th Percentile Average

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

B CANAL GRAPHS

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.20: 25 Year B Canal Exceedence Curve at Standard (B/C Split Alternative)

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.21: 25 Year B Canal 75th Percentile for the B/C Split Alternative

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.22: 25 Year B Canal <75th Percentile Average for the B/C Split Alternative

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.23: 25 Year B Canal >75th Percentile Average for the B/C Split Alternative

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.24: 10 Year B Canal Exceedence Curve at Standard (B/C Split Alternative)

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.25: 10 Year B Canal 75th Percentile for the B/C Split Alternative

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.26: 10 Year B Canal <75th Percentile Average for the B/C Split Alternative

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.27: 10 Year B Canal >75th Percentile Average for the B/C Split Alternative

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

C CANAL GRAPHS

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.28: 25 Year Exceedence Curve: C Canal Upstream of Rockyford (C Canal Alternative)

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.29: 25 Year C Canal 75th Percentile for C Canal Alternative

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.30: 25 Year C Canal <75th Percentile Average for C Canal Alternative

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.31: 25 Year C Canal >75th Percentile Average for C Canal Alternative

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.32: 10 Year Exceedence Curve: C Canal Upstream of Rockyford (C Canal Alternative)

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.33: 10 Year C Canal 75th Percentile for C Canal Alternative

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.34: 10 Year C Canal <75th Percentile Average for C Canal Alternative

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.35: 10 Year C Canal >75th Percentile Average for C Canal Alternative

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.36: 25 Year C Canal Exceedence Curve at Rockyford (B/C Split Alternative)

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.37: 25 Year C Canal 75th Percentile for the B/C Split Alternative

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.38: 25 Year C Canal <75th Percentile Average for the B/C Split Alternative

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.39: 25 Year C Canal >75th Percentile Average for the B/C Split Alternative

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.40: 10 Year C Canal Exceedence Curve at Rockyford (B/C Split Alternative)

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.41: 10 Year C Canal 75th Percentile for the B/C Split Alternative

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.42: 10 Year C Canal <75th Percentile Average for the B/C Split Alternative

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

Figure D.43: 10 Year C Canal >75th Percentile Average for the B/C Split Alternative

Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

APPENDIX E

Evaluation

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

The following projected probable costs enclosed in this Appendix are Level D estimates. They are provided for comparison of different stormwater management alternatives analyzed in Section 5.0. A more detailed analysis of the preferred stormwater management alternative will be completed in Appendix F. Assumptions made for the development of the economic analysis are:

Local Land Acquisition Represents the cost of acquiring land for the necessary local wet ponds and wetlands. Prices range from $30,000 to $120,000 per hectare and depend on general MLS listed values in the area.

Local Water Reuse Costs are to provide for adequate park irrigation and include the irrigation mains and pumping stations. (Irrigation sprinkler system is not included.) Costs are based on the Conrich Master Drainage Plan.

Local Wet ponds / Wetlands The cost here includes excavation of the facility, top soiling and seeding for the internal development area. The wet ponds are based on 700 cm/ha at $15/cm.

Local: Low Impact Includes the cost of bioretention and absorbent landscaping. It is Development assumed that the LIDs are placed within public road ROWs. The area of bioretention is presented as a percentage of gross development area and varies according to land use (0.5% to 2.5%) The area of absorbent landscaping also varies according to land use (0 to 19%). In Canal alternatives require full LIDs while Out Canal alternatives are selective and are discounted by 40% from the In Canal LIDs.

Local Trunk Network Based on the Conrich Master Drainage Plan the costs have been converted to a gross acreage cost. The collection system within the subdivision or upstream of the local retention ponds are considered standard developer costs and are not included.

Local Water Quality Costs are estimated from the Palliser Consulting report dated Monitoring February 2014 and have been applied on a gross acreage basis. In Canal alternatives will require more intensive monitoring than Out of Canal.

Regional: Rural BMPs Costs are estimated from the Palliser Consulting report dated February 2014 and have been applied on a gross acreage basis.

Regional: Education & CSMI Costs are estimated from the Palliser Consulting report dated Monitoring February 2014 and have been applied on a gross acreage basis.

Regional: Research & Costs are based on discussions with City of Calgary staff on similar Development LID projects completed recently.

Regional: Domestic Water Costs are based on MPE studies of the WID raw water supply Supply pipelines in the Langdon Ditch and South Branch B.

Regional Land Acquisition Represent land costs for external ROW requirements, to ensure adequate conveyance routes and are based on MLS listed values (*$30,000 ‐ $120,000). ROWs would not be required if the drainage course is owned by either WID or Alberta ERSD.

Regional Conveyance: Pipes & Supply and installation of pipelines vary in cost from $ 1200/m to $ Culverts 3500/m based on the required pipe size. Concrete box culverts vary from $ 1000/m to $ 2000/m. All pipes and concrete culverts are sized for ultimate development.

Regional Conveyance: Construction costs are based on $15/cm for excavation with channel Channels sized to accommodate ultimate development. Earth balancing has not been considered and the average depth along each section is assumed to be 1.0m.

Regional Under Drains Construction costs are based on MPE's experience of similar projects and sizes.

Regional Wetlands External wetlands are provided along the conveyance route where appropriate and convenient. The final location and drainage route will be partially determined by land owner’s acceptance of the final design. The area of wetland is based on 3% of urban area developed and the costs of constructing them are estimated at $ 120,000 per hectare.

Operations & Maintenance Costs are based on the net present value of maintenance costs for channels, pipelines, culverts and LIDs over 25 years.

Regional: Weed Lake Weed Lake provides temporary storage and treatment for upstream catchments. Total improvements are estimated at $9,550,000 and identified in Figure 5.7. Costs have assumed to be shared by all contributing catchments and are based proportionally on new land absorption.

Weed Lake Ditch/Hartell Hartell Coulee runs north of the TransCanada Highway at Wheatland Coulee Industrial and drains into Serviceberry Creek. Hartell is the downstream conveyance route that drains Weed Lake. Improvements to the Coulee have assumed to be shared by all contributing catchments and are based proportionally on new land absorption.

FIGURE E.1 SWM ALTERNATIVE: 1-3 IN-CANAL STUDY AREAS: HWY 1 SOUTH, HWY 1 NORTH, CHESTERMERE,LANGDON AND WHEATLAND INDUSTRIAL RED DEER RIVER

SERVICEBERRY CREEK

CANAL CANAL

REUSE OUT OF CANAL OPTION (WITH UNDERDRAIN) OUT OF CANAL

HIGHWAY 1 OUT OF CANAL STRATHMORE NORTH NORTH & WEST

OUT OF CANAL STRATHMORE IN CANAL IN CANAL C EAST (WITH UNDERDRAIN) NORTH A IN CANAL B/C OUT OF CANAL STRATHMORE

OUT OF CANAL SOUTH (WITH UNDERDRAIN) HIGHWAY 1 SOUTH AND OUT OF CANAL CHESTERMERE CANAL

EAGLE SHORES

IN CANAL A

(WITH CHESTERMERE BYPASS)

WHEATLAND WEED EAGLE LANGDON OUT OF CANAL OUT OF CANAL INDUSTRIAL OUT OF CANAL LAKE LAKE & CHEADLE OUT OF CANAL

CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS BOW RIVER SWM Alternative: 1‐3 IN CANAL

Study Areas Highway 1 South & Wheatland Chestermere Highway 1 North Langdon Industrial SUB TOTAL

TOTAL COSTS (LOCAL & REGIONAL) LOCAL Treatment & Collection $ 141,296,347 $ 206,501,210 $ 36,446,882 $ 29,371,883 $ 413,616,322 Internal Land Acquisition $ 14,843,125 $ 22,825,000 $ 5,871,250 $ 4,613,125 Internal Water Re Use $ 9,836,404 $ 15,125,920 $ 3,890,824 $ 3,057,076 Internal Wet ponds / Wetlands $ 22,669,500 $ 34,860,000 $ 8,967,000 $ 7,045,500 Low Impact Development Practices $ 78,497,400 $ 109,903,650 $ 11,920,500 $ 10,090,440 Internal Trunk Network $ 13,821,918 $ 21,254,640 $ 5,467,308 $ 4,295,742 Monitoring Water Quality $ 1,628,000 $ 2,532,000 $ 330,000 $ 270,000

REGIONAL Common Costs $ 4,652,332 $ 7,172,360 $ 1,371,192 $ 1,084,508 $ 14,280,392 Rural BMPs $ 1,692,656 $ 2,602,880 $ 669,536 $ 526,064 Education & Monitoring $ 1,217,676 $ 1,872,480 $ 481,656 $ 378,444 Research & Development $ 1,742,000 $ 2,697,000 $ 220,000 $ 180,000 Domestic Water Supply $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐

Conveyance Costs $ 2,137,290 $ 10,527,277 $ 2,644,457 $ 2,195,700 $ 17,504,724 External Land Acquisition $ 58,830 $ 600,438 $ 47,040 $ 384,000 Pipes & Culverts $ 2,078,460 $ 180,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ Channels $ 782,839 $ 291,617 $ ‐ Underdrains $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ External Wetlands & Land $ ‐ $ 8,964,000 $ 2,305,800 $ 1,811,700

Offsite Contributions $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 3,785,670 $ 1,320,000 $ 5,105,670 Weed Lake $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 2,105,670 $ ‐ Common Drainage Route via HTL $ 1,680,000 $ 1,320,000

Operations & Maintenance $ 49,527,382 $ 74,996,944 $ 11,884,447 $ 9,629,361 $ 146,038,134

Total Capital Costs with 25 yr NPV $ 197,600,000 $ 299,200,000 $ 56,100,000 $ 43,600,000 $ 596,500,000

TOTAL PROBABLE COST of this SWM Alternative is $ 596,500,000 FIGURE E.2 SWM ALTERNATIVE: 2-1A OUT OF CANAL - OPTION A (HWY 1 NORTH VIA WEED LAKE)

STUDY AREAS: HWY 1 SOUTH, HWY 1 NORTH, CHESTERMERE, LANGDON AND WHEATLAND COUNTY RED DEER RIVER

SERVICEBERRY CREEK

CANAL CANAL

REUSE OUT OF CANAL OPTION (WITH UNDERDRAIN) OUT OF CANAL

HIGHWAY 1 OUT OF CANAL STRATHMORE NORTH NORTH & WEST

OUT OF CANAL STRATHMORE IN CANAL IN CANAL C EAST (WITH UNDERDRAIN) NORTH A IN CANAL B/C OUT OF CANAL STRATHMORE

OUT OF CANAL SOUTH (WITH UNDERDRAIN) HIGHWAY 1 SOUTH AND OUT OF CANAL CHESTERMERE CANAL

EAGLE SHORES

IN CANAL A

(WITH CHESTERMERE BYPASS)

WHEATLAND WEED EAGLE LANGDON OUT OF CANAL OUT OF CANAL INDUSTRIAL OUT OF CANAL LAKE LAKE & CHEADLE OUT OF CANAL

CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS BOW RIVER SWM Alternative: 2‐1 A OUT OF CANAL ‐Option A (Hwy 1 North via Weed Lake)

Study Areas Highway 1 South & Wheatland Chestermere Highway 1 North Langdon Industrial SUB TOTAL

TOTAL COSTS (LOCAL & REGIONAL)

LOCAL Treatment & Collection $ 109,897,387 $ 162,539,750 $ 36,446,882 $ 29,371,883 $ 338,255,902 Internal Land Acquisition $ 14,843,125 $ 22,825,000 $ 5,871,250 $ 4,613,125 Internal Water Re Use $ 9,836,404 $ 15,125,920 $ 3,890,824 $ 3,057,076 Internal Wet ponds / Wetlands $ 22,669,500 $ 34,860,000 $ 8,967,000 $ 7,045,500 Low Impact Development Practices $ 47,098,440 $ 65,942,190 $ 11,920,500 $ 10,090,440 Internal Trunk Network $ 13,821,918 $ 21,254,640 $ 5,467,308 $ 4,295,742 Monitoring Water Quality $ 1,628,000 $ 2,532,000 $ 330,000 $ 270,000

REGIONAL Common Costs $ 8,252,332 $ 15,422,360 $ 1,371,192 $ 1,084,508 $ 26,130,392 Rural BMPs $ 1,692,656 $ 2,602,880 $ 669,536 $ 526,064 Education & Monitoring $ 1,217,676 $ 1,872,480 $ 481,656 $ 378,444 Research & Development $ 1,742,000 $ 2,697,000 $ 220,000 $ 180,000 Domestic Water Supply $ 3,600,000 $ 8,250,000 $ ‐ $ ‐

Conveyance Costs $ 20,466,095 $ 17,552,055 $ 2,644,457 $ 2,195,700 $ 42,858,307 External Land Acquisition $ 836,406 $ 470,160 $ 47,040 $ 384,000 Pipes & Culverts $ 8,176,560 $ 1,716,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ Channels $ 4,873,829 $ 5,351,895 $ 291,617 $ ‐ Underdrains $ 750,000 $ 1,050,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ External Wetlands & Land $ 5,829,300 $ 8,964,000 $ 2,305,800 $ 1,811,700

Offsite Contributions $ 6,814,356 $ 10,478,769 $ 2,695,442 $ 463,392 $ 20,451,960 Weed Lake $ 5,323,351 $ 8,185,978 $ 2,105,670 $ ‐ Common Drainage Route via HTL $ 1,491,005 $ 2,292,791 $ 589,772 $ 463,392

Operations & Maintenance $ 40,177,565 $ 57,307,054 $ 11,884,447 $ 9,629,361 $ 118,998,426

Total Capital Costs with 25 yr NPV $ 185,600,000 $ 263,300,000 $ 55,000,000 $ 42,700,000 $ 546,600,000

TOTAL PROBABLE COST of this SWM Alternative is $ 546,600,000 FIGURE E.3 SWM ALTERNATIVE: 2-1B OUT OF CANAL - OPTION B (HWY 1 NORTH VIA SERVICEBERRY CREEK)

