FINAL REPORT Integrated Stormwater Management Plans ... · Integrated Stormwater Management Plans – Lessons Learned to 2011 Final Report 1 Introduction Integrated Stormwater Management

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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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).


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.


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


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


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


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


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:


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.)


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


20

First Nations Sustainable approach to community growth


Work together to address watershed issues and needs

How is water viewed culturally


Typically included in stakeholder / advisory group

Local Politicians

Meeting commitments under the ILWRMP

Meet Council goals and objectives

Supports overall community vision


New / better approach to developing communities more sustainably / responsibly

Just makes sense to do

Provide clarity in municipal requirements (developers, businesses)


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)


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


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


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.


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


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



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): _______________


Page 1 of 2


Checklist # 2 – Policy Framework Review

Watershed Name: _________________________________________________



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


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


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


Policies: Floodplain Management Yes No Not applicable

Development Approval Process Yes No Not applicable

Others: 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)


Previous Drainage, Engineering, Environmental and/or Geotechnical Study(s)


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:



Page 1 of 1


Checklist # 3 – Budget and Timeframe Risks

Watershed Name: _________________________________________________



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


Page 1 of 1


Checklist # 4 – Funding Source Identification

Watershed Name: _________________________________________________



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: __________________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 2

Integrated Stormwater Management Plans (ISMP) – Develop the Terms of Reference

Checklist # 5 – Watershed Needs Assessment

Watershed Name: _________________________________________________



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


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. __________________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3

Integrated Stormwater Management Plans (ISMP) – Develop the Terms of Reference

Checklist # 6 – Terms of Reference Outline

Watershed Name: _________________________________________________



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


Page 2 of 3


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


Page 3 of 3


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


Page 1 of 2

Integrated Stormwater Management Plans (ISMP) – Stage 1: What Does The Municipality Have?

Checklist # 7 – Data Collection and Management

Watershed Name: _________________________________________________



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: ________________________


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: ________________________


Page 1 of 1

Integrated Stormwater Management Plans (ISMP) – Stage 2: What Does the Municipality Want?

Checklist # 8 – Consultation and Engagement

Watershed Name: _________________________________________________



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)


Development Interests Yes No Not applicable

Local Businesses Yes No Not applicable

Agricultural Community Yes No Not applicable

Homeowner Association(s)


Sports / Recreation Association(s)


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?



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: _________________________________________________



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


Page 2 of 2


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


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: _________________________________________________



Identify the appropriate monitoring and tracking programs, and determine if resources and procedures are in place to ensure the ISMP remains a living document.


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


Page 2 of 2


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 ___________


Appendix B

Survey Questions

Originally Suggested Questions

Final Online Survey Questionnaire


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,


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,


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),


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,


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,


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


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

__________________________ _____ ________________________________ ________________________________

__________________________ _____ ________________________________ ________________________________

__________________________ _____ ________________________________ ________________________________

__________________________ _____ ________________________________ ________________________________

__________________________ _____ ________________________________ ________________________________

__________________________ _____ ________________________________ ________________________________

__________________________ _____ ________________________________ ________________________________

__________________________ _____ ________________________________ ________________________________

__________________________ _____ ________________________________ ________________________________

__________________________ _____ ________________________________ ________________________________


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?


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?


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?


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?


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


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


Urban Systems Ltd. “Integrated Stormwater Management Plan – Willow Creek Watershed.” City of


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.


Appendix E

Feedback on Metro Vancouver’s Template for Integrated

Stormwater Management Planning (2005)


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
