Evolution of Low Impact Development in Calgary, Alberta

University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations

2015-07-09 Evolution of Low Impact Development in Calgary, Alberta

Ryan, Susan Elizabeth

Ryan, S. E. (2015). Evolution of Low Impact Development in Calgary, Alberta (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/26007 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/2342 master thesis

University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Evolution of Low Impact Development in Calgary, Alberta

Susan Elizabeth Ryan

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN GEOGRAPHY

CALGARY, ALBERTA

JUNE, 2015

Abstract

Calgary is a leading Alberta municipality in low impact development (LID). This thesis provides a discussion and analysis of Calgary’s transition to the LID approach to stormwater management. The drivers of change that preceded the introduction of LID to Calgary are examined. Research includes in-depth assessment of interwoven federal, provincial, regional and municipal regulatory and policy aspects, as well as interviews with practicing stormwater management professionals.

The natural hydrological regime (created by Calgary's cold, semi-arid climate, Chinooks, post-glacial topography and dense clay soils) relies on evaporation and evapotranspiration, rather than infiltration for pre-development stormwater processes. The goal of the city’s Stormwater Management Strategy is to improve post- development stormwater quality and minimize morphological impact on the receiving waters. In April 2014, Calgary adopted Interim Stormwater Targets based on pre- development peak and annual volume discharge per unit area. LID remains an evolving field, with many challenges yet to be overcome.

Acknowledgements

Many people accompanied me on this journey toward a Master’s degree. I would like to specifically thank the following:

 My supervisor, Dr. Dianne Draper, and her never-ending insights and patience.

 Committee members Dr. Gwendolyn Blue, and Dr. Cathryn Ryan (and Dr. David Manz, proposal defence committee). All errors and omissions are my own.

 Advice and edits from Bernie Amell, René Latourneau & Judy Stewart.

 Alberta Graduate Student Scholarship, which enabled me to attend conferences and workshops directly related to stormwater management in Alberta

 The stormwater management professionals who gave up part of their busy days to participate in the interview section of this research.

 Office mates and class mates Magdalene, Ryan, Huihui, Tatenda, Nicole, Monica, Rishi, Jeremy and Jessica, to name but a few.

 My husband John, and daughters Janet and Caitlin, whose inspiration and support were very important to me in the undertaking and completion of this Master’s degree and thesis

iii

Dedication

This Master’s Thesis is dedicated to my parents, Phil and Celine Ryan,

who taught me the value of hard work,

and encouraged to me play in the rain.

Table of Contents

Abstract ……… ...... ii

Acknowledgements ...... iii

Dedication …… ...... iv

Table of Contents ...... v

List of Appendices …….……………………………….……………………….…xii

List of Figures … ...... xii

List of Tables ……………… …………………...………………………………xiv

Acronyms ………………...... xv

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Brief History of Urban Stormwater Management ...... 1

1.1.1 Water Quality ...... 3 1.1.2 Stormwater Quantity Issues ...... 3 1.1.3 Urban Water Use – Conservation Required ...... 6 1.1.4 Water Management Changes in Calgary ...... 6 1.2 Research Objective ...... 7

1.3 Research question ...... 8

Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 10 2.1 Evolution of Stormwater Management from Curb-and-Gutter to Low Impact Development (LID) ...... 10

2.2 Natural vs. Urban Hydrological Cycle – Water Quantity Management ...... 11

2.3 Non-Point-Source Pollution - Water Quality Management ...... 19

2.4 Stormwater Management Systems ...... 21

2.4.1 Changes to standard practice of stormwater management ...... 21

2.4.2 The Era of Stormwater Management (SWM) Best Management Practices (BMP) ...... 22 2.5 Benefits and Barriers of Implementing Stormwater Management Best Management Practices (SWM BMP)...... 24

2.5.1 Clarifying the Benefits ...... 25 2.5.2 Identifying and Overcoming Barriers ...... 26 2.6 Modelling LID is One of the Remaining Challenges ...... 29

2.7 What are the Drivers of Change? ...... 30

2.8 Low Impact Development in the Canadian Context ...... 31

2.9 Literature Gap ...... 32

Chapter 3: Research Approach and Methodology...... 33 3.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………….33

3.2 Qualitative Research - Case Study ...... 34

3.3 Scale – Physical, Jurisdictional and Temporal ...... 35

3.3.1 Physical...... 36 3.3.2 Jurisdictional...... 36 3.3.3 Temporal...... 38 3.4 Research Bias ...... 39

3.4.1 Limitations of this Research ...... 40 3.5 Research Methods ...... 41

3.6 Data Analysis ...... 43

Chapter 4: Research Setting: Physical Geography ...... 45 4.1 Location and Demographics...... 46

4.2 Natural Regions ...... 46

4.2.1 Natural Hydrological Regime ...... 51 4.3 Soils Influenced by Continental Glaciations and Post-Glacial Climate Conditions ………………………………………………………………………53

4.4 Climate and Weather –Temperature, Precipitation and Chinook Winds ...... 55

4.4.1 Precipitation ...... 56 4.4.2 Finite Water Supply and Growing Population ...... 58

4.4.3 Chinook Winds ...... 58 4.4.4 Impact of Climate Change ...... 59 4.5 Natural/Pre-development Surface Drainage…….……………………………..60

4.6 Summary of Physical Geography Challenges ...... 65

Chapter 5: Regulatory Framework for Stormwater Management Change – Federal, Provincial and Watershed Levels ...... 67 5.1 Federal Level ...... 68

5.2.1 The First Century: Era of Resource Extraction ...... 74 5.2.2 Transition from Resource Extraction to Environmental Management...... 75 5.2.3 Public Engagement ...... 78 5.2.4 Era of Resource Management ...... 79 5.2.5 Era of Integrated Water Resource Management ...... 80 5.2.6 Water Quality ...... 80 5.2.7 Water Quantity ...... 82 5.2.8 Water Management Plan for the South Saskatchewan River Basin (SSRB) ...... 83 5.2.9 Managing Quality and Quantity together ...... 84 5.2.10 Municipal Government Act (MGA) and Alberta Land Stewardship Act (ALSA) ...... 86 5.2.11 Wetlands Management is Critical to Surface Hydrology Management in the Calgary Region ...... 87 5.3 Sub-basin Watershed Management Plans ...... 89

5.3.1 Basin Advisory Councils (BAC) become Watershed Planning Advisory Councils (WPAC) ...... 90 5.3.2 Bow River Basin Council – BAC, then WPAC for Bow River ...... 90 5.3.3 Nose Creek Watershed Partnership – Stewardship Group that Crosses Several Municipal Boundaries ...... 93

vii

5.3.4 Shepard Drainage Corridor – Collaborative Effort Required to Resolve Stormwater Issues ...... 95 5.4 Summary…...... 99

Chapter 6: Calgary’s Regulatory Process Towards Stormwater Management Focused on Volume Control ...... 100 6.1 Early History of Stormwater Management in Calgary ...... 101

6.2 From Vision to Policy, Plans and Practice……………………………………102

6.3 Calgary’s regulatory process - a multi-layered path to the current standards for stormwater management targets ...... 104

6.3.1 Development of Calgary’s Stormwater Management and Design Manual ...... 104 6.4 Parallel Processes that Contributed to Changes in Stormwater Management .. 113

6.4.1 Parallel Process - Triple Bottom Line ...... 114 6.4.2 Parallel Process - Water Efficiency Plan: 30-in-30 by 2033 ...... 114 6.4.3 Parallel Process - Opportunities to Change Drainage Practice & Stormwater Management Strategy ...... 116 6.4.4 Parallel Process - Public Engagement ...... 117 6.5 Turning Policies into Plans ...... 118

6.6 Stormwater Management - Source Control BMPs ...... 122

6.6.1 Parallel Process – Creating Constructed Wetlands to Treat Stormwater . 124 6.6.2 Parallel process – Watershed Management Plans from The City’s Perspective (remove period) ...... 124 6.6.3 Parallel process – Calgary Wetland Conservation Plan ...... 126 6.6.4 Parallel Process – Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership (ALIPD) ...... 128 6.7 Summary of Stormwater Management Regulatory Process in Calgary ...... 129

Chapter 7: Findings from Interviews ...... 130 7.1 Introduction...... 130

7.2 Benefits of LID in Calgary ...... 131

viii

7.2.1 Per capita Water Demand ...... 133 7.3 Barriers to LID Use in Calgary ...... 135

7.3.1 Physical Barriers ...... 135 7.3.1.1 Natural Hydrological Regime is Difficult to Mimic in a Semi-Arid Urban Setting ...... 137 7.3.1.2 Impact of Stormwater on the Morphology of Receiving Waters ..... 138 7.3.1.3 Public Perception of LID ...... 139 7.3.2 Difficult Climate ...... 139 7.3.2.1 Chinooks ...... 139 7.3.2.2 Climate’s Impact on Vegetation ...... 140 7.3.3 Cost Barriers Due to Physical Challenges ...... 141 7.3.4 Limits of LID in Calgary ...... 144 7.4 Changing “Barriers” to “Challenges” ...... 145

7.4.1 Overcoming Physical Challenges with Interdepartmental Collaboration 146 7.4.2 Overcoming Physical Challenges with Local Research and Model Calibration ...... 147 7.4.2.1 Overcoming the Remaining Barriers of Lack of Knowledge and Expertise ...... 147 7.4.2.2 Monitoring and Model Calibration ...... 148 7.5 Federal, Provincial and Regional Legislation and Regulations have Preceded Municipal Policy and Practice ...... 150

7.5.1 Federal and Regional ...... 151 7.5.2 Provincial Laws and Regulations Support or Precede Calgary’s Stormwater Management Targets ...... 151 7.5.3 Regulatory Barriers ...... 152 7.5.4 Watershed and Sub-Watershed Management Plans ...... 154 7.5.5 City of Calgary ...... 155 7.5.6 Public Awareness and Education ...... 158 7.6 Moving Forward in Breaking Down the Barriers of Physical and Regulatory Challenges……...... 159

7.6.1 More Research and Communication Needed ...... 159

7.6.2 Capacity Building, Networking and Continued Education ...... 160 7.7 Drivers of Change ...... 160

7.7.1 Regulatory Incentives ...... 161 7.7.2 Cost/Benefit Analysis ...... 164 7.7.3 Seeing the Benefits for Stream Morphology and Water Quality ...... 164 7.7.5 Solving Specific Problems – Urban Landscape in a Semi-arid Region ... 166 7.8 Summary of Interviews ...... 166

Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 168 8.1 Benefits of LID in Calgary ...... 168

8.2 Barriers to Implementing LID in Calgary ...... 169

8.3 Changing “Barriers” to “Challenges” ...... 169

8.4 Drivers of Change ...... 170

8.5 Observations/Conclusions ...... 174

8.6 Recommendations ...... 176

References…………………………………………………………...……………179

List of Appendices - idendified by chapter number

Appendix 2A: Alternative names for low impact development (LID) from around the world in English language literature ...... 205

Appendix 2B: Models used in “green infrastructure” stormwater management .... 206

Appendix 2C: Selected modeling tools reviewed by Jayasooriya and Ng ...... 210

Appendix 3A: Summary of LID (or innovative approaches to rainwater management) at three scales ...... 213

Appendix 3B: Questions used in the interviews ...... 214

Appendix 3C: Interview Participants……………………………………………..214

Appendix 4A: River versus Urban Flooding...... 216

Appendix 5A: Alberta Water Resources Commission (AWRC) 1982 to 1995...... 218

Appendix 5B: Alberta Water Council Members – Sector and Organization - in December, 2014...... 219

Appendix 6A: Select City of Calgary Policies, Plans Bylaws, Guidelines & Manuals that relate to stormwater management since 2000 ...... 221

Appendix 6B: City of Calgary Environmental Policy in 2014 ...... 226

Appendix 6C: Water Resources/ Water Services Interim Stormwater Targets 2014 …………………………………………………………………….227

Appendix 6D: City of Calgary Summaries of Initiatives that Support Environmental Sustainability and development of LID in the City...... 231

GLOSSARY:…...... 236

List of Figures

Figure 1. Calgary’s pre-development landscape was dominated by low drainage density and internally drained prairie pothole topography...... 5

Figure 2. Hydrological cycle in a natural prairie and urban area...... 11

Figure 3. Early observations about changes in surface runoff peak discharge as a result of urbanization...... 13

Figure 4. Stormwater hydrograph, pre-and post development ...... 14

Figure 5. Urban drainage can turn rivers into concrete and rip-rapped canals...... 14

Figure 6. The relationship between daily maximum temperature and daily water production in Jan. 1982-Dec 1989 for Calgary...... 16

Figure 7. Calgary’s total system water demand in 2003...... 17

Figure 8. The theory behind LID's contribution to peak day demand reduction...... 18

Figure 9. Changes in stormwater management objectives in recent decades...... 24

Figure 10. Nested outcomes in watershed management decision-making...... 38

Figure 11. The qualitative process of data analysis...... 44

Figure 12. Calgary is located in Southern Alberta at the confluence of the Bow and Elbow Rivers in the western headwaters of the Saskatchewan/Nelson River Basin...... 47

Figure 13. Natural ecotone regions of Southern Alberta...... 47

Figure 14. Sand and gravel deposits in the flood plain of the Bow River valley in ..... 49

Figure 15. The terraced valley of the modern Bow River in north west Calgary at Bearspaw Reservoir...... 49

Figure 16. Prairie pothole wetlands, shelter belts and aspen stands in agricultural land near south west Calgary...... 50

Figure 17. The transition from surface hydrology, dominated by prairie sloughs, wetlands and noncontributing drainage areas, to conventional urban development...... 51

Figure 18. Root systems of prairie vegetation...... 53

xii

Figure 19. Continental glaciers across Canada deposited clay till soils and created glacial meltwater topography between 14,000 to 10,000 years before present. .. 54

Figure 20. Soil groups of Southern Alberta...... 54

Figure 21. Solonetzic soils of Southern Alberta...... 55

Figure 22. Total annual precipitation in Alberta and Saskatchewan...... 57

Figure 23. Frequency of days with rainfall and depth of rain...... 57

Figure 24. Chinook zone in Southern Alberta...... 59

Figure 25. A schematic diagram of Chinook winds across the Rocky Mountains...... 59

Figure 26. A 1800 view of a Chinook arch at sunset, just west of Calgary...... 59

Figure 27. Watersheds in the Calgary Region ...... 61

Figure 28. Calgary area wetlands, outside city limits...... 63

Figure 29. Areas of noncontributing drainage in Nose Creek and West Nose Creek sub-basins...... 64

Figure 30. Median annual unit runoff in Southern Alberta ...... 65

Figure 31. Federal, provincial and watershed regulatory process...... 69

Figure 32. Clarifying legal water terminology ...... 73

Figure 33. Membership in the development of the Bow Basin Watershed Management Plan...... 92

Figure 34. Members of the technical committee for the BBWMP ...... 92

Figure 35. Aerial view of Shepard Constructed Stormwater Treatment Wetland, ...... 97

Figure 36. Calgary’s progression toward stormwater management reform ...... 103

Figure 37. Calgary’s regulatory process toward inclusion of LID in stormwater management...... 105

Figure 38. City of Calgary 2002 Loadings from Wastewater Treatment and Stormwater Runoff...... 106

Figure 39. Stormwater Management and Design Manual evolution to peak and volume control targets...... 108

xiii

Figure 40. Calgary’s potable water demand and population growth from 1933 to 2004...... 115

Figure 41. From vision to plans to implementation ...... 119

Figure 42. Calgary’s Rainwater Harvesting Guidelines were the result of over 10 years of research and policy changes...... 123

Figure 43. Hydrograph for Bow River at Calgary, 2013...... 217

Figure 44. Catch basin or storm drain ...... 236

Figure 45. City of Calgary - Complete Streets Zones – Neighbourhood Boulevard .. 237

Figure 46. Mosaic patches of runoff that connect to produce flooding in dryland or remain hydrologically disconnected...... 240

Figure 47. ALIDP depiction of benefits of LID ...... 241

Figure 48. Typical permeable pavement details ...... 242

Figure 49. Typical perforated pipe details...... 242

List of Tables

Table 1. Low Impact Development in Alberta iyn 1999 ...... 2

Table 2. Select literature on overcoming barriers to implementation of LID ...... 27

Table 3 Stewart and Kantrud Wetland Classification ...... 247

xiv

Acronyms

ALIDP – Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership

ALMS – Alberta Lake Management Society

ALSA – Alberta Land Stewardship Act

ASP – Area Structure Plan

AUMA – Alberta Urban Municipalities Association

AWC – Alberta Water Council

AWRC – Alberta Water Resources Commission

BAC – Basin Advisory Committee

BMP – Best Management Practice

BRBC – Bow River Basin Council

BBWMP – Bow Basin Watershed Management Plan

CCME – Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment

CMHC – Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

CSMI – Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative

CRV – Calgary River Valleys (since 2010)

CTP – Calgary Transportation Plan

ENGO – Environmental Non-Government Organization

EPEA – Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act

ESRD – Environment and Sustainable Resource Management

FCM – Federation of Canadian Municipalities

FIT FIR – First in Time, First in Right

IFN – Instream Flow Needs

IFO – Instream Flow Objectives

IWRM – Integrated Water Resource Management

LID – Low Impact Development

MAA – Master Agreement on Apportionment

MDP – Municipal Development Plan

MGA - Municipal Government Act

MLA – Member of the Legislative Assembly (of Alberta)

NCWWMP - Nose Creek Watershed Water Management Plan

PPWB – Prairie Provinces Water Board

RVC – River Valleys Committee (until 2010, when name changed to Calgary River Valleys)

RVC - Rocky View County (after 2010)

ROW – Right of Way

SSRB – South Saskatchewan River Basin

SSRBPP – South Saskatchewan River Basin Planning Program

SUDS – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems

TBL – Triple Bottom Line

UDI – Urban Development Institute

TSS – Total Suspended Solids

WH – Western Headworks

WID – Western Irrigation District

WSUD – Water Sensitive Urban Design

WPAC – Watershed Planning Advisory Council

xvi

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Brief History of Urban Stormwater Management

Urban stormwater management is as old as urban settlements. Ancient civilizations built stormwater systems in the interests of local flood abatement, public health and convenience. In undeveloped landscapes the natural processes of stormwater dispersion includes groundwater infiltration, storage in riparian areas, wetlands and aquifers, evaporation and evapotranspiration. Stormwater in excess of what can be managed locally by these processes is transported out of the immediate area by linear surface depressions such as connected wetland complexes, streams and rivers. Historically, man-made stormwater management consisted of transporting stormwater as efficiently as possible away from the urban space, to the nearest waterway. The ability of a natural watershed to use rainwater and snowmelt in close proximity to where it fell was replaced by impervious surfaces, pipes and armoured canals that discharged the runoff directly into the receiving waters of streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands and oceans. However, as urban populations increased, so did the percentage of the watershed’s impervious surfaces associated with urbanization, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries. This disruption of the natural hydrological cycle has resulted in reduced groundwater infiltration, increased non-point source pollution and increased erosion and sediment loads in the receiving waters. The centuries-old objective of removing stormwater quickly from the urban area not only results in deleterious effects in the downstream receiving waters, but also deprives the urban area of surface water to maintain the urban landscape.

The problems caused by ever-increasing quantity and decreasing quality of urban stormwater discharge began to be recognized in the mid-20th century. Attempts to mitigate these problems eventually lead to the concept of Low Impact Development (LID) which is primarily a stormwater management system that is intended to restore the function of pre-development hydrology to urban areas. My research investigates the evolution of LID in Calgary, Alberta from the global context that led to LID, to the regulatory background and specific application in Calgary. Table 1 lists the LID techniques that were listed in Alberta Stormwater Management Guidelines in 1999.

Table 1. Low Impact Development in Alberta in 1999 (Alberta Environment, 1999) Stormwater Management Guidelines for the Province of Alberta. Municipal Program Development Branch, Environmental Sciences Division, Environmental Service. This document discusses a number of SWM BMPs in terms of purpose, applicability, effectiveness, water quality, water quantity, and design considerations. Several comparison charts consider advantages and disadvantages, physical constraints (topography, soils, bedrock, groundwater, area), potential opportunities (water quality, flooding, erosion, recharge), effectiveness for control of water quality (TSS, TP, TN, COD, Pb, Zn1). These BMPs include the following: Source Control BMPs  Restricting numbers of roof drains to provide rooftop detention of stormwater  Installing catch basin restrictors or orifices in the storm sewer to promote parking lot detention  Over sizing storm sewers and installing orifices in the sewer to create pipe storage  Installing catch basin restrictors in rear yard catch basins to create rear yard storage  Reduce lot grading  Direct roof leaders to rear yard ponding or soak away pits o Includes porous pavement and concrete grid pavement  Sump pumping foundation drains to rear yard ponding areas Stormwater Conveyance System BMPs  Pervious pipe systems  Pervious catch basins  Grassed swales

End-of-pipe Stormwater BMPs  Wet ponds  Dry ponds  Wetlands  Infiltration trenches  Infiltration basins  Filter strips  Sand filters  Oil/grit separators

1 TSS = Total suspended solids; TP = Total Phosphorous; TN = Total Nitrogen; COD = Chemical Oxygen Demand; Pb = lead; Zn = Zinc.

1.1.1 Water Quality

Combined sewer systems were the first version of sanitary and stormwater removal. These were effective as long as removing water from the urban environment was the only goal. However, concerns for public health and environmental degradation that began early in the 20th century made it unacceptable to simply discharge effluent into the receiving waters without treatment. These concerns led to the construction of water treatment plants that initially dealt with the combined load of both storm and sanitary water volumes. These systems were later separated when the combined treatment plants could no longer handle the volume of water that was produced during a rainfall event. In these cases, the combined flow is excess of treatment capacity was over flowed to the receiving waters. Separation of sanitary and stormwater systems eliminated the regular discharge of untreated sewage, but meant that stormwater was always discharged without any treatment.

While the water quality of stormwater is significantly better than sanitary sewer water, the separation of the two streams enabled researchers to realise that untreated stormwater could also have a detrimental effect on the receiving waters (Cahill, 2012). The most obvious problem with urban stormwater quality is turbidity (total dissolved solids and total suspended solids), but modern urban stormwater also contains heavy metals, nutrients, pesticides, hydrocarbons and litter (Marsalek et al., 2008).

1.1.2 Stormwater Quantity Issues

Quantity of urban stormwater drainage is also an issue. Research in the decades since 1980 has shown that the volume and timing of urban runoff can have a negative impact on the hydrology and biology of the affected watershed (Booth, 1990). The modern, built environment intercepts rainwater and snowmelt on impermeable surfaces such as roofs, parking lots, driveways, and roads. Turf lawns with shallow topsoil have limited storage capacity and permeability to the sub-soil. Landscape practices direct any stormwater that is not readily absorbed to driveways and roads where it quickly finds its way to catch basins and the underground stormwater infrastructure. Stormwater then finds its way to the receiving waters within a very

short period of time, instead of days or weeks (or not at all) in the undeveloped landscape. While the pre-development natural landscape is capable of absorbing most rainfall/snowmelt events, and releasing filtered water slowly back to the hydrological cycle, the hardened urban surfaces bypass the natural filtration and attenuation processes.

In the meantime, inside city limits, the natural wetlands and areas of intermittent shallow open water tend to get drained and backfilled during development. In semi- arid environments with low natural drainage density, there are large areas that rarely (if ever) discharge surface water to the local creeks and rivers. This is referred to as “internal drainage” or non-contributing drainage area. The natural hydrologic connectivity is low. When the traditional hardened stormwater infrastructure is imposed on these types of areas, the hydrological connectivity increases dramatically. An extreme case would be where a parking lot with conventional stormwater infrastructure replaces an upland area that once drained to a non-contributing wetland. In this case the hydrological connectivity would change from 0% to 100%. This type of urban development can easily increase the discharge area of a semi-arid watershed by 75% to 100%, thus significantly increasing the discharge peak flow as well as the total volume, leading to increased flooding, erosion, sediment transport and channel incision downstream of the discharge outfall and decreased water retention within the basin. (Booth, 1990). Environmental degradation increases with the suspended and dissolved pollutant load that the stormwater carries.

Increased runoff discharge from urbanization is particularly significant in a semi-arid environment such as Southern Alberta that has a naturally low drainage density and includes non-contributing landscapes with sloughs and pothole wetlands (Figure 1a). Until the turn of the 21st century development inside the Calgary city limits saw 90% of the natural wetlands eliminated through drainage and backfill (Figure 1b & c). The City of Calgary has recognised the significant role of wetlands to the hydrological and biological regime. In 2004, City Council approved The Wetland Conservation Plan. Since then, changes in stormwater management have helped to preserve some wetlands inside the expanding City limits, as well as improving the quality and

hydrological regime of stormwater discharge into the Bow River and its tributaries (Figure 1d). The push- and- pull between development and wetland conservation continues, however.

a) a) Wetlands after spring rain, west of b) b) Urban expansion in the 1970s drained the Calgary. sloughs, often converting them to playing fields.

c) c) Calgary’s urban development has d) Recent country residential, cluster eliminated over 90% of natural wetlands development north west of Calgary within the City limits incorporates prairie sloughs. More dense urban plans require more intensive BMPs to manage stormwater. Figure 1. Calgary’s pre-development landscape was dominated by low drainage density and internally drained prairie pothole topography. Urban development tended toward infill of wetlands. Stormwater is managed by curb-and- gutter collection and pipelines to the local receiving waters (Photo credit: S. Ryan, 2012)

1.1.3 Urban Water Use – Conservation Required

Once the stormwater has been collected, drained and discharged to the receiving waters, potable water is required to maintain the urban oasis. Periods between rainfall events would naturally have access to water stored in the sub-basin in soil, depressions, wetlands and alluvial aquifers. Natural vegetation is adapted to the local hydrological regime – river birch, willow or cottonwood in the riparian area or deep rooted grasses in the upland. With conventional stormwater collection and discharge, the times between rainfall events become a drought for the water-dependant urban oasis, to be rectified by irrigation from potable water sources. This puts a strain on the municipal water system, and will eventually lead to water shortages, when demand exceeds supply.

1.1.4 Water Management Changes in Calgary

Changes in stormwater treatment began in Calgary in 1979 when the first stormwater pond was constructed in anticipation of upcoming provincial limits for total suspended solids (TSS) in stormwater (City of Calgary, 2014i) . In 1998, the provincial government TSS regulations required all new and retrofitted developments to have stormwater quality treatment and reach specific targets to reduce TSS loading. Stormwater ponds are required in all new development and are being accompanied by retrofits in older neighbourhoods where it is feasible. On January 1, 2014, Calgary implemented interim total volume discharge limits for greenfield development. The best management practices (BMPs) that are most likely to achieve the desired results are loosely grouped under the practices of Low Impact Development (LID).

LID is a relatively new concept in stormwater management. The concept originated in Prince George’s County, Maryland in 1993 with their Design Manual of Bioretention Use in Stormwater Management (Prince George's County, 1993). The principles of LID attempt to imitate the natural hydrological cycle in the urban environment. Managing rainwater close to its source, enabling natural processes such as infiltration, evaporation, and depression storage decreases the artificially high discharge rates that are caused by impermeable surfaces and traditional stormwater management systems.

Water quality can be improved much more easily with smaller volumes of urban discharge. Wetlands and other critical components of prairie hydrology can be preserved. LID is an holistic approach to urban water management that includes stormwater management and water conservation.

LID attempts to deal with issues of water quality, peak discharge, total annual volume discharge as well as total annual and peak daily demand on the municipal treated water supply. Volume discharge targets are also useful in reducing overloading of outdated stormwater infrastructure. The strategies employed in LID can be summarised as "Slow it down, spread it out, soak it in.” If this is done as close as possible to the area where the runoff is generated, it will reduce total volumes, reduce peak discharge, improve the quality of water that enters the receiving waters, and reduce demand on the municipal water system.

With reference to the demand on municipal water supplies, Calgary has undertaken numerous steps to reduce per-capita demand on withdrawal of water from the Bow and Elbow Rivers. LID has become part of that strategy.

In this thesis I examine how stormwater management has evolved and continues to evolve in the City of Calgary, as the concepts of LID/source control/volume control targets are introduced and implemented. In particular, I identify the significant factors that contributed to Calgary’s adoption of the concept of LID. Reduced demand on the municipal water system is part of the discussion of LID and plays a minor role in this thesis.

1.2 Research Objective

The section that follows is intended as a “road map” to the entire study. The major objective of my research is to identify the reasons behind the changes that occurred in the evolution of Calgary’s stormwater management policies and practice from traditional curb-and-gutter systems to the current approach that attempts to mimic the natural hydrological cycle including the use of LID principles. Change of this magnitude does not come easily. Centuries of experience with stormwater management that relied on impermeable surfaces and underground pipes has produced

a high level of expertise, technical know-how and investment in infrastructure. Converting to a system that attempts to mimic the natural hydrological cycle entails major changes in attitude toward the environment and awareness of the negative impacts of urban stormwater. Change requires increased engineering expertise, product and technical development, trades development and training, legislative and policy changes as well as public acceptance. Without personal commitment from practitioners and government administrators, none of this would have happened in Calgary (or elsewhere).

The benefits and barriers of adopting LID practices are well researched around the world. Some of these are unique to, or magnified by, the particular setting of Calgary. Specific challenges are related to the soil, topography, climate/weather patterns and regulatory framework. In this research I have identified consistent themes (and inconsistencies within them), approaches and gaps in knowledge that are enabling (or hindering) the implementation of LID in Calgary. I have also identified some of the challenges that were yet to be resolved by the end of my field research.

1.3 Research Question

The central question behind my research is, effectively, how did LID come to Calgary, and why was it incorporated into the stormwater management practices? Given increased pressure on fresh water supply on a global scale, and the awareness of the negative impacts of unrestricted stormwater release, there is an increasing awareness of the need to create more sustainable and resilient communities by managing stormwater runoff differently.

There are numerous research papers about the benefits and barriers of implementing LID in various jurisdictions around the world. Research on the practical applications in various climates, soils, and natural regions is ongoing, and numerous jurisdictions have produced regulatory requirement and manuals to aid in implementation. I started my research with the intention of investigating the benefits and barriers to LID implementation that were unique to Calgary, or similar to other jurisdictions. My primary research question was, “What are the benefits and barriers to implementing

LID into stormwater management in Calgary, Alberta?” By the time I had finished my first round of research interviews, I realised that a more meaningful approach would be to focus on the changes that occurred at the global, federal, provincial, municipal, and personal levels that led to the change from standard stormwater management to full-scale implementation of LID in Calgary? To put it more succinctly, “What were the drivers of change that led to Calgary including LID in stormwater management?” This question was often answered during the original interviews and became the question for the targeted interviews.

The research aspect of this thesis, in Chapters 4 to 7 consider these two questions in the context of Calgary’s current approach to stormwater management, as it made the transition from exclusive use of impermeable surfaces, curb-and-gutter design of stormwater infrastructure, to policies and by-laws that effectively require the use of the more environmentally sustainable LID.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Evolution of Stormwater Management from Curb-and-Gutter to Low Impact Development (LID)

General awareness of the negative impact of human activity on the environment, and the consequent reduction of the earth’s resiliency, has led to a significant number of changes in resource management over the past 50 years. The changes in urban stormwater management that have occurred around the world have been well documented in the academic literature. These changes started in the middle of the 20th century after the impact of untreated, unregulated stormwater was identified. Since the 1980s, stormwater management practices have been moving toward an attempt to reduce the negative impact of increased pollutant loading and discharge peaks and volumes. To date, the most successful strategies have included strategies that mimic the natural hydrological cycle. This literature review discusses the changes that occurred in the awareness, policies and practices of stormwater management that are most relevant to the Calgary context.

Research into stormwater management is covered in a broad range of academic literature including (but not limited to) engineering, urban planning, landscape architecture, horticulture, ecology, physical sciences, social sciences, political science and history. Research in this field is being undertaken around the world. As early as 2002, a summary of urban stormwater management by Marsalek and Chocat included contributions from 18 countries (Marsalek & Chocat, 2002). Due to the large volume of literature that is currently available, this literature review is mainly restricted to North American sources. A limited number of references from Australia and Europe are also included. Even with that restriction, I am only able to include a small part of the literature available.

Marsalek and Chocat report “clear indications of a widespread interest in stormwater management and of the acceptance of a holistic approach to [stormwater management] promoting sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS).” (Marsalek & Chocat, 2002, p. 1). The topic of stormwater management reform is still a ‘moving target’ in that

policies and practices are changing dramatically as research and on-the-ground experience improves application techniques and results. Marsalek and Chocat (2002) observe that one of the early drivers of the shift toward improvements in stormwater management is the recognition that urban runoff can often be used as a valuable resource in water-short areas. The other significant driver is to reduce the impact on the downstream environment – i.e. reduce non-point-source pollution that is collected in urban stormwater. More recently, research has focused on increased impermeability and hydrological connectivity in the urban landscape, which leads to dramatically increased instantaneous peak flows and total annual volume of discharge and the subsequent morphological changes to the downstream river and streams (Bledsoe & Watson, 2001).

2.2 Natural vs. Urban Hydrological Cycle – Water Quantity Management

Figure 2 illustrates the changes that occur when urban surfaces replace natural ones. The numbers used in this adaptation of Howard’s 2007 sketch are from the Nose Creek Watershed that straddles Calgary’s northern border. The Nose Creek Watershed became a testing ground for LID in Calgary and is discussed at length in Chapters 5 and 6. Prairie landscapes consist of uplands with deep rooted grasses and shrubs and a narrow band of riparian vegetation beside ephemeral and permanent water bodies.

Figure 2. Hydrological cycle in a natural prairie and urban area. (Source: Howard, 2007; Nose Creek Watershed Partnership Technical Committee & Alberta Environment, 2003)

Natural landscapes intercept and absorb rainwater and snowmelt, filter it, then release it slowly back into the hydrological cycle. Interception and absorption are achieved with vegetation, storage in depressions and deep topsoil, and collection in wetlands, lakes and rivers. Re-release comes through evaporation, evapotranspiration, infiltration into deep topsoil or surface cracks in rock, then to shallow or deep groundwater and/or surface runoff. For the majority of rainfall/snowmelt events on undisturbed terrain, whatever gets to the receiving waters has been filtered, total runoff volume has been greatly reduced and peak discharges have been attenuated.

Urbanization has led to the increase in impermeable surfaces in the form of roofs, roads and public spaces, which enables runoff to collect or run off in undesirable ways. More than two thousand years ago, local flood control and public health concerns led to the development of extensive systems of surface catchment and underground pipes that could remove the rainwater (and snowmelt) as quickly and efficiently as possible. (Angelakis, Koutsoyiannis, & Tchobanoglous, 2005; Crouch, 1991). Impermeable surfaces that are connected to the receiving waters by underground pipes lead to almost instantaneous discharge of unfiltered runoff directly into the receiving waters. This process, referred to as “hydrological connectivity” is well documented in the literature (Hatt, Fletcher, & Walsh, 2004; Herrera, 2011; Lee & Heaney, 2003; Marsalek, 2006). This was the standard form of stormwater management for centuries -- until the recent changes in approach that tries to reduce the impact of stormwater in the environment by mimicking the natural hydrological cycle (Cahill, 2012; Coffman, 2000; Evans, Geldreich, Weibel, & Robeck, 1968).

Figure 3 illustrates an early interpretation of the changes that occur in the runoff peaks and volumes pre- and post-development, as a result of this decreased permeability and increased connectivity of the urban landscape. The rainfall and snowmelt events produce much more “peaky” or “flashy” discharge rates. Even a small rainfall event in an urban area can cause higher flooding than a large storm or spring runoff in the same pre-development catchment area. The high peak flows impact the sediment regime, habitat conditions, and biota of receiving waters (Schuler, 1987, cited in Herrera, 2011). The increased interception and diversion of stormwater by impermeable

surfaces generally results in decreased infiltration to groundwater, which may result in decreased base flow and increases the potential for drought later in the growing season (Schueler, 1987, cited in Herrera, 2011; Marsalek & Schreier, 2009; Schueler, Fraley- McNeal, & Cappiella, 2009). This reduced groundwater recharge may not be significant in the Calgary area, due to the natural low permeability of the clay soils, except in the river valleys, where the soils are dominated by alluvial sands and gravels.

Figure 3. Early observations about changes in surface runoff peak discharge as a result of urbanization. Later research found that total volume increases. (Source: Schuler, 1987, cited in Herrera, 2011)

Research in humid regions of the United States revealed that increased volume due to urban imperviousness (Figure 4). This increased volume was as much or more of a problem as the increased peak discharge, resulting in increased erosion potential, channel instability and ecosystem degradation (Bledsoe & Watson, 2001). The practice of collecting stormwater in retention ponds, and controlling the release over hours or days decreased peak flow but caused chronic flooding and erosion of the receiving waters. Over time, as urbanization spreads farther from the main river channels, the increased volumes can exceed the capacity of downstream sections of the stormwater infrastructure and the carrying capacity of the receiving waters. Urban flooding is the inevitable result (Environment Canada, 2013a). As urban areas grow and more area is drained toward any one discharge point, it may become necessary to dredge, straighter and/or armour (‘harden’) the rivers to transmit the larger volumes of water and protect urban infrastructure from bank erosion and flooding.

Figure 4. Stormwater hydrograph, pre-and post development (Source: Buzzards Bay Coalition, 2013)

Figure 5 illustrates some examples of hardening of river environments around the world as urban centres attempt to manage increased stormwater runoff in the midst of expanding urbanization. This channelization and river edge hardening reduces or eliminates the ecological function and natural capital of the receiving waters and their riparian zones. Even before river channelization and hardening is considered, the impact of altering the flow regime on aquatic biota is significant.

Tiber River in Rome, Italy. Santa Ana River in Bow River at Bowness, (August 2007) Newport Beach Calgary, Alberta CA,USA, (June, 2011) (September, 2013) Figure 5. Urban drainage can turn rivers into concrete and rip-rapped canals. (photos credits: S. Ryan)

The impacts were summarized in a literature review by Bunn and Arthington (2002). They identified four key principles that link hydrology and aquatic biology:

 flow is a major determinant of physical habitat in streams, which in turn is a major determinant of biotic composition;  aquatic species have evolved life history strategies primarily in direct response to the natural flow regimes;  maintenance of natural patterns of longitudinal and lateral connectivity is essential to the viability of populations of many riverine species; and  the invasion and success of exotic and introduced species in rivers is facilitated by the alteration of flow regimes.

Bunn and Arthington (2002, p. 492) go on to say that “the impacts of flow change are manifest across broad taxonomic groups including riverine plants, invertebrates, and fish.”

Terrestrial biology is also altered by traditional stormwater infrastructure that removes rainfall and snowmelt from the land as quickly as possible. Numerous studies have looked at the benefits of maintaining trees, shrubs and green park space in urban areas – everything from reducing the heat island effect, to the environmental benefits of maintaining biodiversity inside the city and psychological benefits such as relieving nature deficit disorder (CMHC, 2014b; Jayasooriya & Ng, 2014; Kaplan, 1995; McCarty, 2002). If impervious surfaces and stormwater infrastructure remove the rain and snow from an urban area, the lawns, gardens and trees will still need water, but it will have to be supplied by irrigation, especially in a semi-arid environment such as Southern Alberta. (Byrne et al., 2006; United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). Irrigation with municipal water supplies or local groundwater wells becomes the preferred option to keep water-loving urban landscapes alive. Where no restrictions on outdoor watering apply, peak day demand in summer can often exceed twice or even three times the base load of the annual water demand, and can be closely related to weather. (Brandes, Maas, & Reynolds, 2006; Chen, Grasby, Osadetz, & Fesko, 2006). Figure 6 illustrates the relationship between daily maximum temperature and daily water production in Calgary between 1982 and 1989 – before water

conservation initiatives were widely introduced. An exponential model was used to express the per capita water use as a function of daily maximum temperature. (Akuoko-Asibey, Nkemdirim, & Draper, 1993) This research illustrated the seasonal variability of water demand in Calgary.

Figure 6. The relationship between daily maximum temperature and daily water production in Jan. 1982-Dec 1989 for Calgary. (Source: Akuoko-Asibey et al., 1993, p. 10)

Figure 7 represents the typical Calgary peak day demand in 2003, even after major repairs to the water distribution system were made and basic public awareness campaigns began. Summer water demand, especially peak day demand, is influenced by factors such as summer temperatures, rainfall, and corporate and public attitudes toward water conservation.

Figure 7. Calgary’s total system water demand in 2003. (Source: City of Calgary, 2004b, Figure 3.5)

In the 35 years between 1970 and 2005, Calgary’s total annual system demand for water nearly doubled (City of Calgary, 2005d, p. 4). Significant water efficiency initiatives since the mid 1980s included public education programs, metering of residential accounts, leak detection and repairs to water mains. However, population and economic growth has the potential to out-strip the reduction in per-capita demand. The amount of water that the City can draw from the Bow and Elbow Rivers is limited to the volume defined in the water allocation licences issued by the province2. To be able to meet the needs of the foreseeable future, Calgary’s water management departments knew that Calgary would have to continue to reduce per-capita consumption. By reducing per-capita base demand, then harvesting and re-using rainwater and stormwater the demand on the potable water system could be significantly reduced. Figure 8 illustrates the theoretical effect of reducing a community’s base load of water demand in addition to the summer load.

2 Calgary’s water allocation licences were issued in 1929, 1971 and 1991(City of Calgary, 2005d).

contribution to peak day demand day reduction. to contribution peak

sts but it is being added to a much lower summer base load. summer lower base much a to stsit but is added being

hind LID's

stillexi

. The theory b theory The .

) reduce base load reduce to 20% by base use water indoor incentives and education public with reduce )

Figure Figure

1 base demand summer irrigation. outdoor education, public reduce to with reduce 2) incentives demand day Peak 3)

2.3 Non-Point-Source Pollution - Water Quality Management

Original urban sewer systems combined stormwater with sanitary sewage. As the urban centres covered larger areas, the runoff volumes overwhelmed the treatment plants and raw sewage was discharged into the rivers, lakes and oceans during high rainfall events. The common thought at the time was that during the higher volume events, the dilution of raw sewage by the rainwater was enough to reduce its impact to an acceptable level. By 1950, the impact of this combined sewage overflow was being debated. Palmer (1950, p. 162) argued that “a properly designed combined sewer system, operated under average conditions, would constitute a reasonable use of the receiving waters of an area. Until there is fully substantiated proof that occasional use for the disposal of storm overflows is causing damage in excess of the economic benefits, no expenditure of public funds can be justified for changing to another more expensive system”. However, Palmer was soon overruled by other research on discharging raw sewage, however infrequent and diluted it might be. Into the 21st century, public health and environmental impact concerns continue to be an issue in areas with combined sewer systems (Tibbets, 2005). Research into the impact of combined sewer systems continues, as a number of jurisdictions have yet to fully separate their systems, especially in older North American cities (Curriero, Patz, Rose, & Lele, 2001), Europe (Gromaire, Garnaud, Saad, & Chebbo, 2001) and developing countries (Yima, Vathnaa, & Irvineb, 2010). Separation of sanitary and storm systems allows the more concentrated sanitary sewage water to be treated more effectively, while the stormwater is discharged directly to the receiving waters. Less diluted sanitary discharge is more cost effective to treat. This concept of more efficient treatment to improve water quality can also be applied to stormwater discharge.

Early in the discussion of stormwater quality, in the 1960s, when combined sanitary and stormwater systems were beginning to be separated, a number of researchers observed that the quality of urban stormwater had been masked by the more significant contamination of the sanitary system, but stormwater had significant water quality issues of its own. As uncontrolled, unfiltered discharge enters our waterways it becomes an extension of the storm sewers. Non-point-source pollution includes

bacterial contamination from pet and urban wildlife waste; hydrocarbons and heavy metals from vehicles; pesticides and nutrients from yard and garden maintenance; increased total suspended solids from soil erosion, mechanical wear on urban infrastructure, winter road maintenance (salt and grit); eroding river banks; and litter (Evans et al., 1968; Geldreich, Best, Kenner, & Van Donsel, 1968; Weibel, Anderson, & Woodward, 1964). The resulting degradation of receiving water quality comes from increased nutrient loads (phosphorous and nitrogen), increases to the biological oxygen demand (BOD), point-source and non-point source pollution, as well as a changed hydrological regime that leads to accelerated erosion and siltation (Gregory, 2006). The end result is discussed in a wide variety of research and includes the deterioration of habitat and biodiversity and reduced resiliency of the natural waterways (Marsalek, 2006; Palmer, 1963; Palmer, 1950).

Similar research results continued over the next few decades across North America (Amato, Querol, Johansson, Nagl, & Alastuey, 2010; Boller, 1997; Francey, Fletcder, Deletic, & Duncan, 2010; He et al., 2010; Marsalek, 2003; Marsalek, 2006). Several recent studies are specific to the Calgary area and are consistent with these findings (Amell, Chu, & White, 2004; He et al., 2010; Van Duin, Brown, Chu, Marsalek, & Valeo, 2008; Westerbeek-Vopicka, 2009). Most recently, research has focused on the possibility that enhanced urban stormwater management can reduce nutrient loading of phosphorous and nitrogen (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, 2014a; Erickson, Gulliver, & Weiss, 2007; Gulliver, 2014). Dissolved nutrients such as phosphorous and nitrogen can be a major part of the stormwater quality equation and are a major contributor to lake eutrophication (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, 2014a; Waschbusch, Selbig, & Bannerman, 2000). These nutrients can be dissolved or suspended and can come from fertilizers as well as accelerated bank erosion caused by increased volumes and peak discharge. All of the research that I found from the past few decades come to the same conclusion -- that discharge of untreated, unregulated stormwater can no longer be mitigated by dilution in the receiving waters (Bow Basin Watershed Management Plan Steering Committee, 2008; Bunn & Arthington, 2002; Hogan & Walbridge, 2007; Poff et al., 2010; Walsh, Fletcher, & Ladson, 2005).

2.4 Stormwater Management Systems

Stormwater infrastructure is built to last for generations, and is integrated into the urban fabric. Traditional stormwater infrastructure is designed at the end of the urban design process, then put in place early in the construction phase. Conventional infrastructure consists of roof leaders, impermeable ground surfaces, curb and gutter collection/catch basins, a vast network of underground pipes, and storm sewer outlets. Infrastructure developed and installed in 2015 should still be functional well beyond 2050, with little more than routine maintenance. Retrofitting and upgrading this infrastructure is both difficult and expensive, and is not an endeavor undertaken lightly. The stormwater infrastructure and its underlying urban design principles can last hundreds of years, as evidenced by the longevity of stormwater systems around the world. In the past, urban renewal has changed land use at the surface, but the underground stormwater system has remained virtually intact (Boardley & Kinkead, 2006; Hammitt, 2010). In greenfield developments, LID stormwater management systems must be designed early in the planning process. As long as urban developers are permitted to rely on conventional stormwater practices, the problems noted above will continue for generations past the completion dates of the developments.

2.4.1 Changes to standard practice of stormwater management

The outlets from stormwater ponds are designed to mitigate the timing and rate of runoff from urban development – i.e. reduce the peak flood discharge. Total volume of the discharge is not reduced, just spread out over several hours or days. Total urban runoff volume remains significantly higher than pre-development conditions. This sustained higher volume causes increased bank erosion and can impact the riparian zone for several kilometres downstream of stormwater outlets (Bledsoe & Watson, 2001; Cahill, 2012; Gregory, 2006; Lee & Heaney, 2003; Wyatt, 2011). Beginning in the 1950s urban stormwater designers attempted to mitigate the flooding caused by the high percentage of connected impermeable surfaces that caused downstream flooding. Stormwater ponds with restricted outflows were built to capture and slow down the rate of urban runoff.

