final report integrated stormwater management plans ... · integrated stormwater management plans...
TRANSCRIPT
FINAL REPORTIntegrated Stormwater Management Plans
Lessons Learned to 2011
April 2012
2353 - 13353 Commerce ParkwayRichmond, BC V6V 3A1
FINAL REPORTINTEGRATED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS - LESSONS LEARNED TO 2011
Prepared byUrban Systems Ltd.2353 - 13353 Commerce ParkwayRichmond, BC V6V 3A1T: 604.273.8700W: www.urban-systems.com
Samantha Ward, P.Eng.Water Resources EngineerT: 604.273.8700E: [email protected]
April 2012
Submitted to
Robert Hicks, P. [email protected] Vancouver5th Floor - 4330 KingswayBurnaby, BC V5H 4G8
Printed on FSC Certi�ed, SFI Fiber Sourcing Certi�ed and Rainforest Alliance Certi�ed paper with 10% post consumer recycled content and certi�ed �ber.
This report has been prepared for the sole use of Metro Vancouver. No representations of any kind are made by Urban Systems Ltd. or its employees to any party with whom Urban Systems Ltd. does not have a contract. Copyright © 2011 Urban Systems Ltd.
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
i
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 1
REGULATORY CONTEXT 2
ABOUT THIS STUDY 3
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 3
APPROACH 4
INTENDED AUDIENCE 4
REPORT FORMAT 4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5
ESTABLISH THE FRAMEWORK 6
UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT 6
ISMP DRIVER IDENTIFICATION 6
POLICY FRAMEWORK REVIEW 7
BUDGET AND TIMEFRAME RISK IDENTIFICATION 7
FUNDING SOURCE IDENTIFICATION 10
DEVELOP THE TERMS OF REFERENCE 10
WATERSHED NEEDS ASSESSMENT 10
TERMS OF REFERENCE OUTLINE 11
Stage 1 - What do you have? 12
Stage 2 - What do you want? 12
Stage 3 - How do you put the ISMP into action? 12
Stage 4 - How do you stay on target? 12
LESSONS LEARNED: INTER-DEPARTMENTAL ENGAGEMENT AND SUPPORT 12
LESSONS LEARNED: MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ISMPS 14
EMBARK ON THE ISMP PROCESS 15
STAGE 1 – WHAT DOES THE MUNICIPALITY HAVE? 15
Lessons Learned: Data Collection and Management 17
STAGE 2 – WHAT DOES THE MUNICIPALITY WANT? 18
Lessons Learned: Consultation and Engagement Strategies 20
STAGE 3 – HOW DOES THE MUNICIPALITY PUT THE ISMP INTO ACTION? 21
Analysis 21
Recommendations and implementation 22
Lessons Learned: Implementation and Enforcement 23
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
ii
STAGE 4 – HOW DOES THE MUNICIPALITY STAY ON TARGET? 23
Lessons Learned: Monitoring and Adaptive Management 24
ISMP: A LIVING DOCUMENT 24
Lessons Learned: Creating a Living Document 24
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A ISMP Process Checklists
APPENDIX B Survey Questions
APPENDIX C In-Person Interview Questionnaire
APPENDIX D List of References
APPENDIX E Feedback on Metro Vancouver’s Template for Integrated Stormwater Management
Planning (2005)
On CD Online Survey Questionnaire Results
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Use of Metro Vancouver’s Template for Integrated Stormwater Management Planning 2
Figure 2: Typical Drivers for ISMP Programs 7
Figure 3: Typical Budgeted Amount for an ISMP 8
Figure 4: Typical Proportion (in %) of an ISMP Budget 8
Figure 5: Typical Timeframe for an ISMP 9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Participating Metro Vancouver Members...................................................................................... 5
Table 2: Participating Vancouver Island Municipalities ............................................................................... 6
Table 3: Study Consultant ............................................................................................................................ 6
Table 4: Potential Funding Sources (and Degree of Use) for ISMP(s) ........................................................ 10
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
1
Introduction Integrated Stormwater Management Plans, or ISMPs, are comprehensive studies that examine the
linkages between drainage servicing, land use planning and environmental protection. Their purpose is
to support the growth of a community in a way that maintains or ideally enhances the overall health of a
watershed. As such, an ISMP can be a powerful tool that enables a municipality to set a clear direction
for the future of their community.
In response to commitments made under the 2001 Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP), most
members have initiated ISMPs for watersheds in their community. Some member municipalities have
not initiated their ISMP programs to date, and all municipalities are under increasing pressure to
develop their ISMP programs in order to meet the 2014 deadline. In 2011, the Minister of Environment
(MoE) approved Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management: A Liquid Waste Management
Plan for the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District and Member Municipalities (ILWRMP) as
the new LWMP1.
ILWRM Approval Condition 7 requires the development of a formal program to assess the
implementation and effectiveness of ISMPs (reports biennially), with Action 3.5.6 requiring annual
reporting on ISMP implementation to MoE. Approval Condition 9 requires municipal consideration of
land use impacts in ISMPs, with Action 3.4.7 requiring ISMPs be integrated land use.
Recognizing the time, effort and cost invested to date by Metro Vancouver municipalities to develop
ISMPs, municipal staff (through Metro Vancouver and the Stormwater Interagency Liaison Group, or
SILG) have identified a need to better understand and share the “lessons learned” by those
municipalities who have experience in conducting ISMPs. There are a sufficient number of ISMPs
completed to date to reflect on the successes and challenges associated with ISMP development and
implementation. The intent of this study is to gather and document the ISMP “lessons learned” by
member municipalities, in the hope that sharing this information will provide guidance and support to
those needing to complete their remaining ISMPs.
Other terminology has been used by some Metro Vancouver municipalities in place of ISMP, including
Integrated Rainwater Management Plan (IRMP) and Integrated Watershed Management Plan (IWMP).
While this study uses the term ISMP (to be consistent with the terminology used in the ILWRMP), it is
intended to be interchangeable with terminology used by other municipalities.
1 A conditional extension to 2016 has been offered by the British Columbia Minister of Environment.
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
2
Regulatory Context
In 2001, Metro Vancouver and its members developed and adopted the LWMP. The plan endorsed the
view that stormwater is a resource that, when managed properly, can be utilized to protect and
enhance watershed health. The LWMP outlined an approach to integrated stormwater management
planning that incorporated drainage, environment, and land use planning functions within a watershed
in order to address potential stormwater impacts on a community. Member municipalities committed to
undertake ISMPs for all urban and semi-urban watersheds by 2014, and the Stormwater Interagency
Liaison Group (SILG) was formed so municipalities could share information on stormwater-related
issues.
One of the initial mandates of SILG was to develop a Template for Integrated Stormwater Management
Plans (TISMP) to assist municipalities in undertaking ISMPs. The TISMP was first published in 2002 and
updated in 2005. The TISMP identifies 35 different clauses, or aspects, that could be examined as part
of an ISMP. Clauses include establishing a framework for the study; data collection and review; field
assessments to supplement watershed knowledge and identify values; analysis to understand existing
drainage and environmental conditions and potential impacts resulting from proposed land use
changes; evaluation of alternatives to address the impacts; and implementation and adaptive
management strategies for recommended works. Minimum and maximum levels of effort are identified
with each clause. Some ISMPs completed to date have used the TISMP as a reference tool for guiding
the study; other municipalities have developed their own approaches to ISMPs that, while not directly
following the TISMP, strive for the intent behind the template. Municipal TISMP usage to date is
summarized in Figure 1 below, based on the results of the online survey conducted as part of this study.
Figure 1: Use of Metro Vancouver’s Template for Integrated Stormwater Management Planning
14
43 14
29
How often did the Municipality / First Nation reference Metro Vancouver's Template for Integrated Stormwater Management Planning (2005) when
developing the Terms of Reference for the ISMP(s)?
Never
Sometimes
Most of the time
Always
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
3
ISMPs based on the TISMP have had varying degrees of success according to the online survey results,
with 57% of respondents finding the template “somewhat helpful” compared to 21% who found it “very
helpful”. Some suggested amendments to the template, based on feedback from the in-person
interviews conducted for this study, are included in Appendix E.
A new liquid waste management plan was developed and adopted by Metro Vancouver and its member
municipalities in 2010. The Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ILWRMP) reaffirms
the commitment of member municipalities to undertake ISMPs by 2014 and also requires that
municipalities implement the plans. The Minister of Environment has since offered a conditional
extension to 2016 for completion of the remaining ISMPs, provided that member municipalities conduct
an ongoing coordinated monitoring and assessment program to evaluate the effectiveness of municipal
stormwater management, and the benefits and impacts of ISMPs to the watershed and stream health.
Metro Vancouver and SILG play an important role in raising awareness and providing support to
member municipalities that are undertaking ISMPs to meet the ILWRMP requirements. This study
represents one form of support for members.
About This Study
The purpose of this study is to collect and document the “lessons learned” by Metro Vancouver member
municipalities who have undertaken ISMPs, and outline the foundational elements to support successful
ISMPs in the future based on the lessons learned to date. It is intended to act as a primer for municipal
staff that can be referenced prior to, or in conjunction with, the Metro Vancouver TISMP and/or other
relevant ISMP resources.
Goals and Objectives
Metro Vancouver identified the following goals and objectives for this study:
Capture and summarize “lessons learned” by municipalities who have already embarked on
ISMPs;
Promote the continued commitment by Metro Vancouver member municipalities to conduct
ISMPs and meet their requirements under the ILWRMP;
Provide context, awareness and support for municipalities about to embark on ISMPs;
Share knowledge and information amongst municipalities to foster better communication; and,
Aid and guide the development of future ISMPs.
Metro Vancouver and SILG are also conducting a complementary study that aims to seek feedback from
the consulting community, who are often tasked with preparing ISMPs on behalf of member
municipalities. Once completed, both studies will be resources for those undertaking ISMPs.
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
4
Approach
A multi-step approach was used in this study. Existing ISMPs prepared by Metro Vancouver member
municipalities were initially reviewed to assess scope and deliverables; the degree to which the ISMPs
followed Metro Vancouver’s TISMP; similarities and differences in approach, recommendations, and
implementation strategies; etc. A list of the ISMPs, along with other relevant documents that were
reviewed as part of this study, is included in Appendix A.
SILG generated an initial list of questions for this study that covered topics such as study preparation,
data management, work plan and scope, project team, consultation and engagement, integration and
risk management, and implementation. The questions were focused on the ISMP process, rather than
on a specific ISMP or municipality. Several of the questions were re-phrased and posed to municipal
staff through an online survey. The online survey was distributed to all Metro Vancouver members, as
well as to select British Columbia communities (outside of Metro Vancouver) who have undertaken
ISMPs. Ten communities responded to the online survey (8 Metro Vancouver member municipalities,
plus 2 communities from Vancouver Island); with respondents representing Engineering, Planning and
Operations department perspectives. The online survey questions are included in Appendix B; survey
results are included on the enclosed CD.
Following a review of the online survey results, in-person interviews were conducted with municipal
staff at eight Lower Mainland municipalities to further clarify online survey responses where required,
as well as to delve into some topic areas that did not lend themselves to the online survey approach.
In-person interviews were typically attended by municipal staff from the Engineering, Planning and
Operations departments. In-person interview questions are included in Appendix C.
Based on the feedback from the online survey and in-person interviews, common themes and trends
experienced by member municipalities were identified, along with “lessons learned” by those who have
embarked on the ISMP process. Lessons learned were then used to inform the foundational elements of
a successful ISMP.
Intended Audience
This study is primarily intended for municipal staff, Council and Mayors to provide context and guidance
towards developing ISMPs for their watersheds. Consultants, environmental agencies, and other
interested stakeholders may also find this study of use.
Report Format
The report is divided into three sections, which represent the three main phases of the ISMP process:
Establish the Framework – This section provides guidance to understanding and setting the framework
prior to initiating an ISMP.
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
5
Embark on the ISMP Process – This section provides guidance during the development of the ISMP
itself.
ISMP: A Living Document – This section provides guidance for moving forward once the ISMP is
complete and ensuring that the ISMP remains a “living document”.
Checklists have been developed for the foundational components of each phase to guide and assist
municipal staff through the ISMP process. Checklists are provided in Appendix D; digital versions of the
checklists are also included on the enclosed CD.
Acknowledgements
Metro Vancouver gratefully acknowledges the participation and contribution of the following
municipalities and their staff in undertaking this study, as well as the SILG for generating the initial list of
questions and providing overall feedback on study results.
Table 1: Participating Metro Vancouver Members
Organization Contact Organization Contact
Metro Vancouver Robert Hicks2 City of Richmond Andy Bell2
Patrick Johnstone Lesley Douglas
City of Coquitlam
Melony Burton2
Dana Soong Margaret Birch Lynn Guilbault
Ryan Perry
City of Surrey
Jeannie Lee2
Carrie Baron David Hislop
Township of Langley Kevin Larsen Mark Sloat
Meghan Lee
Tsawwassen First Nation
Ed Chanter
District of North Vancouver
Ariel Estrada2
Richard Boase Karen Rendek
City of Vancouver
Andrew Ling2
David Desrochers Carolyn Drugge
City of Pitt Meadows Ike de Boer District of West
Vancouver
John McMahon2
Raymond Fung Andy Kwan
Tony Tse
2 Active member of the Stormwater Interagency Liaison Group (SILG).
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
6
To Understand the Context for the
ISMP, Municipalities should:
1. Identify the ISMP driver(s) and
document how they will influence
the process (Checklist # 1)
2. Review and understand the policy
framework, and identify
opportunities and constraints as
they relate to the ISMP (Checklist
# 2)
3. Identify ISMP budget and
timeframe risks and outline
response / mitigation approaches
(Checklist # 3)
4. List available funding sources and
identify preferred funding
mechanism(s)(Checklist # 4)
Table 2: Participating Vancouver Island Municipalities
Organization Contact
District of Central Saanich Roland Rocheleau
City of Nanaimo Doris Fournier
Table 3: Study Consultant
Organization Contact
Urban Systems Ltd. Samantha Ward Glen Shkurhan
Establish the Framework
Understand the Context
ISMP Driver Identification
Metro Vancouver member municipalities are required
under the ILWRMP to undertake ISMPs for their
watersheds. However, many communities initiated their
ISMP programs in response to different demands, ranging
from Department or Council mandates, to development
pressures, to addressing specific environmental or
drainage issues, according to the online survey results
summarized in Figure 2 below. Municipalities need to
identify the main ISMP driver(s) for each of their
watersheds and understand how each driver will influence
the ISMP, as this will assist in establishing their overall
ISMP program and prioritizing their watersheds. Checklist
# 1 in Appendix D will assist municipal staff in
documenting the ISMP driver(s) for each watershed.