STUDY AREAS: HWY 1 SOUTH, HWY 1 NORTH, CHESTERMERE, LANGDON AND WHEATLAND COUNTY RED DEER RIVER

SERVICEBERRY CREEK

CANAL CANAL

REUSE OUT OF CANAL OPTION (WITH UNDERDRAIN) OUT OF CANAL

HIGHWAY 1 OUT OF CANAL STRATHMORE NORTH NORTH & WEST

OUT OF CANAL STRATHMORE IN CANAL IN CANAL C EAST (WITH UNDERDRAIN) NORTH A IN CANAL B/C OUT OF CANAL STRATHMORE

OUT OF CANAL SOUTH (WITH UNDERDRAIN) HIGHWAY 1 SOUTH AND OUT OF CANAL CHESTERMERE CANAL

EAGLE SHORES

IN CANAL A

(WITH CHESTERMERE BYPASS)

WHEATLAND WEED EAGLE LANGDON OUT OF CANAL OUT OF CANAL INDUSTRIAL OUT OF CANAL LAKE LAKE & CHEADLE OUT OF CANAL

CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS BOW RIVER SWM Alternative: 2‐1 B OUT OF CANAL ‐ Option B (Hwy 1 North Via Serviceberry Creek)

Study Areas Highway 1 South & Wheatland Chestermere Highway 1 North Langdon Industrial SUB TOTAL

TOTAL COSTS (LOCAL & REGIONAL)

LOCAL Treatment & Collection $ 109,897,387 $ 162,539,750 $ 36,446,882 $ 29,371,883 $ 338,255,902 Internal Land Acquisition $ 14,843,125 $ 22,825,000 $ 5,871,250 $ 4,613,125 Internal Water Re Use $ 9,836,404 $ 15,125,920 $ 3,890,824 $ 3,057,076 Internal Wet ponds / Wetlands $ 22,669,500 $ 34,860,000 $ 8,967,000 $ 7,045,500 Low Impact Development Practices $ 47,098,440 $ 65,942,190 $ 11,920,500 $ 10,090,440 Internal Trunk Network $ 13,821,918 $ 21,254,640 $ 5,467,308 $ 4,295,742 Monitoring Water Quality $ 1,628,000 $ 2,532,000 $ 330,000 $ 270,000

REGIONAL Common Costs $ 8,252,332 $ 7,172,360 $ 1,371,192 $ 1,084,508 $ 17,880,392 Rural BMPs $ 1,692,656 $ 2,602,880 $ 669,536 $ 526,064 Education & Monitoring $ 1,217,676 $ 1,872,480 $ 481,656 $ 378,444 Research & Development $ 1,742,000 $ 2,697,000 $ 220,000 $ 180,000 Domestic Water Supply $ 3,600,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐

Conveyance Costs $ 20,466,095 $ 15,902,419 $ 2,644,457 $ 2,195,700 $ 41,208,671 External Land Acquisition $ 836,406 $ 956,501 $ 47,040 $ 384,000 Pipes & Culverts $ 8,176,560 $ 3,039,750 $ ‐ $ ‐ Channels $ 4,873,829 $ 1,892,168 $ 291,617 $ ‐ Underdrains $ 750,000 $ 1,050,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ External Wetlands & Land $ 5,829,300 $ 8,964,000 $ 2,305,800 $ 1,811,700

Offsite Contributions $ 8,158,041 $ ‐ $ 3,226,941 $ 463,392 $ 11,848,374 Weed Lake $ 5,323,351 $ ‐ $ 2,105,670 $ ‐ Common Drainage Route via HTL $ 2,834,690 $ ‐ $ 1,121,271 $ 463,392

Operations & Maintenance $ 40,177,565 $ 55,749,157 $ 11,884,447 $ 9,629,361 $ 117,440,530

Total Capital Costs with 25 yr NPV $ 187,000,000 $ 241,400,000 $ 55,600,000 $ 42,700,000 $ 526,600,000

TOTAL PROBABLE COST of this SWM Alternative is $ 526,600,000 CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS CHESTERMERE SOUTH AND HIGHWAY 1 HIGHWAY 1 LANGDON NORTH

(WITH CHESTERMEREBYPASS) OUT OF CANAL IN CANALB/C IN CANALA IN CANALC OUT OFCANAL STUDY AREAS:STRATHMOREWEST,NORTH,EASTANDSOUTH,EAGLESHORES OUT OFCANAL OUT OFCANAL WEED LAKE SWM ALTERNATIVE:2-1OUTOFCANAL OUT OFCANAL SERVICEBERRY CREEK CANAL FIGURE E.4 WHEATLAND INDUSTRIAL & CHEADLE

OUT OF CANAL REUSE OPTION BOW RIVER EAGLE LAKE OUT OF CANAL (WITH UNDERDRAIN) (WITH UNDERDRAIN) OUT OFCANAL OUT OFCANAL

CANAL OUT OFCANAL CANAL NORTH &WEST STRATHMORE STRATHMORE STRATHMORE SHORES SOUTH EAGLE EAST OUT OF CANAL

(WITH UNDERDRAIN)

IN CANAL NORTH A RED DEER RIVER DEER RED SWM Alternative: 2‐1 OUT OF CANAL (Strathmore & Eagle Shores)

Development Areas Strathmore North & Strathmore East Eagle Shores & West Strathmore South "OUT OF CANAL" SUB TOTAL Wheatland

TOTAL COSTS (LOCAL & REGIONAL)

LOCAL Treatment & Collection $ 8,509,310 $ 16,152,411 $ 2,066,563 $ 26,728,284 $ 3,259,172 Internal Land Acquisition $ 1,168,750 $ 2,179,375 $ 281,875 $ 577,500 Internal Water Re Use $ 774,520 $ 1,444,252 $ 186,796 $ 382,704 Internal Wet ponds / Wetlands $ 1,785,000 $ 3,328,500 $ 430,500 $ 882,000 Low Impact Developments $ 3,656,700 $ 6,899,850 $ 881,910 $ 529,200 Internal Trunk Network $ 1,088,340 $ 2,029,434 $ 262,482 $ 537,768 Monitoring Water Quality $ 36,000 $ 271,000 $ 23,000 $ 350,000

REGIONAL Common Costs $ 253,160 $ 608,316 $ 70,268 $ 931,744 $ 343,232 Rural BMPs $ 133,280 $ 248,528 $ 32,144 $ 65,856 Education & Monitoring $ 95,880 $ 178,788 $ 23,124 $ 47,376 Research & Development $ 24,000 $ 181,000 $ 15,000 $ 230,000

Conveyance Costs $ 2,406,900 $ 2,545,580 $ 441,700 $ 5,394,180 $ ‐ Conveyance Costs $ 297,600 $ 840,000 $ 70,000 $ ‐ Pipes & Culverts $ ‐ $ 40,000 $ 80,000 $ ‐ Channels $ 1,290,300 $ 809,680 $ 101,000 $ ‐ Underdrains $ 360,000 $ ‐ $ 80,000 $ ‐ External Wetlands & Land $ 459,000 $ 855,900 $ 110,700 $ ‐

Operations & Maintenance $ 3,182,289 $ 5,636,417 $ 746,941 $ 9,565,648 $ 773,111

Total Capital Costs with 25 yr NPV $ 14,400,000 $ 24,900,000 $ 3,300,000 $ 42,600,000 $ 4,400,000

TOTAL PROBABLE COST of this SWM Alternative is $ 47,000,000 FIGURE E.5 SWM ALTERNATIVE: 2-1/3-1 OUT-OF-CANAL - STRATHMORE WEST, NORTH AND SOUTH / IN-CANAL-STRATHMORE EAST

STUDY AREAS: STRATHMORE WEST, NORTH, EAST AND SOUTH, EAGLE SHORES RED DEER RIVER

SERVICEBERRY CREEK

CANAL CANAL

REUSE OUT OF CANAL OPTION (WITH UNDERDRAIN) OUT OF CANAL

HIGHWAY 1 OUT OF CANAL STRATHMORE NORTH NORTH & WEST

OUT OF CANAL STRATHMORE IN CANAL IN CANAL C EAST (WITH UNDERDRAIN) NORTH A IN CANAL B/C OUT OF CANAL STRATHMORE

OUT OF CANAL SOUTH (WITH UNDERDRAIN) HIGHWAY 1 SOUTH AND OUT OF CANAL CHESTERMERE CANAL

EAGLE SHORES

IN CANAL A

(WITH CHESTERMERE BYPASS)

WHEATLAND WEED EAGLE LANGDON OUT OF CANAL OUT OF CANAL INDUSTRIAL OUT OF CANAL LAKE LAKE & CHEADLE OUT OF CANAL

CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS BOW RIVER SWM Alternative: 2‐1 OUT OF CANAL (Strathmore West, North, South & Eagle Shores) / 1‐3 IN CANAL (Strathmore East)

Development Areas Strathmore North & Strathmore East Eagle Shores & West Strathmore South "IN CANAL" SUB TOTAL Wheatland

TOTAL COSTS (LOCAL & REGIONAL)

LOCAL Treatment & Collection $ 8,509,310 $ 16,152,411 $ 2,654,503 $ 27,316,224 $ 3,259,172 Internal Land Acquisition $ 1,168,750 $ 2,179,375 $ 281,875 $ 577,500 Internal Water Re Use $ 774,520 $ 1,444,252 $ 186,796 $ 382,704 Internal Wet ponds / Wetlands $ 1,785,000 $ 3,328,500 $ 430,500 $ 882,000 Low Impact Development Practices $ 3,656,700 $ 6,899,850 $ 1,469,850 $ 529,200 Internal Trunk Network $ 1,088,340 $ 2,029,434 $ 262,482 $ 537,768 Monitoring Water Quality $ 36,000 $ 271,000 $ 23,000 $ 350,000

REGIONAL Common Costs $ 253,160 $ 608,316 $ 70,268 $ 931,744 $ 343,232 Rural BMPs $ 133,280 $ 248,528 $ 32,144 $ 65,856 Education & Monitoring $ 95,880 $ 178,788 $ 23,124 $ 47,376 Research & Development $ 24,000 $ 181,000 $ 15,000 $ 230,000

Conveyance Costs $ 2,406,900 $ 2,815,900 $ 82,101 $ 5,304,901 $ ‐ Conveyance Costs $ 297,600 $ 840,000 $ 70,000 $ ‐ Pipes & Culverts $ ‐ $ 120,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ Channels $ 1,290,300 $ 1,000,000 $ 12,101 $ ‐ Underdrains $ 360,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ External Wetlands & Land $ 459,000 $ 855,900 $ ‐

Operations & Maintenance $ 3,182,289 $ 5,697,780 $ 927,056 $ 9,807,125 $ 773,111

Total Capital Costs with 25 yr NPV $ 14,400,000 $ 25,300,000 $ 3,700,000 $ 43,400,000 $ 4,400,000

TOTAL PROBABLE COST of this SWM Alternative is $ 47,800,000 Table E.1: Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Alternatives Assessment: Highway 1 South and East Chestermere

EVALUATION MATRIX

PERMANENCY ECONOMIC FUNCTIONALITY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY Highway 1 South & East Chestermere 25% Weight 25% Weight 25% Weight 25% Weight (Includes Belevedre, City of ) t n e Calgary, Janet Industrial, East & ) h y l r t t a m l i t years) e a l p p s n i i n i o e b h e West Chestermere) y U ic l t r H a s 10 i i years) t m n a il g d v d n d a r p u b n n n a s to a i n p s o t 10 a s E E l t l i

a M C ( ( l m w s e f p s o t (2 ‐ ‐ s a a y y r o e e v e (> s t t t e t r s t e n t s s i C h li y li C S t t t n e c e s s s d t P a t a W y t D li o e a B o o o e n u y i u r s n c C r e & t C & o I i p l C C C Q li b Q t U a Term l v g i n r m Term a a m n a r r r e I n E n b t o m l o t i e e i a e n o i M M e e t a p u n d i g i t s e t t p e r l a g r o n g & & r a o r a a t e d r t e a c a e Score Long Short C O O G R S Wa R A Wa E S R Wa P E L R Stormwater Management Alternatives Y / NY / N 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 10% 5% 5% 5% 100% # (On‐site Treatment) (Conveyance) (End‐Use) Area 1 ‐ Highway 1 South

NN 1‐1 Wet Pond & Rural BMPs In‐Canal "A" ‐ During Irrigation Season Water Re‐use 841132212342334252 52

NN 1‐2 Wet Pond c/w Re‐Use & Rural BMPs In‐Canal "A" ‐ During Irrigation Season Water Re‐use 732234323352246243 60

NY 1‐3 Full LIDs & Rural BMPs In‐Canal "A" ‐ During Irrigation Season Water Re‐use 213345424453248444 66

YY 2‐2 Reduced LIDs, Wetponds & Rural BMPs Out of Canal ‐ To Weed Lake Release to Natural Water Body 224555535345347425 73

YY 2‐5 Wet Pond & Rural BMPs Out of Canal ‐ To Weed Lake Release to Natural Water Body 643344444234435232 64 Table E.2: Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Alternatives Assessment: Highway 1 North

EVALUATION MATRIX

PERMANENCY ECONOMIC FUNCTIONALITY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY Area 2: Highway 1 North 25% Weight 25% Weight 25% Weight 25% Weight (Includes Conrich, Rural Areas North of ) t Conrich, and Delacour) n e ) h y l t r m l it t years) a e a l p p s n i i n i y o e b h e c l t U r H a s 10 i i i years) m t n a il g d v d n d a r p u b n n n a s to a i n p s o t

E E l 10 a s l a t i M C ( ( l w s e f p s o t m (2 ‐ ‐ s a a y y r o e e v e

(> t t t t e t r s s s s i C h i i C e t n t t t l y l n S e s d t P t W t D c e s s a i a o y e o e n y l r n a B o o u i u C s ic C r e & t & o I p l C C Q i b Q t U a Term l C v g il n r m