Research into water quality from stormwater ponds revealed that they effectively acted as settling ponds that improved water quality by allowing a high proportion of suspended solids to settle. The still waters of well-designed settling ponds can remove between 80 and 90% of total suspended solids (TSS) from the stormwater. In addition to reducing the sediment load, this settling reduces the total pollution load since many pollutants are absorbed or adsorbed by the suspended solids. However, re-suspension of sediment in above-average rainfall events can be a problem with some systems. This technique of settling the sediment has little or no impact on dissolved pollutants (Amell et al., 2004; Brydon, Oh, Wilson, Hall, & Schreier, 2009).

2.4.2 The Era of Stormwater Management (SWM) Best Management Practices (BMP)

A new era in SWM began in 1993 when the Environmental Protection Agency of Maryland, USA, published a report on an alternative strategy for stormwater management. Word of the success of this new strategy began to spread and in 2000, at the National Conference on Tools for Water Resource Management and Protection in Chicago, Larry Coffman3 summarised the beginning of the concept of Low Impact Development (Coffman, 2000). Coffman observed that conventional stormwater management was not able to meet the ever-increasing objectives of watershed protection. He discussed the challenges that urban municipalities faced as state and federal regulations in the United States became more restrictive in an attempt to increase watershed protection, restore ecosystems, deal with combined sewer overflow, and protect fisheries, surface water, ground water, wetlands, riparian zones and streams.

While controlled release reduced the impact of “peakiness” of the discharge, and reduced sediment load somewhat, it did not reduce pollution loads to the extent being mandated. Conventional stormwater management that used storm ponds as the end-of- pipe treatment did nothing to reduce the volume of water that was running off the high percentage of hard surfaces in the urban environment.

3 Associate Director of Department of Environmental Resources, Prince George’s County, Maryland

The introduction of bioretention systems in Prince George’s County, Maryland in the 1990s introduced the goal of imitating the natural hydrological cycle within the urban environment (Coffman, 2000; Prince George's County, 1993; Roy-Poirier, Champagne, & Filion, 2010). The Low Impact Development practices developed by Prince George’s County emphasised lot-level best management practices that could improve the quality of stormwater (Coffman, 2000; Prince George's County, 1993). Known primarily as Low Impact Development in the USA and Canada, the concept has spread around the world, with varying levels of acceptance and implementation. The alternatives include Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD), Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS), and Green Infrastructure. See Appendix 2A for a list of the most common versions of the name, and the places where they are used in English language literature. Other less common terms are also in use, such as Innovative Stormwater Design or Wet Weather Flow Management. These latter terms attempt to reduce the ambiguity of the term “Low Impact Development” and clarify the idea that managing urban runoff is the prime focus of the program. The most commonly used term in Alberta is LID, thus it is used throughout the rest of this thesis, except where other terms are used by other authors. In 2015, the City of Calgary also uses the term “source control” when it refers to the on-site stormwater management aspect of LID.

Figure 9 illustrates the progression of research and government response, from concern about urban flooding to water quality for public health and environmental protection. Until the 1960s, management of stormwater quantity for flood prevention was the only imperative, but in subsequent decades objectives for stormwater management have expanded to include water quality, recreation and aesthetics, ecosystem health, water conservation, stormwater re-use and integration with urban design. (Roy et al., 2008). Dramatic changes were able to be achieved when the concept of imitating the natural hydrological cycle were introduced with LID and its related methodologies.

Quantity : Peak and Volume controls to pre-

development conditions

Recreation, aesthetics, and land use

Integration with urban design, urban renewal

Quality : sediment, nutrient and other pollutant removal, treatment train Ecosystem health Re-use

2010 +

Figure 9. Changes in stormwater management objectives in recent decades. (Source: Adapted from Roy et al., 2008, p. 347)

Research into stormwater management is no longer simply a civil engineering process, designed to reduce urban flooding and protect public health. Stormwater management impacts the biology, hydrology, atmospheric conditions, stream geomorphology, and the human systems that rely on them – all the basic components of Earth System Science. While versions of LID have been applied around the world with varying levels of success, universal application is not easily accepted (Mitchell, 2009; Roy et al., 2008). Much of the research on the change from traditional SWM to LID has focused on the benefits and barriers of LID.

2.5 Benefits and Barriers of Implementing Stormwater Management Best Management Practices (SWM BMP).

A common strategy for studying the implementation of LID is to look at benefits and barriers. Benefits of implementing LID include environmental, social and economic

impacts -- the classic triple bottom line. Barriers are most often economic, resistance to change and regulatory barriers.

2.5.1 Clarifying the Benefits

Since the implementation of LID and its associated BMPs, benefits of the strategy have been identified. Chocat et al (2001) summarises these as:

 Flood reduction - minimizing peak stormwater discharges from urban catchments.  Pollution minimization - preventing, collecting, and/or managing pollution loads.  Stormwater retention - harvest and beneficial reuse of rainwater and stormwater runoff within or near the urban catchment.  Urban landscape improvement – showing rather than hiding water by functionally incorporating stormwater into urban streetscapes and green areas.  Reduction of drainage investments– innovative integration of stormwater systems into the urban environment for reducing the cost of infrastructure.

(Chocat et al, 2001, cited in Brown, 2005, p. 456)

Another way of looking at the benefits of LID is to look at the risk of not implementing LID. A study released by Alberta Urban Municipalities Association (Alberta Urban Municipalities Association, 2014) in January 2014 list these risks as:

 Water quality degradation o Compromised drinking water supplies from surface and groundwater sources o Adverse human health impacts o Loss of aquatic-based recreational opportunities o Loss of aquatic habitat, plant, or animal life o Reduced conveyance and storage capacity of stormwater systems  Hydrologic Alteration

o Changes in soil moisture and groundwater recharge, resulting in increased potential for drought later in the growing season o Erosive forces that alter the shape, size, meander patterns, and flow capacity of stream channels  Flooding o Riverine flooding where water exceeds bank-full discharge of rivers, lakes and wetlands onto adjacent land that is normally dry o Urban flooding when the design capacity of the stormwater system is exceeded, resulting in stormwater that flows back into neighbourhoods, causing overland flooding, building seepage, or sanitary sewer backup (especially in areas where the storm and sanitary sewer systems are combined, or seepage from the storm system gets into the sanitary system)  Erosion and sedimentation o Increased erosion and sedimentation relative to natural conditions can have localized impacts but also “commonly lead to adverse downstream effects by degrading water quality and elevating the risk of flooding.” (Alberta Urban Municipalities Association, 2014)

2.5.2 Identifying and Overcoming Barriers

There is a growing body of literature from around the world on changes that are occurring in stormwater management (Dietz, 2007; Mitchell, 2009). Research has been conducted on the barriers to implementing LID and other new strategies for water management. The first eight entries in Table 2 list commonly referenced papers on overcoming barriers to LID and some of the ways authors have defined and grouped the barriers to implementation. They generally cluster around knowledge, attitude, finances, and policy.

Brown (2005) discusses the types of knowledge needed for institutional change, many of which have taken place in Australia in the decade after that research. Holtz (2007) and Carter (2009) chose categories that reflected physical, social and regulatory barriers. Roy et al (2008) consider the impediments and solutions to urban SWM in

the United States and Australia. Roy-Poirier et al (2010) review the evolution of the bioretention system and identify knowledge gaps and research needs. Earles et al (2009) looked at ways to break down barriers to LID in Colorado. (Jordaan, 2009, p. 150) observed that there is no simple way of dealing with institutional barriers, but there is “something to be gained by clearly identifying the barriers that confront us. Then and only then can we develop specific strategies for change.”.

More recent studies such as those by Bowmana et al (2012) and Cotea1 & Wolfe (2014) focus on public awareness and the economic value that residents associate with LID features including swales, cluster development and permeable pavement.

Table 2. Select literature on overcoming barriers to implementation of LID

Brown (2005). Impediments to integrated urban stormwater management: the Need for institutional reform.  Three types of knowledge that supports or hinders change are identified:  cognitive ( knowledge)  normative (values)  regulative (administration) 

Holtz (2007). Crisis? What Crisis? Water soft path proponents swim against a current of sparse data, skeptical citizens and policy barriers. Barriers are broadly grouped into:  attitude and perception  organization and administration  financial and other resources  data and information  policy, regulation and governance

Carter (2009). Developing conservation subdivisions: Ecological constraints, regulatory barriers, and market incentives.  Main constraints to developing “conservation subdivisions” are identified as:  environmental  institutional  market constraints (continued next page. . .

. . . continued from previous page)

Earles (2009). Breaking Down the Barriers to Low Impact Development in Colorado.  The potential for more widespread implementation of LID in Colorado were researched and “some perceived and some real” barriers include:  physical  institutional  technical  social and economic factors

Goudie (2009). The Emerging Science of Engineering a Sustainable Urban Environment.  This research determined that the discussion of the emerging engineering of urban stormwater could be divided into:  engineering  geography  sustainability

Jordaan (2009). Removing Institutional Barriers to Water Soft Paths: Challenges and Opportunities  Research focused on specific aspects of removing barriers to changing water management practices, especially institutional/regulatory barriers and social perception:  attitudes and perceptions  organization and management  financial  data and information  policy and governance

Bowmana et al (2012). Multiple approaches to valuation of conservation design and low-impact development features in residential subdivisions.  This research found that residents expressed notable value for environmental subdivision features and that citizen education is needed to increase interest in these subdivision designs. Barriers to acceptance included:  perceptions of the effect on house price – original or re-sale  increased property taxes are not acceptable past $50

(continued next page. . .

. . . continued from previous page)

Cotea1 & Wolfe (2014). Assessing the Social and Economic Barriers to Permeable Surface Utilization for Residential Driveways in Kitchener, Canada.  This research found that Kitchener residents possess the necessary characteristics to support permeable surface adoption once technical and economic barriers are resolved, but the current barriers included:  awareness.  cost  technological acceptance

2.6 Modelling LID is One of the Remaining Challenges

Civil engineering has conventional stormwater management down to a fairly precise science. At the risk of over-simplification, engineers simply need to calculate the percentage of impermeable area, the slope to the receiving waters, combine that with the design storm, and determine the size of the pipe that will convey the stormwater to the receiving water body. This sort of calculation has been done without the aid of computers for decades and the premise goes back for centuries.

LID does not lend itself to easy modelling. The natural world is much messier; models must include antecedent soil moisture, permeability of soils, vegetation, root depth, and various other highly variable inputs. Throw in the freeze-thaw cycle of Canadian winters, make that much worse with Chinooks, and modelling becomes as much of an art as a science (Bechtold, Deong, Digel, Wang, & Kobryn, 2005).

In 2007, Elliott & Trowsdale (2007) discussed some of the many areas that required further development with respect to stormwater modelling. They included: broadening the range of contaminants; improving the representation of contaminant transport in streams and within treatment devices; treating baseflow components and runoff from pervious surfaces more thoroughly; linkage to habitat and toxicity models; linkage to automated calibration and prediction uncertainty models; investigating up-scaling for representation of on-site devices at a catchment level; and catchment scale testing of model predictions.

More recently Jayasooriya & Ng (2014) published a comprehensive summary of 20 models that are currently used for stormwater management. Note that Jayasooriya and Ng use the term “green infrastructure” instead of LID. They list and compare these models, then conduct a detailed review of the ten that are most commonly used to simulate stormwater management and/or economic aspects of “green infrastructure” practices. See Appendix 2B for an illustration of the wide variety of purposes and applications that the different models provide. The focus ranges through water quality, water volumes and economics. Appendix 2C includes the web sites to access the ten most common models. I include these models here to illustrate the wide variety of purposes and approaches to modelling stormwater when attempting to mimic the natural hydrological cycle. The need for local monitoring and calibration of the models becomes more acute as the geography of soils and climate become more specific and/or difficult to incorporate within the basic principles of LID.

2.7 What are the Drivers of Change?

With all the barriers to changing water management policy and practices, what causes change? Often, an initial driver is a crisis or an impending crisis (e.g. see Holts, Table 2). Crises that have sparked changes in stormwater management can be grouped into two main categories: quality and quantity, and often a combination of both.

Stormwater management change occurred in Maryland because of ever-increasing demands to improve water quality. Globally, major changes in stormwater management tend to be adopted where water shortages are as much or more of a problem than is control of urban runoff. For instance, Australian applications of components of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) have been much more extensive than in other jurisdictions. In July 2012 Australia opened a multi-million dollar research facility/consortium. The Corporate Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities has the mandate to “advance sustainable urban water practices” through:

 research excellence.  engagement with planning, development and water management professionals.

 supporting the development of government policies (Corporate Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities, 2014)

In various jurisdictions around the world, crises have varied in intensity before change was made. Circumstances that change include:

 Water quality issues that impact public health (Frumkin, 2002; Gaffield, Goo, Richards, & Jackson, 2003).  Reduced ecological resilience (Bow River Phosphorous Management Plan Steering Committee, 2014; Marsalek, 2006).  Water shortages and the need to shift from supply management to demand management as limits to water supply capacity are outstripped by population growth (Brooks, Brandes, & Gurman, 2009).  Excess urban runoff that causes bank erosion and the subsequent increases in nutrient loading, turbidity, and sedimentation (Bledsoe & Watson, 2001).  Significant impact on infrastructure, as once-tranquil streams become raging torrents after virtually every rainfall event downstream of an urban catchment area (van Duin & Garcia, 2006).

The revolution in stormwater management came when people realised that excess urban runoff could be used to mitigate water shortages (Boardley & Kinkead, 2006; Chocat et al., 2001; Prince George's County, 1993) and when the economic and environmental cost of not changing practices exceeded the cost of maintaining the traditional stormwater systems (Bjornlund, 2005; Brooks, 2005; Carter, 2009).

2.8 Low Impact Development in the Canadian Context

The need for change in stormwater management was recognised by the Canadian Water Network and the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) in the early 2000s. Peak day water conservation and stormwater management were the two main focuses of their research (CMHC, 2001a; CMHC, 2001b). Subsequently, a series of conferences was organised in Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto in 2007 and 2008 (Canadian Water Network, 2007). Papers were presented on innovative stormwater

management that provided information on mitigating flood risk and non-point-source pollution, at the three scales of lot/property, neighbourhood and watershed (Marsalek & Schreier, 2009)4. Jeri Marsalek did extensive research on innovative stormwater management, primarily in Southern Ontario. His overall conclusion was that no one method or scale of stormwater management will solve the problem of urban stormwater. Rather, strategies at all three scales need to be employed, to deal with the different problems caused by varying levels of rainfall intensity and duration. Since 2009, CMHC research has concentrated on strategies to reduce water and energy consumption, both of which use LID BMPs such as rainwater harvesting and green roofs (CMHC, 2012; CMHC, 2014b).

2.9 Literature Gap

The existing academic and non-academic literature about water management, stormwater management and LID discuss “what” happened in those areas, and tend to be linear timelines. The research for this thesis covers parallel time lines of water management change and includes discussions about “how” and “who” in the sense of “what were the drivers of change?” This thesis investigates the regulatory history, benefits, barriers and drivers of change that led to Calgary’s adoption of LID and volume control targets as a tool for managing stormwater to meet provincial regulatory requirements and improve Calgary’s land use management.

4Note that Marsalek and Schreier deliberately use the term “Innovative Stormwater Management” rather than “the more trendy terms” of LID, WSUD or SUDS because they feel that the terms “low”, “water sensitive” and “sustainable” are too ambiguous (Marsalek & Schreier, 2009).

Chapter 3: Research Approach and Methodology

3.1 Introduction

In the Calgary region, LID is not a stand-alone practice. It is part of overall stormwater management. Calgary still needs the (modified) traditional stormwater management infrastructure to manage large storm events. This thesis research started with a relatively common approach to studying major changes in stormwater management policy and application, i.e. What are the benefits and barriers to implementing LID? When I started working on this, The City of Calgary (The City), various developers, consultants and research institutions had been participating in pilot projects and research into Low Impact Development (LID) application in the Calgary area. The City had adopted a policy of “lead by example” when undertaking City-led development and had imposed annual volume discharge limits on two sensitive sub- basins, Nose Creek and Pine Creek, on the north and south edges of Calgary, respectively.

By the time the interview phase for this research was over, Calgary had implemented interim volume and peak discharge targets that must be included in stormwater management plans for all new and retrofit development proposals for the remainder of the city. Thus, a more appropriate research question became “What were the drivers of change that enabled / precipitated Calgary adopting LID to manage stormwater?” I continued the analysis of interviews within the “benefits and barriers” framework, and added “drivers of change” as a means to collate the data/insights collected regarding the physical, regulatory and personal interviews sections of the research.

My main assumption consists of an acceptance that LID contributes positively to stormwater management in Calgary, and my worldview is a pragmatic approach to the problem associated with urban stormwater management. Combining the assumption and worldview can be summarised as: Conventional urban stormwater management is a problem. What are we going to do about it?

This research is based on the assumption, confirmed by the literature review, that there are major benefits to managing urban stormwater so that it mimics the natural hydrology of the pre-development landscape. The use of LID and other source-control best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater management is becoming more and more present in academic literature on a global scale. Various forms of LID have become the standard approach to reducing non-point-source pollution load and negative impact on the morphology of receiving waters. Chapter 2, Literature Review, discusses this more fully.

In Alberta, provincial and municipal governments have been investigating the potential to implement LID with various levels of engagement since it was introduced to Alberta in 2004 (Martz, 2004). Some municipalities include LID in their stormwater management guidelines or manuals, to achieve specific goals for provincial regulatory compliance. In the City of Calgary LID has become the most common term for the strategy of managing stormwater close to its source, in order to reach targets for peak and volume discharge control. LID has provided the means to change stormwater management from a centuries-old strategy of releasing untreated and un-regulated stormwater into receiving waters, to one where peak and volume controls are used to mimic the natural pre-development hydrology. Additional benefits of LID include reduced irrigation demand on municipal water supplies for green space irrigation and potential for long-term economic benefits with the inclusion of social and environmental benefits in the cost-benefit analysis.

3.2 Qualitative Research - Case Study

I used a qualitative research approach for this thesis. John Creswell (2007 p. 37) explains this approach:

Qualitative research begins with assumptions, a worldview, the possible use of a theoretical lens and the study of research problems inquiring into the meaning individual groups ascribe to a social or human problem. To study a problem, social researchers use a qualitative approach to inquiry that consists of the collection of data in a natural setting sensitive to the people and place under study; and data analysis that is inductive and establishes patterns or themes. The final written report or presentation includes the voices of participants; the

reflexivity of the researcher; a complex description and interpretation of the problem; and it extends the literature or signals a call for action. Creswell (2007, p. 73) also defines the case study as “a qualitative approach in which the investigator explores a bounded system (a case) ... over time, through detailed, in- depth data collection involving multiple sources of information.”

The intrinsic case study approach (i.e. single, unusual case) was selected because Calgary’s transition from traditional to LID stormwater management fits the criteria that it “holds intrinsic or unusual interest” (Stake, 1995, cited in Creswell, 2013. p. 295). According to Gummesson (1991, cited in Noor, 2008 , p. 1603) the case study “enables the researcher to gain an holistic view of a certain phenomenon.” Another advantage of case studies is that they can be useful “in capturing the emergent and imminent properties of life in organizations and the ebb and flow of organizational activity, especially where it is changing very fast” (Hartley, 1994, cited in Noor, 2008, p.1603). Noor also refers to Patton’s assessment that case studies “become particularly useful where one needs to understand some particular problem or situation in great- depth, and where one can identify cases rich in information” (Patton, 1987, cited in Noor, 2008, p. 1604). Calgary’s transition to using LID in stormwater management is unique, changing very fast, and provides a rich set of data. The gap in the literature that I have identified is the “how and why” of making such significant changes to policy and practice of stormwater management, something that goes beyond a simple chronology of the history of those changes.

3.3 Scale – Physical, Jurisdictional and Temporal

The nature of stormwater management is very complex, with varying physical, jurisdictional and temporal scales. The scales can be nested or overlapping. The research for this study is bounded by all three of these limits. However, separation between the levels of each scale is not always clear. Consequently, there is a certain amount of ambiguity and confusion with regard to expectations for different aspects of stormwater management and “whose jurisdiction is this?”

3.3.1 Physical

The physical scale of stormwater management is in a nested hierarchy. The practical application of best management practices for urban stormwater falls into three levels (lot level, neighbourhood and watershed scale) and tends to be region-specific due to differences in physical geography and regulatory processes. See Appendix 3A for a summary of the approaches to LID stormwater management at three scales.

When it comes to stormwater management, every region has unique challenges. Calgary is particularly challenged by weather and geography. A semi-arid environment in the rain shadow of the Rocky Mountains that produces a low drainage density is complicated by clay soils and Chinook winds. Early attempts to implement LID practices that were imported from other jurisdictions were met with scepticism, resistance and sometimes failure. During the interview phase of this research, every interview participant, without exception, considered the physical geography of Calgary to be the greatest barrier to early adoption of LID, and that it continues to be its greatest challenge. A thorough discussion of Calgary’s unique physical characteristics illustrates some of the difficulties that are now considered challenges, rather than barriers, by most stormwater practitioners. Chapter 4 discusses the most significant aspects of the Calgary and area physical geography in order to more clearly understand the challenges that it presents.

3.3.2 Jurisdictional

Jurisdiction of stormwater management is also in a nested hierarchy, with complex, overlapping interactions between jurisdictions. The smallest unit is the home/property owner. They have rights and obligations to manage their property within accepted community standards or bylaws set by the municipality. The municipality in turn, has the obligation to manage stormwater to avoid damage to property or public health. Provincial authority and responsibility includes environmental protection of the shared watershed resources.

Within the City, the highest order of planning is covered under municipal policies such as the Calgary Transportation Plan and the Municipal Development Plan. These are supported by (and were sometimes preceded by) policy documents such as the Wetland Conservation Plan and the Water Conservation Plan. During development applications, the Municipal Development Plan is followed by Regional Plans, which are followed by Area Structure Plans, then subdivision development plans.

To this day, LID is not specifically required by provincial legislation, but over the past few decades various Acts and their regulations have imposed progressively more stringent water quality targets on urban water effluent (including stormwater discharge). The Alberta Municipal Government Act (MGA) gives municipalities the authority to impose water quality targets that are beyond the provincial targets in new and retrofit developments.

The Nose Creek Watershed was under study for a number of years before the Nose Creek Watershed Management Plan recommended that targets for peak discharge and total annual volume discharge should be set. A phased approach was adopted because “it is understood that the new approach to stormwater management will take time to implement fully.” These targets were the first to be established in Calgary. The Nose Creek targets and subsequent adoption of peak and volume targets throughout Calgary are discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 6.

The recent past and future implementations of LID stormwater management practices are related to the iterative changes in legislation, regulations, policy and guidelines for SWM in federal, provincial and municipal practices. The historical background to water management is such a large and complex target that I cover it in two chapters. Chapter 5 covers the basics of federal, provincial and regional (i.e. watershed scale) regulatory history. Chapter 6 delves more into the detail of Calgary’s recent regulatory history. I include more detail for watershed management plans that overlap with Calgary’s boundaries. The practical application of LID in Calgary is only covered briefly in this thesis, because discussion of the engineering specifications is beyond the scope of this thesis, and these specifications are readily available on the City of Calgary web site.

Figure 10 illustrates the multiple levels of jurisdiction that are involved in watershed management. The smallest represents individual landowners, commercial development and multi-family developments. The largest scale on this chart is provincial government. However, agreements with, or direction from, the Prairie Provinces Water Board and the Federal Government could be added to the bottom of this nest. Chapters 5 and 6 will discuss the jurisdictional implications of implementing LID.

Figure 10. Nested outcomes in watershed management decision-making. (Source: Alberta Water Council, 2013b p. 30)

3.3.3 Temporal

Stormwater management rules and regulations did not “come out of the blue”. There is a long history of changes to resource and specifically water management in Canada and Alberta that led up to Calgary’s implementation of targets for stormwater discharge. Alberta gained control of its water resources in 1930, twenty-five years after Alberta joined Confederation. Several significant changes in provincial resource management policy followed in the next eighty-five years that led up to Calgary adopting peak, then volume control of stormwater discharge.

Since the early 1990s the City of Calgary has worked with the Government of Alberta and various non-governmental, academic and professional organizations and their members5, to develop policies and guidelines that enable and encourage the use of LID for improved stormwater quality. Since April 1, 2014 all Area Structure Plans submitted to the City of Calgary must have a Stormwater Management Plan that shows how the development will meet stormwater peak and annual volume discharge targets. Thus I stopped my initial research at this point. The adoption of City-wide volume discharge targets was the defining moment when the question “What are the benefits and barriers of including LID in Calgary’s stormwater management?” became somewhat obsolete, to be supplemented with “What were the drivers of change that led to including LID in Calgary’s stormwater management?” LID and stormwater management in general are still evolving.

3.4 Research Bias

My undergraduate training was as a physical geographer. I have been working and volunteering with water policy in the province of Alberta since the early 1990s and have been following the development of Low Impact Development as a stormwater management strategy since its introduction into Alberta in 2004 at the Alberta Lake Management Society Conference in Okotoks (ALIDP, 2015; Martz, 2004). I have been involved with several ENGOs including Calgary River Valleys (CRV was known as the River Valleys Committee (RVC) from 1990 to 2010) and the Bow River Basin Council (BRBC). I am a member of the Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership

5 Non-governmental organizations involved with stormwater management in the Calgary region include Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership (ALIDP), Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), Alberta Association of Landscape Architects (ASSLA), Alberta Union of Municipal Authorities (AUMA), Alberta Water Council (AWC), Bow River Basin Council (BRBC), Calgary River Valleys (CRV), Canadian Water Network (CWN), Canadian Water Resources Association (CWRA), Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) , Landscape Alberta Nursery Trades Association (LANTA), Olds College, The University of Calgary, Urban Development Institute (UDI) and numerous engineering and design firms.

(ALIDP). The mandates of the CRV and BRBC are to be a public voice for the river and wetland systems, in their water quality, quantity, as it relates to environmental and social issues (including economics). The mandate of the ALIDP is to increase awareness of LID with education and partnerships. All three of these organizations are non-profit, volunteer driven.

My physical geography background and long-term association with river advocacy groups impacts my approach to this research, since I have an understanding of the basic structures and processes at work, and have known many of the interview participants through work and volunteer activities. Since the time when I started contemplating a Master’s thesis, stormwater management in Calgary has progressed from small pilot projects and minor policy changes, to full scale adoption of annual volume and peak targets for new and retrofit developments. The City gives the developers and their consultants the freedom to implement whatever methods they want to achieve these targets, while supporting and encouraging the use of LID.

3.4.1 Limitations of this Research

I know of quite a few activities that have taken place in Calgary and Alberta that are relevant to Calgary’s shift in stormwater management policy and practice that are not included in this thesis. Stormwater management in Calgary has also been influenced by other stormwater management plans in Canada, the United States, Europe, Australia and many documents internal to the City of Calgary Water Resources (and other) Business Units. Shifts in public opinion change as the economy and environmental issues vie for public attention. Research and pilot projects have been undertaken in Alberta by Urban Development Institute (UDI), Alberta Urban Municipalities Association (AUMA), WaterSMART, Canada Lands Corporation, Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership (ALIDP), and Calgary’s Environmental Advisory Committee. Universities, colleges, provincial governments, federal agencies, consulting firms, and environmental organizations have been active in LID and other stormwater management research. Even the general public has become involved with projects on their own properties and added their voices during public hearings, round table discussions and social media.

3.5 Research Methods The research consisted of three components:  review of the physical characteristics of Calgary that identify the uniqueness and challenges of the soils, climate, topography and hydrological regime;  legislation and policy review at the federal, provincial, regional/watershed and city level that enables (but does not require) Calgary to include LID as an approved stormwater management practice;  purposeful sampling consists of personal interviews with interview participants6 who are primarily professionals working in the field of urban stormwater management in Calgary. Purposeful sampling is used in phenomenological qualitative research because it is “important that the participants have experience of the phenomenon being studied” (Creswell, 2013 p. 155).  targeted sampling was used for the last four interviews to focus on the question of why they included LID in their stormwater practices.

The interview questions employed in my semi-structured interviews are listed in Appendix 3B. Questions for the interviews remained open ended, consistent with qualitative research practices. Rather than seeking answers to specific questions, open ended questions enabled the issues that were important to the interviewees to come to the fore. The interviews took on a conversational tone; often the interviewees answered questions before I had asked them. This enabled me to ask the participants for more details on the particular issue once I progressed through the list (rather than skipping the question or simply asking the question again, after it had effectively been answered).

The original round of interview questions was centered on the benefits of and barriers to LID implementation in Calgary and Southern Alberta in general. This included the then-current state of planning and implementation of LID in Calgary. A second set of targeted interviews focused on the question: “What caused you, personally, to adopt LID/source control practices to manage urban stormwater?”

6 Known as “key informants” in qualitative research literature.

The interviewees were initially chosen in consultation with two professionals in the field of stormwater management. As the interview period progressed, several people were dropped from the list because they were unavailable, and others were added to the list because their name came up repeatedly in the earlier interviews or in answer to the question, “If I had unlimited time and resources, who would you suggest that I interview?” I interviewed 21 professionals between December 2012 and December 2013. They included consultants in engineering, landscape architecture and municipal planning; citizen and ENGOs, City staff from the Business Units of Water Resources, Parks, Planning, and Transportation.

I was frequently in the position of meeting the interview participants at conferences or workshops before I asked them for the formal interview time. Everyone I asked was more than willing to discuss LID with me, since it is such a dynamic and evolving field of research and practice. It was just a matter of finding the time in their busy schedules. Over the course of the year that I was conducting interviews, two key people who were initially unavailable became available. Most interviews lasted close to one hour. The minimum time was 30 minutes, and the maximum time was two hours. Four key people were interviewed twice, for the second, focused question on their personal experience with the evolution of LID in Calgary. Most interviews were conducted one-on-one, but three were conducted with two people in attendance, when managers asked support staff to accompany them. These two-person interviews often produced the most rich data, as the two participants periodically discussed the issues between themselves.

The interviews were usually conducted at the places-of-work of the participants. Three interviews took place at coffee shops at the request of the participants. In all except two cases I used a Sony digital recorder to record the interviews, then transcribed the conversations. The exceptions were one person who preferred not to be recorded, and one person who was interviewed over the phone. For those interviews I took long hand, point form notes. All but one interviewee agreed to have their name, occupation and place of work listed in the thesis. In accordance with University of Calgary ethics protocol, they all signed approvals waivers that

indicated that I would list their name and affiliations in an appendix. As well, I had indicated that I would not credit their individual comments to them, but would use direct (but unattributed) quotes from the transcripts. The list of participants is included in Appendix 3C.The issues identified and attitudes expressed by the interviewees helped to inform the final version of Chapters 2, 4, 5 and 6 of this thesis.

3.6 Data Analysis The transcriptions were organised with the help of the NVIVO software program. This software enabled me to code the interviews in two ways – open coding and coding according to the questions used for the interviews. Open coding enabled me to become very familiar with the data, find descriptive words and identify the themes that were important to the participants, rather than focusing on the questions I had developed before the interviews began.

Coding according to the interview questions was more conducive to answering the original research question, which was “What are the benefits and barriers of implementing LID in Calgary?” Since I did the open coding first, I was able to more easily identify and code, as unique themes, sections of the interviews that the participants felt were important in addition to the specific questions about benefits, barriers and drivers of change.

The original research question effectively became obsolete by the time the interviews were over because Calgary had adopted interim stormwater targets for peak and volume. In the secondary, targeted set of interviews I attempted to limit the time taken for the interviews by asking the question “what caused you to adopt LID?” The participants who had not been interviewed previously were not content to just answer that question. They wanted to address their involvement in LID implementation in the City of Calgary, so the interview also included most of the original questions about benefits and barriers.

Figure 11 illustrates the iterative nature of qualitative analysis. While I was coding the interviews from different participants, I was able to identify a number of themes and

trends that had not occurred to me during the development of the original interview questions.

Figure 11. The qualitative process of data analysis. Source: (Creswell, 2008, p. 244)

The following chapters investigate the most significant benefits and barriers of adopting LID in Calgary and some of the drivers of change that enabled Calgary to adopt LID as a significant new method of stormwater management.

Chapter 4: Research Setting: Physical Geography

The physical setting is more than just a location. The challenges presented by the physical geography of southern Alberta and Calgary were identified by every participant in the interview phase of this thesis research. The climate, soils, and topography of this region present challenges that were originally considered to be major obstacles to including LID in stormwater management planning and practice.

Historically, urban stormwater management has been a matter for civil engineering in the sense that urban stormwater infrastructure consisted of creating impervious surfaces and connecting them to receiving waters by a system of catch basins, underground pipes and stormwater outfalls. The receiving waters have borne the brunt of the increased rate and volume of urban stormwater runoff, as well as the non-point- source pollution that the stormwater brings with it. In the meantime, the urban surfaces were drained of rain and snowmelt that had previously sustained the prairie vegetation.

The basic goal of LID is to mimic the natural hydrological cycle of the local area, especially with respect to managing rain and snowmelt close to its source and to mimic natural peak discharges and annual volume of runoff. Understanding the physical geography of the region is important to implementing LID practices that will achieve these intended goals. In semi-arid southern Alberta, the climate and hydrologic regimes are dramatically different from those regions where most research on LID has been conducted.

The landscape of Southern Alberta, including soils, topography and climate, pose unique physical challenges that create uncertainty about performance of LID systems. This chapter deals with specific physical characteristics of the Calgary region that affect the implementation of new stormwater management systems that attempt to mimic natural hydrology of the undeveloped prairie landscape. Chapters 5 and 6 will discuss the regulatory settings that enabled Calgary to include LID practices in stormwater management design.

4.1 Location and Demographics

The City of Calgary is located in Southern Alberta, in the western headwaters of the Saskatchewan/Nelson River Basin at the confluence of the Bow and Elbow Rivers (Figure 12). Calgary is less than 100 km east of the front ranges of the Rocky Mountains. Within city limits, altitude ranges from 1,270 m. a.s.l. in the north west to 1,000 m. a.s.l. in the south east. This can have significant influence on micro climates especially with respect to precipitation. On average, the north-west side of Calgary receives more rain and snow than the south east, but convective storms can target any area.

As of the 2014 census, Calgary’s land area was 848 km2 with a population of 1,195,194 - an increase of 3.3% since 2013 and 21.9% in the decade since 2004 (City of Calgary, 2014a, p. 20; City of Calgary, 2014f, p. 3). In 2014 the population of the regional census area, which includes towns, villages and rural residents, was 1,406,700, most of whom are served by potable water and sanitary services7. Calgary is a constantly expanding unicity that had a long standing policy of annexing adjacent communities, rather than extending city services to a metropolitan area8. In recent years, it has extended its potable water and sanitary services to a few of the outlying communities that are close to its borders and/or upstream of its potable water intakes.

4.2 Natural Regions

Figure 13 illustrates the natural ecotone regions of Southern Alberta. The delineation of ecoregions is based on natural vegetation that has developed as a result of the soils, topography and climate conditions. Calgary lies in the transition zone between the forests of the foothills and the grasslands of the prairies, with a small portion of the Central Parkland subregion projecting into the north edge of Calgary (Bow River Basin Council, 2005).The Foothills Parkland subregion on the west side of the city is characterized by a mixture of grassland and aspen stands with mixed riparian forests.

7 Some rural properties rely on wells and septic systems. 8 The unicity policy enables the City to manage growth patterns as well as potable water, sanitary and other services.. The unicity approach is criticized by some adjoining municipalities who would prefer a metropolitan form of regional government (City of Calgary, 2007a; Rocky View 2020, 2013).

Hudson Bay

Nelson River

Figure 12. Calgary is located in Southern Alberta at the confluence of the Bow and Elbow Rivers in the western headwaters of the Saskatchewan/Nelson River Basin. (Source: Prairie Provinces Water Board, 2015)

Figure 13. Natural ecotone regions of Southern Alberta. (Source: Alberta Government, 2009)

Foothills Fescue subregion on the east side is a flat to gently rolling landscape of dry mixed-grass prairie with a surface hydrology dominated by extensive wetland complexes. (Bow River Basin Council, 2005). The portion of the Central Parkland region that intersects the north edge of the City is dominated by large areas with noncontributing surface drainage.

The intersection of these three natural regions has produced a rich variety of natural habitats including: spruce, poplar or Douglas fir forests in the river valleys; aspen parkland; prairie pothole wetlands; and mixed grass prairie. Deep roots of the grasses, flowers and shrubs contribute to drought tolerance as well as soil stability, structure and permeability. Native grasses, flowers, shrubs and trees can withstand the drought, flood and freeze-thaw cycles of the Chinook belt.

The topography of the prairie is crossed by deep river valleys that are remnant glacial outwash channels, with broad floodplains occupied by meandering/braided rivers (Beaty, 1975).

Figure 14 and Figure 15 illustrate the broad, deep valleys created by the meltwaters of retreating glaciers. The valley bottoms are filled with alluvial sand and gravels as the sediment from the nearby mountains continues to be transported down-river. Some protected areas of the Bow and Elbow flood plains within the City maintain their riparian forest cover, but much of it has been stripped for farming, urban development or aggregate extraction. Most of the grassland and parkland land base on the outskirts of Calgary has been converted into agriculture – either grazing for cattle or irrigated cropland (Alberta Government, 2009). Both the Bow and Elbow River floodplains in the centre of the City have been heavily urbanised, with disastrous results that become evident during extreme river flood events.9 Appendix 4A discusses the difference between river flooding caused by runoff from the mountains, and urban flooding caused by local rain and (occasionally) snow-melt events. Groundwater recharge that

9 The flood event of June 2013, of the Bow and Elbow Rivers, was the costliest natural disaster in Canadian history, estimated at $6 billion (Public Safety Canada, 2014, cited in Reynolds, Blakely, & Ryan, 2014).

Figure 14. Sand and gravel deposits in the flood plain of the Bow River valley in south east Calgary. (Photo credit: J. Mader, 2012)

Figure 15. The terraced valley of the modern Bow River in north west Calgary at Bearspaw Reservoir. (Photo credit: J. Mader, 2012)

occurs within City limits is mainly restricted to the alluvial aquifers in the river valleys, but also occurs locally in areas where geotechnical conditions permit. The limited natural runoff in the Calgary area does not add significantly to the flow of the Bow River. This is a result of the low annual precipitation and the geographic features that favour evaporation, rather than deep infiltration in the upland areas (Cantafio & Ryan, 2014). The low drainage density that is apparent in Figure 16 & Figure 17 is discussed more fully in Section 4.5. This is characteristic of semi-arid regions and includes noncontributing drainage areas in some areas of Calgary.

This is difficult hydrology to mimic when urban development occurs. Large percentages of the area become covered with impermeable surfaces such as roads, roofs and parking lots. Conventional urban infrastructure connects these once-noncontributing areas directly to the receiving waters. LID’s approach to managing stormwater close to its source has the potential to be a much more effective way of mimicking the natural prairie hydrological regime, thus reducing the negative impact of conventional stormwater management.

Figure 16. Prairie pothole wetlands, shelter belts and aspen stands in agricultural land near south west Calgary. (Photo credit: S. Ryan, 2013)

Figure 17. The transition from surface hydrology, dominated by prairie sloughs, wetlands and noncontributing drainage areas, to conventional urban development. (Source: Google Earth, 2014)

4.2.1 Natural Hydrological Regime

The natural hydrology of the Calgary region is characterized by low annual rainfall and a topography that enables runoff retention in wetlands rather than overflow to local rivers.

Many areas in and around Calgary, especially on the north and east sides, and in the Foothills Fescue eco-region, have flat to gently rolling topography that makes drainage difficult, whether natural or created by urban infrastructure. Basic flow hydraulics determine the size of the pipe or ditch that is needed to convey water:

Q = A x V

Where:

Q = discharge volume; A = cross- sectional area ; V= velocity

Since the velocity of the water flowing downhill is determined by gravity, the more shallow the slope of a drainage ditch or pipe, the larger it must be to carry the same volume of water. In practical terms, this means that any drainage ditches or pipes in the Foothills Fescue region would have to be extremely large to carry water out of the region. To add to the problem, this area has dense clay soils with very low permeability. The typical LID strategy of using infiltration to recharge groundwater and dissipate stormwater does not work in such dense clay soil. The existence of a high proportion of natural, shallow wetlands attests to this. This makes a very challenging situation for LID stormwater designers, who cannot rely on infiltration to remove the bulk of the stormwater. Natural evaporation requires large areas of land.

The natural hydrological cycle of the area includes evapotranspiration from the native vegetation with its deep roots that reach into the prairie soil. These plants also have smaller rootlets that grow and die every year, creating routes for infiltration and improving soil structure year over year. Evapotranspiration from the native plants plus evaporation from shallow depression storage makes up a large part of the prairie hydrological regime.

Figure 18 is the oft-used drawing by Heidi Natura (1995) of Living Habitats that illustrates the deep roots of fescue prairie grasses (up to 4.5 m), relative to the very shallow roots of turf grass, the most common of which is Kentucky Blue Grass.

Urban surfaces counteract all of these natural features, by decreasing permeability, increasing runoff and reducing soil moisture so that the remaining vegetation has to be irrigated. LID, as it was developed originally, also depends on infiltration to groundwater to remove a significant portion of the stormwater, but where the underlying soils are no longer penetrated by deep-rooted plants, the infiltration is minimal.

Kentucky Blue Grass

4.5 meters / 15 feet

Figure 18. Root systems of prairie vegetation. (Source: Natura, 1995. Used with permission)

4.3 Soils Influenced by Continental Glaciations and Post-Glacial Climate Conditions Soils form the basic foundation for vegetative and hydrological processes. An understanding of the properties of the soils is important for source water protection and stormwater management that attempts to mimic pre-development hydrology. Southern Alberta, as most of Canada, was glaciated during several advances of continental ice sheets (Figure 19). Laurentian and Cordilleran Ice Sheets coalesced in Southern Alberta (Jackson, Phillips, Shimamura, & Little, 1997). Sub-soils in most of the Calgary region are clay till, with lenses of sand and gravel left behind after the glacial retreat in remnant glacial features such as eskers, moraines and buried bedrock valleys. Topsoil is characterised by medium textured, shallow, Black Chernozem soils (Figure 20) (Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, 2015). Strongly linked to climate and parent material, the Chernozemic topsoils are derived from grassland vegetation over clay till with low to moderate permeability. When these topsoils are stripped of their vegetative cover during construction they are prone to wind erosion at any time of year and water erosion when temperatures are above freezing. Between 10 and 30% of the soils in the north east part of the City are

Alberta border

Calgary

Cordilleran Ice Sheet

Laurentide Ice Sheet

Figure 19. Continental glaciers across Canada deposited clay till soils and created glacial meltwater topography between 14,000 to 10,000 years before present. (Source: Canada, 1973, p. 31-32)

Figure 20. Soil groups of Southern Alberta. (Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, 2015)

Solonetzic (Alberta Government, 2009). (Figure 21) Large deposits of river cobbles, gravel and sand can be found in the alluvial aquifers in the valleys that contain the region’s present-day rivers (Beaty, 1975; Pugin, Oldenborger, Cummings, Russell, & Sharpe, 2014) as well as buried pre-glacial valley fills that commonly function as aquifers (Cummings, Russell, & Sharpe, 2012).

Figure 21. Solonetzic soils of Southern Alberta. (Source: Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, 2009)

The history of glaciations and the dense clay soils that were left behind contributes to the difficulty of implementing LID in the Calgary area. Surface storage and subsequent evaporative losses over large areas can account for a significant portion of stormwater return to the natural hydrological cycle. Urban development does not lend itself toward large areas of shallow, open water to enable evaporative loss. Other strategies such as water re-use may need to be employed

4.4 Climate and Weather –Temperature, Precipitation and Chinook Winds

The climate in Calgary is cold temperate continental (Nkemdirim, 1996). Mean annual temperature is + 4.4 0C, with average winter minimum of -130C and average summer maximum of 23 0C. Extremes of temperature range from -45 0C to +36 0C (Environment Canada, 2014a). Lying in the rain shadow of the Rocky Mountains, in

the semi-arid area of southern Alberta, Calgary’s annual total precipitation is low, but the mountains to the west collect winter snow that melts and recharges mountain-block aquifers that supply base flow to the rivers’ headwaters year round (Cantafio & Ryan, 2014). (See Figure 22).

4.4.1 Precipitation

Historically in Alberta, about 48% of average annual precipitation is received through the July-August period. Growing season precipitation comes from isolated thundershowers (convective precipitation) or widely dispersed upslope cyclonic systems (low pressure frontal precipitation combined with topographic precipitation (Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, 2009)).

Extreme weather caused by intense air mass thunderstorms can cause high volume rainfall, leading to local flooding conditions. However, high frequency, low volume events make up more than 90% of the average annual precipitation (Urbonas & Roesner, 1993, cited in Marsalek & Schreier, 2009).

Figure 23 illustrates that on average, in Calgary 260.9 (71%) of days per year have no rain and 92% of days per year have 5mm or less. Conventional stormwater systems are built to handle the floods, while irrigation is required to mitigate the droughts.Low Impact Development is best suited to managing the low intensity or duration rainfall events. In the Calgary region, where extremes of temperature and precipitation intensity exist, it is necessary to design stormwater infrastructure to manage the large events so that urban flooding can be minimized. These larger event cannot be contained by LID systems, without undue amounts of land dedicated to local surface storage. A parallel system of conventional stormwater infrastructure is often needed to handle the less common, larger events. However, pilot projects and research indicate that the conventional stormwater infrastructure can be downsized when they are designed along with LID systems.

Figure 22. Total annual precipitation in Alberta and Saskatchewan. (Demuth, Pietroniro, Grasby, & Spence, 2008, slide 5)

Figure 23. Frequency of days with rainfall and depth of rain. (Source: Van Duin, 2013).

4.4.2 Finite Water Supply and Growing Population

The combination of the finite water supply that is produced by Calgary’s location in the rain shadow of the Rocky Mountains, plus the growing population has resulted in increasing awareness that the per-capita demand on water needs to be reduced.

An extract from the Profile of the South Saskatchewan Region by the Government of Alberta summed up the state of water in Southern Alberta in 2009:

“Water in Southern Alberta stands to be the limiting factor on future population and economic growth. Due to a combination of history, climate, geographic factors, and patterns of settlement, the region faces challenges in matching water demand with water supply. “In dry years, for short periods, peak demand for water can exceed the supply of water available for use in Alberta. In very dry years, demand for water can exceed the volume of water available in some rivers for extended periods. Water stored in reservoirs during the spring, or carried over from the previous year, can help meet the water demands of licenced allocations, the aquatic environment and the water- sharing agreement with Saskatchewan” (Alberta Government, 2009, p. 64) 4.4.3 Chinook Winds Calgary is in the Chinook belt on the leeward side of the Rocky Mountains (Figure 24).The Chinook is a warm, sometimes gusty wind that blows down the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains to the western prairies. It is caused by warm, moist air from the Pacific Ocean that is forced to rise over the Rocky Mountains with the prevailing winds. Adiabatic cooling removes moisture from the air on the windward side of the Rockies, then adiabatic heating warms the air as it descends on the leeward side. On the ground, warming is experienced when the Chinook winds reach the surface - the trough of the wave in Figure 25. The rapid increase in temperature, between 10 to 20 degrees Celsius within several hours, is accompanied by an equally rapid decrease in relative humidity (Nkemdirim, 1996).

When a Chinook wind is blowing, a distinctive cloud formation known as a “Chinook arch” usually forms in the western sky (Figure 26). Snow may melt or evaporate through sublimation. Rivers and lakes may lose their ice cover. From November through February, the Calgary area can have close to 50 days with some influence of Chinooks, defined as a temperature increase that lasts from one hour to a few days. In

winter when the effect of the Chinook passes, an arctic air mass returns and temperatures may plummet to well below freezing. This freeze-thaw cycle can occur as many as 30 times over a winter. Chinooks increase the temperature the most in the coldest months of the year, but can occur in any season (Nkemdirim, 1996).