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
7
Figure 2: Typical Drivers for ISMP Programs
Policy Framework Review
At the municipal level, ISMPs can be affected by policies and guidelines currently in place, such as plans,
bylaws or other documents. Since these documents can present opportunities or constraints to the
ISMP, municipal staff should review and understand their policy framework prior to initiating the ISMP
program. Staff should use the existing policy framework to the maximum extent possible to support the
ISMP, and through the ISMP program identify any required amendments or additions to further support
ISMP vision, goals and objectives.
Checklist # 2 in Appendix D will assist municipal staff in identifying the policy framework, as well as
document the opportunities and constraints as they relate to the ISMP. Staff should consult with
relevant departments (e.g., Planning, Development, Building, etc.) that administer these policies when
filling out the checklist, to supplement their understanding of the policy framework and the unique
perspectives of each department.
Budget and Timeframe Risk Identification
One clear trend has emerged for municipalities that have undertaken ISMPs to date; ISMPs are a
significant investment in both time and money. Figures 3 and 4 summarize typical budget ranges and
distribution by task for an ISMP, respectively, whereas Figure 5 summarizes the typical timeframe for an
ISMP (based on the online survey results).
30
9
21
19
21
Why did the Municipality / First Nation decide to initiate its ISMP program?
To fulfil regulatory requirements under the Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) or Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource
Department or Council mandate
Response to development pressures in the watershed
Specific or unique environmental or drainage issues
Update existing stormwater management / drainage plans
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
8
Figure 3: Typical Budgeted Amount for an ISMP
Figure 4: Typical Proportion (in %) of an ISMP Budget
10%
20%
30%
10%
30%
What is the typical budgeted amount for the ISMP(s) (cost per hectare)?
$50 to $100
$100 to $150
$150 to $200
$200 to $250
> $250
25%
9%
25%
8%
12%
12%
9%
What proportion (in %) of an ISMP budget is typically dedicated to the following:
Data collection / existing systems inventory
Setting the vision, goals and
Undertaking assessment, modelling and analysis of options and identifying preferred approach
Outlining monitoring and adaptive management programmes
Documentation and reporting
Consultation and engagement
Other
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
9
Figure 5: Typical Timeframe for an ISMP
Given the substantial ranges of costs and timeframes for ISMPs completed to date, it is obvious that
each watershed is unique and no single value can be relied on to adequately represent all cases. For
each watershed, municipalities need to identify and understand how various factors may influence the
ISMP budget and timeframe, and dedicate adequate funding and timeframes accordingly. For each
ISMP, Checklist # 3 in Appendix D will allow the municipality to identify budget and timeframe risk
factors and document a response or approach to mitigate the risk.
Potential budget and/or timeframe risk mitigation approaches include, but are not limited to,
the following:
Break ISMP into phases
Conduct up-front scoping exercise to identify and prioritize watershed needs, issues and
data gaps
Conduct up-front or municipal-wide data collection programs prior to, or separate from,
the ISMP
Review watershed characteristics and look for opportunities to group watersheds with similar
characteristics together, thereby reducing the total number of ISMPs required
Engage municipal staff to undertake portions of the ISMP in-house
Provide a clear scope of work definition in the Terms of Reference
Develop an accountability program to measure consultant performance and keep consultant
on track
7%
7%
22%
14%
50%
How long have ISMP(s) typically taken to complete?
< 6 months
6 months to 1 year
1 year to 1.5 years
1.5 years to 2 years
2 + years
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
10
To Develop a Successful Terms of
Reference for the ISMP,
Municipalities should:
1. Conduct a watershed needs
assessment and identify priority
issues to resolve in the ISMP
(Checklist # 5)
2. Identify core topic areas for each
ISMP stage and clearly articulate
scope of work, expectations
and desired deliverables
(Checklist # 6)
Funding Source Identification
For many communities, and particularly those with several ISMPs yet to complete, the financial
investment required to meet their ILWRMP commitment is of significant concern. Typical funding
sources used by municipalities to date for ISMPs, based on the online survey results, are summarized in
Table 4 below.
Table 4: Potential Funding Sources (and Degree of Use) for ISMP(s)
Funding Source Never Sometimes Often Always
General Revenue 43% 14% 0% 43%
Dedicated Drainage Funding
25% 25% 0% 50%
Stormwater Utility 0% 14% 14% 72%
Development Cost Charges
17% 33% 0% 50%
External Grant or Funding Source
13% 63% 12% 12%
There are opportunities and constraints to each of the funding sources noted above, and these may not
be the only ones available to municipalities. Checklist # 4 in Appendix D will allow a municipality to
document the funding source(s) available for ISMPs, identify opportunities and constraints related to
each funding source, and explore which source(s) make the most sense for the ISMP.
Develop the Terms of Reference
Watershed Needs Assessment
In the early days of ISMPs, identification of watershed needs
and issues was sometimes left solely to the consultant to
identify and interpret; as a result, municipal expectations
were not always met and many of these studies are now
sitting on the shelf because they did not adequately address
watershed needs, lacked practical implementation
strategies, or the recommendations were simply cost
prohibitive. This approach will not result in a successful
ISMP; municipalities need to understand and be able to
clearly articulate the needs and issues of the watershed
to others.
Undertaking a watershed needs assessment should be the
first step in developing the Terms of Reference (ToR) for an
ISMP. Checklist # 5 in Appendix D provides a list of potential
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
11
watershed issues and needs, and requires municipal staff to describe relevant issues / needs for a
particular watershed and assign a priority ranking for addressing the issue / need in the ISMP.
Municipal staff from all affected departments (as well as known external stakeholders, if present) should
be engaged to identify needs and issues from their perspectives. Some municipalities (such as the City
of Vancouver) have found that having municipal staff tour the watershed together to discuss needs and
issues in the field has resulted in enhanced synergies and contextual understanding of the relative needs
of various departments; this in turn has led to greater support and ownership of the ISMP from all
departments, and offered greater guidance to the ISMP ToR formulation. Alternatively, a municipality
may wish to retain a consultant to undertake a scoping exercise for the watershed to identify needs and
issues, which can then be utilized to inform the ISMP ToR development.
Terms of Reference Outline
A clearly defined Terms of Reference (ToR) is the foundation of a successful ISMP. As such, municipal
staff should have a sound understanding of the needs, or at least the issues, that are to be addressed
through the ISMP (as determined through the watershed needs assessment), and clearly articulate their
expectations and desired deliverables in the ToR. Clear statements regarding the desired scope of
analysis and assessment, the approach and extent of communication / consultation, the specific
information being sought for implementation, and acknowledging alignment between the scope of work
and available budget are most critical. If there are limitations on the budget, expectations between the
client and consultant team is best managed by making the budget known up-front such that work
programs can be tailored to suit. The three greatest risks to ISMP satisfaction appear to occur where
there is misalignment between available budget and scope of work, implementation opportunities and
constraints are not understood, and where the desired deliverables are not adequately understood. It is
imperative that municipal staff from all relevant departments be engaged to develop the ToR together.
Other external stakeholders (e.g., streamkeeper groups, environmental agencies, etc.) can also be
engaged during the ToR development, if appropriate.
While the Metro Vancouver Template for Integrated Stormwater Management Planning (TISMP) can be
used as a guide for developing the ToR, care should be taken not to apply a blanket approach or literal
interpretation of the template to the ISMP. The template is one of many tools available to
municipalities, and ultimately it is the municipality’s understanding of the unique watershed issues and
needs, along with their desired outcomes for the ISMP, that should guide the ToR development.
Not only should the ToR clearly identify the issues that the ISMP is to address, it should also include a
discussion of what “addressing the issue” looks like to the municipality (e.g., what level of effort would
provide meaningful results to the municipality; this would inform the scope of hydrology / hydraulic
analysis, environmental, geotechnical, hydrogeological programs, etc.).
A successful approach being used by several municipalities is to structure the ISMP into four distinct
stages, as follows:
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
12
Core Municipal Project Team for ISMPs:
Engineering (lead)
Planning & Development
Parks & Recreation
Environment
Consider also engaging:
Mayor and Council
Operations
Building
Sustainability
Transportation
Finance / Purchasing
Stage 1 - What do you have? - Inventory of Existing Systems; to assess existing watershed features
and identify opportunities and constraints.
Stage 2 - What do you want? – Vision, Goals and Objectives; to establish the Vision, Goals and
Objectives for the ISMP, typically with a focus on stream / watershed health and alignment with
community values.
Stage 3 - How do you put the ISMP into action? –Assessment, Analysis and Implementation; to
inform the recommended solutions and create a strategy to implement the ISMP Vision, Goals
and Objectives.
Stage 4 - How do you stay on target? – Monitoring and Adaptive Management; to identify roles and
responsibilities for implementation and monitoring, and set the course for creating a living document.
Checklist # 6 in Appendix D will assist municipalities in identifying core topic areas to explore under each
of these stages, as well as document expectations and desired deliverables.
Combined with the watershed needs assessment, this structure has assisted in providing greater clarity
to the scope and budget of ISMPs completed to date. These stages are explored further in Embark on
the ISMP Process.
Lessons Learned: Inter-Departmental Engagement and Support
Engineering staff typically lead ISMPs for several reasons, according to feedback from the in-person
interviews:
Technical Knowledge – ISMPs involve an appreciable
technical component that requires a sound
understanding of hydrology and hydraulics; Engineering
staff are innovative, while at the same time they
understand the realities of implementation
Asset Management – Recommended works often include
upgrades to drainage infrastructure and assets that the
Engineering Department is responsible for
Familiarity with Multi-Disciplinary Projects – Engineering
staff are familiar with managing multi-disciplinary
projects; they are effective in identifying and
understanding the “trades and balances” associated with
different needs and can identify linkages between
engineering, land use, and environment; they can
integrate the technical aspects with the “softer”
components of the ISMP (e.g., policy, consultation, etc.)
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
13
Who is the ISMP Champion?
Is there someone in the municipality who
is passionate about stormwater /
rainwater management? Sustainable
community growth and development?
Environmental protection? If so, they
may be the best champion for the ISMP
program. For many Lower Mainland
municipalities, having a passionate in-
house ISMP champion to lead the process,
engage others, and see the projects
through to completion has resulted in
further advancement of their ISMP
programs, and higher quality,
implementable end products.
Funding Allocations – The majority of
recommended works stemming from an ISMP are
funded and implemented by the Engineering
Department; Engineering staff understand the cost
implications of recommended works
While Engineering has a lead role, participation from
staff in other departments is also viewed as critical to
the success of the ISMP. Engagement should start at
the beginning, with the watershed needs assessment
and development of the Terms of Reference, and
continue throughout the ISMP process itself. At a
minimum, municipal staff from the Planning &
Development, Parks & Recreation, and Environment
departments should be involved. These departments,
with the Engineering department designated as the
lead, should form the core municipal project team.
Strong consideration should also be given to engaging
municipal staff from the Building, Operations, Sustainability, Transportation and Finance / Purchasing
departments (particularly during the development and assessment of recommendations), as well as
Mayor and Council. These departments all have a role to play in the implementation and enforcement
of recommended works, so seeking their input and support early on may encourage ownership and
support over the implementation of the ISMP.
Municipal staff can be engaged in many ways, with staff meetings and/or inclusion of staff in
stakeholder / steering committee groups being the most common methods. Depending on municipal
staff’s past experience with ISMPs, some education of other departments may be required prior to
initiating the ISMP process, to outline the intent and scope of ISMPs and their benefits to the
community.
The City of Coquitlam has been particularly successful in engaging various departments within the
municipality and ensuring coordination and support throughout the ISMP process, as described below.
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
14
Lessons Learned: Multi-Jurisdictional ISMPs
Watershed boundaries and municipal boundaries often cross. To fully understand the complexities of a
watershed, an ISMP should encompass the natural watershed boundary rather than being limited to the
municipal (jurisdictional) boundary. Where a watershed crosses municipal boundaries, the involvement
of two or more municipalities is often required.
Multi-jurisdictional ISMPs may also occur where First Nations, Provincial or Federal lands lie within a
natural watershed boundary; thus methods to engage and consult with these other land interests
should be identified.
In a few cases, Metro Vancouver has acted as the project administrator for a multi-jurisdictional ISMP
(usually where significant Metro Vancouver-owned drainage infrastructure is located within the
watershed). In general though, multi-jurisdictional ISMPs are formulated and conducted directly
between the affected municipalities.
“The City of Coquitlam has OCP language to “provide for effective and prudent management of Coquitlam’s watercourses through sustainable land use and development and other comprehensive watershed and stormwater management approaches.” But what makes Coquitlam a leader in its approach is that it takes this commitment one step further. For Integrated Watershed Management Planning to truly be an integrated process, all departments and disciplines must participate and contribute. The OCP incorporates additional language to ensure that would happen: “integrated watershed management plans should reflect watershed conditions and needs in the neighbourhood planning process by ensuring new neighbourhood plans are completed after applicable watershed studies.”
This last statement guarantees that the watershed’s needs are considered first. But it also means a collective team of people from various departments (environment, planning, engineering, parks) stay involved to make that happen. Since all other components must follow the IWMP, every affected department takes an active role in the formation of the plan to safeguard their own processes and plans. The IWMP decisions become shared and the process is iterative.