Term r a r a r e m n I a n E n b t o m l o t i e p e i a e n o i M M e e t a t s u t t n d i g li a e g g p e r a a a o r a r o n a & & r a t e d r t e a c a e Score Short Long C O O G R S W R A W E S R W P E L R Stormwater Management Alternatives Y/N Y/N 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 10% 5% 5% 5% 100% # (On‐site Treatment) (Conveyance) (End‐Use)

NN 1‐4A Wet Pond & Rural BMPs In‐Canal "C" ‐ During Irrigation Season Water Re‐use 652132112342334252 51

NN 1‐5A Wet Pond c/w Re‐Use & Rural BMPs In‐Canal "C" ‐ During Irrigation Season Water Re‐use 552234223352246243 59

NY 1‐6A Full LIDs & Rural BMPs In‐Canal "C" ‐ During Irrigation Season Water Re‐use 112345324453248444 63

In‐Canal "C" & "B/C" Canals ‐ During NN 1‐4B Wet Pond & Rural BMPs Irrigation Season Water Re‐use 651132112342334252 50

In‐Canal "C" & "B/C" Canals ‐ During NN 1‐5B Wet Pond c/w Re‐Use & Rural BMPs Irrigation Season Water Re‐use 552234223352246243 59

In‐Canal "C" & "B/C" Canals ‐ During NY 1‐6B Full LIDs & Rural BMPs Irrigation Season Water Re‐use 113345324553248444 65

YY 2‐1 Reduced LIDs, Wetponds & Rural BMPs Out of Canal ‐ To Weed Lake Release to Natural Water Body 224555535345347425 73

YY 2‐2 Reduced LIDs, Wetponds & Rural BMPs Out of Canal ‐ To Serviceberry Creek Release to Natural Water Body 224544543434435343 66

YY 2‐4 Wet Pond & Rural BMPs Out of Canal ‐ To Weed Lake Release to Natural Water Body 443355435345347424 72

YY 2‐5 Wet Pond & Rural BMPs Out of Canal ‐ To Serviceberry Creek Release to Natural Water Body 443344443223435242 60 Table E.3: Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Alternatives Assessment: Langdon and Wheatland Industrial

EVALUATION MATRIX

PERMANENCY ECONOMIC FUNCTIONALITY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY Langdon & Wheatland Industrial 25% Weight 25% Weight 25% Weight 25% Weight (Includes Langdon, Rocky View ) t County, Wheatland County, Cheadle n e ) h y l r t t a m l i t & Wheatland Industrial) years) e a l p p s n i i n i o e b h e y U ic l t r H a s 10 i i years) t m n a il g d v d n d a r p u b n n n a s to a i n p s o t 10 a s E E l t l i

a M C ( ( l m w s e f p s o t (2 ‐ ‐ s a a y y r o e e v e (> s t t t e t r s t e n t s s i C h li y li C S t t t n e c e s s s d t P a t a W y t D li o e a B o o o e n u y i u r s n c C r e & t C & o I i p l C C C Q li b Q t U a Term l v g i n r m Term a a m n a r r r e I n E n b t o m l o t i e e i a e n o i M M e e t a p u n d i g i t s e t t p e r l a g r o n g & & r a o r a a t e d r t e a c a e Score Long Short C O O G R S Wa R A Wa E S R Wa P E L R Stormwater Management Alternatives Y/N Y/N 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 10% 5% 5% 5% 100% # (On‐site Treatment) (Conveyance) (End‐Use)

Area 4 ‐ Langdon YY 2‐1 Reduced LIDs, Wetponds & Rural BMPs Out of Canal ‐ To Weed Lake Release to Natural Water Body 224555435345347425 72 YY 2‐4 Wet Pond & Rural BMPs Out of Canal ‐ To Weed Lake Release to Natural Water Body 754344444224435232 66

Area 5 ‐ Wheatland Industrial YY 2‐2 Reduced LIDs, Wetponds & Rural BMPs Out of Canal ‐ To Serviceberry Creek Release to Natural Water Body 533555435345337425 74 YY 2‐5 Wet Pond & Rural BMPs Out of Canal ‐ To Serviceberry Creek Release to Natural Water Body 743344444224425232 63 Table E.4: Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Alternatives Assessment: Strathmore

EVALUATION MATRIX

PERMANENCY ECONOMIC FUNCTIONALITY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY Strathmore 25% Weight 25% Weight 25% Weight 25% Weight (Includes Strathmore West & ) t n Strathmor North) e ) h y l t r m l it t a e l p years) a i p s n i n i y o e b h e c U r s i l it i H a 10 m years) l t n a i g d v d n d a r p u b n n n n p a s o s to a i E E l t

a 10 s ( ( l a t i M C l w f p s o m s e ‐ t e v e (2 ‐ s a a y y r o e s (> s t t t t e t r e n s s i C h i i C t t t t l y l n S e s d t P t W t D c e s s a i a o y e o e n y l r n c a B o o r u i u C s I i p l C e & it & o C C C Q l b Q t U r a Term l v g i a n m m

Term r r a r e I n E t m a n n b o l o it M M i e p e i a e n o e e g t ia t s u t t n d i l a e g g p e r a a a o r a r o n a & & r a t e d r t e a c a e L R Score Short Long C O O G R S W R A W E S R W P E Stormwater Management Alternatives Y/N Y/N 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 10% 5% 5% 5% 100% # (On‐site Treatment) (Conveyance) (End‐Use) Area 6a ‐ Strathmore ‐ West

Out of Canal ‐ To Serviceberry Creek with YY 2‐2 LIDs and Rural BMPs Underdrains Release to Natural Water Body 211555535344347425 68

Out of Canal ‐ To Serviceberry Creek with YY 2‐5 Wet Pond & Rural BMPs Underdrains Release to Natural Water Body 321342444224435232 54 Area 6b ‐ Strathmore ‐ North

Out of Canal ‐ To Serviceberry Creek with YY 2‐2 LIDs and Rural BMPs Underdrains Release to Natural Water Body 211555535344347425 68

Out of Canal ‐ To Serviceberry Creek with YY 2‐5 Wet Pond & Rural BMPs Underdrains Release to Natural Water Body 321342444224435232 54 AreaArea 6 6cc ‐ St Strathmorerathmore ‐ E Eastast

NN 1‐1 Wet Pond & Rural BMPs In‐Canal "A" ‐ During Irrigation Season Water Re‐use 855134212342334252 59

NN 1‐2 Wet Pond c/w Re‐Use & Rural BMPs In‐Canal "A" ‐ During Irrigation Season Water Re‐use 845234323352246243 65

NY 1‐3 LIDs and Rural BMPs In‐Canal "A" ‐ During Irrigation Season Water Re‐use 625344424453248444 72

Out of Canal ‐ To Eagle Lake with YY 2‐3 LIDs and Rural BMPs Underdrains Release to Natural Water Body 624555525344347425 75

Out of Canal ‐ To Eagle Lake with YY 2‐6 Wet Pond & Rural BMPs Underdrains Release to Natural Water Body 854342444234435232 66 Area 6d ‐ Strathmore ‐ South

Out of Canal ‐ To Eagle Lake with YY 2‐3 LIDs and Rural BMPs Underdrains Release to Natural Water Body 112554525344347425 66

Out of Canal ‐ To Eagle Lake with YY 2‐6 Wet Pond & Rural BMPs Underdrains Release to Natural Water Body 212344444234435232 56 Area 6e‐ Eagle Shores

YY 2‐3 LIDs and Rural BMPs Out of Canal ‐ To Eagle Lake Release to Natural Water Body 534554525344347425 74

Out of Canal ‐ To Eagle Lake with YY 2‐6 Wet Pond & Rural BMPs Underdrains Release to Natural Water Body 634344444234435232 64 Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

APPENDIX F

Project Cost Projections

Table F.1: CSMI Regional Collaborative System Construction Probable Costs of Selected System CHANNELS / BIOENGINEERING / BERMS CULVERTS PIPES SPECIAL STRUCTURES ROW LAND REQUIREMENTS Design and Culvert Acquired Land External Item Length X Section Cost/m Earthwork Culvert Size # Culvert Culvert Size Length Cost Pipe Cost Lump Sum Land Cost Rural BMP & Contingency Total Cost ($) Stage Length Cost/m Special Structures Land Acquisition Constructed (m) (m2) ($/m) Cost ($) (m) crossings Cost ($) (m) (m) ($/m) ($) Cost ($) ($/ha) Research ($) *1 (ha) ($) Wetland Sub System 1 (West) 93,090,000 Stage 1 Subtotals 1,164,000 180,000 2,405,000 150,000 960,000 341,000 1,950,000 7,150,000 I‐N Conrich North ditch to B/C Split *2 3881 10 300 1,164,000 1.8 x 1.2 3 20 3000 180,000 8 120,000 960,000 178,000 672,000

I‐S Chestermere Lake Bypass 1.65 Dia 925 2600 2,405,000 WH Canal Diversion & 150,000 163,000 1,278,000 A Canal Weir Stage 2 Subtotals 4,196,000 870,000 3,240,000 2,200,000 3,360,000 931,000 5,253,000 20,050,000 II‐N Ditch from B/C Split to South Branch B 7837 18 270 2,116,000 2.4 x 1.2 4 20 4500 360,000 Retaining Walls 1,200,000 24 60,000 1,440,000 561,000 1,838,000 Conrich South ditch to B/C Split *2 4217 8 220 928,000 1.2 x 0.6 2 20 1500 60,000 Underdrain 500,000 8 120,000 960,000 744,000 Upstream Rainbow Underdrain 1.35 Dia 500 1200 600,000 370,000 300,000 II‐S Parallel Branch to A Canal 1 1.65 Dia 800 2200 1,760,000 Underdrain 500,000 2 120,000 240,000 1,130,000 Parallel Branch to A Canal 2 3200 24 360 1,152,000 2.4 x 1.2 5 20 4500 450,000 2 x 1.5 Dia 220 4000 880,000 6 120,000 720,000 1,241,000 Stage 3 Subtotals 5,590,000 1,958,000 5,600,000 960,000 1,035,000 6,575,000 21,718,000 III‐N South Branch Ditch 9730 21 315 3,065,000 2.4 x 1.2 10 20 4500 900,000 Directional Drill 2,000,000 534,000 2,983,000 Under HWY(2 Xing) III‐S Langdon Ditch Part 1 3159 15 225 711,000 2.4 x 1.2 3 25 4500 338,000 Domestic 1,200,000 4 60,000 240,000 501,000 1,125,000 Langdon Ditch Part 2 10079 12 180 1,814,000 2.4 x 1.2 8 20 4500 720,000 Water Supply 2,400,000 12 60,000 720,000 2,467,000 WEED LAKE IMPROVEMENTS Subtotal 5,666,000 500,000 300,000 620,000 3,084,000 10,170,000 IV Weed Lake south berm 700 17 935 655,000 Outlet upgrades 300,000 620,000 478,000 East Bank and Ditch 2500 12 385 963,000 5 60,000 300,000 482,000 Central Divider Berm + Flow Modifications 3200 23 1265 4,048,000 Structures 200,000 2,124,000 HARTELL COUL./SERVICEBERRY *3 ‐ Subtotal 3,456,000 360,000 26,250,000 2,208,000 1,728,000 34,002,000 V Ditch Improvements Weed Lake to Hwy 1 10300 120 1,236,000 6 60,000 360,000 26,250,000 2,208,000 618,000 Ditch Improvement Hwy 1 to Serviceberry 13500 120 1,620,000 810,000 Serviceberry Creek Improvements 5000 120 600,000 300,000 Sub System 2 (East) 2,171,000 STRATHMORE West/North‐ Stage 1 Subtotal 300,000 46,000 150,000 496,000 I Strathmore West Underdrain *5 120,000 46,000 60,000 5 Strathmore North 2 Underdrains* 180,000 90,000 STRATHMORE West/North‐ Stage 2 Subtotal 400,000 40,000 300,000 41,000 220,000 1,001,000 II Strathmore West *4 12095 20 242,000 0.9 Dia 2 20 1000 40,000 5 60,000 300,000 41,000 141,000 4 Strathmore North * 7905 20 158,000 79,000 STRATHMORE West/North‐ Stage 3 Subtotal 637,000 37,000 674,000 III 637,000 37,000 Sub System 3 (East) 3,259,000 I STRATHMORE East/South ‐ Stage 1 Subtotal 200,000 81,000 100,000 381,000 Strathmore East and South ditch upgrade 200,000 81,000 100,000 II STRATHMORE East/South ‐ Stage 2 Subtotal 450,000 40,000 240,000 67,000 245,000 1,042,000 Strathmore East and South ditch upgrade 3000 150 450,000 0.9 Dia 2 20 1000 40,000 4 60,000 240,000 67,000 245,000 III STRATHMORE East/South ‐ Stage 3 Subtotal 1,659,000 177,000 1,836,000 1,659,000 177,000 Total 98,521,000 Notes *1 Culverts lengths are 20 meters for highway crossings and 10 meters for farm crossings. *2 Channels costs include erosion protection in the earthwork costs. *3 Works include channel improvements & bioengineering. Some of the flows related to Wheatland Industrial and Langdon contributions may require works before the commencement of Stage V. *4 Works includes channel improvements and bioengineering. *5 The B Canal underdrains are assumed to be 50% funded through Rural BMPs. Table F.2: Projected Cost per Sub System Probable Costs of Selected System Sub System 1 (West) Sub System 2 Sub System 3 (East) Highway 1 Eagle Shores South & Highway 1 Wheatland System 1 Strathmore Strathmore and System 3 Chestermere North Langdon Industrial Sub Total West & North East & South Wheatland Sub Total System Total 25 Year Absorption (ha) 2160 3321 856 671 7008 170 358 85 443 7621