Figure 24. Chinook zone in Figure 25. A schematic diagram of Chinook winds Southern Alberta. across the Rocky Mountains. (Source: Alberta Agriculture and (Source: Nkemdirim, 1996 p. 446) Rural Development, 2009)

Figure 26. A 1800 view of a Chinook arch at sunset, just west of Calgary. When a Chinook arch appears in the western sky, strong winds and warmer temperatures can be expected (Photo credit: S. Ryan, 2012)

The impact of Chinooks is unique to the Southern Alberta (and Montana) regions of North America. The frequent and dramatic temperature changes can contribute to flooding if natural infiltration systems are frozen when a Chinook arrives. LID must be adapted to this, and some LID strategies will not function well, or will be very expensive to build and maintain. The Chinook winds, drought/flood cycles also pose exceptional problems to stormwater designers, who must overcome dramatic temperature and moisture conditions, on a seasonal and often daily basis.

4.4.4 Impact of Climate Change

Projections of climate variability have been well studied in the prairie provinces. Barrow & Yu (2005) reviewed five representative climate change scenarios for Alberta and concluded that Alberta is likely to experience an increase in annual mean temperatures, growing degree-days, and precipitation by 2050. The increased

precipitation is out-weighed by the increased average temperature, which could create decreased annual moisture index. Some climate change models include the possibility of growing-season temperatures increase with or without increases in summer precipitation (Demuth et al., 2008). Annual snow pack accumulation in the Rocky Mountains is expected to diminish, with spring melt happening sooner in the spring (Schindler & Donahue, 2005).

The City’s stance on climate change is that it is occurring. Policies and practices to compensate for changing conditions are being adopted to add resiliency to Calgary’s water management. “With an increase in severe weather patterns, including floods and droughts, decreasing freshwater resources and increasing land use changes, Calgary is becoming increasingly vulnerable to climatic changes” (City of Calgary, 2009a p. 2- 43). The rate of melt of the glaciers, and total annual precipitation and annual snow accumulation in the Rocky Mountains may impact the City’s and province’s annual water supply, and/or seasonal distribution. A number of studies on urban water systems warn of a potential water crisis or include discussions of the value of “green infrastructure” including LID (Foster, Lowe, & Winkelman, 2011; Gan, 2000; Percy, 2005; Schindler & Donahue, 2006). The City of Calgary includes the potential impacts of climate change as one more reason to decrease impermeable surface area and incorporate LID in stormwater management to improve watershed health (City of Calgary, 2009a, p. 2-43). In summary, current city policies include an awareness of potential changes due to climate variability and the potential impact on water supply, especially peak day demand.

4.5 Natural/Pre-development Surface Drainage

The glacial history, topography, sub-soil stratigraphy, present day semi-arid climate and deep rooted prairie vegetation combine to create natural drainage with very low annual discharge volumes from 5 to 20 mm, or about 2-5% of total annual precipitation (Nose Creek Watershed Partnership, 2013). There are some areas of noncontributing surface drainage such as the wetland basins that dominate West Nose Creek watershed, or the saline sloughs that dominate the east side of the City in the Shepard Corridor.

Figure 27 illustrates the drainage basins in the Calgary area. Note that only the Elbow River and Bow River originate in the Rocky Mountains. The others are small watersheds that originate in the semi-arid region and do not have mountain snow-pack to sustain their base flow.

Bow River Elbow River Fish Creek Nose Creek Western Headworks Shepard Wetland Pine Creek City limits

Figure 27. Watersheds in the Calgary Region (City of Calgary, 2013b, p. 14)

In the Calgary region snow accumulations tend to be minor due to sublimation or melting caused by Chinook winds (Environment Canada, 2014a). The watersheds that originate in the prairies – Nose Creek, Pine Creek, Fish Creek, Shepard Wetland Corridor – have hydrological regimes that reflect this low snow accumulation and low annual precipitation. Figure 28 illustrates the wetlands that dominated the growth region of Calgary in 2012. These wetlands were large enough to be classified as natural area wetlands that fell within the environmental reserve classification when the Calgary Wetland Conservation Plan was approved by City Council in 2004. Calgary has lost over 90% of the wetlands that existed within the current City boundaries before urbanization. The wetlands are illustrative of the low drainage density and the extent of the areas with noncontributing drainage or wetland complexes. These wetlands generally do not spill over to the creeks, except during higher than average rainfall. When large areas of noncontributing or marginally contributing drainage area become hydrologically connected to the receiving waters with impermeable urban infrastructure it is difficult to design LID systems so that they will contain the natural rainfall close to its source and maintain discharge volumes that will mimic the natural hydrology. Stormwater infrastructure designers who are including LID must optimize the LID systems, include parallel traditional systems and be creative with solutions.

Figure 29 illustrates the noncontributing areas of the Nose Creek watershed, which straddles the north boundary of Calgary. The Nose Creek Watershed Water Management Plan (NCWMP) recommended the use of LID to reduce the impact of ever-increasing urban stormwater. The surface hydrology of this prairie watershed is influenced by low precipitation caused by the location in the rain shadow of the Rocky Mountains, the gently rolling topography, and the low permeable clay subsoils. This results in low average annual runoff depths as illustrated by the green isopleths in Figure 30. Areas that contain significant areas of internal drainage produce annual runoff per unit area that is reduced still farther. The difficulty of managing the quality and quantity of agricultural and urban runoff into Nose Creek as the watershed

Figure 28. Calgary area wetlands, outside city limits. (Source: City of Calgary, 2012a, p. 3)

Nose Creek Watershed Boundary Noncontributing Drainage Areas Paved Road Gravel Road Unimproved Road Alberta Township Survey Grid

Figure 29. Areas of noncontributing drainage in Nose Creek and West Nose Creek sub-basins. (Source: Palliser Environmental Services Ltd., 2007, p. 5)

Median Annual Unit Runoff (decametres3/km2) of Canadian Cities, for comparison  Calgary 10-20  Edmonton 20-30  Saskatoon 10-15  Winnipeg 40-50  Toronto ~ 300  Ottawa ~ 350  Montreal ~500  Halifax ~ 1200  Vancouver ~1500 3 2 Unit runoff in dam /km )

Figure 30. Median annual unit runoff in Southern Alberta & comparison with Canadian Cities (Source: Cole, 2013)

transitioned from agriculture to urban development became a significant contributing factor to Calgary’s adoption of LID. This is discussed further in Chapter 6.

The City of Calgary’s calculations for annual runoff depth are consistent with the work of Cole (2013) and estimate that the natural runoff depth is from 5-20 mm per unit area, depending on the characteristics of the local watershed. For instance, in the Nose Creek watershed on the north edge of Calgary, approximately 25% of the pre- development area had internal drainage, and the runoff to Nose Creek was measured in the range of 5mm per unit area. Nose Creek is vulnerable to erosion if sustained volume increases in urban stormwater discharge are permitted. Pine Creek, on the south edge of Calgary, has similar characteristics. For areas of Calgary that drain directly to the Bow River, the City of Calgary assumes the more generous 20 mm depth of runoff per unit area (van Duin, Personal communication. 2013).

4.6 Summary of Physical Geography Challenges

The physical setting of Calgary and Southern Alberta is challenging to practitioners of LID. The dense clay soils, drought tolerant native vegetation, post glacial topography and semi-arid, cold climate interspersed with Chinook winds, were originally thought of as barriers to implementation and still present significant challenges. Chapters 5 and 6 discuss the regulatory changes that occurred at the federal, provincial, regional and city level to enable changes in stormwater management that had been engrained in practice for millennia. Chapter 7 discusses the changes that have occurred in the awareness and understanding of stormwater volume control limits and LID practices in the City of Calgary.

Chapter 5: Regulatory Framework for Stormwater Management Change – Federal, Provincial and Watershed Levels

This chapter is an in-depth study of the regulatory framework that forms the background to Calgary’s inclusion of LID in stormwater management. Since Alberta joined Confederation in 1905, there have been major changes in the way natural resources, including water, have been viewed and managed. The transitions between various phases of water management receive particular attention

The policy, legislative and regulatory developments that led up to Calgary adopting LID source control practices are long and complex. It entails the transition from treating water as an inexhaustible resource that was plentiful enough for all users, to an awareness that wise use of water will be critical for Calgary’s continued growth and viability. The past 30 years have also included social movements and engagement with multiple levels of government toward environmental awareness and balancing economic growth with environmentally sustainable development. Complete analysis of all of the events, policies, legislation, and regulations that led to Calgary’s adoption of LID is beyond the scope of this thesis. The following discussion includes selected key pieces of federal, provincial and regional/watershed policies, legislation, and regulations that were influential in the move away from conventional stormwater management.

Figure 31 illustrates the iterative nature of watershed management decision-making processes for the key pieces of regulatory activity. A high proportion of people who worked on any given stormwater management initiative worked on more than one of the others, so the work and networking that was occurring in one process was usually reflected in others that were being developed at the same time. The effect of this long list of federal, provincial and watershed-level Acts, policies, plans, guidelines and regulations is that the City of Calgary has the authority and has accepted the role to develop the expertise and regulatory framework for sustainable stormwater management. Calgary’s stormwater discharge not only complies with federal and provincial statutes, but also establishes Calgary as a leader in environmentally

sustainable urban stormwater management. The federal, provincial and watershed- level transitions prepared the way for the dramatic changes that have occurred it Calgary’s stormwater management processes in the fifteen years between 1999 and 2014. An in-depth look at Calgary’s regulatory process in those fifteen years is discussed in Chapter 6.

In the discussion that follows, the first time each element represented in the Flow Chart is discussed, it appears in bold letters. The different jurisdictions are colour coded (federal, provincial, watershed, ENGO, and Calgary) according to the key in Figure 31. The flow charts that appear in Chapters 5 and 6 are nested and overlapping. Dates are included to assist in cross-referencing the times when various initiatives occurred.

5.1 Federal Level The question of ownership and management of water has been an important one in Alberta’s history. The British North America Act (1867) granted the original four provinces the right to own and therefore control and manage natural resources, including water. During Canada’s first century resource extraction was paramount in development of the country and water resources were deemed to be plentiful enough for all needs. Policy and legislation reflected this paradigm. In pre-confederation Alberta there was enough water for the burgeoning agriculture and pioneer populations, but it had to be moved from the rivers to the land by way of an extensive network of irrigation canals. This was facilitated with the Northwest Irrigation Act of 1894. Alberta did not join Confederation until 1905 and the federal government continued to own the water in the Prairie Provinces until 1930 so that the federal government “could oversee the national goals of populating the west” (Collections Canada, 2001). The Alberta Natural Resource Act of 1930 transferred the ownership and administration of natural resources to Alberta (Government of Canada, 1930).

The environmental movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s sparked an increased awareness of environmental degradation and led to the establishment of the Canadian

April 1, 2014

Figure 31. Federal, provincial and watershed regulatory process.

Department of the Environment in 1970 and the laws and regulations that started to limit previously unfettered resource extraction (Winfield, 1994).

In the Prairie Provinces, water quality objectives were first established on major rivers where they cross Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba borders under various interprovincial, and international treaties such as the Master Agreement on Apportionment (Governments of Canada, Alberta, Saskatchewan, & Manitoba, 1969). Since then, provincial water quality objectives have been developed that apply throughout the rest of the provinces including Water Quality Objectives and Guidelines (Environment Canada, 2014c).

Until recently, stormwater discharge was not mentioned directly in Federal legislation but it was (and still is) covered under water quality legislation. Some over-riding legislation that affects stormwater quality is managed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada. The original Fisheries Act of 1985 prohibits serious harm to fish, or permanent alteration to, or destruction of fish habitat (Government of Canada, 1985).

Apart from the water quality guidelines established under the Fisheries Act, there appear to be no Federal regulations that specifically mention stormwater on its own. Wastewater System Effluent Regulations that were released under the Fisheries Act in 2012 “…take the first step toward managing combined sewer overflows.” (Environment Canada, 2013b). The regulations require operators to take samples of the effluent, determine the concentrations of the carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand and the source of total suspended solids. However, as with water quality guidelines, specific targets are left up to the provinces to regulate (Environment Canada, 2013b, Sections 12 & 13).

The Federal Water Policy (Environment Canada, 1987a) states that the Federal Government is “… prepared to support provincial initiatives that support demand management, conservation technology; undertake and promote research into improving and understanding drought; and encourage an integrated approach to

planning and managing the augmentation of water supplies.” (Environment Canada, 1987b). The Federal Water Policy led to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA)10 and Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines that were established by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), 1999). CEPA provides a national strategy for pollution prevention and environmental protection, but relies on voluntary programs to achieve its goals (Shapiro & Summers, 2015).

Under the mandate set out by the Federal Water Policy, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) conducted significant research on what they refer to as “water sensitive urban design” and “alternative stormwater management” from 2001 to 2009 (CMHC, 2014a), as discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3. Recent work by CMHC has tended toward partnerships on provincially and municipally-led projects.

With regard to water quantity conservation, the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy of 2010 includes Target 4.1: Water Resource Management and Use. The goal is to promote the conservation and wise use of water to effect a 30 per cent reduction or increased efficiency in water use in various sectors by 2025 (based on 2009 water use levels) (Environment Canada, 2010). How these targets are met is also left up to the provincial governments. There is an ongoing debate over federal versus provincial sovereignty over water management and “… some stakeholders do not perceive increased federal involvement in water management to be either appropriate or desirable” (Bakker, 2007, p. 4). In the early 1990s the lack of an update to the Federal Water Policy, and the fragmentation and underfunding of water-related activities led to the federal government assembling a “Where’s Water?” team to determine if the federal government was fulfilling its legal responsibilities

There is ongoing criticism among scientist and academics about underfunding of national water management strategies and dismantling of water (and other) research

10 The Canadian Environmental Protection Act was subsequently reviewed and dramatically weakened by the Federal Government in 2012

facilities. In recent years the Federal government has moved away from research, and toward supplying limited funding for partnerships with other jurisdictions on pilot projects that may “reach higher standards of air, water and soil quality and climate protection”. For example the Government of Canada endowed the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) with $550 million to establish the Green Municipal Fund™ to assist with infrastructure upgrades in municipalities across Canada (Environment Canada, 2014b). In January, 2015 FCM announced updates to the Green Municipal Fund that would take effect April 1, 2015. Among other changes, loans for projects which now constitute 80 per cent of costs to a maximum of $10 million with a 20 per cent grant limit, will decrease to a maximum of $5 million, with a grant limit of 15 per cent (Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2015).

Recent revisions to the Environmental Assessment Act (2012) have been highly criticized by scientists and academics, many of whom had previously applauded federal environmental law. Gibson (2012) pulls no punches with his opinion. A quote from the abstract of his article, aptly titled “In full retreat: the Canadian government's new environmental assessment law undoes decades of progress”, summarizes the opinion generally held among people who have been arguing in favour of the environmental protection laws for the past few decades:

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012, which came into force on 6 July 2012, virtually eliminates the core of federal-level environmental assessment in Canada. Under the new law, federal environmental assessments will be few, fragmentary, inconsistent and late. Key decision-making will be discretionary and consequently unpredictable. Much of it will be cloaked in secrecy. The residual potential for effective, efficient and fair assessments will depend heavily on requirements under other federal legislation and on the uneven diversity of provincial, territorial and Aboriginal assessment processes.

It is beyond the scope of this thesis to assess the impact of this dramatic change in federal environmental law on the stormwater management of Calgary. However, in future years, it will be important to see whether this change of priorities at the federal level impacts provincial and municipal management of water resources, or if the

changes succeed in de-tangling the regulatory confusion over water quality jurisdiction.

Despite this recent change in federal law, previous work on stormwater by federal agencies such as the CMHC, and the current funding initiatives such as the Green Municipal Fund illustrate the multi-jurisdictional and multi-disciplinary nature of stormwater management, and the regional nature of the specific applications. Since provincial governments retain ownership and management responsibility of water resources in Canada, provincial water legislation has had a more direct impact on changes to stormwater management best practices and the use of LID in Calgary.

5.2 Provincial and Intra Provincial Regulatory Process Involved with Water Management

Figure 32. Clarifying legal water terminology

In Alberta legislation, stormwater is not defined in provincial legislation. Storm drainage is any precipitation that reaches the ground and comes under the same legislation as all other surface water. The right to use surface water is controlled under the Water Act and requires a water allocation permit. In Alberta legislation, rainwater is defined as precipitation (rain or snow) that has not reached the ground. It can be harvested after it is intercepted by roofs and other structures, then captured in a rain barrel or cistern. Rainwater is not regulated under the Water Act. The significance of the different treatment of rainwater and storm drainage is discussed further in Chapter 7.

Continued next page . . .

. . . continued from previous page

Some Alberta Guidelines (incorrectly) use the term “stormwater” instead of “storm drainage”, which adds to the confusion at the levels of municipal communication. Calgary policies and bylaws use the term “storm drainage” but most communication that is intended for the general public, and some more official documents use the term “stormwater”. Consequently the two terms “storm drainage” and “stormwater” have come to mean the same thing in most instances. I use the term “stormwater” rather than “storm drainage” most of the time, because it is the most commonly used term in the academic literature. I use the term “storm drainage” in this discussion of provincial water regulations, in deference to the legal Alberta use of the term.

5.2.1 The First Century: Era of Resource Extraction The first century of European settlement in Alberta was characterised by resource extraction. Legislation that dealt with water management was geared toward allocation of Alberta’s fresh water for irrigation, municipal, industrial, and domestic uses. The Northwest Irrigation Act (1894) and Water Resources Act (1931) worked in tandem to distribute water from the rivers to the land. As noted previously, water has been owned by the province since 1930. The province grants the right to use water under a system of licences through which priority of use is determined by the date of a complete application (Water Act, Part 3)11. This is referred to as “first in time- first in right” (FIT-FIR). Licences were granted with the assumption that, for at least 50% of the time, there would be enough water in the river to fulfill all of the licenced allocations.

11 Some water use has never required a licence, in particular specific volume of water for “exempted agricultural use” and “household purposes”. (Water Act. Part 3, Sections 19 & 21 respectively).

Water supply and demand in the prairies is seasonal. More than 80% of the Alberta river discharge comes in spring and early summer, as a result of runoff from snow and glacial melt from the Rocky Mountains and foothills. The highest demand for water is during the growing season from June to August. During the early part of the 20th Century a series of dams and reservoirs were built to help capture the spring melt, so that the water could be used for irrigation, to generate hydro-electric power and also for municipal and industrial use – both consumption and waste assimilation (Pentney & Ohrn, 2008). The dams and reservoirs have the added benefit of augmenting winter flows in the Bow River, as well as attenuating medium-sized floods (ibid, p. 383)12.

Mark Winfield (1994) and Judy Stewart (2014) characterize the time up to the mid- 1980s as the “allocation of resources era.” Water was considered a renewable resource with a virtually unlimited supply available to anyone who applied for a licence. In addition to the Water Resources Act and the Irrigation Act, Stewart discusses the following Acts that were enacted during the allocation of resources era: the Public Lands Act, Municipal Government Act, and Forest Act. Winfield discusses a number of Acts passed during the 1970s that included environmental protection in their mandate, but were not acted upon, due to the over-riding social acceptance of economic development over environmental protection (Winfield, 1994). This perspective is further discussed in Section 5.2.6.

5.2.2 Transition from Resource Extraction to Environmental Management

Recognition that there was not enough water to satisfy all future needs in the South Saskatchewan River Basin came after the construction of the Gardiner and Qu’Appelle River Dams in Saskatchewan. The resulting Diefenbaker Lake was filled in 1967 and Saskatchewan demanded its share of water from Alberta to satisfy the demand created

12 The flood of June, 2013 illustrated that large floods could still occur, and the proximity of Calgary to the Rocky Mountains means that there can be less than a day’s notice, with certain weather conditions (Reynolds et al., 2014).

by the reservoir13. The Prairie Provinces Water Board (PPWB) includes the governments of the three prairie provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba plus the government of Canada. The Master Agreement on Apportionment (MAA) was signed between these four governments in 1969 and states that Alberta will pass 50% of the water that rises naturally in Alberta on to Saskatchewan and “gave recognition to the problem of water quality”. Schedule E of this document is a Water Quality Agreement describing the role of the PPWB in interprovincial water quality management and establishing PPWB Water Quality Objectives for 11 interprovincial river reaches. This Schedule became part of the MAA in 1992. The Agreement is regularly referred to in discussions of water management in Alberta (Prairie Provinces Water Board, 1969, revised 2009).

The MAA may have marked the beginning of the end of supply-management in Alberta, but it was not until the mid-1980s that the limits of the water resource caused a re-thinking of how water was to be allocated within Alberta and the impact of un- managed water pollution. While water is a renewable resource, it is not an unlimited resource. In 1984, The South Saskatchewan River Basin Planning Program (SSRBPP) was the first attempt at modeling Southern Alberta’s water supply with the goal of better management. The report states:

“Over the past 15 years [1970 to 1984], Alberta has passed, on an average, 83% of the natural flow of the river system on to Saskatchewan each year, rather than the minimum 50% required. This indicates that our current problems are a consequence of periodic seasonal imbalances in the supply and use of water, rather than an overall shortage of water, and can be remedied by increased storage and more intense management of the regulation and use of the water in the system.” (Alberta Environment, 1984, p. 3)

The SSRBPP acknowledged that in the southern portions of the province, major consumptive uses of water were irrigation and waste loadings from the larger urban centres. Irrigation is directly consumptive, with less and less water returned to the river as return flow, as irrigation efficiencies increase (Irrigation Water Management Study

13 Lake Diefenbaker holds more water than all the storage reservoirs in Alberta, combined.

Committee, 2002a; Pentney & Ohrn, 2008). Municipal use is licensed as a consumptive use, even though more water is returned annually to the river through the waste treatment plants than is withdrawn to use in the potable water system. Municipal water use was classified as consumptive because during the time when most of the municipal licences were issued, urban waste water pollution loading had the potential to interfere with downstream users’ ability to use the untreated water. In addition, water withdrawals in summer, when the rivers are at their lowest, tend to be higher than return flows. The SSRBPP report states that “even a modest increase in irrigation and urban population will require more costly works and intensified management of the supply, use and quality of the water in the river system if we are to continue to serve the diversity of uses that depend on this resource.” (Alberta Environment, 1984, p. 3)

The SSRBPP developed a number of scenarios that illustrated a range of strategy options. The trade-offs proposed in the scenarios included “limiting the allocation of water to irrigation in order to maintain a viable sports fishery; spending more on sewage treatment so that more water could be withdrawn for irrigation (emphasis added); sacrificing a reach of river and valley land with value for recreation, agriculture or wildlife habitat in order to develop a reservoir to store water and regulate streamflow for irrigation, fish habitat and water quality protection; and limiting water-dependent development in one region in favour of another” (ibid, p. 5).

The acknowledgement that more money should be spent on sewage treatment marked the acknowledgement that dilution was no longer the solution to pollution in Alberta waterways. It marked the beginning of development of water quality targets for sanitary sewage discharges that were later applied to storm drainage. The realization that more intensive management and regulation was needed “signals a shift in our understanding of the planning and management requirements of the South Saskatchewan system.” (ibid p. 42)

5.2.3 Public Engagement

SSRBPP scenarios and reports were taken to the public for consultation and input in 1984 and 1985. The Alberta Water Resources Commission (AWRC)14 conducted a series of public hearings in ten communities throughout the Alberta portion of the Saskatchewan River Basin to elicit input, feedback and buy-in. There were 233 submissions by a wide variety of presenters: rural municipalities; urban municipalities from summer villages to large cities; agriculture and energy industries; regional planning commissions; ENGOs; water sport, hunting and fishing clubs; individuals; every irrigation district and numerous water co-ops; First Nations; and one postsecondary school (Alberta Water Resources Commission, 1985). Most presentations expressed concern regarding potential water shortages and optimism that innovative technologies and management could provide solutions. The presenters also expressed a desire for cooperation among water users, a need for multi-purpose use, protection of water resources, security of supply, pollution protection, and a need to protect the water resources and accompanying environment for present and future generations.

The nine-page submission from Calgary was presented by (then) Mayor Ralph Klein. The submission lists then discusses the City’s four basic water objectives as:

1. Future security of our water supply; 2. To continue to use the Bow River to assimilate treated sewage effluents and stormwater runoff; 3. To take advantage of the recreational potentials and visual amenities offered by our rivers; and 4. To minimize the risk of loss of life or property damage due to flood flows.

(City of Calgary, 1984)

Despite “stormwater runoff” assimilation being listed as a priority, there is no discussion about it in the latter part of the submission. Rather, the City focuses its

14 See Appendix 5A for a brief description of the composition and role of the AWRC.

attention on the reduction in water quality that is caused by increased withdrawals for agricultural irrigation. Options for increased removal of contaminants from the City’s sanitary waste water discharge were discussed briefly.

After the public hearings were finished, Alberta Water Resources Commission published Water Management in the SSRB: Report and Recommendations (Alberta Water Resources Commission, 1985). In Southern Alberta this document was a key focus during the public consultation that led to the Water Act (see Section 5.2.7).

5.2.4 Era of Resource Management

The SSRBPP hearings sparked a number of changes in provincial water policy. A Significant among these was the establishment of Instream Flow Needs (IFN) and Instream Flow Objectives (IFO). IFNs and IFOs were created for various at-risk sections of the major rivers in Alberta. This limited the amount of water that could be withdrawn by water licence holders. Enough water had to remain in the rivers to maintain a viable ecosystem15. Interestingly, at that time in Alberta’s water history, there was more concern to increase the volume of water in the rivers, and little awareness about the detrimental effect of increased discharges caused by urban stormwater runoff16. The increasing competition for water supply among water users, particularly irrigation demand for withdrawal and municipal dependence on waterways for dilution of pollution, was highlighted during the hearings. Since then, irrigation efficiency has increased, and municipalities have been required to reduce their pollution load on the rivers. Irrigation districts have increased the acreage that they

15 Water Conservation Objectives for the Saskatchewan River Basin were eventually developed from these concepts during development of the South Saskatchewan Regional Plans 2014-2024(Pentney & Ohrn, 2008).

16 A large amount of research was conducted by the Alberta Government and Universities of Calgary and Edmonton on increasing total runoff from the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains. Research projects in Marmot Creek (Swanson, Golding, Rothwell, & Bernier, 1986), Grease Creek (Alberta Environment & Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife, 1986) and other small basins focused on reducing the melting, evaporation and sublimation caused by Chinooks with optimal patterns of clear cuts to increase the snow pack and subsequent spring runoff.

service, and municipalities have increased the population that they support with the efficiencies.

The link between water quality and increased withdrawals (i.e. less quantity of water left in the river) was also defined and brought to the forefront of other water policy discussions such as the Water Quality Objectives.

5.2.5 Era of Integrated Water Resource Management

At the International Conference on Water and the Environment, held in Dublin in 1992, the Global Watershed Partnership defined Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) as “a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems and the environment.”(Agarwal & et al, 2000, p. 22) Stewart (2014) refers to “adaptive co-management” and points to the progression of Alberta legislation from the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) to the Municipal Government Act (MGA), the Water Act, and eventually the Alberta Land Stewardship Act, 2008. The concept of land management impacting water quality is one with which the provincial government continues to grapple.

5.2.6 Water Quality

The EPEA, which was proclaimed and implemented in 1992, was an amalgamation of legislation intended to protect the quality of air, land and water in Alberta, and deals with the release of substances into the environment. This Act enables the development and enforcement of new regulations and guidelines that can be updated within the provincial department structure without seeking legislative approval. Water Quality Based Effluent Limits passed in 1999 required municipalities to treat their storm drainage to comply with the Surface Water Quality Guidelines for Use in Alberta (Alberta Environment, 1999). The regulations have become more stringent over the years and have been updated several times. Total Loading Management Plan

(Government of Alberta in Golder Associates, 2007) limits the Total Suspended Solids (TSS) that can be discharged by a municipality. Most municipalities responded by installing storm drainage ponds as end-of-pipe treatment for new developments. These ponds slow down the urban storm drainage, allowing suspended sediments to settle. Approximately 80 or 90% of the pollutants are also removed, as they adhere to the suspended sediments (Fesko, 2011). Storm drainage and treatment ponds are less effective at removing the very fine sediments that make up a significant proportion of sediments in Calgary stormwater. Note that TSS removal does little or nothing for the oil and grease from roads and highways, or dissolved nutrients (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, 2014a)

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Development (ESRD) continues to have the regulatory mandate to manage water that serves large public systems in Alberta, in accordance with the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waterworks, Wastewater and Storm Drain Systems. “ESRD’s objective is to develop comprehensive and scientifically defensible standards and guidelines that are effective, reliable, achievable and economically affordable.” (Alberta Government, 2013, p. v).

The Stormwater Management Guidelines for the Province of Alberta (Alberta Environmental Protection, 1999) outline a basic framework for planning the development of stormwater management systems. The document deals with rural and urban drainage system considerations, four levels of drainage planning (from river basin planning to implementation), and discusses the merits of design standards for storm drainage facilities. In these guidelines, Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) include a number of practices that may be considered for stormwater quantity controls. The BMPs are grouped as source control, lot-level, conveyance system or end-of-pipe, and are described in terms of purpose, applicability, effectiveness, water quality, water quantity, and design considerations. Table 1 in Chapter 1 lists the BMPs that are included in the Alberta Guidelines. The Guidelines contain the building blocks for LID, at the beginning of research into applicability for water quality and quantity.

They are not requirements and sometimes identified as “still experimental”. The pre- amble to each techniques states that “with all development, the applicability of stormwater (BMPs) should be investigated before conveyance and end-of-pipe systems are examined” (Alberta Environmental Protection, 1999, p. 6-4).

Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waterworks, Wastewater and Storm Drainage Systems was released in 2006 and included a more detailed description of the same list of stormwater BMPs (Alberta Environment, 2006b). They are still just to “be investigated” by the municipality during stormwater system design. The most recent update is contained in the Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waterworks, Wastewater and Storm Drainage Systems, Section 5: Stormwater Management Guidelines (Alberta Government, 2013). This set of guidelines includes a section on stormwater BMPs that are defined as:

“methods of managing stormwater drainage for adequate conveyance and flood control and are economically acceptable to the community. BMPs are stormwater management methods that retain as much of the ‘natural’ runoff characteristics and infiltration components of the undeveloped system as possible and reduce or prevent water quality degradation” (Alberta Government, 2013, p. 5.4). However, this newest version of the Standards and Guidelines still includes “should be investigated” in the pre-amble to the descriptions of the BMPs. There appears to be a consensus among water management professionals that the Guidelines should be updated to require more specific inclusion of LID and/or other BMPs that address water quality and quantity issues ahead of the end-of-pipe treatment.

5.2.7 Water Quantity

While Alberta’s EPEA dealt with water quality, the problems caused by continued allocation of the water in Southern Alberta rivers was not dealt with under that Act. The problems of water quantity were covered in the Water Act, proclaimed in 1999. The Water Act “focuses on managing and protecting Alberta's water, while streamlining administrative processes”. Similar to other Alberta legislation, regulations, codes of practice and guidelines can be updated at the Ministerial level

without legislative approval (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, 2014c). The Water Act changed the way water could be managed in several significant ways. It recognized that the limits of water allocation had been reached (or exceeded during dry years) and established the option to close over- allocated river basins to new licence applications. To enable continued economic growth, a mechanism was established to enable water allocations to be moved from one purpose or location to another. In other words, water allocation licences need no longer be appurtenant to the land and water licences could be transferred between parcels of land. This allowed the beginning of a water licence market. A water allocation transfer can only occur where an approved water management plan is in place that allows transfers, or through an order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council that authorizes the transfer.

Stormwater is part of the water quantity equation. The Water Act clarifies the ownership of water by the provincial government, such that any precipitation that reaches the ground is owned by the province.

5.2.8 Water Management Plan for the South Saskatchewan River Basin (SSRB)

The 1999 Water Act enabled the creation of water management plans based on drainage basins, rather than the municipal boundaries that had been used before that time. Studies carried out to support the planning process showed that the rivers of the South Saskatchewan River Basin were highly allocated, new allocations would have a significant risk of not getting water in drier years, the aquatic environment of most reaches of the main rivers were ‘moderately, impacted, while some lower reaches were ‘heavily impacted’ or degraded’, recession of glaciers in the headwaters had become a high profile issue, and a possible indicator of climate change impacting future river flows (Pentney & Ohrn, 2008).

The Approved Water Management Plan for the South Saskatchewan River Basin (Alberta)(Alberta Environment, 2006a) acknowledged that demand had exceeded supply, and placed a moratorium on new water allocation licences in most of the

South Saskatchewan River Basin, including the Bow River Basin. Pentney and Ohrn (2008) give a detailed report of the development and approval of the SSRB Water Management Plan. They observe that “Good planning begins with a clear outcome in mind. An outcome provides focus and helps to organize information to make the process more efficient.” (Pentney & Ohrn, 2008, p. 393). In the case of the SSRB, the focus was on establishing how much water should remain in the river.

The net effect is that water collected in stormwater ponds is subject to the same laws as water in a natural wetland. i.e. a water licence must be obtained before water can be withdrawn from the stormwater pond and re-used for any purpose, including municipal use to irrigate park space in an effort to reduce stormwater discharge. The implications of the ownership of captured stormwater, the moratorium on water licences in the Bow River Basin, is discussed more fully in Chapter 7.

5.2.9 Managing Quality and Quantity together

The Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and the Water Act put the management of water quality and quantity under two different Acts and their regulations. To integrate implementation of the two Acts, Water For Life: Alberta’s Strategy for Sustainability (Water for Life) (Government of Alberta, 2003) was created under the guidance of (then MLA) Dr. Lorne Taylor. Water for Life recognized that there are limits to the available water supply. The web site for Water for Life summarized the Strategy as follows:

Water for Life is the Government of Alberta’s strategy for water. Introduced in 2003, it is one of the most comprehensive in North America. The strategy affects both water quality and quantity issues, as well as environmental concerns. It recognizes that the management and use of water involves not only economic and environmental aspects, but social ones as well. For example, the availability of safe, secure drinking water supplies is a part of the quality of life for Albertans (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, 2014b). Water for Life has three key goals and three key directions that are quoted in most water management documents in Alberta since Water for Life was released:

Key Goals

 Safe, Secure Drinking Water  Healthy aquatic ecosystems  Reliable quality water supplies for a sustainable economy

Key Directions

 Knowledge and Research  Partnerships  Water Conservation

The impact of Water for Life has been felt in numerous ways including formation of the Alberta Water Council in 2004, with a mandate to oversee implementation of the strategy and support achievement of the strategy’s outcomes (i.e. goals and directions, as listed above) (Alberta Water Council, 2005). The Alberta Water Council’s Executive Committee is comprised of one member from each of the broad categories as listed in Appendix 5B. The Council’s mission is to ‘provide leadership, expertise and sector knowledge to engage and empower industry, non-governmental organizations, and governments to achieve the outcomes of Water for Life. This is supported by the Council's values of “collaboration, fairness, innovation, respect, timeliness, transparency and trust.”(Alberta Water Council, nd).

Since its formation, the AWC has conducted or commissioned a number of studies, produced reports, given advice to Provincial Cabinet, and held symposiums and conferences on water management issues. Some of the most relevant reports for urban stormwater management include:

 Recommended Projects to Advance the Goal of Healthy Aquatic Ecosystems (Alberta Water Council, 2009)  Current State of Non-Point Source Pollution: Knowledge, Data, and Tools (CPP Environmental Corp., 2011)

 Non-Point Source Pollution: A Review of Policies, Practices and Regulations in Alberta and Other Jurisdictions (Sanderson & Griffiths, 2012)  Recommendations to Improve Non-Point Source Pollution Management in Alberta (Alberta Water Council, 2013a)

These reports and studies, among others, led to:

 Sector Planning for Water Conservation, Efficiency and Productivity (Alberta Water Council, 2013c)

Sector Planning was used by the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association (AUMA) to improve communication, understanding and ultimately inclusion of LID practices in communities throughout Alberta (Alberta Urban Municipalities Association, 2014). Members of the stormwater management community of Calgary have participated in these discussions and research projects. The Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership (ALIDP) has been active in supporting these initiatives in smaller communities outside Calgary. It is up to those communities to adopt stormwater practices that will meet the water quality targets set by the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, and its regulations. Municipal governments have the authority and responsibility to manage their land and water resources appropriately.

5.2.10 Municipal Government Act (MGA) and Alberta Land Stewardship Act (ALSA) Alberta’s Municipal Government Act gives municipal governments the authority to develop and adopt plans to “achieve the orderly, economical and beneficial development, use of land and patterns of human settlement, and to maintain and improve the quality of the physical environment within which patterns of human settlement are situated in Alberta” (Province of Alberta, 2014).

One purpose of a municipality as stated in s.3 (c) of the MGA is to “develop and maintain safe and viable communities.” The MGA provides enabling legislation so

that the City of Calgary could adopt a Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Policy17. Section 5 of the MGA gives a municipality “the duties that … the municipality imposes on itself as a matter of policy.” In 2003 Calgary worked toward a TBL Policy by requiring TBL components to be included in reports to Council committees, then a TBL Policy Framework was developed in 2004. The TBL approach was adopted for inclusion in all strategies and actions in 2005 (City of Calgary, 2005c)

The Alberta Land Stewardship Act (ALSA) (Province of Alberta, 2009) creates the legislative framework for the province to develop Regional Plans, based on major river basins. Under ALSA, local governments “affected by the regional plan must a) review its regulatory instruments, and b) decide what, if any new regulatory instruments or changes to regulatory instruments are required for compliance with the Regional Plan.” (ALSA, 2009. Division 3. S 20 & 21). The South Saskatchewan Regional Plan, 2014-2024 (SSRP) was approved early in 2014, and the City is taking steps to comply with water management issues that are addressed in SSRP. These policies are extensive. They address wetlands, degradation of water resources and protection of riparian lands (Alberta Government, 2014b).

5.2.11 Wetlands Management is Critical to Surface Hydrology Management in the Calgary Region We now know that wetlands play a major role in the natural surface hydrology in the Calgary region. As discussed in Chapter 4, clay soils, low annual precipitation and gently rolling (to almost flat) topography created a low drainage density, areas of noncontributing drainage area, dominated by slough/marsh wetlands. Significant areas of land are not hydraulically connected to the creeks and rivers. When large areas of land become hydraulically connected to the receiving waters by way of traditional storm drainage infrastructure, the hydrological regime, morphology and water quality of the rivers and creeks will be impacted downstream of the outfall. Thus, maintaining the wetland function for water storage and treatment is critical in prairie urban hydrology.

17 Triple Bottom Line is discussed more fully in Chapter 6. It is a City of Calgary Policy.

This understanding of the significance of wetlands has only become apparent since the mid to late 1980s. The prevailing wisdom before then had been that wetlands were an increasing nuisance to farming practices as machinery became larger; that is, wetlands were taking up valuable agricultural land and should be drained as efficiently as possible (Alberta Water Resources Commission, Alberta Agriculture, Alberta Environment, & Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife, 1986). One of the significant outcomes of the SSRBPP public hearings was the realization that wetlands in the province had to be managed differently, but that realization was a gradual process. In the late 1980s, during extensive public engagement about a potential wetland policy, it became apparent that the slough/marsh wetlands were disappearing at an alarming rate and this was impacting the ecological integrity of large areas of Alberta. (Alberta Water Resources Commission, 1990). To enable the province to manage wetlands more effectively, the AWRC created a classification system and inventory of Alberta wetlands (Alberta Water Resources Commission, 1990). This was followed with an investigation of the most efficient way to drain wetlands in the settled region of Alberta, while maintaining their ecological integrity (Alberta Water Resources Commission, W-E-R Engineering LTD, et al, 1992).

The importance of slough/march wetland in the biological and hydrological landscape of Alberta was acknowledged with the publication of Wetland Management in the Settled Area of Alberta: An Interim [Wetland]Policy (Alberta Water Resources Commission, 1993). The interim provincial Wetland Policy recommendations were developed in response to the loss of slough/marsh wetlands and the need for consistent direction to guide provincial departments in wetland management. Disagreement among provincial departments and political leaders about the merits and economic implications of protecting slough/marsh wetlands resulted in the interim policy remaining at the interim stage, with no regulatory strength, for the next decade. Attempts to clarify actions that should be taken when conflict occurs between land development and wetland protection led to the creation of the Provincial Wetland Restoration and Compensation Guide in 2007 (Alberta Environment, 2007). Both

the Interim Policy and the Wetland Compensation Guide established the wetland mitigation sequence, whereby wetlands should be avoided if possible, mitigation was the next best option, and if economics warranted the elimination of a wetland, compensation should be paid to the provincial government, to be put toward restoration or protection of other wetlands. In practice, wetland avoidance was seldom practiced and compensation for net loss of function was most commonly used (Clare, Krogman, Foote, & Lemphers, 2011; Clare, 2013) The Interim Wetland Policy remained in effect until 2013 when the Alberta Wetland Policy was approved by the provincial government (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, 2013a). Wetland protection under the 2013 policy is somewhat weaker than what was proposed in the interim policy due to the removal of the no-net-loss provisions that had been contained in the decade-old draft policy (White, 2013). The new Wetland Policy will only be implemented in the settled parts of Alberta effective after June 1, 2015.

In 1981, the City of Calgary had estimated that 78 per cent of the pre-settlement wetlands in Calgary had been lost 18 (City of Calgary, 2004a). To counteract this, the City of Calgary established its own Wetland Conservation Plan that attempted to reduce the wholesale drainage of wetlands that was occurring within City limits. The development of the City’s own wetland policy is enabled under the MGA as discussed in Section 6.6.3.

5.3 Sub-basin Watershed Management Plans

To address local watershed issues, several basin advisory councils (BACs) were formed during the 1990s. These BACS consisted of volunteers from ENGOs and local communities, paid staff from industry, municipalities and the provincial government. The structure and membership of the stewardship groups enabled cross-jurisdictional cooperation at the local level. Management plans for sub-basins were developed by local stewardship groups. Formation of the Bow River Basin Council (BRBC) pre-

18 Today, the estimate is closer to 90 per cent (City of Calgary, 2004b).

dated the SSRB Plan and as a result, many of the members of the BRBC played an important role in the development of the SSRB Plan (Pentney & Ohrn, 2008, p. 394). The sub-basin management plans that were most influential to the development of stormwater management policy in Calgary were developed for the Nose Creek Watershed Partnership that had been established in 1998. This and other local watershed management plans are discussed more fully in sections 5.3.3 and 5.3.4.

5.3.1 Basin Advisory Councils (BAC) become Watershed Planning Advisory Councils (WPAC)

In 2003, Water for Life formalized the BACs as Watershed Planning Advisory Councils (WPACs). They were given the mandate to assess the condition of their watershed and prepare plans to address watershed management issues. WPACs also have the mandate to conduct education and stewardship activities throughout their watershed. WPACs typically include representatives of key stakeholders in the watershed, including provincial, municipal and federal governments, important industrial sectors, stewardship groups, and aboriginal communities. They engage watershed residents in their work and seek consensus on solutions to watershed issues in the form of watershed management plans. WPACs operate with limited funding from the provincial government that is supplemented with fundraising, a skeletal staff and a broad volunteer base.

5.3.2 Bow River Basin Council – BAC, then WPAC for Bow River Basin As mentioned above, the Bow River Basin Council (BRBC) formed in 1992 and was classified as an advisory body to the provincial Minister of the Environment. The BRBC is a multi-stakeholder, non-profit society “that has the broad mandate of encouraging cooperative and effective strategies for water use management and environmental stewardship” (Bow River Basin Council, 2014). The current membership includes a variety of industries, watershed stewardship groups, non-profit organizations, individuals and three levels of governments, including the City of Calgary. In 2004, BRBC was acknowledged as the Watershed Planning Advisory

Council (WPAC) for the Bow River Basin by the Alberta Water Council. WPACs have no legislative mandate or authority, but act as watershed planners and advisors to government through consensus-based decisions. The variety of members who can collaborate under the umbrella of the Bow River Basin Council helps to break down the silos that have traditionally existed in resource management.

In 2006, BRBC started working on establishing surface water quality objectives of the Bow Basin Watershed Management Plan. Phase 1: Surface Water Quality (BBWMP) final version was released in 2008 and included recommendations identified by the technical committee as being the highest priority based on science for short-term implementation. The goals of the BBWMP were to:

1) protect and enhance the watershed;

2) recommend changes in public awareness and education, public policy, practice and regulation, and;

3) serve as a catalyst for proactive, voluntary action by land, water and resource managers.

The recommendations included implementing significant stormwater quality upgrades/ improvements within the City of Calgary. These were reiterated in BBWMP 2012 (BRBC, 2010, 2012). Figure 33 illustrates the broad cross section of membership who participated in development of the BBWMP. Figure 34 shows the different areas of expertise of the people who were part of the technical committee who provided expert advice to the Bow Basin Watershed Management Plan Committee.

Calgary City Council approved the BBWMP in 2008. Major initiatives undertaken by the City as direct and indirect results of this commitment are discussed in Chapter 6, Calgary’s regulatory process.

Alberta City of Calgary Wilderness Ducks Association Unlimited Irrigation Canada Rocky View Districts County Stoney Nakoda First Upstream Nation (observer) Municipalities Sustainable Resource Downstream Bow Basin Development Municipalities Watershed Bow River Management Alberta Environment Basin Council Plan Alberta Insfastructure and Transpartation Highwood Water Management Plan Alberta Agriculture and Rural Advisory Committee Development Technical Calgary River Commitee Elbow River Fisheries and Valleys (See Figure Watershed Oceans Canada Committee 33) Partnership

Federal Municipal Environ- Provincial First Watershed Key: Govern- Govern- mental Watershed Government Nation Planning Advisory ment ment NGO Council Stewardship

Figure 33. Membership in the development of the Bow Basin Watershed Management Plan.

Fish Habitat Water Quality Biologist Land Use & Regulatory Planner Analyst

Watershed Geoscientist Biologist

Fish and Wildlife Water Quality Program Manager Specialist

Federal Municipal University Key: Provincial Government Government Government of Calgary

Figure 34. Members of the technical committee for the BBWMP - all are members of the BRBC.

5.3.3 Nose Creek Watershed Partnership – Stewardship Group that Crosses Several Municipal Boundaries

The Nose Creek Watershed Partnership was formed in 1998 in response to increased agricultural, urban and industrial development that had put the quality and quantity of water in the Nose Creek watershed under pressure. It was becoming necessary for all municipalities in the watershed to collaborate in creating a management plan to deal with the deteriorating water quality.

The original terms of reference took several years to develop and listed the following issues:

 Urban and industrial activity has led to increased channelization, dam building, and stormwater/wastewater discharge, impacting water quality and riparian habitat in the watershed.

 Rural-agricultural activity (e.g., season-long livestock grazing) has, in some cases, impacted water quality and riparian habitat in the watershed.

 Nose Creek flows into the Bow River upstream of an important fishery in the Bow River and water withdrawals for the Western Irrigation District. The quantity and quality of flows in Nose Creek impact the Bow River and its uses.

 There is no local-level water management plan for the Nose Creek watershed in use by Alberta Environment for deciding whether to approve a transfer of an allocation of water, or issue an approval, preliminary certificate or licence. (Nose Creek Watershed Partnership Technical Committee & Alberta Environment, 2003, p. 8)

Terms of Reference for the NCWMP includes a 16 page summary of legislation, policies, plans, commitments and relevant information that were considered during developments of the terms of reference (Nose Creek Watershed Partnership Technical Committee & Alberta Environment, 2003, Appendix B). The Terms of Reference

specifically mentions the influence of the concurrent development of Water for Life, Calgary and Airdrie Urban Parks Plans, and Municipal and Intermunicipal Plans.