Departments work together to develop a plan that balances their needs with those of the watershed. Of particular note is the engagement and buy-in of the Planners. The Partington Creek Neighbourhood Plan Concept was developed in tandem with the IWMP. However, the planning component did not get the okay to move forward for detailed design until the final IWMP was adopted. Coquitlam’s ability to get all departments on board for the development of this plan and to effectively engage Planners in the IWMP process makes it a leader in this field.”
Melony Burton, AScT, Engineering Technologist
City of Coquitlam
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
15
Data Collection Facts and Figures
Those who have flow monitoring programs in place on a community wide basis; 7 of 15.
Those who have water quality monitoring on a community wide basis; 5 of 15.
Those who have a benthic sampling program on a community wide basis; 5 of 15.
Those who collected flow data as part of ISMP; 7 of 13.
Most popular flow monitoring period is one year or more.
Those who compute the Riparian Forest Integrity (RFI) index; 4 of 14.
Those who compute effective impervious area (EIA);9 of 14.
To date, multi-jurisdictional ISMPs have been most successful where one of the municipalities has
“taken the lead” with respect to identifying watershed issues and needs, developing the Terms of
Reference, and administering the project. The other municipality (or municipalities) is consulted
throughout the process, and their concerns, issues and desired outcomes are incorporated into the
study. The consultant can structure their work program into separate components related to each
affected municipality (if desired), and invoice each municipality directly for their portion of the work.
Not designating a lead municipality can lead to a vague Terms of Reference, a lack of ownership over the
project, greater risk of confusion and conflict that can result in expectations not being met, jeopardizing
the success of the ISMP.
Embark on the ISMP Process
Stage 1 – What Does the Municipality Have?
Gathering information and starting the participant engagement process is the focus of Stage 1. While
there is variability in how information is used and how deeply a particular topic gets explored, there
appears to be general consistency in the type of information that is collected, albeit with some
exceptions.
From 15 respondents, 90% or more already had topographic,
aerial photographic, rainfall, GIS / infrastructure information.
Physical, or scientific, information specific to the watershed,
such as flow, water quality, habitat (benthic, vegetation,
wildlife, fish), geotechnical, and hydrogeology data, fell
dramatically to 50% or less. So as expected, data collection in
these areas is a common and important part of ISMP
formulation for all. There was general uniformity in the types
of data sought as part of the ISMP process, however, it is
interesting to see that water quality data received the most,
with 11 of 14 respondents indicating that water quality data
was being collected. Water quality parameters have not been
commonly considered in the past, as such there is a lack of
background information available. During the in-person
interviews, more than one respondent emphasized the
growing importance of water quality. More are taking the
view that water quality is an important and useful
performance measure.
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
16
Some exceptions exist around geotechnical and wildlife / vegetation data collection. Fisheries / aquatic
habitat appear to be viewed more strongly that other habitat forms (wildlife, vegetation), however
benthic sampling is not a major component of that, with only 8 of 14 respondents indicating that
benthics are measured.
One respondent noted that data must support the strategy. As such, this respondent is prepared to
invest in infiltration testing to have greater confidence in decisions for infiltration based management
features.
A very common trend is the implementation of community wide data collection programs. Some have
had comprehensive programs in place for some time, while others are moving in that direction. Stated
advantages of a community wide program are cost efficiencies, consistency of results, better
representation, and providing a more “global” picture.
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
17
“The requirements for fulfilling the ISMP in the LWMP are described in detail in the Metro Vancouver ISMP Template (2005). The District of North Vancouver (DNV) has taken a unique approach to developing our ISMP. Given the geographic location coupled with very low development/re-development rates, our approach requires us to take a different direction such that we use our resources in a manner that produces the most results and benefits for us. This approach allows us to implement bylaws and policies and collect data District-wide rather than initiating a full blown traditional ISMP on a selected watershed. Moreover, this approach requires more extensive data management but minimizes the total effort to assess, analyze and develop solutions for the District’s watershed.
The DNV has completed a variety of engineering studies/reports, data collection and assessments, and current District policies and bylaws that have set the framework for completion of ISMP tasks geared towards the development of an implementable “blueprint” or “vision” for the watersheds. It is anticipated that leveraging and streamlining the existing reports and data would expedite the completion of our ISMPs with potential cost savings.”
Listed below are the bylaws, policies, engineering reports and data that DNV has undertaken to date.
Engineering Components:
Climate and Flow Monitoring (2003-Present) Watercourses Inventory (2007) Gravel Management Plans (1991 – Present) Culvert Inventory & GIS Layer Development (1990s – Present) Flood Hazard and Debris Flow Work (1995-2007) Master Drainage Plans (Early 1990s) Development Servicing Bylaw No. 7388 (2005) Surficial Geology Floodplain Mapping (1991) Flood Assessment Study (2010)
Planning Components:
Official Community Plan Update (2011) Official District Community Plan Bylaw 6300 (1990) Zoning By-Law 3210 (1965)
Environmental Components:
Pesticide Use Control Bylaw 7686 (2009) Environmental Protection and Preservation Bylaw 6515 (1983, 2009) Streamside Protection Bylaw 7658 (2008) Benthic Invertebrate Sampling – Watershed Indicator (2003) Forest Ecosystem Mapping
Ariel Estrada, MSc., P.Eng., Project Engineer
District of North Vancouver
Lessons Learned: Data Collection and Management
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
18
Trends in Consultation and Engagement
The general public are most common engaged in the information gathering process, then to assist in reviewing the preferred plan.
Setting vision, objectives, and goals is usually left in the hands of staff. On occasion, external stakeholders or an advisory committee is involved.
All perspectives obtained are valuable.
The broader consultation process is commonly lead by the consultant team, but engagement of municipal staff is most commonly facilitated internally.
Stage 2 – What Does the Municipality Want?
Answering this question is instrumental to the technical conduct and formation of recommendations. A
clear and concise response to this question is expected to increase satisfaction and build consensus for
the end product.
Ideally, ISMPs and land use planning will go hand-in-hand; however, in reality this is often not the case.
Given the urban / semi-urban nature for the majority of watersheds in the Lower Mainland,
municipalities most likely have some form of a land use plan more detailed than an OCP (eg.
Neighbourhood Plan). Municipal staff will need to identify whether the ISMP is intended to simply
support the land use plan(s) currently in place, or whether there is opportunity to amend the land use
plan(s) where needed to maximize the opportunity for watershed health. Making decisions around
alterations to land use can be highly political, particularly if the land use plan has been recently
publicized. This is where involving Council can be of assistance. Being clear on the land use context may
have a substantial effect on the scope and direction of the ISMP. One respondent stated “create
something that will work for the community, not just meet the regulations.” Flexibility exists with
respect to the specific actions, however municipal commitments under the LWMP (noted in the
Introduction section of this report on page 1) defines these as being integrated decisions.
Similarly, making decisions around retrofitting existing development versus implementing change
through redevelopment is also significant. During the in-
person interviews, devising a realistic program for retrofitting
existing development was stated as a common and difficult
challenge. This will be further discussed under Stage 3 – How
Does the Municipality Put the ISMP into Action?
Stage 2 is where the inter-departmental collaboration really
gets put to the test. This is also where consideration for
realistic time frames and incremental actions may help.
Rather than expect the ISMP to revolutionize the watershed,
it may be helpful to view change as a gradual, incremental
evolution as opportunity arises. “When the land use plan gets
updated in the future, we will strive to achieve........”
Stage 2 demonstrates greater variability amongst
respondents in the engagement of external (non-municipal)
participants. As such, the remainder of this section focuses
on the broader consultation and engagement process.
Of 15 online respondents, 73% indicated they develop a
consultation / engagement plan as part of the ISMP. As
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
19
expected, municipal staff of various departments plays the largest role, but the majority of respondents
also indicated that external stakeholder or advisors are involved to some extent, as are the general
public. However, based on both the online survey and in-person interviews, there is variability in when
and how the parties are engaged, yet some trends did appear, as summarized on the previous page. It
should be noted that for questions relating to the specifics of how the public and stakeholders / advisor
are engaged, the response rate declined substantially, therefore the identified trends are somewhat
surmised. So while various members are identified to be part of the process, perhaps there is a lack of
clarity on how and when to effectively engage them?
Eight respondents indicated that a stakeholder / advisory group was formed. Aside from municipal staff,
senior level government representatives (ie. DFO, MOE), stream keeper groups, and development
community representatives are the most common participants.
The table below provides a more detailed summary of how respondents are engaging external
participants; not to suggest that these result in desired outcomes.
Group Common dialogue When are they engaged
General Public
Rainwater is a resource; identify opportunities and constraints to using rainwater more effectively
ISMPs provide an integrated approach (drainage, environment, planning) and strive for net benefits to the watershed
New / better approach to developing communities more sustainably / responsibly (livability)
Responsible management of municipal infrastructure
Meet Council goals and objectives
Working with and serving community
Preserve natural environment
Raise overall awareness and education
Protection of private property
Stage 1 (gather background info / intelligence)
Stage 3 – feedback on preferred plan
Stakeholder / Advisory Group
Working with and serving community
Promote and protect stream / watershed health
Identify and support common goals and objectives for watershed
Provide clarity in municipal requirements (developers, businesses)
Build community support / champions
Stage 1 (gather background info / intelligence; understand unique perspectives)
Stage 2 – Visioning, goals, and objectives for watershed
Stage 3 – input to option generation / evaluation, feedback on preferred plan
Stage 4 – signoff / endorsement of final ISMP
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
20
First Nations Sustainable approach to community growth
ISMPs provide an integrated approach (drainage, environment, planning) and strive for net benefits to the watershed
Work together to address watershed issues and needs
How is water viewed culturally
Raise overall awareness and education
Typically included in stakeholder / advisory group
Local Politicians
Meeting commitments under the ILWRMP
Meet Council goals and objectives
Supports overall community vision
ISMPs provide an integrated approach (drainage, environment, planning) and strive for net benefits to the watershed
New / better approach to developing communities more sustainably / responsibly
Just makes sense to do
Provide clarity in municipal requirements (developers, businesses)
Raise overall awareness and education
Stage 2 – Visioning
Stage 3 – Feedback on preferred plan
Stage 4 – signoff / approval of final ISMP
Lessons Learned: Consultation and Engagement Strategies
Significant investment of staff time and funds to undertake a successful consultation /
engagement program
Engage staff early and throughout (awareness, ownership, accountability)
Identify a champion to lead the process; someone who is truly keen to see it through
Communication with Council can garner critical support and endorsement
Celebrate success; openly talk about challenges
It’s difficult to connect with the general public
Consultation critical regardless of participation levels
Open houses are used 90% of the time to engage the public, but are least effective
Use effective terminology for the audience (e.g., don’t use “ISMP” for general public)
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
21
What Works What Doesn’t To be Explored in Future
Partner / combine / piggyback on planning related consultation (e.g., NCP)
Open House for ISMP on its own
Webcasts / webinars
Watershed walking tours Town hall meeting Online surveys / polls
Mail-outs / brochures* Dedicated website
Kiosk / info centre in public area (e.g., shopping mall)
Charette
Workshops / charettes with stakeholders
Info on City website
Door-to-door communication
* Consider audience, cultural differences (e.g., language, learning styles), renters versus owners
Stage 3 – How Does the Municipality Put the ISMP Into Action?
Stage 3 involves assessment, analysis, recommendations, and implementation strategy; the most
substantial of the four stages and the most likely to meet or miss expectations. From the on-line survey
8 of 12 (67%) responded that the consultant teams were “somewhat successful” in achieving the Vision,
Goals, and Objectives of the ISMP, with the remaining 4 (33%) indicating that the consultant team was
“very successful”. Both the terms of reference and the outcomes of Stage 2 – What do we want? are
highly influential to the work conducted in Stage 3. Some respondents acknowledged that greater clarity
is required in the terms of reference and to the consulting team on topics to be addressed and the
desired deliverables, and are striving to provide that.
Paradoxically, most respondents view an ISMP as both a high level guiding document and a detailed
technical document. This study did not explore deliverables to the extent necessary to fully understand
this paradox, however it does highlight the importance of needing to be clear and specific on how the
ISMP is to be put to use.
Analysis (modeling or other) requirements have been most commonly determined by the available
budget and what is necessary to develop solutions; which may or may not be in synch with each other.
Considerations for climate change have not been overly common to date (50% do), but when they are,
rainfall pattern changes is the most commonly considered aspect. 11 of 14 (79%) of respondents
indicated that water quality was considered, but with only 7 of 11 (64%) specifically incorporating water
quality treatment into the analysis.
When it comes to establishing riparian setbacks, the majority of respondents use a unique approach
specific to the ISMP; only 4 of 12 (33%) apply the Riparian Area Regulation (RAR).
12 of 14 (86%) respondents to the on-line survey indicated that ISMP’s are typically completed behind
schedule (commonly over 2 years), with 12 of 14 (86%) indicating the primary cause being the degree of
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
22
analytical detail required. Of those who were aware of the ISMP study budget 7 of 11 (64%) indicated
that the project costs exceeded the original budget, however, there was insufficient information
collected by the survey to conclude that the analysis was the sole cause of the budget over-run, but a
strong linkage can likely be postulated given that it is the primary cause of the schedule delay. This too
raises questions about the appropriate alignment between deliverables and depth of analysis being
conducted.
Recommendations and implementation to a large extent go hand-in-hand. Survey responses
suggest that this is the single largest area where ISMP’s fail to meet the needs of the municipality. All
respondents (100%) indicated they consider both planning and engineering function when developing
options. However, the on-line survey and in-person interviews reveal that many feel reinforcing linkages
to the environment are not, or only somewhat, effective. While 9 or 15 (60%) believe their municipality
places significant value on integrating stormwater, environmental, and planning, only 6 of 14 (43%)
believe they are very successful in achieving it.