Conveyance Costs by Stage*1 $ 29,443,000 $ 29,607,000 $ 1,943,000 $ 712,000 $ 61,705,000 $ 1,410,000 $ 1,275,000 $ ‐ $ 1,275,000 $ 64,390,000 I$ 3,833,000 $ 2,976,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 6,809,000 $ 750,000 $ 700,000 $ ‐ $ 700,000 $ 8,259,000 II$ 8,973,000 $ ‐10,146,000 $ $ ‐ $ 19,119,000 $ 660,000 $ 575,000 $ ‐ $ 575,000 $ 20,354,000 III$ 11,735,000 $ 8,948,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 20,683,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 20,683,000 IV $ 3,255,000 $ 5,005,000 $ 1,290,000 $ ‐ $ 9,550,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 9,550,000 V $ 1,647,000 $ 2,532,000 $ 653,000 $ 712,000 $ 5,544,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 5,544,000

Regional Wetlands & Land $ 8,087,000 $ 12,150,000 $ 3,324,000 $ 2,605,000 $ 26,166,000 $ 660,000 $ 1,390,000 $ 330,000 $ 1,720,000 $ 28,546,000 LID Research $ 567,000 $ 872,000 $ 225,000 $ 176,000 $ 1,840,000 $ 44,000 $ 93,000 $ 22,000 $ 116,000 $ 2,000,000 Rural BMPs $ 1,016,000 $ 1,562,000 $ 403,000 $ 316,000 $ 3,297,000 $ 80,000 $ 168,000 $ 40,000 $ 208,000 $ 3,585,000

Total Capital Costs $ 39,113,000 $ 44,191,000 $ 5,895,000 $ 3,809,000 $ 93,008,000 $ 2,194,000 $ 2,926,000 $ 392,000 $ 3,319,000 $ 98,521,000 Cost per Hectare $ 18,108 $ 13,307 $ 6,887 $ 5,677 $ 13,272 $ 12,906 $ 8,173 $ 4,612 $ 7,492 $ 13,000 Note *1 Conveyance staging costs include Channels, Bioengineering, Berms, Culverts, Pipes, Special Structures, ROW Requirements, Design and Contingency. Regional Wetlands, Research and Rural BMPs have been excluded from these costs and listed separately below. Table F.3: Gross Development Absorption per Stage Probable Costs of Selected System STAGE ISTAGE II STAGE III STAGE IV STAGE V Required Required Required Required Sub System Developable Developable Developable Developable Required Developable Total Land Totals Staged Costs*1 Area *2 Staged Costs*1 Area *2 Staged Costs*1 Area *2 Staged Costs*1 Area *2 Staged Costs*1 Area *2 Absorbed ($) ($) (Ha) ($) (Ha) ($) (Ha) ($) (Ha) ($) (Ha) (Ha) Sub System 1 (West) Highway # 1 South $ 4,039,000 223$ 9,455,000 522$ 12,366,000 683$ 3,430,000 189$ 9,823,000 542 2,160 Highway # 1 North $ 3,221,000 242$ 10,980,000 825$ 9,684,000 728$ 5,416,000 407$ 14,891,000 1119 3,321 Langdon $ ‐ 0 $ ‐ 0 $ ‐ 0$ 1,706,000 248$ 4,188,000 608 856 Wheatland $ ‐ 0 $ ‐ 0 $ ‐ 0 $ ‐ 0$ 3,809,000 671 671 Subtotal $ 93,008,000 $ 7,260,000 465$ 20,435,000 1,347$ 22,050,000 1,411$ 10,552,000 844$ 32,711,000 2,941 7,008 Sub System 2 (East) Strathmore W & N $ 816,000 63 $ 718,000 56 $ 660,000 51 $ ‐ 0 $ ‐ 0 170 Subtotal $ 2,194,000 $ 816,000 63 $ 718,000 56 $ 660,000 51 $ ‐ 0 $ ‐ 0 170 Sub System 3 (East) Strathmore E & S $ 844,000 103 $ 693,000 85 $ 1,390,000 170 $ ‐ 0 $ ‐ 0 358 E. Shores & Wheatland $ 31,000 7 $ 31,000 7 $ 330,000 72 $ ‐ 0 $ ‐ 085 Subtotal $ 3,319,000 $ 875,000 110 $ 724,000 92 $ 1,720,000 242 $ ‐ 0 $ ‐ 0 443 Total System $ 98,521,000 7,621

Notes *1 These costs include conveyance costs, plus LID research & rural BMPs costs based on the proportional land absorption for that stage. *2 These areas given are only intended to give an impression of the amount development required to support staging. Final absorption will depend on the adopted development levy. *3 The calculated developable area is calculated by dividing the staged costs by the total cost per ha (Table F.2) for each study area. *4 Sub System 1 regional wetland costs have been deferred to Stage V. *5 Sub Systems 2 & 3 regional wetland costs have been deferred to Stage III. Co‐operative Stormwater Management Initiative Final – April, 2014

APPENDIX G

CSMI Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase, January 16th, 2013

Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION January 16th, 2013

As part of this phase of the Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative, WaterSMART undertook a strategic options’ assessment. The assessment process required significant collaboration and discussion among WaterSMART, partners of the Initiative, and other stakeholders with applicable knowledge. The document herein contains the following:

• A description of the assessment process and methodology; • A working list of options; • An assessment of options based on economic, technical, regulatory viability and other partner interests; and • Information and assumptions used to group options into regional1 scenarios; and • Regional scenario development methodology.

A description of four regional scenarios and an assessment of the scenarios is provided in a separate document, Regional Scenarios.

This document is arranged according to the project steps taken to date and a proposed methodology to develop different regional stormwater management scenarios. The following is an outline of the steps involved with corresponding information provided in this document:

• Step 1: Identify and summarize partner interests - Identified during one-on-one meetings (Nov. 2011 to end of May 2012) and June 18th Kick-off meeting - Summarized and confirmed interests (July 11th, 2012) • Step 2: Individual partner brainstorming of options via one-on-one meetings with WaterSMART (August 2012) • Step 3: WaterSMART additional options (August 2012) • Step 4: Collaborative group participant brainstorming of options (Sept. 5th, 2012) • Step 5: WaterSMART additional options (Sept. & Oct. 2012) • Step 6: Options assessment, WaterSMART (Sept. & Oct. 2012) • Step 7: Understanding canal system operations, limitations and expected changes, WaterSMART (Sept. & Oct. 2012) • Step 8: Regional scenario development, WaterSMART (Sept. & Oct. 2012)

The following steps will be undertaken subsequent to the November 9th meeting:

• Step 9: Partner Review (Nov. 2012) • Step 10: Adjustment of scenarios as required (Dec. 2012)

1 The use of the term region for the scope of this Initiative refers to an aligned approach among partners within a given geographical space; that geographical space is based on the watershed in which decisions regarding stormwater management by one partner will impact one or more other partners in the region.

1 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

Table 1: List of Options provides a list of all options identified to date. The step in which each option was identified is indicated by the colour indicated above. It is important to note that this list is a working list of options, and could be added to at any time.

The list was divided into categories of stormwater management approaches, and compared based on cost, and partner interests. The general infrastructure requirements are presented, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each option.

In concert with Step 5, WaterSMART undertook research on the operations of the canal system and its surrounding urban centers. Research on the canal system included numerous discussions with various WID stakeholders. Research on the surrounding urban centers included collection of existing growth studies, master drainage plans, and feasibility assessments. This information provided an understanding of the existing and future urban stresses on the canal system and provided context for the comparison of options and development of regional scenarios. A summary of the growth and runoff information is provided herein as part of Step 7.

Based on this information and perspectives shared throughout the process, WaterSMART is suggesting the use of different management philosophies to guide the development of regional scenarios, each with their own suite of options. A distinction in terminology between management approaches and philosophies and regional scenarios is as follows:

• The categorization of options into management approaches distinguishes how each option aligns with the key components of different management philosophies • Management philosophies represent the higher level management of the system as a unit and draw on management approaches to choose certain options • The suite of options chosen makes up a regional scenario

As part of Step 8, WaterSMART has identified a methodology to determine which options should be implemented based on the stormwater management philosophy adopted by the Initiative. The scenarios will be presented and discussed at the November 9th meeting with partners of the Initiative.

A discussion of the management philosophies and scenario development among the partners is crucial to understand which regional scenarios should progress into a more detailed technical feasibility analysis, which is the subject of the next Phase of the Initiative.

2 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

STEP 1: SUMMARY OF INTERESTS (Confirmed July 11th, 2012)

• No negative impact to environment - possible positive impact (wetlands, riparian areas cleaned up). • Stormwater - economic opportunities. • Stormwater is an asset; Water reuse options (including recreation). • Solutions are cost effective. • Solutions are adaptable to peak events. • Solutions address stormwater quantity management. • Short-term options. • Long-term options. • WID water quality, quantity and maintenance challenges resolved. • Alternative storage options. • Relationship building. • Commitment to dialogue. • Solid understanding of policy and regulatory frameworks. • Policy and regulatory reforms to resolve challenges and accommodate above interests.

3 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

STEP 2 to 5: BRAINSTORMING OPTIONS

Table 1: List of Options

1 Shepard WH Canal Facility and Off Season Release to WID A Canal 13 Recovery and Reuse of Nutrients and Biomass 2A Shepard North Catchment Facility and Off Season Release to WID C or B Canal 14 Programs for Improved Farm Management 2B Shepard Northeast Catchment Facility and Off Season Release to A Canal 15 Programs for Urban Pollutant Source Control 3 Shepard WH Canal Facility and Release During Irrigation Season to WID A Canal 16 Regional Bylaws and Standards on Low Impact Development 4 Chestermere Regional Water Treatment Facility 17 Market Based Incentives 5 Bruce Lake Reservoir Expansion 18 Langdon Reservoir Expansion 6 Delacour Reservoir Expansion 19 Langdon Treatment Facility 7A Spillway Upgrades – 12 Mile 20 Dual Canal System 7B Spillway Upgrades – Cairn Hill 21 Strathmore South Regional Facility 8A Strathmore Northwest Facility – Move North to Serviceberry via Hartell Coulee 22 Regional Off Site Stormwater Levy or Permit 8B Strathmore Northwest Facility – Move North to Serviceberry via B Canal 23 Regional Support for Reuse Ready Algae and Weed Interceptor Facilities for Collection of Algae During High 8C Strathmore Northwest Facility – Move East to Crowfoot via North A Canal 24 Accumulation Stormwater Storage Ponds for Partial Season Pollutant Collection to Reduce 9 Upgrade Eagle Lake Spillways and Constructed Wetlands to Bow River 25 Potential for Phosphorus Accumulation 10 Surge Diversion Sub-Catchment Facilities 26 In-Stream Phosphorus Treatment and Abatement 11 Operation and Maintenance of Canal System with Low Water Quality 27 Individual Algae Management Systems for Turnouts 12A Reuse – Wetland Expansion 28 Storage Reservoir Upstream of Serviceberry 12B Reuse – Shale Gas Production 29 C Canal Replacement with Pipe 12C Reuse – Industrial Gravel Washing 30 Re-manage C Canal as multi-purpose Canal Collaborative planning for long term overland drainage requirements with canal 12D Reuse – Aquifer Storage and Recharge 31 pipe replacement Regional Standards and Regulations for Streamlining Process of Multi-stakeholder 12E Reuse – Irrigation 32 Engagement on Stormwater Planning 33 Infiltration Galleries for Treatment and Quantity Management 34 Regional Stormwater and Irrigation Water Quality Testing Facility 35 Restructure Hartell Coulee to Accept more Flow 36 Riparian Area Rehabilitation on Serviceberry Creek 37 Prevent Calgary Water from Entering Chestermere Lake 38 Reservoir Upstream of C and B Canal to Feed Canals During Storms 39 Dredge Chestermere Lake 40 Silt trap Upstream of Chestermere Lake 41 Towns Responsible for Downstream Canal Maintenance 42 Delacour Treatment Facility 43 WH Canal Treatment Facility and Release During Irrigation Season 44 Shepard North Catchment Treatment Facility and Release During Irrigation Season 45 Urban Center Treatment Facilities 46 Bruce Lake Treatment Facility

4 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

STEP 6: OPTIONS ASSESSMENT

The list of options was categorized into 6 different major management approaches including the following:

• Major Source Control Upstream of Chestermere Lake; • Major Source Control Throughout the Canal System; • Mitigative Measures; • Canal Operations and Capabilities and Mitigative Measures; • Economic Opportunities; and • Regional Programs and Management.

Each option may represent more than one management approach, as well as numerous partner interests; however, they have been divided to provide more clarity in the process of regional scenario development.

Within each management approach, all options were assessed based on economics, technical viability and impact, partner interests, and regulatory viability. It should be noted that quantity management refers to the ability of urban developments to more effectively manage stormwater. Tables 2 to 7 provide this assessment.

Table 2: Major Source Control Upstream of Chestermere Lake Options Assessment Table 3: Major Source Control throughout Canal System Options Assessment Table 4: Mitigative Measures Options Assessment Table 5: Canal Operations and Capabilities and Mitigative Measures Options Assessment Table 6: Economic Opportunities Options Assessment Table 7: Regional Programs and Management Options Assessment

Five different categories of cost were developed to provide a high level comparison of all options. Most costs provided are based on estimated capital costs only, unless otherwise indicated. The cost of some options has not been provided due to uncertainties in program requirements. The categories are as follows:

• <$1,000,000; • <$10,000,000; • <$25,000,000; • <$50,000,000; and • >$50,000,000.

The cost of each option was estimated at a high level based on the following:

• Infrastructure required; • Existing cost estimates of similar projects (namely the Shepard Regional Drainage Plan); and • Discussions with current and past WID employees.

An understanding of the location of each option within the canal system is necessary to more effectively understand the impact on the system. The geography of the system can be divided as follows:

5 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

• Upstream of Chestermere Lake; • A Canal; • B Canal; • C Canal; and • Joint WID and ESRD jurisdiction

A summary of options as they pertain to each management approach, location on the canal system, and cost, is provided in Table 8: Categorization of Options Based on Management Strategy and Geographical Location.