At the beginning of the study the main consideration was management of water to optimise allocation to licences for irrigation, while also meeting instream flow objectives for environmental sustainability. During the course of the investigation it became apparent that the problems of excess and chronic flooding, caused by ever- increasing impervious surfaces connected to the creek by stormwater pipes (i.e. hydological connectivity) was a big problem. The chronically increased discharge volumes threatened the small, meandering, often ephemeral creek. Erosion within the meander belt was starting to cause serious damage to infrastructure, and a prediction of millions of dollars to mitigate the damage (Westhoff Engineering Resources, 2003). Getting the volume under control was key, but there was no clear way of doing that – until 2004 when the Alberta Lake Management Society hosted a conference in Okotoks and Low Impact Development (LID) was introduced to Alberta (Martz, 2004). The BMPs of LID were soon adopted by the Nose Creek Watershed Planning Committee. The final report added ‘watershed’ to the title and credits the influence of the concurrent development of the Bow River Basin Watershed Management Plan with the new focus on reducing annual stormwater runoff volumes. LID BMPs were adopted in order to reduce runoff volumes, meet water quality targets and protect riparian areas. The Nose Creek Watershed Management Plan (NCWMP) was released in 2007 (Palliser Environmental Services Ltd., 2007).

Most of the people who participated in the NCWMP also participated in one or more of the other local watershed planning processes. Over the next few years, the Nose Creek watershed became the test case in the City of Calgary for volume control targets in sensitive watersheds.

5.3.4 Shepard Drainage Corridor – Collaborative Effort Required to Resolve Stormwater Issues

The history of the Shepard Drainage Corridor on the east side of Calgary parallels and is interwoven with the development of Calgary stormwater policy. The Shepard Corridor has become a proving-ground for new Calgary stormwater management policy and practice.

The area covers approximately 26,000 hectares of land and is characterized by flat or gently rolling topography and numerous significant wetlands. The corridor has a lack of natural drainage that could convey stormwater flows across the region. In its natural condition, most of the area is a non-contributing drainage area.

The corridor lies within the jurisdictions of the City of Calgary, Town of Chestermere and Rocky View County. Until recently, stormwater runoff from industrial sites in the northern portion of the basin discharged into the Western Headworks (WH) Canal.

The WH Canal diverts water from the Bow River near the Calgary Zoo toward the Western Irrigation District’s (WID) main storage reservoir, Chestermere Lake. The WID and the canal’s previous owner, Canadian Pacific Railway, have been using the canal to deliver water to Chestermere Lake since 1903. The WID system services over 800 ranchers and four towns. Since 1963, stormwater from north-east Calgary has been discharged into the WH Canal. In 1983, due to concerns about water quality, a moratorium on adding new stormwater outfalls was imposed by Alberta Environment, effectively halting urban development in the area. (Western Irrigation District v Alberta, 2002 ABCA 200 321 AR 358).

White (2001), compiled an annotated bibliography of the research relating to the water quality of Chestermere Lake from 1971 to 2000. The studies were consistent in finding pollution loadings that were directly related to stormwater runoff from the City of Calgary. For instance, data collected by Alberta Environment “concluded that the lake has very high bacteriological counts immediately following larger storm events in

Calgary, which quickly return to normal within days of the events. Nutrient loading (P, N) associated with the urban stormwater runoff increased between 1983 and 1993 and the resultant frequency of weed problems and noxious algal blooms was expected to increase (Sosiak, cited in White, 2001).

In an effort to develop a workable solution to stormwater management in the Corridor, the City of Calgary initiated the Shepard Stormwater Diversion Project from 1998 to 2010. This was one of a series of projects that attempted to deal with the difficulties of stormwater management in the Shepard Corridor. Many of the personnel who worked on aspects of the Shepard Drainage Corridor also worked on the other watershed management plans and projects related to stormwater management policy and practice.

The City and Rocky View County wanted to be able to develop more land in the Shepard Corridor area, which would not be possible with the moratorium on stormwater discharge that had been imposed in 1983. Preliminary planning for development of the area started as far back as 2001 (City of Calgary & Rocky View County, 2001). The solution to the City’s stormwater entering into the WID system came with the construction of the Shepard Stormwater Diversion Project, constructed between 2007 and 2010. To the best of my knowledge, from discussions I had at the time with the manager of the Western Irrigation District (during networking discussion at Bow River Basin Council Quarterly Forums) the WID took the City of Calgary to court over the impact that city stormwater had on the WID system. The two issues of water quality and peak volume surges after rainfall events were well documented. The case was very complicated (Stewart, 2015). The City and WID settled out of court when the Shepard Wetland Diversion Project was proposed. It was a negotiated agreement that both parties agreed to implement (Western Irrigation District v Alberta, 2002 ABCA 200 321 AR 358).

The Diversion Project includes check gates at the WH Canal, a wasteway structure into the diversion, an under drain structure that captures stormwater from outfalls that formerly discharged directly to the WH Canal, the diversion ditch to the wetland, the

130 -20019 hectare constructed wetland, and a diversion ditch that conveys stormwater from the wetland to the outfall at the Bow River. Figure 35 shows the Shepard Wetland complex in 2014, looking south east. The inlet ditch is in the foreground.

Figure 35. Aerial view of Shepard Constructed Stormwater Treatment Wetland, on the south east edge of the City of Calgary. North is toward the bottom left corner of this photo (Photo by Peak Aerials, 2014. Used with permission.)

During normal flow the hydraulic retention time is 72 days. During high flow the site is flooded and functions as a stormwater retention pond, with a hydraulic retention time of about one day (Chivers, 2014).The Shepard Corridor drainage area still presents a significant challenge for stormwater management and offers a variety of research opportunities. The Ecosystem Services Pilot Project (Alberta Government, 2011) investigated the effectiveness of natural and constructed wetlands in the area.

19 The Shepard wetland site covers 230 hectares. The wetted footprint is 130 hectares at normal water level and 200 hectares at full supply level. Ralph Klein Park is an interpretive park associated with the site.

Among other ecosystem services, the study found that the extensive wetlands in the area play an important role in mitigating the peak flow in the Bow River. According to a rough calculation, if all study area wetlands were drained effectively, peak flows in the Bow River immediately downstream would increase by up to 37

In June 2012 the Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative (CSMI) was formed from a coalition of City of Calgary, Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP), Chestermere Utilities Incorporated, Rocky View County (RVC), Town of Strathmore, Wheatland County and the Western Irrigation District. Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resources (ESRD) participated as an observer. The purpose of the CSMI was to “assist municipalities and Western Irrigation District to work together to find an effective and feasible solution to an issue that affects each sector in different ways.” CSMI hired an engineering consulting firm to develop a detailed engineering assessment of potential stormwater management alternatives. Goals of the study were 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 of destination, and  Provide an ultimate end-use (or destination of the stormwater) ` (MPE Engineering Ltd., 2014, p. v)

The study concluded that the application of LID practices for the reduction of runoff volumes, plus end-of-pipe controls (constructed wetlands and traditional stormwater facilities with or without re-use) are applicable for the CSMI. They concluded that the design of these practices requires optimization for phosphorous management, and that there is still “knowledge to be gained within Alberta.” The report recommends water quality monitoring, together with research and development to assure that these

methods meet water quality and stormwater guidelines. (MPE Engineering Ltd., 2014, p. v)

5.4 Summary The need to meet federal and provincial water quality guidelines, combined with the inter-disciplinary and inter-jurisdictional collaboration at the BRBC and NCWMP that took place during the development of the watershed management plans, led to the City’s adoption of policies, and then practices for sustainable stormwater management, commonly referred to as LID. Calgary’s regulatory process was interwoven with the federal, provincial and watershed level processes, and will be discussed more fully, in Chapter 6.

Chapter 6: Calgary’s Regulatory Process Towards Stormwater Management Focused on Volume Control Since January, 2014, when the City of Calgary’s Interim Stormwater Targets came into effect, Area Structure Plans submitted for approval by City Council should be accompanied by a stormwater management plan that shows how stormwater targets for runoff rate, runoff volume and water quality can be achieved. This became applicable to all new development applications for greenfield and redevelopment projects (City of Calgary, 2014h). There are three decades of history behind the development of these targets, and there is more work to do before Calgary’s stormwater management systems reach the ultimate goal of mimicking the natural hydrology of the region. The inclusion of source control and other concepts of Low Impact Development (LID) into Calgary’s stormwater management plans have made significant contributions to advancing the process. This chapter discusses the regulatory processes within the City of Calgary that led to the adoption of volume control targets as a primary method of designing stormwater management systems. Ongoing evaluation of existing and new practices is part of the ISO 14001 process that the City adopted and has practiced since 1999.20

Calgary’s management of its water resources has been shaped by its location in semi- arid southern Alberta, in the rain shadow of the Rocky Mountains. Because Calgary lies at the convergence of three natural ecotones there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to stormwater management. Chapter 4 discussed the physical characteristics that make Calgary a challenging place to implement stormwater management practices that attempt to mimic the natural hydrological cycle. Challenges include large areas with non-contributing areas and low drainage density, dominated by wetlands, clay

20 In 1999, The City of Calgary began implementing an environmental management system (EnviroSystem) and achieved corporate-wide [i.e. throughout the City] 14001 registration on June 2, 2004. The ISO14001 system has been used throughout the City to assess effectiveness of various policies and practices as they are implemented and improved (City of Calgary, 2004c).

100

soils with low rates of permeability, Chinook winds that can create more than 30 freeze/thaw cycles in a winter, and the variable precipitation patterns that can create both floods and droughts, often in the same growing season.

6.1 Early History of Stormwater Management in Calgary

The City of Calgary web site on the history of stormwater management lists some of the turning points in its history (City of Calgary, 2011). The list starts with the construction of underground pipes in 1890, then separation of stormwater and sanitary discharge that was started in the 1920s and completed in the 1960s.21 Subsequent attempts to manage stormwater included dryponds and wetponds that reduced peak discharge to mitigate downstream flooding and to optimize the size of stormwater infrastructure. The original stormwater infrastructure that could handle the runoff from a small city was overwhelmed once the city footprint expanded farther from the rivers. The increase of stormwater drainage capacity in the 1980s reflected the need to manage local urban flooding as the City population exploded.

The change in attitude toward the environment that had started at the federal and provincial levels of government (Sections 5.1 and 5.2) also occurred at the municipal level for many of the same reasons – increased environmental awareness and the realization that the per capita water consumption could not continue as the City’s population grew22. Supply management would have to be replaced with demand management and quality of stormwater discharges would have to be improved.

21 Even though the City has officially separated storm and sanitary sewers, there are still some homes where the weeping tile is connected to the sanitary system. This has contributed to sanitary sewer surcharge during micro-bursts of summer rain. My house is one of the ones with connected weeping tile. 22 Calgary’s right to draw water from the Bow and Elbow Rivers is limited to the volume of water in the water allocation licences issued by the Province. In times of water shortage, water withdrawals go to the licencee with the most senior licence (FIT FIR) unless an agreement has been reached with senior licence holder(s) to share water with more junior licence holders (Alberta Government, 2014b). Calgary has a relatively large and senior licence, but there is pressure from surrounding municipalities to share Calgary’s water licence allocation, as

101

During the 1980s and 1990s public hearings were held for the EPEA, Water Act and Wetland Policies at the provincial level (Sections 5.1 to 5.3). City of Calgary staff and administration attended the hearings, submitted position papers, and participated in round-table discussions. Ongoing communication between provincial and city staff meant that new regulations for more stringent limits to TSS passed under the EPEA (Alberta Environment, 1999) did not come as a surprise to City administration. Inside City Hall, cross-disciplinary discussions continued, with efforts to break down the silos between City departments (now known as Business Units). Topics such as watershed management, non-point source pollution, sustainable cities, smart growth and green infrastructure were discussed over the next three decades.

6.2 From Vision to Policy, Plans and Practice

Figure 36 illustrates the general processes that occurred in Calgary in the transition from stormwater with no treatment, to stormwater management with flow, volume and quality control. In general terms, the City had to develop a vision about what the future would look like, develop policies that supported change, make plans and develop the procedures that enabled implementation. In a Master’s Thesis about LID in Calgary, Kalmakoff (2007) concluded that LID would be a beneficial addition to Calgary’s stormwater management practices, but Calgary was not ready for it yet. At that time, Kalmakoff identified a need for government policy reform at the federal, provincial and City levels, better engineering design that is specific to Calgary’s unique challenges, public and corporate awareness, and marketing. In the eight years since Kalmakoff’s research some of these issues have been addressed and LID is being incorporated into new Master Drainage Plans throughout the City.

increased populations in the smaller municipalities cause them to approach the limits of their own water allocation licences.

102

VISION POLICY PLAN TOOLS IMPLEMENT •Bruntland definition •Triple Bottom Line •Wetland •EnviroSystem (ISO - Complete Streets 14001) of sustainability Conservation Plan -Interim Stormwater •Environmental •Stormwater Targets •30-in-30 by 2033 Policy •Watershed Management -Area Structure Plans Management Plans Design Manual submitted after April •imagineCALGARY •Stormwater •Rainwater 1, 2014 require Management •Municipal Harvesting Stormwater Guidelines •PlanIt Calgary Strategy Development Plan Management Plans •Guidelines for to achieve reduced Erosion and annual runoff •Durban Accord •Sustainable Building • Calgary Policy (LEED) Transportation Plan Sediment Control volumes and •Checklists, improve stormwater quality. LID is an •Complete Streets •Complete Streets guidelines , approved Policy templates, design modules strategy.quality •2020 Sustainability •Lead by example Direction •3-year business plans and budgets •Complete Streets Guide

Figure 36. Calgary’s progression toward stormwater management reform

103

6.3 Calgary’s regulatory process - a multi-layered path to the current standards for stormwater management targets

Appendix 6A includes a significant yet partial list of the items that contributed to Calgary’s change in stormwater policy and practice. The list for Calgary is long, due to the requirement for City Council and administration to continually align activities carried out in the City with their overall Environmental Policy which is included in Appendix 6B. However, just listing the documents that preceded the current stormwater management targets does not do justice to the multi-layered, overlapping and parallel processes that occurred. Figure 37 is my attempt to illustrate more of the complexity of how this came about. Many processes occurred simultaneously, with cross-reference to each other. In the discussion that follows, the first time elements in the figure are mentioned, they appear in bold letting.

6.3.1 Development of Calgary’s Stormwater Management and Design Manual The first stormwater wetpond was built in 1979 to manage peak flow discharge into the downstream system. Until 1999 stormwater management only considered local flood control and infrastructure sizing. The Surface Water Quality Guidelines for Alberta that were released in 1999 under the EPEA stipulated that TSS in storm and sanitary discharge must not be more than 10 mg/L over background values (Alberta Environment, 1999). Between 2003 and 2005 the City of Calgary completed several studies that identified the need to better understand and manage TSS and nutrient loadings from stormwater (Westhoff Engineering Resources Inc., 2005; Westhoff Engineering Resources, 2003). A study published in 2007 with the descriptive title ‘Bow River Impact Study Phase 2 - Development of Total Loading Management Targets for the City of Calgary’ (City of Calgary in Golder Associates, 2007) confirmed that stormwater contributed approximately 90% of the TSS loading (the key water quality indicator), with the remaining 10% coming from the City’s wastewater treatment plants (ibid). (Figure 38).The study established targets for TSS reduction and was incorporated into stormwater management plans and guidelines 104

Figure 37. Calgary’s regulatory process toward inclusion of LID in stormwater management.

105

Figure 38. City of Calgary 2002 Loadings from Wastewater Treatment and Stormwater Runoff. (Source: Golder Associates, 2007).

As discussed in Chapter 5, provincial regulations changed in 1999 and required municipalities to meet total loading limits for discharges to provincial waterways. With the City’s Approval to Operate due to expire in November 2005, water quality issues had the potential to limit future development in Calgary unless the stormwater treatment improved (City of Calgary, 2005a). New approaches to stormwater and wastewater treatment technology would be required if land development was to continue while meeting provincial water quality regulations for TSS and other water quality parameters (City of Calgary, 2005a, p. 20). The City of Calgary was given a few extra years to develop an implementation plan, due to the size and complexity of its stormwater infrastructure.

To be compliant with provincial guidelines for TSS, city bylaw required some form of stormwater treatment systems in all new development proposals after 1999. Because Calgary had a large land area built before the new guideline came into effect, with no 106

stormwater treatment, just imposing stormwater controls on new developments would not reduce sediment loads sufficiently to meet TSS targets for the City as a whole.

The only practical options available at the time were stormwater wetponds or constructed wetlands that would provide settling of suspended solids before release of stormwater to the Bow or Elbow Rivers.23 The first constructed wetland that was part of a neighborhoods stormwater system was built in 1998 in the community of Bridlewood to intercept sediment from the new urban development (City of Calgary, 2014c). At the time the, Bridlewood wetland was advertised as a new and desirable addition to the neighbourhood, despite the fact that the development community had not yet embraced the idea that all new developments would require something similar to reduce stormwater flood peak and begin to manage non-point source water quality issues.

The change in Calgary’s stormwater management practices that included water quality began with the original Stormwater Management and Design Manual in December 2000, produced by Wastewater & Drainage (City of Calgary, 2000). It included a discussion about wetland design, Chinooks, best management practices, and “alternative approaches [that] may be considered if it can be demonstrated that there is a better way of achieving the same objective [to meet provincial regulations]” (Ibid, p. “i”). The goals of stormwater management at this time were primarily to reduce peak flows and TSS. Volume control was not discussed. Figure 39 illustrates the evolution of the manual from the original version in 2000.

In 2004, the Alberta Lake Management Society hosted a conference in Okotoks, entitled Smart Development: Protecting our Lakes and Watersheds Through Low Impact Development. Among the speakers were Kim Stephens, who discussed the

23 During the mid-1990s, the experimental Elbow Valley Constructed Wetlands proved that constructed wetlands could function effectively in Calgary’s cold climate (Amell et al., 2004) 107

2001 Surface 2005 1999 Water November: City Water 1999 Surface Water Quality Guidelines for Alberta Quality of Calgary Quality Guidelines Licence to Guidelines for for Alberta Operate Alberta renewal

2008 Updated 2008-2011 2011 2014 Interim 2005 2000 chapters to Consult with Stormwater Stormwater Stormwater Stormwater Stormwater UDI Management Targets for Management Management 2000Management Manual regarding and Design volume , Strategy and Design and Design changes to Manual – peak Manual Stormwater Guidelines not discharge Manual Management Requirements and water 2005 and Design quality Manual Opportunities

2004 LID to Change

introduced to Drainage Practice Alberta & Calgary at

ALMS Conference

Figure 39. Stormwater Management and Design Manual evolution to peak and volume control targets.

108

Water Balance Model used in British Columbia and Tom Holz from the State of Washington who discussed Low Impact Development. Stephens and Holz had taken the concept of LID to their respective jurisdictions. This event marked the introduction of LID, including source control BMPs, to Calgary and Alberta. A wide variety of stakeholders attended the conference including a number of City administration and staff, who also attended a pre-meeting held at the Alberta Environment offices. Following the conference, a dedicated group of professionals continued to meet on a regular basis to discuss stormwater management and water-use issues. This ad hoc gathering grew to become the Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership (ALIDP, 2015). The ALMS conference marked a significant turning point in Calgary’s approach to stormwater management.

In 2005 the City released the Stormwater Management Strategy (City of Calgary, 2005b) and Opportunities to Change Drainage Practices (City of Calgary, 2005a). These two reports outlined changes in how stormwater was to be managed. Note that volume control is included in the second bullet.

The Stormwater Management Strategy goals were to:

 protect river valleys and property from flooding and erosion;  protect watershed health by reducing both rate and volume of stormwater runoff;  reduce sediment loading to the Bow River to or below the 2005 level by 2015 (despite the City’s continued new urban growth during the same period);  control sediment loads by focusing on retrofits in developed areas; and  develop sustainable stormwater management practices applicable to both new and redevelopment areas

(Letourneau, Amell, Deong, & Wouts, 2008).

109

The Strategy initiated a drainage charge that would make the stormwater section of the City’s Water Services Department self-supporting, and could finance research and development that is required to adapt the principles of LID to Calgary’s challenging weather, soil and pace of growth. Retrofit projects were begun in older neighbourhoods and all new developments would have to comply with the new stormwater management bylaws as they developed (Letourneau et al., 2008).

Concerns about the amount of otherwise developable land required for stormwater ponds, cost effectiveness of ponds for removing the high percentage of fine sediments in Calgary’s stormwater, and the difficulty in retrofitting stormwater ponds in some established neighbourhoods became apparent. Water Resources began to explore LID as an addition to the stormwater treatment train. A development was considered “low impact” if the post-development runoff conditions mimicked the pre-development rates and volumes (City of Calgary, 2005b).

In 2008, drafts of updated chapters and appendices of the Stormwater Management and Design Manual were forwarded to the Urban Development Institute (UDI) for commenting. Bi-weekly meetings between City staff and UDI representatives took place from early 2010 through spring 2011. Close to 1,000 comments from UDI representatives were reviewed and discussed (van Duin, 2011).

During the consultation phase, the Stormwater Management Report of 2009 expanded on the original goals of the Stormwater Management Strategy:

 Leading by example – with pilot projects such as the Water Centre, Aurora Business Park, and research into constructed wetlands and sustainable streetscapes

 Aligning policy with stormwater objectives – specifically the Nose Creek Watershed Management Plan and the Pine Creek Drainage Study

110

 Developing technical tools – to ensure successful implementation of sustainable stormwater practices in the future

 Raising awareness - as a founding member of the ALIDP, by working with interested developers, and by working with other business units to identify how stormwater best management practices can be worked into urban design

 Education and outreach – by implementing education programs and youth programs (City of Calgary, 2009b)

Leading by example became a key strategy in Water Resources’ approach to stormwater management. The Guidelines published in the 2011 Stormwater Management and Design Manual were to be implemented for all new subdivisions as of September 2011. The manual acknowledged that stormwater management in Calgary was still an evolving field. In a presentation to the UDI that discussed the 2011 changes, Bert van Duin observed that the manual presented Guidelines rather than Standards with the objective of developing effective, reliable and economically affordable systems and listing preferences, not requirements, where flexibility was important for site specific conditions. It was not meant to stifle technological innovation and evolution nor eliminate design approaches appropriate for local conditions (van Duin, 2011, Slide 10).

The implementation phase of the Stormwater Management and Design Manual included monthly meetings with UDI’s Water Management Committee. ‘Urgent’ revisions continue to be posted on UDI’s Bulletin Board and there is an intention to update the manual on a bi-annual basis, with changes clearly identified (vanDuin, 2011, slide 11). Since April 1, 2014, the City requires all new Area Structure Plans to include stormwater management plans that will meet the Interim Stormwater Targets for volume, peak and water quality (City of Calgary, 2014h)

Appendix 6C reproduces an Industry Bulletin that was issued to provide clarity to both the development community and City of Calgary staff as to the proper stormwater 111

targets to be utilized for greenfield and redevelopment projects in the City of Calgary. In view of the need for consistent stormwater quantity and quality targets across the City and to avoid stormwater infrastructure being built that may lead to future expensive retrofits, this bulletin outlines and clarifies interim stormwater quantity and quality targets to be utilized in the City of Calgary. The interim targets are in alignment with:

• The provincial Stormwater Management Guidelines

• The most recent Municipal Development Plan, adopted by Council in 2009

• Total Loadings Objectives for the Bow River, as dictated in the City’s License to Operate

• Relevant Water Management Plans, adopted by Council

• The 2011 Stormwater Management and Design Manual, including the 2014 amendments

The bulletin includes a detailed table of interim targets for runoff rate and volume for various watersheds inside City of Calgary limits, with reference to greenfield development and retrofits.

The establishment of interim targets for stormwater peak and volume is a significant milestone in stormwater management in Calgary. The City does not stipulate that LID or any other specific process should be used, but Calgary developers, consultants and City staff now have enough experience with LID strategies to include them in some form in the design of stormwater master drainage plans. LID is still an evolving field. More monitoring and research is needed to refine the strategy in Calgary’s challenging climate. This is discussed further in Chapter 7.

The City’s current stormwater management strategy of requiring a stormwater management plan to limit volume control limits on new and retrofit developments did

112

not occur in isolation. There were multiple parallel processes that fed into and supported each other. The following sections discuss some of the parallel processes that occurred in the City of Calgary that contributed to the change in stormwater management practices.

6.4 Parallel Processes that Contributed to Changes in Stormwater Management The changes started with a vision of a sustainable City and led to the afore-mentioned city-wide volume control targets for stormwater discharges. Since the original publication of the Stormwater Management and Design Manual in 2000 and periodic updates since then, the City has continued to adopt policies, plans and procedures that eventually led to full adoption of stormwater volume controls as the primary means of managing stormwater discharge quality, culminating in the Interim Stormwater Targets (City of Calgary, 2014h). Appendix 6D includes summaries of some of the initiatives that supported environmental sustainability in Calgary. Initiatives that are specific to stormwater are discussed more fully here.

The early to mid-2000s saw major changes in Calgary’s attitude toward the environment. In 2004, City Council adopted the Brundtland definition of sustainability: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (City of Calgary, 2005c). Over the next few years, Calgary City Council and Administration worked on and released a number of policy documents with a goal to improve all aspects of Calgary’s environmental sustainability.

 Stormwater Management and Design Manual was released in 2000, but was focused on minimising impact of urban flooding.

 In 2005 alone, City Council endorsed

o Triple Bottom Line Policy;

o Water Efficiency Plan: 30-in-30 by 2033; 113

o Stormwater Management Strategy and

o Opportunities to Change Drainage Practices

Concurrent with this, in January 2005, the City embarked on a series of public engagement activities called imagineCALGARY that would last for several years and explore ways to implement the new sustainable city policies. See Appendix 6A for a more complete, but still not exhaustive list of environmental initiatives that relate to stormwater management.

6.4.1 Parallel Process - Triple Bottom Line

In September 2005, City Council adopted the Triple Bottom Line Policy. The policy is a decision making, planning and reporting framework to achieve sustainable development. It addresses social, economic, environmental and smart growth impacts of all City business. This policy provides a clear, Council-approved statement that the City of Calgary is committed to a Triple Bottom Line approach. This means that the City will incorporate sustainable development principles into its decisions and actions. In 2007 the City endorsed the Rio Summit’s three pillars of sustainability:

• Social progress: equity, social cohesion, social mobility, participation, cultural identity • Economic prosperity: efficiency, stability • Environmental protection: healthy environment for humans, rational use of renewable natural resources, conservation of non-renewable natural resources, participation, cultural identity (City of Calgary, 2007c).

6.4.2 Parallel Process - Water Efficiency Plan: 30-in-30 by 2033

In the 1980s Calgary’s population growth, unchecked per-capita water use, and an aging infrastructure system caused the City to institute water conservation measures that included inspection and repair of leaking water supply infrastructure, upgrades to the water treatment plants, incentives for water conservation and public awareness 114

campaigns. Figure 40 illustrates Calgary’s potable water production and population growth between 1993 and 2003. By 1995 the per-capita water demand had decreased, but continued population growth threatened the City with water shortages if the per- capita demand did not decrease still further. The “low-hanging fruit of water conservation had been picked” (Pritchard, 2004). The greatest demand on potable water was still during the summer heat, when river flow was down and agricultural irrigation demand was high. More aggressive and inventive solutions to per-capita water consumption would be needed.

Figure 40. Calgary’s potable water demand and population growth from 1933 to 2004. (Source: Chen et al., 2006, p. 7).

In December 2005, City Council adopted the 30-in-30 Water-Efficiency Goal as outlined in the Water Efficiency Plan. This takes into account “the drivers for current and forecasted water demand, the potential for water savings, and the expected long- term return on investment. Through long-term water-management strategies, the City will service its growing population and customer base over a 30-year time period (2003 – 2033) without exceeding the total annual amount of water that was diverted from the Bow and Elbow Rivers in 2003” (City of Calgary, 2005d). Two of the 115

recommendations, Numbers 8 and 10, in the Water Efficiency Plan include specific references to stormwater management that support the use of LID practices with respect to water conservation, reuse and land use planning. These recommendations are:

8. The City value, pilot and enable innovative ways to use non-potable water sources such as stormwater, grey water and wastewater effluent.

10. The City integrate water conservation and reuse into infrastructure, stormwater, wastewater and land use planning. (City of Calgary, 2005d, p. 60)

6.4.3 Parallel Process - Opportunities to Change Drainage Practice & Stormwater Management Strategy

The two reports entitled Opportunities to Change Drainage Practice (City of Calgary, 2005a) and Stormwater Management Strategy (City of Calgary, 2005b) recognized that changes in how stormwater was being managed would be required to allow the City of Calgary to continue to grow and meet regulatory requirements for TSS discharge. The Opportunities to Change Drainage Practice observed that “Once the City’s current Approval to Operate expires in 2005 November, without improved stormwater treatment, water quality issues may limit future development in Calgary. Current stormwater management practices and wastewater treatment technology may eventually limit further growth in Calgary and in the watershed. New approaches will be required if land development is to continue” (City of Calgary, 2005a).

The Stormwater Management Strategy goals have been updated to include:

• Protect public property from flooding and erosion • Protect watershed health by reducing the rate and volume of stormwater runoff • Reduce sediment loading to the Bow River to or below the 2005 level by 2015 • Reduce pollutants from entering Calgary’s waterways (Total Loading Management) (City of Calgary, 2012c) 116

6.4.4 Parallel Process - Public Engagement - imagineCALGARY

To enhance understanding of the new environmental and land development policies, the City launched imagineCALGARY in January 2005 (City of Calgary, 2007c). ImagineCALGARY engaged over 18,000 Calgarians during an 18-month project. The goal was to develop “a long range [100 year] vision of a sustainable Calgary. [The process was] an attempt to look forward, to the kinds of issues that might arise in the future, in order to deal with those issues before they polarized the citizenry” (Bruce, 2007). ImagineCALGARY “articulates the city in which Calgarians would like to live and how to get there” (City of Calgary, 2007c).

Round tables and working groups developed 114 targets within 32 goal areas, based on the five interconnected systems of built environment, economy, governance, natural environment, and social systems. For each of the five systems, goals, targets and strategies were developed and analysed for how they were connected to each of the other systems.

The imagineCALGARY goal for water management states: Water is recognized as necessary for life. Calgarians value this precious resource and guarantee equitable access for all living things. We are stewards of water, protecting its quality and maintaining the integrity of the hydrologic cycle. Our water supply system is sufficiently secure, flexible and adaptable to changing conditions and circumstances (City of Calgary, 2007c, p. 3)

The plan produced a number of “targets”. Targets 82 and 83 are specific to stormwater management:

• Target 82: By 2036, effective impervious areas are reduced equal to or below 30 per cent to restore natural hydrograph and become less susceptible to flooding. • Target 83: By 2036, watershed health — as measured by loss of wetlands, water quality, non-compliance with pollution standards, in-stream flow and groundwater levels — improves (City of Calgary, 2007c, p. 3). 117

Targets under the heading of water management support the integration of water management planning including reducing consumptive water use, maintaining healthy flows in the Bow and Elbow Rivers and reducing Calgary’s ecological footprint.

6.5 Turning Policies into Plans

Figure 41 is my interpretation of the basic process through which the long term vision developed through imagineCALGARY (City of Calgary, 2007c) was turned into design criteria that included LID in Complete Streets (City of Calgary, 2014g). Plan It: Sustainability Principles for Land Use and Mobility (PlanIt) (City of Calgary, 2008) was the strategic plan that gave direction for imagineCALGARY to proceed toward implementation. Several principles from PlanIt are relevant to sustainable environmental principles, but not yet specific to stormwater management:  Principle 5: Preserve open space, agricultural land, natural beauty and critical environmental areas

 Principle 8: Support compact development

 Principle 11: Utilize green infrastructure and buildings (City of Calgary, 2008)

The PlanIt process guided the development of the Calgary Transportation Plan (CTP) and the Municipal Development Plan (MDP). To implement imagineCALGARY, CTP and MDP, the City developed the 2020 Sustainability Direction, adopted by City Council in 2011 as a tool to set the 10-year strategic

118

2011

2020 Sustainability Direction

2009

Calgary 2007 Municipal Development 2014 PlanIt 2010 Plan Calgary: Complete Interim 2007 Streets Integrated Complete Guide ImagineCALGARY Key Directions Land Use Streets for Land Use and Mobility 2009 Guide and Mobility Plan Calgary Transportation Plan 2011- 2016 (?)

Complete Streets Modules

Figure 41. From vision to plans to implementation (imagineCALGARY to Calgary Municipal Development Plan and Calgary Transportation Plan to Complete Streets). 119

direction for achieving imagineCALGARY’s long term goals. The 2020 Sustainability Direction was developed through cross-departmental collaboration and is “a strategic guide for transformation that identifies what must happen at the City by 2020 to contribute towards the imagineCALGARY 100-year vision.” (City of Calgary, (2011 (updated 2013)). With regard to stormwater management, the processes set out in the 2020 Sustainability Direction enable further cross-departmental collaboration, with a requirement for a report on progress every two years.

Both the CTP and MDP plans give direction to develop Complete Streets. Complete Streets incorporates stormwater management facilities that do more than simply transport untreated water to downstream waterways. Complete Streets is a cross-departmental collaboration and was integral to stormwater management reform: traditional stormwater 2014 management infrastructure could be designed in isolation, at the end of the planning Complete process, but integrated stormwater management would require design of stormwater Streets systems along with streetscapes as part of the initial planning process. Internal and Guide external stakeholders were identified in a Communications Plan for Complete Streets in 2011. Major internal business unit stakeholders (City departments) were represented on a Technical Committee. They included:

 Roads

 Calgary Transit

 Urban Development (within Planning)

 Water Resources

 Urban Design (within Planning)

 Land Use, Planning & Policy (LUPP)

 Information & Infrastructure Services (specifically, Land Information and Mapping)

 Fire/Emergency Services (EMS) (City of Calgary, 2014f)

120

Major external stakeholders were also identified and included in the discussions:

 Urban Development Institute

 Federation of Calgary Communities

 Shallow Utilities Consortium

 Calgary Regional Home Builders Association

 Bike Calgary (City of Calgary, 2014f)

The Technical Committee met on several occasions throughout the life of the project, most of which occurred in 2011-12 during the development of the 2011 Interim Complete Streets Guide.

Several one-on-one meetings and presentations were held with the major external stakeholders throughout the development of the final guide. Formal letters and e-mails were also exchanged between the stakeholders and the project team to resolve various issues. For example, stormwater ponds are most useful if they are located adjacent to park space that requires irrigation. Bioswales, bioretention areas, raingardens, and permeable pavement have to share space with other surface infrastructure such as roads, bike lanes, and pedestrian routes. If park space were to be used for stormwater infrastructure, negotiations between the departments of Parks and Water Resources had to take place. The underground component of the new stormwater management systems that enabled groundwater recharge had to share space with utility corridors, all of which must remain accessible for maintenance, repair and replacement. All this, plus opportunities for stormwater harvesting and reuse must be included in the calculations of infrastructure sizing. Note, however, that the 2014 Interim Transportation Study Guidelines state that the Complete Streets Guide “provides guidance to City Administration and the development industry on how to incorporate Complete Streets concepts” and:

A Complete Street is a street for which the needs of all users have been considered in planning and design. All users are not necessarily accommodated to the highest standards possible, particularly when right-of-way is limited. When trade-offs are

121

required between the users sharing the space, the goals of the Complete Street philosophy should be the primary consideration. … All transportation studies and design projects shall incorporate the Complete Street philosophy, both for new and existing roads, with the understanding that the ideal Complete Street standards may be modified in retrofit situations where right-of-way constraints exist.

(City of Calgary, 2014g, p. 7).

The Complete Streets concept will continue to evolve as it is applied in real-life conditions.

6.6 Stormwater Management - Source Control BMPs

When source control practices were first introduced in Calgary, they received case-by- case assessment by City staff. This added time and expense to every development application. Years of pilot projects, assessments and consultation with the development industry have enabled the City to list six options that are accepted for source control of stormwater:  Bioretention  Bioswales  Absorbent landscape  Green Roof  Stormwater capture and reuse  Permeable Pavement  Other practices not listed here can be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The City has created web-based approval submission information for these six source control practices including resources, guides and templates (City of Calgary, 2014j).

For each of the source control practices that are listed here, there was a lengthy and multi-layered process to get to the stage where the approval submissions could be streamlined enough to be workable. The background to stormwater capture and is a good example. Figure 42 illustrates selected elements of the history of the development of stormwater capture and reuse. The process included research and public consultation by CMHC, UDI, ALIDP, and waterSMART. There were changes to provincial and federal

122

guidelines including the plumbing code and national building standards. Public health was a primary concern wherever non-potable water could come in contact with people. It has taken over ten years of discussion, research, pilot projects, and negotiation with the provincial government to get stormwater capture and reuse to an implementable stage. The barriers to stormwater capture and reuse are discussed more fully in Chapter 7. The same level of complexity that led to rainwater harvesting policies is evident for each of the other five practices. When additional strategies for source control (or other parts of the treatment train) are proposed they receive case-by-case assessment by City staff --- the same process that occurred for the original six strategies when they were first used in Calgary.

Figure 42. Calgary’s Rainwater Harvesting Guidelines were the result of over 10 years of research and policy changes.

123

6.6.1 Parallel Process – Creating Constructed Wetlands to Treat Stormwater

Concurrent with the development of the Calgary Wetland Conservation Plan, the City was investigating the effectiveness of constructed wetlands to treat stormwater. The Elbow Valley Experimental Wetland was constructed in the late 1990s as a research facility in a collaborative effort between the University of Calgary and the City of Calgary. Initial concerns were that Calgary’s cold climate would make constructed wetlands ineffective. Experiments at Elbow Valley illustrated that since the majority of storm runoff occurred in spring, summer and fall, constructed wetlands would be a useful addition to the stormwater treatment options (Amell et al., 2004). Results from tests showed that the Elbow Valley and the Edgemont Wetlands removed in excess of 95% of TSS and illustrated that combining an adequate forebay with other appropriately scaled cells in an integrated treatment train could reduce stormwater sediments to levels that exceeded provincial standards. Since that time constructed wetlands have been incorporated into the stormwater management plans of numerous Calgary subdivisions, where space and local conditions allow. However, in some cases site restraints make it difficult to consistently remove 85% of TSS, especially the fine sediment, so the City continued to investigate the use of site-level BMPs to reduce stormwater runoff volume on the grounds that reduced volume would be easier to treat.

6.6.2 Parallel process – Watershed Management Plans from The City’s Perspective

Watershed management plans are discussed from a regional perspective in Chapter 5. The City’s perspective is slightly different and was very important to the overall development and implementation of LID, including source control practices in Calgary.

During the 2000s City of Calgary staff work-load included collaborating with regional partners to develop watershed management plans. Several of these are discussed more fully in Section 5.3. The Bow Basin Watershed Management Plan (BBWMP) was the overriding management plan. With regard to urban stormwater management, the

124

BBWMP recommended that municipalities who endorsed the plan should make a commitment to:

 Monitor and report wastewater loadings from all licensed municipal and industrial sources throughout the Bow River Basin (and the various sub-basins)

 Strive to use the best available municipal wastewater and stormwater treatment technologies (and other methods to achieve similar means)

 Educate municipalities and developers on the principles of low impact development and encourage developers to use these practices in their overall designs

 Implement significant stormwater quality upgrades / improvements within Calgary.(Bow Basin Watershed Management Plan Steering Committee, 2008)

Watershed Management Plans for four sensitive sub-basins were developed somewhat concurrently: Nose Creek Watershed Management Plan (NCWMP); Pine Creek Study; Elbow River Watershed Management Plan and Shepard Corridor Management Plan. All were developed with major input from City staff, primarily from the business units of Waterworks, Roads, Parks and Planning. Calgary staff worked in collaboration with local watershed stewardship groups, staff from the provincial and federal governments, environmental groups, development and resource industries, consultants in the fields of engineering and planning, First Nations, farmers and other landowners, private interests, and staff and council members from adjacent municipalities.

A quote from the City of Calgary Municipal Development Plan (MDP) sets out the interdisciplinary and cooperative nature of the work required to develop effective, environmentally sustainable watershed management plans:

A watershed management plan considers water quantity, water quality, aquatic ecosystems and riparian areas, as well as a variety of land use issues that impact water. Watershed management plans require water and land use managers to work together to ensure healthy watersheds. (City of Calgary, 2014e, p. 2-44). As discussed in section 5.3.4, the concept of Low Impact Development arrived in the Calgary region in 2004 at the Alberta Lake Management Society Conference in Okotoks and was incorporated into both the BBWMP and NCWMP. The LID strategies of “slow it down, spread it out and soak it in”, that are achieved with LID best management

125

practices were first applied and evaluated in these sub-basins. The BBWMP and NCWMP are referenced by many subsequent reports to Council and the resultant policies that dealt with surface water management.

The phased implementation of volume control targets in the Nose Creek watershed gave the development industry and others the chance to study the cost and effectiveness of various LID strategies. One recent study by Maitland (2013) suggests that the ultimate targets are not economically viable, if the main option for storage and conveyance of the stormwater is in surface features such as ponds, absorbent landscaping and bioswales. He calculates that the space required would occupy so much developable land that it would be cost prohibitive to build in the Nose Creek watershed. Maitland suggests an alternative of using underground vaults and cisterns. Despite the prohibitive costs for construction and long-term maintenance associated with the ultimate stormwater volume discharge targets, Maitland also suggests that the cost of not meeting the targets would be reflected in ecological damage to the creek’s valley, continued erosion that includes damage to infrastructure, and the continuation of high TSS and dissolved pollutant loading to the Bow River. The reuse of stormwater in the same way that rainwater is permitted is not discussed by Maitland.

6.6.3 Parallel process – Calgary Wetland Conservation Plan

The City of Calgary’s Wetland Conservation Plan was initiated in response to the province’s failure to move the Interim Wetland Policy beyond the “draft” phase. While permanent open-water bodies are owned by the province, and subject to protection under the Water Act, non-permanent open water and wetlands are subject to development pressure. In 2001 it was estimated that as much as 90% of the wetlands within the City limit had been lost, and that urban expansion could impact a further 8,000 wetlands, if Wetland Classes III to VI are included in the count (City of Calgary, 2004a). Staff of the River Valleys Committee24 (RVC) (a primarily-volunteer stewardship group inside the City of Calgary) were aware of the impact the void in a provincial wetland policy would have on the City’s remaining wetlands, especially as the City’s boundaries expanded into

24 River Valleys Committee became Calgary River Valleys (CRV) in

126

adjacent areas. A group of people were invited by the RVC to form the Calgary Regional Wetlands Committee. Members included City of Calgary (Parks, Water Resources, Planning, Environmental Management, Corporate Properties, Transportation), Alberta Government (Transportation, Environment, Sustainable Resource Development, Fish Creek Provincial Park) the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, several ENGOs (Ducks Unlimited Canada, RVC, BRBC), adjacent municipal districts (MD of Rocky View25, MD of Foothills), UDI and the Calgary Airport Authority. The committee worked together over several years and produced the Calgary Wetland Conservation Plan (City of Calgary, 2004a), which was approved by the City in 2004. This was the first municipal wetland policy in North America.

The Wetland Conservation Plan was the catalyst for acknowledging that wetlands are an integral part of a healthy watershed in the Calgary region and provide critical functions such as water quality protection, flood control, and aesthetic, recreational and economic benefits. The Wetland Conservation Plan has policies and procedures for identification of wetlands, implementation of a monitoring program and criteria for the development of a management plan “that will ensure the efficient and effective operation and maintenance of the city’s wetlands” (City of Calgary, 2004a).

While the policy has had variable results in protecting the remaining wetlands that lie in the city’s growth area, it did change the common practice of draining virtually every wetland before development. The plan encourages “no net loss of function” based on functionality, biophysical impact and environmental significance assessments. That function includes groundwater discharge/recharge, and water quality improvement, as well as planning for the quality and discharge rates of stormwater runoff in new communities. With the Wetland Conservation Plan in place, developers are encouraged to avoid damage to the wetlands if possible. If damage will occur, the next option is mitigation, and if neither avoidance nor mitigation is economically viable, compensation is required. Wetland protection is now included in stormwater plans and erosion and sediment control practices, although there is a constant battle between the development industry and the City’s Parks and Water Resources business units regarding the question

25 MD of Rocky View is now Rocky View County (RVC)

127

of natural wetland protection, especially in areas with a high percent of ephemeral wetland coverage. This conflict is discussed more fully in Chapter 7.

As the city expands, there is pressure to drain wetlands and use the land for development and/or infrastructure such as stormwater management ponds. On May 7, 2007, Council directed Administration to apply the Environmental Reserve Setback Guidelines (City of Calgary, 2007b) and integrate the guidelines into the Calgary Wetland Conservation Plan and other environmental management initiatives. The setbacks only apply to wetlands that are large enough and permanent enough to warrant environmental reserve status, but the guidelines do attempt to preserve the functionality of wetlands as their catchment area is developed – which could lead to the wetlands drying up (if the stormwater is directed past them by way of conventional stormwater infrastructure) or becoming inundated (if stormwater is directed into them). In other words, since wetlands have natural fluctuations of water level, which tend to be seasonal rather than episodic, maintaining a relatively natural water level fluctuation is critical to the survival of the ecological function of the wetlands. The end result is that urban stormwater management should include forebays that slowly release water to the natural wetland and that constructed/engineered wetlands should be separate from natural wetlands, except to maintain the natural water levels of the natural wetlands.

6.6.4 Parallel Process – Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership (ALIPD)

No discussion about LID in Calgary and Alberta would be complete without including the work of the Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership (ALIDP). At the Alberta Lake Management Society (ALMS) conference in the fall of 2004, LID was introduced to Calgary and Alberta. Following the ALMS conference, a dedicated group of professionals, including engineers, developers, politicians, municipalities, biologists, researchers and stewardship groups, continued to meet on a regular basis to discuss issues of mutual interest. These volunteers held LID conferences in Cochrane (proximal to Calgary) and Edmonton in 2006 and 2007, respectively. ALIDP was formalized as a Society in 2008 with the primary objectives of continuing to introduce the concept and practice of LID to Alberta. ALIDP expanded to hold conferences and workshops throughout Alberta. By 2010, ALIDP was co-partnering with the City of Calgary to

128

deliver its erosion and sediment control training. Around this time, ALIDP also began to develop its own LID content. By 2015 membership in ALDIP had grown to include four municipal, nineteen corporate, five non-profit/academic institutions and two vendors. Working groups tackle various issues, and collaborations have been formed with several other organizations to continue research and education in the applicability of LID to Alberta conditions (ALIDP, 2015).

6.7 Summary of Stormwater Management Regulatory Process in Calgary

In summary, the City’s Stormwater Management and Design Manuals work in tandem with the Interim Stormwater Targets, Erosion and Control Practices, Complete Streets Guide and various City bylaws on drainage, wetland conservation using the wetland mitigation sequence and various watershed management plans. Getting from the vision of an environmentally sustainable city infrastructure to the practice of stormwater management that mimics the natural hydrological cycle was and is a complex process. In Calgary, as elsewhere, it is still evolving as development projects that were approved five or more years ago are just being put in the ground today. Chapter 7 discusses the personal experiences and opinions of some of the individuals who participated in this change in stormwater management practice in Calgary. Implementation of the stormwater management strategies and volume control targets will present another level of challenges in the foreseeable future.

129

Chapter 7: Findings from Interviews

7.1 Introduction

In this chapter I present the major themes that emerged during interviews of 21 experts in the field of stormwater management in the City of Calgary. The participants are listed in Appendix 3C and include consulting engineers, landscape architects, project managers from the development industry, community association representatives and City of Calgary staff from Water Resources, Parks, Transportation, and Planning. All participants were interviewed in Calgary, in person, except one who was interviewed over the phone. The goal was not to interview a representative nor a random sample of stakeholders, but to identify and interview some of Calgary’s most knowledgeable people in the emerging field of LID use in stormwater management (purposeful sampling). A subset of interviews was conducted that focused on the reasons why individual participants chose to include LID in their stormwater management design (targeted sampling). The interviews for this thesis were conducted when LID was still in the development and introductory phase in Calgary. Most interview participants were enthusiastic about discussing the local benefits, barriers, means to overcome the barriers and the reasons why they support LID in Calgary. People who were less enthusiastic about the introduction of LID discussed the reasons for their reluctance. Direct, unattributed, quotes are used to illustrate some of the themes that arose, and appear in the text boxes in italics.