A common statement made by respondents through the in-person interview process was the need for
recommendations to be practical and affordable. A repeated struggle is encouraging new and
innovative solutions, yet ones that are supported and practically achieved. Changing habits and
diverting away from established norms has never been easy. Resistance from the development
community and Operations departments are sited as particular challenges. Realistically, implementing
change is expected to be a gradual and incremental process, however, the challenges being experienced
re-emphasize the importance of education / outreach programs, and perhaps retooling of
implementation and regulatory tools.
One respondent particularly emphasized the significant challenges around retrofitting existing
development. There are differences between developing a “retrofit” strategy versus a “growth”
strategy. On-lot management controls are one example, and perhaps remains one of the most
significant regulatory challenges municipalities face. Should a strategy be built around applying on-lot
controls? One municipality recommends that the particulars of on-site source controls be dealt with
separate from watershed planning.
Many are looking for very clear and concise implementation steps / tools, along with identified priorities
and financial needs. The responses suggest that ISMP’s are generally not always providing
municipalities with what they need to effectively take action. This raises questions as to the
understanding between the consultant and municipal teams with respect to the desired deliverables
and answers to the question from Stage 2 - “What do we want?” There is likely benefit for there to be
greater dialogue between the municipal and consultant teams on the differences between retrofit
(capital works) and growth (regulatory driven) strategy, where the emphasis should be placed, and most
importantly, what actions / works the municipality deems realistic to achieve. It is hoped that with
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
23
more collaborative discussion earlier in the process, recommendations and implementation programs
will more commonly meet expectations.
Ensuring that ISMP recommendations get incorporated into capital and DCC programs is an important
implementation action item, but more and more are seeing the value and benefit of dedicated
stormwater / drainage utility funds.
Lessons Learned: Implementation and Enforcement
Tailor solutions and programs to suit needs and funding ability
Create something that will suit the community, not just meet regulations
Needs to have clear and concise priorities and financial needs identified
On-lot controls and retrofitting existing development is challenging to achieve
More clear dialogue between the municipal and consulting teams on deliverables and
implementation constraints / opportunities
Connections to bylaws need to be clearly identified
Capital and DCC programs are important tool, but increasing value and benefit is being seen for
dedicated stormwater / drainage utilities
Stage 4 – How Does the Municipality Stay On Target?
In general, there has been comparably small emphasis placed on “staying on target” compared to other
stages of the ISMP process, which is not surprising given that there are still many struggles with
implementation. It appears that many recommendations contained in ISMP’s have not yet been
acted upon.
None appear to have comprehensive adaptive management programs, but recommendations for basic
physical monitoring are very common. 12 of 14 (86%) of respondents indicated that ISMP’s recommend
future monitoring programs, with the vast majority of that being flow and water quality monitoring.
Small amount of monitoring recommendations involve benthic and riparian forest integrity. There was
no mention of any municipality tracking processes (eg. Land development), regulations, or
operational elements.
Financing is a significant issue for some, and is a barrier in being able to implement monitoring and
tracking programs. Whether due to funding limitations, or for other reasons, numerous respondents do
not appear to currently have active monitoring and tracking programs. Of those who are monitoring and
tracking, the most common approach appears to be observing trends in flow, water quality, and reports
of problems or complaints. Where problems arise, they are evaluated and action taken.
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
24
During the in-person interviews more than one respondent noted the relationship of the ISMP
recommendations to the development community, and the need to provide clarity to the development
community on works that are their responsibility and the associated approval processes.
Given the relatively scarce feedback, it is difficult to define succinct lessons learned for monitoring and
adaptive management, although the following few can be surmised.
Lessons Learned: Monitoring and Adaptive Management
Financing of monitoring and tracking programs is significant. Dedicated funding through
stormwater / drainage utility can assist
Addressing challenges associated with implementation likely takes precedence over monitoring
and tracking
The interface with the development community and Operations departments is important,
reinforcing the need for education and outreach
Once monitoring is in place, it is important to have staff and tools to track changes and take
action when issues surface
Consideration could be given to developing more comprehensive Adaptive Management
programs, which involves various forms of monitoring, evaluation and assessment, followed by
informed decisions.
ISMP: A Living Document The information and feedback collected through this Lessons Learned study emphasizes the variability,
challenges, and need for flexibility in preparing ISMP’s. The scientific understanding and technological
solutions appear to be within reach, but devising a practical and affordable implementation strategy
appears to be the most significant challenge most, if not all, municipalities’ face.
In accordance with the 2001 LWMP, it is intended that ISMP’s be revisited every 12 years. But in
actuality, the application, and possible adjustment to ISMP strategies is on-going. Unlike traditional
“Master Drainage Plans” of old, ISMP’s influence and require the buy-in and support of many
departments and stakeholders. It also requires well defined processes, tools and resources to put it into
action, and keep it in action. If these are not in place, or fail due to a lack of understanding or support,
the ISMP is not expected to sustain momentum.
There are a few lessons learned that can increase the changes of the ISMP remaining a living document,
and ultimately achieve the vision and goals that it was set to achieve.
Lessons Learned: Creating a Living Document
Need to have an implementation strategy that is realistic and achievable
Don’t be overwhelmed by the extent of recommendations; take it in bite size pieces, look to a
long term horizon, and take advantages of opportunities as they arise
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
25
Have a champion whose mission is to see the ISMP implemented successfully
Buy-in and support of many departments and stakeholders is critical; collaborative dialogue,
education, and outreach are expected solution.
It is important for Council and senior staff to place value and support the ISMP initiative
Funding can be a significant barrier. Costs for not only undertaking the study, but implementing
and monitoring it needs to be considered in the municipalities financial planning. Dedicated
funding though stormwater / drainage utility is an asset
Developing the ISMP through a consensus-based coalition may increase buy-in and participation
for its implementation and long term application (example - Bowker Creek Blueprint – Capital
Regional District
[THIS PAGE IS BLANK]
Appendix A
ISMP Process Checklists
[THIS PAGE IS BLANK]
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
Page 1 of 1
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans (ISMP) – Understand the Context
Checklist # 1 – Driver Identification
Watershed Name: _________________________________________________
Watershed Location: _______________________________________________
Watershed Size: ____________ ha
ISMP Driver Applicable? Reference Document how the Driver Will Influence the ISMP Priority Ranking
Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ILWRMP) requirement
Yes No
Department / Council mandate Yes No
Development pressure in watershed Yes No
Specific drainage and/or environmental Issue(s) in watershed Yes No
Update existing stormwater management / drainage plans Yes No
Known synergies / opportunity to achieve complementary objectives with other municipal departments
Yes No
Others:
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Overall Priority Ranking for Watershed: _____________
Proposed Timeframe for ISMP (year): _______________
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
Page 1 of 2
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans (ISMP) – Understand the Context
Checklist # 2 – Policy Framework Review
Watershed Name: _________________________________________________
Watershed Location: _______________________________________________
Watershed Size: ____________ ha
Identify the following Plans, Bylaws, Policies and/or other relevant documents for your municipality, and list opportunities and constraints as they relate to the ISMP.
Plan, Bylaw, Policy, Other
Reviewed? Reference
(e.g., Title, No., Date)
Opportunities Constraints
Plans:
Official Community Plan Yes No Not applicable
Sustainability Plan Yes No Not applicable
Land Use Plan(s) Yes No Not applicable
Neighbourhood Concept Plan(s) Yes No Not applicable
Local Area Plan(s) Yes No Not applicable
Parks Master Plan Yes No Not applicable
Transportation Master Plan Yes No Not applicable
Social Housing Plan Yes No Not applicable
Others:
Yes No Not applicable
Yes No Not applicable
Bylaws: Subdivision and Development Yes No Not applicable
Building Yes No Not applicable
Erosion and Sediment Control Yes No Not applicable
Soil Deposit and Removal Yes No Not applicable
Tree Protection Yes No Not applicable
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
Page 2 of 2
Plan, Bylaw, Policy, Other
Reviewed? Reference
(e.g., Title, No.) Opportunities Constraints
Watercourse / Streamside Protection Yes No Not applicable
Environmental Protection Yes No Not applicable
Pollution Prevention Yes No Not applicable
Bylaws (continued): Others: Yes No Not applicable
Yes No Not applicable
Policies: Floodplain Management Yes No Not applicable
Development Approval Process Yes No Not applicable
Others: Yes No Not applicable
Yes No Not applicable
Other Relevant Documents: Infrastructure Design Criteria Yes No Not applicable
Development Permit Area(s) Yes No Not applicable
In‐Process Development Application(s)
Yes No Not applicable
Previous Drainage, Engineering, Environmental and/or Geotechnical Study(s)
Yes No Not applicable
Regional Studies and/or Guidelines Yes No Not applicable
Provincial Studies and/or Guidelines Yes No Not applicable
Federal Studies and/or Guidelines Yes No Not applicable
Others:
Yes No Not applicable
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
Page 1 of 1
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans (ISMP) – Understand the Context
Checklist # 3 – Budget and Timeframe Risks
Watershed Name: _________________________________________________
Watershed Location: _______________________________________________
Watershed Size: ____________ ha
Identify factors that may influence the budget and/or timeframe for the ISMP, and document the Municipality’s proposed response / approach to mitigate the risk.
Factor Budget Risk? Timeframe Risk? Response / Approach to Mitigate Risk
Watershed size Yes No Yes No
Scale or form of development present or planned Yes No Yes No
Extent or suitability of available background information to inform the study Yes No Yes No
Extent of effort required to obtain additional information to fill data gaps Yes No Yes No
Nature or complexity of questions or issues to be resolved by ISMP Yes No Yes No
Scope of assessment, modeling and analysis required to resolve questions or issues Yes No Yes No
Scope of consultation and engagement with external stakeholders and/or the general public
Yes No Yes No
Municipal inter‐departmental engagement and support Yes No Yes No
Coordination and engagement of other municipality(s) where watershed boundary is multi‐jurisdictional (if applicable)
Yes No Yes No
Others:
Yes No Yes No
Yes No Yes No
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
Page 1 of 1
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans (ISMP) – Understand the Context
Checklist # 4 – Funding Source Identification
Watershed Name: _________________________________________________
Watershed Location: _______________________________________________
Watershed Size: ____________ ha
Identify available funding sources, list opportunities and constraints of each funding source as it relates to the ISMP, and rank funding sources for their suitability for the ISMP.
Funding Source Applicable to
ISMP? Available
Funding ($$) Opportunities Constraints Ranking
General Revenue Yes No
Dedicated Drainage Funding Yes No
Stormwater Utility Yes No
Development Cost Charges Yes No
External Grant / Funding Source Yes No
Lease funds from Municipal‐owned property Yes No
Others:
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Recommended Funding Source(s) for the ISMP: __________________________________________________________________________________
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
Page 1 of 2
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans (ISMP) – Develop the Terms of Reference
Checklist # 5 – Watershed Needs Assessment
Watershed Name: _________________________________________________
Watershed Location: _______________________________________________
Watershed Size: ____________ ha
Identify watershed issues or needs, provide a detailed description of the issue or need, and rank the importance to address the issue or need in the ISMP.
Issue / Need Applicable to Watershed?
Description of Issue / Need Priority Ranking
Erosion Yes No
Sedimentation Yes No
Drainage Infrastructure Deficiencies Yes No
Water Quality Yes No
Flooding / Flood Management Yes No
Property Damage (including Agricultural Lands) Yes No
Climate Change Impacts Yes No
Integration with Municipal Policies / Guidelines Yes No
Aquatic and/or Fisheries Conditions Yes No
Wildlife Conditions Yes No
Vegetation Conditions Yes No
Geotechnical Conditions Yes No
Groundwater (Hydrogeological) Conditions Yes No
Environmental Protection Yes No
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
Page 2 of 2
Issue / Need Applicable to Watershed?
Description of Issue / Need Priority Ranking
Hydrology and Hydraulics Yes No
Land Use Planning Yes No
Parks and Recreational Amenities Yes No
Policy and Finance Yes No
Updating Past Studies to Reflect Current Science Yes No
Others:
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Highest Priority Issues to Address in the ISMP: 1. __________________________________________________________________________________
2. __________________________________________________________________________________
3. __________________________________________________________________________________
4. __________________________________________________________________________________
5. __________________________________________________________________________________
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
Page 1 of 3
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans (ISMP) – Develop the Terms of Reference
Checklist # 6 – Terms of Reference Outline
Watershed Name: _________________________________________________
Watershed Location: _______________________________________________
Watershed Size: ____________ ha
Identify applicable core topic area(s) for each Stage of the ISMP, provide a detailed description of the topic (i.e., define anticipated scope of work to address topic area), and list the desired outcome(s) or deliverable(s) to be achieved by the ISMP. The purpose of the terms of reference is to provide the consultant team clear direction on issues, desired outcomes, the boundaries of their engagement, your expectations, and study constraints (eg. Budget) if they exist. The terms of reference is not intended to prescribe the detailed conduct of the study and is not to take away creativity of the consultant team. It is the consultant responsibility to understand your needs, expectations, and constraints, and devise a program to suit.
Core Topic Area Include in ISMP? Topic Description Desired Outcome / Deliverable
Stage 1 – What do you have? Inventory of Existing Systems; to assess existing watershed features and identify opportunities and constraints
Historic Stormwater Studies Yes No
Topographic Mapping Yes No
Aerial Photographs Yes No
Drainage Infrastructure Yes No
Land Use (Existing) Yes No
Aquatic Habitat Yes No
Wildlife Habitat Yes No
Vegetation Yes No
Geotechnical Yes No
Hydrogeology Yes No
Floodplain Mapping Yes No
Recreation / Amenities Yes No
Documented / Historic Problems Yes No
Relevant Funding Programs Yes No
Active Development Applications in Watershed Yes No
Policy Documents Yes No
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
Page 2 of 3
Core Topic Area Include in ISMP? Topic Description Desired Outcome / Deliverable
Monitoring Data Yes No
Others:
Yes No
Yes No
Stage 2 – What do you want? Vision, Goals and Objectives; to establish the Vision, Goals and Objectives for the ISMP, typically with a focus on stream / watershed health and alignment with community values
Have you identified and sought input from other municipal departments?