6 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

Table 2: Major Source Control Upstream of Chestermere Lake Options Assessment

No Description Costs Technical Assessment Advantages Disadvantages Interests Met

• Stormwater conveyance in the Shepard • No impact on water Regional Drainage Plan (SRDP) to the WH quality from • Will add costs to SRDP • Short term option Shepard WH Canal west of Chestermere associated runoff • Pollutant loads from discharge may • Long term option Canal Facility and • Approximately 90 ha storage facility based during irrigation remain in the canal until following year • Storage option 1 Off Season >$50,000,0002 on annual runoff season • Significant land use/environmental • Quantity management Release to WID A • Land parcel has already been identified in • Reduces SRDP impact could lead to public opposition 3 • Quality Management Canal SDRP 5-24-28-W4M conveyance • Licensing and basin water transfers • Relationship building • Bypass around Chestermere Lake capacities required requires attention • Bypass around Langdon reservoir south of WH Canal.

2A • Pollutant loads from discharge may • Short term option Shepard North remain in the canal until following year • Approximately 35 ha facility based on • Reduces SRDP • Long term option Catchment • Significant land use/environmental <$25,000,000 annual runoff conveyance • Storage option Facility and Off impact could lead to public opposition • Removes up to 2.4 cms from downstream capacities • Quantity management Season Release • Licensing and basin water transfers conveyance channels in SRDP downstream of north • Quality management to WID C Canal requires attention catchment. 2 2B • Approximately 57 ha storage facility Shepard • Short term option • Land parcel has already been identified in Northeast • Long term option SDRP 5-24-28-W4M Catchment • Same as above • Same as above • Storage option <$50,000,000 • Bypass around Chestermere Lake Facility and Off • Quantity management • Bypass around Langdon reservoir Season Release • Quality management • Removes up to 4.2 cms from downstream to A Canal conveyance channels in SRDP

• Reduces water • Catch pollutants from peak of storm and • Short term option diverted from the Shepard WH release remaining flows into canal. • Long term option Bow • Lower quality water in the canal system. Canal Facility and • Quality monitoring system • Storage option <$10,000,0004 • Reduces days with Mitigation is required. 3 Release During • Connection to SCADA and operating • Quantity management shortages during dry • Licensing and basin water transfers Irrigation Season system • Water as a resource years requires attention to WID WH Canal • Assumes no treatment • Economic • Potential to add • Treatment facility could be installed for opportunities farmers to canal future water reuse options system

2 Options 1, 2 and 3 land requirements are based on 2 meter active pond depth. Costs were based on estimates developed in the Shepard Regional Drainage Plan for regional catchment pond. 3 Shepard Regional Drainage Plan 4 Cost based on capturing 10 hours of a 1:2 storm, and no mitigation measures. 7 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

No Description Costs Technical Assessment Advantages Disadvantages Interests Met

• Treatment facility sized for approximately • Water available for 10 cms to treat SRDP 1:100 year flows use downstream of west of Chestermere Lake to treat to WID • Short term option Shepard WH Chestermere Lake standards. This is approximately three • Long term option Canal Treatment • High water quality times greater hourly capacity than Calgary • Licensing and basin water transfers • Storage option 43 Facility and >$50,000,000 will reduce canal water treatment facility capabilities. requires attention • Quantity management Release During degradation and • A storage pond could be constructed to • Quality management Irrigation Season improve water reduce treatment capacity. Assuming 24 • Relationship building quality into hours of 1:100 year flows at the WH Canal, Chestermere Lake at a 2 meter depth, approximately 45 ha storage would be required

• Treatment facility sized for approximately 2.5 cms to treat SRDP 1:100 year flows in • Water is available for SRDP North catchment, treated to WID use downstream of standards. This is approximately 75% of • Short term option Shepard North Chestermere Lake the hourly capacity of Calgary water • Long term option Treatment • High water quality treatment facility capabilities • Licensing and basin water transfers • Storage option 44 Facility and >$50,000,000 will reduce canal • Restricted discharge rate to the canal requires attention • Quantity management Release During degradation and system during irrigation season • Quality management Irrigation Season improve water • A storage pond could be constructed to • Relationship building quality into reduce treatment capacity. Assuming 24 Chestermere Lake hours of 1:100 year flows at the WH Canal, at a 2 meter depth, approximately 10 ha storage would be required • Costs for upgrading conveyance channels • Install a check structure upstream of to Shepard Wetland and upgrades at Prevent Calgary Chestermere to send all stormwater • Short term option • Keeps highest Shepard Wetland Water from towards the Shepard Wetland during • Long term option <$25,000,0005 nutrient loads out of • Would reduce the ability to service Entering storm events • Quality management 37 the front end of the downstream irrigators. Ability to meet Chestermere • Upgrades to Shepard diversion structure • Quantity management canal system demands with the addition or expansion Lake and drainage channel to Shepard wetland • Peak events of reservoir, or compensation to farmers may be required; this requires further could be investigated investigation • Canal system twinned from upstream of • Reduces quality • Short term option Chestermere Lake to Serviceberry Creek impacts in C Canal • Land acquisition would be challenging • Long term option <$25,000,0006 Dual Canal on west side of C Canal and Chestermere • Lower water quality introduced to • Quantity 20 System • Study has been completed by WID for Lake Serviceberry Creek; this requires management

twinned canal to Rosebud River, but was • Reduces surge on C assessment • Quality management not available Canal • Peak events

5 This cost is unknown, and is dependent on the ability of Shepard wetland to take more flow. More information on Shepard Wetland capabilities is required. 6 This cost was estimated based on Shepard Drainage Plan cost estimates. It will vary with land acquisition. 8 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

Table 3: Major Source Control throughout Canal System Options Assessment

No Description Costs Technical Assessment Advantages Disadvantages Interests Met 8A • Storage of annual runoff and discharge Strathmore offseason • Short term option • Environmentally sensitive Northwest • Conveyance, control structures, and storage • Long term option • Keep low water quality from areas could be impacted Facility - Move • Lift station • Storage option <$50,000,000 canal system • Land acquisition may be North to • Drop structure to Hartell Coulee • Environmental benefits challenging Serviceberry via • Would require upgrades to Hartell Coulee to • Relationship building Hartell Coulee handle flow capacity 8B • Storage of annual runoff and discharge Strathmore offseason • Same as above • Pollutant loads from • Short term option Northwest • Conveyance, control structures, and storage • Potential to provide educational discharge may remain in • Storage option 8 Facility – Move • Expansion of wetland upstream of B Canal recreational opportunities <$50,000,000 the canal until following • Environmental benefits North to • Inlet structure(s) for discharge to B Canal • Drains to canal system currently year Serviceberry via • Potential upgrades to Serviceberry creek to exist B Canal handle flow capacity 8C Strathmore • Storage of annual runoff and discharge • Pollutant loads from Northwest offseason • Drains to canal system currently discharge may remain in • Short term option Facility - Move • Conveyance, control structures, and storage <$50,000,000 existing the canal until following • Storage option East to • Inlet structure(s) for discharge to North A year Crowfoot via Canal North A Canal • Feasibility assessment was conducted for • Improves water quality of Eagle Strathmore stormwater storage but was not Lake – benefit to Wheatland obtained. County Eagle Shores • Requires collaboration • Short term option Strathmore • Treatment system development among stakeholders for • Long term option South Regional • Increase Strathmore ditch from Strathmore • Improves water quality agreement on Eagle Lake • Quality management 21 >$50,000,000 Facility to Eagle Lake or install WID A Canal Spillway downstream of Eagle Lake use, quality and high • Quantity management to new pond • Allows greater stormwater water level • Relationship Building • Upgrade existing conveyance to Eagle Lake discharge from Strathmore to • Upgrade existing drainage from Eagle Lake Eagle Lake • High water quality will reduce • Short term option Urban Center • Storage and treatment facilities to meet WID canal degradation and improve • Long term option Treatment 7 standards with a restricted discharge rate to water quality • Land requirements • Quality management 45 <$50,000,000 Facilities the canal system during irrigation season • Would reduce surges into the • Quantity management system as urban areas develop • Environmental benefits

7 Strathmore treatment facilities would be greater than $50,000,000 9 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

No Description Costs Technical Assessment Advantages Disadvantages Interests Met • Agricultural run-off management program – • Long term option riparian areas, constructed wetlands, bio- • Policy and regulatory • Farmer participation retention swales reforms to solve Programs for challenging, especially if • Assessment of major point source • Reduces current pollutant loads challenges and Improved Farm <$1,000,000 canal water quality is 14 contaminants from farming operations downstream of WH Canal accommodate Management reduced by urban • Fertilizer and pesticide management solutions developments programs • Relationship building • New agricultural runoff requirements • Environmental benefits • Quantity management • Quality management • Long term option • Examples include bylaws for road cleaning • Reduces current pollutant loads Programs for • Policy and regulatory and car washing, disconnection of downstream of WH Canal Urban Pollutant <$1,000,000 • ? reforms to solve 15 downspouts, rain harvesting, fertilizing and • Some partners have experience Source Control challenges and pesticides in implementing such programs accommodate solutions • Environmental benefits • Development of regional and sub-regional requirements of LID infrastructure within • Reduces current pollutant loads • Long term option new developments downstream of WH Canal • Based on potential long • Commitment to Regional Bylaws • Includes but is not limited to pervious • Consistent development term maintenance dialogue and Standards pavement, green roofs, rain harvesting, requirements across region challenges regional group • Policy and regulatory on Low Impact grass swales, bio-retention swales, rain provides relatively consistent <$1,000,000 may not be currently reforms to solve 16 Development gardens etc. stormwater management costs positioned to enforce challenges and • Onsite treatment systems prior to release to developers across region how developers accommodate Examples include hydrodynamic separators, • Contributes to regional water undertake LID initiatives solutions constructed wetlands, filters quality goals for final receiving • Relationship building • Development of standards is currently waters ongoing • Long term option • Optimization of existing • Policy and regulatory Provide incentives to residents and/or development capacity for reforms to solve Market Based Tool as part of the developers for preventing stormwater runoff stormwater control ? challenges and 17 Incentives above programs from their property and/or developments • Costs shared with individuals accommodate while providing ownership solutions • Relationship building

10 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

Table 4: Mitigative Measures Options Assessment

No Description Costs Technical Assessment Advantages Disadvantages Interests Met • Policy and regulations • Storage reservoirs and treatment facility currently limit reuse • Distribution to City and surrounding area • Long term option applications Chestermere • Approximate flow into Chestermere for • Water as a resource • Addresses a longer term regional • Return flow requirements Regional Water maximum events is 27 cms. This would • Storage option solution for water sustainability if may limit ESRD support 4 Reuse Facility >$50,000,000 require a capacity 8 times higher than • Economic coupled with reuse • Land acquisition would (or Treatment Calgary water treatment capabilities Opportunities • Improves quality in all canals be challenging Facility) • Treatment of a portion of the water would • Relationship building • Challenges with reliability be relatively more cost effective, but would • Continued dialogue of water for reuse not eliminate quality issues in Chestermere applications Lake or canal system downstream • This will reduce algae and • Feasibility assessment has been conducted plant growth in the Lake but was not obtained. Dredge • Eliminates pollutant build up in for the short term, but • Dredging the Lake would remove sediment • Short term option 39 Chestermere <$10,000,0008 Chestermere Lake not the long term. that has accumulated over the past 80 years, • Quality management Lake • Increases storage capacity of the • May reduce the Lake`s • Would deepen the Lake to prevent light Lake ability to remove penetration and weed and algae growth phosphorus

• Will prevent sediment build up in Silt Trap • Short term option • Feasibility assessment has been conducted Chestermere Lake Upstream of • Long term option 40 <$25,000,0009 but was not obtained • Will reduce phosphorus loads in • ? Chestermere • Quality management • May include widening of the canal, and Chestermere Lake and into all Lake • Relationship building seasonal removal of plant growth canals

• Long term option Langdon • Improves water quality in A Canal • Land acquisition would • Quality management Treatment • See Option 4 above • Treated water could be used to be challenging • Storage option 19 >$50,000,000 Facility improve Hartell Coulee quality • Cost inhibitive • Peak events • Environmental benefits

Operation and • Potential to damage the • Maintains hydraulic capacity of • Short term option Maintenance of • Purchase heavy equipment and hire canals equipment the canals • Long term option Canal System <$10,000,00010 operators to remove plants and algae from • Maintenance of farmer 11 • Potential to relax stormwater • Quality management with Low Water canal system equipment would still be discharge standards into canals • Quantity management Quality required

8 Feasibility assessment cost estimates were approximately $6,000,000. Integration into a system management plan would increase the long term costs. 9 Based on $15 million capital and $200,000 operation costs over 25 years. 10 Based on $2 million capital costs and $200,000 operation costs over 25 years. 11 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

No Description Costs Technical Assessment Advantages Disadvantages Interests Met • Maintenance of canal Algae • Mechanical rake that will remove floating turnouts and farmer • Prevents major blockages in • Short term option Interceptor algae and weeds from the canal equipment would still be small downstream canals • Long term option Facilities for <$10,000,00011 • One or more interceptor per canal required 24 • Potential to relax stormwater • Quality management During High • A single device could be design to be used at • Would only be effective discharge standards into canals • Quantity management Accumulation various locations along the canal with individual turnout systems (Option 27) • The product is highly • Precipitant is currently used to mitigate hazardous to operators severe algae blooms. Application is • It requires farmers to In-Stream • Short term option effective for approximately 5 kilometers of shut intakes during Phosphorus • Potential to relax stormwater • Long term option <$5,000,000 the canal. application 26 Treatment and discharge standards into canals • Quality management • In-stream chemical treatment of • Maintenance of canal Abatement • Quantity management phosphorus to reduce algae growth turnouts and farmer equipment would still be required. • Rake systems at canal turnouts to remove • Does not address impact algae from individual systems of algae of water Individual Algae • Address current farmer needs • Short term option <$5,000,000 • Supply or subsidize farmers operating under capacity in canals. Management based on current quality • Long term option Approximately contracts for each turnout • Would still require 27 Systems for • Potential to relax stormwater • Quality management • Develop a program for maintenance support strategy to remove Turnouts $5,000 per unit discharge standards into canals • Quantity management • Equipment typically blows plant and algae weeds and algae from off of screens and into canal system canal