My initial research question was “What are the benefits and barriers of introducing LID into Calgary?” That question was chosen when LID was still in the introductory, pilot project and research phases. By the time I had finished my research, Calgary had developed protocols and engineering specifications that would enable LID to be part of Master Drainage Plans that are required as part of Area Structure Plans (ASP). As of April 1, 2014, all ASP submissions must have a Master Drainage Plan that specifies how the peak and volume discharge targets will be met. LID is not specifically required, but it can be a significant tool for reaching the City’s new annual volume discharge targets for stormwater. My adapted research question became “What are the drivers of change that accompany Calgary’s adoption of LID?”

130

The interview questions focused on the benefits, barriers and drivers of change for LID inclusion in stormwater management in Calgary. Five major themes emerged (although the themes do overlap to a certain extent):

1) There are significant benefits to using LID as part of the stormwater management strategy in Calgary, both in terms of stormwater management and reducing withdrawals from the rivers. 2) Calgary has a natural physical geography that makes it very difficult to introduce LID, or any other stormwater management system that mimics the natural hydrology. This is the most often-stated barrier to introducing LID in Calgary. 3) Despite the local soils, climate and topography, Calgary stormwater practitioners are overcoming the barriers and treating them as challenges. 4) The regulatory process that preceded LID’s introduction, and continues to evolve, is an important part of a successful implementation of sustainable stormwater management. Calgary has chosen to use stormwater volume discharge targets as a means of managing water quality and minimizing erosion and sediment load in the receiving waters. 5) LID in Calgary remains an evolving process, and while drivers of change vary from person to person, the phrase “there is no going back” sums up the foreseeable future.

7.2 Benefits of LID in Calgary The benefits of LID for Calgary are similar to those in other jurisdictions, as discussed in Chapter 2. Benefits include reduced impact on the morphology of receiving waters, improved water quality and reduced per-capita demand on potable water supplies, while maintaining the aesthetic and environmental benefits of the urban oasis. The difference with Calgary is that the benefits of using LID to mimic the natural hydrology of the prairie ecosystems are even more pronounced than in more humid, temperate climates where most LID research and development has been conducted.

Calgary’s surface hydrology includes ephemeral streams and non-contributing drainage areas. Receiving waters are severely impacted by increased runoff from impervious urban development that speeds up stormwater runoff, channelizes it and prevents it from soaking in. When the impermeable surfaces of urban development and traditional

131

stormwater infrastructure are introduced to a prairie hydrological system, the result is increased erosion and non-point source pollution, especially sediment loading. In addition, the limited amount of rain and snowmelt is sent downstream rather than being used to sustain the urban landscape and natural biodiversity.

The overall goal of LID is to mimic the local hydrology, thus reducing the negative impact of urban infrastructure. “Low Impact Development is really a statement of a desired outcome--the outcome of a holistic approach to urban drainage management” (Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership, 2014).

The natural prairie hydrological cycle is dominated by interception, absorption, evaporation and evapotranspiration, rather than surface runoff. The vast majority of precipitation stays very close to where it falls, gets stored in depressions, is intercepted by deep-rooted vegetation and eventually returns to the hydrological cycle through evaporation, evapotranspiration or sublimation.

The City’s first experience with using LID to manage stormwater to reduce the impact on a hydrologically sensitive stream was in the Nose Creek/West Nose Creek Watershed. Nose Creek had been experiencing significant volume increases that resulted in major erosion. There were 17 “hot spots” that required bank stabilization to prevent damage to infrastructure, each projected to cost about one million dollars. The City imposed stormwater volume targets in a phased approach. The first targets were relatively easy to meet, and gave developers and their consultants time to try new strategies for the first time in the city.

The stormwater targets for these watersheds are relatively new. Previously we did not have such restrictive targets. We did not have to use innovative sustainable design. As the approaches and technologies are evolving, so are the needs becoming more pressing. They have changed significantly because of a bigger emphasis on watershed protection; there is a lot more emphasis on better and more sustainable management of stormwater. The targets are the driving force.

I have heard it from Water Resources many times, that there are targets [for the Nose Creek Watershed], and we need to meet these targets, so we have to do this stuff

132

differently. Again, on the development end of things—I think it is going to take the development industry a year or two, given the details they need, to feel comfortable with the stuff that is coming down the road.

If you set a target, designers can figure out how to achieve it.

The City used the experience from Nose Creek to develop Pine Creek targets. At the time these interviews were concluding, targets for the entire City were coming into effect that are less restrictive than the targets for the Nose Creek and Pine Creek watersheds. The Nose Creek Watershed Management Plan and its attendant volume discharge targets were referred to by most interview participants. They cite the success of the Nose Creek volume control targets in maintaining the current discharge of Nose Creek as the basis for the volume control targets that have been imposed in the rest of the city. However, several interview participants maintain that the ultimate Nose Creek and Pine Creek targets will be impossible to meet with the current suite of LID practices.

There are a number of other benefits to LID that are consistent with the research from other jurisdictions, including, but not limited to, increasing urban biodiversity and increasing visibility of the surface stormwater so that people are aware of the impacts of their personal and corporate responsibility for pollution prevention. In some ways LID systems are the canaries in the coal mine. And that is a part that we have really seen. For instance, at [one of the early pilot projects] we had lots of sediment coming from insufficient erosion and sediment control. It has really opened the eyes of a lot of people to what was being done [during the construction phase] that led to the vastly improved erosion and sediment control bylaws and enforcement.

7.2.1 Per capita Water Demand

LID’s function of reducing per-capita water demand is increasingly important in semi- arid Southern Alberta. Calgary’s water supply is renewable but limited. Changing patterns of snow pack in the Rocky Mountains may further decrease the summer flows of the rivers that supply water to the treatment plants on the Bow and Elbow Rivers (Schindler & Donahue, 2006). Per-capita water demand, especially peak day demand, will have to continue to decrease, even as the City’s population and economic activities

133

continue to grow. Currently, Calgary withdraws about two-thirds of its annual water allocation licence volume in normal years. While the bulk of this water is returned to the rivers via the wastewater treatment plants, during hot, dry summer weather the net return is less that the water extracted from the rivers, primarily due to lawn watering. This is the time when the instream flow needs and the downstream water users also compete for the water in the rivers. Increased potable water infrastructure will also be required to meet the peak day demand, including fire code requirements.

Interview participants discussed the benefits accrued from harvesting and re-using rainwater and stormwater. They are aware that it could extend Calgary’s ability to meet the water requirement of a growing population. By reducing per-capita demand on the potable water supply, LID can contribute to Calgary’s Water Efficiency Plan, which was often cited by interview participants. For example, stormwater has been used to irrigate Calgary parks and playing fields for over 10 years. The cost reduction from using stormwater for park irrigation was identified as a benefit by about two-thirds of the interview participants.

One of the things we can do, and it makes sense to do it, is to utilize stormwater for irrigation. We were one of the first municipalities I think, anywhere, to do that. (Calgary Parks) started putting in technology to do that back in the late ‘90s. And we’re finding that more people are interested. Because if you can use that water again for irrigation purposes, you get a multiple benefit. One, you manage the stormwater, with the infrastructure you put in place, and you get to reuse that water for beneficial purpose, and take that water demand off the potable water, so it reduces your withdrawal from the river. And ultimately when you’re irrigating, it goes back into the water table anyway.

Reuse probably has the most economic benefits that you can actually measure.

It addition, the new fire-fighting training facility in southeast Calgary uses harvested stormwater to supplement the large amounts of water that are required for training. The facility has incorporated stormwater harvesting and treatment wetlands into their water recycling process, “essentially removing the water footprint by saving 150 million litres of [potable] water annually” (City of Calgary, 2010).

134

A few interview participants considered irrigation of green space to be a means to the end of lowering the storm pond before the next rainfall event -- with the added benefit of irrigating the park. Greenspace irrigation, with or without evaporation spraying, is an increasing trend in ASPs to reduce stored storm pond levels. In areas of Calgary that are naturally dominated by large, shallow wetlands, the added strategy of using evaporation ponds is also being tried in an effort to mimic the natural prairie hydrological cycle.

In many watersheds in Calgary there are quite restrictive stormwater targets, in terms of rate and volume that have to be met. The only way to meet these targets is by incorporating LID practices. That is what we are seeing right now. For pretty much all of the land development projects that we are working on, we see the need to incorporate LID.

Meeting provincial TSS limits was discussed by most of the interview participants. City stormwater managers feel that managing stormwater volumes is critical to reaching the provincial water quality targets for the city as a whole. The provincial regulatory requirements are discussed extensively in Chapter 5, and Calgary’s regulatory requirements are discussed in Chapter 6. Calgary’s combined TSS limits include sanitary wastewater and stormwater but the TSS from stormwater is significantly higher than the TSS from sanitary system returns to the Bow River26.

However, there is criticism of the City’s strategy to reduce runoff volume to pre- development levels. The debate lies chiefly around the reduced volume of stormwater that can be returned to the rivers and used downstream, and the energy that is needed to pump the water, rather than just letting it flow by gravity to the receiving waters. The downsides to stormwater volume discharge management are discussed in Section 7.3.4.

7.3 Barriers to LID Use in Calgary

7.3.1 Physical Barriers

The basic premise of LID is to manage stormwater close to its source. The strategy outlined in section 7.2 can be summarized as “slow it down, spread it out, soak it in.”

26 Calgary’s wastewater treatment plants are among the best in the world. Bonnybrook received a rare A+ rating from the Sierra Club in 2004 (Do, Amatya, & Keller, 2005). Pine Creek includes a world class research facility.

135

This may not be entirely the best approach to stormwater management in Calgary, considering the physical geography and the natural hydrological regime.

Chapter 4 is a comprehensive discussion of Calgary’s physical geography. I included that level of detail because every one of the interview participants put Calgary’s climate, soil and topography at the top of the list of challenges for implementing LID in Calgary.

Calgary is one of the more challenging environments to use LID. It is probably a lot easier to use it in some place like Toronto or Winnipeg or certainly Vancouver. In Winnipeg they don’t get the freeze-thaw. The problems here are with the frequent freeze- thaws, [and] the heavy sediment loading that we get because of sanding. That is a real challenge to the performance of LID. Tight clay soils are always a challenge.

The interviews allowed me to identify the aspects of Calgary’s physical geography that were most important to the interview participants – semi-arid climate; cold winters with Chinooks; soils with low permeability; fine grained and heavy sediment load; natural deep-rooted and drought resistant vegetation; and a hydrological regime that relies more on evaporation, evapotranspiration and sublimation than deep infiltration to groundwater. While the physical geography was originally seen as a barrier to implementation, all of the people I interviewed were in the process of implementing LID. The physical “barriers” have become “challenges”. Most interview participants think that the volume targets can be met, but that it will not be easy to reach the ultimate target in the Nose Creek and Pine Creek watershed. The replies to question # 11 (See Appendix 3B) about barriers ranged from optimism that the targets can be met, to skepticism, and doubt about whether there has been enough research to justify the final numbers used.

I think that over the past few years, there has been a lot done in terms of education and training. So yes, I think that generally consultants are able to design properly and the City of Calgary staff are also able to review and approve those designs. ALIDP has been quite instrumental in providing that education and training over the past few years, jointly with the City of Calgary through the City’s annual Erosion and Sediment Control courses…. For the last two to three years about half of that is the LID component. In addition, the City is finalising their very detailed guidelines. So I think that there are a lot of tools to deal with this.

136

By setting up this kind of a system, the City is asking for conflict. It is a foolish standard. It will cause a lot of frustration. The ability to comply is next to nothing.

7.3.1.1 Natural Hydrological Regime is Difficult to Mimic in a Semi-Arid Urban Setting

The physical geography that makes Calgary such a challenging place in which to mimic the natural hydrology is demonstrated in the surface hydrology, especially in the Nose Creek, Pine Creek and Shepard Corridor watersheds.

Several interviewees who are working on projects in the more challenging areas of Calgary (where the natural landscape consists of a high proportion of wetlands and shallow open water) observed that they will have to be innovative with their approach. Some are planning to incorporate as many opportunities to harvest and reuse rainwater and stormwater as current City and Provincial regulations allow. Others discussed unconventional strategies such as evaporative cooling on roofs and strategies to reduce off-site stormwater volumes.

In general, stormwater will be a real challenge as we move further east, because it is just so darn flat. Without going to ditches, how do you drain all that? How do you have stormwater ponds to manage all that? You may have to have ditches, and big ditches to move it. They have had big ditches for stormwater management – almost like big linear ponds. I can think of some in Airdrie that tie into Nose Creek. That may be something that we have to look at – almost like a canal system through the City … We are looking into more reuse [to reduce the volume of water going into the ditches].

We have a project [in Nose Creek Watershed] right now. We have a huge infiltration requirement. It won’t happen. Your backup position may be spray irrigation. But I am not a very big fan of spray irrigation because for me, you are trying to protect the environment --- and with spray irrigation, you are going to pump from now to infinity, which requires energy. Is that really any better for the environment than just putting the water back into the river?

137

However, the energy discussion is not limited to pumping water. The discussions occasionally turned to the benefits of maintaining parkland and trees to combat the heat island effect of cities. Proponents of green roofs observe that a green roof can lower energy consumption significantly through extra insulation value (winter) and evaporative cooling (summer).

7.3.1.2 Impact of Stormwater on the Morphology of Receiving Waters

All interview participants acknowledged that the smaller creeks and streams are being severely impacted by urban runoff, in terms of erosion and sediment load, and would benefit from the strategy of managing the runoff close to its source, rather than discharging it, uncontrolled, into the small streams. They often pointed out that Nose Creek is “too far gone” for volume controls to make a difference, but the experience that has been gained can be applied to other watersheds in Calgary and Southern Alberta.

However, there were two areas where participants differed in opinion. The morphological impact on the Bow River was considered to be minimal by some. The final numbers chosen for the total annual runoff volumes that estimate natural volume discharge are disputed.

Some participants believe that since the Bow River is capable of holding the volume from spring snow melt most years, setting the volume discharge targets at natural [summer/average] levels is too low. A few participants who are not enthusiastic about LID observed that the increased volume from summer rainfall events was not worth the added expense and effort of incorporating LID for drainage into the Bow River. They believe that more research is needed to justify the very low targets in the sensitive watersheds, as well as the higher targets for areas that discharge into the Bow and Elbow Rivers. Interview participants who support the City’s decision to set stormwater discharge targets at natural levels point to the numbers used by researchers from outside Alberta who calculated virtually the same values that the City uses (see Figure 30 in Chapter 4). They say that enough research has been done in this area. It is time to apply it before the City grows any bigger, in accordance with the MDP and backed up by the science of runoff hydrology.

138

What we’ve done in the meantime (until we can establish the final targets) is use table 5.2 in the MDP. There is a watershed core indicator. They call that the impervious surface ratio. They have estimated that the current city is around 32% [impervious surfaces]. The target they want in 60 years is between 10% and 20%. So we’ve taken that 10-20% effective imperviousness, and said “what is the equivalent runoff volume from that?” And that’s where we come up with 40 to 90 mm of runoff. So we are trying to put that in, in the absence of anything more specific. So if new targets come in, and a new ASP comes in after that, they would have to make sure that they would adhere to those targets. So we are making steps towards that.

7.3.1.3 Public Perception of LID

Several interview participants discussed the importance of public perception to the incorporation of LID into communities. Retrofitting a stormwater pond into an existing park requires extra lead time to educate the community on the benefits and even the necessity of the change to their parks. Extensive public engagement in one Calgary neighbourhood made the storm pond more acceptable, but still not entirely embraced.

The constructed wetland that was finally installed is an improvement from the original “moon-scape” pond. However, it has changed the character of the park. The open space used to be used for hot-air balloon launches, kite-flying and generally running about. Now it is nice to look at, but that is about all. There has been a major change in function.

7.3.2 Difficult Climate

7.3.2.1 Chinooks

Chinooks were the most-discussed aspect of Calgary’s climate. Every interview participant had a story to tell about overcoming the impact of Chinook weather – from frozen ground that acts as an impermeable surface when snow melts in mid-winter, to the limits that Chinooks put on the trees and shrubs that will survive27. Native species are more likely to survive. The end result is that the tree and shrub stock that can be used in LID facilities can be repetitive and boring. New communities could end up looking very

27 When a Chinook arrives in mid-winter daytime temperature can climb to well above freezing. The sap will flow in trees such as red maples. Then when winter temperatures return after a few days, the sap freezes and the tree dies.

139

similar across Calgary if, for instance, the water-loving ornamental trees are no longer used. Landscape architects and horticulturalists are equally concerned about the limits that LID strategies will have.

7.3.2.2 Climate’s Impact on Vegetation

Vegetation is a key factor in the success of LID projects, and becomes more so in the prairies where deep infiltration to groundwater is limited. Trees, shrubs and other deep- rooted plants can help to remove water from biofilters and rain gardens by transpiration. They are integral parts of the aesthetic value of LID in the urban environment. Virtually everybody wants woody plants in their landscape. They are very strongly in favour of parkland with some trees. There's good reason in the city why that makes sense because you need the verticality of the tree to visually absorb the impact of all those buildings, power lines and whatever.

Participants who work in horticulture point to the benefits of rainwater and the increased vigor and survival rate of trees and shrubs that receive their irrigation from rainwater. The rainwater’s warmer temperature and lack of chlorine benefits the plants. Additionally, by using harvested rainwater instead of potable water landowners are able to give the vegetation adequate moisture without the cost of treatment.

Depending on the landscape that is being irrigated, dual irrigation systems are often installed – one that uses the stormwater and one that uses potable municipal water. New landscaping can take several years to stabilize, and Calgary’s traditional summer drought may cause a high die-off of trees, shrubs or sod. Even after the landscape is stabilized, prolonged drought can cause (expensive) non-native nursery stock to die, so potable water systems are usually maintained. While the use of native species that are more drought tolerant is being encouraged by City programs, the lead time it takes to grow native trees and shrubs is a problem for landscape architects. If a landscape architect is not hired to plan the landscaping for a development three to four years ahead of construction, the only nursery stock that will be available will be non-native varieties that tend to be less drought tolerant. Similarly, prairie grasses are much more tolerant of drought, because of their deep roots, but stocks of sod are limited. Calgary has two local nurseries that provide native vegetation, but they require more lead time than nurseries

140

who stock non-native species.

One participant pointed out that any trees or shrubs, including the native ones, are more likely to survive in a bioswale or raingarden installation, if they are planted out of the inundation zone. That discussion has been part of the knowledge transfer between horticulturalists, landscape architects and engineers.

Have you ever seen a tree survive in a ditch? No. They need to be planted where they will not drown every time it rains. Trees act like a pump to move water from their roots to the air, but that pump only operates when the sun is out.

Alpine Tamarack and Siberian Larch don’t grow on the prairies [without irrigation], especially in an area that alternates between flood and drought, but they are more aesthetically desirable than the native prairie Tamarack, which is a dull green colour

In addition to the limits on trees and shrubs that can be used in Calgary, permeable pavement and permeable pavers are being used in pilot projects. Due to Chinooks, temperatures during the day in mid-winter can frequently climb above freezing, melt the snow and leave an icy layer when the temperature drops again. Sand and chloride mixtures are used on roads, driveways and parking lots for public safety. While Calgary does not use as much sand as some cities, the amount that is used can clog the spaces in the pavement or between the pavers and reduce or eliminate the infiltration capacity in just one or two seasons. The sediment load caused by sanding was discussed by about one quarter of the interview participants. Various forms of cleaning the permeable surfaces are being tested, including vacuuming and replacing the top layer of filter medium.

7.3.3 Cost Barriers Due to Physical Challenges

“Will it cost more?”

“Who bears the increased cost of installation and maintenance?”

“The City required the new methods, but developers are responsible for making sure that they work. Who pays to replace/fix it, if it fails?”

141

“Who takes the financial risk?”

These are the types of questions that the interview participants were asking about LID during the time when the City was suggesting voluntary inclusion of LID into new or retrofit developments beyond the two sub-basins where LID was required to meet volume discharge targets.

One of the initial non-regulatory incentives for including LID into development planning is the potential to reduce infrastructure costs. In some jurisdictions, infiltration occurs into groundwater within the conveyance systems. In the Calgary area, where infiltration is limited or very low, and evapotranspiration is limited because of cool nights, the LID system will not be able to manage the runoff from larger rainfall events that exceed the capacity of the minor stormwater system, unless a large amount of developable land is dedicated to ponds. Consequently, a dual stormwater system that includes traditional infrastructure is also required. Nonetheless, in general, the size of the conventional infrastructure can be reduced and some of the smaller pipes at the upper ends of the system can be eliminated in communities that are fully designed for LID stormwater management. Before the City had established engineering specifications for LID features, several developers considered installing full-sized conventional systems, in addition to LID systems, because they had little confidence that the LID system would provide the local stormwater flood control that they needed. They did not want to accept the risk of failure to protect their development from local flooding if the LID component fails in the future.

Roads and parking lots account for a significant amount of impermeable surface in any community. The runoff from impermeable surfaces of roads and similar infrastructure is best managed by community-level infrastructure such as rain gardens or bio-swales to reduce the amount of runoff that has to be managed in the end-of-pipe systems before discharge to the river. In most areas of Calgary that have dense clay soils and low topography, large rainfall and snowmelt events will still require some conventional stormwater infrastructure and end-of-pipe stormwater retention ponds to avoid local flooding.

142

There are numerous LID strategies, such as using absorbent landscape28, that will reduce the runoff from individual lots at little extra cost, if it is planned into the neighbourhood with the original designs. However basic strategies such as retroactively increasing topsoil depth on a lot-by-lot basis is cost prohibitive for the average home-owner. To alleviate this one-by-one retrofit challenge, and increase absorbent landscape, one of the first by-law changes that the City made related to reducing urban stormwater runoff was to increase the required depth of topsoil in new subdivision. The large number of properties that were built with shallow topsoil remains a challenge.

It has to be within the range of what people would expect to spend on an urban landscape. The thing is to convince people to spend somewhat more on soil and less on plants.

The most common concern about financial considerations was “who takes the risk?” People on the development end of the scale feel that they are taking the major risk, because if they install a system that the City requires and it fails, they may have to replace it. The participants who work as City staff tended to feel that the City is taking the risk, because the long term viability and maintenance of these systems becomes the City’s responsibility after the development is turned over to the City.

There is a risk to the developers, because if things don't work, before they are issued the FAC29, they are on the hook to re-do it, or make changes or whatever. There is that.

There is a risk to the municipalities once they take over this infrastructure, if it does not work as it is designed and does not meet all the performance expectations. It is a risk. But

28 Absorbent landscape includes deep topsoil and on-site rain gardens to absorb high-frequency, low volume stormwater runoff. 29 Developments are issued a Construction Completion Certificate (CCC) when the City inspectors agree that the project complies with City Guidelines for construction. The Final Acceptance Certificate (FAC) is issued after a defined period (currently 2-3 years) when the systems are operating up to standards. CCC and FAC submissions are based on Sections 6.1.8, 6.1.9, 6.1.10.2 and 6.1.10.3, 10.2.6, 11.4, 11.5.3 and Appendix J of the 2000 Stormwater Management & Design Manual as well as the “Consulting Engineers Field Services Guidelines” (City of Calgary, 2013c).

143

so is everything else. Conventional structures are a risk too. A pipeline could fail. A pond could not perform as designed. We just have to make sure that we design properly.

The risk of using new, as yet unproven LID stormwater infrastructure in Calgary was expressed repeatedly.

You try and minimise the risk with the proper design . . . but there is still the risk of how they will work in Calgary.

The cost of dedicating land for surface stormwater management at the same time that land is being set aside to preserve natural wetlands is cause for a challenge from the development industry.

Developers are calling for integration of stormwater with natural wetlands – it changes the functionality of the wetland. Parks is working with Water Resources to manage this issue. Calgary has a 30 metre setback from wetlands, so in areas where there is a high density of wetlands, that does not leave a lot of room for development.

7.3.4 Limits of LID in Calgary

All of the interview participants who are involved directly with infrastructure design, and a few others, discussed the fact that LID has become a useful tool to manage low intensity, low volume rainfall/snowmelt events. LID components are being incorporated into traditional stormwater infrastructure to reduce the size of the conveyance pipes and stormwater ponds. However, conventional stormwater infrastructure is still needed to manage runoff events that are generally handled in the major stormwater infrastructure system, i.e. the rainfall events that cause local flooding. Thus, LID is currently limited to being only a part of the City’s overall stormwater management strategy. Low infiltration rates and the difference in rainfall event sizes seem to be the limiting factors. The prevailing opinion is that to manage the large volume rainfall or snowmelt events with LID alone would occupy too much developable land.

The City of Calgary is currently working to counteract years of urban sprawl by requiring higher densities in new and retrofit developments. There are varying opinions about the effectiveness of LID to manage stormwater in more dense development. Some people said that it is not an issue. Others say that stormwater reuse will be essential to make it

144

work. Some people pointed to new developments that are incorporating the concepts of cluster development, adequate green space and increased overall density. Some interview participants stated that the requirements to limit urban stormwater runoff to pre- devolvement volumes, while increasing residential density, has led to opportunities for innovation among Calgary’s urban design community.

Several interview participants hope that protocols will be developed at the provincial and municipal levels in the near future so that stormwater can be reused in the same way that rainwater is now, for non-potable indoor use. If that were the case, stormwater could be used to meet volume reduction targets without requiring the same amount of green space that is needed to absorb irrigation water. The City is currently preparing a stormwater reuse strategy, a stormwater reuse management program, stormwater reuse safety plan and a monitoring and compliance program (Van Duin & Sandhu, 2014). The City will continue to implement the Development Approvals Management System (DAMS) (City of Calgary, 2014j) and continue to develop and update the LID Technical Guidance documents.

As the TSS of urban stormwater is being improved by LID, there are other aspects of urban non-point source pollution that are being investigated. Early indications are that dissolved pollutants such as phosphorous and nitrogen may be reduced by the current LID strategy of reducing the runoff. Chloride from winter road maintenance may not be as easy to deal with.

Chlorides are of great concern. They are one of the most challenging [pollutants] to decide how you might intervene. We use much less than eastern cities, so it is not as much of a problem for us here. It has to be balanced against potential property loss, insurance and safety [of not using salt on the roads]. Those questions will always have to be answered. But LID for chlorides – there is no easy answer.

7.4 Changing “Barriers” to “Challenges”

The initial introduction of LID strategies to Calgary was met with skepticism and resistance. However, perseverance from people in the consulting field and inside the City of Calgary administration who believed that it was the solution (at least in part) to some

145

of Calgary’s toughest stormwater management problems is turning the “barriers” into “challenges” that have to be met.

7.4.1 Overcoming Physical Challenges with Interdepartmental Collaboration

A theme that arose in most interviews with regard to overcoming the challenges of implementing LID was that interdisciplinary and interdepartmental cooperation is required to implement LID. At the most basic level, engineers, who have always designed systems to drain stormwater away as efficiently as possible, are learning to meet the needs of horticulturalists who require water to stay in the soil long enough to keep plants alive — but not drown them.

Horticulture needs to hold the water for use by the plants during drought. Engineering needs to move the water through quickly when it rains.

All of the interviews with City of Calgary staff included discussions of interdepartmental cooperation. Sometimes the relationships were strained in the beginning, but the nature of LID required the departments to “work it out”. The Parks Department and Water Resources Department are most often involved with these cooperative efforts. For example, storm ponds and rain gardens are infrastructure under the jurisdiction of Water Resources, but green space management is with Parks. When LID features such as rain gardens, bioretention facilities, and constructed wetlands are retrofitted into existing communities, existing park space is often the only available open space. Negotiating the final use of the space took – and will continue to take - some effort. The communication that is occurring among engineers, landscape architects, Parks Department managers, field crew and horticulturalists was discussed by several people. The learning curve is still occurring, and finalizing responsibilities of various city departments is still a work in progress.

[Being able to work on the conflicting land use issues] is one of the benefits of us working internally with our corporate partners, first. To look at what are the broader benefits of these facilities and what is the long term future of where they sit and how they sit, and how we classify the responsibilities of various departments. By doing these pilots, that is the sort of thing that we are exploring along the way. That is one of the benefits of

146

doing these things before they go massive scale.… Have we worked out all the problems? Definitely not.

In a more complex situation, the concept of Complete Streets required cooperation and mutual education between several City departments, including Parks, Roads, Water Resources and Planning. A multi-department working group was formed that worked together for fourteen months to develop the Interim Complete Streets Guide. Fifty-four people worked on the Interim Complete Streets Guide and 61 others contributed to or edited it. The current version of the Complete Streets Guide was released after more interdepartmental work and input from the development industry. All of the City employees that I interviewed agreed that inter-departmental collaboration takes longer than single-department decisions but the outcome is more sustainable.

In Transportation, we understand the need behind it. I understand about the water quality and the discharge rates, and that we have to hit those. Ponds alone don’t do it. So now we need to look at road right of way space and others to try to capture some of that. I’m converted. But the devil is in the details. I think that there is some pretty hard push in advance of the details. It makes it challenging to actually get in the ground; i.e. I see the need for runoff water quality improvements, but there is not enough space in the road ROW for bioswales, bicycles, parking, and pedestrians.

7.4.2 Overcoming Physical Challenges with Local Research and Model Calibration

Since all of the participants were involved with implementing LID (whether they thought the volume discharge targets were necessary or not) the discussion about barriers always included solutions to implementing LID in Calgary. Local research and model calibration were the most discussed requirements.

7.4.2.1 Overcoming the Remaining Barriers of Lack of Knowledge and Expertise

Despite the fact that most participants agree that there is enough local knowledge and expertise to design LID features in the Calgary area, most also agreed that more work is needed to improve performance so that it can be more cost-effective and accepted by the development community and the public. Over-designing a system is expensive in the short term, and under-designing a system will be expensive to rebuild it, manage floods,

147

or maintain it to a suitable standard. If erosion and sediment control are not managed adequately during the construction phase, some of the LID features can get clogged with sediment and will have to be re-constructed after everything else is finished. The lack of monitoring in the early LID projects was most often cited as a reason why Calgary LID systems are not as cost efficient as they could be.

I think that the big challenge right now for LID is the acceptance by the development community. There have been a couple of early failures. A couple of recent successes. The failures always stand out. If someone is trying to argue about the validity of the performance of LID, there is always the question, “Is it really going to work?”

7.4.2.2 Monitoring and Model Calibration

During the time that the interviews were conducted, most of the respondents were frustrated with the lack or limited amount of monitoring that had been done on stormwater discharges from subdivisions that had significant components of LID. They often mentioned that complex hydrological models are needed to develop stormwater management plans that include LID, but the models cannot be calibrated to Calgary’s conditions without local data. The frustration with the lack of local data was articulated by several interview participants.

The only way to prove that you can [meet the volume control targets] is if you are actually monitoring. That's something that we want the City to do. It is their targets. We are doing everything we can to meet them. We are making assumptions. Using design calculations based on assumptions. The only way we're going to know that they are right is once we have them on the ground.

I think we are in a state where they have to admit to the incompleteness of the knowledge. Admit it on paper so the red pen artists know that this is a moving target. Don’t try to make it a stationary target ... As a business we have to admit the limits of our knowledge - and the limits of the local trials of things. One of the ways to deal with it in a regulatory sense is to say, ”this is a trial, this is a trial, that is a trial”; but trials require monitoring to be done - to know whether or not they work.

148

The City of Calgary has been conducting monitoring of stormwater discharge for several years, but the small number of LID features that had been built until recently has limited the amount of LID performance data. Pilot projects on small areas, and partial LID in a few larger areas are still in the stabilising phase. It takes about five years between the time an ASP is approved by the City and when construction begins. It can take another five years for a LID system to stabilise. The first ASPs that required meeting stormwater targets were in the Nose Creek Watershed. The targets were phased, to give the development industry time to try out new LID features and prove (to themselves and the City) that they could meet the targets. Stormwater master plans with reduced runoff targets that were approved in 2007 and built in 2012 are just beginning to stabilise in 2015. They will require a few more years to reach maturity. Despite the fact that Watershed Management Plans with volume control targets have been required for ASPs throughout the City since April 1, 2014, construction of those subdivisions will occur sometime closer to 2019, and the LID features will reach maturity about five years after that.

[In 2014] There is still not enough monitoring of performance of LID. That is [part of a larger problem]. There is not enough stormwater monitoring. We don’t even know exactly the right/true parameters to use when we are modeling stormwater. For many years we have been using parameters and models that have been used because they are convenient or we know how to use them – they are not necessarily the right numbers or the right values to use. It has never really been proven. We have not taken a catchment and matched that up with a physical model - - a model that actually represents physical processes.

The growth rate of Calgary’s population is such that if regulations to reduce stormwater runoff were to wait until at least one complete set of data became available, a large area of land would be developed with conventional stormwater infrastructure in the interim. By incorporating volume discharge targets into all stormwater management plans the City is taking the stand that there is enough knowledge and expertise in Calgary to go forward. Developers have five years between the time of their ASP submission and construction start to work out the details, in compliance with the design standards and checklists that the City has produced.

149

To address the issue of water quality monitoring for stormwater, the City has developed a Total Loading Management Plan (Ma, 2015). The research was referred to by several interview participants, but during the time of the interviews it was too early in the program for the details to be released. The preliminary plan was presented at the Bow River Basin Quarterly Forum in March, 2015. However, the final results and report will not be ready until 2018. Currently, there are seven catchment areas with continuous monitoring, including sites in West Nose Creek, Shepard Corridor, several established developments and several greenfield sites that will be developed as Calgary grows. Currently only one site that is identified as LID is included. The City has created several rain gardens in established communities. Monitoring has been set up, but at the time the interviews for this thesis were conducted, no water quality results had been obtained. The rain gardens were just a year or two old, were not capturing runoff from their full catchment areas and were absorbing all of the stormwater runoff that entered. More research, monitoring and model calibration will help to refine the LID models and designs.

So teasing out the purpose for how it should be implemented here is a different question. That’s why you see bioretention research. The objectives for bioretention in Alberta are not necessarily the same objectives as in another jurisdiction. You can’t translate those things. You have to look at different things. Just the diurnal temperature fluctuations can affect your pollutant removal. And we’ve got big ones.

7.5 Federal, Provincial and Regional Legislation and Regulations have Preceded Municipal Policy and Practice

Chapters 5 and 6 include detailed discussions of the federal, provincial, watershed and municipal legislation, regulations, guidelines and policies. Each of these items were either mentioned by the interview participants, or were important precursors to the significant regulatory processes that influence Calgary’s stormwater management policy developments. The following discussion is my interpretation of the viewpoint of the interview participants.

150

7.5.1 Federal and Regional

Most of the interview participants were aware of the federal legislation and regulations that override the provincial regulatory framework. The Master Agreement on Apportionment that requires Alberta to send at least half of the water that rises in Alberta across the border to Saskatchewan was discussed by anyone who has concerns about Calgary’s water licence limits. The new Saskatchewan River Regional Management Plan was mentioned only on occasion. At the time of the interviews, people were waiting to find out what impact the provincially-managed plan would have on the City’s water management plans.

7.5.2 Provincial Laws and Regulations Support or Precede Calgary’s Stormwater Management Targets

The most frequently noted provincial laws, along with their regulations, were the Water Act, Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA), Prairie Provinces Water Sharing Agreement (Allocation Agreement), Municipal Government Act (MGA), and Alberta’s draft and final Wetland Policies.

Before the research for this thesis started, provincial regulations under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (1992) had mandated peak discharge controls, in an effort to reduce TSS and downstream flooding. The MGA gives municipalities the authority to enact bylaws that will enable them to comply with or exceed provincial laws and regulations. Since 1999 stormwater retention ponds have been required in all new Calgary developments, to enable Calgary to meet overall stormwater quality targets. A Stormwater Management Strategy was adopted in 2005 to meet the provincial regulatory requirements. The City has been building on that strategy ever since. The ever-evolving Strategy includes guidelines for new development, and a retrofit program for older areas of Calgary, as discussed in Chapter 6. The evolution of the Strategy from peak discharge control to total annual volume control has met resistance, especially when the changes will cost money or land to meet the new requirements.

I was not around when they first introduced stormwater ponds, but in my mind it is similar to that. A lot of real push-back, and reluctance to construct storm ponds. If it is

151

driven by regulatory requirements, which storm ponds were and LID is becoming, or are – where you have to meet the volume requirement, or a water quality requirement, then you have to do something.

7.5.3 Regulatory Barriers

One of the problems cited by interview participants about provincial legislation is that “storm drainage” is defined in the Water Act, but “stormwater” is not. “Storm drainage” is defined as “Drainage… resulting from precipitation” (Province of Alberta, 1993) and is commonly interpreted as any precipitation that reaches the ground. Storm drainage comes under the same legislation as all other surface water. Rainwater that has not yet touched the ground is not defined or regulated. The lack of clarity on how and how much rainwater/stormwater can be re-used has caused some confusion among the development community and City staff alike. The City has been using stormwater to water parks for over a decade, and has started to use it for facilities like the new fire-training facility. Despite the moratorium on new water allocation licences in the Bow River Basin, the City and province have come to an agreement on the re-use of some stormwater within the city. How much more extensively and with which techniques stormwater may be used remains the subject of discussion.

There was work done with the province, and now there is an agreement that we CAN use our stormwater to irrigate parks. [The next step—using stormwater for spray irrigation, not just sub-surface] what do we need to do to be able to do that?

That is another one of the barriers – there is not a clear definition of what can be done. We are working with the province. I am very confident that we will find solutions because with these Nose Creek targets we have to find alternatives to putting it in the creek. [Since infiltration won’t work due to the soils] the only other viable option is re-use. We need to make sure that whatever is proposed, it is in line with what the province allows. We are working with the province to make sure we are in compliance.

7.5.4 Inconsistent or Confusing Definitions

To complicate matters, in Alberta legislation, “rainwater” is defined as precipitation (rain or snowmelt) that has not reached the ground. It is harvested after it is intercepted by

152

roofs and other structures, then captured in a rain barrel or cistern. “Rainwater” is not regulated under the Water Act. The Provincial and City guidelines for residential rainwater harvesting reuse acknowledge the exclusion of rainwater harvesting from provincial regulation (City of Calgary, 2013a; Despins, 2010).

Interview participants who are more familiar with water law discussed the fact that some scholars of water law argue that by excluding “rainwater” from the Water Act, there is a potential to undermine the purpose of the Water Act to manage Alberta’s water resources. They argue that harvesting rainwater can remove significant amounts of water from the hydrological cycle (if for instance the water is used for deep well injection in oil fields) or, at the very least, reduce the amount of water that is available for downstream users (if it is used for irrigation and residential use) (Kwasniak & Hursh, 2009).

However, other scholars in water law, and the interview participants who are proponents of limiting urban storm drainage/stormwater to pre-development annual volumes, argue a different case. They observe that without impermeable urban surfaces and increased hydrological connectivity of stormwater infrastructure, the precipitation that falls on a pre-development prairie landscape (especially in a non-contributing area of the watershed) would not reach the river before it evaporates, so rainwater harvesting and stormwater reuse are not reducing the water that is available for downstream use. Proponents of LID point out that these practices simply prevent an increase of the river flow during rainfall events, and that reducing volume discharge from urban areas is the most cost effective way of reducing TSS so as to be in compliance with provincial regulations.

There are some barriers related to water reuse, related to the Water Act, or EPEA. But there is an awareness that those [barriers] have to be addressed. Alberta Environment is working on that, with the City.

[ESRD is] looking at the allocation aspect. They want to claw back as much urban runoff as possible, even though it is causing all these environmental impacts. They are looking at the idea that you have to discharge it all and get rid of it. You can’t reuse it. You can’t keep it here. They really put impediments in place, because of the legislation (Water Act,

153

1999). They have a really conservative view of a reuse policy. There are people who are trying to recommend policy to change the way they look at it.

Stormwater reuse has also been a controversial subject due to the concerns for public health; the fear is that people could come in contact with contaminated water. Strategies that were brought up in the interviews to minimize public health concerns include irrigation at night, restricting stormwater reuse to underground systems, and developing a system to treat stormwater with ultraviolet light to neutralize pathogens30. A ready-to-use “purple pipe” system that segregates reused stormwater and rainwater from the potable water supply has been installed in a very few homes and it could become as popular as “solar ready” homes if the public hears about it, and demands it.

Challenges regarding the Plumbing Code of Canada and Alberta Plumbing Code Regulation were discussed by interview participants who believe that stormwater could be included for purposes such as toilet flushing, vehicle washing stations, and fire- fighting. The recent Alberta and Calgary Guidelines for Rainwater Reuse are seen as a step in the right direction. Within the group of people that I interviewed, the national and Alberta plumbing codes are perceived as not keeping up with the need that Calgary has to use stormwater the way that rainwater is now permitted. Several people expressed frustration with the lack of progress toward development of provincial guidelines for stormwater reuse. They are aware that the City is attempting to change the provincial policies.

7.5.4 Watershed and Sub-Watershed Management Plans

The interview participants who deal with watershed management in the City directed me to the Nose Creek Watershed Management Plan (NCWMP) and the Bow Basin Watershed Management Plan (BBWMP). Both of these management plans include LID as a means of reducing urban runoff and improving water quality. As discussed in Chapter 6, the City’s endorsement of these plans led the way to the goals expressed in the

30 Some of my discussions previous to starting this research were about public health and the potential problem with mosquitos that are vectors of West Nile disease. This species of mosquito breeds in warm, stagnant water, so stormwater ponds that are deep enough will be too cool for them. However, one public health official observed that he suspects that with enough time, the mosquitoes will evolve that will carry West Nile disease and breed in stormwater ponds. Vigilance is necessary.

154

Calgary Transportation Plan and the Municipal Development Plan. Volume control targets were introduced to the Nose Creek Watershed in phases. The City used the lessons learned with the Nose Creek Watershed to avoid the phased approach and go directly to the final targets for the equally sensitive Pine Creek watershed. In retrospect, it was felt that staged targets in the Nose Creek watershed was a missed opportunity to protect the creek from further erosion.

For Pine Creek, the annual average runoff is very similar to Nose Creek. For Pine Creek we decided to implement the ultimate runoff target immediately, as opposed to staged implementation as we are doing in Nose Creek. The main reason is that Pine Creek is not disturbed, for the most part, so we wanted to protect that creek. For example with Nose Creek, if 10 % was developed, but they used up 25% of the capacity [with the early stage targets], what do you do with the rest of the 90%?

7.5.5 City of Calgary

The city-wide policies on stormwater peak and volume discharge targets directly support the goals for watershed protection expressed in the policies that have been developed since 2000. Development of city-wide volume discharge targets were discussed by most of the interview participants. When the interviews were being conducted, the city-wide targets were still under development, but came into effect just before the last two interviews were conducted.

There are 3 things that we want these city-wide targets to meet: - They should meet the goals of the watershed management plans, - With regard to regulatory compliance: we have approval to operate from the Province of Alberta. That includes a Total Loading Management Plan. Within that plan there are pollutants of concern and we have a limit on total loadings. The one that we are focusing on from a stormwater perspective is TSS – total suspended solids. That is not the only pollutant, but that is the one we have been targeting. There are others such as Nitrogen and Phosphorous, but we are currently focusing on TSS, - Align with the MDP: achieve 10-20% imperviousness target in 60 years. What do we need to do?

On a broad level, major City policies such as the Transportation Plan and the Municipal Development Plan share goals regarding managing the environment, including stormwater, in a sustainable manner. Multi-departmental working groups were required

155

to create the Complete Streets Policy. The City’s imagineCALGARY public engagement process saw over 18,000 Calgarians and multiple City departments brainstorm a long- term environmental policy. During workshops, open houses, and working group sessions the participants learned from each other. They developed policies and practices with goals for maintaining Calgary’s long term social, environmental and fiscal sustainably -- including Calgary’s water management.

The City’s Storm Drainage Bylaw sets the standard for storm drainage within the City31. The first requirement for LID to be included in an ASP was in the Nose Creek Watershed in 2007. Those plans had a relatively easy-to-reach target of 90mm/ha for the annual volume discharge. Those developments had just started to be built in 2012. In January 2010 the targets changed to 50mm/ha, and the developments that were affected by this change are just going in the ground in 2015. Voluntary targets that the City introduced were not picked up by the developers, for the most part. The City has one side of the story:

If we want to meet these targets, it has to be mandated. The City needs to say: this is what you need to meet. If it is done on a volunteer basis, no one is going to do it. The fact that the Nose Creek targets have been in place since 2007, and the development community knew that the more stringent targets would be coming up, but none of the developers are aiming for those is evidence that it needs to be mandated. It may cost more to do it up front, and there is still the risk of how well they will work in Calgary. But we are very confident that if designed and built correctly, they will work correctly, as intended.

31 Calgary Storm Drainage Bylaw Number 37M2005 Page 15 of 23 The Director, Water Resources may: (a) establish any conditions or requirements of an approval or permit to Release Water to the Storm Drainage System, including but not limited to: (i) testing, monitoring or reporting requirements; (ii) equipment or equipment maintenance or inspection requirements; (iii) filtration, settling or other treatment requirements; (b) order the testing of any Release to the Storm Drainage System; (c) establish fees for approvals or permits; (d) require the owner or occupier of a Parcel to submit a plan setting out how Releases from the Parcel will not cause an Adverse Effect

156

The last part of this statement is an echo of one of the reasons stated by consultants and developers for not proceeding with LID before it was mandated by the City. When up- front costs are higher, housing prices must reflect that, and developers fear that they will lose their competitive advantage.

For a few years, policy was ahead of practice in Calgary – City policies such as the Stormwater Management Strategy encouraged the use of LID techniques. Some LID pilot projects were included in ASPs before there was a City protocol to deal with them. If developers worked closely with City staff, the approval process was shortened, but several people I talked to discussed some of their frustration in the early days.

The City’s Development Approvals Department was often mentioned. Before the City developed standardized check sheets and engineering specifications, some developments that included LID features were denied permits after the proponents had spent several years in the design process. More experienced developers worked with the Water Resources Department personnel during design of innovative stormwater infrastructure, and for them, the approval process went more smoothly.

City staff warn developers of upcoming changes when they get the chance. Not all developers work closely with the City staff during preliminary development of plans, so they can get surprised when the changes are announced, or they hope they can get their project approved before the changes come into effect, or delays in completion of the design miss the cut-off.

Some of the questions and concerns about the City’s processes after the policies came into effect but before the engineering guidelines were finalized included:

Does the policy need to have the engineering specifications to go with it? Yes, if it is to be followed through with inspections and enforcement – inspectors have to know what they are enforcing. Uncertainty about what changes are coming – continue status quo until they are approved by City Council.

Will changes impact current plans, if the changes get introduced before the plan is submitted at the ASP levels?

157

Three barriers for industry not doing LID voluntarily – time it takes to get approvals of new things, uncertainty about the constructability, and up front expense.

One-on-one assessment of new LID techniques, plus research and pilot projects conducted by the City are still performed for experimental LID features, but the standardized protocol is expected to streamline ASP approvals. The City’s web site has up-to date information (City of Calgary, 2014j).

7.5.6 Public Awareness and Education

Interview participants felt that the general population is not yet ready to insist on enhanced stormwater management. This situation can be compared to the introduction of increased insulation in homes during the beginning of energy-consumption-awareness. Until potential home buyers demanded the enhanced insulation to save energy and improve comfort, home builders were reluctant to add to the cost of the home with extra insulation. Similarly, until homeowners demand enhanced stormwater management in their subdivisions, some developers believe that they have nothing but disincentives to include LID if it is on a voluntary basis. This is especially the case if the adjacent subdivision is installing stormwater infrastructure that has lower up-front costs, is easier to get approval for, is more of what the customer expects, and requires less maintenance in the first few years, before the development is turned over to the City.

A land developer or home owner in an urban context has no interest in saving the river. Because the consequence of the river failing does not accrue to him at the subdivision basin level. Let somebody else deal with it. It is society’s problem.