Yes No
Have you identified and sought input from key external stakeholders?
Yes No
Are the TOR clear on the desired approach for communication and engagement, and the role of the consultant team in doing so?
Yes No
Has municipal staff toured the watershed? Yes No
Land Use (Future) Yes No
Vision Statement Yes No
Goals and Objectives Yes No
Others:
Yes No
Yes No
Stage 3 – How do you put the ISMP into action? Assessment, Analysis and Implementation; to inform the recommended solutions and create a strategy to implement the ISMP Vision, Goals and Objectives
Is the ISMP study budget constrained? If so, has that been communicated in the TOR? Yes No
Are the TOR clear on the types and depth of analysis you feel are needed? Yes No
Are the TOR clear on what clauses, or how you wish for the TISMP to be applied? Yes No
Are the TOR clear on the specific implementation tools / information to be delivered by the consultant?
Yes No
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
Page 3 of 3
Core Topic Area Include in ISMP? Topic Description Desired Outcome / Deliverable
Others:
Yes No
Yes No
Stage 4 – How do you stay on target? Monitoring and Adaptive Management; to identify roles and responsibilities for implementation and monitoring, and set the course for creating a living document
Are monitoring programs likely required beyond what are currently in place? Yes No
Do you wish the consultant to devise a monitoring program? Yes No
Should monitoring sites and budgets be identified by the consultant? Yes No
Do you want the consultant to devise a comprehensive Adaptive Management program?
Yes No
If “yes” to the item above, is there clarity on what is to be considered, and to what level, for an Adaptive Management program?
Yes No
Would you value the consultant team reviewing internal municipal practices and provide guidance on tracking progress and implementing change?
Yes No
Are recommendations for education and outreach programs required? Yes No
Is the Consultant to submit information and data in a particular format to assist with the municipality developing internal tracking systems?
Yes No
Others:
Yes No
Yes No
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
Page 1 of 2
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans (ISMP) – Stage 1: What Does The Municipality Have?
Checklist # 7 – Data Collection and Management
Watershed Name: _________________________________________________
Watershed Location: _______________________________________________
Watershed Size: ____________ ha
Identify the types and extent of data that exists, and the most effective approach to collection and management.
Data Set Data set sufficient for the
ISMP? More to be collected; by
Consultant or Municipality? Current Data Set Form
Historic Stormwater Studies Yes No Consult Muni NA GIS ACAD JPEG PDF Print Digital Spreadsheet Other: ________________________
Topographic Mapping Yes No Consult Muni NA GIS ACAD JPEG PDF Print Digital Spreadsheet Other: ________________________
Aerial Photographs Yes No Consult Muni NA GIS ACAD JPEG PDF Print Digital Spreadsheet Other: ________________________
Drainage Infrastructure Yes No Consult Muni NA GIS ACAD JPEG PDF Print Digital Spreadsheet Other: ________________________
Hydrologic / Hydraulic Models Yes No Consult Muni NA GIS ACAD JPEG PDF Print Digital Spreadsheet Other: ________________________
Precipitation Yes No Consult Muni NA GIS ACAD JPEG PDF Print Digital Spreadsheet Other: ________________________
Flow Yes No Consult Muni NA GIS ACAD JPEG PDF Print Digital Spreadsheet Other: ________________________
Water Quality Sampling Yes No Consult Muni NA GIS ACAD JPEG PDF Print Digital Spreadsheet Other: ________________________
Land Use (Existing) Yes No Consult Muni NA GIS ACAD JPEG PDF Print Digital Spreadsheet Other: ________________________
Land Use (Future) Yes No Consult Muni NA GIS ACAD JPEG PDF Print Digital Spreadsheet Other: ________________________
Watercourse Classification Yes No Consult Muni NA GIS ACAD JPEG PDF Print Digital Spreadsheet Other: ________________________
Benthic Yes No Consult Muni NA GIS ACAD JPEG PDF Print Digital Spreadsheet Other: ________________________
Wildlife Habitat Yes No Consult Muni NA GIS ACAD JPEG PDF Print Digital Spreadsheet Other: ________________________
Vegetation Yes No Consult Muni NA GIS ACAD JPEG PDF Print Digital Spreadsheet Other: ________________________
Geotechnical Yes No Consult Muni NA GIS ACAD JPEG PDF Print Digital Spreadsheet Other: ________________________
Hydrogeology Yes No Consult Muni NA GIS ACAD JPEG PDF Print Digital Spreadsheet Other: ________________________
Floodplain Mapping Yes No Consult Muni NA GIS ACAD JPEG PDF Print Digital Spreadsheet Other: ________________________
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
Page 2 of 2
Data Set Data set sufficient for the
ISMP? More to be collected; by
Consultant or Municipality? Current Data Set Form
Recreation / Amenities Yes No Consult Muni NA GIS ACAD JPEG PDF Print Digital Spreadsheet Other: ________________________
Documented / Historic Problems Yes No Consult Muni NA GIS ACAD JPEG PDF Print Digital Spreadsheet Other: ________________________
Financial Program Information Yes No Consult Muni NA GIS ACAD JPEG PDF Print Digital Spreadsheet Other: ________________________
Active Development Applications in Watershed Yes No Consult Muni NA GIS ACAD JPEG PDF Print Digital Spreadsheet Other: ________________________
Existing Policy / Regulatory Documents Yes No Consult Muni NA GIS ACAD JPEG PDF Print Digital Spreadsheet Other: ________________________
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
Page 1 of 1
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans (ISMP) – Stage 2: What Does the Municipality Want?
Checklist # 8 – Consultation and Engagement
Watershed Name: _________________________________________________
Watershed Location: _______________________________________________
Watershed Size: ____________ ha
Identify target audiences or groups to engage / consult for the ISMP, list key messages to convey and the appropriate format(s) of engagement / consultation for each group. Then, identify desired feedback or input from each group, their level of decision‐making influence on the ISMP, and when in the ISMP process to engage / consult them.
Target Audience or Group
Engage / Consult for ISMP? Key Message(s) to Convey Format(s) of Engagement / Consultation Desired Feedback / Input
from Group
Level of Influence on ISMP
(None, Some, Significant)
Timeframe for Engagement (i.e., ISMP
Stage 1, 2 3, 4)
Municipal Staff Yes No Not applicable
General Public Yes No Not applicable
Streamkeeper Group(s) Yes No Not applicable
Environmental Agencies (e.g., DFO, MOE)
Yes No Not applicable
Development Interests Yes No Not applicable
Local Businesses Yes No Not applicable
Agricultural Community Yes No Not applicable
Homeowner Association(s)
Yes No Not applicable
Sports / Recreation Association(s)
Yes No Not applicable
Mayor and Council Yes No Not applicable
First Nations Yes No Not applicable
Other: Yes No Not applicable
Other: Yes No Not applicable
Committees:
Should an Advisory Committee be formed?
Yes No Not applicable
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
Page 1 of 2
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans (ISMP) – Stage 3: How Does the Municipality Put The ISMP Into Action?
Checklist # 9 – Implementation and Enforcement
Watershed Name: _________________________________________________
Watershed Location: _______________________________________________
Watershed Size: ____________ ha
Explore the avenues for change, infrastructure, regulatory tools, and enforcement approaches that are deemed realistic and achievable.
Question Answer Description Appropriate Action
Is change likely to occur through retrofitting existing development, or through redevelopment?
Retro Redev. Both
Is there ability to redefine the current land use plan? Yes No
Are Neighbourhood Plans likely to be developed in the foreseeable future for this watershed? Yes No
Is the condition and anticipated life span of existing infrastructure known? Yes No
Over how many years is it realistic to implement change? 10 25 50
Can the general public or other external stakeholders / interest groups play a role in implementation?
Yes No
Would education and outreach programs be beneficial? (Operations Dept., general public, development community)
Yes No
Has the municipality attempted innovative / LID solutions in the past? If so, what worked, what didn’t?
Yes No
Are on‐site LID features to be considered? Yes No
Are there restrictions on what types of management features the municipality is willing to implement (eg. Bioswales, alternative streets,etc.)
Yes No
For landscape based management features, is the Parks Department on board and do they have sufficient resources to maintain them?
Yes No
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
Page 2 of 2
Question Answer Description Appropriate Action
Should a pilot project(s) be pursued? Yes No
Is a dedicated stormwater / drainage utility fund in place? Yes No
If “no” to the above, is adequate funding available for alternate sources? Yes No
Is anything defined in the current capital programs for this watershed? Yes No
What are the current DCC reserves that could be applied? Yes No
What is a realistic annual expenditure of funds? $
What is the relative status of current municipal bylaws and standards?
Outdated Relatively current
Are completely new bylaws and standards likely needed? Yes No
If “yes” to the above item, should their development occur as part of the ISMP? Yes No
How prepared are the Building, Development, Parks, and Operations Departments to deal with recommendations?
Are Not
Have the recommendations of the ISMP been communicated to Council and do they provide support and buy‐in?
Yes No
Has a communication process been established to promote collaboration in forming the recommendations?
Yes No
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
Page 1 of 2
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans (ISMP) – Stage 4: How Does the Municipality Stay on Track?
Checklist # 10 – Monitoring and Adaptive Management
Watershed Name: _________________________________________________
Watershed Location: _______________________________________________
Watershed Size: ____________ ha
Identify the appropriate monitoring and tracking programs, and determine if resources and procedures are in place to ensure the ISMP remains a living document.
Question Answer Description Appropriate Action
Effectiveness Monitoring: Are built management structures being monitored to ensure they are performing as designed?
Yes No
Compliance Monitoring: Are internal processes and procedures being monitored to ensure that recommendations are being enforced and managed appropriately?
Yes No
Validation Monitoring: Have performance indicators been defined and is monitoring in place to ensure that the overall benefits to the watershed are being achieved?
Yes No
Is there a community wide monitoring program in place? Yes No
Has an effective monitoring database system been setup? Yes No
Is there a defined program in place to assess collected data and evaluate it against the performance indicators?
Yes No
Does municipal staff feel confident in their ability to respond and adapt depending on the results of the monitoring and assessment?
Yes No
Is there a “champion” staff member who has the responsibility for implementation and tracking of the ISMP; a liaison between parties?
Yes No
Have inter‐departmental responsibilities been well defined, communicated, and obtained buy‐in?
Yes No
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report
Page 2 of 2
Question Answer Description Appropriate Action
Have necessary education and outreach programs been developed, and are they underway?
Yes No
Have necessary bylaws and standards documents been prepared? Yes No
Have the recommended programs received support and endorsement from senior staff and Council?
Yes No
Is sufficient funding in place for the implementation and monitoring? Yes No
Are the ISMP recommendations viewed as practical and achievable? Yes No
In what year should the ISMP progress and success be evaluated?
Year ___________
[THIS PAGE IS BLANK]
Appendix B
Survey Questions
Originally Suggested Questions
Final Online Survey Questionnaire
[THIS PAGE IS BLANK]
Originally Suggested Questions (as per the Terms of Reference for this study)
Preparation & Data Management
1. What helped initiate your ISMP program?
2. How did you decide which watersheds require ISMPs first?
3. How did you develop the financing required to complete the study?
4. How did you convince Council that they needed to approve funding for ISMPs?
5. What background data existed and why did you collect it?
6. How did you consider available climate data for both model calibration and the scope of ISMP?
7. How did you originally determine the boundary for your ISMP? (i.e. partial, single or lumped watersheds?)
8. How did you benchmark water quality?
9. How did you determine where and how many flow‐monitoring gauges were appropriate? What type of monitoring (water quality, benthic, flow) is needed, and what data exists?
10. Was any “up front” planning done to attempt to protect watershed function, and if so, what did it consist of, and how successful was it?
Work Plan & Scope
11. What problems were you trying to solve/address through the ISMP?
12. How did you scope out a first estimate of the needs of the watershed before starting the study and completing any consultation?
13. What did you consider when you were reviewing the clauses in the ISMP template to determine which were relevant for your situation?
14. Did you develop a checklist for determining what is important to include for a given watershed?
15. How did you determine the necessary modelling requirements?
16. What factors did you consider when developing the work plan for how to identify the current and future Watershed Vision, the key objectives, and the consultative elements of the ISMP?
17. Did the ISMP process reinforce the link between the biology/ecology and water quality/hydrology?
18. Was the concept of providing protection for water quality related to various water uses (e.g. aquatic life, recreation) incorporated into the study and the final plan? If so, how, and how is progress being assessed?
19. How much did the ISMP cost – what were the characteristics? Cost per catchment sizes? Varies between urban and rural watersheds?
20. How did you determine the limits of an acceptable environmental survey and sampling program given funding limitations?
21. Did you incorporate environmental costs and benefits of different development options? If so, how, and how well did it work?
22. How, or was the ISMP process phased?
23. How was ISMP implementation phasing determined? Criteria or politics?
24. How did you keep the consultant on a reasonable schedule?
25. How long did it take you to complete the ISMPs? Did the size make much of a difference, or were there other factors which made them more or less difficult to complete?
26. How did you incorporate the concepts of Greenfield versus Brownfield development?
27. Did your ISMP evaluate existing developed areas and develop a retrofit strategy, and if so, how did that go?
28. How did you determine the level of information that needed to be included, and how focused the recommendations needed to be? Did you use broad motherhood statements suitable in the short‐term until land use plans for the areas develop?
Project Team
29. How did you ensure involvement of appropriate staff, divisions and stakeholders?
30. How did you incorporate any participation and/or review from senior levels of government (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, BC Ministry of Environment, Environment Canada, etc.?)
Consultation & Engagement
31. How did local politics influence the ISMP?
32. What public engagement strategies were developed (i.e. town hall meetings, letters/flyers, nothing, stakeholder groups, business associations), and how well did they work?
33. Were First Nations engaged? Was it a separate process? How well did it work?
34. Was staff engagement incorporated into the process? If so, how were they brought together and then meshed into a common approach? How well did it work? Was a top‐down approach used?