• Designate a setback from the Creek as • Access for maintenance Riparian Area riparian area reconstruction may become challenging Rehabilitation • Land acquisition from farmers where the • Improved quality in Serviceberry and would require • Long term option <$25,000,000 36 on Serviceberry Creek has meandered outside of existing Creek and downstream farmer co-operation • Environmental Benefits Creek Right-of-Ways • Land acquisition would • Erosion control on some Creek banks as be challenging required

11 Cost is per interceptor unit. 12 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

Table 5: Canal Operations and Capabilities and Mitigative Measures Options Assessment

No Description Costs Technical Assessment Advantages Disadvantages Interests Met • Potential regional potable raw • Feasibility analysis has been completed water source in the future Langdon • Continue using Langdon reservoir as a storage • Greater potential to maintain • Land acquisition may Reservoir <$25,000,000 • Storage options 18 facility service to downstream farmers be challenging Expansion • Reservoir expansion and upgrades if more stormwater is diverted out of canals upstream

• Current upgrades are only required for road • Potential resistance crossings from Siksika Nation • Short term option • Addresses current flooding • Increase spillway capacity to take larger • Land acquisition may • Long term option 7A concerns adjacent to spillways storms be challenging • Quality management Spillway • Reduce impact of poor <$1,000,00012 • Spillway could be used to divert more • Poor water quality • Quantity management Upgrades stormwater quality stormwater out of the canal system would be sent to Bow • Solutions more – 12 Mile downstream in A Canal if more • Service to downstream farmers would have to River; assessment of adaptable to peak stormwater diverted be maintained during storm events or farmers treatment prior to final events compensated discharge required

7 • Current upgrades are only required for road • Potential resistance crossings from Siksika Nation • Short term option • Addresses current flooding • Increase spillway capacity to take larger • Land acquisition may • Long term option 7B concerns adjacent to spillways storms be challenging • Quality management Spillway • Reduce impact of poor <$1,000,00013 • Spillway could be used to divert more • Poor water quality • Quantity management Upgrades stormwater quality stormwater out of the canal system would be sent to Bow • Solutions may become – Cairn Hill downstream in A Canal if more • Service to downstream farmers would have to River; assessment of more adaptable to stormwater diverted be maintained during storm events or farmers treatment prior to final peak events compensated discharge required

• Widen and re-grade coulee as required to • Benefits many stakeholders Restructure accept more flow from Strathmore, • Potentially contributes to • Short Term Hartell Coulee Wheatland and Weed Lake higher water quality in Hartell • Long term option <$25,000,000 • ? 35 to Accept more • Erosion control along Hartell and Serviceberry and Serviceberry Creek • Quantity management Flow • Land acquisition • Local water users would have a • Environmental benefits • Riparian area development could potentially more reliable water source be part of this strategy

12 Spillways could be used to divert not just clean water, but also low water quality storm surges. Irrigators using water from these spillways would receive lower water quality for a period of time. Lower quality water would be sent to the Bow River. A treatment facility to handle these large storm flows would require significant amounts of land and capital investment. If the spillways were upgraded and all storm flows were diverted toward the Bow, farmers downstream of the spillways, farmers would lose service. Compensation may be necessary for these farmers. 13 See above footnote. 13 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

No Description Costs Technical Assessment Advantages Disadvantages Interests Met

• See Option 21 in Table 3 • Upgrade existing spillways to Eagle Lake Upgrade Eagle • Upgrade drains and laterals south of Eagle • Improved water quality • Potential resistance • Long term option Lake Spillways Lake throughout drainage from Siksika Nation • Storage option and • Potentially a pump station and pipe out of conveyance and discharge to • Requires collaboration • Quality management 9 <$50,000,00014 Constructed Lake for one to seven kilometers Bow River among stakeholders for • Quantity management Wetlands to • Lateral canal underdrain(s) • Numerous stakeholders would agreement on Eagle • Relationship building Bow River • Land acquisition benefit Lake use and quality • Environmental benefits • Expand existing wetlands that drain to Bow, or construct new wetlands

• May avoid necessity to maintain flow into Construct Chestermere Lake during • Short term option Reservoir • Close off B and C Canal during storms – allow certain storms • Reservoir location may • Long term option Upstream of B all water to flow down A Canal >$50,000,000 • Keeps stormwater out of B and be difficult due to • Quality management 38 and C Canal to • Reservoir at location upstream of majority of C Canals, mitigation may only topography • Quantity management Service during irrigators be required in A Canal • Storage option storms • Reservoir could be in-stream or off-stream • Potential to relax stormwater discharge standards into canals Delacour • Long term option • Use Delacour reservoir as storage facility • Land acquisition would 6 Reservoir <$50,000,000 • Same as above • Storage option • Land aquisition be challenging Expansion • Economic opportunity

• Long term option Delacour • Same as above, plus mechanical treatment • Higher quality water in C Canal • Storage option 41 Treatment >$50,000,000 facility. • Potential to relax stormwater • ? • Quality management Facility • Could accept stormwater from Delacour as discharge standards into canals • Quantity management well as storm surges in C Canal. • Reservoir with inlet from canal and outlet • Long term option Storage structure to Serviceberry Creek • Improve quality in Serviceberry • Providing additional • Storage option Reservoir • Used to augment flow in Serviceberry Creek if Creek, and riparian areas flow to canals would <$25,000,00015 • Peak events 28 Upstream of C Canal closed during storms • Potential to relax stormwater be limited without • Quantity management Serviceberry • Alternatively, could catch pollutants in peak discharge standards into canals pumping • Environmental benefit storm surges to improve Serviceberry quality. • Storage option Bruce Lake • Potential regional potable raw • Land acquisition would • Peak events 5 Reservoir >$50,000,000 • Use Bruce Lake as storage facility water source be challenging • Long term option Expansion • Quantity management

14 Costs will be significantly dependent on land acquisition costs. 15 Cost will depend on size of reservoir – could be any size to meet desired storage options and to improve quality in Serviceberry Creek 14 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

No Description Costs Technical Assessment Advantages Disadvantages Interests Met • Storage option Bruce Lake • Potential regional potable raw • Land acquisition would • Peak events 46 Treatment >$50,000,00016 • Treatment facility and reservoir expansion water source be challenging • Quality management Facility • Pump treated water to B Canal • Quantity management • Replace existing canals with pipe east of Bruce • Algae less likely to accumulate Lake in pipe C Canal • Some replacement is already planned as part • Less adaptable to • Long term option • Opportunity to remove algae at Replacement <$10,000,000 of Canal rehabilitation storm surges from • Quality management 29 one location upstream of pipe with Pipe • Lift Station to pump from Bruce Lake upstream • Environmental benefits • Increased flows to Serviceberry • Overland drainage increases from remediated Creek land • Potential to relax stormwater discharge standards into canals • Provide lower water quality to farmers in C Re-manage C • May be more cost effective 50% rate for Canal Canal as a than upgrades for surge • Short term option approximately 400 • Offer reduced rate to farmers for poorer water • Political image 30 Multi-purpose protection and quality • Long term option contracts quality Canal management • Must use mitigation techniques • Benefit to farmers – increased fertilizer capability • Facilities to divert stormwater at downstream end of sub-catchments with overland flow into canals Surge • Stormwater treatment facility at each • Removes agricultural storm • Quality management Diversion Sub- • Land acquisition may <$10,000,00017 diversion location. Ex. detention ponds and/or runoff and/or urban • Quantity management 10 Catchment be challenging constructed wetlands complete with stormwater from canal system • Peak Events Facilities monitoring and outlet structures • Connection to existing irrigation infrastructure for reuse • An alternative treatment option that does not affect any Infiltration • In areas with high permeability characteristics, canals or drainage channels Galleries for • Long term • Quantity management develop treatment facilities that incorporate • Potential opportunity to Treatment and <$10,000,00018 maintenance may be • Quality management 33 infiltration replenish typically wet areas Storm Quantity challenging • Divert storm surges to facilities for treatment that have dried due to Management • Requires geological assessment reductions in leakage from canals

16 Actual cost is greater than $200 million based on discussion with WID 17 Cost will depend on sizing according to desired water quality collection 18 See footnote above. 15 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

Table 6: Economic Opportunities Options Assessment

No Description Costs Technical Assessment Advantages Disadvantages Interests Met • Contract management • Collection facility for algae and plant • Recycle of material Recovery and may be challenging • Long term option growth • Potential to relax stormwater Reuse of Nutrients ? • Partnership • Economic 13 • Sell plant material to waste management discharge standards into canals and Biomass opportunities may be opportunity and recovery company • Generates revenue limited • Potential revenue from bulk water sales • Long term option 12B Reuse • May work toward a regional • Public resistance Economic • Provide stormwater for downhole N/A water management plan - • Not within regulatory opportunity Shale Gas injection for shale gas production removes need for freshwater framework • Relationship building Production withdrawal by oil and gas from natural waterways 12 • Potential revenue from bulk water sales 12C Reuse • May work toward a regional • Long term option • Provide stormwater for gravel washing • Not within regulatory N/A water management plan - • Economic Industrial Gravel operations throughout the region framework removes need for freshwater opportunity Washing withdrawal by oil and gas from natural waterways • Savings on current quality • Short term option monitoring costs • Long term option • Ability to develop more detailed Regional • Quality management • Lab Facility central to WID infrastructure understanding of storm impacts Stormwater and • Quantity to expand monitoring program and on canal system, and guide Irrigation Water 19 • High upfront costs management 34 <$25,000,000 provide information on storm systems decisions on infrastructure Quality Testing • Economic and impacts on canal system implementation Facility Opportunity • Long term savings from better • Commitment to informed management dialogue decisions.

19 Based on $15 million capital and $200,000 operation costs. 16 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

Table 7: Regional Programs and Management Options Assessment

No Description Costs Technical Assessment Advantages Disadvantages Interests Met • Funding source for • May deter infrastructure • Short term option • Regional Levy to help fund regional development in • Could help to reduce • Long term option Regional Off Site Stormwater stormwater infrastructure projects the short term <$1,000,000 quantity and improve • Quantity management 22 Levy or Permit • Levy required from all new due to higher quality from each • Quality management developments development development depending • Commitment to dialogue costs. on structure of levy/permit Develop Regional Standards • Shared understanding of • A process that all partners agree is and Regulations for partner responsibilities and • Short term option an effective means to ensure Streamlining Process of Multi- <$10,000,000 regional requirements for • ? • Long term option 32 developers plan and act as required stakeholder Engagement on stormwater planning for • Commitment to dialogue based on regional needs Stormwater Planning new developments Collaborative Planning for • Shared understanding of • Tool for ongoing regional • Short term option Long Term Overland Drainage system requirements and <$1,000,000 management of the system as a • ? • Long term option 31 Requirements with Canal Pipe impact of canal changes on regional unit. • Commitment to dialogue Replacement partner interests • Reduced future costs • Long term option • Development of principles for associated with reuse • Quantity management adoption by municipalities projects including retrofits • Commitment to dialogue Regional Support for Reuse <$1,000,000 • Principles would promote long term to existing infrastructure • ? • Policy and regulatory 23 Ready Development planning that accommodates future • Promotes a regional reforms to solve reuse projects mentality that supports challenges and water reuse accommodate solutions • Use stormwater from existing or • Short term option future treatment facility to expand • Long term option Re-use – Wetlands N/A • Environmental benefit • ? 12A wetlands in areas throughout the • Environmental benefits region • Commitment to dialogue • Shows leadership in • Potentially part of a reused water moving water reuse • Potential for • Long term option distribution infrastructure network opportunities forward unfavourable • Quantity management • Multiple well injection system • Provides beneficial reuse of pilot results • Water as a resource Re-use – Aquifer Storage and • Water quality monitoring system water for current and N/A • Public resistance • Policy and regulatory 12D Recharge • Requires identification of feasible future potable and • ESRD does not reforms to solve locations of aquifers based on industrial uses currently support challenges and availability of isolated test areas, and • Potential for expansion to accommodate solutions best proximity to future demand larger reclaimed water distribution system

17 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

No Description Costs Technical Assessment Advantages Disadvantages Interests Met • Potentially part of a reused water • Commitment to dialogue distribution infrastructure network • Policy and regulatory • Replaces potable water use Re-use – Irrigation N/A • Irrigation system infrastructure – • ? reforms to solve 12E for irrigation existing systems may be retrofitted challenges and as required for reused water accommodate solutions • In-stream canal maintenance for a distance agreed upon by WID and Towns Responsible for Town • Meets partner interests • Short term option Downstream Canal • Savings in land use and other costs • Flexible to future • ? • Long term option 40 N/A Maintenance associated with stormwater developments • Commitment to dialogue infrastructure in Town boundaries applied to canal maintenance

18 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

Table 8: Categorization of Options Based on Management Approach and Geographical Location

The Table is colour coded according to geographical region as follows: Upstream of Chestermere A Canal B Canal C Canal All Canals ESRD/WID jurisdiction

Costs of each option are indicated as follows: $ < $1,000,000 $$ < $10,000,000; $$$ <$25,000,000; $$$$ <$50,000,000; $$$$$ >$50,000,000