The difference in maintenance procedures for conventional stormwater systems and LID and its impact on public acceptance was emphasized by one interview participant:

How are you going to explain it to the community when we have to come in after 20 years, when the rain garden plants are nicely established, and we have to rip it up and start over so we can restart the infiltration capacity?

158

7.6 Moving Forward in Breaking Down the Barriers of Physical and Regulatory Challenges

7.6.1 More Research and Communication Needed

All of the people from the development industry that I interviewed have enough experience with LID and stormwater management that they work closely with City staff when they are designing stormwater management strategies that are not covered by the City templates. They all agree that more research is needed to calibrate models, refine the engineering specifications, define cost/benefits, and expedite development approvals – whether they agree with the need for volume discharge limits or not.

Research and pilot projects have been conducted by the City, the University of Calgary and some developers until the confidence level increased in the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and safety of various LID strategies. One good example of this was permeable pavement. During the research phase permeable paver installations received individual assessments from Water Resources staff. In 2013, the City accepted permeable pavement as a method of stormwater management and released a checklist for its installation. The Complete Streets Guide, released in 2014, includes engineering guidelines and checklists for permeable pavement as part of the LID stormwater management techniques.

The development industry representatives I talked to discussed the “level playing field” that must be established before the increased up-front cost and uncertainty of LID are included in their plans. The extra costs include installation of dual stormwater infrastructure, since LID in Calgary cannot handle the high volume event, especially when antecedent moisture conditions are high. Decreased size of the conventional stormwater system may offset this. The difficulty of installing some LID systems such as infiltration swales was a significant challenge to overcome. During construction these systems tend to become clogged with sediment, or compacted by heavy equipment, unless they are protected from surface runoff and construction machinery.

159

7.6.2 Capacity Building, Networking and Continued Education

LID is part of a dynamic, growing stormwater management system that attempts to mimic the hydrological cycle. The learning curve is steep. There were some early failures and more recent successes. There is a long list of conferences, educational forums and web resources around the world that have been developed to support the transition from conventional stormwater systems to LID-like strategies. In Calgary and Alberta the Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership (ALIDP) serves as a hub for sharing information that can be applied locally. The ALIDP began with a few individuals who recognized the potential of LID to help solve some of Calgary’s stormwater management problems. It was picked up by individuals inside the City’s water management departments. The ALIDP has held conferences on LID, created an extensive resource list on their web site, run field trips to visit LID sites, partnered with the City of Calgary to run annual educational workshops on erosion and sediment control, and recently started to partner with other non-government organizations to get the word out to the general public. When I asked interview participants who I should talk to about LID in Calgary, the Executive Director of ALIDP was always top of the list. Education and capacity building is their mandate, and it will keep them busy for a while.

The next section discusses the drivers of change that led the various interview participants or their organizations to incorporate LID into their stormwater management practices in Calgary.

7.7 Drivers of Change

Discussions I had with the interview participants indicated there were a variety of circumstances and ideologies that drove the change from Calgary exclusively using conventional stormwater management to incorporating LID into the acceptable (and even necessary) stormwater practices. The main driver of change that was identified during research for this thesis was meeting regulatory requirements set by the province, then the City. Other drivers of change included local necessity to manage a finite water supply, global awareness of water quality and quantity issues, solutions to specific problems, economics and public awareness.

160

7.7.1 Regulatory Incentives

Regulatory drivers of change in the City of Calgary are a response to the provincial guidelines for improved water quality of the City’s stormwater discharge.

Keep in mind, strictly speaking, we did not have stormwater quality targets in this province until 2001. That was the first time that it was actually put into numbers by Alberta Environment. Even the 1997 Provincial Stormwater Management Guidelines did not provide performance objectives yet.

In the meantime, the Bow River Basin Council and the provincial government were conducting water quality tests on the rivers and reservoirs in the watershed. It took several years after Calgary become aware of the original provincial targets before the City’s Stormwater Strategy was developed, and stormwater ponds became part of the initial TSS reduction strategy.

At the higher level – the watershed level - we have the Bow Basin Plan and things like that. These are recommendations that should be implemented to mimic pre-development conditions. It is very high level. It doesn’t give you specifics on how to do that. So when you look at the whole suite of practices within LID, one of the ideas is to take the watershed considerations before anything is even started, in the design, as opposed to designing everything and then thinking, “O.K. now what do we do with the stormwater.”

Once the province established targets for TSS the City was required to figure out ways to meet them. The City’s operating licence depends on meeting those provincial targets, so City Council budgeted staff time and money toward solving the problem of stormwater TSS. Approving the Bow Basin Watershed Management Plan and the Nose Creek Watershed Management Plan gave direction for the City’s high level Plans such as the Environmental Policy and other Policies that are discussed in Chapter 6.

When the provincial targets were first established, the only strategy that was available to the city was to mandate stormwater settling ponds in new developments, and start to retrofit ponds into older neighbourhoods where possible. This proved to be effective in a limited way, but not effective enough in the long term. The introduction of the concept of LID to Calgary was a turning point for most of the interview participants. Some of the senior staff within Water Resources are credited with recognizing the value of LID,

161

hiring the right people to do the research and forging through until the protocols were established to enable efficient application of LID techniques.

LID’s strategy to reduce the volume of stormwater discharge was first adopted to reduce the erosion and sediment load in Nose Creek. City staff spotted the potential to also improve TSS by reducing the volume of stormwater that had to be treated in end-of-pipe settling ponds. Push-back from the development community that the City needed to be more specific about what was acceptable led to the development of LID modules and the engineering specifications that could be used in City-managed projects, then applied to all ASPs.

It started with Nose Creek, in about 2007, when we started to have to do this. At that time, the targets were considered (by the development industry) to be a very negative thing, because, sure there was talk about source control measures, and that has now evolved into LID - the LID terminology. But there were no guidelines on "how do you do it?" "Just do it". We were scrambling to try to come up with answers. I think that (having to implement the targets) has triggered an intensity on LID stuff.

All of the interview participants put the adoption of City policies and guidelines to reduce stormwater volume discharge as the main driver of change in Calgary stormwater management, whether because the policies supported their personal opinions about stormwater management, or because they are required to comply despite their own doubts about the validity of the targets.

The City staff I talked to felt that by 2014 there was enough expertise and experience in the local LID community to design stormwater systems that could achieve the volume discharge targets. Consultants and developers generally feel that they can meet the targets, but that significant challenges still exist, especially in some areas of Calgary.

Every interview participant discussed the requirement to meet the provincial, and/or City water quality targets. Since most of the interviews took place before the City established City-wide volume discharge, some of the interviewees expressed the opinion that they were not necessary for most of Calgary, but if they have no choice, and if every other development has the same base rules, they would comply.

162

By establishing the phased-in target in the Nose Creek Watershed, the City gave the development industry the level playing field that they needed to justify the extra expense of research, and the occasional failure of LID systems. The result has been a shift from “it won’t work here” to “this is what has to be done to make it work here.”

The difference that I see since I started [working with LID] is that there used to be a lot of “grumble, grumble, do we really have to do this? Is this just a fad? There is just vague instruction.” But five years later there is clear direction from the City and province that we are going here. We don’t know what the best way is, but we must go somewhere in this direction.

Other City policies that were designed to protect the biodiversity and hydrological function of natural surface waters were also interwoven with the beginnings of LID. The Wetland Policy was integral to the development of sustainable stormwater management practices before the concept of volume control targets had even been thought of.

If I think back, the work we did in Rocky Ridge, where we were starting to protect some existing wetlands. That was, I would almost say, the start here in Calgary, because that was the first time that we did not just muck out an existing wetland and turn it into a dry- pond. We kept the existing wetland and we built some custom-designed sedimentation vaults to protect the wetland from sediments. That was the first one. It is over 20 year ago. It had to take its time to grow and get overall recognition to start putting it into numbers.

One of the pressures that we are under all the time is to take wetlands and use them for stormwater infrastructure as well, which we try to avoid doing. Because then we are not dealing with a functional wetland any more. We are dealing with a stormwater facility.

As mentioned above, after April 1, 2014, all new ASP applications submitted to the City of Calgary must have a stormwater management plan that indicates how they will meet the volume discharge control targets as a unit. It generally takes about five years between ASP submission and “shovels in the ground”. Setting those volume discharge targets marked one significant milestone in the adoption of LID as an integral part of stormwater management practices in Calgary. It has been a complex and challenging path to get to the stage where these targets could be set across the City.

163

7.7.2 Cost/Benefit Analysis

The topic of a “level playing field” was often brought up during the interviews, often in the same discussion about regulatory incentives. Any kind of hydrologically connected development in the Nose Creek watershed would put a strain on the creek’s carrying capacity, but unless the regulatory requirements are set by the City, the up-front costs were seen as a barrier to implementing volume control targets.

You have a menu of choices for treatment, and the whole cost/benefit question. If there is no regulatory driver, nobody is going to do anything, because why would you? Everything you do is going to cost, so why would you do it? So you arrive back at these ideas around these bio-retention cells, and Silva Cells, because they are the least costly things compared to the alternatives that we have so far, that amount to a water treatment plant for stormwater.

In situations where stormwater from a greenfield or infill development had to be serviced by existing stormwater infrastructure, LID became the most cost effective way of dealing with the increased stormwater volumes.

[One of the earlier developments to include extensive LID] had to retrofit to meet a certain downstream pipe size, so they were able to find a way to justify the increased cost of those features. [Because this was an infill development] the cost of land drove the fact that they could build a central park feature with LID techniques, instead of having a pond. The land cost dictated that if they could build a feature for LID that was not as costly as the value of the land – to have another parcel come out of it. So land cost is highly influential.

7.7.3 Seeing the Benefits for Stream Morphology and Water Quality

Interview participants who had been struggling with the degradation of Calgary’s urban creeks, rivers and wetlands were the first to embrace the concept of LID in Calgary. These individuals saw the concept of reducing stormwater runoff as a possible solution to water quality as well as engineering concerns for the infrastructure such as bridges that straddle urban waterways.

It has been at least 15 years [since I have seen the benefits of reducing stormwater volume discharge]. It really hit home when we were doing the work on West Nose Creek with Bob Newbury. We were able to demonstrate how the creek was changing because of

164

all the extra runoff that was being put into it. A lot of it, we knew, and had anticipated, but we had to be able to quantify it. Like the work that happened in Washington State in the early to mid-1990s, where they were starting to express the impacts on the degree of urbanization on the biotic indices.

Water courses are not the only beneficiaries of reduced runoff and managing stormwater close to its source. Soil erosion on uplands and escarpments is another issue that can be addressed by managing stormwater.

I was looking at the big cliff faces at Confluence Park that were so eroded and realizing that that was from increased volumes, and realizing “oh my goodness, it really matters.” That was the volume side.

7.7.4 Solving Specific Problems - Water Limits and a Growing Population

Among the interview participants there is an awareness of the limited supply of water that Calgary has access to on an annual and seasonal basis. They are aware of the water allocation licences, and the moratorium on new allocation licences in the province. No one disputes the idea that Calgary will need to reduce per-capita water use even more than they have since the “water-wasting days of the 1980s.”

An awareness of the global issue of water supply was included in several discussions about limited water supply. Managing water resources wisely is “the right thing to do” when so many other areas in the world have limited access to adequate supplies of clean water. Having the Rocky Mountains on our western horizon may seem like a guarantee of an endless supply of water, but there are other water licence holders, all the way to Hudson Bay, who also depend on this water. Calgary is the first major city downstream of the headwaters. It is our moral responsibility to keep it clean and in adequate supply for downstream users. The regulatory requirements are to keep responsible water management at more than a voluntary commitment.

In North America, LID is very much a stormwater conversation. But, because of the reuse issue, especially in a closed basin, by necessity we are going to be having a more integrated conversation, but all it will do is to show where the benefits are, of integrated water management.

165

7.7.5 Solving Specific Problems – Urban Landscape in a Semi-arid Region

In addition to the regulatory, river/stream morphology and water quality issues that were discussed by most interview participants, there were specific turning points that many of the interview participants experienced. Some were “aha! moments.”

But a specific moment for me was when I was asked to design a school yard naturalization project. They wanted a Larch tree, and they did not want to have to irrigate. But a Larch tree wants to be more moist. It is more of a mountain plant to begin with. They wanted a native tree, so you could not cheat and use a Siberian Larch which does not really need as much water, it will grow in general upland conditions, here. So I thought how am I going to get more moisture, to this Larch tree that these kids want? Gotta help these kids get what they want. Then I realized that there was an adjacent asphalt area with basketball hoops etc. and that I could harvest the runoff from that hard surface area for this Larch. That launched me onto this journey into understanding how hard surfaces really do alter things.

Other reasons for adopting LID were a result of years of working in the horticultural or landscape field in Calgary, trying to keep trees and shrubs healthy. The arrival of LID just formalized the rainwater harvesting that these people had already been doing.

7.8 Summary of Interviews

Because LID is so new, all of the interview participants except one had been practicing traditional stormwater management before LID arrived. Some saw it as a way to deal with long standing problems that they had experienced in their practice. Others adopted LID because it would help them meet regulatory requirements.

Benefits and drivers of change were often discussed together. When I asked interview participants who were “sold” on LID about the benefits, they usually took the opportunity to discuss why they believed that it was a solution to particular problems – whether horticulture, water quality, provincial water licence limits, or erosion and sediment control. To rephrase one of the quotes from above, “Teasing out the reasons why it should be implemented here and the reasons why it has been adopted by the City are different questions.”

Chapter 8 is a summary of the physical geography that makes LID valuable but difficult

166

to implement, some of the reasons behind the complicated web of the regulatory process, and the drivers of change that led individual stormwater practitioners in Calgary to adopt LID as part of Calgary’s stormwater management toolbox.

167

Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations

In this chapter the results of my research are discussed. The original research question looked at benefits of and barriers to the implementation of LID in Calgary. After Calgary adopted volume control targets across the City that require varying levels of LID to implement, I altered the research question to focus on the drivers of change that had enabled the shift, in less than two decades, away from exclusive use of centuries-old conventional stormwater management to volume control discharge targets enabled by LID.

8.1 Benefits of LID in Calgary

The benefits of using LID to mimic the predevelopment hydrological conditions of an area are consistent with other jurisdictions, and include:

 reducing non-point source pollution that washes, untreated, into the rivers  protecting the morphology of receiving waters  reducing base load and peak day potable water consumption  reducing the storm discharge, that would otherwise traverse from a new development to an old development with infrastructure that cannot manage the combined load, thus saving the cost of upgrading the old infrastructure  reducing the cost of conventional underground infrastructure by reducing the size or extent of the underground pipes that are needed  reducing the impact of high TSS and dissolved pollutant loads on downstream potable water treatment

The physical geography of the Calgary area creates a post-development environment that can benefit directly from using the LID techniques. When the high sediment load and dissolved pollutants can be reduced by managing stormwater close to its source, the biological community is put under less stress. The morphology of fragile prairie streams can be protected by reducing both peak and volume discharges of the stormwater. The total demand on Calgary’s renewable, but limited, water supply can be reduced if rainwater and stormwater reuse are increased.

168

8.2 Barriers to Implementing LID in Calgary

Many barriers to the initial implementation of LID in Calgary were originally consistent with those found in other jurisdictions:

 lack of regulatory support  limited local science, general knowledge and expertise  lack of public and corporate awareness of the impact of uncontrolled stormwater  lack of engineering specifications to give clarity to the development industry and City approvals department  reluctance to change  perceived or real costs associated with uncertainty of performance, initial installation and ongoing maintenance

In addition, Calgary’s physical geography makes it a particularly difficult area to apply many of the principles of LID:

 limited opportunities for infiltration into groundwater at the lot level or in the conveyance infrastructure  extremes of weather that produce flood or drought and make it unclear whether to hold the runoff for future use or dissipate it before the next rain event arrives  the necessity for a dual conventional/LID infrastructure due to lack of confidence in the effectiveness of LID to manage high volume events

The regulatory barriers for Calgary primarily consist of the lack of a clear definition of stormwater versus storm drainage and rainwater, and a lack of clarity regarding permitted applications for rainwater and/or storm drainage in the provincial legislation and policies.

8.3 Changing “Barriers” to “Challenges”

Since 2004, when LID was introduced to Calgary, the “barriers” which prevented progress, have turned to “challenges” to be overcome, as the City imposed volume control limits on the Nose Creek Watershed, then the remainder of the City. City policies and guidelines have been continually updated to include watershed protection in general,

169

and LID strategies in particular. Research and pilot projects have clarified which LID practices are most cost effective and affordable in Calgary. The City’s policy to “lead by example” has enabled small and larger scale projects to be implemented with attention paid to lessons learned from what worked or did not. These lessons learned from city-run projects, plus projects by other developers, have demonstrated that LID can work in Calgary. There is still work to be done to refine the hydrological models, construction methods and efficiency of LID techniques. The early pilot projects enabled City staff to work with individual initiatives to improve and approve the science behind the decisions. Engineering specifications and approvals protocols have been developed for the most common LID practices and are available on the City’s website (City of Calgary, 2014j). City staff members continue to work closely with the development industry who may want to implement more experimental practices.

A significant change in regulatory barriers occurred when the province developed guidelines for rainwater harvesting for indoor use. The City followed that with a more precise set of engineering specifications. Although the degree of uptake for rainwater reuse in residential applications appears to be limited, some commercial institutions are harvesting rainwater for toilet flushing and other areas where non-potable water is not required, as well as increasing their use of stormwater for irrigation rather than discharge to the rivers or creeks32. The City and province continue to work together to overcome outstanding questions about stormwater reuse.

8.4 Drivers of Change

When it became clear that Calgary would adopt LID practices, and find ways to address the challenges, the principal focus of my research became an investigation of the drivers of change that led to Calgary incorporating LID into the City’s stormwater management infrastructure. The three areas of my research, discussed in Chapters 4-7, all point to the same thing: that LID is useful in Calgary to help solve some of the problems caused by imposing conventional stormwater infrastructure on a prairie ecosystem.

32 For example, the Telus Spark Science Centre uses stormwater for irrigation and rainwater for toilet and urinal flushing (Telus Spark, 2015)

170

Southern Alberta has always had an issue with distribution and use of a renewable but finite supply of water. The earliest water policy in Alberta was focused on moving the water from the rivers to the land for agricultural irrigation. With the formation of the Prairie Provinces Water Board (PPWB) in 1948 and the completion of the Master Agreement on Apportionment (MAA) in 1969, Alberta became obligated to pass half of the water that rises in Alberta across the border to Saskatchewan, and to maintain adequate water quality. The MAA forms the basis for Alberta water quality and quantity regulations and is referenced in water management policies and legislation at the provincial and municipal levels. The significance of the water quality and quantity targets precipitated by the MAA was discussed by a number of interview participants. This agreement is one of the primary drivers for LID implementation in Calgary.

The MAA drives LID implementation in Calgary through Alberta’s Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and the Water Act and their associated regulations. Water quality guidelines in the form of triggers, targets and limits are set by the Province, and it is up to the municipalities to determine how they will be met. Calgary’s operating approval with Alberta Environment depends on staying within provincial guidelines. The increasing quantity of runoff with high sediment load that resulted from Calgary’s rapid growth meant that Calgary had to take action to meet the new provincial water quality guidelines established in 2001. Identifying the fact there was a potential problem had started with monitoring of the water quality in the Bow and Elbow Rivers as part of the Bow River Watershed Management Plan and the Nose Creek Watershed Water Management Plan. The knowledge of water quality deterioration, combined with the provincial government water quality limits, drove the City to find a way to comply, or risk significant fines, or lose its licence to operate. The Stormwater Management Plan that was first approved in 2005 is regularly updated to reflect new provincial guidelines and the BMPs that are approved for application in Calgary. Calgary’s current policies, plans, guidelines and performance measures all support meeting provincial water quality guidelines for the immediate and foreseeable future.

Another driver for LID implementation is economics. Calgary’s initial response to the provincial regulations was to require stormwater ponds to be built in new subdivisions.

171

At that time, Calgary also initiated a significant retrofit program for older neighbourhoods where it could be accommodated. However, the large amount of land required by storm ponds alone, necessary to achieve adequate stormwater treatment before discharge to the receiving waters, made this solution expensive and sometimes impossible depending on land availability. LID’s strategy of managing stormwater close to the source promises to improve water quality and reduce the size requirements for end- of-pipe treatment. This appears to offer a potential solution to the increasing land cost of stormwater management, while reducing the TSS load being discharged into the rivers. The long term cost of maintenance will be different from the conventional infrastructure, but environmental full cost accounting has proven that the investment in stormwater management systems that protect the morphology and biological integrity of the receiving waters is imperative.

In some places, LID makes stormwater treatment feasible, where stormwater settling ponds would not be. In older neighbourhoods that require retrofits, higher density areas, new multi-family housing, or other areas where there is no room for a storm pond, LID features such as rain gardens, tree soil vaults, or permeable pavement can be (and have been) constructed.

Opportunities to reduce Calgary’s per capita potable water demand is also a driver for incorporating LID’s stormwater and rainwater reuse techniques into Calgary’s stormwater management infrastructure. Calgary has made significant strides in reducing the per-capita water consumption, but “the low hanging fruit has been picked”. The future growth rate of Calgary combined with the finite water supply is an incentive to find new and innovative ways to reduce per-capita water withdrawals from the Bow and Elbow Rivers to supply the potable water demand. Climate change scenarios that could make this situation more critical include increased temperatures and degree-days as well as decreased annual winter snow pack accumulation in the Rocky Mountains. Calgary has taken the official stance that climate change is real, and it is time to take action to cope with potential impacts. In the words of an anonymous interview participant, “People tend to start to try to solve a problem when they believe that the time that it will take to solve the problem is approaching the limit of the time available to solve the problem.”

172

With the limits of Calgary’s water supply clearly defined by the annual volume of the water allocation licence, Calgary has responded proactively in advance of future water supply issues.

Maintaining the biodiversity of Calgary’s landscape and the benefits of the urban oasis are also important incentives to reuse rainwater and stormwater, rather than just sending it down a storm drain conversion from prairie meadow or wetland to a simple stormwater pond reduces biodiversity. The vegetation in some parks and open spaces requires some level of irrigation to survive the occasional prairie drought. Until or unless the plant palette is converted back to drought-tolerant species, irrigation will be needed in this semi-arid climate. If the need for a total ban of outside watering does become necessary, the stormwater harvesting systems of LID will help to maintain the urban landscape during the transition.

Finding a solution to the impact on City infrastructure along the edges of the Nose Creek valley was a major driver for putting LID into action originally. The Nose Creek watershed had been studied enough to know that increased volume in the creek was caused by the increased hydrological connectivity that came with urban development. The research done in Colorado by Bledsoe (2001) and others identified the problem, and people who were trying to find a solution to the Nose Creek morphology changes saw LID as a possible solution – a solution that was worth trying and has become the basis for volume control targets across the City.

While the Bow River morphology is not as sensitive to small rainfall events as Nose Creek and Pine Creek, the experience in Nose Creek helped to define the idea that reducing volume also improves water quality, and reduces the amount of water that has to be treated in an end-of-pipe facility. In addition, while the Bow River morphology may be able to manage increased summer volumes, the shore nesting birds and riparian habitat along the Bow and Elbow Rivers are negatively impacted by water levels that constantly fluctuate. The City’s Riparian Management Plan is one of many that support the use of LID to reduce volume discharges as it improves water quality. It is easier to measure and enforce peak and volume discharges than water quality. The runoff volume targets are set between 40 and 90 mm. Volume is tied to pollutants.

173

Change in global awareness of the need for better watershed management was a driver of change at the City Council and City Administration levels that eventually made it to the implementation level. The common goals that were articulated through the vision statements and policies such as the Environmental Policy, imagineCALGARY, Plan It Calgary, the Water Efficiency Plan and the Triple Bottom Line Policy were incorporated into the Calgary Transportation Plan and the Calgary Municipal Plan in 2009. These visions, policies and plans were translated into action in the Complete Streets Guide and the updated Stormwater Management Guidelines.

A driver of change for some individuals in Calgary came from being part of interdepartmental teams such as the one put together to create the Complete Streets Guide. It required people from Roads to work with people from Planning, Parks, Water Resources and Protective Services, among others. One of the tasks was to learn the significance of the other departments’ requirements. This led to a greater understanding of each other’s responsibilities and goals and helped engender a more holistic approach that included stormwater treatment in the local streetscape. Despite the fact that the process took longer than single-department decisions, the end result is a new and comprehensive procedures manual for street design in Calgary that includes water quality management. A group of individuals had to “think outside the box” to achieve this beneficial outcome. There is still work to do.

8.5 Observations/Conclusions

LID is a beneficial addition to Calgary’s stormwater management practices. From new erosion and sediment control practices at construction sites, to retrofitting a rain garden into an inner-city community, LID is making a significant contribution to reducing Calgary’s TSS loading, and has potential to significantly reduce the dissolved portion of the stormwater pollution.

One of the lessons learned from the Calgary experience is that leadership is necessary to create a major policy shift such as including LID in stormwater management practices, especially in a relatively short time frame. Once the need to meet the requirements of the new Alberta Water Quality Guidelines was identified, City of Calgary staff and some

174

progressive developers undertook early LID pilot projects within the City. It takes leadership to approve pilot projects that include the risk of failure. However, this is necessary in order to learn what works and what does not work with Calgary’s challenging climate, soils and topography. These early projects helped pave the way for future LID implementation.

Strategies for improving Calgary’s stormwater quality would not have happened as quickly without the forums, conferences and other opportunities for face-to-face interaction that occurred in the early 2000s. The CMHC’s early discussions with Prince George’s County in Maryland regarding their success with LID; the ALMS conference that brought the Water Balance Model and LID to Calgary; the cross-jurisdictional work that established guidelines for rainwater for indoor use; the conference and workshops hosted by the ALIDP; these were all part of the early introduction of LID to Calgary that enabled individuals in Calgary and Alberta to understand the usefulness of LID for solving some of Calgary’s water quality and stream erosion issues.

Cooperation between the governments of Alberta and Calgary continues to be essential in advancing the implementation of sustainable stormwater management, whether the authority in the form of LID or water reuse. The Municipal Government Act gives the City to enact bylaws, but those by-laws have to have provincial support to withstand challenges from people who do not include the concept of Triple Bottom Line in their own cost/benefit analysis.

Interdepartmental and interdisciplinary cooperation is critical to achieve successful volume control targets with or without LID implementation. Stormwater is no longer the purview of just the civil engineers. There is a need for input from horticulturalists, landscape architects, other engineering disciplines, planners, the development community, public health and protective services. Buy-in from the general public will ultimately determine if LID is successful in Calgary. LID is a much more time consuming and difficult way to design stormwater management systems, but the benefits outweigh the added cost of time and money. Better solutions to complex problems are achieved when such interdisciplinary cooperation is undertaken. It may take longer, but the results pay off.

175

When a new technology is being proposed, especially one that is more difficult to use than the technology that it is replacing, it must be backed up by science. The science in this case is modeling the hydrology of runoff, infiltration, evaporation, sublimation, evapotranspiration, storage and flow-through. Finding and using the right model is not as easy as it is with conventional stormwater management. Also, there are too many models for City staff to be able to know them all. Having the City decide which models it would accept helped to relieve the uncertainty. Different models will produce different results, with the same input, depending on whether they emphasize water quality or discharge predictions. There is a need for stormwater management specialists in the City right now. City and engineering consultants alike have job postings. The driver of change in this case is the need to understand and model the urban version of the hydrological cycle, rather than relying on engineering principles that were established over 2,000 years ago.

Calgary has been an early adopter and continues to be a leader in the field of LID implementation in Southern Alberta. Other communities can learn from this experience, which will hopefully shorten the time and effort that it will take to develop their own revision to stormwater management plans to enhance watershed protection. That being said, many communities in Southern Alberta have also been implementing stormwater reform by various degrees and methods. Calgary has also learned from some of their successes and failures through continued communication.

None of the literature that I reviewed or people I talked to have any doubts that LID and other forms of stormwater management reform still has room to improve. The basic principles have been established. The goals are stated. The science that supports mimicking the pre-development hydrology is sound. However, the most cost effective method, the construction techniques, refinements to the hydrological models, all need more work. There are career opportunities for stormwater designers and managers.

8.6 Recommendations

R1. The provincial government, in cooperation with municipal governments and other stakeholders, should define the difference or similarities between storm drainage and

176

stormwater so that the two terms are either used for distinctively different water management issues, or become interchangeable in legislation and regulations.

R2. The provincial government, in cooperation with municipal governments and other stakeholders, should make policy decisions about net return flow caused by urban stormwater: whether it should it be used primarily to reduce demand on urban potable water supply or to supplement volumes of water in the river for downstream water demand, including agricultural irrigation and instream flow objectives. The consequences of increased urban storm discharge on the riparian habitat immediately downstream of a community’s storm outlets must be considered.

R3. The provincial government, in cooperation with municipal governments and other stakeholders, should work toward allowing stormwater/storm drainage to be used the same way as rainwater, but establish clear rules that it must remain in the active hydrological cycle, not injected into deep wells or other completely consumptive uses.

R4. The City of Calgary should continue research into local hydrological conditions, especially stormwater model calibration.

R5. The ALIDP should continue the work it is doing now, including:

 Enabling insights and cross pollination of ideas across the continent and beyond with conferences, workshop and working groups that include a mix of professions and jurisdictions.  Establishing partnerships and working relationships among adjacent jurisdictions, industry and the all levels of government.

R6. Similar to the way energy conservation was embraced by the general public after they were made aware of the benefits to themselves and the environment, more outreach should be undertaken to educate the general public about the new approach to stormwater management. “Buy-in” has happened at the professional and City Administration level. Now it is time to take it the popular level. In my opinion, the development industry would benefit from including stormwater management in advertising for new and retrofit

177

development, to increase the general public’s awareness of the purpose and significance of LID for stormwater management.

178

References

Agarwal, A., & et al. (2000). Integrated water resource management. (Technical Background Committee background paper No. 4.). Stockholm, Sweden: Global Water Partnership/Swedish International Development Agency.

Akuoko-Asibey, A., Nkemdirim, L. C., & Draper, D. L. (1993). The impact of climatic variables on seasonal water consumption in Calgary, Alberta. Canadian Water Resource Journal, 18(2), 107-116.

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. (2009). Agroclimatic Atlas of Alberta: Weather in Alberta. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/sag6295

Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. (2015). Soil Group Map of Alberta. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/soils/soils.nsf/soilgroupmap?readform

Alberta Agriculture. (undated). Agricultural Land Resource Atlas of Alberta. Solonetzic Soils of the Agricultural Area of Alberta. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex10311

Alberta Environment. (1984). South Saskatchewan River Basin Planning Program: Summary Report. Edmonton, AB: Water Resources Management Services, Planning Division.

Alberta Environment. (1999). Surface Water Quality Guidelines for Use in Alberta. (No. T/483). Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Environment.

Approved Water Management Plan for the South Saskatchewan River Basin (Alberta), (2006a). http://environment.Alberta.ca/documents/SSRB_Plan_Phase2.pdf

Alberta Environment. (2006b). Section 6. Stormwater Management Guidelines. Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waterworks, Wastewater and Storm Drainage Systems Drinking Water Branch, Environmental Policy Branch, Environmental Assurance Division.

Alberta Environment. (2007). Provincial Wetland Restoration Compensation Guide. Edmonton, Alberta: Environmental Partnerships and Education Branch.

179

Alberta Environment. (2008). A Guide to Alberta Environment's Full Cost Accounting Program. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Environment. http://aep.alberta.ca/water/programs-and-services/drinking- water/knowledge/documents/FullCostAccountingProgramGuide-Mar2008.pdf

Alberta Environment. (2014). Full Cost Accounting; frequently asked questions. http://esrd.Alberta.ca/water/programs-and-services/drinking- water/knowledge/documents/FAQs_FCA.pdf

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. (2013a). Alberta Wetland Policy. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Government.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. (2013b). Bow River at Calgary (05BH004). River data - Apr. 01, 2013 - Nov. 01, 2013.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. (2014a). Bow River Phosphorus Management Plan. (April, 2014). Edmonton, Alberta: Province of Alberta.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. (2014b). The Strategy: An Introduction. http://www.waterforlife.Alberta.ca/0889.html

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. (2014c). Water Act legislation/ guidelines web site. http://esrd.Alberta.ca/water/legislation-guidelines/default.aspx

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. (2015). Water Conservation Objectives. http://esrd.Alberta.ca/water/legislation-guidelines/water-conservation- objectives.aspx

Alberta Environment, & Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife. (1986). Grease Creek water yield improvement proposal. (No. T/140). Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Forest Service.

Alberta Environmental Protection. (1999). Stormwater Management Guidelines for the Province of Alberta. Municipal Program Development Branch, Environmental Sciences Division, Environmental Service.

Alberta Government. (2009). Profile of the South Saskatchewan Region. (No. I/415). Edmonton, Alberta: Government of Alberta.

180

Alberta Government. (2011). Ecosystem service approach pilot on wetlands: Assessment of water storage and flood control ecosystem services. Prepared for Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development for the Ecosystem Services Pilot Project by O2 Planning + Design Inc.

Alberta Government. (2012). Stepping Back from the Water: A beneficial practices guide for new development near water bodies in Alberta’s settled region. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Environment and Sustainable Development.

Alberta Government. (2013). Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waterworks, Wastewater and Storm Drainage Systems. Part 5: Stormwater management guidelines. Regional Integration Branch, Operations Division, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development.

Alberta Government. (2014a). Guidelines Regarding Appurtenance. ESRD, water quantity, 2014, no. 1. http://esrd.Alberta.ca/forms-maps- services/directives/documents/GuidelinesRegardingAppurtenance-Apr23-2014.pdf

Alberta Government. (2014b). South Saskatchewan Regional Plan 2014-2024. (policy). Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Queen's Printer.

Alberta Government. (updated 2014). South Saskatchewan region surface water quality management framework for the mainstem Bow, Milk, Oldman and South Saskatchewan Rivers (Alberta). Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development.

Alberta Infrastructure. (2013). Flood risk management guidelines for location of new facilities funded by Alberta infrastructure. Edmonton, Alberta: Technical Service Branch.

Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership. (2014). What is low impact development (LID)? https://alidp.org/what-is-lid

Alberta Transportation. (2014). Bridge conceptual design guidelines. Version 1.0. Edmonton, Alberta: Bridge Engineering Section. Technical Standards Branch.

Alberta Urban Municipalities Association. (2014). Stormwater Management Discussion Guide and Workbook. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Urban Municipalities Association.

181

Alberta Water Council. (2009). Recommended Projects to Advance the Goal of Healthy Aquatic Ecosystems. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Water Council. http://www.awchome.ca/Portals/0/pdfs/HAE_Recommendation_Report.pdf

Alberta Water Council. (2013a). Recommendations to improve non-point source pollution management in Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta. http://www.awchome.ca/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ff90UcqhD_o%3d&tabid=134:

Alberta Water Council. (2013b). Riparian Land Conservation and Management Report and Recommendations. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Water Council. http://www.awchome.ca/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=6oWLFZbhJQc%3d&tabid=59

Alberta Water Council. (2013c). Sector Planning for Water Conservation, Efficiency and Productivity. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Water Council. http://albertawatercouncil.ca/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=_iYr_JXytVQ%3d&tabid=1 15

Alberta Water Council. (nd). Alberta Water Council: About us. http://Albertawatercouncil.ca/AboutUs/tabid/54/Default.aspx

Alberta Water Resources Commission. (1985). Water Management in the South Saskatchewan River Basin: Report and Recommendations. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Water Resources Commission.

Alberta Water Resources Commission. (1990). Wetland Management in the Settled Area of Alberta : Background for Policy Development. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Water Resources Commission.

Alberta Water Resources Commission. (1993). Wetland Management in the Settled Area of Alberta: An Interim Policy. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Water Resources Commission. http://www.environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/6169.pdf

Alberta Water Resources Commission, Alberta Agriculture, Alberta Environment, & Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife. (1986). Drainage Potential in Alberta: An Integrated Study. (Summary Report). Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Water Resources Commission.

Alberta Water Resources Commission, W-E-R Engineering LTD, & et al. (1992). On- farm water management study: Drainage implications and alternative: Hydrologic Component. Final Report. Calgary, Alberta: W-E-R Engineering Ltd.

ALIDP. (2015). Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership. About us. History. https://alidp.org/about/history

182

Amato, F., Querol, X., Johansson, C., Nagl, C., & Alastuey, A. (2010). A review on the effectiveness of street sweeping, washing and dust suppressants as urban PM control methods. Science of the Total Environment, 408(16), 3070-3084.

Amell, B., Chu, A., & White, J. (2004). Constructed wetlands for water quality improvement: A design primer for the development industry. Calgary, Alberta: City of Calgary, Constructed Wetland Task Force.

Angelakis, A. N., Koutsoyiannis, D., & Tchobanoglous, G. (2005). Urban wastewater and stormwater technologies in ancient Greece. Water Research, 31(1), 210-220.

Bakker, K. (2007). Introduction. In K. Bakker (Ed.), Eau Canada: The future of Canada's water. (pp. 1-22). Vancouver, British Columbia: UBC Press.

Barrow, E. M., & Yu, G. (2005). Climate scenarios for Alberta. A Report Prepared for the Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative (PARC) in Co-Operation with Alberta Environment. University of Regina, Saskatchewan.

Beaty, C. B. (1975). The Landscapes of Southern Alberta: A Regional Geomorphology. Lethbridge, Alberta: University of Lethbridge, Production Services.

Bechtold, J. P., Deong, Y., Digel, M., Wang, M., & Kobryn, B. (2005). Development of a new water quality model and its use in defining total loading management targets for the city of Calgary. Session 81 through Session 90 (Water Environment Federation) 7030-7056.

Bjornlund, H. (2005). Making environment and economics meet for sustainable water management. 58th Annual Conference of the Canadian Water Resources Association. 2005-06-14, Banff, Alberta. 1-13.

Bledsoe, B. P., & Watson, C. C. (2001). Effects of urbanization on channel instability. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 37(2), 255-270.

Boardley, A., & Kinkead, M. (2006). An analysis of Canadian and other water conservation practices and initiatives: Issues, opportunities, and other suggested directions. Mississauga, ON, L5M 2K8: Prepared for the Water Conservation and Economics Task Group. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment by J. Kinkead Consulting. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2014/ec/En108-4-68-2005-eng.pdf

Boller, M. (1997). Tracking heavy metals reveals sustainability deficits of urban drainage systems. Water Science and Technology, 35(9), 77-87.

183

Booth, D. B. (1990). Stream-channel incision following drainage basin urbanization. Water Resources Bulletin, 26(3), 407-417.

Bow Basin Watershed Management Plan Steering Committee. (2008). Bow Basin Watershed Management Plan. Phase One: Water Quality. Final Version 1.0 September 10, 2008. Calgary, Alberta: Bow River Basin Council.

Bow River Basin Council. (2005). Nurture, Renew, Protect: The 2005 Report on the State of the Bow River Basin. Calgary, Alberta: Bow River Basin Council.

Bow River Basin Council. (2014). Home web page. http://www.brbc.ab.ca/index.php/about-us/about-the-brbc

Bow River Phosphorous Management Plan Steering Committee. (2014). DRAFT Bow River Phosphorous Management Plan. Edmonton, Alberta or Calgary, Alberta: Government of Alberta, Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership.

Bowmana, T., Tyndalla, J. C., Thompsona, J., Kliebensteinb, J., & Collett, J. P. (2012). Multiple approaches to valuation of conservation design and low-impact development features in residential subdivisions. Journal of Environmental Management, 104 (August), 101-113.

Bracken, L. J., & Croke, J. (2007). The concept of hydrological connectivity and its contribution to understanding runoff-dominated geomorphic systems. Hydrological Processes, 21, 1749-1763.

Brandes, O. M., Maas, T., & Reynolds, E. (2006). Thinking Beyond Pipes and Pumps: Top 10 ways communities can save water and money. Victoria, British Columbia.: POLIS Project of Ecological Governance, University of Victoria.

Brooks, D. B. (2005). Beyond Greater Efficiency: The concept of Water Soft Path. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 30(Spring), 83-92.

Brooks, D. B., Brandes, O. M., & Gurman, S. (Eds.). (2009). Making the Most of the Water We Have: The Soft Path Approach to Water Management. London, UK: Earthscan.

Brooks, D. B. (2006). An operational definition of water demand management. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 22(4), 521-528.

Brown, R. R. (2005). Impediments to integrated urban stormwater management: The need for institutional reform. Environmental Management, 36(3), 455-468.

184

Brown, R. R., & Clarke, J. M. (2007). Transition to water sensitive urban design: The story of Melbourne, Australia. ( No. 07/1). Melbourne, Australia: Facility for Advancing Water Biofiltration, Monash University.

Brown, R. R., & Farrelly, M. A. (2009). Challenges ahead: Social and institutional factors influencing sustainable urban stormwater management in Australia. Water Science and Technology, 59(4), 653-660.

Bruce, C. J. (2007). A tale of two cities: Public Participation Processes in Banff and Calgary (Policy Brief No. 07001 ed.). Calgary, Alberta: Institute for Advanced Policy Research, University of Calgary. http://www.ucalgary.ca/iaprfiles/policybriefs/iapr-pb-07001.pdf

Brydon, J., Oh, I., Wilson, J., Hall, K., & Schreier, H. (2009). Evaluation of mitigation methods to manage contaminant transfer in urban watersheds. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada, 44(1), 1-15.

Bunn, S. E., & Arthington, A. H. (2002). Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management, 30(4), 492-507.

Byrne, J., Kienzle, S., Johnson, D., Duke, G., Gannon, V., Selinger, B., & Thomas, J. (2006). Current and future water issues in the Oldman River Basin of Alberta, Canada. Water Science and Technology, 53(10), 327-334.

Buzzards Bay Coalition. (2013). Managing the Watershed-Reducing Nutrients in Stormwater Runoff. Decision-Makers Workshop Series. University of Massachusetts. Cranberry Station, E. Wareham, MA. http://www.slideshare.net/savebuzzardsbay/managing-the-watershed-reducing- nutrients-in-stormwater-runoff

Cahill, T. H. (2012). Low Impact Development and Sustainable Stormwater Management in the 21st Century. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Canada. (1973). The National Atlas of Canada (4th ed.). Ottawa, Ontario: Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). (1999). Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. Ottawa, ON: CCME.

Canadian Geographic. (2015). Ecozone. http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/glossary/definition.asp?word=ecozone&id=31

185

Canadian Water Network. (2007). Canadian Water Network launched Pan-Canadian initiative at University of British Columbia conference. http://waterbucket.ca/rm/2007/06/20/canadian-water-network-launches-pan- canadian-initiative-at-university-of-british-columbia-conference/

Cantafio, L. J., & Ryan, M. C. (2014). Quantifying baseflow and water-quality impacts from gravel-dominated alluvial aquifer in an urban reach of a large Canadian river. Hydrogeology Journal, 22, 957-970.

Carter, T. R. (2009). Developing conservation subdivisions: Ecological constraints, regulatory barriers, and market incentives. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92(2), 117-124.

Chen, Z., Grasby, S. E., Osadetz, K. G., & Fesko, P. (2006). Historical climate and stream flow trends and future water demand analysis in the Calgary region, Canada. Water Science and Technology, 53(10), 1-11.

Chivers, V. (2014). Shepard Constructed Stormwater Treatment Wetland. http://www.ch2mhillblogs.com/water/2011/04/18/shepard-constructed-stormwater- treatment-wetland/

Chocat, B., Kreb, B., Marsalek, J., Rauch, W., & Schilling, W. M. (2001). Urban drainage redefined: From storm-water removal to integrated management. Water and Science Technology, 43(5), 61-68.

City of Calgary. (1984). Water Management in the South Saskatchewan River: A submission by the City of Calgary to the Provincial Commission on the South Saskatchewan River Basin. Presented at Calgary, November 6, 1984.

City of Calgary. (2000). Stormwater Management and Design Manual. Calgary, Alberta: City of Calgary, Wastewater and Drainage.

City of Calgary. (2004a). Calgary Wetland Conservation Plan. Calgary, Alberta: City of Calgary, Parks. http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Parks/Documents/Planning-and-Operations/Natural- Areas-and-Wetlands/wetland_conservation_plan.pdf?noredirect=1

City of Calgary. (2004b). City of Calgary State of the Environment Report 2014. Calgary, AB: City of Calgary.

City of Calgary. (2004c, June 02, 2004 11:28 AM). Mayor announces City of Calgary is ISO 14001 registered. City of Calgary, News Release. http://newsroom.calgary.ca/news/city-council/mayors-office?page=30

186

City of Calgary. (2005a). Opportunities to Change Drainage Practices. (No. UE2005-62 ATTACHMENT). Calgary, Alberta: City of Calgary, Wastewater. http://publicaccess.calgary.ca/lldm01/livelink.exe?func=ccpa.general&msgID=Lccq cyTyTR&msgAction=Download;

City of Calgary. (2005b). Stormwater Management Strategy, Report to Standing Policy Committee on Utilities and Environment. (No. UE2005-35). Calgary, Alberta: City of Calgary. http://publicaccess.calgary.ca/lldm01/livelink.exe?func=ccpa.general&msgID=BTg KgTreTY&msgAction=Download;

City of Calgary. (2005c). Triple Bottom Line Policy. (Council Policy Manual No. UE2005-34). Calgary, Alberta: City of Calgary. http://domino.city.cornwall.on.ca/Active/Development/egenda.nsf/965d04e85bb82e b4852573ae007b4532/c240e887aae6b1f68525764700731b95/$FILE/Calgary%20T BL%20Policy.pdf

City of Calgary. (2005d). Water Efficiency Plan: 30 in 30, by 2033. Calgary, Alberta: Water Resources. http://www.Calgary.ca/UEP/Water/Documents/Water- Documents/water_efficiency_plan.pdf

City of Calgary. (2007a). Backgrounder: City of Calgary - MD Rocky View Annexation. http://www.Calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/Publications/annexation- backgrounder.pdf

City of Calgary. (2007b). Environmental Reserve Setbacks. (No. UE2007-5). Calgary, Alberta: Community Services and Utilities & Environmental Protection Report to the Standing Policy Committee on Utilities and Environment.

City of Calgary. (2007c). imagineCALGARY: Calgary's Plan for Long Range Urban Sustainability. Calgary, Alberta: City of Calgary.

City of Calgary. (2008). PlanIt Calgary: Integrated Land Use and Mobility Plan. (No. 2008-1037). Calgary, Alberta: City of Calgary.

City of Calgary. (2009a).The City of Calgary Municipal Development Plan. City of Calgary. Calgary: Alberta.

City of Calgary. (2009b). Stormwater Management Report. (No. 0782). Calgary, Alberta: City of Calgary.

187

City of Calgary. (2010, July 23). Calgary fire department boasts new training facility, water reclamation project. Calgary City News Blog. http://www.calgarycitynews.com/2010/07/calgary-fire-department-boasts-new.html.

City of Calgary. (2011). History of Stormwater Management. http://www.Calgary.ca/UEP/Water/Pages/Water-and-wastewater-systems/Storm- drainage-system/History.aspx

City of Calgary. (2011 (updated 2013)). 2020 Sustainability Direction: City of Calgary's 10 year plan towards imagineCALGARY. (No. 2013-0648). Calgary, Alberta: Office of Sustainability. http://www.calgary.ca/CA/cmo/Documents/2013- 0648_ChangesTo2020SusCover_spread_web.pdf

City of Calgary. (2012a). Calgary Watershed Report: A summary of surface water quality in the Bow and Elbow River watersheds, 2010-2012. Calgary, Alberta: City of Calgary, Water Resources, Water Quality Services.

City of Calgary. (2012b). City of Calgary's Environmental Policy (revised). Calgary, Alberta: City of Calgary.

City of Calgary. (2012c). Report to Calgary Planning Commission: Report for information on current guidelines and definition for Low Impact Development (LID) as well as conservation design guidelines. (Report to Calgary Planning Commission No. M-2012-012). Calgary, Alberta: City of Calgary.

City of Calgary. (2013a). Rainwater Harvesting Guidelines: For Internal Non-Potable Use. Calgary, Alberta: City of Calgary, Development and Building Approval.