35. How did you identify and then convey the benefit to the community of the overall value of conducting ISMPs?
36. How much public and stakeholder input informed the ISMP process? What lessons or ideas do you have for the form of public consultation and stakeholder involvement?
37. How did cross‐boundary issues get resolved?
Integration &Risk Management
38. Were planning and engineering functions coordinated to develop options to protect watershed functions? If so, how well did it work?
39. Did you undertake the ISMP in conjunction with the community/neighbourhood planning process?
40. How did you determine where the ISMP should fit into the planning process? Between the Official Community Plan and Neighbourhood Community Plan stages?
41. How did you address areas where a land use plan has not yet been developed?
42. Did you take the approach of completing a phased approach, where the first steps of an ISMP were completed but the study was not completed pending the development of an official land use plan?
43. How were climate cycles and variability, climate change impacts and climate change adaptation addressed in the ISMP? How are long‐term and short‐term actions incorporated in the ISMP?
44. What risk management issues dominated the ISMP? How were geotechnical issues addressed, and did they dominate the ISMP? How did you address flood management issues?
45. What was included in the plan for adaptive management of the ISMP?
Implementation
46. Did you define what you wanted for the implementation strategy, and did the consultant succeed in achieving it?
47. How have you proposed to provide funding for the proposed upgrades coming out of the ISMP recommendations? How successful have your efforts been?
48. How have you ensured the recommendations get implemented in capital planning, DCC funding, environmental planning, land use planning, etc.?
49. What bylaw updates or policy/process changes resulted from the ISMP?
50. Do you have any lessons, models or advice for developing tools to help with the implementation? For example, what if a watershed had an important aquifer recharge area defined. What planning, policy or regulatory tools for potentially protecting such an area or regulating development have you used? Were they implemented at various levels of planning (community, neighbourhood, and site)?
51. What mechanisms were built into the plan to monitor and assess the success of the proposed implementation plan?
52. Have you ever encountered ISMP variances (developers may determine alternatives at a later date)?
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans (ISMP) – Lessons Learned to 2011
Online Survey Questions (FINAL)
1. Respondent Information
1.1. Municipality or First Nation: [select from pull down list: Metro Vancouver Municipality names,
Metro Vancouver First Nation names, other with blank field]
1.2. Respondent’s name: [blank field]
1.3. Respondent’s title: [blank field]
1.4. Respondent’s Department: [select from pull down list: engineering, planning & development,
parks & recreation, environment, operations, building, transportation, finance, mayor, chief,
council, city manager, other with blank field]
1.5. Respondent’s contact information (Optional): [phone number, email address]
2. Understanding the Context
2.1. Why did the Municipality / First Nation decide to initiate its ISMP program(s) (check all that
apply)? [to fulfil regulatory requirements under the Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP)
or Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ILWRMP), department or council
mandate, response to development pressures in the watershed, specific or unique
environmental or drainage issues, update existing stormwater management / drainage plans,
other with blank field]
2.2. How many ISMP(s) has the Municipality / First Nation completed to date? [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10+]
2.3. How many ISMP(s) does the Municipality / First Nation currently have underway? [0, 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10+]
2.4. How many ISMP(s) does the Municipality / First Nation still need to undertake? [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10+]
2.5. How many watersheds exist in the Municipality / First Nation? [1 to 5, 6 to 10, 11 to 15, 16 to
20, 21 to 25, 26 to 30, 31+]
2.6. How many subwatersheds exist in the Municipality / First Nation? [1 to 5, 6 to 10, 11 to 15, 16
to 20, 21 to 25, 26 to 30, 31+]
2.7. What bylaws, plans or documents are in place in the Municipality / First Nation that may
influence the ISMP(s) (check all that apply)? [Official Community Plan, Sustainability Plan, Land
Use Plan, Neighbourhood Concept Plan, Parks Master Plan, Transportation Master Plan, Social
Housing Plan, In-Process Development Application(s), previous drainage and/or engineering
studies, regional and/or provincial studies and guidelines, Municipal or First Nation
infrastructure design criteria, other with blank field]
2.8. Did the Municipality / First Nation undertake the ISMP(s) in conjunction with the
neighbourhood planning process? [yes, no, some, don’t know]
2.9. Were any of the watersheds covered by the ISMP(s) anticipated to undergo significant
redevelopment in the near future (e.g., at least 50% of the lands were targeted for
development / redevelopment in the next 10 years)? [yes, no, don’t know]
2.10. Did the ISMP(s) encompass area(s) where an area-specific land use plan (e.g., Land Use Plan,
Neighbourhood Concept Plan, etc.) was already in place? [yes, no, don’t know]
3. Setting the Terms of Reference (Scope of Work)
3.1. Does the Municipality / First Nation typically undertake a needs assessment prior to the ISMP(s)
to determine the priorities or driving issues that will shape the Terms of Reference? [yes, no,
don’t know]
3.1.1.If you answered “yes” to Question 3.1, what priority issue(s) or driver(s) was the
Municipality / First Nation trying to address through the ISMP(s) (check all that apply)?
[erosion, sedimentation, drainage infrastructure deficiencies, flooding, property damage,
climate change impacts, improved integration with other Municipal / First Nation policies
or processes (e.g., planning, parks, transportation, other), aquatic and/or fisheries
conditions, wildlife conditions, vegetation conditions, geotechnical conditions,
hydrogeological (groundwater) conditions, environmental protection, hydraulics and
hydrology, land use planning, policy and finance, update to current science, other with
blank field]
3.2. How often did the Municipality / First Nation reference Metro Vancouver’s Template forIntegrated Stormwater Management Planning (2005) when developing the Terms of Reference
for the ISMP(s)? [never, sometimes, most of the time, always]
3.3. How helpful / effective was Metro Vancouver’s Template for Integrated StormwaterManagement Planning (2005) in developing the Terms of Reference for the ISMP(s)? [rating
scale; with 1 = not helpful / effective, 2=somewhat helpful / effective, 3=very helpful /
effective, 4=not applicable]
3.4. Which Municipal / First Nation department typically leads the development of the Terms of
Reference for the ISMP(s)? [engineering, planning & development, parks & recreation,
environment, retained an external consultant to develop the Terms of Reference, other with
blank field]
3.5. Which other Municipal / First Nation departments / staff are typically engaged when
formulating the Terms of Reference for the ISMP(s) (check all that apply)? [didn’t engage other
departments / staff, engineering, planning & development, parks & recreation, environment,
operations, building, transportation, finance, mayor, council, city manager, other with blank
field]
3.6. Has the Municipality / First Nation undertaken any ISMP(s) that crossed Municipal / First Nation
boundaries, therefore requiring the involvement of more than one Municipality / First Nation?
[yes, no, don’t know]
3.7. When determining the boundary of the ISMP(s), which approach has typically been used?
[coinciding with natural watershed boundary (regardless of jurisdictional boundary), coinciding
with watershed boundary (within jurisdictional boundary only), other with blank field]
3.8. When determining the boundary of the ISMP(s), which areas have the ISMP(s) typically
encompassed? [part of one watershed (i.e., a subwatershed), all of one watershed, lumped
several watersheds together, depends on the particular ISMP, other with blank field]
3.9. What is the typical size of the watershed / subwatershed covered by the ISMP(s)? [0 to 500 ha,
500 to 1,000 ha, 1,000 to 1,500 ha, 1,500 to 2,000 ha, > 2,000 ha, varies widely depending on
particular ISMP]
3.10. Were there any risk management issues (e.g., slope stability, hydrogeology, riparian stability,
flood management, etc.) that dominated the scope of work in any of the ISMP(s)? [yes, no,
don’t know]
3.10.1. If you answered “yes” to Question 3.10, please list / explain the risk management issues
that were involved. [blank field]
4. Funding the ISMP
4.1. How often has the Municipality / First Nation used the following methods to fund ISMP(s)?
[ranking scale for each option: 1=never, 2=sometimes, 3=often, 4=always: general revenue,
dedicated drainage funding, stormwater utility, development cost charges, external grant or
funding source; comment field: what other funding sources have been used?]
4.2. What is the typical budgeted amount for the ISMP(s) (cost per hectare)? [ < $25, $25 to $50,
$50 to $100, $100 to $150, $150 to $200, $200 to $250, >$250]
4.3. What proportion (in %) of an ISMP budget is typically dedicated to the following: [blank field
after each option: Data collection / existing systems inventory; setting the vision, goals and
objectives; undertaking assessment, modeling and analysis of options and identifying preferred
approach; outlining monitoring and adaptive management programs; documentation and
reporting; consultation and engagement; other with blank field]
4.4. Has the Municipality / First Nation ever broken down an ISMP study into phases due to funding
limitations? [yes, no, don’t know]
5. Working with the Consultant Team
5.1. Rank the importance that the Municipality / First Nation places on the following qualities when
selecting a consultant team to undertake ISMP(s)? [ranking scale for each option: 1=not
important, 2=somewhat important, 3=very important: relevant experience, reputation, past
performance, familiarity with Municipality / First Nation, work program, project understanding,
proposed budget, proposed schedule, other with blank field]
6. Consulting and Engaging Others
6.1. Does the Municipality / First Nation typically develop a consultation / engagement plan as part
of the ISMP(s)? [yes, no, don’t know]
6.1.1.If you answered “yes” to Question 6.1, who is the typical targeted audience(s) (check all
that apply)? [general public, stakeholders and/or advisors, mayor and council, chief and
council, development community, Municipal or First Nation staff, other with blank field]
6.2. Who typically leads the consultation / engagement process? [Municipal or First Nation staff,
consultant team, external specialist/consultant, local community member, not applicable, other
with blank field]
6.3. Are Municipal / First Nation staff from other departments typically consulted or engaged during
the ISMP process? [yes, no, don’t know]
6.3.1.If you answered “yes” to Question 6.3, who typically facilitates the discussions? [mayor,
chief, council, department head, Municipal staff, First Nation staff, external consultant,
other with blank field]
6.3.2.If you answered “yes” to Question 6.3, does the Municipality / First Nation typically try to
reach consensus among staff on a common approach for the ISMP(s)? [yes, no, don’t
know]
6.3.3.If you answered “yes” to Question 6.3, how often were Municipal / First Nation staff
typically consulted or engaged during the ISMP process? [never, sometimes, often, always,
other with blank field]
6.4. Is the general public typically consulted during the ISMP(s)? [yes, no, don’t know]
6.4.1.If you answered “yes” to Question 6.4, what format(s) have been used to date to engage
the general public (check all that apply)? [Municipal or First Nation website, letter or
brochure mail out, door-to-door communications, community open house or town hall
meeting, targeted communications with key individuals (written, verbal or in-person),
other with blank field]
6.4.2.If you answered “yes” to Question 6.4, are different engagement techniques typically used
for different audiences (e.g., residents versus businesses)? [yes, no, don’t know; comment
field: please describe the different engagement techniques that have been used]
6.4.3.If you answered “yes” to Question 6.4, at what point(s) in the ISMP process has the
Municipality / First Nation found public input to be valuable (check all that apply)?
[gathering available background information, creating the vision goals and objectives,
generating options, evaluating options, identifying the preferred plan, feedback on the
preferred plan, implementing the works, other with blank field]
6.5. Was a stakeholder/ advisory group formed for any of the ISMP(s)? [yes, no, don’t know]
6.5.1.If you answered “yes” to Question 6.5, who typically participates in the stakeholder /
advisory group (check all that apply)? [other government agencies (e.g., Fisheries and
Oceans Canada, BC Ministry of Environment, Environment Canada), development
community, local businesses, local residents, sports and recreation associations,
streamkeeper groups, Municipal staff, First Nation members, other with blank field]
6.5.2.If you answered “yes” to Question 6.5, what role(s) do the stakeholder / advisory group
typically play in the ISMP process (check all that apply)? [Provide background information
and/or context, review draft and final deliverables, input to option generation, select
preferred plan, feedback on the preferred plan, sign-off or approval of final ISMP, other
with blank field]
6.5.3.If you answered “yes” to Question 6.5, at what point(s) in the ISMP process has the
Municipality / First Nation found stakeholder / advisory group input to be valuable (check
all that apply)? [gathering available background information, creating the vision goals and
objectives, generating options, evaluating options, identifying the preferred plan, feedback
on the preferred plan, implementing the works, other with blank field]