Major Source Control Upstream Major Source Control Canal Operations and Capabilities Economic Regional Programs and Mitigative Measures of Chestermere Lake Throughout Canal System and Mitigative Measures20 Opportunities Management Develop Regional Standards and Shepard WH Canal Facility Strathmore Northwest Storage Regional Off Site Regulations for Streamlining a Process of and Off Season Release to WID A Offseason Discharge North to Silt Trap Upstream of Chestermere Lake Langdon Reservoir Expansion Stormwater Levy or Multi-stakeholder Engagement on Canal Serviceberry via Hartell Coulee $$$ $$ Permit Stormwater Planning $$$$$ $$$$ $ $ Strathmore Northwest Storage Reuse – Collaborative planning for long term Shepard WH Canal Treatment Facility Facility Spillway Upgrades – Dredging Chestermere Lake Shale Gas overland drainage requirements with and Release During Irrigation Season Offseason Discharge North to 12 Mile $$ Production canal pipe replacement $$$$$ Serviceberry via B Canal $ N/A $ $$$$ Shepard WH Canal Facility and Strathmore Northwest Facility Chestermere Regional Water Reuse – Industrial Release During Irrigation Season to Discharge East to Crowfoot via Spillway Upgrades – Regional Support for Reuse Ready Treatment Facility Gravel Washing WID WH Canal North A Canal Cairn Hill $ $$$$$ N/A $$ $$$$ $ Shepard North Catchment Facility Recovery and Reuse Strathmore South Regional Langdon Regional Water Treatment Re-structure Hartell Coulee to Accept and Off Season Release to WID C of Nutrients and Reuse - Aquifer Storage and Recharge Facility Facility More Flow Canal Biomass N/A $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$ $$$ N/A Regional Stormwater Shepard North Treatment Facility Operation and Maintenance of Canal Upgrade Eagle Lake Spillway and Urban Treatment Facilities and Irrigation water Reuse - Wetland Expansion and Release During Irrigation Season System with Low Water Quality Constructed Wetlands to Bow River $$$$ Testing Facility N/A $$$$$ $$ $$$$ $$$$ Programs for Improved Farm Shepard Northeast Catchment In-stream Phosphorus Treatment and Management Construct Reservoir Upstream of B and Facility and Off Season Release to Abatement Reuse – Irrigation $ C Canal to Service During Storms WH Canal $$ N/A Tool: Market Based Incentives $$$$$ $$$$ Tool: Riparian Management Programs for Urban Pollutant Prevent Calgary Water From Entering Individual Algae Management Systems Towns Responsible for Downstream Source Control Delacour Reservoir Expansion Chestermere Lake for Turnouts Canal Maintenance $ $$$$ $$$ $$ N/A Tool: Market Based Incentives Algae and Weed Interceptor Facilities Regional Bylaws and Standards Dual Canal System for Collection of Algae During High Delacour Reservoir Treatment Facility on Low Impact Development $$$ Accumulation $$$$$ $ $$

20 These options indicate a combination of pollutant source control prior to entering the Canal (from Strathmore) while removing water from the Canal for treatment at the same facility. 19 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

Major Source Control Upstream Major Source Control Canal Operations and Capabilities Economic Regional Programs and Mitigative Measures of Chestermere Lake Throughout Canal System and Mitigative Measures20 Opportunities Management Riparian Area Rehabilitation on Storage Reservoir Upstream of Serviceberry Creek Serviceberry $$$ $$$$ Bruce Lake Reservoir Expansion

$$$$$ Bruce Lake Treatment Facility

$$$$$ C Canal Replacement with Pipe

$$ Re-Manage C Canal as Multi-Purpose

N/A Surge Diversion Sub-Catchment Facilities $$ Infiltration Galleries for Quality and Quantity Management $$

20 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

STEP 7: UNDERSTANDING CANAL OPERATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND EXPECTED CHANGES

WaterSMART undertook research on the operations of the canal system and its surrounding urban centers. Research on the canal system included numerous discussions with various WID stakeholders. Research on the surrounding urban centers included collection of existing master drainage plans, infrastructure feasibility assessments and growth studies.

This information provided an understanding of the existing and future urban stresses on the canal system and provided context for the comparison of options and development of regional scenarios. Detailed modelling of the canal system with respect to quality and quantity of existing and increased runoff along the canal is outside the scope of this phase of the Initiative, and should be undertaken by engineering consultants in future phases in order to assess the scenario(s) agreed upon by the group.

A summary of the canal system, information used and assumptions made to guide the development of regional scenarios is presented below. This includes pertinent growth and runoff information for each portion of the canal system.

System Overview

The canal system diverts water from the Bow River between April 1st and September 30th. Water from the Western Headworks (WH) Canal flows into Chestermere Lake, which services A, B and C Canals. The A Canal moves south, while the B and C Canals share the same diversion channel from Chestermere Lake at the northern tip of the Lake. The Lake removes a significant amount of phosphorus from the canal system; however, increases in pollutant loads to the Lake above its treatment capacity translates into increases in all canals. The approximate flow capacities in cubic meters per second (cms) of each canal are as follows:

• WH Canal Upstream of Chestermere Lake (51 cms); • A Canal (27 cms to 10.3 cms); • B Canal (13.5 cms to 5 cms); • C Canal (19 cms to 3.3 cms); and • Joint WID and ESRD jurisdiction: major geographical landmarks include Eagle Lake, Hartell Coulee and Serviceberry Creek.

At all times, water service to farmers along the canal system must be maintained. Water is diverted from the Bow River on a demand basis, as determined through the WID supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system. The canal capacities are based on demand along each canal. As a rule of thumb, 50% of water flows to A Canal, and 25 % to each B and C Canal. A total of approximately 1,200 turnouts to provide water for irrigators throughout the system are assumed.

WH Canal and Chestermere Lake

Currently there are approximately 32 storm outfalls from the City of Calgary that flow into the canal system at all times. There is an underdrain beneath the canal which diverts additional City of Calgary flows to the Shepard Wetland complex. During large storm events (approximately 4 to 7 times per year), a structure on the WH Canal is opened and flow from the canal is diverted south to the Shepard Wetland complex. Through discussions with WID stakeholders, the diversion capacity of this channel is approximately 27 cms. The diversion structure is typically only partially opened to maintain flows into Chestermere Lake and service to irrigators on the canal system downstream.

21 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

Just west of Chestermere Lake, another underdrain takes a portion of flows from the south west areas of the Town of Chestermere, including newly annexed areas into a natural creek, West Creek. However, some flows still enter the WH Canal. The Town is currently undertaking efforts to develop these lands to function as zero-release until such time that all flows can be diverted south.

There is an overflow structure upstream of Chestermere Lake that limits flow into Chestermere Lake to approximately 27 cms. Anything more overflows south of the canal.

It is expected that pollutant loads in the WH Canal are higher during large storms compared to small storms due to the difference in water diverted from the Bow River and the resulting dilution ratio. With smaller storms, large volumes of water are still diverted from the Bow, which dilutes the incoming runoff.

During a large storm approximately 60% of water from Chestermere Lake is sent to the A Canal, and 40% to the B and C Canals. However, the C Canal will typically take the storm surges due to its greater capacity compared to the B Canal.

Pollutant loads from upstream and directly into Chestermere Lake will have the greatest impact on plant and weed growth throughout the entire in the canal system.

Growth and Runoff

This area west of Calgary represents the most significant potential source of pollutants in the short and long term. The major growth planned on the west side of Chestermere Lake includes developments within the City of Calgary, Rocky View County, and the Town of Chestermere. The planned growth is explained in detail in the Shepard Regional Drainage Plan (SRDP), issued in November 2011 by AECOM. The plan models stormwater based on land use and identifies conveyance capacities and preferred alignments throughout the area east of Calgary. Growth timelines are also provided in the plan. Conveyance channel capacities were developed based on assumptions of LID practice implementation throughout the area and the use of stormwater attenuation and water quality ponds at the development level.

The conveyance channels proposed are sized for restricted release rates of 1:100 year flows from final sub-catchment attenuation and water quality ponds. The plan includes conveyance of water from north of the WH Canal under the canal towards the Shepard Wetland complex in two locations. The two locations include:

• at the ¼ section line east of Garden Road (just north and approximately two kilometers east of the existing Shepard wetland; and • near Range Road 283 and the crossing of the CPR Rail line (just west of Chestermere Lake).

Conveyance under the canal was based on the recommendations of a 2008 study requested by the Western Headworks Regional Stormwater Management Committee (now the Shepard Regional Drainage Committee) and conducted by Westhoff Engineering Resources called the Drainage Servicing Strategies for Shepard Drainage Corridor (Shepard DSS). A key finding from the report was that newly developed lands cannot drain to the WH Canal and Chestermere Lake. It is assumed that this was based on the exceedance of WID quality guidelines of water in conveyance channels at the location of the WH canal.

22 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

The SRDP assumes that stormwater flows from the west annexed areas of Chestermere require a new WH Canal underdrain, or the use of the existing underdrain with a redirection of flow. However, the existing underdrain is currently not designed to take all new development flows. The study recommends that the Town continue to focus on the interim solution of zero discharge until the current underdrain can be diverted south. The contributing areas with data are modelled in the Plan based on information in the Town of Chestermere Utilities Master Drainage Plan, 2008 Update. Additional storage elements may be required to attenuate excess peak flows from the area encompassed by the 2004 Town of Chestermere boundary, as these were excluded from the study. Updated projected flows from these areas were not obtained.

Based on discussions with the City of Calgary, the following runoff data was generated based on information and flow capacities in the SRDP. This is presented in Table 9 to provide some context for new flows expected in this area of the region.

Table 9: Shepard Regional Drainage Plan Stormwater Flows

Flows (cms)21 Years City22 West23 East24 City West East 1:100 1:100 1:100 1:2 1:2 1:2 0-10 1.804 1.735 0.442 0.685 10-15 1.190 2.272 2.925 0.426 0.868 1.111 20-25 4.760 5.842 6.495 1.703 2.571 2.814 30-50 6.625 8.068 8.938 2.416 3.005 3.329

The SRDP recommends implementation of low impact development (LID) practices, which would reduce post-development TSS loading to approximately 25 kh/ha/year. This equates to approximately 225,000 kg/year TSS loading for the entire area or approximately 75,000 kg/year from the north catchment (affecting option 2A) and 125,000 kg/year from the northeast catchment (affecting option 2B). Information on estimated water quality in the conveyance channels at the location of the WH Canal was not included in the report.

This area of the region will experience the greatest development and increase in runoff over the next 50 years. Discussions with WID stakeholders indicate that the WH Canal could physically handle the flows indicated above. The quality of water entering the system is the greatest concern.

21 Flows are based on Shepard Regional Drainage Plan Figure 6.14 - Peak Flows along Conveyance Route and Figure 7.2 – Anticipated Development Staging and Conveyance Route Phases within the Shepard Region from the Shepard Drainage Plan. 22 Assumes development in remaining Shepard catchment 10 - 30 category above is split such that 1/4 happens in 10-15 years, 3/4 happens in 20-25 years. 23 Flows west of Chestermere Lake on A Canal Assume 50% of 0 - 10 years happens in 5 years, 25% happens in 10 years and 25% happens in 30 years. 24 Flows east of Chestermere Lake based on no attenuation in Chestermere Lake Assume 50% of 0 - 10 years happens in 5 years, 25% happens in 10 years and 25% happens in 30 years.

23 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

A Canal and 12 Mile and Cairn Hill Spillways

Currently the A Canal has two major spillways for surge protection. When large storms occur, the spillways are opened to allow water that has not been contacted by storms to flow out of the canal, while the storm surges flow into the canal. The result is water from large storm events flowing through entire canal system and depositing sediment along the way. Again, service to farmers must be maintained. The Langdon reservoir is used to maintain service downstream during dry years.

Growth and Runoff

The Town of Strathmore and the proposed Highway 1A Industrial development in Wheatland County are both downstream of the spillways, and represent the major developments along this Canal in the next 50 years. Both locations are bounded by canals, or drains that are in the jurisdiction of WID and ESRD, including Eagle Lake and Hartell Coulee. Currently both partners are experiencing development restrictions based on their limitations of discharging only to the canal system, coupled with economic constraints to meet current WID standards.

Other developments located south of the main A Canal system include Indus, Dalmead, Carseland, Eagle Lake, Gleichen and Cluny. With the exception of Eagle Lake, specific growth and runoff data for these developments was not obtained. The impact of these developments on the major system challenges was deemed insignificant for the scope of this assessment. However, depending on the management approaches adopted by the Initiative, special consideration may be required for urban developments located between the A Canal and the Bow River in order to uphold Bow River water quality.

Strathmore currently has annexed lands on the north, west and east sides of the Town for a total of 18.5 quarter sections. The town is split by the continental divide, which separates natural flow from the north and south to flow in their respective directions. The 2008 Strathmore Growth Management Study provided projected growth rates, which are represented in Table 10 based on an updated timeline. The 18.5 quarter sections are expected to accommodate growth up to 2058. The current population is estimated based on projected growth between 2008 and 2012.

Table 10: Strathmore Population Projections

Timeline Growth Rate Population Current (2012) 7.00% 14,858 5 Years (2017) 7.00% 20,839 10 Years (2022) 5.00% 27,103 25 Years (2037) 1.00% 42,762 50 Years (2062) 1.00% 54,296

Based on discussions with the Town, a lower growth rate has been experienced over the last couple of years. As such, the actual rate of growth may be lower than indicated in Table 10.

Currently, all stormwater in the urbanized portions of the current Town borders flows into an existing six pond system, which ultimately drains to Eagle Lake. The ditch to Eagle Lake is currently sized at 1.4 cms. The current Stormwater Discharge Agreement between the Town and WID limits discharge to Eagle Lake

24 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

at 1.683 cms. Developments on two quarter sections of land on the east side of the Town will be sent to Eagle Lake, which will require an underdrain under A Canal. Currently, this discharge will be limited based on the Stormwater Discharge Agreement. An additional five quarter sections on the south side of the WID Canal are planned to discharge through an unnamed watercourse to Eagle Lake at pre- development rates. Of this area, 2.5 quarter sections require drainage under Highway 1. Approximately two quarter sections which are currently undeveloped are planned for discharge to Eagle Lake at a controlled rate, as defined by the Stormwater Discharge Agreement. Post-development flows from these areas were not provided in the Master Drainage Plan.