City of Calgary. (2013b). Riparian Strategy: Sustaining Healthy Rivers and Communities. Calgary, Alberta: City of Calgary. http://www.calgary.ca/UEP/Water/Documents/Water- Documents/Calgary_Riparian_Strategy.pdf

City of Calgary. (2013c). Water Resources/Water Services - Ponds Triage Process. (Industry Bulletin September 2013). Calgary, Alberta: Water Services. http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/urban_development/bulletins/ud- bulletin-water-resources-ponds-triage-process.pdf

City of Calgary. (2014a). 2014 Civic Census Results. Calgary. Alberta: City Clerk’s Election and Information Services. http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Documents/Election-and-information- services/Census2014/Final%202014%20Census%20Results%20book.pdf

188

City of Calgary. (2014b). 2014 Complete Streets Guide. Calgary, Alberta: City of Calgary. http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Documents/Council-policy- library/TP021-Complete-Streets-Policy.pdf

City of Calgary. (2014c). Bridlewood Wetlands. http://www.Calgary.ca/CSPS/Parks/Pages/Locations/SW-parks/Bridlewood- Wetlands.aspx

City of Calgary. (2014d). Catch Basins in Calgary. http://www.Calgary.ca/UEP/Water/Pages/Water-and-wastewater-systems/Storm- drainage-system/Catch-Basins.aspx

City of Calgary. (2014e). The City of Calgary Municipal Development Plan. Part 6: Glossary. Calgary Alberta: City of Calgary.

City of Calgary. (2014f). City of Calgary, Alberta Annual Report for the Year Ended December 31, 2013. Calgary, Alberta: Produced by the Chief Financial Officer’s Department of The City of Calgary, in cooperation with all civic departments, offices and agencies.

City of Calgary. (2014g). Complete Streets Policy. (Policy No. TP021). Calgary Alberta: City of Calgary. Transportation Planning. http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Documents/Council-policy-library/TP021- Complete-Streets-Policy.pdf

City of Calgary. (2014h). Interim Stormwater Targets 2014. (Industry Bulletin March 2014). Calgary, Alberta: Water Resources/ Water Services. http://www.calgary.ca/UEP/Water/Documents/Water-Documents/Bulletin- Development-Approvals-Interim-Stormwater-Targets.pdf

City of Calgary. (2014i). Storm Drainage System: What is Stormwater? http://www.Calgary.ca/UEP/Water/Pages/Water-and-wastewater-systems/Storm- drainage-system/Storm-Drainage-System.aspx

City of Calgary. (2014j). Water Development Approval Submission Resources. http://www.Calgary.ca/UEP/Water/Pages/Specifications/Submission-for-approval- /Development-Approvals-Submissions.aspx

City of Calgary. (2015). Low Impact Development. http://www.Calgary.ca/UEP/Water/Pages/Watersheds-and-rivers/Erosion-and- sediment-control/Low-Impact-Development.aspx

189

City of Calgary, & Rocky View County. (2001). M.D. of Rocky View/City of Calgary Intermunicipal Development Plan (the Shepard \Plan). Calgary, Alberta: City of Calgary, Planning & Transportation Policy; Rocky View County, Department of Planning and Development.

City of Toronto. (2003). Wet Weather Flow Management Policy. Toronto, Ontario: City of Toronto. http://www.toronto.ca/water/protecting_quality/wwfmmp_guidelines/pdf/wwfmmp_ policy.pdf

Clare, S. L. (2013). Wetland loss in Alberta: Identifying Successes, Barriers, and Unintended Outcomes of Public Policy (Ph. D. in Conservation Biology). University of Alberta. https://era.library.ualberta.ca/public/view/item/uuid:098394e1-8e72-4ab1-8eed- f6e17956dd5a/

Clare, S. L., Krogman, N., Foote, L., & Lemphers, N. (2011). Where is the avoidance in the implementation of wetland law and policy? Wetlands Ecology and Management, 19, 165-182.

Clipperton, G. K., Koning, C. W., Locke, A. G., Mahoney, J. M., & Quazi, R. (2003). Instream Flow Needs Determinations for the South Saskatchewan River Basin, Alberta, Canada. (No. T/719). Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Environment & Alberta Sustainable Resource Development.

CMHC. (2001a). Peak Day Irrigation Demand Reduction Monitoring. (Research Highlight. Technical Series 10-114).Ottawa, ON: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/odpub/pdf/62691.pdf?fr=1270252386634

CMHC. (2001b). Stormwater Management Alternatives. (Technical Series 01-117). Ottawa, ON: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

CMHC. (2012). Development and publication of training materials to support the implementation of rainwater harvesting in Canada. (Technical Series 12-100). Ottawa, ON: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

CMHC. (2014a). Alternative Stormwater Management. Web page. Ottawa, ON. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/inpr/su/waho/waho_004.cfm

CMHC. (2014b). Urban Heat Island Mitigation Measures and Regulations in Montreal and Toronto. (Technical Series 14-100). Ottawa, ON: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

190

Coffman, L. S. (2000). Low impact development design: A new paradigm for stormwater management mimicking and restoring the natural hydrological regime. National Conference on Tools for Urban Water Resource Management and Protection, Chicago, IL. , EPA/625/R-00/001(February 7-10, 2000) 158-167.

Cole, A. (2013). Annual Unit Runoff in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. http://www.agr.gc.ca/atlas/supportdocument_documentdesupport/aafcAnnualUnitRu noff2013/en/AUR_Report_Final.pdf;:

Collections Canada. (2001). Agreement to Transfer Natural Resource Administration to Alberta. http://www.collectionsCanada.gc.ca/05/0529/052930/05293055_e.html

Corporate Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities. (2014). CRC for Water Sensitive Cities. http://www.watersensitivecities.org.au/

Cote, S. A., Wolfe, S. E. (2014). Assessing the social and economic barriers to permeable surface utilization for residential driveways in Kitchener, Canada. Environmental Practice, 16(01), 6-18.

CPP Environmental Corp. (2011). Current State of Non-point Source Pollution: Knowledge, Data, and Tools. Report prepared by T. Charette and M. Trites for the Alberta Water Council. 154 pp.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing, Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Chapter 9: Analysing and interpreting qualitative data. In A. C. Benson, C. Robb & M. Harlan (Eds.), Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. (3rd ed., pp. 243-270). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson, Prentice, Hall.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Crouch, D. P. (1991). Water Management in Ancient Greek Cities. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cummings, D. I., Russell, H. J., & Sharpe, D. R. (2012). Buried-valley aquifers in the Canadian prairies: Geology, hydrogeology and origin. Canadian Journal of Earth Science, 49, 987-1004.

191

Curriero, F. C., Patz, J. A., Rose, J. B., & Lele, S. (2001). The association between extreme precipitation and waterborne disease outbreaks in the united states, 1948- 1994. American Journal of Public Health, 91(8), 1194-1199.

Demuth, M. N., Pietroniro, A., Grasby, S. E. & Spence, C. (2008). Calgary's Water in a Changing Climate? Look Upstream. http://www.usask.ca/ip3/download/presentations/Demuth_Calgary_Oct_2008.pdf

Despins, C. (2010). In Leidl C., Farahbakhsh K. (Eds.), Alberta Guidelines for Residential Rainwater Harvesting Systems, 2010. Edmonton, Alberta: The Crown in right of Alberta as represented by the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Dietz, M. E. (2007). Low impact development practices: A review of current research and recommendations for future directions. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 186(1), 351-363.

Do, P., Amatya, P. L., & Keller, W. (2005). Successful implementation of biological nutrient removal at the 500 ML/d Bonnybrook wastewater treatment plant. Proceedings of the Canadian Design Engineering Network (CDEN) Conference, Kaninaskis [Sic], Alberta, July 18-20, 2005 , Kananaskis, Alberta. 10pp.

Earles, A., Rapp, D., Clary, J., & Lopitz, J. (2009). Breaking down the barriers to low impact development in Colorado. Paper presented at the 6th Urban Watershed Management Symposium, Kansas City, Missouri. http://wrightwater.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/10/LID_Barriers_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf

Elliott, A. H., & Trowsdale, S. A. (2007). A review of models for low impact urban stormwater drainage. Environmental Modelling & Software, 22(3), 394-405.

Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2015). Ecotone. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/178617/ecotone

Environment Canada (1987a). Federal Water Policy, (1987a). Section 21.Shoreline Erosion. http://www.cwwa.ca/pdf_files/Federal%20Water%20Policy,%201987_e.pdf;

Environment Canada. (1987b). Federal Water Policy. http://www.cwwa.ca/pdf_files/Federal%20Water%20Policy,%201987_e.pdf;

Environment Canada. (2010). Planning for a Sustainable Future: A Federal Sustainable Development Strategy for Canada, Sustainable Development Office. Target 4.1. https://www.ec.gc.ca/dd-sd/default.asp?lang=En&n=F93CD795-1

192

Environment Canada. (2013a). Top 10 Weather Stories of 2012:8. The year of the urban flood. http://www.ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=D05E090A-1

Environment Canada. (2013b). Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations Reporting: Frequently asked questions. https://www.ec.gc.ca/eu-ww/default.asp?lang=En&n=0D689118-1

Environment Canada. (2014a). Canadian Climate Normals 1981-2010. http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_1981_2010_e.html?stnID=220 5&lang=e&StationName=Calgary&SearchType=Contains&stnNameSubmit=go&d Code=1&dispBack=1

Environment Canada. (2014b). Green Municipal Fund. http://www.ec.gc.ca/scitech/default.asp?lang=En&n=B742DBAF-1

Environment Canada. (2014c). Water Quality Objectives and Guidelines. https://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=F77856A7-1

Erickson, A. J., Gulliver, J. S., & Weiss, P. T. (2007). Enhanced sand filtration for storm water phosphorus removal. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 133(5), 485-497.

Evans, I., F.L., Geldreich, E. E., Weibel, S. R., & Robeck, G. G. (1968). Treatment of urban stormwater runoff. Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation), 40(5, Research Supplement, Part II), 162-170.

Federation of Canadian Municipalities. (2015). Green Municipal Fund update: New funding offer 2015. http://www.fcm.ca/home/programs/green-municipal-fund/about-gmf/gmf- update.htm

Fesko, P. (2011). The City of Calgary's Experience with Low Impact Development Stormwater Management. Calgary, Alberta: City of Calgary. Strategic Services, Water Resources. https://www.fcm.ca/Documents/presentations/2010/SCC2010/The_City_of_Calgary s_Experience_with_Low_Impact_Development_Stormwater_Management_EN.pdf

Foster, J., Lowe, A., & Winkelman, S. (2011). The Value of Green Infrastructure for Urban Climate Adaptation. Washington, D.C.: The Center for Clean Air Policy.

Francey, M., Fletcder, D., Deletic, A., & Duncan, H. (2010). New insights into the quality of urban storm water in south eastern Australia. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 136(4), 381-390.

193

Frumkin, H. (2002). Urban sprawl and public health. Public Health Reports, May-June, 201-217.

Furniss, M., Flanagan, S. A., & McFadin, B. (2000). Hydrologically-connected Roads: An indicator of the influence of roads on chronic sedimentation, surface water hydrology, and exposure to toxic chemicals. Fort Collins, CO: In Stream Notes. Stream Systems Technology Centre. USDA Forest Service.

Gaffield, S. J., Goo, R. L., Richards, L. A., & Jackson, R. J. (2003). Public health effects of inadequately managed stormwater runoff. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1527-1533.

Gan, T. Y. (2000). Reducing vulnerability of water resources of Canadian prairies to potential droughts and possible climatic warming. Water Resources Management, 14, 111-135.

Geldreich, E. E., Best, L. C., Kenner, B. A., & Van Donsel, D. J. (1968). Bacteriological aspects of stormwater pollution. Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation), 40(11, Part 1), 1861-1872.

Gibson, R. B. (2012). In full retreat: The Canadian Government's new Environmental Assessment law undoes decades of progress. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(3), 179-188.

Golder Associates. (2007). Bow River Impact Study Phase 2: Development of total loading management targets for the City of Calgary. Calgary, Alberta: City of Calgary.

Google Earth. (2014). Calgary's Eastern Edge at Stony Trail between Hwy 1 and McNight Blvd. Google Earth.

Goudie, D. (2009). The emergent science of engineering a sustainable urban environment. Water Air Soil Pollution: Focus (2009) 9:469–484 DOI, 9, 469-484.

Government of Alberta. (2003). Water for Life: Alberta’s Strategy for Sustainability. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Environment.

Government of Canada. (1930). Alberta Natural Resources Act, S.C 1930 c. 3. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-10.6/FullText.html

Government of Canada. (1985). Fisheries Act. Archived. Vol 146, No. 15, July 2012. Ottawa:ON. Canada Gazette. http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2012/2012-07-18/html/sor-dors139-eng.html

194

Governments of Canada, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Master Agreement on Apportionment. (1969). http://www.ppwb.ca/information/109/index.html

Gregory, K. J. (2006). The human role in changing river channels. Geomorphology, 79(3- 4), 172-191.

Gromaire, M. C., Garnaud, S., Saad, M., & Chebbo, G. (2001). Contribution of different sources to the pollution of wet weather flows in combined sewers. Water Research, 35(2), 521-533.

Gulliver, J. S. (2014). Gismos for Stormwater Treatment. http://elearning.engineering.villanova.edu/Mediasite6/Play/2db5f22fc80842c8b39a0 1d69ff7b0f51d

Hammitt, S. A. (2010). Toward Sustainable Stormwater Management: Overcoming barriers to green infrastructure (Thesis, M.C.P.) Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/59735

Hatt, B. E., Fletcher, T. D., & Walsh, C. J. (2004). The influence of urban density and drainage infrastructure on the concentrations and loads of pollutants in small streams. Environmental Management, 34(1), 112-124.

He, J., Valeo, C., Chu, A., & Neumann, N. F. (2010). Characteristics of suspended solids, microorganisms, and chemical water quality in event-based stormwater runoff from an urban residential area. Water Environment Research, 82(12), 2333-2345.

Herrera. (2011). Best Available Science for Stormwater Management Alternatives. (No. TWC 100814). Friday Harbour, WA: San Juan County Community Development and Planning Department.

Hogan, D. M., & Walbridge, M. R. (2007). Best management practices for nutrient and sediment retention in urban stormwater runoff. Journal of Environmental Quality, 36(2), 386-395.

Holtz, S. (2007). Crisis? What crisis? Water Soft Path proponents swim against a current of sparse data, skeptical citizens and policy barriers. Alternatives Journal, 33(4), 18- 21

Howard, S. (2007). Environment Education Guide: Protecting Washington’s waters from stormwater pollution. (No. 07-10-058). Seattle, WA: Department of Ecology, State of Washington.

195

Irrigation Water Management Study Committee. (2002a). South Saskatchewan River Basin: Irrigation in the 21st Century. Volume 1: Summary Report. Lethbridge, Alberta: Alberta Irrigation Projects Association.

Irrigation Water Management Study Committee. (2002b). South Saskatchewan River Basin: Irrigation in the 21st century. Volume 5: Economic opportunities and impacts. Lethbridge, Alberta: Alberta Irrigation Projects Association.

Jackson, L. E., Phillips, F. M., Shimamura, K., & Little, E. C. (1997). Cosmogenic 36Cl dating of the foothills erratics train, Alberta, Canada. Geology, 25(3), 195-198.

Jayasooriya, V. M., & Ng, A. W. M. (2014). Tools for modeling of stormwater management and economics of green infrastructure practices: A review. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 225(8), 1-20.

Jordaan, S. (2009). Removing institutional barriers to Water Soft Paths: Challenges and opportunities. In D. B. Brooks, O. M. Brandes & S. Gurman (Eds.), Making the most of the water we have: The soft path approach to water management (pp. 149-162). London, UK: Earthscan.

Kalmakoff, L. (2007). Implementation of Low Impact Development on Commercial and Industrial Developments in the Nose Creek Watershed (Alberta).(Master of Environmental Design) University of Calgary.

Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169-182.

Kwasniak, A. J., & Hursh, D. R. (2009). Right to rainwater - A cloudy issue. Windsor Review of Legal and Social Issues, 26 W.R.L.S.I. 105

Lee, J. H., & Heaney, J. (2003). Estimation of urban imperviousness and its impacts on storm water systems. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 129(5), 419-426.

Letourneau, R., Amell, B., Deong, Y., & Wouts, R. (2008). City of Calgary stormwater quality retrofit program. 11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.

Ma, L. (2015). Total Loading Management Plan- an Integrated Watershed Management Approach. http://www.esaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/W15-27.pdf

MacMillan, R. A. (1985). Soil Survey of the Calgary Urban Perimeter. Alberta Soil Survey. (No. 45). Alberta Research Council. Terrain Sciences Department.

196

Mader, J. G. (2012). Pilot and photographer. Calgary, Alberta.

Maitland, C. (2013). Low Impact Development Policy Implementation: Achieving volume reduction targets in the Nose Creek Watershed (Master of Environmental Design). University of Calgary.

Marsalek, J. (2003). Road salts in urban stormwater: An emerging issue in stormwater management in cold climates. Water Science Technology, 48(9), 61-70.

Marsalek, J. (2006). Overview of urban drainage impacts on aquatic habitat. In P. Hlavinek, T. Kukharchyk, J. Marsalek & I. Mahrikova (Eds.), Integrated Urban Water Resources Management. (pp. 181-190). The Netherlands: Springer.

Marsalek, J., & Chocat, B. (2002). International report: stormwater management. Water Science & Technology, 46(6-7), 1-17.

Marsalek, J., Jimenez-Cisneros, B., Karamouz, M., Malmquist, P., Goldenfum, J., & Chocat, B. (2008). Urban Water Cycle Processes and Interactions. The Netherlands: Taylor and Francis.

Marsalek, J., & Schreier, H. (2009). Innovation in stormwater management in Canada: The way forward. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada, 44(1), 1-6.

Martz, D. (2004). Hdyrological impacts of development. 2004 Alberta Lake Management Society Workshop: Smart Growth: Protecting our Watersheds through Low Impact Development. Okotoks, Alberta.

McCarty, D. J. (2002). The Environmental Benefits of Various Urban Design Scenarios: A study assessing the environmental and economic value of urban trees and water permeable surfaces.(Landscape Architecture). http://www.lacf.ca/fr/system/files/URBTREES%20Thesis.pdf

Merriam-Webster. (2015). Merriam-webster on-line dictionary. http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/

Mitchell, V. G. (2009). Applying integrated urban water resource management concepts: A review of Australian experience. Environmental Management, 37(5), 589-605.

MPE Engineering Ltd. (2014). Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative: Engineering assessment of preferred stormwater management options. Prepared under the direction of the Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative (CSMI).

197

Natura, H. (1995). Root Systems of Prairie Plants. Cedarburg, WI: Conservation Research Institute.

Nkemdirim, L. C. (1996). Canada's Chinook belt. International Journal of Climatology, 16(4), 441-446.

Noor, K. B. M. (2008). Case study: A strategic research methodology. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 5(11), 1602-1604.

Nose Creek Watershed Partnership. (2013). Nose Creek Internal Drainage Areas Study Final Report - May, 2013. Airdrie, Alberta: Nose Creek Watershed Partnership.

Nose Creek Watershed Partnership Technical Committee, & Alberta Environment. (2003). Nose Creek Water Management Plan Phase 1: Terms of Reference. Airdrie, AB: Nose Creek Watershed Partnership.

Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. (2007). Nose Creek Watershed Water Management Plan: Final draft. Calgary, Alberta: Prepared for: The Nose Creek Watershed Partnership.

Palmer, C. L. (1963). Feasibility of combined sewer systems. Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation), 35(2), 162.

Palmer, C. L. (1950). The pollutional effects of storm-water overflows from combined sewers. Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 22(4), 154.

Pasche, E., Manojlovic, N., Hellmers, S., Brüning, C., & Behzadnia, N. (2009). Hydrologic sensitivity analysis - contribution to the assessment of effectiveness of SUDS in small urban catchments. 33rd IAHR Congress: Water Engineering for a Sustainable Environment. International Association of Hydraulic Engineering & Research (IAHR), Vancouver, B.C.

Peak Aerials. (2014). In Walker K. (Ed.), Shepard Wetlands from the air. Calgary, Alberta.

Pentney, A., & Ohrn, D. (2008). Navigating from history into the future: The water management plan for the South Saskatchewan River Basin in Alberta. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 33(4), 381-396.

Percy, D. (2005). Responding to water scarcity in western Canada. Texas Law Review, 83(7), 2091-2107.

198

Poff, N. L., Richter, B. D., Arlington, A. H., Binn, S. E., Naiman, R. J., Kendy, E., Warner, A. (2010). The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): A new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshwater Biology, 55(1), 147-170.

Prairie Provinces Water Board. (1969, revised 2009). The 1969 Master Agreement on Apportionment & Bylaws, Rules and Procedures. Regina, SK: Prairie Provinces Water Board. http://www.ppwb.ca/information/109/index.html

Prairie Provinces Water Board. (2015). An Evolving Mandate for Sharing and Protecting Water. http://www.ppwb.ca/

Prince George's County. (1993). Design Manual for Use of Bioretention in Stormwater Management. Department of Environmental Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Watershed Protection Branch.

Pritchard, R. (2004). Personal communication during research for the 2005 Report on the State of the Bow River Basin, Bow River Basin Council.

Province of Alberta. (1993).Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. RSA 1993, Alberta Regulation 119/93. Wastewater and Storm Drainage Regulation.

Province of Alberta. (2009) Land Stewardship Act, Chapter A-26.8.

Province of Alberta. (2014). Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000. Chapter M-26. current as of December 17, 2014, Part 17. S. 617.

Pugin, A. J. M., Oldenborger, G. A., Cummings, D. I., Russell, H. J., & Sharpe, D. R. (2014). Architecture of buried valleys in glaciated Canadian prairie regions based on high resolution geophysical data. Quaternary Science Reviews, 86, 13-23.

Reynolds, R. P., Blakely, D. E. W., & Ryan, S. E. (2014). Potential reduction of social impacts during the June 2013 Alberta floods as a result of the drawdown of the Calgary Glenmore Reservoir. Paper Presented at the Canadian Dam Association Annual Conference: A Balance of Changing Priorities, Banff, Alberta, 4-9 October, Banff, Alberta. 1-15.

Rocky View 2020. (2013). Is Calgary’s offer of regional servicing a pipe dream, or a high level confidence game? http://www.rockyview2020.com/is-Calgarys-offer-of-regional-servicing-a-pipe- dream-or-a-high-level-confidence-game/

199

Roy, A. H., Wenger, S. J., Fletcher, T. D., Walsh, C. J., Ladson, A. R., Shuster, W. D., Brown, R. R. (2008). Impediments and solutions to sustainable, watershed-scale urban stormwater management: Lessons from Australia and the United States. Environmental Management, 42, 334-359.

Roy-Poirier, A., Champagne, P., & Filion, Y. (2010). Review of bioretention system research and design: Past, present, and future. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 136(9), 878-889.

Ryan, S. E. (2012). Author of this thesis and amateur photographer

Sanderson, K., & Griffiths, M. (2012). Non-point source pollution: A review of policies, practices and regulations in Alberta and other jurisdictions. Edmonton, Alberta. 242 pp.: Green Planet Communications.

Schaltegger, S., & Burritt, R. (2000). Contemporary Environmental Accounting: Issues, concepts and practice. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_full-cost_accounting

Schindler, D. W., & Donahue, W. F. (2005). A case study of the Saskatchewan River System. Rosenberg Conference on Managing Upland Watersheds in an Era of Global Change, Banff, Alberta. 6-11 Sept 2005. http://www.mtnforum.org/sites/default/files/publication/files/566.pdf

Schindler, D. W., & Donahue, W. F. (2006). An impending water crisis in Canada's western prairie provinces. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(19), 7210-7216.

Schueler, T., Fraley-McNeal, L., & Cappiella, K. (2009). Is impervious cover still important? Review of recent research. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering., 14(Special Issue: Impervious Surfaces in Hydrologic Modeling and Monitoring), 309-315.

Shapiro, A., & Summers, R. (2015). The evolution of water management in Alberta, Canada: The influence of global management paradigms and path dependency. International Journal of Water Resources Development, , 1-18. doi:10.1080/07900627.2015.1005286

Stewart, J. (2014). Evolution of reflexive legal processes and adaptive co-management of natural resources in Alberta. Interdisciplinary Research Forum. Winter 2014. Faculty of Environmental Design. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.

Stewart, J. (2015). Personal communication re: Riparian rights and stormwater re-use.

200

Swanson, R. H., Golding, D. L., Rothwell, R. L., & Bernier, P. Y. (1986). Hydrologic effects of clear-cutting at Marmot Creek and Streeter watersheds, Alberta. (Information No. Information Report NOR-X- 278). Edmonton, Alberta: Government of Canada, Canadian Forestry Service. Northern Forestry Centre.

Telus Spark. (2015). Sustainability. http://www.sparkscience.ca/explore/sustainability/

Tibbets, J. (2005). Combined sewer systems: Down, dirty, and out of date. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(7), A464-A467.

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. (2014). Innovative Stormwater Management Practices: An online database and showcase of low impact development practices in Ontario. http://www.iswm.ca/technologies.php

Turchenek, L. W., & Fawcett, M. D. (1994). Soil survey of the Municipal District of Rocky View No. 44, Alberta. (Alberta Soil Survey Report No. 53). Edmonton, Alberta.: Alberta Research Council. Environmental Research and Engineering Department.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Green Infrastructure in Arid and Semi-arid Climates. Washington D.C. UNT Digital Library. http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc31160/ van Duin, B. (2011). Stormwater Management & Design Manual: Key changes in 2011 edition. industry and staff briefing session. October 17, 2011. https://www.Calgary.ca/UEP/Water/Documents/Water- Documents/Stormwater_Management_Design_Manual_Key%20Changes_2011.pdf? noredirect=1

Van Duin, B. (2013). Planning, analysis & design of LID practices. Presented at Implementing Low Impact Development 2013. November 26, 2013 by Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership, Edmonton, Alberta. van Duin, B. (Personal communication. 2013). Water Resources engineer, City of Calgary.

Van Duin, B., Brown, C., Chu, A., Marsalek, J., & Valeo, C. (2008). Characterization of long-term solids removal and clogging processes in two types of permeable pavement under cold climate conditions. 11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. van Duin, B., & Garcia, J. (2006). Impacts of urbanization on West Nose Creek: A Canadian experience. Water Science and Technology, 53(10), 237-245.

201

Van Duin, B., & Sandhu, H. (2014). Stormwater reuse in the city of Calgary. Alberta Irrigation Projects Association 2014 Water Conference, Nov 24-26. 2014, Calgary, Alberta.

Walsh, C. J., Fletcher, T. D., & Ladson, A. R. (2005). Stream restoration in urban catchments through redesigning stormwater systems: Looking to the catchment to save the stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24(3), 690- 705.

Waschbusch, R. J., Selbig, W. R., & Bannerman, R. T. (2000). Sources of phosphorous in stormwater and street dirt from two urban residential basins in Madison, Wisconsin, 1994-95. National Conference on Tools for Urban Water Resource Management and Protection, Chicago, IL. , February 7-10, 2000(EPA625-00/001) 9-31.

Weibel, S. R., Anderson, R. J., & Woodward, R. L. (1964). Urban land run-off as a factor in stream pollution. Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation), 36(7), 914-924.

Westerbeek-Vopicka, K. (2009). Sediment assessment of stormwater retention ponds within the urban environment of Calgary, Canada. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada, 44(1), 81-91.

Western Washington University. (2014). Geology. Lecture 12: Snow hydrology. http://www.geol.wwu.edu/rjmitch/L12_snowhydrology.pdf

Westhoff Engineering Resources Inc. (2005). Nose Creek Basin Instream Flow Needs Study. Calgary, Alberta: Prepared for Nose Creek Watershed Partnership.

Westhoff Engineering Resources, I. (2003). West Nose Creek Stream Corridor Assessment. Phase 2 Hydrology& hydraulics. Prepared for City of Calgary Wastewater Services, Calgary, Alberta.

White, J. (2001). The Water quality of Chestermere Lake: A state of knowledge report. Edmonton, Alberta: prepared for The Town of Chestermere.

White, J. (2013). Alberta's new Wetland Policy: Review by Jay White. Alberta Water Portal, (published Monday, 23 September 2013).

Winfield, M. (1994). The ultimate horizontal issue: The environmental policy experiences of Alberta and Ontario, 1971-1993. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 27(1), 129-152.

202

Wyatt, A. (2011). Water sensitive urban design. Proceedings of the Twenty First Annual Tennessee Water Symposium, April 13-15, 2011, Montgomery Bell State Park, Burns, Tennessee.

Yim, M., Vathna, S., & Irvine, K. (2010). Storm and dry weather water quality characteristics in the Phnom Penh combined sewer system. In K. Fukushi (Ed.), Southeast Asian water environment (pp. 219-224). London, UK: IWA Publishing.

203

Appendices - identified by chapter number Appendix 2A: Alternative names for Low Impact Development (LID) from around the world in English language literature.

Appendix 2B: Models used in “green infrastructure” stormwater management.

Appendix 2C: Selected modeling tools reviewed by Jayasooriva and Ng.

Appendix 3A: Summary of LID (or innovative approaches to rainwater management) at three scales

Appendix 3B: Questions used in the interviews

Appendix 3C: Interview Participants Appendix 4A: River versus urban flooding.

Appendix 5A: Alberta Water Resources Commission (AWRC)

Appendix 5B: Alberta Water Council Member is December, 2014

Appendix 6A: Select City of Calgary policies, plans, bylaws, guidelines and manuals that relate to stormwater management since 2000

Appendix 6B: City of Calgary Environmental Policy in 2014

Appendix 6C: Water Resources / Water Services Interim Stormwater Targets, 2014

Appendix 6D: City of Calgary summaries of initiatives that support environmental sensitivity and development of LID in the City.

204

Appendix 2A: Alternative names for low impact development (LID) from around the world in English language literature Name of program Abbreviation or Region or Selected references comment on the agency most reason for the use of commonly the term in the associated with literature this term Low Impact LID North America, Prince George’s County; Development including Bitter et al (1994); City Alberta of Toronto, 2003, 2006; City of Calgary, Water Res, 2007; Carter, 2009; Stewart, 2012; ALIDP, 2012 Water Sensitive WSC Australia Corporate Research Cities Centre for Water Sensitive Cities, 2014 Water Sensitive WSUD Australia Brown, 2005 Urban Design Sustainable Urban SUDS Europe and Pasche et al (2009) Drainage Systems U.K. Sustainable Urban Generic term, used to Australia, North Brown (2005; 2007; Stormwater describe the America 2009) Management processes used in LID and WSUD Stormwater Best Stormwater BMPs. Global Numerous and varied; Management Sub-set of more can be applied to Practices comprehensive practices in all phases of systems, focusing on the urban hydrological the stormwater cycle management Innovative Deliberately avoids Ontario, Canada Marsalek and Schreier, Stormwater the terms LID, SUDS 2009 Management and WSUD, as “too Techniques ambiguous” Wet Weather Flow Avoids the term Toronto, City of Toronto (2003) Management “stormwater” as all Ontario precipitation requires management

205

Appendix 2B: Models used in “green infrastructure” stormwater management

From: Jayasooriya, V.M.; Ng, A.W.M. (2014) Tools for Modeling of Stormwater Management and Economics of Green Infrastructure Practices: a Review. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution. 225(8), 1-20.

Tools for Green Infrastructure (GI) modeling References Modeling tools and case Supported GI practices Comments studies

1. Environmental Green roofs, vegetated • Planning tool for Protection Agency swales, bioretention combined sewer overflow (EPA) Green Schmitt et basins, permeable control Long-Term al., 2010 pavements, rain barrels • Can be used in small Control-EZ communities Template

• Examines the effectiveness of alternative 2. Water scenarios for controlling Environmental Extended detention, stormwater pollution Research Reynolds et bioretention, wetlands, • Water quality parameters foundation al., 2012 swales, permeable that can be simulated are (WERF) BMP pavements total suspended solids, SELECT Model total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total zinc Green roofs, downspout disconnection, permeable • Incorporates built-in pavements, grass channels, incentives for 3. Virginia Runoff Bork and dry swales, bioretention, environmental site design, Reduction Method Franklin, infiltration, extended such as forest preservation (VRRM) 2010 detention ponds, wet and the reduction of soil swales, constructed disturbance and wetlands, wet ponds impervious surfaces

Green roof, planters, • Planning level cost permeable pavements, rain 4. WERF BMP estimation for GI practices gardens, retention ponds, and LID whole life Reynolds et • Different spreadsheet swales, cistern, cycle cost al., 2012 tools are designed for bioretention, extended modeling Tools different practices detention basins (Cont’d . . .

206

Tools for Green Infrastructure (GI) modeling References Modeling tools and case Supported GI practices Comments studies 5. Centre for Neighborhood Green roofs, planter boxes, • Allows the user to select Technology (CNT) rain gardens, cisterns, a runoff reduction goal Green Values Jaffe, 2011; native vegetation, and select the National Guo and vegetation filter strips, combination of GI (cont) Correa, 2013 amended soils, swales, practices that provides the Stormwater trees, permeable optimum runoff reduction Management pavements in a cost-effective way Calculator

• Tool which helps to get (Kennedy et 6. CNT Green Roof drains, rain gardens, an approximation of al. 2008; Values Stormwater permeable pavements, financial and hydrologic Wise et al. Management trees, porous pavements, conditions for a user- 2010; Jaffe Calculator drainage swales defined site et al. 2010)

7. Chicago Department of • Used to evaluate the Green roofs, planter boxes, Environment (Emanuel opportunities of GI with rain gardens, native Stormwater and Powers regard to the guidelines of vegetation, vegetated filter Ordinance 2014) Chicago’s stormwater strips, swales, trees Compliance management ordinance Calculator • Planning, analysis, and (Huber design related to 1995; stormwater runoff, Tsihrintzis Bioretention, infiltration combined sewer and Hamid 8. EPA trenches, porous overflows, and drainage 1998; Huber Stormwater pavement, rain barrels, systems 2001; Management vegetative swales, green • Complex model with Khader and Model (SWMM) roofs, street planters, variety of features Montalto amended soils • One of the most 2008; popular software Rossman applications among 2010) catchment modelers Filter strips, bioretention 9. Delaware Urban • Spreadsheet tool to assist swales, bioretention, Runoff (Lucas 2004, GI design infiltration swales Management 2005)

Model (DURMM) (Cont’d . . .

207

Tools for Green Infrastructure (GI) modeling References Modeling tools and case Supported GI practices Comments studies

Riparian buffers, filter strips, wetland/rain garden, 10. Stormwater bioretention/infiltration Investment (McGarity • Studies on GI projects pits, rain barrel/cisterns, Strategy Evaluator 2006, 2010, based on pollutant load land restoration by (StormWISE) 2011) reduction and cost benefits impervious surface Model removal, permeable pavements, green roofs

11. Program for predicting • Model the generation and polluting particle (Elliott and Detention tanks, ponds, transportation of pollutants passage through Trowsdale wetlands, infiltration through urban runoff and pits, puddles, and 2007; Obeid trenches, swales, buffer the effectiveness of GI for ponds (P8 Urban 2005) strips improving the water Catchment Model) quality

(Tang et al. 2005; Bioretention/rain gardens, 12. Long-Term Bhaduri grass swale, open wooded • Consists of calculations Hydrologic Impact 1998; space, permeable for stormwater runoff and Assessment (L- Bhaduri et pavement, rain pollutant loading THIA) al. 2001; barrel/cisterns, green roof. Engel et al. 2003) • Evaluate the dollar value 13. GI Valuation (GiVAN Green cover of environmental and Tool Kit 2010) social benefit of GI

Bioretention, cisterns, • Implementation planning 14. EPA System constructed wetlands, dry for flow and pollution for Urban (Lai et al. ponds, grassed swales, control Stormwater 2006, 2007, green roofs, infiltration • Selects the most cost- Treatment 2009, 2010; basins, infiltration effective solution in Analysis and Shoemaker trenches, permeable stormwater quality and Integration et al. 2013) pavements, rain barrels, quantity management (SUSTAIN) sand filters (surface and nonsurface),vegetated (Cont’d . . . filter strips, wet ponds

208

Tools for Green Infrastructure (GI) modeling References Modeling tools and case Supported GI practices Comments studies (Dietz 2007; • Performance evaluation Bioretention, rain garden, 15. RECARGA Atchison et of bioretention rain garden infiltration al. 2006) and infiltration practices

Bioretention systems, (Wong et al. 16. Model for infiltration systems, media 2002, 2006; • Assists in decision Urban Stormwater filtration systems, gross Deletic and making of GI selection for Improvement pollutant traps, buffer Fletcher stormwater management in Conceptualization strips, vegetated swales, 2004; Dotto urban development (MUSIC) ponds, sedimentation et al. 2011) basins, rainwater tanks, wetlands, detention basins. (Montalto et 17. Low-Impact al. 2007; • Evaluates the Development Behr and effectiveness of green Green cover Rapid Assessment Montalto space in reducing (LIDRA) 2008; Yu et stormwater runoff al. 2010) • Evaluates how effective the GI practices in 18. WinSLAMM Infiltration/biofiltration reducing runoff and (Source Loading (Pitt and basins, street cleaning, wet pollutant loadings and Management Voorhees detention ponds, grass • The cost effectiveness of Model for 2002) swales, filter strips, practices and their sizing Windows) permeable pavement requirements can also be modeled 19. Street Tree Resource i-Tree (McPherson • Assessment of the street i- Tree Streets et al. 2005; trees in terms of current /Analysis Tool for Street trees Soares et al. benefits, costs, and Urban Forest 2011) management needs Managers (STRATUM) • Simulate the effect of (Kirnbauer 20. i-Tree Hydro Trees, green cover trees and green cover on et al. 2013) water quality

209

Appendix 2C: Selected modeling tools reviewed by Jayasooriya and Ng From: Jayasooriya, V.M.; Ng, A.W.M. (2014) Tools for Modeling of Stormwater Management and Economics of Green Infrastructure Practices: a Review. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution. 225(8), 1-20.

These ten tools are classified into three major categories as follows:  Models that address the stormwater management ability of GI in terms of quantity and quality.  Models that have the capability of conducting the economic analysis of GI.  Models that can address both stormwater management and economic aspects together

Intended uses Modeling tools Owner Availability Reference in GI modeling

To design and Freely available to University of understand download Wisconsin- performances of (Atchison and http://dnr.wi.gov/ 1. RECARGA Madison, water bioretention, Severson topic/stormwater/ resources infiltration 2004) standards/recarga. group basins, and rain html gardens

To predict the 2. Program for generation and William W. Predicting transportation of Walker, Jr., Freely available to Polluting Particle pollutants in Ph.D., download Passage through urban runoff and (Walker 1990) Environmental http://www. Pits, Puddles, and design GI to Engineer, wwwalker.net/p8/ Ponds (P8 Urban achieve total Massachusetts Catchment Model) suspended solids reduction

(Huber et al. To plan, design, Freely available to 1988; 3. EPA United States and analyze the download Rossman Stormwater Environmental performances of http://www.epa. 2010) Management Protection different GI in gov/nrmrl/wswrd/ Model (SWMM) Agency runoff quality wq/models/swmm/ improvement (Cont’d . . . and quantity

210

Intended uses Modeling tools Owner Availability Reference in GI modeling 4. Water Freely available to Environment Water download (Water Research To evaluate Environment http://www.werf. Environment Foundation whole life cycle Research org/i/a/Ka/Search/ Research (WERF) BMP and cost for GI Foundation, ResearchProfile. Foundation LID whole life practices Alexandria aspx?ReportId= 2009) cycle cost SW2R08 modeling tools

Freely available to

download

http://www. To evaluate the 5. The Green Natural (Natural greeninfrastruct environmental Infrastructure Economy Economy urenw.co.uk/html/ and economic Valuation Toolkit North West Northwest index.php?page= benefit of GI in UK 2010) projects& monetary terms

GreenInfrastruct

ureValuationTool kit=true 6. Centre for Neighborhood Free online Technology (CNT) Center For To compare GI (Center for assessment tool Green Values Neighborhood cost, Neighborhood http://greenvalues. National Technology, performance, Technology cnt.org/national/ Stormwater Chicago and benefits 2009) calculator.php Management Calculator To develop 7. EPA System for Freely available to implementation Urban Stormwater United States download plans for flow Treatment and Environmental http://www.epa. and pollution (Lai et al. Analysis Protection gov/nrmrl/wswrd/ control and 2007) Integration Model Agency wq/models/ evaluate cost (SUSTAIN) sustain/ effectiveness of GI Proprietary To evaluate GI 8. Model for Urban software practices in (Wong et al. Stormwater http://www. order to achieve 2002) eWater, Improvement ewater.com.au/ stormwater Australia Conceptualization products/ewater- quantity (MUSIC) toolkit/urban- reduction, (Cont’d . . . tools/music/ quality

211

Intended uses Modeling tools Owner Availability Reference in GI modeling improvement, and cost effectiveness Open Source 9. Low-Impact Web-Based tool eDesign To study runoff Development http://www. (Yu et al. Dynamics, cost reductions Rapid Assessment lidratool.org/ 2010) New York with GI (LIDRA) database/database. aspx 10. Source To study the Proprietary Loading and quality of urban PV and software (Pitt and Management runoff and the Associates, http://winslamm. Voorhees Model for role of GI in USA com/winslamm_ 2004) Windows runoff quality updates.html (WinSLAMM) improvement

212

Appendix 3A: Summary of LID (or innovative approaches to rainwater management) at three scales (Source: Marsalek & Schreirer, 2009)

Table C1 - Innovative approaches to stormwater management at the property/lot scale.

Table C2 - Innovative approaches to stormwater management at the neighbourhood scale.

Table C3 - Innovative stormwater management at the watershed scale.

213

Appendix 3B: Questions used in the interviews 1) What stormwater practices do you currently use? 2) How has this changed in the past few years? 3) What policy changes have affected your practice in the past few years? 4) What does LID mean in Calgary? 5) How do you go about planning/designing for stormwater management? a. At what stage of subdivision/lot development does stormwater get designed? b. Have you used the Water Balance Model, or other model? 6) Is there enough knowledge and experience in the Calgary region to use the LID techniques that have been defined as "appropriate" for Calgary - bioswales, permeable pavement, constructed wetlands, catchment ponds, treatment train, green roofs, rainwater harvesting, stormwater re-use? 7) How should more research get done? Financed? Government? Industry? Partnerships? Other? 8) Are there other LID strategies that you have tried, or would like to try? 9) Runoff discharge target are being proposed by the City of Calgary to manage runoff volume and peak. What do you think of this strategy? 10) What benefits do you see with LID? 11) What are the most significant barriers to using LID techniques in Calgary? a. Are there physical limitations? b. Capacity- knowledgeable contractors? Designers? Planners? c. Are there regulatory barriers? d. What happens at the approvals stage? 12) Who takes the risk – financially? LID is not 100% tested and tried in Calgary. If things need to be refined after they are on the ground, who should pick up the tab? a. After what period of time? b. What does that risk look like? 13) Who would you suggest I talk to about LID implementation in Calgary?

214

Appendix 3C: Interview Participants

I would like to take this opportunity to once again thank the following people for their time and insights during the interviews. These are all very busy people who took time out of their day to answer my questions. Bernie Amell, Landscape Architect, Source-2-Source Margaret Beaston, Team Lead, Resource Planning and Policy, Water Resources, City of Calgary Liliana Bozic, Senior Water Resources Engineer, Urban Systems Calgary

Andrew Chan, Stormwater Engineer, Dillon Consulting & President of the Canadian Water Resources Association Rick Carnduff, Project Manager, Stantec Don Hay, Construction Inspector, Parks, City of Calary Jim Laidlaw, Landscape Architect, EXP Services Inc. René Letourneau, Team Lead of Urban Water Management, Strategic Services Group, Water Resources, City of Calgary. Doug Marter, Manager Planning and Development Services, Parks, City of Calgary Joe Olson. Team Lead, Complete Streets, City of Calgary George Retis, President, Lakeview Community Association Michael Roberts, Civil Engineer, West Campus Development Karen Ross, Sustainability Coordinator, Studio T Design David Seeliger, Professional Engineer, MPE Engineering Ltd Bert Van Duin, Senior Development Engineer, Water Resources, City of Calgary Leta Van Duin, Executive Director, Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership Manant Vernie, Development Coordinator for Parks Planning. North, City of Calgary. Krista Vopika, Team Lead of Municipal, Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Customers, Water Resources, City of Calgary Andrew Wallace, Project Manager, West Campus Development

2 Interviewees who preferred to remain anonymous

215

Appendix 4A: River versus Urban Flooding Calgary’s two main rivers, Bow and Elbow, originate at a glacier and cirque lake, respectively, in the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains. These snowmelt-fed rivers are Calgary’s main sources of potable water, as well as the receiving waters for storm and sanitary discharge. Smaller tributaries including Fish Creek, Nose Creek and Pine Creek originate in the foothills and parkland regions and are naturally ephemeral in their mid to upper reaches.

The floods that occurred in Southern Alberta in June, 2013 warrant some discussion. All of the rivers in the South Saskatchewan River Basin flooded to the 1% to 0.2% (1:100 to 1:500) return period. Early estimates have placed the Bow River through Calgary close to the 1% return period, while the Elbow River above the Glenmore Reservoir was running close to a 0.2% return period

The floodwater originated in the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains, where a record amount of rain fell on a ripe, late-winter snowpack. The river flood peaked in less than a day to flash flood status with an estimated peak flow of 1,740 cms. (Figure 43).

This was the most costly natural disaster in Canadian history, with estimates of Alberta's economic losses reaching $6 billion as well as $1.9 billion in insured losses33. Five lives were lost in Southern Alberta as a direct result of the flood. Psychological and personal financial losses continue, as well as the cost of replacing or repairing infrastructure. While high-risk infrastructure such as dams and weirs are generally designed to pass the probable maximum flood (PMF),34 numerous provincial bridges with the design flood of 1% and many sections of river banks were severely compromised during the flood. New facilities funded by Alberta Infrastructure must comply with the Flood Risk Management Guidelines published in December 2013 (Alberta Infrastructure, 2013). New provincial standards for conceptual design of stream crossings, published in January, 2014, require

33 http://www.lfpress.com/2014/03/29/alta-floods-third-most-costly-natural-disaster-worldwide- in-2013 34 For example, when the City of Calgary upgraded the Glenmore Causeway in 2005-2008, it was designed to pass the PMF (McClary, 2008). However the Bassano Dam developed by the CPR in 1914, was at risk of breaching during the flood in June 2013.

216

key parameters to be “consistent with the highest historic highwater observations” (Alberta Transportation, 2014).

Figure 43. Hydrograph for Bow River at Calgary, 2013. (Source: Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, 2013b)

The flash flood that hit Calgary on June 20 was caused by a stalled low pressure system that was centered over the headwaters of the Elbow and Highwood Rivers. The headwaters of the Bow River are less than 50km north of the highest concentration of rainfall for June 19 to 20, 2013.

Urban flooding occurs when heavier than normal rainfall occurs inside city limits, and the local urban stormwater infrastructure is overwhelmed, for one reason or another. This can be caused by ice, snow or fallen leaves clogging the intake structures, high intensity rainfall, or by under-designed storm sewer systems such as systems that were originally built to service a much smaller drainage area than they currently serve. By managing rainwater and snowmelt close to its source, LID has proven that it can manage the smaller intensity events, but the City of Calgary will have to integrate it with conventional stormwater infrastructure to manage large events, for at least the foreseeable future.

217

Appendix 5A: Alberta Water Resources Commission (AWRC) 1982 to 1995.