6.6. If you are representing a Municipality, have First Nations been affected by any of the ISMP(s)?
[yes, no, don’t know, not applicable]
6.6.1.If you answered “yes” to Question 6.6, how are First Nations typically engaged during the
ISMP(s)? [separate process, included in stakeholder / advisory group, not typically
engaged, other with blank field]
6.7. Rank the level of importance that the Municipality / First Nation places on the consultation /
engagement process when undertaking ISMP(s)? [ranking scale: 1=not important,
2=somewhat important, 3=very important]
7. Using / Supplementing Background Information and Data Management
7.1. What background information or data is typically available for the ISMP(s) (check all that
apply)? [topography and/or LiDAR information, aerial photography, rainfall and/or climate
data, GIS data, record drawings of existing drainage infrastructure, creek or channel cross
sections, flow monitoring data, water quality monitoring data, benthic community sampling (B-
IBI) data, vegetation data or reports, wildlife data or reports, fisheries and/or aquatic data or
reports, geotechnical data or reports, hydrogeological (groundwater) data or reports, other
with blank field]
7.2. What additional background information or data is typically collected as part of the ISMP (check
all that apply)? [topography and/or LiDAR information, aerial photography, rainfall and/or
climate data, GIS data, topographic survey, creek cross sections, infrastructure inventory, flow
monitoring data, water quality monitoring data, benthic community sampling (B-IBI) data,
vegetation data, wildlife data, fisheries and/or aquatic data, geotechnical data, hydrogeological
(groundwater) data, other with blank field]
7.3. Does the Municipality / First Nation have a flow monitoring program in place on a community-
wide basis? [yes, no, don’t know]
7.4. Did any of the ISMP(s) specifically undertake flow monitoring? [yes, no, don’t know]
7.4.1.If you answered “yes” to Question 7.4, how many sites were typically selected for flow
monitoring? [1, 2, 3, 4, 5+]
7.4.2.If you answered “yes” to Question 7.4, what was the typical duration of the flow
monitoring program? [0 to 3 months, 3 to 6 months, 6 to 9 months, 9 to 12 months, 12
months+]
7.4.3.If you answered “yes” to Question 7.4, during what season(s) were flows typically
measured (check all that apply)? [spring, summer, fall, winter]
7.5. Does the Municipality / First Nation have a water quality monitoring program in place on a
community-wide basis? [yes, no, don’t know]
7.6. Did any of the ISMP(s) specifically undertake water quality sampling? [yes, no, don’t know]
7.6.1.If you answered “yes” to Question 7.6, which water quality parameters were typically
sampled (check all that apply)? [total suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, temperature,
pH, conductivity, turbidity, salinity, hardness]
7.6.2.Besides those listed in Question 7.6.1, were other physical, chemical and/or bacteriological
parameters also measured in any of the ISMP(s)? [yes, no, don’t know, not applicable:
comment field: please list the additional parameters that were measured]
7.6.3.If you answered “yes” to Question 7.6, were sediment samples also taken and analysed in
any of the ISMP(s)? [yes, no, don’t know: comment field: please specify what the sediment
samples were tested for]
7.6.4.If you answered “yes” to Question 7.6, were measured water quality parameters
compared to historic water quality data? [yes, no, historic water quality data was not
available]
7.7. Does the Municipality / First Nation have a benthic community sampling program in place on a
community-wide basis? [yes, no, don’t know]
7.8. Did any of the ISMP(s) specifically undertake benthic community sampling? [yes, no, don’t
know]
7.9. Do the ISMP(s) typically compute riparian forest integrity (RFI) for existing and future land use
conditions? [yes, no, don’t know]
7.10. Do the ISMP(s) typically compute total impervious area (TIA) for existing and future land use
conditions? [yes, no, don’t know]
7.11. Do the ISMP(s) typically compute effective impervious area (EIA) for existing and future land
use conditions? [yes, no, don’t know]
7.12. What platform(s) are typically used to store and analyse data, and present results (check all
that apply)? [GIS, AutoCAD, PowerPoint, Excel, Access, don’t know, other with blank field]
8. Creating the Vision, Goals and Objectives
8.1. Is the general public typically involved in developing the Vision, Goals and Objectives for the
ISMP(s)? [yes, no, don’t know]
8.2. Are stakeholders /advisors typically involved in developing the Vision, Goals and Objectives for
the ISMP(s)? [yes, no, don’t know]
8.3. Are staff from other Municipal or First Nation departments typically involved in developing the
Vision, Goals and Objectives for the ISMP(s)? [yes, no, don’t know]
8.4. Does the Municipality / First Nation typically have pre-defined goals to be achieved by the
ISMP(s), or are they left to the consultant team to identify? [pre-defined goals, left to
consultant team to identify, other with blank field]
8.4.1.If the Municipality / First Nation has pre-defined goals, are these goals typically
communicated in the Terms of Reference? [yes, no, don’t know]
8.4.2.How successful have consultant teams typically been in achieving the goals? [rating scale;
1 = not successful, 2=somewhat successful, 3 = very successful; comment field: Please
provide any additional comments]
9. Analysis and Development of Recommended Approach
9.1. What factors are typically considered when determining the necessary modeling requirements
for the ISMP(s) (check all that apply)? [available budget, left to consultant’s discretion,
availability or extent of relevant background information and data, sensitivity of certain
parameters in model, ability to calibrate model, level of detail required to develop solutions,
other with blank field]
9.2. Is available climate, rainfall and/or flow data typically used for model calibration? [yes, no,
don’t know]
9.3. Are climate change impacts typically considered in the development and analysis of potential
options? [yes, no, don’t know]
9.3.1.If you answered “yes” to Question 9.3, what aspects of climate change are typically
considered (check all that apply)? [sea level rise, storm surge, rainfall pattern changes,
temperature effects, other with blank field]
9.3.2.If you answered “yes” to Question 9.3, what time horizon is typically used to assess
climate change impacts? [< 20 years, 20 to 50 years, 50 to 100 years, > 100 years]
9.4. Does the Municipality / First Nation typically coordinate and consider both planning and
engineering functions when developing options to protect watershed functions? [yes, no, don’t
know]
9.5. Were water quality issues incorporated in any of the ISMP(s)? [yes, no, don’t know]
9.5.1.If you answered “yes” to Question 9.5, what context was typically used to evaluate water
quality impacts? [effects to aquatic species and aquatic habitat, effects to wildlife and
wildlife habitat, effects to humans from exposure, other with blank field]
9.5.2.If you answered “yes” to Question 9.5, was pollutant loading specifically included in the
analysis for any of the ISMP(s)? [yes, no, don’t know]
9.5.3.If you answered “yes” to Question 9.5, was water quality treatment specifically included in
the analysis for any of the ISMP(s)? [yes, no, don’t know]
9.6. Did any of the ISMP(s) recommend riparian setbacks along watercourses? [yes, no, don’t know]
9.6.1.If you answered “yes” to Question 9.6, what basis was typically used to establish riparian
setbacks? [Riparian Area Regulation (RAR), unique methodology specific to the ISMP, other
with blank field]
9.7. Did any of the ISMP(s) identify and evaluate the impacts on existing developed areas within the
watershed? [yes, no, don’t know]
9.7.1.If you answered “yes” to Question 9.7, was a retrofit strategy developed for the existing
developed areas for any of the ISMP(s)? [yes, no, don’t know]
10. Implementing the Recommendations and Adaptive Management
10.1. Were environmental costs and benefits of various options considered and incorporated in any
of the ISMP(s)? [yes, no, don’t know]
10.2. Was life cycle costing of recommended works considered and incorporated in any of the
ISMP(s)? [yes, no, don’t know]
10.3. Are ISMP recommendations typically prioritized for implementation purposes? [yes, no, don’t
know]
10.3.1. If you answered “yes” to Question 10.3, what is the rationale typically used to establish
priority levels? [available Municipal / First Nation funding in fiscal year, pre-defined
criteria, balancing overall priorities, growth driven opportunities, addressing known issues
/ problems first, level of risk to community if not implemented, other with blank field]
10.4. Rank the likelihood that the Municipality / First Nation uses / will use the following
mechanisms to fund recommended works from the ISMP(s)? [ranking scale for each option:
1=not likely, 2=somewhat likely, 3=very likely, 4=Not Applicable: general revenue, dedicated
drainage funding, stormwater utility, development cost charges, external grant or funding
source; comment field: what other funding sources does the Municipality / First Nation use?]
10.5. Did any of the ISMP(s) recommend bylaw, regulation, design standards or policy updates
and/or additions? [yes, no, don’t know]
10.5.1. If you answered “yes” to Question 10.5, which bylaws, regulations or policies are
typically recommended to be updated and/or added (check all that apply)? [zoning,
subdivision & development, building, soil deposit or removal, watercourse protection, tree
protection, erosion and sediment control, infrastructure design criteria and standards,
other with blank field]
10.6. Did any of the ISMP(s) recommend process updates and/or additions? [yes, no, don’t know]
10.6.1. If you answered “yes” to Question 10.6, which processes are typically recommended to
be updated and/or added (check all that apply)? [development approval process, building
inspection process, other with blank field]
10.7. Did any of the ISMP(s) recommend future monitoring programs? [yes, no, don’t know]
10.7.1. If you answered “yes” to Question 10.7, which programs were typically recommended?
(check all that apply)? [flow monitoring, water quality monitoring, benthic community
sampling, riparian forest integrity monitoring, other with blank field]
10.8. Have any of the infrastructure recommendations from the ISMP(s) been implemented to date?
[yes, no, don’t know, N/A]
10.9. Have any of the bylaw, regulation, design standards or policy recommendations from the
ISMP(s) been implemented to date? [yes, no, don’t know, N/A]
10.10. Have any of the process recommendations from the ISMP(s) been implemented to date?
[yes, no, don’t know, N/A]
10.11. Have any of the monitoring program recommendations from the ISMP(s) been implemented
to date? [yes, no, don’t know, N/A]
10.12. Have any of the ISMP(s) included recommendations related to recreation (e.g., walking trails,
natural area management, multi-use corridors, etc.)? [yes, no, don’t know]
10.13. Overall, are ISMP(s) recommendations realistic and practical to implement? [yes, no, don’t
know]
10.13.1. If you answered “no” to Question 10.13, what have some of the challenges been
regarding implementation of ISMP recommendations? [blank field]
10.14. Is an adaptive management program typically included in the ISMP(s)? [yes, no, don’t know]
11. Reflecting on the ISMP Process
11.1. Overall, rate the level of value the Municipality / First Nation places on the ability of the
ISMP(s) to achieve integration of stormwater, environment and planning values? [rating scale;
with 1 = no value, 2=some value, 3=significant value]
11.2. Overall, how successful does the Municipality / First Nation feel that its completed ISMP(s)
have been in integrating stormwater, environment and planning values? [rating scale; with 1 =
not successful, 2=somewhat successful, 3=very successful, N/A]
11.3. How effective have ISMP(s) typically been in reinforcing the following linkages? [rating scale
for each option; with 1 = not effective, 2=somewhat effective, 3=very effective: land use and
hydrology, land use and ecology, hydrology and ecology, biology and ecology, hydrology and
water quality, natural and built environment, implementation and management tools;
comment field: What other linkages have the ISMP(s) reinforced? Please specify linkages and
level of effectiveness [blank field]
11.4. Did the scope of work change during the course of any of the ISMP(s), such that additional
work was assigned outside the original Terms of Reference? [yes, no, don’t know]
11.5. In general, have the ISMP(s) cost more than originally thought / budgeted? [yes, no, don’t
know]
11.6. How long have ISMP(s) typically taken to complete? [< 6 months, 6 months to 1 year, 1 year to
1.5 years, 1.5 years to 2 years, 2 years+]
11.7. In terms of the original schedule set for the ISMP(s), have the ISMP(s) typically been
completed: [ahead of schedule, on schedule, behind schedule, don’t know, other with blank
field]
11.7.1. What factors typically contributed to completing the ISMP(s) within the timeframe you
identified in Question 11.7 (check all that apply)? [extent of relevant background
information or data, need to obtain additional background information or data, size of the
watershed, watershed characteristics (i.e., urban versus rural), degree of analytical detail
required, timeliness of feedback from others during review periods, consultant
performance, other with blank field]
Appendix C
In-Person Interview Questionnaire
[THIS PAGE IS BLANK]
ISMPs Lessons Learned to 2011 – In Person Interview
Page 1 of 6
Integrated Stormwater Management Plans (ISMP) – Lessons Learned to 2011
In-Person Interview Questions
Municipality: __________________________________________________________________________ General Notes:
Meeting Date: _________________________________________________________________________
Meeting Time: _________________________________________________________________________
Attendees: Name Department Contact Information
__________________________ _____ ________________________________ ________________________________
__________________________ _____ ________________________________ ________________________________
__________________________ _____ ________________________________ ________________________________
__________________________ _____ ________________________________ ________________________________
__________________________ _____ ________________________________ ________________________________
__________________________ _____ ________________________________ ________________________________
__________________________ _____ ________________________________ ________________________________
__________________________ _____ ________________________________ ________________________________
__________________________ _____ ________________________________ ________________________________
__________________________ _____ ________________________________ ________________________________
ISMPs Lessons Learned to 2011 – In Person Interview
Page 2 of 6
Question Answer Expanded Answer / CommentsRespondent Information1 Did you circulate the online survey to others in your
Municipality?Yes
No
Why / why not?
Which department(s)? Did they respond? If not, why do you think that is?
Understanding the Context2 Which watersheds have you completed ISMPs for?
Which watersheds have ISMPs currently underway?
Which watersheds are left to do?
Completed #: ___
In progress #: ___
Left to do #: _____
Completed:
In progress:
Left to do:
3 How did you determine which watershed(s) requiredan ISMP first?
a. Needs assessmentb. Direct response to
development pressurec. Length of time since last
drainage assessment wascompleted
d. Other (see expanded answer)
Other:
How did you identify the needs of the watershed? What topics / areas did you typically review as part of the needs assessment?
In your opinion, was undertaking a needs assessment an effective process? Would you do anything differently next time? If so, what wouldyou change?
4 Did the Municipality undertake any initiatives, prior toinitiating an ISMP, to attempt to protect stream healthfor any of their watersheds?
Yes
No
If yes, what was done? Who initiated the initiatives? Was it considered successful?
5 Did existing bylaws, plans, policies, guidelines or otherdocuments in the Municipality influence the ISMP(s)?
Yes
No
How did they influence the ISMP(s)? Did they present opportunities / challenges?
6 At what point(s) in the community / neighbourhoodplanning process did the ISMP(s) take place?
a. Prior to the Official CommunityPlan or Sustainability Plan
b. Between the OfficialCommunity Plan /Sustainability Plan andNeighbourhood Plan(s)
c. Following NeighbourhoodPlan(s);
d. As part of the ISMP itselfe. Other (see expanded answer)
Other:How current were the existing land use plan(s) (typically)?
What challenges or opportunities arose with the ISMP, given the plans already in place? How did you address challenges or incorporateopportunities into the plan?
Did you view the ISMP as an opportunity to revisit existing land use plan(s), or as a technical exercise to support existing land use plan(s)?
How did you address situations where an ISMP encompassed area(s) where a land use plan had not yet been developed? Did it affect thescope and/or progress of the ISMP? Did it influence land use planning once the ISMP was completed?