At Eagle Lake there are plans for a large development on the east side, and a smaller development on the south side of the Lake. The development on the east side is called Eagle Shores. The stormwater management plan for this development estimates an increase in 45,000 m3 annually. The water quality in the lake is poor, and the stormwater plan recognizes that quality and quantities of runoff into Eagle Lake must be maintained in order to uphold the quality and high level of the lake. The plan recommends that infiltration galleries and stormwater reuse will be required to achieve this. An agreement with a number of stakeholders on the high water mark of the lake remains pending. It is expected that this development will begin in the next 10 years.

The Northwest Strathmore Master Drainage Plan estimates the post 1:100 year flows from the annexed lands in the northwest portion of the town. The study indicates the following post-development flows, which are arranged based on their natural flow path:

• WID A Canal – diversion west away from the main canal that flows through the Town – 29 cms; • WID B Canal – 35 cms; and • WID North A Canal – 29 cms.

In addition, an area north of the annexed lands is estimated to contribute a 1:100 year storm flow of approximately 1.2 cms into the B Canal. This area is currently undeveloped. The study does not provide 1:5 year storm flows. It recommends that flows from these areas are collected in regional stormwater ponds over the irrigation season and flows from all of these areas are discharged into the B Canal off- irrigation season. The ponds are sized based on annual average rainfall. Upon discharge offseason, flows would attenuate in a wetland upstream of the B Canal. This would enable the wetland to receive flows during off-season and minimize flows into Canal B. Once the area north of the annexed areas is developed, the drainage plan recommends that an underdrain is installed under B Canal to direct flows to Serviceberry Creek. Alternatively, the plan recommends the development of smaller more frequent stormwater ponds to allow for more flexibility in terms of having several developments and unknown timing for development phase.

The West Highway 1 industrial development in Wheatland covers a significant area along Highway 1 just southwest of Strathmore, and adjacent to Cheadle. The development plan is bounded by the A Canal to the east. Hartell Coulee would be the final discharge location of water draining from this site. The canal has a diversion gate upstream of Strathmore to allow flows into Hartell Coulee as desired.

The Town of Langdon wastewater treatment facility is located approximately seven kilometers west of Highway 24. It services both Langdon and Balzac in Rocky View County, and discharges to Hartell Coulee. An assessment on an engineered increased capacity of Hartell Coulee was conducted in recent years; however, little action has been taken to proceed with upgrades. The quality of water in the Hartell Coulee is very poor. In the long term, the Langdon wastewater treatment facility may be

25 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

expanded to accept sewage from other neighbouring communities and Towns. In this case, more wastewater effluent discharge would be necessary and Hartell Coulee would be a natural discharge route.

B and C Canals

The C Canal is the furthest north of the three canals. Currently the C Canal takes a major portion of the surge that flows to the North end of Chestermere Lake. Therefore, the C Canal will typically take a higher upstream pollutant load compared to the B Canal. The C Canal spills into Serviceberry Creek during large storms. Typically Serviceberry Creek has low flows and is of poor quality. This has an impact on farmers who irrigate with water from the creek.

Feasibility assessments have been conducted for a reservoir in Delacour and a treatment facility and reservoir expansion at Bruce Lake. The Bruce Lake facility may provide an opportunity to supply raw water for potable use, and would be designed to pump treated water to the B Canal. Collection of details on this facility and feasibility assessment has been limited.

The WID has a long term canal rehabilitation program. Plans for rehabilitation of the C Canal include pipe replacement. The exact length and locations of the planned pipe replacement are unknown. Information on the long term rehabilitation program was limited for this report. Replacement of a portion of C Canal within Wheatland County would increase the runoff catchment flowing into Serviceberry Creek.

The majority of the B Canal has been rehabilitated with an open canal system. A WID stakeholder has identified that during storms, the canal has significant agricultural overland flow into the Canal. The B Canal ultimately discharges to Crowfoot creek.

Growth and Runoff

The major urban developments along the C Canal include the northern half of the SRDP, Delacour, Kathryn, Dalroy and Keoma. Specific growth and runoff data for these developments, with the exception of the SRDP, was not obtained. The impact of these developments on the major system challenges was deemed insignificant for the scope of this assessment. However, depending on the management approaches adopted by the Initiative, special consideration may be required for urban developments located in close proximity to natural rivers and streams.

North of the geographical boundaries in the SRDP, the area contributing to natural overland flow towards the canal system stretches north along the east boundary of the city up to Graham Reservoir. Based on the Calgary Regional Municipal Plan developed with the Calgary Regional Partnership, development and expansion of the City of Calgary will be limited in this area over the next 50 years. The major urban development along the B Canal is Lyalta in Wheatland County. Information regarding runoff flows from Lyalta was unavailable. However, discussions with stakeholders in Wheatland have indicated that major developments are being planned for zero discharge.

26 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

Current Challenges with the Canal System

Throughout the canal system, plant and algae growth reduces the hydraulic capacity of the canals and causes maintenance issues for farmers. It also reduces the recreational value of Chestermere Lake. These problems are expected to stay the same or worsen if the current system management and operations is maintained. This may change based on the management philosophy adopted by the Initiative.

Chestermere Lake is highly sensitive to poor quality water. Weed and algae management in Chestermere Lake includes continuously cutting down plants and algae around the periphery of the lake. The plant matter is collected and sent to landfill facilities.

Algae growth occurs all throughout the canal system. There are certain locations that experience large build-ups further downstream where the canals narrow. Algae blooms occur when the water reaches 26 degrees Celsius. Plants and algae detach from the bottom of the canal and float down the canal, attaching to farmer screens, creating suction and destroying the screens. The farmer must constantly scrape the screens to allow water through, and algae builds up in their sprinkler system equipment. Some farmers have been provided individual devices to automatically remove algae from their screens. The issue worsens as the canals narrow downstream.

Phosphorus is present in two different forms: dissolved and suspended. Acting only on the suspended solids will not solve all of the issues, and vice versa. A greater understanding of the relationship between types of phosphorus and plant and algae growth would inform decisions on management philosophy and options implementation.

Calgary is the major urban contributor to stormwater runoff now. A study conducted in 200525 indicated that based on the system inputs at that time, the system was able to provide “irrigation quality water” 75% of the time. This provided the assurance that based on current agricultural inputs, the system could function properly. The pollutant loads that would affect the system are therefore any upcoming urban developments.

While the major cause of phosphorus loading and plant and algae growth is assumed to come from urban runoff, an understanding about the time of year and the type of storms causing the greatest problems in different locations along the system is limited. The relationship between these variables, the type of phosphorus that contributes most significantly to plant growth, and how this changes as runoff flows through the canal system would help to further understand how solutions to the problem may be remediated and balanced in the future. For example, discharging stormwater into the canal system once the irrigation season has ended introduces phosphorus into the canal system. The impact of this on the following season, and the ability for spring runoff from the Bow River or adjacent to the canal system to remove phosphorus loads from these discharges is unknown. A future assessment of regional scenario(s) should include consideration of these challenges.

As small towns and villages along the Canal system grow, there will be an increased need for stormwater management and discharge to the surrounding environment. The key is to determine a balance between the ability of the WID system to accept stormwater flows from new developments, and the impact of water quality on irrigation system users. The balance should provide economic growth

25 This information is based on a discussion with a WID stakeholder.

27 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

opportunities in the region while maintaining or improving the social and environmental benefits of the canal system.

The following section outlines the methodology undertaken in attempt to achieve this.

STEP 8: REGIONAL SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY

A stormwater management philosophy under which partners of the Initiative operate and decisions are made should be agreed upon. Two management philosophies are suggested to help the group understand what options may be combined to effectively meet the partners’ needs while maintaining effective stormwater management and irrigation practices.

The following two management philosophies represent the farthest extreme of possible philosophies.

Do Not Affect Quality Hybrid Mitigate

Table 11: Management Philosophy Spectrum indicates what options represent different management philosophies, and a spectrum of additional options that would be employed if a hybrid approach is taken. Figure 1: Regional Scenario Development Methodology on the following page represents a decision process for determining the most appropriate options based on the management philosophy taken. Each decision that is made along the tree will represent different options that should be implemented.

Regulatory Considerations

A discussion of the following considerations as they relate to the current regulatory framework should be addressed in the development and adoption of different management philosophies:

• Water quality standards for discharge into the WID Canal system; • Stormwater “reuse”, diversion licenses and river basin water transfers; and • Land use based on the forthcoming South Saskatchewan and Red Deer Regional Plans.

Currently the water quality standards for discharge into the WID Canal system are governed by the WID. Water quality standards for discharge into natural waterways which also act as irrigation canals are governed by ESRD and WID. Water quality standards for discharge into natural waterways are governed by ESRD.

The discussion of stormwater in the context of water reuse is controversial. At the local level, rainwater is often collected, stored and used for irrigation around the home. There are several facilities that harvest rainwater for toilet flushing and other non-contacting uses, including irrigation. Officials in Alberta Municipal Affairs have been clear that once the rain water hits the ground and is collected in a storage pond or is carried to the river, that stormwater is owned by the Crown and is managed under the existing licenses. That said, there is a lack of detailed knowledge on the interaction between different source water (including stormwater), water use applications, the amount of water returned to the river (return flow), and the resulting impact on the natural river systems. This has limited the approval and support of some water reuse applications by the ESRD.

28 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

Therefore, the following options are considered to be outside of the scope for this Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase of the Initiative26:

• Reuse – Shale Gas Production • Reuse – Gravel Washing • Reuse – Aquifer Storage and Recharge

The transfer of water from the Bow River to the Red Deer River Basin already occurs as part of the normal operation of the WID system. The opportunity presented by some of the options to collect stormwater from the Bow River basin for use in the Red Deer River Basin may be controversial and should be discussed among participants of the Initiative.

As part of Alberta’s Land-use Framework, the development of Regional Plans aims to connect water use with land use. The South Saskatchewan and Red Deer Regional Plans are still forthcoming. An assessment of the management philosophies and corresponding regional scenarios considered or adopted by this Initiative based on their alignment with the plans should be undertaken once the plans become available.

26 These options will be revisited in the next phase of work. Ongoing work by WaterSMART for the Alberta Economic Development Authority and discussions with ESRD on stormwater use will inform the Initiative’s path forward in future phases.

29 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

Table 11: Management Philosophy Spectrum

Management Philosophy Options Spectrum

Shepard WH Canal Urban Center Construct Shepard North Prevent Calgary Facility and Release Treatment Reservoir Treatment Facility Water From During Irrigation Facilities and Upstream of B and Dual Canal System and Release During Entering Season to WID WH release during C Canal to Service Irrigation Season Chestermere Lake Canal irrigation season During Storms

$$$$$ $$$$$ $$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$ Do not Affect not Do Quality

Develop Regional Collaborative Standards and planning for long Regional Bylaws Regulations for Programs for Programs for Re-use - Aquifer term overland and Standards on Streamlining a Regional Support Reuse - Wetland Improved Farm Urban Pollutant Storage and Reuse – Irrigation drainage Low Impact Process of Multi- for Reuse Ready Expansion Management Source Control Recharge requirements with Development stakeholder canal pipe Engagement on replacement Stormwater $ $ $ $ $ N/A N/A N/A $ Tool: Market Based Incentives Tool: Tool: Market <------Riparian Based Incentives Management

Shepard WH Canal Shepard Strathmore Strathmore Shepard North Strathmore Upgrade Eagle Lake Facility Northeast Northwest Storage Northwest Storage Catchment Facility Northwest Facility - Re-structure Strathmore Spillway and and Off Season Catchment Facility Facility - Offseason Facility - Offseason and Off Season Discharge East to Hartell Coulee to South Regional Constructed Release to WID A and Off Season Discharge North to Discharge North to Hybrid Hybrid Release to WID C Crowfoot via North Accept More Flow Facility Wetlands to Bow Canal Release to WH Serviceberry via Serviceberry via B Canal A Canal River Canal Hartell Coulee Canal $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$ $$$$$ $$$$

Algae and Weed Towns Operation and In-stream Individual Algae Interceptor Silt Trap Upstream Responsible for Dredging Maintenance of Phosphorus Management Facilities for of Chestermere Downstream Chestermere Lake Canal System with Treatment and Systems for Collection of Algae Lake Canal Low Water Quality Abatement Turnouts During High Maintenance Accumulation $$ $$$ $$ $$ $$ $$ N/A

Langdon Regional Chestermere Delacour Bruce Lake Water Treatment Regional Water Reservoir Treatment Facility Facility Treatment Facility Treatment Facility $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$

Infiltration ------> Storage Reservoir Delacour Surge Diversion Galleries for Bruce Lake Reservoir Langdon Reservoir Spillway Upgrades Spillway Upgrades Upstream of Reservoir Sub-Catchment Quality and Expansion Expansion – 12 Mile – Cairn Hill Serviceberry Expansion Facilities Quantity Management $$$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$ $ $ $$ $$

Recovery and Regional Regional Off Site Re-use – C Canal Replacement Re-Manage C Canal Re-use – Shale Gas Reuse of Stormwater and Economic Stormwater Levy Industrial Gravel with Pipe as Multi-Purpose Production

Mitigate Mitigate Nutrients and Irrigation water Opportunities or Permit Washing Biomass Testing Facility $$ N/A $ N/A N/A N/A $$$$ The Table is colour coded according to geographical region as follows: Upstream of Chesteremere A Canal B Canal C Canal All Canals ESRD/WID jurisdicon Costs of each opon are indicated as follows: $ < $1,000,000 $$ < $10,000,000; $$$ <$25,000,000; $$$$ <$50,000,000; $$$$$ >$50,000,000

30 Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: DRAFT Strategic Options’ Assessment Phase

Figure 1: Regional Scenario Development Methodology

31