The Alberta Water Resources Commission was formed in December, 1982, with a mandate to assess and review long term water resources planning and to advise the Alberta Government on policy respecting water resources. Members of the Commission were from the Legislative Assembly, senior Alberta government bureaucracy, and the General Public. Originally, Provincial Departments of Environment, Agriculture, Municipal Affairs, Economic, and Energy and Natural Resources were represented by Deputy Ministers (AWRC, 1985, p. 2). By 1990, AWRC included the provincial departments of Environment, Agriculture, Transportation, Economic Development and Trade, Forestry Lands and Wildlife, and Municipal Affairs

The AWRC was originally chaired by Henry Krueger, former Transportation Minister, and MLA from Hanna, Alberta in the dry south-east portion of the province. Four members of the public were appointed by Order in Council by the Minister of Environment, and represented the North (Gordon Reid), Edmonton (Phil Walker), Calgary (Margaret Lounds, then Susan Ryan) and South (Tom Gilchrist) regions. The mandate of the AWRC was to research and report on future of water management in the province. Initiatives included a modeling of the water resources in the South Saskatchewan Region, during a time when the potential for basin-wide water shortages were first being acknowledged. (Note: I was appointed by Order in Council as the AWRC Member from Calgary from 1989 to 1995. This was during the time when the AWRC had the mandate to develop the Water Act and the (Draft)Wetland Policy).

218

Appendix 5B: Alberta Water Council Members – Sector and Organization - in December, 2014.

The Alberta Water Council is comprised of 24 Members organized into four broad categories - Industry, Non-Government Organizations, Government, and the Government of Alberta and Provincial Authorities. Each Member represents a discrete sector and identifies a director, and if they wish, an alternate to represent their interests on the Council from : http://www.Albertawatercouncil.ca/AboutUs/Members/tabid/56/Default.aspx

Industry

Sector Member(s)

Canadian Fuels Association; Chemistry Chemical and Petrochemical Industry Association of Canada

Irrigation Alberta Irrigation Projects Association

Cropping Crop Sector Working Group

Mining Alberta Chamber of Resources

Canadian Association of Petroleum Oil & Gas Producers

Forestry Alberta Forest Products Association

Livestock Intensive Livestock Working Group

Power Generation TransAlta; ATCO Power

Non-Government Organizations

Environmental Alberta Wilderness Association

Environmental Environmental Law Centre

Environmental Vacant (continued next page…)

219

(…Continued) -- Appendix 5B – Alberta Water Council Members in December, 2014

Wetlands Conservation Ducks Unlimited Canada

Fisheries Habitat Conservation Fish Habitat Conservation Collective

Lake Environment Conservation Alberta Lake Management Society

Watershed Planning and Advisory Alberta WPACs Councils

Government

Large Urban Cities of Edmonton and Calgary

Alberta Urban Municipalities Small Urban Association

Alberta Association of Municipal Rural Districts and Counties

Métis Settlements Métis Settlements General Council

Government of Alberta & Provincial Authorities

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development Development

Alberta Energy Alberta Energy

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resources Development Resources Development

Alberta Health Alberta Health

Alberta Innovates Energy and Science and Research Environment Solutions - Water Resources

220

Appendix 6A: Select City of Calgary Policies, Plans Bylaws, Guidelines & Manuals that relate to stormwater management since 2000

City of Key points and web site as of April 2015 date Calgary document

2000 Stormwater (updated in 2011, see below) Management & Design Manual 2002 Environment The Open Space Plan has been developed to provide a al Open single, comprehensive and integrated source of policy on Space Plan open space, and an up-to-date vision that provides cohesive direction for the system as a whole. The Open Space Plan forms part of the hierarchy of statutory and non-statutory plans that guide the City's administration and politicians in decision-making. It is a non-statutory policy document. https://www.Calgary.ca/CSPS/Parks/Documents/Planning- and-Operations/open-space-plan.pdf?noredirect=1 2004 Wetland No net loss of function. Conservation Plan http://www.Calgary.ca/CSPS/Parks/Documents/Planning- and-Operations/Natural-Areas-and- Wetlands/wetland_conservation_plan.pdf; 2004 Community A bylaw of the City of Calgary to regulate neighbourhood Standards nuisance, safety and liveability issues. Bylaw 41.2) An owner or occupier of a Premises shall direct any number rainwater downspout or eaves trough on the Premises 5M2004 towards: (a) the front of the Premises; (b) the rear of the Premises; (c) a sideyard which does not abut another Premises; or (d) a sideyard which abuts another Premises only if there is a minimum of 6 (six) metres of permeable ground between the outfall of the downspout or eaves trough and the adjacent Premises. 41(3) No owner or occupier of a Premises shall allow a rainwater downspout or eaves trough to be directed towards a neighboring Premises if it is likely that the water from the downspout or eaves trough will enter the adjacent Premises

http://www.Calgary.ca/CA/city- clerks/Documents/Legislative-services/Bylaws/5M2004- CommunityStandards.pdf

221

Continued - Appendix 6A: Select City of Calgary Policies, Plans Bylaws, Guidelines & Manuals that relate to stormwater management since 2000

City of Calgary Key points and web site as of April 2015 date document 2004 Lot A bylaw of the City of Calgary to regulate the surface grades Grading of properties bylaw – bylaw http://www.Calgary.ca/CA/city- number clerks/Documents/Legislative-services/Bylaws/32m2004- 32M2004 LotGradingBylaw.pdf

2005 Triple Triple Bottom Line thinking means that Council and staff will Bottom consider and address social, economic, environmental and Line Policy smart growth impacts in all City business. This includes City – currently decisions and actions, planning, policies, strategies, services, under operations and approvals. review http://www.Calgary.ca/CA/cmo/Pages/Triple-Bottom- Line/Policy.aspx 2005 Stormwater The main goals of the strategy are to: Manageme • protect river valleys and property from flooding and erosion; nt Strategy •protect watershed health by reducing both rate and volume of stormwater runoff; • reduce sediment loading to the Bow River to or below the 2005 level by 2015; • control sediment loads by focusing on retrofits in developed areas; and • develop sustainable stormwater management practices applicable to both new and redevelopment areas.

http://www.Calgary.ca/UEP/Water/Documents/Water- Documents/stormwater_report.pdf

2005 City of Background to stormwater quality retrofit program by City of Calgary Calgary Water Resources staff Stormwater Quality http://web.sbe.hw.ac.uk/staffprofiles/bdgsa/11th_International Retrofit Conference_on_Urban_Drainage_CD/ICUD08/pdfs/759.pdf Program

222

Continued - Appendix 6A: Select City of Calgary Policies, Plans Bylaws, Guidelines & Manuals that relate to stormwater management since 2000

City of Calgary Key points and web site as of April 2015 date document 2005 Drainage The storm drainage system is a network of drains, pipes and Bylaw ponds designed to channel storm water directly to our rivers. 37M2005 Everything residents wash down the storm drains ends up in our rivers. The Drainage Bylaw 37M2005 works in conjunction with the Lot Grading Bylaw and Community Standards Bylaw to ensure appropriate water use and drainage in and around your property.

http://www.Calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Documents/Legislative- services/Bylaws/37m2005-Drainage.pdf 2005 Water Reduce Calgary’s annual water withdrawals form the Bow and Efficiency Elbow Rivers Plan: 30 in Includes information on: 30 by 2033  Calgary’s water system  The case for conservation  Calgary’s water use profile  Water efficiency measures  Forecasting demand  Implementation plan  Public engagement  Calgary’s existing water efficiency programs and initiatives  Water efficiency measures not recommended at this time

https://www.Calgary.ca/UEP/Water/Documents/Water- Documents/water_efficiency_plan.pdf?noredirect=1 2007 ImagineCA Target 80 - By 2036, per capita water consumption is reduced LGARY by 40 per cent. Plan for Target 81- By 2036, positive rates of flow in the Bow River Long Range Basin are maintained to keep aquatic ecosystems at these Sustainabil- levels. ity- Target 82 - By 2036, effective impervious areas are reduced equal to or below 30 per cent to restore natural hydrograph Targets 80- and become less susceptible to flooding. 84 Target 83 - By 2036, watershed health — as measured by loss of wetlands, water quality, non-compliance with pollution standards, in-stream flow and groundwater levels — improves. Target 84- By 2036, Calgary’s ecological footprint decreases to below the 2001 Canadian average of 7.25 hectares per capita http://www.imagineCalgary.ca/

223

Continued - Appendix 6A: Select City of Calgary Policies, Plans Bylaws, Guidelines & Manuals that relate to stormwater management since 2000

City of Calgary Key points and web site as of April 2015 date document 2007 Stormwater Source (superseded by Stormwater Management & Design Manual, Control 2011, see below) Practices Handbook 2009 Calgary Section 3.7 of the CTP includes 22 guiding policies for Transportat- Complete Streets design. ion Plan (CTP) http://www.Calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/Publications/Calg ary-transportation-plan.pdf 2009 Municipal Greening the City Development "Conserve, protect and restore the natural environment." Plan (MDP) Protecting environmentally sensitive areas and promoting renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, low-impact designs for stormwater management, green buildings, cycling and walking all work together to make Calgary more environmentally friendly (Achieve 19-20% imperviousness)

http://www.Calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/Publications/mdp- municipal-development-plan.pdf 2009 PlanIt Integrated Land Use and Mobility Plan Calgary Statutory link between MDP and CTP

http://www.Calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/Publications/planit-sustainability-principles.pdf 2011 Stormwater Updated from 2000 edition Management & Design http://www.Calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/urban_developme Manual nt/bulletins/2011-stormwater-management-and-Design.pdf 2011 Imagine The 2020 Sustainability Direction was developed through CALGARY cross-departmental collaboration and was completed in 2011. Plan- 2020 It now serves as a guide for decision makers to link decisions Sustainabi- and project planning to the long-term, and functions as the lity foundation for business planning processes at The City. Direction ImagineCALGARY activities are ongoing.

http://www.imagineCalgary.ca/projects/city-Calgary/city- Calgary%E2%80%99s-2020-sustainability-direction

224

Continued - Appendix 6A: Select City of Calgary Policies, Plans Bylaws, Guidelines & Manuals that relate to stormwater management since 2000 City of Calgary Key points and web site as of April 2015 date document 2011 Interim Complete Superseded in 2014, see below

Streets Guide 2011 Erosion and A variety of resources are available at: Sediment Updated Control http://www.Calgary.ca/UEP/Water/Pages/Watersheds-and- in 2014 Guidelines rivers/Erosion-and-sediment-control/Erosion-and-Sediment- Control.aspx 2012 City of  Comply with legislation. Calgary’s  Conserve resources and prevent pollution. Environ-  Continually improve our environmental performance mental Policy http://www.Calgary.ca/UEP/ESM/Documents/ESM- (Revised) Documents/environmental_policy.pdf 2012 LID Module 1 - Geotechnical & Hydro-geological Considerations Modules Module 3 - Green Roof + Under development: Permeable Pavements, Absorbent Landscape, Rain Gardens

2014 Calgary Principle 1: Protecting the natural environment and watershed Metro- Principle 2: Fostering our economic vitality (updat politan Plan Principle 3: Accommodating growth in more compact ed) settlement patterns Principle 4: Integrating efficient regional infrastructure systems Principle 5: Supported through a regional governance approach http://www.Calgaryregion.ca/cmp/bin2/pdf/CMP.pdf 2014 Complete The complete Streets Guide is one of the Transportation Streets Department’s action items approved by Council for the 2012- 2014 BPBC 3 Business Cycle.

http://www.Calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Documents/Council- policy-library/TP021-Complete-Streets-Policy.pdf 2014 Interim Establishes runoff-rate and annual runoff volume targets for Stormwater watersheds in the City of Calgary. Targets 2014 http://www.Calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/urban_developme nt/bulletins/ud-bulletin-interim-stormwater-targets-2014.pdf

225

Appendix 6B: City of Calgary Environmental Policy in 2014 Source: (City of Calgary, 2012b)

226

Appendix 6C: Water Resources/Water Services Interim Stormwater Targets 2014 (Source: City of Calgary. Industry Bulletin. March 2014City of Calgary, 2014h)

WATER RESOURCES/WATER SERVICES INTERIM STORMWATER TARGETS 2014

This bulletin is issued to provide clarity to both the development community and City of Calgary staff as to the proper stormwater targets to be utilized for greenfield and redevelopment projects in The City of Calgary. In view of the need for consistent stormwater quantity and quality targets across the City of Calgary and to avoid stormwater infrastructure being implemented that may lead to future expensive retrofits, this bulletin outlines and clarifies interim stormwater quantity and quality targets to be utilized in The City of Calgary. The interim targets are in alignment with:

• The provincial Stormwater Management Guidelines; • The most recent Municipal Development Plan, adopted by Council in 2009; • Total Loadings Objectives for the Bow River, as dictated in the City’s License to Operate; • Relevant Water Management Plans, adopted by Council; and • The 2011 Stormwater Management & Design Manual, including the 2014 amendments. As such, the interim targets are largely a summary of targets that have been applied, albeit not necessarily on a consistent basis, for the last few years. The targets are provided from a runoff rate, runoff volume and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) or nutrient capture perspective for the respective watersheds in Calgary. [See the attached table in the on-line edition of the Interim Targets] These targets are interim until the “City-wide Stormwater Targets” study and implementation plan has been concluded by the Strategic Services division of Water Resources and catchment-by-catchment targets have been identified by the Planning & Analysis division of Water Resources.

For each watershed of interest, targets are provided for the “off-site discharge” and for the “internal drainage system”. The “off-site discharge” refers to the permissible discharge conditions into the receiving water body from the outfall for an entire subdivision. The “internal drainage system” refers to the discharge conditions into the local minor system upstream of an outfall for an entire subdivision.

Cont’d . . .

227

… Continued - Appendix 6C – Water Resources/ Water Services Interim Stormwater Targets 2014

Runoff Rate

The “off-site discharge” runoff rate target typically conforms to the rates identified in the relevant Water Management Plan for the watershed in question, or the provincial Stormwater Management Guidelines, or both

The “internal drainage system” runoff rate targets are based on the recommended rates in the 2011 Stormwater Management & Design Manual for greenfield development. In case of redevelopment, the rates are based on a net-zero increase in runoff, or the critical unit area release rate (i.e., the lowest unit area capacity for the respective pipes downstream of the development in question), as per the 2011 Stormwater Management & Design Manual. In the Nose Creek watershed, the rates should also be lower than a rate of 1.257 L/s/ha for a 1:5 year event and 45 L/s/ha for a 1:100 year event to minimize morphological impacts on Nose Creek.

Runoff Volume

For the Bow River and Elbow River watershed, the Fish Creek watershed and the Shepard watershed, the “off-site discharge” runoff volume target corresponds to a 40 mm average annual runoff volume, as per the lower limit of the 10 – 20% imperviousness target as per the 2009 Municipal Development Plan. Lower runoff volume targets are stipulated in the Nose Creek and Pine Creek watersheds.

For greenfield development, the “internal drainage system” runoff volume target should correspond to the average annual runoff volume targets as established in SMDP and updated in SWMRs for individual phases.

For redevelopment, the “internal drainage system” runoff volume target is typically an average annual runoff volume of 90 mm for multi-family residential and ICI sites, as per the upper limit of the 10 – 20% imperviousness target as per the 2009 Municipal Development Plan. An average of 300 mm absorbent landscaping shall be implemented at all single-family residential development, as per the Bow Basin Water Management Plan. Other LID practices can be substituted at the discretion of Water Resources. A net-zero increase in runoff volume, or 90 mm runoff volume target, whichever is lower, applies to the Western Headworks Canal Direct Discharge Area as per the moratorium that is in place or the 2009 Municipal Development Plan.

Cont’d . . .

228

. . . Continued - Appendix 6C – Water Resources/ Water Services Interim Stormwater Targets 2014

In case of the Bow River and Elbow River watershed, the Fish Creek watershed and the Forest Lawn Creek / Shepard Ditch watershed, for redevelopment sites that have been demonstrated (to the satisfaction of Water Resources) not to be able to meet the 90 mm average annual runoff volume target, alternative water quality enhancement may be required so that the total TSS load does not increase over the load expected from a 90 mm average annual runoff volume. A spreadsheet to demonstrate compliance with this conditions will be available at Water Resources - Development Approvals’ website, see http://www.Calgary.ca/UEP/Water/Pages/Specifications/Submission-for-approval- /Development-Approvals-Submissions.aspx.

The potential relaxation of the average annual runoff volume target provides the industry flexibility for the design of redevelopment sites, subject to the total TSS load condition being met.

Water Quality

The “off-site discharge” target is the removal of 85% TSS for particles ≥ 50 microns as per the 2011 Stormwater Management & Design Manual.

The “internal drainage system” target is the removal of 85% TSS for particles ≥ 50 microns for private sites greater than or equal to 0.4 ha, regardless of the presence of downstream storm ponds; gas stations, lube and oil change facilities; vehicle maintenance and mechanical shops (including adjacent parking lots) and sites with on-site storage of fuel; heavy industrial and manufacturing sites; or any industrial/commercial sites that drain into vegetated swales/ditches.

In addition, in case of the Western Headworks Canal Direct Discharge Area, a net-zero increase in TSS, Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Nitrogen (TN) applies for an average annual year (over the period 1960 through 2009) as per the moratorium.

The need to provide BMPs for private parcels greater than 0.4 ha provides consistency with the 2011 ESC guidelines, and with greenfield development where BMPs can be implemented at the SMDP stage for any size of development. It will also reduce the City’s overall TSS loadings to the Bow River, and reduce the deposition of excessive amounts of gravels and sediments in the storm sewer system. As such, it addresses one of the requests made by industry representatives during the recent discussions about the amendments to the 2011 Stormwater Management & Design Manual when Water Resources was asked to examine options to reduce the gravel and sediment loadings at the source. Cont’d . . .

229

. . . Continued - Appendix 6C – Water Resources/ Water Services Interim Stormwater Targets 2014

The interim stormwater targets apply to all greenfield and redevelopment in the City of Calgary. Areas that have Staged Master Drainage Plans that currently do not call for the implementation of runoff volume targets shall implement the 90 mm runoff volume target for multi-family residential and ICI developments while an average of 300 mm absorbent landscaping shall be applied at single-family residential development. Other LID practices can be substituted at the discretion of Water Resources. This is consistent with the targets for redevelopment areas.

In the next few years, Water Resources intends to issue on-line maps showing the distribution of these targets for use by City of Calgary staff and industry. Water Resources recognizes that there will be a transitional period and therefore will be flexible where possible in the implementation of the above interim targets, and is open to constructive alternatives provided that the intent of the above targets is met to Water Resources' satisfaction.

The above interim targets will be incorporated in the next update of the City of Calgary Stormwater Management & Design Manual.

Signed

Leader, Development Approvals or Senior Development Engineer.

230

Appendix 6D: City of Calgary Summaries of Initiatives that Support Environmental Sustainability and development of LID in the City. imagineCALGARY imagineCALGARY: http://www.imagineCalgary.ca/ imagineCALGARY is an award winning initiative that represents the voice of 18,000 Calgarians. Together, we created a shared vision for our city and a detailed plan for how to get there. Through a focus on 114 targets in five interrelated systems, the Plan puts all Calgarians on a shared path towards urban sustainability in the 21st century. It truly is imagination into action and you are invited to be a part of it. imagineCALGARY offers a practical blueprint for creating a sustainable future for our community. It also offers an opportunity to connect through the partnership by providing clear targets and strategies; the Plan makes it possible for Calgarians to join forces and work together to achieve the goals that are important to our community.

PlanIt Calgary: Integrated Land Use and Mobility Plan including Sustainability Plans for Land Use and Mobility. PlanIt Calgary: https://d3aencwbm6zmht.cloudfront.net/asset/418178/plan-it- sustainability-principles.pdf-

On Jan. 8, 2007, City Council approved the Terms of Reference for [PlanIt Calgary] the integrated Land Use and Mobility Plan (LPT2006-121). This approval provides confirmation of the terms of reference to guide the project, which includes the review and amendment of the Calgary Plan (Municipal Development Plan) and the Calgary Transportation Plan by May 2009. As part of the report, Council approved 11 sustainability principles for Land Use & Mobility that will act as the overarching direction for the project.

In addition, Council approved the use of the sustainability principles as guiding principles for major land use and transportation studies until the integrated Land Use and Mobility Plan is completed in 2008. Current projects that will be informed by these principles include the intermunicipal development plans, transportation network plans, regional policy plans, area structure plans, area redevelopment plans, major outline plans and major development permits.

Cont’d . . .

231

. . . Continued - Appendix 6D – City of Calgary Summaries of Initiatives that Support Environmental Sustainability and support development of LID in the City. Municipal Development Plan and Calgary Transportation Plan

Municipal Development Plan (MDP): http://www.Calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/Publications/mdp-municipal-development- plan.pdf

Calgary Transportation Plan (CTP): http://www.Calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Documents/CTP2009/Calgary_transportation_ plan.pdf

Smart Growth Principles: http://www.smartgrowth.bc.ca/Default.aspx?tabid=133

The process to create the Municipal Development Plan and the Calgary Transportation Plan started in 2005 when over 18,000 Calgarians participated in imagineCALGARY to create a shared vision for our city. The result was the imagineCALGARY Plan for Long Range Sustainability.

In 2007, City Council asked City staff to create integrated plans for the future of transportation and land use. The City then engaged over 6,000 Calgarians to shape the vision for these plans through a process called Plan It Calgary. The goal of Plan It Calgary was to set out a long-term direction for sustainable growth that would accommodate another 1.3 million people over the next 60 years. Plan It Calgary was grounded in the Smart Growth Principles and Council’s Sustainability Principles for Land Use and Mobility

During Plan It Calgary, Calgarians spoke of the need for a more sustainable city that provides the citizens of today and in the future with a high quality of life, high quality of living environments and convenient means to get around.

City staff presented the two resulting plans – the Municipal Development Plan and Calgary Transportation Plan to City Council in 2009, and both plans were approved. Both plans now form the foundation for all urban planning decisions.

Cont’d . . .

232

. . . Continued - Appendix 6D – City of Calgary Summaries of Initiatives that Support Environmental Sustainability and support development of LID in the City. The 2020 Sustainability Direction

2020 Sustainability Direction: http://www.Calgary.ca/CA/cmo/Pages/The-2020-Sustainability-Direction.aspx

The 2020 Sustainability Direction is a strategic guide for transformation that identifies what must happen at The City by the year 2020 to contribute towards the imagineCALGARY 100-year vision. The 2020 Sustainability Direction links imagineCalgary’s long-term vision and plan to The City’s business plans and budgets. The business plans and budgets act as reference points in moving to the longer-term horizon. This provides a logical place in time to meet community needs and expectations, and establish the capacity to deliver on these results. The 2020 Sustainability Direction is an integrated, innovative and long-term approach for achieving a more sustainable city. The process in developing this strategy involved people in every department across the organization. Sustainability is not new to The City, from the Triple Bottom Line Policy to the Municipal Development Plan, The City has the knowledge and expertise within the corporation to deliver on the goals, objectives and targets. There is an acknowledgement that every decision made has multiple outcomes and the 2020 Sustainability Direction was built as a tool to support decisions that will deliver the best possible outcomes.

Complete Streets Complete Streets: http://www.Calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Pages/Planning/Calgary-Transportation- Plan/Complete-Streets.aspx

Complete Streets refers to streets that incorporate all transportation modes including walking, cycling and transit and driving. They create more liveable neighbourhoods that encourage people to travel by foot, bicycle and transit.

The Complete Streets Policy (TP021) and Guide was approved by City Council on Nov. 3, 2014. As of March 31, 2015, all Outline and Tentative Plans must conform to the Policy and associated detailed design standards contained in the 2014 Design

Cont’d …

233

. . . Continued - Appendix 6D – City of Calgary Summaries of Initiatives that Support Environmental Sustainability and support development of LID in the City.

. . . Complete Streets

Guidelines for Subdivision Servicing.

Development of a Complete Streets Guide was directed by the Plan It Calgary Implementation Committee, formed at the direction of Council in 2009. The Complete Streets Guide builds on the 22 Complete Street Policies embedded into the 2009 Council- approved Calgary Transportation Plan.

Complete Streets Guide provides City departments and the development industry direction on how to incorporate Complete Streets concepts into planning (including engagement), design and construction of new, and reconstruction of existing streets.

The roadway cross sections, design elements, and geometric standards in The City’s 2012 DGSS have been updated to align with the Complete Streets Guide. The new roadway design standards contained in Section II – Roads of the 2014 DGSS is available for reference at www.Calgary.ca/ud until the final complete 2014 DGSS document is available in Spring/summer of 2015.

Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development

2014 Complete Streets Guide, Section 3.6.1

Complete Streets Policy (TP021) and Guide: http://www.Calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Documents/Council-policy-library/TP021- Complete-Streets-Policy.pd

The goal of the Calgary Transportation Plan (CTP) and Municipal Development Plan (MDP) is to develop a sustainable city by protecting the natural environment, ensuring the economy remains strong, with communities that are vibrant and accommodating. The CTP includes transportation policies that work in conjunction with the land use policies of the MDP. Complete Streets is one of the CTP policy areas identified, which includes the specific inclusion of Green Infrastructure (GI) policies. Gl is defined in the MDP/CTP as: An interconnected network of natural green and engineered green elements applicable at multiple scales in the land use and mobility framework. Natural green elements include the conservation and integration of traditional green elements such as

Cont’d …

234

Continued - Appendix 6D – City of Calgary Summaries of Initiatives that Support Environmental Sustainability and support development of LID in the City.

. . . Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development trees, wetlands, riparian areas and parks. Engineered green elements include systems and technologies designed to mimic ecological functions or to reduce impacts.

Another policy area identified in the CTP is Environment and Transportation. The objective of this policy is to protect air, land, water and biodiversity in the planning, design, operation and maintenance of all transportation infrastructures. Gl supports this objective.GI can be integrated with another city initiative related to Low Impact

Development (LID). LID is defined in the MDP/CTP as: An approach to land development that uses various land planning and design practices and technologies to simultaneously conserve and protect natural resource systems and reduce infrastructure costs.

LlD is being advanced by The City of Calgary Water Resources Business Unit, and includes sustainable stormwater source control practices (SCPs). The City of Calgary is currently developing the Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for the development industry and City Administration to aid in the design and approval of LID facilities. The manual will include design, construction specification, plus maintenance and operation guidance.

235

GLOSSARY: These definitions are quoted directly from the source material.

Alkaline soil: A soil having a pH greater than 7.0 (Turchenek & Fawcett, 1994). Appurtenant: means belonging to; accessory or incident to; adjunct to; appended or annexed to. Section 58(2)(a) of the Water Act states a water allocation licence is “appurtenant to land or undertaking.” A licence is considered appurtenant to both the point of diversion and the point of use (Alberta Government, 2014a).

Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP): A statutory plan as defined by the Municipal Government Act that directs the redevelopment, preservation or rehabilitation of existing lands and buildings, generally within existing areas of the city (City of Calgary, 2014e). Area Structure Plan (ASP): A statutory plan as defined by the Municipal Government Act that directs the future land use patterns, transportation and utility networks and sequence of development in new communities (City of Calgary, 2014e). Catch basin: Figure 44 illustrates a catch basin or storm drain that is part of the City of Calgary’s conventional storm water system. There are approximately 48,000 catch basins in Calgary. They drain water off sidewalks, streets and roads, into the storm system, and eventually into the rivers (City of Calgary, 2014d). Figure 44. Catch basin or storm drain (photo credit: S. Ryan) Chernozemic soils: Chernozemic soils are primarily associated with grassland vegetation. Brown Chernozemic soils occur in the southeast part of the province and are characterized by the presence of a brown surface layer approximately 10 to 12 cm thick that generally contains 3 to 4 percent organic matter. Available moisture is the limiting factor to crop growth with most of the area in native range. With increasing available moisture, there is a transition to Dark Brown Chernozemic soils. These soils are characterized by the presence of a dark brown soil surface layer that is 12 to 15 cm thick that generally contains 4 to 6 percent organic matter. Moisture continues to be a limiting factor to crop production; however, the majority of the area is cultivated. Black Chernozemic soils are associated with grassland areas with the most available moisture and cooler temperatures. These soils are characterized by the presence of a black surface horizon that is 12 to 20 cm thick with organic matter

236

generally in the range of 6 to 10 percent. These are highly productive soils that are used to grow a wide variety of agricultural crops (Alberta Agriculture., undated). Complete Street: A street designed and operated to enable safe, attractive and comfortable access and travel for all users, including pedestrians, cyclists and public transit and private vehicle users. A complete street incorporates green infrastructure and optimize public space and aesthetics wherever possible. The degree to which any one street supports different modes of transportation, green infrastructure or public space varies depending on surrounding context and role of the street. Figure 45 illustrates one of the configurations for a two to four lane neighbourhood boulevard (City of Calgary, 2014g).

Figure 45. City of Calgary - Complete Streets Zones – Neighbourhood Boulevard (Source: City of Calgary, 2014g)

Demand management: An operational definition of water demand management is proposed by David B. Brooks (2006) with five components: (1) reducing the quantity or quality of water required to accomplish a specific task; (2) adjusting the nature of the task so it can be accomplished with less water or lower quality water; (3) reducing losses in movement from source through use to disposal; (4) shifting time of use to off-peak periods; and (5) increasing the ability of the system to operate during droughts. (Brooks, 2006) (see supply management)

237

Ecoregion: An area characterized by distinctive regional climate as expressed by vegetation (Turchenek & Fawcett, 1994). Ecotone: a transitional area of vegetation between two different plant communities, such as forest and grassland. It has some of the characteristics of each bordering biological community and often contains species not found in the overlapping communities. An ecotone may exist along a broad belt or in a small pocket, such as a forest clearing, where two local communities blend together. The influence of the two bordering communities on each other is known as the edge effect. An ecotonal area often has a higher density of organisms of one species and a greater number of species than are found in either flanking community. Some organisms need a transitional area for activities such as courtship, nesting, or foraging for food (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2015). Ecozone: A classification system that defines different parts of the environment with similar geography, vegetation and animal life (Canadian Geographic, 2015). Environmental Full Cost Accounting: Also known as Environmental Management Accounting. a method of cost accounting that traces direct costs and allocates indirect costs by collecting and presenting information about the possible environmental, social and economic costs and benefits or advantages – in short, about the "triple bottom line" – for each proposed alternative. It is also known as true-cost accounting (TCA), but, as definitions for "true" and "full" are inherently subjective, experts consider both terms problematic (Schaltegger & Burritt, 2000). (see Full Cost Accounting) Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs) have definitions with different emphasis in Alberta and Calgary documents : o Alberta, Stepping Back from the Water: Those areas on the landscape that are considered to be vital to the long-term maintenance of biological diversity, physical landscape features, or other natural processes. ESAs are important within the context of regional land-use planning and protected areas design, since they provide an inventory of critical biological, physical, and cultural resources (Alberta Government, 2012). o City of Calgary, MGA: A natural area site that has been inventoried prior to potential development and which, because of its features or characteristics, is significant to Calgary from an environmental perspective and has the potential to remain viable in an urban environment. A site is listed as an Environmentally Significant Area on the basis of meeting one or all of the criteria listed in Appendix C of The City of Calgary Parks’ Open Space Plan (City of Calgary, 2014e).

238

Ephemeral/intermittent/temporary/seasonal water bodies: Water bodies where the presence of water ceases for a time due to variation in climatic or seasonal conditions, including snow melt/spring runoff, seasonal storms and drought conditions. These changes are considered part of a natural cycle. Intermittent, ephemeral and temporary water bodies (or portions of) can remain dry for many years and may be fully restored after prolonged precipitation. Ephemeral streams are streams that flow only during and immediately after rainstorms. Intermittent streams flow for part of each year (Alberta Government, 2012). Full cost accounting. (Note from SR: This is from A Guide to Alberta Environment’s Full Cost Accounting Program. It is more in line with a definition of lifecycle accounting):

The Full Cost Accounting concept is intended to provide information that will highlight the funding (revenue) requirements of approved water systems. Every water system owner must receive sufficient funds in order to ensure proper operation and maintenance of their water system, to develop and maintain infrastructure required to supply, treat and distribute safe potable water to users, and to maintain the financial integrity of their organization (Alberta Environment, 2008; Alberta Environment, 2014). (See Environmental Full Cost Accounting)

Glacial drift: All material moved by glaciers and by the action of meltwater streams and associated lakes (Turchenek & Fawcett, 1994). Green infrastructure (GI): An interconnected network of natural green and engineered green elements applicable at multiple scales in the land use and mobility framework. Natural green elements include the conservation and integration of traditional green elements such as trees, wetlands, riparian areas and parks. Engineered green elements include systems and technologies designed to mimic ecological functions or to reduce impacts on ecological systems. Examples include green alleys, green buildings and green roadways and bridges. Note: Green Infrastructure can include but is not limited to LID practices (City of Calgary, 2014e). Greenfield (development): Land not previously developed or polluted (Merriam-Webster, 2015). (See ‘brownfield development) Hydrological connectivity: A direct route to the natural channel network and surface waters. Impermeable surfaces in an urban area (such as roads, roofs, parking lots and shallow or compacted topsoil over clay soils) will generate more runoff than natural conditions. When as area is connected to the receiving waters by hard surfaces such as stormwater pipes, a hydrologic connection exists. Hydrologically connected, urban surfaces with reduced permeability will produce accelerated

239

runoff, sediments, excess nutrients and road-associated chemicals such as spills or oils (Furniss, Flanagan, & McFadin, 2000). One proposed measure of hydrological connectivity is illustrated in Figure 46 and can be expressed using the concept of “volume to breakthrough’, which means the accumulated runoff volume per unit width to be applied at a point before flow appears at a downslope Figure 46. Mosaic patches of runoff that connect to point (Bracken & Croke, produce flooding in dryland or remain hydrologically 2007). disconnected.

Impervious surfaces: Mainly artificial structures, such as building roofs, roadway pavements, sidewalks and parking lots, that cannot be easily penetrated by water, thereby resulting in runoff (City of Calgary, 2014e). Infiltration: the downward entry of water into the soil (Turchenek & Fawcett, 1994). Instream Flow Needs (IFN): IFN are based on fish habitat modelling. Fish habitat vs. flow relationship curves were used to conduct time-series analysis for evaluating different flow regimes, created as constant-percent flow reductions from natural, to produce IFN determinations for fish habitat. The fish habitat-derived flow determinations were subsequently integrated with the flow recommendations for the other aquatic ecosystem components (i.e., channel maintenance, riparian vegetation and water quality,) to form one integrated instream flow need recommendation (Clipperton, Koning, Locke, Mahoney, & Quazi, 2003). Instream Flow Objectives (IFO): IFO are historically set water levels, based on only fish habitat or water quality criteria (Clipperton et al., 2003). (See also Water Conservation Objectives) Life cycle cost: The sum of all recurring and one-time (non-recurring) costs over the full life span or a specified period of a good, service, structure or system. It includes purchase price, installation cost, operating costs, maintenance and upgrade costs and remaining (residual or salvage) value at the end of ownership or of its useful life (City of Calgary, 2014e). Low Impact Development (LID) has variations on the same definition, depending on the application. o A generic definition defines LID as a development (residential or commercial) that minimizes the impact of stormwater on watersheds by integration of measures to

240

detain, retain and treat stormwater using soil infiltration and percolation to redirect a portion of the stormwater back into the hydrologic cycle. o City of Calgary (in CTP, MDP and Complete Streets Guide): An approach to land development that uses various land planning and design practices and technologies to simultaneously conserve and protect natural resource systems and reduce infrastructure costs (City of Calgary, 2014e). o City of Calgary (in Low Impact Development Project Module 1 – Geotechnical and Hydrogeotechnical Considerations) An LID is a development (residential or commercial) that minimizes the impact of stormwater on watersheds by integration of measures to detain, retain and treat stormwater using soil infiltration and percolation to redirect a portion of the stormwater back into the hydrologic cycle.30 o City of Calgary (LID website): An approach to land development that works with nature to manage stormwater runoff where it falls. LID preserves and recreates natural landscape features, and minimizes hard surfaces to create functional and appealing site drainage. Low impact development treats stormwater as a resource rather than a waste product. LID includes a variety of landscaping and design practices that slow water down, spreads it out and soaks it in. These practices ultimately improve the quality, and decrease the volume, of stormwater entering our waterways. (City of Calgary, 2015) o Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership’s (ALIDP) web site states that LID is really a statement of a desired outcome--the outcome of a holistic approach to urban drainage management. ALIDPs summary of the advantages of LID vs. conventional stormwater infrastructure are depicted in Figure 47 (Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership, 2014). Figure 47. ALIDP depiction of benefits of LID

241

Master Drainage Plan (MDP): A stormwater drainage plan prepared for a large drainage area, usually serviced by one or more outfalls. Bylaw 46P2013 (City of Calgary, 2014e). Meander belt: The land area on either side of a watercourse representing the farthest potential limit of channel migration. Areas within the meander belt may someday be occupied by the watercourse; areas outside the meander belt typically will not (Alberta Government, 2012). Meltwater channel: A large channel formed by water derived from melting of glacial ice. In the prairies smaller versions of these channels are often referred to as coulees (Turchenek & Fawcett, 1994). Non-point source: the term used to describe discharges that are subtle and gradual, caused by the release of substances from many different and diffuse sources. Management of non-point sources is inherently complex: it is an intergovernmental and cross-jurisdictional issue (Alberta Government, updated 2014). (see point- source) Permeable Pavement: Figure 48 shows a typical permeable pavement cross-section. Permeable pavement facilitates infiltration of precipitation falling directly on the porous surface or flowing from adjacent areas, and can be installed in low- speed and low-volume traffic Figure 48. Typical permeable pavement details areas accommodating pedestrian or vehicle traffic. (Smith, 2009( cited in City of Calgary, 2014b p. 58)

Perforated Pipe / permeable pipe: Figure 49 illustrates systems that can be thought of as long infiltration trenches or linear soakaways that are designed for both conveyance and infiltration of runoff from roofs and low to medium traffic roads or parking lots with adequate pre-treatment. They are composed of stormwater conveyance pipes that are perforated along their Figure 49. Typical perforated pipe details. length and installed in gently sloping

242

gravel filled trenches lined with geotextile fabric. They allow water to infiltrate into the underlying native soil while it is being conveyed from source areas or other stormwater best management practice to an end-of-pipe facility or receiving waterbody, where topography, groundwater table and runoff quality conditions are suitable. (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2014).

Point source: the term used to describe discharges from a single source that can be easily identified (Alberta Government, updated 2014). (see non-point source) Policy: A deliberate statement or plan to achieve an objective. Policies are instructive, directional and positive, but not limited to a single course of action when some other course could achieve the same result (City of Calgary, 2014e). Pothole: A term used to refer to a wetland, usually smaller than 5 ha (12ac), lying in the shallow undrained depression, that contains standing water only during the wettest part of most years (Turchenek & Fawcett, 1994). Resilience: an ability to recover from or adjust easily to misfortune or change (Merriam- Webster, 2015). Return flow: Return flow is comprised of operational spills, on-farm system downtime losses, drainage from irrigated fields, and base flow (Irrigation Water Management Study Committee, 2002b). Riparian: Riparian is derived from the Latin word “ripa” meaning bank or shore, and refers to land adjacent to a water body (Alberta Government, 2012). Riparian areas: Those areas where the plants and soils are strongly influenced by the presence of water. They are transitional lands between aquatic ecosystems (wetlands, rivers, streams or lakes) and terrestrial ecosystems (City of Calgary, 2014e). Riparian corridor: The interface between land and a stream (City of Calgary, 2014e). Ripe snow pack (or isothermic): Snowpack evolves throughout the season. Temperature gradients depend on ambient air temperature and snow conditions. After the snowpack reaches isothermal conditions in the spring (or during a Chinook or warm rain), all heat inputs produce meltwater (phase change from ice to water at 0o C) (Western Washington University, 2014).

Saline soil: A non-alkali soil containing soluble salts in such quantities that they interfere with the growth of most crop plants. The conductivity of the saturation extract is greater than 4 dS/cm, the exchangeable sodium percentage is less than 15, and the pH is usually less than 8.5 (Turchenek & Fawcett, 1994).

243

Slough: A generic term used to refer to water bodies that occupy shallow undrained depressions. They may be intermittent or permanent, but contain standing water throughout most years (Turchenek & Fawcett, 1994). Solonetzic soils: Soils that have developed on saline parent material that is high in sodium and have a characteristic hardpan layer that has formed in the subsoil. This hardpan is very hard when dry and has low permeability when wet. This results in restricted root and water penetration that may limit the productivity of these soils. Solonetzic soils occur in association with Chernozemic soils and, to a lesser extent, with Luvisolic soils (Alberta Agriculture., undated). Storm drainage: means drainage, which may include industrial runoff, resulting from precipitation in a city, town, specialized municipality, village, summer village, hamlet, settlement area within the meaning of the Metis Settlements Act, municipal development or privately owned development.22

Storm drainage collection system: means any system of sewers, valves, fittings, pumping stations and appurtenances that is used to collect storm drainage, up to and including the service connection.22

Supply management: Increasing the amount of water that is available by tapping a previously untapped source, increasing reservoir storage to relieve seasonal shortages, and/or increasing the capacity of the distribution system (Brooks, 2006).

Sustainability: Sustainability is about making our community a better place for current and future generations. In 2004, and again with the 11 Sustainability Principles for Land Use and Mobility in 2007, [Calgary] City Council approved the Brundtland definition of sustainable development: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This translates into striving for community well-being, a sustainable environment, a prosperous economy and smart growth and mobility choices. It is achieved by having a balanced financial capacity and creating a sustainable corporation that will drive toward this vision and provide the services Calgarians need today and in the future. In plain language, it is about building a great city for everyone, forever (City of Calgary, 2011 (updated 2013); City of Calgary, 2014e) Till: Unstratified glacial drift deposited directly by the ice and consisting of clay, sand, gravel and boulders intermingled in any proportion (MacMillan, 1985). Triple Bottom Line (TBL): An approach that considers economic, social, environmental, and smart growth and mobility implications in the decision-making processes. The Triple Bottom Line has been adopted by many organizations in both the public and private sector. It is a departure from making decisions based solely on the financial

244

bottom-line. It also reflects a greater awareness of the impacts of our decisions on the environment, society and the external economy - and how those impacts are related. 18 Water Conservation Objectives (WCO) – o established under the provisions of the Water Act: After engaging in public consultations, a designated official under the Act, a Director, can establish “the amount and quality of water necessary for the (i) protection of a natural water body or its aquatic environment, or any part of them, (ii) protection of tourism, recreational, transportation or waste assimilation or uses of water, (i) management of fish or wildlife.” Generally, a water conservation objective can be expressed in relation to a rate of flow needed or a water level needed (Alberta Government, 2014b). o from the Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development web site “water conservation objectives”: These objectives relate to the volume and quality of water to remain in rivers for the protection of a natural water body and its aquatic environment. They are flow targets under the first-in-time, first-in-right priority water allocation system and will apply to all new licences and existing licences with a retrofit provision [As] recommended in the Water Management Plan for the South Saskatchewan River Basin and as provided for under section 15(1) of the Water Act, [the Designated Director Under the Water Act established] Water Conservation Objectives (WCO) for the Bow River mainstem (below Bearspaw Dam to the confluence with the South Saskatchewan River) to be either 45% or the natural rate of flow, or the existing instream flow objective increased by 10%, whichever is greater at any point in time. (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, 2015). Water production and water demand are not the same. Water produced at the water treatment plant is measured on the way out of the treatment plant. It can be lost during delivery to the customer by inefficiencies in the system such as leaks and breaks. Unmetered water use can include fire-fighting, filling municipal swimming pools, irrigating parks and other municipal activities. Water demand is measured at end-use points. This could only be measured with universal metering including metering of all residential, industrial and municipal activities.

245

Water quality guidelines: Water quality guidelines are scientifically determined and indicate the maximum allowable concentration of substances for a particular water use such as livestock watering or swimming. These national guidelines serve as the targets for environmental protection (Environment Canada, 2014c). Water quality limits: Water quality limits based on provincially accepted water quality guidelines represent conditions where the risk of adverse effects is heightened. Exceedance of the triggers indicates that a statistically significant change from historical conditions may have occurred, while exceedance of the limits indicates that designated water uses may not be protected. It is important to note that the limits are not considered to be “pollute-up-to” numbers. The limits can be expected to change over time as existing guidelines are updated and new guidelines are developed using the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) accepted protocols. If new water quality guidelines are developed the may be considered for future additions to the management framework as limits (Alberta Government, updated 2014). Water quality objectives: Water quality objectives specify the concentrations of substances permissible for all intended water uses at a specific location on a lake, river, or estuary. The objectives are based on the water quality guidelines for the uses at that location, as well as on public input and socio-economic considerations (Environment Canada, 2014c). Water quality triggers: Ambient water quality trigger, calculated from historical monthly data from each of the nine Long-term River Networks monitoring stations for each indicator, are “an early warning system” that signal potential changes in ambient environmental conditions may be occurring. They are set at values that have historically been observed in recent years at each monitoring station, therefore not all trigger exceedance signal real or meaningful change. Nevertheless, trigger exceedances provide an early opportunity to examine an indicator to determine whether or not change is occurring. Triggers are based on the premise that small deviations from existing water quality may or may not be acceptable, provided they are closely monitored, analysed, evaluated for risk and managed (Alberta Government, updated 2014). Watershed: o Alberta Government: An area of land that catches precipitation and drains it to a specific point such as a marsh, lake, stream or river. A watershed can be made up of a number of sub-watersheds that contribute to the overall drainage of the watershed. A watershed is sometimes referred to as a basin, drainage basin or catchment area (Alberta Government, 2012).

246

o City of Calgary: Watershed: include groundwater, springs, wetlands, ponds, streams and lakes as well as all land that drains into these linked aquatic systems. Watersheds reflect both the natural characteristics of their geography and the impacts of human activities within them (City of Calgary, 2014e). Wetland: A wetland is land that has the water table at, near, or above the land surface, or which is saturated for a long enough period to promote wetland or aquatic processes as indicated by hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and various kinds of biological activity that are adapted to the wet environment” (Tarnocai, 1980). If the rooting zone extends below the water table, the area is a wetland (National Wetlands Working Group, 1988). Wetlands in Alberta’s prairie region (White Area) are commonly classified according to the Stewart and Kantrud classification system. (See Table 3) (Alberta Government, 2012) Table 3. Stewart and Kantrud Wetland Classification Class I Ephemeral Wetlands typically have free surface water for only a short period of time after snowmelt or storm events in early spring. Class II Temporary Wetlands are periodically covered by standing or slow moving water. They typically open water for only a few weeks after snowmelt or several days after heavy storm events. Class III Seasonal Ponds and Lakes are characterized by shallow marsh vegetation, which generally occurs in the deepest zone (usually dry by midsummer). These wetlands are typically dominated by emergent wetland grasses, sedges and rushes. Class IV Semi-permanent Ponds and Lakes are characterized by marsh vegetation, which dominates the central zone of the wetland, as well as coarse emergent plants or submerged aquatics, including cattails, bulrushes and pondweeds. Class V Permanent Ponds and Lakes have permanent open water in a central zone that is generally devoid of vegetation Class VI Alkali wetlands are characterized by a pH above 7 and a high concentration of salts. The dominant plants are generally salt tolerant. These wetlands are especially attractive for shore birds. Class VII Fen Ponds are wetlands in which fen vegetation dominates the deepest portion of the wetland area. This wetland type often has wet meadow and low prairie vegetation present on the periphery. The soils are normally saturated by alkaline groundwater seepage. Fen ponds often have quaking or floating mats of emergent vegetation, which includes sedges, grasses and other herbaceous plants.

247

Wetland Mitigation Sequence: Many jurisdictions in North America use a “mitigation sequence” to protect wetlands: First, avoid impacts; second, minimize unavoidable impacts; third, compensate for irreducible impacts through the use of wetland restoration, enhancement, creation, or protection. Despite the continued reliance on this sequence in wetland decision-making, there is broad agreement among scholars, scientists, policy-makers, regulators, and the regulated community that the first and most important step in the mitigation sequence, avoidance, is ignored more often than it is implemented (Clare, 2013).

248