ISMPs Lessons Learned to 2011 – In Person Interview
Page 3 of 6
Question Answer Expanded Answer / CommentsSetting the Terms of Reference (Scope of Work)7 How did you decide which Metro Vancouver ISMP
template clauses you would use / were relevant for theISMP?
a. Didn’t use templateb. Available ISMP budgetc. Depended to the watershedd. Other (see expanded answer)
Other:
Are there topics / areas that you feel are not covered by the ISMP template? Are there topics / areas currently covered by the ISMPTemplate that you feel are not relevant?
Do you have any suggestions for modifying the ISMP template to promote more widespread use with Metro Vancouver members for futureISMPs?
8 How did you determine the scope of an acceptableenvironmental survey and sampling program?Geotechnical / hydrogeological program? Hydrology /hydraulics modeling and analysis?
a. Available ISMP budgetb. Available timeline to obtain
resultsc. Previously identified issue or
question to answerd. Other (see expanded answer)
Other:
In looking back, would you have done anything differently in determining the scope? Yes NoIf yes, what would you do differently?
Funding the ISMP9 How did you convince Council that they needed to
approve funding for ISMPs?a. To meet Municipality’s
requirement to undertakeISMPs under LWMP/ILWRMP
b. Other (see expanded answer)
Other:
Would you follow the same approach again? Yes No If no, what would you change?
10 What was the full range of budgets allotted for theISMPs completed to date?
Lower limit: ______________
Upper limit: ______________
Have funding limitations affected the scope or ability to undertake ISMPs? Yes No
Do ISMPs often go over budget? Yes No
Why do you think ISMPs often go over budget? For instances where your ISMP(s) went over budget, how did you make up the fundingshortfall?
Is there is difference in cost based on watershed size? Urban versus rural? Other contributing factors?
11 Do you feel that the ISMP budget is appropriatelydistributed amongst the main topics / areas?
Yes
No
Are there some topics / areas that you feel require more or less budget allotment than they typically receive? Why?
Are there topics / areas not currently covered by the ISMP that you feel should be included?
ISMPs Lessons Learned to 2011 – In Person Interview
Page 4 of 6
Question Answer Expanded Answer / CommentsConsulting and Engaging Others12 Why do you think that Engineering typically leads the
ISMP?a. Fundamentally a drainage
studyb. Other (see expanded answer)
Other:
What opportunities or challenges do you envision if another department were to lead the ISMP?
13 What was your experience in dealing with otherMunicipal departments:
a. Developing the Terms of Reference?b. During the ISMP itself?
During TOR:
During ISMP:
Was it easy or difficult to engage other Municipal staff?
Did you achieve consensus?
How did you resolve any conflicts?
14 What key messages were you trying to conveyregarding the benefits of conducting an ISMP:
a. To the general public?b. To the stakeholder / advisory group?c. To First Nations (if separate from stakeholder /
advisory group)?d. To local politicians?
General public:
Stakeholder / advisory group:
First Nations:
Local Politicians:
How effective were the engagement format(s) used during the ISMP?
Which format(s) resulted in the best response / feedback? Why do you think that is?
What level of “decision-making influence” did these parties have on the ISMP process? How was their input incorporated into the ISMP?
Overall, what was the degree of response / participation / interest in the process? Why do you think that is? Is a relationship between thedegree of response / participation / interest and the degree to which an ISMP is implemented / considered successful?
What worked well with the consultation / engagement process? What didn’t work well? Would you do anything differently next time?
15 For the allotted budget, was the consultation /engagement process seen to add value to the project?
Yes
No
If not, what was this a function of?
How could the process be modified to provide better value?
16 What was your approach to working with otherMunicipalities where an ISMP crossed jurisdictionalboundaries?
a. Co-developed the ToRb. Frequent meetings with other
Municipality / First Nationthroughout project
c. Other (see expanded answer)
Other:
In your opinion, how effective was the multi-jurisdictional approach? Do you think it cost more, less or the same as limiting the ISMP toyour jurisdictional boundary only? Was each Municipality / First Nation satisfied with the end product?
What would you change if you had it to do over?
ISMPs Lessons Learned to 2011 – In Person Interview
Page 5 of 6
Question Answer Expanded Answer / CommentsUsing / Supplementing Background Information / Data Management17 Why did you collect the additional background
information / data that you did for the study?a. Was necessary to inform ISMPb. Potential to be used on other
future projectsc. Other (see expanded answer)
Other:
How was the additional information / data used? How did you decide who would obtain it (Municipality versus consultant)?
Were there challenges in collecting the additional information / data? Are there ways to more efficiently / effectively collect this data inthe future to improve costs / timeline?
Creating the Vision, Goals and Objectives18 Who was involved in creating the vision, goals and
objectives for the ISMP?a. General publicb. Stakeholdersc. Municipal staffd. Other (see expanded
answer)
Other:
Why were these group(s) involved in creating the Vision, Goals and Objectives?
Why were other groups not involved?
How valuable was others’ input in creating the Vision, Goals and Objectives?
Analysis and Development of Recommended Approach19 How was water quality protection and treatment
related to various water uses (e.g., aquatic life,recreation) incorporated into the ISMP?
How is progress being measured?
20 How did risk management issues (e.g., geotechnical,climate change, flooding, etc.) influence the ISMP?
a. Incorporated into the analysisb. Not consideredc. Other (see expanded answer)
Other:
How were risk management issues incorporated into the analysis?
21 How did you quantify environmental costs and benefitswhen assessing various options?
How successful / meaningful was this exercise? Were findings presented in a way that clearly identified the recommended approach? Isthere anything that you would do differently to improve the usefulness of this exercise?
Implementing the Recommendations and Adaptive Management22 What goals did you identify to be achieved by the
implementation strategy?How successful have implementation strategies been in achieving those goals to date?
23 How effective / practical was the retrofit strategy forexisting developed areas?
What level of detail were you expecting for the retrofit strategy? How did the ISMP approach brownfield versus greenfield areas?
24 What process did you use to ensure thatrecommendations were incorporated into theappropriate program(s) for implementation?
What efforts have you made to secure funding for the recommended works from the ISMP? How successful have those efforts been?
25 Do you have any lessons, models, approaches or advicefor developing tools to assist with implementation?
What has worked well in this regard? What hasn’t?
26 How are you monitoring the success of theimplementation plan?
What monitoring mechanisms were recommended by the ISMP? Were they realistic and practical to implement?
ISMPs Lessons Learned to 2011 – In Person Interview
Page 6 of 6
Question Answer Expanded Answer / CommentsImplementing the Recommendations and Adaptive Management (cont’d)27 What adaptive management approaches were
identified in the ISMP?What adaptive management mechanisms were recommended by the ISMP? Were they realistic and practical to implement?
28 How have the implemented bylaws, design standards,policies and/or processes (or those recommended forimplementation in the ISMP, but not yet implemented)benefitted the community?
Were there any internal challenges with implementing the bylaws, design standards, policies and/or processes recommended by the ISMP?How were those challenges resolved?
29 Has the Municipality ever permitted developers to varyfrom the recommendations set out in an ISMP?
Yes
No
If yes, what variances were permitted? Why was the variance permitted?
Reflecting on the ISMP Process30 Overall, in what context do you view an ISMP? a. High level guiding document
b. Detailed technical documentc. Other (see expanded answer)
Other:
31 What has the Municipality learned through conductingmultiple ISMPs (if applicable)?
Have any efficiencies been realized through conducting multiple ISMPs? What are they?
32 Overall, did the final product meet your expectations interms of the level of detail that was included and howfocused, relevant and implementable therecommendations were?
Yes
No
If no, where did the ISMP(s) fall short?
33 What would be the top three pieces of advice that youwould give to another Municipality about to embark onan ISMP?
1.
2.
3.
Why?
34 What do you hope to learn from this ISMP – LessonsLearned to 2011 initiative?
How could the compiled information best be shared with other Municipalities? Within your own Municipality?
Appendix D
List of References
[THIS PAGE IS BLANK]
List of References
Associated Engineering. “Erickson Creek Integrated Stormwater Management Plan.” City of Surrey.
2010.
Associated Engineering. “Hyde Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan.” City of Coquitlam.
2004.
Associated Engineering. “Latimer Creek Master Drainage Plan.” Township of Langley. 2003.
CH2M Hill. “Technical Memorandum: Nelson Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan Phase 3
– Management Model.” City of Coquitlam. 2011.
CH2M Hill. “Scott Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan.” City of Coquitlam. 2011.
CH2M Hill. “Nelson Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan Phase 2.” City of Coquitlam. 2010.
CH2M Hill. “Nelson Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan Phase 1.” City of Coquitlam.
2009.
CH2M Hill. “Como Creek Integrated Stormwater Management Plan.” City of Coquitlam. 2002.
Delcan. “Cloverdale McLellan Integrated Stormwater Management Plan.” City of Surrey. 2011.
Dillon Consulting. “Cougar Creek/ Northeast Interceptor Canal: Integrated Stormwater Management
Plan.” City of Surrey / Corporation of Delta. 2009.
Earth Tech. “Yorkson Creek Water Resource Plan.” Township of Langley. 2003.
HB Lanarc and Kerr Wood Leidal. “Partington Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan.” City
of Coquitlam. 2011.
Kerr Wood Leidal. “Maple Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan, Phase I- Reconnaissance,
Draft Report.” City of Coquitlam. 2011.
Kerr Wood Leidal. “Little Campbell River Integrated Stormwater Scoping Study Volume 1.” City of
Surrey / Township of Langley. 2011.
Kerr Wood Leidal. “Little Campbell River Integrated Stormwater Scoping Study Volume 2: Report
Figures.” City of Surrey / Township of Langley. 2011.
Kerr Wood Leidal. “Bertrand Creek Integrated Stormwater Management Plan.” Township of
Langley. 2009.
Kerr Wood Leidal. “Template for Integrated Stormwater Management Planning.” Metro Vancouver.
2005.
Kerr Wood Leidal. “McDonald and Lawson Creeks Integrated Stormwater Management Plan.”
District of West Vancouver. 2004.
Metro Vancouver. “Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan.” 2010.
Metro Vancouver. “Liquid Waste Management Plan.” 2001.
McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. “Fergus Creek Integrated Stormwater Management Plan.” City
of Surrey. 2010.
McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd., Kim Stephens Associates et al. “From Piped Dreams to Healthy
Streams: A Vision for the Still Creek Watershed- An Integrated Stormwater Management Plan for the
Still Creek Watershed.” City of Vancouver, City of Burnaby and Greater Vancouver Regional District
(Metro Vancouver). 2007.
Urban Systems Ltd. “Tsawwassen First Nation Integrated Rainwater Management Plan – Draft
Report.” 2011.
Urban Systems Ltd. “Old Logging Ditch and Burrow’s Ditch Integrated Stormwater Management
Plan – Revised Draft Report.” City of Surrey. 2011.
Urban Systems Ltd. “City of White Rock Integrated Stormwater Management Plan.” 2010.
Urban Systems Ltd. “City of Langley Integrated Stormwater Management Plan.” 2009.
Urban Systems Ltd. “City of Kamloops Integrated Stormwater Management Plan, Phase 2, Guiding
Document”. City of Kamloops. 2009.
Urban Systems Ltd. “Integrated Stormwater Management Plan – Silverdale Residential Area
Neighbourhood One.” Genstar Development Company. 2008.
Urban Systems Ltd. “City of Campbell River Integrated Stormwater Management Implementation
Plan.” City of Campbell River. 2008.
Urban Systems Ltd. “Hyland Creek Integrated Stormwater Management Plan.” City of Surrey. 2007.
Urban Systems Ltd. “City of Kamloops Integrated Stormwater Management Plan, Phase 1, Scoping
Study”. City of Kamloops. 2007.
Urban Systems Ltd. “Integrated Stormwater Management Plan – Campbell River / Quinsam River
Area.” City of Campbell River. 2006.
Urban Systems Ltd. “Integrated Stormwater Management Plan – Foreshore Area.” City of Campbell
River. 2005.
Urban Systems Ltd. “Integrated Stormwater Management Plan – Nunns Creek Watershed.” City of
Campbell River. 2005.
Urban Systems Ltd. “Integrated Stormwater Management Plan – Simms Creek Watershed.” City of
Campbell River. 2005.
Urban Systems Ltd. “Integrated Stormwater Management Plan – Willow Creek Watershed.” City of
Campbell River. 2005.
Urban Systems Ltd. “Integrated Stormwater Management Plan for Holly Hills and Perkins Road
Drainages.” City of Campbell River. 2004.
Urban Systems Ltd. “100 Mile House Integrated Stormwater Management Plan”. District of 100 Mile
House. 2004.
[THIS PAGE IS BLANK]
Appendix E
Feedback on Metro Vancouver’s Template for Integrated
Stormwater Management Planning (2005)
[THIS PAGE IS BLANK]
Appendix E - Feedback on Metro Vancouver’s Template for Integrated Stormwater ManagementPlanning
Metro Vancouver is intending to update the Template for Integrated Stormwater Management Planning(TISMP) in 2012. As part of this current study, participating municipalities were asked about their use ofthe TISMP and suggested amendments. Suggested amendments include:
Update the TISMP to reflect current science (i.e., benthics, riparian forest integrity)
Skepticism on watershed health indicator – hard to interpret, costly to obtain data, difficult tomonitor long term trends using one representative value (province “weight of evidence” basedmetric instead?) – goes back to updating to current science
Include introductory section on “getting started” to assist municipalities in determining relevantclauses for their watershed(s); refer to this “ISMP – Lessons Learned to 2011”study, as well asthe complementary consultant’s perspective on ISMPs study being led by SILG
Enhance discussion on level of detail required for each clause and highlight potential costimplications to meet minimum and maximum level of effort
Provide more adaptability, flexibility and options under each clause to allow municipalities toadapt the clause to suit their unique conditions and needs (too prescriptive right now)
Update clauses to include applicability to lowland watersheds, ultra-urban watersheds (e.g.,where watercourses are completely enclosed)
Enhance clauses on water quality, agricultural lands
Define “stream health” for both upland and lowland watersheds
More detail needed for monitoring and adaptive management
[THIS PAGE IS BLANK]